Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - March 6, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) AEPW to Broaden Membership, Innovation on Waste Reuse Key to Success - ACC’s Ceo
Mar 6, 2019 | ICIS
By Jonathan Lopez
The Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) launched by private companies in January is set to broaden its membership to national chemicals trade groups as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the CEO at US trade group the... -
(ACC Mentioned) Laurence Henry “Larry” Schongar
Mar 6, 2019 | Livingston County News
Laurence Henry “Larry” Schongar, 78, of Peterborough, passed away peacefully with his wife by his side at Monadnock Community Hospital on Feb. 18, 2019. He was born in Passaic, N.J., on March 21, 1940, the son of Henry and Adelaide... -
Plastic Bag Ban Passes State Senate
Mar 6, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
A ban on single-use plastic bags passed the Washington state Senate yesterday, progress for an idea proposed in the Legislature as early as 2013. The bill would ban stores from giving out single-use plastic carryout bags, giving them... -
GAO Slams Trump Admin on Climate Preparedness, Chemicals
Mar 6, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
The federal government has fallen back in its efforts to protect against the financial risks posed by climate change, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released today. GAO's so-called 2019 High Risk List detailed... -
Trader Joe’s Phasing Out Single-Use Plastics Nationwide Following Customer Petition
Mar 6, 2019 | EcoWatch
By Madison Dapcevich
As the world suffocates from its plastic addiction, a growing number of businesses are stepping up to the plate to reduce their plastic waste. Most recently, Trader Joe's announced that it will be taking steps to cut back on plastic and... -
Flexible Colored PU Foams Market to Partake Significant Development During 2015 – 2025
Mar 6, 2019 | Daily Chronicle
By Ankush Nikam
Polyurethane foam is a diverse and large segment of global polyurethane market. Polyurethanes are said to be a part of our day to day life. Foams play a significant role in commercial and industrial sector ranging from automotive to... -
(ACC Mentioned) US Democrats Reopen Fight over Formaldehyde Assessment
| Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Democrat members of Congress are pressing the US EPA to release an IRIS assessment of formaldehyde and have called for an investigation into whether efforts to delay its completion constitute a violation of the agency’s scientific... -
Congress May Force EPA’s Hand on Nonstick Chemicals
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Momentum in Congress is building for legislation that would force the EPA to act earlier than planned on a class of toxic nonstick chemicals that have contaminated drinking water across the country. Bills in both the House and the... -
N.M. Sues Air Force over Groundwater Contamination
Mar 6, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Susan Montoya Bryan
New Mexico Environment Secretary James Kenney says the Air Force has not come up with an acceptable schedule or long-term plan to clean up contamination of the groundwater at Cannon and Holloman Air Force bases. He said that... -
Toxic Chemicals Threaten Water Supply in Seven Municipalities
Mar 6, 2019 | Boston Globe
By David Abel
Three years ago, after federal authorities began sounding alarms about a host of manmade chemicals found in drinking water near military bases, town wells near Fort Devens tested positive for the toxic substances, some well in... -
EPA’s Plan to Regulate Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water Is Not Enough
Mar 6, 2019 | Truthout
By Laurel Schaider
After more than a year of community meetings and deliberations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in February 2019 that it would begin the process of regulating two drinking water contaminants, seeking to stem... -
Proposition 65 2.0: Where It Is and Where It’s Going
Mar 6, 2019 | National Law Review
By Mark N. Duvall, Lauren A. Hopkins, and Shengzhi Wang
Proposition 65 is a California warning requirement of concern for companies throughout the U.S. It has recently undergone remarkable changes, taking on new life and creating new challenges for suppliers everywhere. This alert... -
Asbestos in Claire’s Cosmetics Prompts FDA Safety Alert
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven Gibb
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert warning consumers that asbestos was found in three cosmetic products marketed to young people, adding that it lacks the authority to recall them. Claire’s Inc.—which.. -
US DIY Firm to Stop Distributing Methylene Chloride, NMP Paint Strippers
Mar 6, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
US DIY products business Ace Hardware Corporation will stop distributing paint strippers containing the solvents methylene chloride (dichloromethane) and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) by the end of July. The company says it has... -
NGO Researchers Call to Ban PFASs from Firefighting Foam
Mar 6, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
A just released report has called on the US Congress to ban the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in firefighting foam, following an investigation into the product’s use by the Department of Defense. The report, by the... -
Congressman Dan Kildee Delivers PFAs Testimony at Capitol Hill
Mar 6, 2019 | FOX 66
By Madeline Ciak
Congressman Dan Kildee is testifying in front of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on the Environment about PFAS. “PFAS chemical contamination is a public health crisis. Across America, residents... -
Guest Column: Time to Revisit the EU Cosmetics Regulation’s EDCs Approach
Mar 6, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Pelle Moos
Brushing your teeth is a twice daily ritual for most of us. This routine is good for dental hygiene – and your smile. But your toothpaste may also contain ingredients that should make you frown. One in eight toothpastes investigated by... -
Offshore Drilling Plan Coming in Weeks, Interior Official Says
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
The Trump administration will release its offshore drilling proposal “in the coming weeks,” according to March 6 written testimony from the acting head of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. That plan... -
Possible China-U.S. Gas Deal Said to Predate Trade War Talks (1)
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A new gas supply deal between the U.S. and China that’s expected to be part of a broader trade agreement has been in the works since before the trade war began and was put on ice after tensions flared, according to people with... -
Pence to Headline Oil and Gas Industry Event in Ohio
Mar 6, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
Vice President Mike Pence is headed to Ohio to headline a fundraiser for the oil and gas industry. The Republican vice president is to appear Friday at the annual meeting of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, a trade association for... -
Colorado Lawmakers Weigh Dramatic Overhaul of Oil Drilling Laws
Mar 6, 2019 | Bloomberg (In the Houston Chronicle)
By Catherine Traywick
A proposal to overhaul Colorado’s drilling laws has its first hearing today, pushing the bill one step closer to a vote by the Democrat-controlled state legislature. The legislation, supported by Governor Jared Polis, would significantly... -
Big Hit to Petrochemical Profits Dings Industry’s Outlook
Mar 6, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
U.S. petrochemical companies have raced ahead in recent years, taking advantage of a flood of cheap natural gas to feed their operations, earn big profits and expand rapidly. But the juggernaut that is remaking the Gulf Coast into a... -
Over 1,000 Va. Facilities Face Toxic Flood Threat — Report
Mar 6, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Over 1,000 industrial facilities likely handling toxic and hazardous substances in Virginia face threats from flooding, storm surge and sea-level rise, according to a new report. The Center for Progressive Reform worked with the James... -
Oil-Train Restriction Bill Passes Washington Senate
Mar 5, 2019 | AP (In King 5 News)
The Washington Senate passed a bill Monday that would target oil trains by requiring crude oil passing through to be made less volatile. Under the bill, companies planning to unload or store oil in Washington would first have to put it... -
Settlement Wins Protections at Bakersfield Oil Train Terminal
Mar 5, 2019 | YubaNet
Community and environmental groups reached a settlement with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Bakersfield Crude Terminal and Plains All American that will reduce air emissions and increase safety at the largest... -
New Climate Panel’s First Hearing Expected by Early April
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Leaders of a newly formed House committee to address climate change expect to hold their first hearing later this month or in early April, Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said March 5. Castor and Garret Graves (R-La.), the chairwoman and... -
The Energy 202: Why Ex-Military Leaders Are Trying to Stop Trump's Panel to Counter Climate Science
Mar 6, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Fifty-eight former high-ranking military and intelligence officials issued a stern warning to the White House: Think twice about creating a panel to counter the government’s own findings that climate change poses a threat to national security. -
Republicans Just Can’t Stop Talking About the Green New Deal
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Republicans are embracing an ambitious plan by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to avert climate change—but not because they favor the Green New Deal. The party hopes they can use it to take back seats in Congress and... -
Schumer Proposes Senate Select Committee
Mar 6, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) today proposed a Senate version of the climate change select committee in yet another rebuttal to Republican rhetoric about the Green New Deal. "Over the next few decades... -
Report Flags GHG, Health Effects of Six Trump Rollbacks
Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA
A new “special report” from New York University's law school is highlighting the combined greenhouse gas increases and health effects of six Trump administration environmental rollbacks, part of a broad defense of state attorneys... -
Mitch McConnell Wants a Green New Deal Vote. Democrats Should Take Him up on It.
Mar 6, 2019 | Vox
By David Roberts
The introduction of the Green New Deal resolution in Congress by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) has unleashed a cascade of events that have left Democrats poised on the edge of some fateful... -
Ares Starts Fund to Profit From Push to Combat Climate Change
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sabrina Willmer
Ares Management Corp., the alternative investment firm overseeing more than $130 billion, is seeking to profit from efforts by governments and companies to tackle climate change. The firm is creating a strategy, dubbed “climate... -
Here’s Why Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kevin De León Are Teaming up on Climate Change
Mar 6, 2019 | LA Times
By Sammy Roth
Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is joining forces with an influential Democrat to tackle one of California’s biggest problems: pollution from cars and trucks. The transportation sector is California’s largest source...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) AEPW to Broaden Membership, Innovation on Waste Reuse Key to Success - ACC’s Ceo
Mar 6, 2019 | ICIS
By Jonathan Lopez
The Alliance to End Plastic Waste (AEPW) launched by private companies in January is set to broaden its membership to national chemicals trade groups as well as non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the CEO at US trade group the American Chemistry Council (ACC) said on Wednesday.
Cal Dooley, who also serves as council secretary of the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA), added that a key challenge with plastic waste would be to reuse it in order to bring economic benefits to the often-impoverished communities where a large portion of it derives from.
The ACC’s CEO, who is set to retire from that post at the end of 2019, added he was hopeful that executing the AEPW strategy, by proving that the plastic waste problem can be tackled, would bring on board some environmental groups who have given a cold reception to the initiative.
Dooley has been a key promoter of the AEPW, and he delayed his retirement as CEO of the ACC in order to help with its initial months of development.
Launched in January, the AEPW is formed of major industrial groups, including several petrochemicals companies like Germany’s BASF, the US’ Dow Chemical and LyondellBasell, as well as consumer groups like Procter & Gamble (P&G), or services and engineering firms like Veolia, among others.
To see a list of AEPW members, click here.
The Alliance’s members have so far committed over $1bn to tackle the problem, and Dooley said that over the course of the next five years the figure should increase to around $1.5bn.
He said the organisation would not disclose, however, the exact amount each company is contributing with, adding that this is based on the size of each participant.
AEPW TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE
“What distinguishes the AEPW from other initiatives trying to address the problem of marine debris and waste is that the AEPW is going to be the largest private sector initiative in terms of the scope of engagement, as well as the amount of resources that will be deployed to show a tangible impact on eliminating plastic waste,” said Dooley.However, large environmental groups have showed scepticism about the initiative.
At the time of the AEPW launch, Greenpeace said it was “a desperate attempt from corporate polluters” to keep the status quo, adding that plastics were “a lifeline for the dying fossil fuel industry” and the AEPW showed how far companies were willing to go in order to preserve it.
Dooley preferred to see the glass half-full, arguing that by opening up the AEPW in the future he hoped green groups would come on-board.
“The model is to provide opportunities for strategic partners that could represent some of the leading NGOs, perhaps in the environmental community as well as some key partners like Circulate Capital, and there will also be advisory roles for some of the national organisations,” he said, mentioning ACC itself or the EU’s chemicals trade group Cefic, among others.
Circulate Capital is one of the AEPW’s collaborating organisations and aims to be an incubator fund that will target both infrastructure and innovation.
Another key offshoot is Renewlogy, which oversees the Renew Oceans initiative that aims to clean up plastic waste from rivers and find ways to reuse and recycle it.
“We are absolutely confident that, if we execute the plan and the vision of the Alliance, we can demonstrate that by this collective effort we are going to deploy more resources and we are going to be able to capitalise the expertise and technical capabilities of some of the Alliance’s member companies,” said Dooley, pictured.
“We are going to have the ability to make more tangible impact in eliminating plastic waste from the environment than any other initiative that is in place today. We are confident that the success we are going to achieve will result in increasing support from the environmental community, as well as governmental entities that we’ll be partnering with.”
EMPOWERING THOSE MOST AFFECTED
Dooey was clear that the plastic waste problem mostly stems mostly from emerging economies, especially in Asia, and conceded that the success of the initiative could only be measured by the ways the collected waste is reused – and the return on the capital invested.“We will be developing metrics to ensure that there is a return on the investment we are making. [We’ll establish] Criteria to identify those strategic partners … to ensure we are going to see a tangible impact on reducing plastic waste,” he said.
“We are looking at how we can bring private sector dollars into efforts and initiatives to eliminate plastic waste, but also have the chance to be catalytic capital that can leverage public sector dollars that can increase the resources that are being deployed.”
He added that the Renew Oceans initiative had already partnered with US-headquartered broadcaster National Geographic to deploy small-scale technologies in the Ganges River in India, aiming to “empower small, often impoverished” communities to have an opportunity to make a profit from plastic waste.
“[They could benefit] By converting the plastic waste into different types of fuels which they can utilise or sell. This will have multiple benefits, from removing waste from the Ganges River but also providing much-needed financial resources for citizens of India that are at very low income levels,” said Dooley.
“[We need] Innovation that will result in the reformulation of some packaging materials and products, which will facilitate greater percentage of recyclability of those materials. Also developing the technologies that can recapture the value in terms of energy, but also developing technologies that can take the plastic waste stream back into a monomer that can be used perhaps as a feedstock.”
Moreover, he went on to say that while the industrialised, mostly western countries, have already achieved important infrastructure to recycle plastics, the key in emerging countries will be to develop waste management systems that allows them to effectively recover municipal waste that currently ends up in the environment.
CIRCULARITY AND CHEMICALS FIRMS
A true circular economy is still a dream scenario. The head of the EU’s chemicals regulator conceded in an interview with ICIS that most of the materials needed for a circular economy are yet to be invented, and said that the endeavour of circularity may take more than 50 years to be deployed.Moreover, by reusing more materials, chemicals companies would need to, firstly, invest heavily to develop new materials which can be circular and, secondly, turn into some sort of recyclers as well as creators.
Dooley said that circularity would not be a threat to the business of traditional chemicals companies per se, because they would adapt and enhance the circularity of the materials they produce.
“[Our members are committed to] technologies that can recapture the value of a waste stream by enhancing the ability to recycle it, by ensuring we are capturing the energy in that waste stream as well as recovering and reusing the molecules,” he said.
“If you look at the global demographics, there will continue to be increasing consumption of plastics, exceeding GDP growth, and there is going to be great opportunities for companies throughout the value chain to capitalise on this, increasing market demand that will use virgin products as well as utilising and reusing products of which we can recapture the value.”
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/03/06/10329255/aepw-to-broaden-membership-innovation-on-waste-reuse-key-to-success-acc-s-ceo/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Laurence Henry “Larry” Schongar
Mar 6, 2019 | Livingston County News
Laurence Henry “Larry” Schongar, 78, of Peterborough, passed away peacefully with his wife by his side at Monadnock Community Hospital on Feb. 18, 2019. He was born in Passaic, N.J., on March 21, 1940, the son of Henry and Adelaide (Thorpe) Schongar.
Larry was raised in Radburn, Fair Lawn, N.J., the first planned community in the United States. He graduated from Fair Lawn High School in 1958 and from Colgate University in 1962 with a BA (Political Science major and a Chemistry minor). After graduating from Naval Officer Candidate School in Newport, R.I, he began serving as Chief Engineer aboard the destroyer USS Gearing (DD-710). In 1964 Larry married his high school sweetheart, Kathryn Hallenbeck “Kathy” Newman.
After completing his active duty in 1965 as a Lieutenant, the couple moved to Middleburg Heights, Ohio, where their daughter, Jennifer, was born. There, Larry began work with Hooker Chemical Company (Occidental Chemical Corporation) as a salesman. When he was promoted to corporate management at the company headquarters in Niagara Falls, N.Y., the family moved to Williamsville, N.Y., where their son, Bill, was born. From 1969-1979, Larry’s specialty was flame retardant chemicals. Larry was passionate about safety. During this time he started a 501(c)3 organization, the Fire Retardant Chemicals Association, and became its first president. He was especially proud that this organization was instrumental in lobbying the National Bureau of Standards for flame retardant fabrics for children’s sleepwear.
In 1979 the family moved to Avon, N.Y., when Larry accepted a position with Jones Chemicals, Inc. Jones manufactured and sold chemicals for water treatment of pools and safe drinking water. From 1979 to 1997, the year he retired, Larry held numerous corporate leadership positions. He began as Assistant to the Chairman and later became Vice President of Operations and Vice President of Environmental Affairs. In this capacity he did troubleshooting at all 24 company locations in 16 states involving issues such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compliance, OSHA compliance, personnel, transportation, and production. He then established a compliance program for all locations. Larry and Kathy retired to Peterborough, N.H., in 2003 to be closer to their son’s family.
Larry’s professional memberships and certifications included: US Consumer Product Safety Commission Flammable Fabrics national advisory committee; CMA (now American Chemistry Council) water disinfection advisory group; Superfund advisory group; Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (Master level).
His volunteer work included: Livingston County (NY) Environmental Management Council; the Zoning Board of Appeals for both the Village and the Town of Avon, N.Y.; an elder for Avon’s Central Presbyterian Church; Peterborough’s Water Resource Advisory Committee.
Larry traveled to 26 countries, including several Asian countries where he made business presentations, but his trips to England with Kathy were his favorites. Other interests were reading, antiques, trains, cooking, genealogy research, family reunions, Navy reunions, and World War II espionage and cryptography.
Nothing was more important to Larry than family. Whether he was hand-setting type to print Christmas cards featuring poems by Kathy, or being Jen and Bill’s Little League coach, or teaching his kids the joy of bad puns and Sunday morning waffles Larry put his humor and hard-work ethic into everything he did, maintaining his smile and his unwavering love for his family through the best and worst of times.
A devoted husband and father, Larry is survived by his wife of 54 years, Kathy; his daughter, Jennifer Newman “Jen” Schongar; son, William Laurence “Bill” Schongar, and Bill’s sons, Daniel and Thomas. He is also survived by his brother and sister-in-law, Ron (Gail) Schongar; nieces, Elizabeth Schongar and Susan (Jim) Whitten; nephew, Steven Schongar; and cousin, Betty (Ralph) Condo. He is also survived by his wife’s sisters, Gail (Donald) Landzettel; twin, Corinne Cullison (James Miskowski); and extended families. Larry had several great-nieces, great-nephews and was also a great-great-uncle.
Larry was predeceased by his much-loved daughter-in-law, Jennifer (Roberts) Schongar (2018); nephew, Douglas Landzettel (2000); his parents; and his step-mother, Winifred L. Schongar.
There are no calling hours.
A Celebration of Life will be held on Sunday, March 10, at 2 p.m. (Note: Daylight Savings Time) at Union Congregational Church, 33 Concord Street, Peterborough, N.H.
In lieu of flowers, memorial donations may be made in Larry’s name to: Union Congregational Church, 33 Concord Street, Peterborough, NH 03458, Peterborough Fire and Rescue, 16 Summer Street, Peterborough, NH 03458, or a charity of your choice. Also please consider becoming an organ donor.
https://thelcn.com/lcn03/laurence-henry-larry-schongar-20190306
-
Plastic Bag Ban Passes State Senate
Mar 6, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
A ban on single-use plastic bags passed the Washington state Senate yesterday, progress for an idea proposed in the Legislature as early as 2013.
The bill would ban stores from giving out single-use plastic carryout bags, giving them until 2020 to use up existing stocks, and require an 8-cent charge for other bags handed out.
Lawmakers voted 31-14 in favor of the measure, sending it to the state House for consideration.
Sen. Mona Das (D-Covington) said the bill is a response to the buildup of plastic bags in the environment, which she called frightening. "Some plastic materials are recyclable, but we have no infrastructure for recycling thin plastic bags," Das said.
Some Republicans expressed skepticism over the measure, saying it would diminish consumer choice.
"This is a socialist method," Sen. Doug Ericksen (R-Ferndale). "Little things like this is the indicator that we are trying to micromanage the economy."
Passage by the Senate marks a high-water mark for the idea of statewide regulations aimed at limiting bags. Lawmakers proposed a ban as early as 2013 and a tax on single-use bags the same year, but neither was even put up for votes in legislative committees controlled at the time by Republicans.
The measure's co-sponsor, Sen. Reuven Carlyle (D-Seattle), said after an earlier vote that he thought the proposal had a better chance than in previous years, with increased support in the Legislature and the greater prominence of pollution and environmental issues more broadly.
Ten lawmakers added their names to this year's proposal, compared with only two in 2013, and Carlyle added that environmental groups have made the issue a top priority this year.
Beyond banning single-use plastic bags, the bill would require recycled paper bags to have at least 40 percent recycled material.
Some disposable plastic bags used inside stores would be exempt from the ban, including bags for fruits, vegetables, bulk foods, meats and loose bulk items like screws.
Compostable carryout bags would be included in the ban, but in-store compostable plastic bags would be allowed for the same exempt purposes.
If the measure passes, businesses will have a year to use up their existing supplies of disposable bags before facing a $250 fine for violations.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/06/stories/1060123295
-
GAO Slams Trump Admin on Climate Preparedness, Chemicals
Mar 6, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
The federal government has fallen back in its efforts to protect against the financial risks posed by climate change, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released today.
GAO's so-called 2019 High Risk List detailed government weaknesses — from wasting resources and abusing power to mismanagement.
"Substantial efforts are needed on the remaining high-risk areas to achieve greater progress and to address regress in some areas since the last high-risk update in 2017," GAO head Gene Dodaro said during a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee this morning.
"Continued congressional attention and executive branch leadership attention remain key to success," Dodaro told lawmakers.
GAO found the federal government had lost ground since 2017 on "limiting the federal government's fiscal exposure by better managing climate change risks." The agency first added the category to its areas of concern in 2013.
GAO noted that in 2018 federal funding for disaster assistance had reached about $430 billion since 2005. Those costs are expected to increase with more frequent and intense storms.
GAO listed five areas of financial exposure from climate change — including its role as an insurer of both property and crops, as a provider of disaster aid and as an owner or operator of infrastructure.
The government also faces risk coordinating state, local and private-sector action, and by providing data and technical assistance to decisionmakers.
Dodaro pointed out that GAO's dollar estimates of risk focused on direct costs from climate change and do not cover other issues like lost productivity.
Dodaro said he was especially concerned by the Trump administration's decision to revoke the flood risk management standard, which encouraged agencies to consider current and future risks when building in floodplains.
"There is a lot of exposure to the federal government," he said. President Trump has defended the action as getting rid of Obama-era red tape.
GAO said federal investments to increase resiliency to natural disasters would be more effective if additional resources went to "pre-disaster hazard mitigation," as a component of a broader resilience investment strategy.
"We are seeing the severity of storms increase as we deal with these disasters — seems to me investing money upfront is critically important," said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the committee's ranking member.
Chemicals
Financial risk from climate change was one of three areas where GAO found the government had regressed over the past two years.
The agency also said EPA had lost ground on improving its process for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals.
GAO said the agency's leadership did not appear sufficiently committed to assessing the public health threat of those chemicals.
Dodaro pointed specifically to EPA's budget proposal to cut funding in half for the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
He also noted the agency had failed to offer a statement of commitment to focus on IRIS, as other agencies had done.
Dodaro said EPA should prioritize IRIS assessments and creating an implementation plan for the Toxic Substances Control Act.
"I am very frustrated to hear of EPA leadership's failure to take this seriously," said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) during the hearing.
Mark Gaffigan, the managing director of natural resources and the environment at GAO, also told the committee that last year EPA had cut the list of chemicals scheduled for IRIS assessment almost in half, from 20 to 22 down to 11, without any explanation for the change. This included chemicals like formaldehyde, which was close to peer review.
"For an agency that is so concerned about so-called secret science, EPA seems to be going to great lengths to keep its science secret," Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said.
EPA has repeatedly defended its actions with respect to IRIS and chemicals reviews, including after another recent GAO report (E&E News PM, March 4).
Slow progress, significant savings
Of the 35 risk areas identified, GAO found agencies had failed to make progress on correcting more than half of them.
GAO publishes a report every other year but updates the categories it evaluates for improvement each new Congress. A number of issues have remained areas of concern dating back to the early 1990s and 2000s.
The report pays specific attention to federal actions that could cause physical harm to the American public, put at risk more than $1 billion in federal assets or result in federal agencies not achieving their stated mission.
Agencies are rated on their progress in meeting five criteria: leadership commitment to address the risk, agency capacity to respond with staff and resources, having a corrective action plan, independently monitoring fixes and agencies' demonstrated progress.
GAO estimates the financial benefits of making progress on high-risk areas have saved the federal government $350 billion between fiscal 2006 to fiscal 2018.
Dodaro said last fiscal year's benefits of action were the highest the agency had reported at nearly $47 billion.
"It just shows where a little bit ... attention to detail is incredibly important," said committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).
Other findings
The National Flood Insurance Program, listed by GAO since 2006, has only partially met its targets for improvement over more than a decade.
The federal government had failed to meet four of five criteria to address environmental liability, a new area of the report added in 2017.
Some high-risk issues have been taken off the list after agencies took corrective action.
Both the Department of Defense and NOAA had previously been cited for relying on aging satellites to collect weather data.
GAO took weather monitoring off its high-risk list as NOAA launched its new satellite in 2017, and DOD is planning to launch the Weather System Follow-on-Microwave satellite in 2022.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/06/stories/1060123321
-
Trader Joe’s Phasing Out Single-Use Plastics Nationwide Following Customer Petition
Mar 6, 2019 | EcoWatch
By Madison Dapcevich
As the world suffocates from its plastic addiction, a growing number of businesses are stepping up to the plate to reduce their plastic waste. Most recently, Trader Joe's announced that it will be taking steps to cut back on plastic and other packaging waste after a petition launched by Greenpeace harnessed nearly 100,000 signatures.
At the end of last year, the company announced several improvements geared towards making packaging more sustainable in an effort to eliminate more than 1 million pounds of plastic from stores. Already, the retailer has stopped offering single-use plastic carryout bags nationwide and is replacing plastic produce bags and Styrofoam meat trays with biodegradable and compostable options.
"As a neighborhood grocery store, we feel it is important for us to be the great neighbor our customers deserve. Part of that means better managing our environmental impact," Kenya Friend-Daniel, public relations director for Trader Joe's, told EcoWatch in an email. "As we recently shared with our customers, we are working to reduce the amount of packaging in our stores and while we have made a number of positive changes in this space, the world is ongoing."
Each year, enough plastic is thrown away to circle the earth a whopping four times. Despite that, just one-quarter of plastics produced in the U.S. is recycled even though recycling plastic takes 88 percent less energy than making it from raw materials. If just three-quarters of plastics were recycled, the Recycling Coalition of Utah says people could save an estimated 1 billion gallons of oil and 44 million cubic yards of landfill space annually.
"Every minute of every single day the equivalent of a truckload of plastic enters our oceans. Not only are these plastics hurting or killing marine animals, they are impacting all of us through our seafood, sea salt, tap water, and even the air we breathe," Greenpeace U.S.A. plastics campaigner David Pinsky told EcoWatch. "We know that we can't recycle our way out of this crisis, as only 9 percent of the plastics ever made have actually been recycled."
In recent years, a number of companies have taken the lead in reducing plastic waste, including United Kingdom food retailer A.S.D.A., who plans to remove single-use cups and cutlery this year. McDonald's says that 100 percent of its packaging will come from renewable, recycled or certified sustainable sources within the next seven years while water company Evian plans to go carbon neutral and plastic free by 2020. It's a solid start in battling the so-called "war on plastics," one that Trader Joe's says is just a small part of its "never-ending work."
Indeed, plastic has been found on every continent – including Antarctica – and at the bottom of the world's deepest waters.
"For far too long, corporations have deflected blame and made the issue of plastics about individual responsibility, but it's time for the world's largest corporations and retailers to show some accountability. The only way we are going to tackle this crisis is by pressuring corporations and governments to move away from throwaway plastics for good, and toward systems of reuse," said Pinsky.
https://www.ecowatch.com/trader-joes-plastic-waste-2630818452.html
-
Flexible Colored PU Foams Market to Partake Significant Development During 2015 – 2025
Mar 6, 2019 | Daily Chronicle
By Ankush Nikam
Polyurethane foam is a diverse and large segment of global polyurethane market. Polyurethanes are said to be a part of our day to day life. Foams play a significant role in commercial and industrial sector ranging from automotive to refrigeration. Based on the variants foams available in the market and increasing area of applications for flexible colored PU foams, the market is expected to experience growth in the near future. Foams are differentiated as flexible and rigid foams. The properties that rigid foam posses are hardness, resilience, compression properties, abrasion resistance, whereas flexible polyurethane foam posses properties such as dry heat resistant, water resistant, oxygen, ozone resistant and remain flexible at low temperature. Few critical characteristics for the use of polyurethane foam in the industrial sector are chemical resistant, oil and grease resistant, flame resistant, noise reduction and fungus, mildew, mould resistant.
The rigid polyurethane foams have outstanding thermal insulation properties, which makes its use as an insulator in commercial and domestic appliances such as hot water systems and refrigerators. The flexible polyurethane foam is extremely comfortable and finds wide range of applications in the furniture seating and automotive industry. The factors that drive the flexible colored PU foams market include the growing demand from the automobile and construction industry coupled with the rising demand from the interior and furniture sector. The demand for colored PU foams in the packaging sectors is expected to rise in the near future. Furniture and interiors are expected to be the largest consumers of flexible colored PU foams as it is used in luxury couches, chairs mattresses and carpets on a large scale. However, the volatile raw material prices are expected to pose a challenge to the growing flexible colored PU foams market. In addition, environmental regulations are expected to hinder the market growth owing to issues related to use of diisocynate in the production process.
Liquid resin blends and isocyanates are expected to contain hazardous components that may lead to health hazards. Isocyanates are said to be skin and respiratory sensitizers. In addition, amines, glycols and phosphate that exist in the spray polyurethane foam also may hamper the health of humans to some extent. Certain regulatory and health safety information is made available in the U.S. through organization such as Polyurethane Manufacturers Association (PMA) and Centre for the Polyurethane Industry (CPI). Others information sources are the raw material manufacturers and polyurethanes systems.
The key segments included in the flexible colored PU foam industry include North America, Asia Pacific, Europe and Rest of the World (RoW). Due to high growth in the interior and furniture market, North America is expected to dominate the flexible colored PU foam market followed by Europe. Owing to the developments in the construction industry, Asia Pacific is expected to be the fastest growing market for flexible colored PU foam market. Owing to the benefits such as CFC free, HCFC free and non-Ozone Depleting Potential foams (non-ODP), a rising demand for bio based PU foams from North Africa and the Middle East is expected to open more opportunities for the flexible PU foams market.
The key market players in the flexible colored PU foam market include: BASF SE, Carpenter Company, Bayer Material Science AG, Huntsman Corporation, Recticel SA, INOAC Corporation, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, The Dow Chemical Company, Rogers Corporation Stepan Company and Era Polymers Pty Ltd among others. Era Polymers Pty Ltd is an Australian distributor which offers a full range of ozone friendly foams that are CFC and HCFC free.
http://www.dailychronicle24.com/2019/03/06/flexible-colored-pu-foams-market-to-partake-significant-development-during-2015-2025/
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Democrats Reopen Fight over Formaldehyde Assessment
| Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Democrat members of Congress are pressing the US EPA to release an IRIS assessment of formaldehyde and have called for an investigation into whether efforts to delay its completion constitute a violation of the agency’s scientific integrity policy.
The inquiry – raised in letters to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and Scientific Integrity Officer Francesca Grif – comes on the heels of a government watchdog report indicating that EPA leadership has been slowing the release of assessments under the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report highlighted that formaldehyde was one of four IRIS assessments in "the later stages of development" absent from the most recent list of programme priorities.
And House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) and three Democrats on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) – Tom Carper (Delaware), Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island) and Ed Markey (Massachusetts) – have raised fresh concern with the long-delayed assessment in the letter to Mr Wheeler.
According to the lawmakers, more than a decade and $10m have gone into the report, which reportedly concludes that the widely used substance can cause nasopharyngeal cancer and leukaemia, among other adverse effects. But despite being ready for peer review for almost a year and a half, it has not been released.
This delay, they wrote, "serves to further erode public trust" in the EPA, and blocks efforts to address the risk the substance poses. They have asked for the assessment to be reviewed, finalised and published "without further delay, new studies and taxpayer expense".
Meanwhile, the Democrats are also probing the extent to which David Dunlap, a political appointee in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), may have participated in the agency’s decision to reduce the number of chemicals that will be assessed under IRIS and to halt work on the formaldehyde assessment.
Formaldehyde row to continue under TSCA?
NGO the Environmental Defense Fund has also questioned whether the American Chemistry Council's talk of developing a formaldehyde consortium suggests that the substance will be included in the EPA's next set of high-priority chemicals subject to risk evaluation under TSCA. In a recent blogpost, EDF Senior Scientist Richard Denison notes this would put former ACC-staffer Nancy Beck in an oversight role of the review.
"It appears we will move from EPA’s [then] acting administrator declaring formaldehyde not to be a high priority for the agency – and on that basis halting the finalisation of the IRIS assessment – to EPA declaring formaldehyde to be a high priority for the agency – thereby resurrecting assessment of the chemical, but now under the direction of political appointees with a long history of antagonism toward IRIS’s science and with conflicts of interests on this chemical," he said.
Dr Denison joined the Democrats in pressing for the release of the assessment. And he encouraged the EPA chemicals office to rely on IRIS’s review "rather than having conflicted political appointees redo to their own liking the science", if the substance is named a high priority under TSCA.
ACC Senior Director Kimberly Wise White, however, told Chemical Watch that its formaldehyde panel continues to call for any review of the substance to use "transparent science-based standards, including a weight-of-evidence approach to evaluating and integrating the best available scientific studies."
Dr White pointed to a recent study by the University of North Carolina as part of an ongoing science portfolio that "continues to demonstrate the biological implausibility for formaldehyde to cause leukaemia, and reinforces the years of science which have consistently demonstrated safe thresholds for formaldehyde exposure."
GAO response
Even as controversy around formaldehyde continues, release of the GAO report has brought fresh energy to a long-simmering debate over the agency’s IRIS programme.
Senator Carper – who originally requested the GAO’s examination – said the report confirms that the agency’s chemical safety efforts are "wrought with self-inflicted wounds … [including] politically motivated delays of chemical safety assessments."
Improvements to IRIS, he said, have been "stymied by the agency’s redirection of resources and personnel", even while the programme appears "beset by political interference, often at the expense of career staff’s input, sound science and transparency".
But the ACC said it was "no surprise" that EPA leadership took time to reevaluate the IRIS programme and reconfirm which assessments are priorities.
Jon Corley, ACC director, added that there are a number of recommendations for improving IRIS that have not yet been addressed, such as finalising a programme handbook.
"We hope the IRIS programme will one day be able to produce high-quality, scientifically sound toxicity values, but it still has a great deal of work to do to get to that point," said Mr Corley.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74864/us-democrats-reopen-fight-over-formaldehyde-assessment
-
Congress May Force EPA’s Hand on Nonstick Chemicals
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Momentum in Congress is building for legislation that would force the EPA to act earlier than planned on a class of toxic nonstick chemicals that have contaminated drinking water across the country.
Bills in both the House and the Senate (H.R. 535 and S. 638) would force the Environmental Protection Agency to place some kinds of these chemicals on a list of hazardous substances, making it easier to recover cleanup costs from the companies that made them. Both bills have bipartisan support.
The chemicals at issue are per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, which were manufactured by 3M, DowDuPont, and other companies.
Additionally, Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Environment, said he would favor going a step further and passing legislation that forces the EPA to enact legally enforceable drinking water standards.
They’ve been linked to numerous health problems and are extremely resistant to biodegrading, which has earned them the nickname “forever chemicals.”
The EPA has said it is moving toward both placing PFAS on the hazardous substances list and enacting drinking water standards. But Rouda and other lawmakers said the agency’s timelines for doing this are too unspecific.
“We want to work with the EPA, but time is of the essence,” Rouda told reporters after his subcommittee held a hearing on the PFAS problem.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/congress-may-force-epas-hand-on-nonstick-chemicals
-
N.M. Sues Air Force over Groundwater Contamination
Mar 6, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Susan Montoya Bryan
New Mexico yesterday sued the Air Force over groundwater contamination at two bases, saying the federal government has a responsibility to clean up plumes of toxic chemicals left behind by past military firefighting activities.
The contamination — linked to a class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — was detected last year in groundwater on and near Cannon and Holloman air force bases.
Similar contamination has been found at dozens of military sites across the nation, and growing evidence that exposure can be dangerous has prompted EPA to consider setting a maximum level for the chemicals in drinking water nationwide. Currently only non-enforceable drinking water health advisories are in place.
New Mexico regulators first issued a notice of violation to the Air Force last year for failing to properly address the contamination at Cannon Air Force Base near Clovis. They followed up earlier this year on Holloman, saying that base had violated its state permit and had yet to respond to concerns about the pollution near Alamogordo.
The state considers the contamination "an immediate and substantial danger" to surrounding communities.
"In the absence of cooperation by the Air Force, the New Mexico Environment Department will move swiftly and decisively to ensure protections for both public health and the environment," Environment Department Cabinet Secretary James Kenney said yesterday.
Aside from violating state environmental laws, Kenney also suggested that the Air Force violated the public's trust.
"Today we begin holding them accountable," he said.
The Air Force declined to comment on the lawsuit but argued that its response to PFAS contamination in New Mexico and elsewhere has been aggressive.
Mark Kinkade with the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center said the military has provided alternative water to those in areas where Air Force activity likely contributed to the contamination. He said officials also have been working with the communities and regulators to identify and implement long-term solutions to prevent exposure.
State regulators and Air Force officials say sampling is ongoing to determine the extent of the contamination plumes and their migration beyond base boundaries.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/06/stories/1060123283
-
Toxic Chemicals Threaten Water Supply in Seven Municipalities
Mar 6, 2019 | Boston Globe
By David Abel
Three years ago, after federal authorities began sounding alarms about a host of manmade chemicals found in drinking water near military bases, town wells near Fort Devens tested positive for the toxic substances, some well in excess of what public health officials consider safe.
Town officials, who had asked for the tests, tried to dilute the toxins by mixing the water from wells with lower concentrations of the chemicals. But it wasn’t until last year that they shut down the most contaminated well, the source of a million gallons of drinking water a day.
It took another month before they alerted the town’s 7,600 residents to the potential threat of the per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals, known as PFAS, which have been linked to kidney cancer, low-infant birth weights, and a range of other diseases.
“We didn’t — and still don’t — really know the magnitude of the problem,” said Mark Wetzel, superintendent of the town’s Public Works Department. “But I think we’re getting to the point that we have to assume there’s a risk.”Get Metro Headlines in your inbox:The 10 top local news stories from metro Boston and around New England delivered daily.Sign Up
Amid growing calls for tighter curbs on the largely unregulated chemicals, officials at the Environmental Protection Agency recently promised to set safety standards, while some states have already enacted limits.
Testing of nearly 2,700 groundwater wells on or around military installations in recent years has found that 60 percent contained high levels of the chemicals, according to the Department of Defense. Many were probably contaminated by a special firefighting foam used for years by the military.
But PFAS, called “forever chemicals” because they never fully degrade, have been found far beyond military bases. The chemicals were developed in the 1940s and have since been used in products such as flame retardants, nonstick pans, pizza boxes, clothing, and furniture.
In Massachusetts, the chemicals have been found in the drinking water of seven municipalities. In four — Ayer, Barnstable, Mashpee, and Westfield — they have been found in concentrations that exceed what the EPA considers safe. The chemicals were also found in Danvers, Harvard, and Hudson.
But more than half of the state’s municipalities have not had their drinking water tested for the chemicals, according to data from the Department of Environmental Protection. Many more private wells have also yet to be sampled.
The lack of oversight has led environmental advocates to accuse federal and state officials of acting too slowly to address the risks.
“These off-the-charts PFAS levels represent a direct and immediate threat to the public health of the Commonwealth,” said Kyla Bennett, a former scientist at the EPA who now serves as director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility in New England, an advocacy group. “Without greater focus and urgency, Bay Staters will be drinking these toxic chemicals for a generation.”
She and other advocates have urged Massachusetts and other states to adopt standards that protect residents from exposure to the chemicals and install technology to filter them out of public water systems.
State environmental officials recently launched a review to determine standards for the chemicals in drinking water, as well as what PFAS compounds — there are thousands — such limits should apply to.
The state has also started a program to collect and dispose of stockpiles of old PFAS-containing firefighting foam. So far, it has collected nearly 150,000 pounds of the toxic foam from fire departments.
The DEP already requires that new public water supplies be tested for six PFAS chemicals before they’re connected to residents’ homes, and they’re surveying the 181 state-permitted bottled water companies to determine if they’re sampling for the chemicals. Just three have reported that they’re testing.
For now, the department advises pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants, and other potentially vulnerable people to avoid drinking water where five of the more common chemicals are found in higher concentrations.
“The department is committed to ensuring residents have access to safe and clean drinking water, and looks forward to working with stakeholders to develop additional standards,” said Ed Coletta, a spokesman for the agency.
In February, EPA officials said that by the end of the year they would release “comprehensive” national drinking-water limits for two of the most prevalent PFAS chemicals. They also promised additional research, monitoring, and cleanup efforts.
The agency now only maintains a health advisory that recommends municipalities alert the public if the two chemicals reach 70 parts per trillion, the same level used in Massachusetts. One part per trillion is about as much as a grain of sand in an Olympic-size swimming pool.
Recent studies suggest that the maximum levels allowed in drinking water should be far lower than the current advisory. One draft report by the federal Department of Health and Human Services — which the EPA last year sought to prevent from being published — found that the chemicals could be harmful at one-sixth the levels the agency now considers safe.
Other states have already set stricter standards. New Jersey recently set a limit of 13 parts per trillion for one of the more prevalent chemicals, and officials there are considering a similar standard for other compounds. Vermont has advised vulnerable residents to avoid drinking water if the concentrations of five of the chemicals reach 20 parts per trillion.
Some recent studies have suggested even lower limits.
Researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, after studying children who had been exposed to PFAS on the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic Ocean, found that children should not consume water with concentrations of the chemicals greater than 1 part per trillion. A study they published last year called the health risks of the chemicals “greatly underestimated.”
In response, the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation recently filed petitions with environmental agencies in every New England state, pressing regulators to adopt strict drinking water standards for the chemicals. PFAS have been found in groundwater from Greenwich, Conn., to Bennington County, Vt.
“That standard should probably be set between 1 part per trillion and zero,” said Bradley Campbell, president of the foundation. “That’s where the agencies should end up, if they engage deeply in the science.”
In Ayer, residents and officials are looking for more than guidance. For years now, they’ve been urging the Defense Department to help eliminate the chemicals in their water.
Laurie Nehring, president of People of Ayer Concerned about the Environment, said she hoped the military finance a new $4.2 million treatment plant to filter the chemicals.
“We expect the Defense Department will live up to its word,” she said. “If they don’t, we’ll be putting pressure on them in every way we can.”
Officials overseeing the former Army base declined to answer questions. But town and EPA officials said they had reached an oral agreement with the military to pay for the new plant.
With hundreds of thousands of gallons of polluted water flowing every day into a local pond, and the town’s main well still offline, Wetzel wants to formalize the agreement soon. “I could wait two weeks but not two months,” he said.
Construction on the plant is scheduled to start this summer.
As more towns test their water for PFAS, Wetzel worries that it could create a crisis if others also discover the chemicals in their wells, leading to water shortages and wariness about public drinking water.
“I’ve been in this business for years, and what’s most surprising about this is how vulnerable our water supply is,” he said.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/03/06/toxic-chemicals-threaten-water-supply/UwVdWf2ACEBxvPRqDdIc6J/story.html
-
EPA’s Plan to Regulate Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water Is Not Enough
Mar 6, 2019 | Truthout
By Laurel Schaider
After more than a year of community meetings and deliberations, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced in February 2019 that it would begin the process of regulating two drinking water contaminants, seeking to stem a growing national public health crisis. If EPA follows through, this would be the first time in nearly 20 years that it has set an enforceable standard for a new chemical contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The chemicals at issue, PFOA and PFOS, have contaminated drinking water supplies across the country affecting millions of Americans. They belong to a class of synthetic chemicals called PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, that are widely used in products including firefighting foams, waterproof apparel, stain-resistant furniture, food packaging and even dental floss.
These chemicals have been linked with numerous health problems, including cancers, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, low birth weight and effects on the immune system. Studies show exposure to PFAS in children can dampen the effectiveness of vaccines — a topic my colleagues and I are currently investigating as part of a project called PFAS-REACH. In laboratory studies, low levels of PFAS can alter mammary gland development, which could have implications for increasing breast cancer susceptibility later in life.
What’s more, PFAS are highly persistent. Once released into the environment, they don’t break down — a fact that has led many to dub these substances “forever chemicals.”A 2016 study found that drinking water supplies for 6 million U.S. residents exceeded EPA’s lifetime health advisory levels for PFOS and PFOA. Hu et al., 2016., CC BY-NDA
Persistent Problem
PFAS have been used for decades, but only in the last few years have we begun to grasp the full extent of contamination. A 2016 study reported that over 16 million Americans are exposed to these contaminants in drinking water, and a more recent estimate put that number at 110 million.
PFAS find their way into water supplies from military fire training areas and airports, as well as industrial sites and wastewater treatment plants. For instance, in 2010 my colleagues and I at the nonprofit Silent Spring Institute, which studies links between environmental chemicals and women’s health, first detected PFAS in public and private drinking water wells on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The Department of Defense has identified approximately 400 current or former military sites with known or suspected contamination, stemming mostly from use of firefighting foams.
Today there are more than 4,700 PFAS substances in use. All are chemically similar and highly persistent. The United States phased PFOS out of products in 2000 and PFOA in 2006, but they are still turning up widely in drinking water, which is why states want EPA to set standards specifying what levels of exposure are safe. Meanwhile, studies suggest that some newer PFAS chemicals have similar health effects, and most have not been studied at all.
Scientists are working hard to better understand these chemicals in order to mitigate the public’s exposure. For example, researchers at the STEEP Superfund Research Program, a multi-institutional effort which I am a part of, are investigating how these chemicals move through the environment, their chemical characteristics, how they accumulate in our bodies, and their impacts on our health.
A Shifting Landscape
EPA has been considering regulating PFOS and PFOA in drinking water since 2009. The agency’s recent announcement is a step in the right direction, but still only addresses these two chemicals in drinking water and any new federal standard won’t be fully implemented for years.
Earlier this year my colleagues and I published an analysis in which we showed wide variation in the way state and federal regulators manage these contaminants in drinking water. We found that seven states have their own guideline levels for PFOA and PFOS. Of these, Vermont, Minnesota and New Jersey have adopted levels that are more stringent than EPA’s current non-enforceable levels.
More recently, New Hampshire, New York and California have also proposed guideline levels lower than EPA’s. The day after EPA announced its plan, Pennsylvania officials announced they would create their own standards, citing concerns about EPA’s sluggish efforts to address the issue.
Meanwhile, some states are developing their own guidelines covering additional PFAS chemicals. For instance, Minnesota has included in its guidelines a chemical called PFBS, which is used in Scotchgard. North Carolina regulators are focusing their efforts on a substitute called GenX that seeped into local water supplies from a plant upstream and has been detected in their air and soil.
A key question now is how EPA’s drinking water standard for PFOA and PFOS will compare with what states are doing. Will the agency consider the full body of scientific evidence on health risks associated with exposure to this class of chemicals when setting a “safe” limit in drinking water? Will it consider effects on sensitive populations, such as pregnant women and children? Although the science is still evolving, one thing is clear: The more we learn about these chemicals, the more we see health effects at lower and lower levels.
It is important to give states latitude to adopt more stringent approaches than those set by EPA, and a lot can be learned from how states set guidelines. However, the emerging regulatory patchwork raises concerns that some Americans are not adequately protected. Some states have the resources and technical know-how to conduct their own risk assessments, but others may lack the funding and expertise.
Political and social factors, as well as pressure from industry, can lead to wide disparities in exposure, with some communities protected and others left vulnerable. A federal standard would ensure that everyone is protected, regardless of whether their states have the will and the resources to develop their own standards.It’s All in the Family
EPA’s plan includes other steps that sound promising, such as listing PFOS and PFOA as “hazardous substances” under the Superfund law to establish liability for contamination and support cleanup, enhanced monitoring in drinking water, and better reporting of releases from industry. But the plan largely focuses on addressing problems at existing contaminated sites, not on keeping these chemicals out of water supplies and the environment.
Conducting risk assessments on individual PFAS compounds one at a time is impractical. As a result, many advocacy groups and scientists — including my colleagues at the Green Science Policy Institute — are calling for these chemicals to be regulated as a class.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA has authority to restrict approval of new toxic chemicals. But in reality, new ones are approved all the time without thorough evaluations. Given concerns about the extreme persistence and mobility of PFAS compounds, in my view it makes good sense to restrict this entire class of chemicals.
There are precedents for such action. In 1979 the United States banned PCBs after these persistent and toxic chemicals became widespread in the environment. The global community banned chlorofluorocarbons in 1996 when scientists learned that they damage Earth’s stratospheric ozone layer. And in 2017 the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission voted to ban an entire class of toxic flame retardants from consumer products.
There is ample evidence for treating PFAS the same way. The question is whether federal regulators have the will.
https://truthout.org/articles/epas-plan-to-regulate-chemical-contaminants-in-drinking-water-is-not-enough/
-
Proposition 65 2.0: Where It Is and Where It’s Going
Mar 6, 2019 | National Law Review
By Mark N. Duvall, Lauren A. Hopkins, and Shengzhi Wang
Proposition 65 is a California warning requirement of concern for companies throughout the U.S. It has recently undergone remarkable changes, taking on new life and creating new challenges for suppliers everywhere. This alert brings you up to date with the recent changes and what to expect.
WARNING: New Safe-Harbor Regulation Takes Effect
The new Article 6, Clear and Reasonable Warning (safe-harbor) regulation took effect on August 30, 2018. This is clearly the most important recent development in Proposition 65 compliance. In 2016, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) completely overhauled the decades-old warning rules. Those rules finally took effect on August 30, 2018. Now, compliance with the old Article 6 regulation will no longer afford companies clear protection from Proposition 65 enforcement actions. While companies may continue to craft their self-customized Proposition 65 warnings (at their own risks), complying with the warning methods and language requirements in the new Article 6 rules should provide them with protection from enforcement actions.
As we previously reported, since the new Article 6 regulation took effect, OEHHA has further revised the regulation. We continue seeing such efforts in 2018, including the following: Clarification of Supply Chain Obligations. In November 2018, OEHHA proposed amending Section 25600.2, which provides the rules on how to allocate the Proposition 65 warning responsibilities for consumer warning exposures among the various entities along the supply chain. OEHHA’s proposal would clarify in the regulatory language that manufacturers may provide the warning information and other materials to their immediate customers. It would also clarify several logistical requirements for the information transmission, such as the service and confirmation of notices. Finally, it would clarify what “actual knowledge” means for retailers.
The proposed regulatory text and the supporting rulemaking documents are available here.
Signal Words for Pesticide Warning. In December 2018, OEHHA amended the Article 6 regulation on the signal word to be used for Proposition 65 warnings for pesticide products.Under the amended regulation, pesticide products regulated under the labeling regulation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the California Department of Pesticide Regulation may use the words “ATTENTION” or “NOTICE,” in lieu of the word “WARNING.” Federal pesticide law and current EPA regulation assign a special meaning to the word “WARNING” as a signal word on pesticide labels, and prohibit mislabeling.
The final regulatory text and the supporting rulemaking documents are available here.
Tailored Warning Rules for Residential Rental Property Exposure. In February 2018, OEHHA also proposed tailored Article 6 rules for residential rental property warnings. The proposed residential rental property warning regulation would provide special rules for warning exposures from properties such as apartments, houses, duplexes, triplexes, condominiums, and other rented dwellings. OEHHA further modified its proposal in October 2018. This proposal is now before California’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL), which has until March 15, 2019 to finish its review.
The proposed regulatory text and the supporting rulemaking documents are available here.
Watch Out for Regulatory Changes for These Chemicals
There are also a number of chemicals worth particular attention because of new listings, safety thresholds, or warning rules taking effect in 2018. Below is a non-exclusive list of some chemicals subject to recent regulatory changes under Proposition 65:
· Nickel (soluble compounds). On October 26, 2018, OEHHA listed “nickel (soluble compounds)” as a reproductive toxin (male developmental). Under Proposition 65, companies have one year to comply with Proposition 65 requirements as applicable to nickel (soluble compounds). Therefore, warnings for nickel (soluble compounds) must be in place by October 26, 2019. Note that “nickel compounds” have been separately listed as carcinogens in 2004, and are already subject to Proposition 65 warnings.
· Glyphosate. OEHHA established a no-significant risk level (NSRL) of 1,100 micrograms per day for glyphosate, an herbicide, on April 6, 2018, which took effect on July 1, 2018.
In addition, the listing of glyphosate in 2017, and the accompanying warning requirements under Proposition 65, led to extensive litigation in both state and federal courts in 2018. In August 2018, California’s Supreme Court refused to hear any further challenges of OEHHA’s listing of glyphosate, leaving intact an April 2018 decision by a California appellate court upholding the listing of glyphosate as a Proposition 65 chemical. A second case before the federal court is still pending, where the court is asked to decide whether the Proposition 65 warning language would be appropriate with regard to glyphosate.
· Acrylamide. In March 2018, a California judge proposed to hold that companies failed to meet their burden not to warn acrylamide in coffee under Proposition 65. Acrylamide is a chemical generated during the baking, frying, and roasting of certain plant-based foods; and the news attracted media attention nationwide.
In June 2018, OEHHA proposed new regulation, which would state that “[e]xposures to listed chemicals in coffee created by and inherent in the processes of roasting coffee beans or brewing coffee do not pose a significant risk of cancer.” Public hearing and comments followed. The docket for the coffee rulemaking is here.
A California appellate court in July 2018 held that manufacturers do not have to place warnings for acrylamide contained in breakfast cereal, citing federal preemption. California’s Supreme Court refused to disturb that ruling in October 2018, yet decertified the appellate court’s order, making it no longer precedential.
· Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). OEHHA listed PFOA and PFOS as reproductive toxins (developmental) on November 10, 2017. This listing took effect on November 10, 2018.Enforcement Activities Continue
California’s Office of Attorney General (OAG) has not yet published its annual report on Proposition 65 settlements by private enforcers for 2018. But the information available on OAG’s website (court-approved judgments for 2018 and out-of-court settlements for 2018) can shed light upon what happened on the enforcement front last year.
The most notable chemicals in 2018 subject to Proposition 65 enforcement actions were lead and phthalates, especially di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP). Lead cases initiated and settled in 2018 covered a variety of products, from toolkits, mugs, glassware, to dietary supplements. Dietary supplements seemed to be a particular target for private enforcers, which contributed to several lead and heavy metal cases that topped the leaderboard in 2018 by total amount (including several court-approved judgments at or above $100,000). Meanwhile, DEHP cases covered an even broader scope of products, ranging from apparel, bags, and other consumer products to safety glasses, cables, and cords. Besides lead and phthalates, other chemicals were also featured in the settlements as well as in the 60-day notice records.
What’s Ahead
In recent months, OEHHA has developed other approaches in Proposition 65 regulation, including requesting information from entities on why the warnings are provided, promulgating more Safe Use Determinations, and crafting industry-specific tailored warnings. We expect these approaches to continue.
And of course, Proposition 65 enforcement cases are expected to continue unabated.
These developments suggest that companies should keep checking and identifying Proposition 65 compliance risks in their products and supply chains. The enforcement risk is real. They should be taking concrete steps to protect themselves and their products from enforcement actions.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/proposition-65-20-where-it-and-where-it-s-going
-
Asbestos in Claire’s Cosmetics Prompts FDA Safety Alert
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven Gibb
The Food and Drug Administration has issued a safety alert warning consumers that asbestos was found in three cosmetic products marketed to young people, adding that it lacks the authority to recall them.
Claire’s Inc.—which makes the eye shadow, contour, and compact powder cited by FDA—said it has removed the three products from store shelves “out of an abundance of caution,” including any remaining talc-based cosmetics that can contain asbestos.
Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and its health risks are well documented, according to the FDA.
Claire’s says it will honor returns of the three products and any others containing talc. But the company said the FDA’s testing mischaracterized other fibers as asbestos.
“Despite our efforts to discuss these issues with the FDA, they insisted on moving forward with their release” of the safety alert, according to the statement on Claire’s website.
The FDA testing follows 2018 findings from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group that flagged the contamination in cosmetics, which has also attracted attention from lawmakers and environmental groups.
‘Safety and Labeling’
Outgoing FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a March 5 news release that “when it comes to cosmetics, companies and individuals who market these products in the U.S. hold the responsibility for the safety and labeling of their products.”
“To be clear, there are currently no legal requirements for any cosmetic manufacturer marketing products to American consumers to test their products for safety,” the statement says.
On April 24, 2018, the House held a briefing including Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), and Environmental Working Group President Ken Cook to discuss strengthening cosmetic regulation.
The briefing was attended by reality TV star Kourtney Kardashian, who urged stricter control of cosmetic ingredients. Pallone said in a March 5 statement that he is circulating draft legislation to increase FDA’s authority to recall dangerous cosmetic products.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/asbestos-in-claires-cosmetics-prompts-fda-safety-alert
-
US DIY Firm to Stop Distributing Methylene Chloride, NMP Paint Strippers
Mar 6, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
US DIY products business Ace Hardware Corporation will stop distributing paint strippers containing the solvents methylene chloride (dichloromethane) and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) by the end of July.
The company says it has made alternative paint remover products, which are free from these solvents, available to its retailers since November last year. But it has made the decision to phase out completely remaining products containing them this year.
Ace is in "the process of purging our distribution network", the company told Chemical Watch. It follows a number of retailers that have voluntarily pledged to stop selling the products.
Ace Hardware is a retailer-owned cooperative that distributes products to its network of independently owned and operated stores.
While it has committed to phasing out the products, decisions regarding what merchandise to sell at the store level are made by the independently operated stores. Ace Hardware says it does require retailers to comply with applicable laws and regulatory requirements.
However, regulatory measures are not yet in place after the EPA delayed its proposal to ban or restrict the use of the solvents in paint removal applications, announced in January 2017.
This month, a second group of NGOs filed a lawsuit against the EPA over its failure to finalise a rule banning methylene chloride paint strippers.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74838/us-diy-firm-to-stop-distributing-methylene-chloride-nmp-paint-strippers
-
NGO Researchers Call to Ban PFASs from Firefighting Foam
Mar 6, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
A just released report has called on the US Congress to ban the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in firefighting foam, following an investigation into the product’s use by the Department of Defense.
The report, by the NGO Environmental Working Group (EWG), identifies more than 100 military sites where drinking water or groundwater is contaminated with PFASs at levels above the EPA’s health guidelines, after nearly 50 years of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) use on military installations.
And although the chemicals in question – PFOS and PFOA – have now been phased out nationwide due to their risk to the environment and human health, the EWG has raised concern that replacement PFASs may carry similar difficulties.
The report recommends several measures to combat the continued contamination problems, including banning PFASs from firefighting foam entirely.
And it calls for prohibiting the substances' use in consumer products more broadly, including in: cookware; food packaging; cosmetics; carpeting; and clothing.
Further, it seeks for a halt on the approval on new PFAS substances. "More than 4,000 PFAS chemicals exist, so there’s no reason for the EPA or the Food and Drug Administration to let any more on the market," it says.
Last month, the EPA released its long-awaited federal PFAS management plan, but it did not address the majority of the report’s recommendations. In response to the plan, the EWG and other NGOs expressed dismay that it largely focused on further research, rather than regulatory action.
More recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) announced that they will test human exposure to PFASs in eight communities located near current and former military installations.
AFFF alternatives
Meanwhile, a report carried out by the New York State Pollution Prevention Institute (NYSP2I) for the Interstate Chemicals Clearinghouse – an association of state and local governments – has examined potential alternatives to PFAS-containing AFFFs.
The report looked at the requirements of seven firefighting foam performance standards. These included ones that require the use of PFASs in the foam’s formulation, including the US military specifications (known as Mil-Spec) and those of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
The report identified and organised data from more than 100 fluorine-free water additives, pointing out that while a number of fluorine-free surfactants have been developed, performance testing of the options is limited. Furthermore, it says, the data that does exist shows that the alternatives have inconsistent performance.
The ecotoxicity and human health impacts of most of the foams have also yet to be assessed.
Even among the supposed fluorine-free foams, the report points out that confidential business information (CBI) protections have made research on their makeup difficult.
"Many researchers and those in the firefighting foam industries have expressed concerns about whether or not foams are truly fluorine-free," it says.
Congress passed legislation in October directing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to no longer require the use of fluorinated chemicals to meet federal performance standards for extinguishing agents used in airports nationwide.
And Washington state last year adopted into law a ban on most PFAS-containing firefighting foams.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74831/ngo-researchers-call-to-ban-pfass-from-firefighting-foam
-
Congressman Dan Kildee Delivers PFAs Testimony at Capitol Hill
Mar 6, 2019 | FOX 66
By Madeline Ciak
Congressman Dan Kildee is testifying in front of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcommittee on the Environment about PFAS.
“PFAS chemical contamination is a public health crisis. Across America, residents, veterans and families are increasingly fearful of exposure to dangerous PFAS chemicals. I commend Chairman Harley Rouda for holding this important hearing, demonstrating that Congress is serious about protecting public health. The Trump Administration and Congress must work together to more urgently clean up PFAS chemical contamination and ensure that Americans exposed to PFAS have the health care they need,” said Congressman Kildee.
Congressman Kildee is the founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional PFAS Task Force, which works with Members of Congress to more urgently address the public health threat of PFAS.
Kildee has previously introduced legislation to speed up clean-up efforts, expand health care to veterans and detect PFAS contamination at other sites across the country.
https://wsmh.com/news/local/congressman-dan-kildee-delivers-pfas-testimony-at-capitol-hill
-
Guest Column: Time to Revisit the EU Cosmetics Regulation’s EDCs Approach
Mar 6, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Pelle Moos
Brushing your teeth is a twice daily ritual for most of us. This routine is good for dental hygiene – and your smile. But your toothpaste may also contain ingredients that should make you frown. One in eight toothpastes investigated by Danish consumer group, Forbrugerrådet TÆNK Kemi, for example, contained ingredients with endocrine disrupting properties, such as triclosan, methyl- or propylparaben.
Scientists increasingly link endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) to a range of severe diseases and disorders, including infertility, obesity, and cancer. So, these results should concern us all – especially since it is but one example of how our daily use of cosmetics may expose us to problematic ingredients.
Consumers are in frequent, intimate and often prolonged contact with cosmetic and personal care products. A survey of more than 2,300 people found that the average adult uses nine personal care products each day. This aggregate figure however hides significant variations. One in four women for example use at least 15 products daily, according to the same survey.
Cosmetics ingredients therefore represent a significant, potential source of cumulative consumer exposure to EDCs, including for vulnerable groups, such as pregnant and breast-feeding women, children and persons with compromised immune responses. Of the 7,000+ cosmetic products found in Kemiluppen, a smartphone app developed by Forbrugerrådet TÆNK Kemi, some 25% contained one or more suspected EDCs.
'It is high time we revisit the cosmetics Regulation’s approach to these harmful chemicals'
EU rules on cosmetic products are among the strictest in the world. Yet, unlike EU laws on pesticides or biocides, the EU cosmetics Regulation does not explicitly protect consumers against EDCs. Beuc therefore insists that it is high time we revisit the cosmetics Regulation’s approach to these harmful chemicals.
Where does the Commission stand?
With much public fanfare, the European Commission last year announced a review (a ‘Fitness Check’) of EU legislation on endocrine disruptors to assess whether it is fit to protect consumers against EDCs. This Fitness Check will pay particular attention to those areas where legislation lacks provisions for endocrine disruptors, such as cosmetics.
Out of the public eye, however, the Commission also on the same day a review of the cosmetics Regulation with respect to ingredients with endocrine disrupting properties, almost four years behind schedule. In 2017, Beuc complained to the EU ombudsman over the Commission’s failure to meet the legal deadline.
The report provides key insights into how the Commission sees the need – or not – to improve the protection of consumers against EDCs in cosmetic products. Indeed, the experience to date has, according to the Commission, revealed no reason to deviate from the current approach.
Beuc firmly disagrees with this conclusion.
Scratching the surface
While the Commission details how ingredients with endocrine disrupting properties have been tackled to date, the report strangely skirts round three crucial shortcomings of the cosmetics Regulation. Here they are:
First, the report neglects the concerns expressed by the Commission’s scientific advisers, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). As correctly observed by the Commission, the SCCS has confirmed its ability to assess the safety of cosmetic ingredients with endocrine disrupting properties.
But the SCCS also emphasised that the ban on animal testing for cosmetic ingredients means that less robust data is available to identify such substances in the first place. The committee raised this concern again last summer, expressly urging the need for a solution that ensures a high level of consumer protection; yet, the Commission fails to reflect on how this challenge can or should be addressed.
Second, the Commission appears overly confident in the availability of data necessary to identify and assess possible endocrine disrupting effects. For example, the report highlights the ban on several parabens as an example of how EDCs have effectively been regulated under the cosmetics Regulation. However, five of these were banned because limited or no data was available to assess their safety, not because they were identified as EDCs.
This is a recurring problem for the review report. For instance, the SCCS Opinion on 3-benzylidene camphor– another success claimed by the Commission – observes a number of shortcomings in the available studies. Consequently, the SCCS could not assess and verify possible adverse effects on the hormonal system – so again a lack of data.
Finally, the report ignores possible combination or cocktail effects. While the Commission has acknowledged that "exposure to a combination of endocrine disruptors may produce an adverse effect at concentrations at which individually no effect has been observed", the review report fails to mention this issue at all.
It instead focuses exclusively on the ability to perform substance-by-substance risk assessments of individual cosmetics ingredients. Research into chemical mixtures has, however, demonstrated that such an approach can significantly underestimate risks. In a test of 66 cosmetic products, Beuc together with our members Which?, Forbrugerrådet TÆNK, UFC-Que Choisir and Fédération Romande des consommateurs, for example, demonstrated a potential health risk for consumers from daily use of multiple cosmetic products.
The current rules only require that the safety of cosmetics ingredients are assessed in isolation. As a result, risks arising from different ingredients acting in combination may be underestimated.
'The Commission seems overly confident that the current system works well'
The Commission in short seems overly confident that the current system works well.
A new approach to EDCs in cosmetics
Commission vice-president Jyrki Katainen recently reassured the European Parliament that the Fitness Check will feed into thought on whether legislative changes to the cosmetics Regulation – as well as other EU laws – are needed.
That thinking must provide credible answers to the challenges mentioned above; here is our proposal:
First, we need to identify all cosmetic ingredients that may cause endocrine disruption. Despite long-standing concerns over certain ingredients, none to date has explicitly been identified as an EDC. Introducing in the cosmetics Regulation a definition of known and potential EDCs will make it possible to move away from the current burdensome case-by-case risk evaluation, and instead facilitate faster, systematic regulation of such substances based on clear legal criteria.
Building on the existing SCCS guidance, this definition must enable classification of known and potential EDCs based on all available evidence, including from experimental studies.
Second, regulation of cosmetics ingredients with endocrine disrupting properties should be consistent with that of substances of equivalent concern, such as those that cause cancer (CMRs). The cosmetics Regulation prohibits use of known, presumed and suspected CMR substances, and a parallel approach is needed for substances with endocrine disrupting properties to achieve a high level of consumer protection.
Equally, to tackle the cocktail effect, an explicit mandate for performing mixture risk assessments needs to be introduced in the Regulation. Such a mandate has in part already been established under other EU laws, for example, on pesticides, but needs to be significantly strengthened for cosmetics based on clear rules for deriving regulatory acceptable exposure and risk levels.
Ultimately, a more precautionary approach is needed to better protect the health of consumers in situations where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain. Similar to the REACH Regulation, the precautionary principle therefore needs to be enshrined in the legal text of the cosmetics Regulation itself, not just in its recitals.
With a stronger legal basis, supported by the best available scientific evidence, this principle would help guide risk managers in those circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for concern for consumer health, but evidence remains uncertain.
Cosmetic products are a significant, direct source of consumer exposure to potential EDCs. As such, it is imperative that the cosmetics Regulation protects consumers effectively, including from cumulative exposures. Revisiting the approach to these harmful chemicals would thus give consumers a long overdue reason to turn their frowns upside down.
https://chemicalwatch.com/74724/guest-column-time-to-revisit-the-cosmetics-regulations-edcs-approach
-
Offshore Drilling Plan Coming in Weeks, Interior Official Says
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Lee
The Trump administration will release its offshore drilling proposal “in the coming weeks,” according to March 6 written testimony from the acting head of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
That plan could open lease sales in wide swaths of the U.S. offshore from 2019 to 2024. The bureau’s draft proposal has put 98 percent of federal waters on the table.
But bureau officials have said the proposal doesn’t necessarily mean all of those areas will be open to drilling.
In remarks scheduled to be delivered to the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Walter Cruickshank, the bureau’s acting director, said the proposal merely gives Interior “the most comprehensive and up-to-date information on which to base decisions.”
Resistance to the proposal has been intense. The agency has received more than 2 million public comments on the proposal, Cruickshank said.
State LawsuitsAttorneys general from Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia on March joined a motion on March 6 to block the administration’s decision to allow seismic air gun tests in the Atlantic Ocean.
The tests, used to explore the ocean floor for oil and gas deposits, are harmful to marine mammals such whales, dolphins, and porpoises, the motion claims.
At the same hearing, an official at the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement will tell lawmakers that the number of injuries and incidents, such as fires, on offshore drilling platforms and rigs “have shown steady decreases when normalized to levels of activity” over the past two years, despite increased production.
Douglas Morris, chief of the safety bureau’s Office of Offshore Regulatory Programs, also said in his written testimony that the agency is becoming more efficient by limiting the amount of time it spends reviewing records on offshore facilities.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/offshore-drilling-plan-coming-in-weeks-interior-official-says
-
Possible China-U.S. Gas Deal Said to Predate Trade War Talks (1)
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
A new gas supply deal between the U.S. and China that’s expected to be part of a broader trade agreement has been in the works since before the trade war began and was put on ice after tensions flared, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
A deal between Cheniere Energy Inc. and China’s Sinopec, expected to be worth $18 billion, has been cited as a new concession China would make to help end the eight-month spat. But the two had been in talks for about a year only to see progress stall when the Trump administration intensified trade issues in August, according to the people, who asked not to be identified as the information is private.
Sinopec and Cheniere declined to comment.
China is the world’s fastest growing market for LNG, but suppliers in the U.S., on track to be one of the biggest exporters, have seen their efforts to court Chinese buyers jammed up because of the trade dispute.
The two nations are now close to a trade deal that could see the lifting of most or all U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods as long as Beijing follows through on a range of pledges, including buying more U.S. products.Commercial Reasons
Sinopec, officially known as China Petrochemical Corp., is seeking a deal with Cheniere for commercial reasons and to secure a long-term source of LNG, not to appease the Trump administration, one of the people said. The companies have discussed a deal that could range from about 1 million to 2 million tons annually for a period of 20 to 30 years, the people said.
On March 5, Ma Yongsheng, president of Sinopec’s main listed unit, said the company will prepare to buy U.S. LNG as soon as the Chinese government orders it do so, Reuters reported, citing an interview in Beijing.
In February 2018, before trade issues intensified, Cheniere signed a supply pact with PetroChina International Co., a unit of state-owned China National Petroleum Corp., for 1.2 million tons per year over 25 years.
A trade agreement could also see China lower some tariffs. It imposed 10 percent retaliatory import duty on U.S. LNG in September.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/possible-china-u-s-gas-deal-said-to-predate-trade-war-talks-1
-
Pence to Headline Oil and Gas Industry Event in Ohio
Mar 6, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
Vice President Mike Pence is headed to Ohio to headline a fundraiser for the oil and gas industry.
The Republican vice president is to appear Friday at the annual meeting of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, a trade association for companies that explore, produce and develop crude oil and natural gas resources within the state. The event is being held at a hotel in north Columbus.
The appearance comes as President Trump's administration works to promote rollbacks of environmental and safety rules for the energy sector, which government projections show would deliver billions of dollars in savings to regulated companies.
An Associated Press analysis found relaxing those regulations also would increase premature deaths and illnesses from air pollution and increase climate-warming emissions, among other impacts.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/06/stories/1060123293
-
Colorado Lawmakers Weigh Dramatic Overhaul of Oil Drilling Laws
Mar 6, 2019 | Bloomberg (In the Houston Chronicle)
By Catherine Traywick
A proposal to overhaul Colorado’s drilling laws has its first hearing today, pushing the bill one step closer to a vote by the Democrat-controlled state legislature.
The legislation, supported by Governor Jared Polis, would significantly change the way drilling is permitted and amend elements of state law that have been instrumental in developing Colorado’s most prolific oil play, the Denver-Julesburg basin. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Noble Energy Inc. and Extraction Oil and Gas Inc., are among the biggest acreage holders in the basin.
While Colorado has some of the strictest environmental regulations of any oil-producing state, the law has generally favored development, granting the energy regulator broad authority over siting and drilling. Below are a few of the key changes proposed:
As the proposed changes center on public health and safety, they would disproportionately affect Denver-Julesburg producers, whose acreage overlaps with Denver’s expanding suburbs.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Colorado-Lawmakers-Weigh-Dramatic-Overhaul-of-Oil-13666719.php
-
Big Hit to Petrochemical Profits Dings Industry’s Outlook
Mar 6, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
U.S. petrochemical companies have raced ahead in recent years, taking advantage of a flood of cheap natural gas to feed their operations, earn big profits and expand rapidly. But the juggernaut that is remaking the Gulf Coast into a global center for the petrochemical industry hit a speed bump at the end of last year as prices fell, costs rose and competition intensified.
Houston’s biggest chemical companies, which employ thousands around the region, reported weaker than expected earnings in the last three months of 2018, sustaining double-digit declines in their profits compared to the previous year. LyondellBasell’s fourth quarter profits dove 63 percent year-over-year; Huntsman Corp. posted a $340 million loss; Westlake Chemical’s profits were slashed by $679 million year-over-year.
Even executives at companies that fared better in the fourth quarter, such as Houston’s Phillips 66, which owns Chevron Phillips Chemical, and DowDupont, which has operations in Houston, complained of falling prices for polyethylene, the most common plastic and a key product for U.S. petrochemical industry.Unlimited Digital Access for as little as $0.99.Read more articles like this by subscribing to the Houston Chronicle SUBSCRIBE
The decline in profits stemmed in part from a one-time tax benefit that inflated earnings a year ago, but market trends, including falling polyethylene prices, rising material costs, softer demand and tougher competition also played roles in the disappointing performances.
High density polyethylene prices in Asia, a growing market for Gulf Coast chemical makers, fell nearly 20 percent from July to January, according to the research and consulting firm IHS Markit. Trade conflicts and a slowing global economy cut into demand and exacerbated the price declines. At the same time, bottlenecks in processing natural gas for chemical applications have boosted costs for a key raw material, ethane.
As a result, this year could be the first pause in the long-run of steadily growing profits for the industry, analysts say
"It has been 11-to-12 years since we were so universally ambivalent about owning chemical shares," said Charles Neivert, analyst with the New York financial service firm Cowen, in a note to clients.
Crude’s impact
Many Gulf Coast chemical makers pinned poor profits in the fourth quarter on the 40 percent plunge in crude prices from the beginning of October to the end of December. Even though Gulf Coast chemical producers rely on a natural gas feedstock to make chemicals, crude oil prices have a significant impact profits. That’s because petrochemical producers here must compete with foreign producers making the same products an oil-based feedstock known as naphtha.
Low natural gas prices have given Gulf Coast manufacturers an advantage in recent years, particularly as crude prices climbed higher. Crude oil’s price plunge have erased some the advantage, allowing foreign competitors to lower their prices and regain market share.
The drop in crude oil prices also can dampen demand by creating uncertainty about future pricing that leads customers to use up existing inventory before buying more product, in the hope of lower prices later, noted Steve Zinger, senior vice president of petrochemicals with the research and analysis firm Wood Mackenzie. LyondellBasell, Huntsman and Tennessee’s Eastman Chemical said their customers did just that at the end of last year.
“U.S. companies are still making more money than thir European and Asian counterparts - they’re just not making as much as they were say last year or the year before,” said Zinger.
Adding to that downward pressure on demand and prices was uncertainty over a potential new round of tariffs and counter tariffs affected trade with China, where purchases of petrochemicals slowed in the fourth quarter, said Mark Eramo, vice president of energy and chemicals for IHS Markit, a global research firm. Prices for ethylene, a petrochemical compound that is building block of most plastics, were down more than 30 percent in January from six months earlier.
Supply-demand squeeze
The main feedstock used by Gulf Coast chemical makers is ethane, a byproduct of oil and gas drilling that is processed in ethylene. As both demand and prices for products have softened, U.S. petrochemical makers also have had to contend with sharply rising ethane prices.
In September, ethane prices hit their highest levels since 2012, said Clint Follette, global head of the Boston Consulting Group’s petrochemicals practice. From July to September, the average monthly price for ethane shot up by almost 50 percent, he added.
The spike is largely due to a lack of pipelines and processing capacity that is crimping supplies of ethane, which is separated from the natural gas stream in a process called fractionation. Pipeline and fractionation constraints should begin to ease by the end of the year, but they’re like to get worse before they get better as several new petrochemical projects come online,increasing the demand for ethane.
In the next three years, U.S. capacity to process ethane into ethylene will swell by more than 25 percent as several major projects add a collective 9 million metric tons of production capacity, mostly along the Gulf Coast, according to IHS Markit.
That increased demand plus bottlenecks in ethane supply could mean more spikes in ethane prices in the year ahead, analysts said.
“There is still plenty of ethane coming out of the ground,” Zinger of Wood Mackenzie said, “but the problem is we don’t have enough infrastructure to get ethane from the wells to the chemicals.”
Most analysts say the jump in ethane prices is temporary. Energy companies are still producing large volumes of ethane alongside record crude and natural gas production; prices should fall once pipeline and fractionation capacity catches up.
Demand for plastics - the key driver for petrochemicals - is also expected to accelerate, analysts said. Developed economies typically use about 20 times more plastic than developing economies on a per capita basis, signaling the potential for a massive growth in developing nations, such as India and China, mature, according to the International Energy Agency.
“If there’s over-supply (of petrochemicals), that’s rather temporary and that might impact pricing a bit for a period,” said Follette. “in the long run, demand is going to continue to grow and all these investments (in petrochemical projects) are going to find a market for their product.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Big-hit-to-petrochemical-profits-dings-13666775.php
-
Over 1,000 Va. Facilities Face Toxic Flood Threat — Report
Mar 6, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Over 1,000 industrial facilities likely handling toxic and hazardous substances in Virginia face threats from flooding, storm surge and sea-level rise, according to a new report.
The Center for Progressive Reform worked with the James River Association and Chesapeake Commons to look at flooding scenarios in the James River watershed and combined those data with information on social vulnerability to disasters.
The report found that more than 473,000 people — or about 1 in 6 residents in the James River watershed — live in areas vulnerable to toxic floodwaters. People who work and attend school in these communities are also vulnerable, according to the report.
"Low-income communities and other vulnerable populations are situated in the heart of climate change and toxic flooding risks in Virginia," said David Flores, a policy analyst at CPR and a co-author of the report.
As climate change continues, extreme storms and flooding will likely get worse, the report said.
Specifically, it found that the tidal region of the James River, which runs from Richmond to Hampton Roads, is home to 234 facilities that would be flooded by future sea-level rise between 1 and 5 feet.
The report also found that 587 facilities storing or handling toxic chemicals are in designated 100-year flood zones, and 819 facilities are in designated 500-year flood zones.
Virginia residents are vulnerable to contamination events similar to what happened in North Carolina after Hurricane Florence and in Texas and Louisiana after Hurricane Harvey, the report said. Coal ash storage facilities and hog waste lagoons flooded in North Carolina, contaminating the state's southeastern communities. In Texas and Louisiana, more than 650 industrial facilities were potentially exposed to floodwaters, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
State laws don't do enough to protect vulnerable residents, the authors said.
"Resiliency and equity should be threaded throughout any work done on climate and toxic floodwaters in the commonwealth," said Noah Sachs, a University of Richmond law professor and report co-author. "Right now, regulation and enforcement in Virginia are lagging on these needs, a problem policymakers can and should correct."
The authors suggest that the state establish a toxic floodwater task force to investigate and recommend policy reforms.
They also recommend that the state improve public access to data about potential chemical hazards.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/06/stories/1060123303
-
Oil-Train Restriction Bill Passes Washington Senate
Mar 5, 2019 | AP (In King 5 News)
The Washington Senate passed a bill Monday that would target oil trains by requiring crude oil passing through to be made less volatile.
Under the bill, companies planning to unload or store oil in Washington would first have to put it through extra processing to reduce its tendency to evaporate, starting in 2020.
Lawmakers voted 27-20 in favor of the measure, sending it to the state House.
The bill's sponsor, Democratic majority leader Sen. Andy Billig of Spokane, described it as targeting especially oil trains containing Bakken Crude, which he said pass within hundreds of yards of schools and residences in his district.
"All of those people and entities are in danger from a possible explosion if there were a derailment," Billig said.
Oil train derailments can lead to intense fires. In Lac-Megantic, Canada, a derailment and fire killed 47 and destroyed 30 buildings in 2013. A 2016 fire in Oregon's Columbia River Gorge spilled 42,000 gallons and burned for 14 hours.
Related: Oil train safety symposium draws crowd
Flammable vapors are part of what makes a fuel volatile, and supporters of the measure said it would make the oil trains that pass through the state on a daily basis safer.
But critics of the proposal said it would amount to a de facto ban on shipment of oil, especially oil from North Dakota known as Bakken Crude, by rail in the state because the cost of additional processing would make it cheaper to ship oil via routes outside of Washington.
Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, also questioned whether the process in question — reducing the vapor pressure of the oil carried by the trains — would actually make oil trains any safer.
"I believe the point of this is to block those cars from coming through," Ericksen said. "We'd lose a lot of good union jobs."
Billig said after the vote that his office had not performed any independent analysis of the bill's economic impact on the state, but that he thought oil companies would choose to do the extra processing.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/oil-train-restriction-bill-passes-washington-senate/281-201a0509-9de7-4ca1-864f-ef92a6557cb0
-
Settlement Wins Protections at Bakersfield Oil Train Terminal
Mar 5, 2019 | YubaNet
Community and environmental groups reached a settlement with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Bakersfield Crude Terminal and Plains All American that will reduce air emissions and increase safety at the largest crude-by-rail terminal operating in California.
This settlement of a 2015 lawsuit requires the Bakersfield Crude Terminal in Taft, Calif. to use safer tank cars, swap some diesel equipment for electrical equipment or offset nitrogen oxide emissions, cease unnecessary engine idling of onsite equipment and increase monitoring for flammable or toxic air pollutants.
“Safer tank cars rolling on our rails and less diesel emissions will help protect the low-income communities of color that are being impacted every day by the transport of fossil fuels,” said Andres Soto, an organizer with Communities for a Better Environment.
In 2014 the air district approved permits for the Bakersfield Crude Terminal to construct an oil water separator and sump system to collect oily water runoff from the facility. Up to two 100-car trains per day can be processed by the terminal.
The lawsuit brought by Communities for a Better Environment, and by Earthjustice on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, the Association of Irritated Residents, Stand and Sierra Club, challenged the air district’s permits.
“The San Joaquin Valley region has the highest rate of childhood asthma in the state,” said Maya Golden-Krasner, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “This agreement will help curb diesel pollution and these improvements will go a long way in protecting communities along the rail lines.”
“These safeguards represent a victory for Californians by improving the safety and reducing the potential impact of crude-by-rail to the environment and the community,” said Gordon Nipp, Vice-Chair of the Sierra Club Kern-Kaweah Chapter.
https://yubanet.com/california/settlement-wins-protections-at-bakersfield-oil-train-terminal/
-
New Climate Panel’s First Hearing Expected by Early April
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Leaders of a newly formed House committee to address climate change expect to hold their first hearing later this month or in early April, Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said March 5.
Castor and Garret Graves (R-La.), the chairwoman and ranking member of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, are set to meet this week to discuss the scope, budget and other details before they hold their first hearing.
The committee, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) revived in January, has no legislative or subpoena power like a standing committee. It will provide a springboard for ideas on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to sea-level rise and extreme weather events.
The spectrum of views on the committees ranges widely. Democrats include Reps. Jared Huffman (Calif.) and Joe Neguse (Colo.), who have endorsed the Green New Deal, an ambitious blueprint to phase out fossil fuels from the economy.
‘Redefine the Narrative’
Republican members such as Reps. Gary Palmer (Ala.) and Buddy Carter (Ga.) have questioned that rising carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels exacerbate climate change.
But Republicans, including top members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, have begun proposing policies to curb climate change that include increasing nuclear and hydropower capacity, and investing in carbon capture and storage technology.
“I’ve noticed a change in the rhetoric from the Republican side of the aisle this Congress,” Castor told reporters. “They’re not questioning if it’s happening.”
Graves said he hoped to “redefine the narrative” on the issue.
“I said years ago that I think that flat-out science denial is an unsustainable policy position,” he said.
He said he will promote ideas that will reduce energy costs while lowering emissions and aggressively pursuing adaptation measures.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-climate-panels-first-hearing-expected-by-early-april
-
The Energy 202: Why Ex-Military Leaders Are Trying to Stop Trump's Panel to Counter Climate Science
Mar 6, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Fifty-eight former high-ranking military and intelligence officials issued a stern warning to the White House: Think twice about creating a panel to counter the government’s own findings that climate change poses a threat to national security.
“Imposing a political test on reports issued by the science agencies, and forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments that depend on them, will erode our national security,” wrote a group of former generals, admirals and other national security officials in a letter Tuesday to President Trump, which I reported on here. “It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics.”
They are objecting to plans by top administration officials to convene an ad hoc group of select federal scientists to scrutinize and potentially dispute the conclusions of recent federal climate reports, which The Post's Juliet Eilperin, Josh Dawsey and Brady Dennis revealed last week.
Officials are still determining what sort of group they will assemble to assess the government’s scientific findings and whether they will eventually establish an independent federal advisory committee to scrutinize climate science.
Yet the letter writers, who include heavyweights from President Barack Obama’s administration such as former secretary of state John F. Kerry and former secretary of defense Chuck Hagel, already worry the panel will end up unduly “second-guessing the scientific sources” that underpin the grave conclusions from most military leaders that climate change is a menace to the nation’s security. They do not want the White House to, as they say, “dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change.”
The question is whether there is any chance that Trump — a commander in chief who likes to boast about “my generals” and “my military” — will listen to these former military leaders.
“This letter is not an attack on the president, it is an offer of dialogue,” said Andrew Holland, chief operating officer of the American Security Project. His group, along with the Center for Climate and Security, another policy and research nonprofit organization focused on security issues, organized the letter.
In various military and intelligence reports, military leaders predict that the impact of climate change will directly endanger U.S. facilities — for example, a rise in sea level is expected to increase the risk of flooding at some naval bases. They also project that climate change will exacerbate conditions, such as drought, that lead to conflict.
But for years, Trump himself has had his mind made up: Climate change is “madness,” a “con,” a “hoax.” His administration has worked hard to unravel efforts under the previous president to curb climate-warming emissions from coal-fired power plants, natural gas wells and automobiles.
Still, Holland said “we do hold out hope” of convincing Trump.
“We actively hope that he will listen to people like his daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law Jared Kushner,” he said.
The couple, who both serve as senior White House advisers, each urged the president to keep the United States in the Paris climate accord, an international deal meant to keep the world below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. But the president said early in his term the country would pull out of the widely hailed agreement.
Kerry helped broker that agreement for Obama. He, in particular, has made the urgency to curb global warming a focal point of his post-government career. In a recent Post op-ed denouncing Trump’s climate panel, Kerry called the administration’s efforts to “paralyze” U.S. climate action its “most dangerous collision with facts.”
But there is yet another goal to the letter, according to Holland: “To offer clear support” to career officers still working on climate and security issues within the federal bureaucracy.
In January, for instance, the national intelligence director delivered a worldwide threat assessment on “climate hazards” such as extreme weather and acidifying oceans, which threaten "infrastructure, health, and water and food security.”
And in November, scientists from 13 federal agencies published a National Climate Assessment that concluded that “the impacts of climate change are intensifying across the country.”
In an indication of where the White House panel is headed, Charles Kupperman, deputy national security adviser, said during the Situation Room meeting that Trump was upset that his administration had issued the National Climate Assessment at, The Post reported last week.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/03/06/the-energy-202-why-ex-military-leaders-are-trying-to-stop-trump-s-panel-to-counter-climate-science/5c7f0bf61b326b2d177d5fdf/?utm_term=.edf55d41fc22
-
Republicans Just Can’t Stop Talking About the Green New Deal
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Republicans are embracing an ambitious plan by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to avert climate change—but not because they favor the Green New Deal.
The party hopes they can use it to take back seats in Congress and possibly keep the White House in 2020.
They are featuring the proposal in tweets, billboards, and media appearances as they seek to paint Democrats as environmental extremists and socialists. A cadre of Republican senators plan to take to the Senate floor March 6 to bash the plan.
“We are preparing to have a nice informative colloquy on that issue,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said in an interview. “We’ll be making some points about the lack of realism and the enormous, unbelievable price tag.”
Talking points distributed at the Republican’s weekly caucus meeting March 5 refer to the plan as “nonsense on stilts” and a “vehicle for socialists policies that have nothing to do with climate change.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has vowed to bring the Green New Deal resolution up for a vote within weeks.
Democrats are using the debate to point out Republicans have yet to craft a plan of their own to fight climate change. They’re asking Republicans to sign onto a recently introduced resolution that affirms climate change is real, caused by humans, and that Congress needs to take action.
“Climate change is the most significant crisis facing humanity and Democrats are prepared to take bold action to address it but Republicans are standing in the way,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/republicans-just-cant-stop-talking-about-the-green-new-deal
-
Schumer Proposes Senate Select Committee
Mar 6, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) today proposed a Senate version of the climate change select committee in yet another rebuttal to Republican rhetoric about the Green New Deal.
"Over the next few decades, climate change will affect every part of American life — our health, our economy, our national security, even our geography — so if there was ever an issue that demanded particular focus from this chamber, it's climate change," Schumer said in his morning remarks on the floor.
"That's why today I'm introducing a resolution to create a select committee on climate change to correspond with the House committee created this year for the same purpose," he said.
Senate leaders have devoted an unusual amount of time to climate change over the last few weeks, as Republicans blast the Green New Deal and Democrats question whether the GOP is still the party of climate skepticism.
The Green New Deal resolution, from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), calls for a 10-year economic mobilization to transition the country to 100 percent renewable energy.
After the midterms, an early version of the proposal caused division in the Democratic caucus as the party debated how to structure the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
That House panel, chaired by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), is poised to start hearings as soon as this month (E&E Daily, March 6).
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) isn't likely to accept Schumer's proposed Senate select panel. But Democrats see it as another way to question whether Republicans care about the issue or whether they even believe climate science.
"I understand my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the Green New Deal," Schumer said. "OK, that's fine. What's your plan? Maybe a lot of members think they can get away without having to answer the question. They won't."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/06/stories/1060123299
-
Report Flags GHG, Health Effects of Six Trump Rollbacks
Mar 6, 2019 | Inside EPA
A new “special report” from New York University's law school is highlighting the combined greenhouse gas increases and health effects of six Trump administration environmental rollbacks, part of a broad defense of state attorneys general (AG) lawsuits challenging the rollbacks.
“If the administration is successful, our nation's ability to fight climate change will be set back years,” according to the report, “Climate and Health Showdown In the Courts: State Attorneys General Prepare to Fight,” released by NYU's State Energy and Environmental Impact Center.
The report collects key pollution and health impact estimates -- based on regulatory impact analyses and draft environmental impact statements -- for six major regulations EPA and other agencies are crafting to reverse Obama-era climate rules, assuming the rollbacks are not blocked by litigation.
And it touts the importance of state AG efforts to resist those rollbacks.
“On a rule-by-rule basis, the economic, public health and environmental impacts of these deregulatory actions are enormous. They will result in hundreds of billions of dollars in forgone benefits, while also causing millions of additional asthma attacks and tens of thousands of additional premature deaths,” NYU says in March 5 press release.
The report focus on several deregulatory efforts, including EPA's planned replacement for the Clean Power Plan; the administration's proposed freeze of vehicles fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards; EPA's proposed rollback of emissions standards for “glider” trucks; the agency's reversal of oil and gas sector rules to control methane from new and existing sources; Interior Department curbs of oil and gas methane on public lands; and an EPA rule to control landfill methane emissions.
“The Trump administration's actions amount to a virtual surrender to climate change,” the report states, “allowing more than 200 million metric tons of [carbon dioxide] equivalent to be emitted annually by 2025. . . . At the same time, these actions bring with them increased levels of conventional pollutants.”
“The stakes could not be higher,” adds one section of the report, referencing in particular the proposed freeze of vehicle GHG and fuel economy standards, a rule now pending at EPA and the Transportation Department.
“The coalition of states currently aligned against the rollback of the Clean Car Standards, for instance, represent more than 50 percent of the U.S. population and more than 50 percent of all registered vehicles,” the report notes.
The report was released at a March 5 event hosted at NYU's Washington, D.C., campus featuring vows by several state AGs -- from Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Massachusetts -- to fight the rollbacks in court.
The remarks framed a legal and political battle with the Trump administration that has only just begun.
“Donald Trump ran for president saying he was going to be a change agent,” Maryland AG Brian Frosh (D) said during the event. “Unfortunately he has. He has become an agent of climate change.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/report-flags-ghg-health-effects-six-trump-rollbacks
-
Mitch McConnell Wants a Green New Deal Vote. Democrats Should Take Him up on It.
Mar 6, 2019 | Vox
By David Roberts
The introduction of the Green New Deal resolution in Congress by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) has unleashed a cascade of events that have left Democrats poised on the edge of some fateful decisions, decisions that could determine how the Green New Deal and the larger effort to decarbonize the US economy are viewed in the coming election cycle.
Just after the resolution was introduced, a rush of Democrats endorsed it, including, at last count, at least six presidential candidates, 89 members of the House, and 12 senators. It surged on a wave of initial momentum.
This has made “moderate” Dems nervous. The natural inclination of “moderate” Democrats is to shy away from anything that conservatives decry as “extreme” or “socialist” and that the media thus portrays as “controversial” (i.e., almost everything).
And they are itching to flee again. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, with an unerring ability to smell weakness among his opponents, has threatened to schedule a floor vote on the GND, hoping to draw differences among Democrats to the surface.
To his credit, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer has not backed down, instead challenging McConnell to affirm the reality of climate change. And Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) have called on McConnell to hold a full day of floor debate on the subject.
Into this clash of wills came Sen. Dianne Feinstein, newly reelected by the extremely climate-progressive state of California.
Feinstein’s follies
First there was a bunch of viral outrage about a video showing Feinstein addressing some kids who had come to her office to ask her to endorse the GND. She told them, among other things, that the GND would not pass the Senate, the situation would not be turned around in 10 years, and they hadn’t voted for her anyway, what with being children.
But the more revealing move came later, when Feinstein released an alternate climate change resolution. The obvious goal was to give “moderate” Democrats a way out, something climate-related to support that is less offensive to the Washington pundit class of which they are so terrified. (Meanwhile, polling has found that the GND is broadly supported by majorities in both parties.)
The alternative resolution was first leaked, then posted to Feinstein’s site; then there was enormous backlash as activists flooded her office with letters, and then the resolution was taken down. Now Feinstein says it was never meant to be posted at all. (This botched rollout, oddly, received a tiny fraction of the media attention given to the GND’s errant FAQ.)
“I’m trying to draft another one, which might be more acceptable,” Feinstein told E&E News, “but it’s not done yet.” She hasn’t yet explained why an alternate resolution is necessary at all, given that hers is no more “paid for” than the GND, does not seem to be supported by leadership, and has no more prospects in Congress than any other climate plan. The only effect could be to divide Democrats.
Democrats face some fateful decisions on climate
Schumer and the Democrats must now decide what to do about McConnell’s threat and Feinstein’s potential alternate resolution. More to the point, they must decide what to do about climate change, and about the GND. Their choices in the months ahead will shape how the subject is seen in the 2020 election cycle and beyond.
They could stick together and show Republicans, and the public, that there is a new, stronger consensus behind reducing emissions. Or they could demonstrate that the party remains divided, weak, and hesitant — and that the GOP has plenty of room to continue cynically slow-walking the issue.
As a stopgap measure, last week Schumer introduced a joint resolution stating simply that climate change is real, it’s caused by humans, and Congress needs to do something about it. All 47 members of the caucus endorsed it.
“It’s not just that climate change is real and caused by humans. I think that was five years ago,” Schatz said to E&E News. “Congressional action is required, and that’s the key here.”
With respect to Schatz, who is a top-five senator on climate issues, I think this is wrong. “Climate change is real” and “caused by humans” were about 30 years ago. And that was also when Congress should have acted. The consensus Democrats are unanimously supporting is perilously behind the times, something that should have been settled decades ago.
What’s new is that activists have pushed the ultimate goal — total decarbonization of the US economy by midcentury — onto the political agenda.
That’s what the GND debate is about — not whether Congress needs to act, or particular policies, but whether the Democratic Party will clearly unite behind, and take seriously, the goal of fair and equitable economy-wide decarbonization by midcentury. Anyone who supports that goal — and every Democrat should — ought to unite behind and amplify the GND.
Democrats must heed the context
To understand the import of the decision, contemplate the context. I’ve already had my sayabout what I think GND critics are missing. It comes down to three key facts:
1. Climate change is an extremely urgent and fast-moving catastrophe; the time left to adequately deal with it is rapidly diminishing. The status quo — a world with tepid-to-no US leadership — leads to disaster.
2. The US political system is a dumpster fire; the right is past reasoning, and there’s no prospect for any cooperation on any climate response of any remotely appropriate scale; “moderate” Democrats have found the balance of incentives, and they lean toward slow, incremental action. The Venn diagram of adequate climate solutions and politically possible climate solutions is currently empty. The status quo leads to disaster.
3. The only way to change the status quo is through power, and the only power available to progressives on this issue is people power — bodies in the streets, in congressional offices, and in voting booths. Any plan to address climate change must involve not just policy but the question of how to build people power around it and thus change the status quo.
This is the context that activists are pressing members of Congress to acknowledge, pushing on all fronts. They noticed that Feinstein had accepted a few donations from oil PACs that violate her “no fossil money” policy and wrote her a letter asking her to return them, which she subsequently did.
And on February 25, 250 high school activists from Kentucky flooded McConnell’s office to protest his plan for a show vote. He has since said he’ll delay it, perhaps getting to it sometime before August recess.
Take note: For all the scolding they are receiving from pundits, it is the activists with energy behind them. They are the ones pushing this story forward, holding Democrats to account and leaving them with fewer and fewer excuses, which is the whole point.
Schumer is in a familiar bind
Schumer is now trapped in a familiar bind: He has to decide whether to vote on something bold and ambitious, which could divide his caucus, or to continue dodging clear votes and rallying behind nonthreatening statements of purpose that will receive the full backing of his caucus but won’t excite anyone.
This is just another version of the trap Democrats have been in since 2010. Since there is zero prospect of Republican cooperation, being “realistic” about legislative goals means crafting them so they are acceptable to the rightmost member of the Democratic caucus. (Recall when Joe Lieberman single-handedly killed the public option in Obamacare.)
Currently, that’s Sen. Joe Manchin, the great champion of coal from West Virginia and, mysteriously, ranking member on the Senate Energy Committee. Here’s what he told E&E News:
“Everybody’s going to have to find out where they’re comfortable on [the Green New Deal],” Manchin told reporters yesterday. “It’s basically just messaging, which is strictly political posturing.”
Manchin reiterated his own view that technology should be developed to allow for continued and cleaner use of fossil fuels.
Yes, more fossil fuels! “That’s where we should be going to reduce our carbon footprint,” Manchin said, “and also hopefully developing more clean energy.”
It doesn’t seem like “and also hopefully developing more clean energy” is a slogan that will rally the troops. More bluntly, there is no adequate climate change solution, a plan bold enough to shake up US politics, that will get Manchin’s signature.
Moderate Democratic solutions have failed
Democrats, forced to either rally behind ambitious solutions that will fail in their own caucus or lower their sights enough to get the votes of “moderates,” have typically pursued the latter strategy. It is, according to conventional Washington wisdom, the savvy, realistic, and pragmatic strategy.
Except it’s been a total failure. The last large-scale advance in social welfare signed into law was Obamacare in 2010, and that passed the Senate (initially) with 60 Democratic votes and zero Republican votes. Republicans have vowed total zero-sum political warfare and followed through with remarkable consistency. It has benefited them enormously. They face little incentive to change course, even if Democrats win all three branches in November 2020.
A few Democrats of that era have come to grips with the failure of their theory of change, UC Berkeley economist Brad DeLong among them. In his conversation with Vox’s Zack Beauchamp, he says:
Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney’s health care policy, with John McCain’s climate policy, with Bill Clinton’s tax policy, and George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy. He’s all these things not because the technocrats in his administration think they’re the best possible policies, but because [White House adviser] David Axelrod and company say they poll well.
Those were the moderate, pragmatic options, meant to harvest broad bipartisan support. Instead, once Democrats adopted them in earnest, they ran headlong into a wall of united opposition and ceaseless attack by the conservative media apparatus. They were all polarized down to the root; they all became “socialism.”
“We were certainly wrong, 100 percent, on the politics,” DeLong says.
Nothing has changed since then. Indeed, all the American right’s worst tendencies have been unleashed by President Trump, all its petty cruelty and lurid conspiracy theorizing. Republicans have never been less likely to give a major Democratic legislative push a fair hearing.
Nonetheless, older Democrats, especially, palpably wish for a return to Obama-era politics, normal politics, which they understand and know how to operate in. (They are not the only ones in the US political establishment with this fervent wish.)
If that happens, there will be no adequate climate change policy at the federal level. Period.
Without seriously bold moves from Democrats, climate legislation will go nowhere
Say a Dem wins the presidency, Dems keep the House, and Dems win, oh, a 51-vote majority in the Senate — which won’t be easy, even in 2020.
Any climate change legislation will either get nine Republican votes in the Senate (ha ha) or be filibustered and die. Done. That’s it for a real climate agenda.
That’s what Democrats who support the filibuster are implicitly promising: a return to Obama-era politics, in which Democrats propose things, Republicans block them, and in the subsequent void of accomplishment, political life is filled with impotent, symbolic partisan jousting, grievances and counter-grievances.
As for getting things done on climate change, that will leave executive action, the only real tool available to Obama for six of his eight years, and a thoroughly inadequate one.
Say Schumer scraps or seriously reforms the filibuster and Dems make Puerto Rico and DC into states, gaining four reliable Senate votes — which also won’t be easy.
Then you’re getting somewhere. But even then, something truly ambitious won’t get 50-plus votes in the Senate unless there is an organized, nationwide, people-powered movement behind it, putting bodies in the offices of lawmakers in every state and district, including the red ones, rallying constituents around a hopeful vision of transformation and renewal.
None of that is normal politics; all of it sounds risky and a little wild. But again: The status quo leads to disaster. Normal politics leads to disaster.
Schumer may be able to wriggle out of the trap this time with a banal resolution, but Democrats can’t play this game forever. They can’t say they take climate change seriously and then make “doing something” their metric of success. It’s two-faced.
Activists are forcing them to confront the contradiction. That, not particular policies, is what the GND is all about: forcing Democrats to take their own words, and the science, seriously.
The GND is not a policy blueprint
Among the many misunderstandings of the GND resolution upon its release was the notion that it was just another policy white paper. That’s how critic after critic approached it, as though it were a peculiarly vague and lofty policy proposal.
On those grounds, it’s terrible. It barely mentions any policies. It leaves out whole areas of important policy. It lacks concrete goals and timelines.
But the thing is, it’s not a policy proposal. It doesn’t ban cars or cows or planes, it doesn’t prohibit (or include) nuclear power, it doesn’t exclude (or include) a carbon tax. It contains no urban density policies, no R&D policies, no international policies. It contains no job guarantee or health care or housing or trade policies either. It contains no policies at all.
One more time, for the cheap seats: It is not, and was not meant to be, a policy blueprint.
All the pundits with “better” policy blueprints are shadowboxing, comparing apples and oranges.
The GND is, thus far, a nonbinding resolution, explicitly meant as a prelude to two years of intense policy development. It kicks off that development with a statement of intent: the goals that policies must achieve and the principles that policies must abide by.
When it comes to climate change, this is no small thing. If you acknowledge the basic imperative — to reduce the US economy to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner, in a fair and equitable way — a great deal follows about how you must make policy. For one thing, as the GND says, you must make it comprehensive and fast. Completely decarbonizing the US economy by 2050 is a gargantuan task. For any hope of success, progress must begin immediately.
Feinstein’s resolution reveals the contradiction at the heart of Democratic climate policy
Feinstein’s aborted resolution is an odd beast, neither fish nor fowl, replacing some of the GND resolution’s goals and principles with an unwieldy mix of goals and specific policies, again as though this were a matter of competing white papers.
If you squint at it just right, it’s not that different from the GND resolution. It stresses a just and equitable transition for all communities. It stresses the creation of good-paying jobs. And above all, it targets net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner.
The difference is in the urgency, or lack thereof. The GND is specifically meant to establish a 10-year crash program, starting in 2020. It does not, contra a million pieces of careless journalism on this, target economy-wide net-zero emissions within 10 years. (That would be impossible.) It establishes the goal of net-zero emissions in all economic sectors, but it does not set timetables — because, again, it is not policy. The point of the whole thing is to develop a 10-year program to get started on all of this.
In place of any kind of crash program, Feinstein has a list of what are, effectively, Obama climate policies: rejoin the Paris agreement, reinstate the Clean Power Plan, reinstate fuel economy standards, reinstate methane emissions standards for oil and gas drilling, etc.
Those are all worthy policies, but we know where Obama’s policies were heading. They would not have met America’s 2020 carbon emissions goal (17 percent below 2005 levels), much less the much more aggressive targets required for full decarbonization. And that was before Trump squandered four years. At this point, even repairing those policies could take a full presidential term.
So the overall effect of Feinstein’s resolution is jarring: a wildly ambitious goal alongside a list of incrementalist policies that manifestly will not achieve it.
And that has basically been the mainstream Democratic position on climate change, almost since the beginning. They acknowledge the lofty midcentury goal in their rhetoric and do nothing to support the kinds of policies that would make it achievable.
Why? Because the Joe Manchins of the party wouldn’t vote for those policies, and neither would a single Republican.
The GND resolution is an attempt to force Democrats’ hands, to bind the party to this goal once and for all.
Now is the moment for unanimity of intent; policy will come after
Critics on the right have imagined a bizarro-world GND into existence, and they are attacking that, as is their wont.
Spoiler alert: Critics on the right will do the same to literally any Democratic proposal. (And if lovers of the supposedly bipartisan carbon tax think the right can’t do the exact same thing to carbon taxes if they need to, they haven’t been paying attention.)
But critics on the left, broadly speaking, have done something not so different, reading all sorts of policies into the GND and descending into policy-ranking debates that put the cart before the horse.
The GND establishes aspirations: rapidly decarbonize the economy, invest in jobs and infrastructure, and manage the transition in a way that protects workers and especially vulnerable communities from the inevitable disruptions.
Feinstein’s resolution shares all these goals. Most Democrats share those goals. They should say so!
What about something like the job guarantee? When I talked to Rhiana Gunn-Wright, at the New Consensus think tank where GND policy is being hammered out, for this piece, she said the job guarantee could start as expansions of existing programs, or with regional pilots, or pilots focused on particular industries, and a national program could be bricolaged together over time. She is approaching the goal pragmatically.
In that and in the other GND aspirations, there is plenty of room for debate about which policies, how fast, how to prioritize, and so on. The GND does not bind Democrats to any particular answers to those questions. It is, explicitly, a nonbinding resolution.
It will all go through the policymaking sausage grinder eventually. But the differences over policy are not as large as the left’s (characteristic) infighting makes it seem. Everyone roughly agrees that climate policy will involve some sort of carbon pricing, a whole bunch nitty-gritty regulations (like performance standards), a large investment in RD&D, and a bunch of industrial policy — public investments in infrastructure, public works, and particular communities and industries, meant to guide private capital and innovation and address historic inequalities.
That’s what the GND will be, more or less what the 2008 climate bill was, and what climate policy almost always looks like in the real world. What differs is the scale, speed, priorities, and balance of elements — the distribution of pains and gains, who wins and who loses. That stuff remains to be determined.
The focus now should be on uniting around the goals.
Schumer would be wise to not to back down. Right now this is much more about dominance displays than it is about policy.
Tell McConnell to hold the vote any time. Issue a statement: “While we have plenty of disagreements over policy, we are united behind the Green New Deal’s goal of fully decarbonizing the US economy by midcentury, in a fair and equitable way. We understand that to achieve that goal, Congress must take action immediately.”
That leaves Democrats all the room in the world to argue over policy, when the time comes to actually make some. But it would also, for once, show Democratic unity and confidence in the face of Republican gaslighting.
That’s what this is all about. McConnell is still out attacking his imagined version of the GND, but he has also delayed the vote on it, which is telling.
Though Democrats seem constitutionally incapable of recognizing it, they have the political advantage on climate change. They are on the right side of history. They own the issue, and it’s not going away. Polls show a steady surge of opinion toward concern over climate changeand support for clean energy (to say nothing of anger over income inequality and wage stagnation). Polls repeatedly show that the elements of the Green New Deal are wildly popular with the public, across parties.
The GOP position on climate policy is “they’re taking your cows!” because they’ve got nothing else to say about it. Even many Republicans are realizing that’s an untenable position.
For once, instead of tiptoeing hesitantly with their eyes over their shoulders on the latest polls, Democrats should show some confidence and leadership. They have science on their side and an exciting story to tell about economic renewal, jobs, and common purpose. It’s not Dems who should be scared of a serious debate on these subjects.
McConnell’s vote is entirely symbolic. Schumer should make it the right kind of symbol.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/3/6/18248437/green-new-deal-mitch-mcconnell-schumer-democrats
-
Ares Starts Fund to Profit From Push to Combat Climate Change
Mar 6, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sabrina Willmer
Ares Management Corp., the alternative investment firm overseeing more than $130 billion, is seeking to profit from efforts by governments and companies to tackle climate change.
The firm is creating a strategy, dubbed “climate infrastructure,” that will make investments aimed at cutting greenhouse-gas emissions and promoting better use of natural resources, according to an email to investors that was viewed by Bloomberg.
Ares started officially marketing the Ares Climate Infrastructure Partners fund at the end of January, the email shows.
Bill Mendel, a spokesman for Los Angeles-based Ares, declined to comment.
Companies around the globe are turning to clean power because it reduces electricity bills and helps meet sustainability goals, according to a research paper published by Ares and Aligned Intermediary.
The report also points to government targets such as the European Union’s objective of 32 percent of energy from renewable resources by 2030, California’s push for 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045, and New York’s plan for 50 percent clean electricity, which includes nuclear as well as wind and solar sources, by 2030.
Changing trends are creating a need for infrastructure investment in energy storage, smart grids and electric transmission, according to the white paper. Electric-vehicle charging stations, for example, will require trillions of dollars of investment over the next several decades.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/ares-starts-fund-to-profit-from-push-to-combat-climate-change
-
Here’s Why Arnold Schwarzenegger and Kevin De León Are Teaming up on Climate Change
Mar 6, 2019 | LA Times
By Sammy Roth
Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is joining forces with an influential Democrat to tackle one of California’s biggest problems: pollution from cars and trucks.
The transportation sector is California’s largest source of planet-warming greenhouse gas pollution — and emissions are trending up, not down. But Schwarzenegger and Kevin de León, the former state Senate leader who is now running for a Los Angeles City Council seat, see an opportunity to clear the air.
Schwarzenegger and De León are launching an initiative with environmental activists and researchers at USC and UCLA to study how local governments can speed the adoption of cleaner transportation options and to promote more aggressive action at the state level. Reducing dependence on oil for transportation, they say, would benefit the climate and reduce lung-damaging air pollution in disadvantaged communities.
“Pollution kills people. There’s no getting around it,” De León said in an interview, describing the new initiative publicly for the first time. “And it’s been happening for the last century. It’s just been a very slow burn.”
De León, who ran unsuccessfully against incumbent Democrat Dianne Feinstein for a U.S. Senate seat last year, has been a leading advocate for political action on climate change and air pollution. As a state senator, he wrote the bills that raised California’s clean energy mandate to 50% by 2030, then 100% by 2045.
Schwarzenegger is also a climate change policy veteran. As governor, he signed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which set the first legal requirement for California to slash its greenhouse gas emissions.
The movie star and former governor said he and De León “come from different parties, but we share the belief that we can do better at protecting the people from the health impacts of pollution.”
“I’ve always said there is no Republican air or Democratic air,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. Then-Gov.
The laws pushed by Schwarzenegger and De León have helped reduce emissions to 429 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2016 from 494 million metric tons in 2004, according to state officials. But most of those reductions have been driven by the electricity sector, as homes and businesses use energy more efficiently and utilities replace coal-fired power plants with solar panels, wind turbines and natural gas.
Transportation was responsible for 41% of California’s climate pollution in 2016. And as the economy has grown in recent years, transportation emissions have risen, fueled by increased driving.
Tailpipe pollution also contributed to the 87 consecutive days Southern California violated federal smog standards last summer, said Antonio Bento, an economist who leads USC’s Center for Sustainability Solutions. Bento, who plans to support Schwarzenegger and De León’s initiative with academic research, said a Trump administration proposal to roll back fuel-efficiency rules would only worsen the region’s air pollution.
“It’s absolutely unbelievable that we’ve made so much progress in terms of air quality. But unless we continue to do a major push for the electrification of the fleet, I think we are starting to plateau,” Bento said.
“Electrification of the fleet” means replacing fossil-fuel-powered cars and trucks with electric vehicles. It’s California’s main strategy for slashing transportation emissions, along with promoting alternatives to driving.
So far, the state’s highest-profile efforts to clean up transportation have had mixed results.
Former Gov. Jerry Brown set a goal of putting 5 million electric vehicles on the road by 2030, but just 550,000 EVs have been sold in the state to date, according to Veloz, a nonprofit backed by environmental groups and car companies. And critics say a market-based program known as cap and trade is too gentle on the oil industry, although state officials have defended the program, arguing it has kept transportation emissions from rising even more.
In 2015, De León tried to get a bill through the Legislature that would have mandated a 50% reduction in petroleum use statewide by 2030. But he was forced to strip that measure from the bill amid opposition from the oil industry.
Now, De León and Schwarzenegger are taking an approach they hope will sidestep those thorny politics: focusing on local governments.
Although the state can subsidize electric vehicles and prod utility companies to install EV chargers, cities and counties are largely responsible for the policies that influence how many miles people drive, through actions such as housing and zoning decisions, investments in public transit and regulation of ride-sharing services. Local governments also buy a huge number of buses, trucks and passenger vehicles.
“What the senator and former governor are trying to do is really look to local and regional leaders for lessons of success to describe what has worked and what hasn’t worked,” said J.R. DeShazo, director of UCLA's Luskin Center for Innovation, who is also working on the new initiative. “What we would be doing is helping the senator and the governor take these local strategies and think about how do we scale them statewide.” F
The initiative will also involve researchers at USC, where Schwarzenegger teaches an environmental policy class and chairs an institute named for him. Bento said he and other USC professors plan to conduct research on a variety of topics, possibly including vehicle-buying habits in minority communities, policies that could encourage car dealerships to embrace electric vehicles and the best way to structure incentives for EVs.
“One of the key issues is how do we design public policies so that not only do we promote a cleaner environment, but we also do it in a way that reduces inequalities and brings these technologies to vulnerable communities,” Bento said. “It’s not just subsidizing the purchase, it’s thinking about the entire infrastructure that is needed to allow you to even consider this technology in the first place,” including the availability of charging stations.
From De León’s perspective, reducing emissions needs to be done in a way that helps low-income and minority communities breathe easier. He pointed to his former state Senate district in central and eastern Los Angeles, which he said is crisscrossed by seven freeways.
“Too many kids are sick at home missing school because of dangerous levels of air pollution,” De León said.
Cleaning up the transportation sector won’t be easy, especially in Southern California, which has long been defined by freeways and suburban sprawl. The state’s long-term plan for reducing climate pollution envisions a 15% reduction in miles traveled by light-duty vehicles by 2050, which the state plan says will require strategies such as more infill development, congestion pricing and expanded roles for transit, biking and walking.
The state’s ability to cut emissions will also hinge on the private sector, such as battery manufacturers, automakers and ride-share companies. The biggest player in the electric vehicle market is Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc., which said last week it would finally start selling its Model 3 sedan at the long-promised $35,000 price point.
Bento said he’s excited to work with Schwarzenegger.
“Coming from Portugal, as a kid my idea of him was the Hummer driver in ‘The Terminator,’” Bento said. “It’s been a phenomenal surprise and inspiration to me how much he’s taken this as a big cause of his life now.”
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-schwarzenegger-de-leon-climate-change-20190306-story.html
Industry and Association News
TSCA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested