Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - April 5, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Foods Stay Good Longer, but Is It Worth It?
Apr 5, 2019 | Yahoo News
By Mikaela Conley
In the U.S., bread is whiter, cakes and cookies are brighter, and grocery food typically has a longer shelf life than in Europe. -
(ACC Mentioned) PLASTIMAGEN ‘19: Braskem Idesa Aims at Circular Economy
Apr 4, 2019 | ICIS
Braskem Idesa has joined the Operation Clean Sweep (OCS) programme to minimise pellet leakage at its plants to prevent potential damage to the environment, a company source said on the sidelines of PLASTIMAGEN MEXICO 2019. -
Faced With Poor Court Record, Trump EPA Seeks Voluntary Remands
Apr 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
With a notable losing record in seeking to delay or roll back Obama-era rules, the Trump EPA has sought and won voluntary remand in several recent cases challenging the agency's policies, potentially avoiding additional losses and giving the administration a new opportunity to scale back the policies though any changes will likely still face new suits. -
(ACC Mentioned) Wheeler Seeks To Harmonize EPA Risk Practices, Adding To IRIS Pressure
Apr 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Administrator Andrew Wheeler is asking top EPA scientists to develop new guidance aimed at harmonizing risk assessment practices across the agency, an effort that sources say is likely to put further pressure on the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program and its conservative approaches. -
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Lawmakers Approve Bill to Become First State in the Country to Ban Foam Food Containers
Apr 4, 2019 | The Baltimore Sun
By Luke Broadwater
The Maryland General Assembly gave final approval Wednesday night to a bill that would make Maryland the first state in the country to ban polystyrene foam food containers and cups. -
BPS May Have Prostate Effects, Suggests Rodent Study
Apr 4, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Bisphenol S (BPS) may act as an endocrine disruptor in the prostate, according to a Brazilian rodent study. -
States Step Up Criticism Of EPA's PFAS Plan, Seek Binding Mandates
Apr 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Groups representing state environment officials are publicly criticizing EPA's recently released multi-media action plan for addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), citing weaknesses across many program areas and calling for the agency to go farther such as by setting binding standards for contaminants across multiple media. -
Lawmakers Lay out PFAS Legislation Strategy
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
Lawmakers who are pushing for actions to address toxic nonstick chemicals known as PFAS are eyeing the appropriations process as a way to get their legislation through Congress. -
Dangerous Plastics Are a Threat to Us and Future Generations
Apr 4, 2019 | Common Dreams
By Meena Miriam Yust
Every day people make decisions about what to eat, sometimes opting for colorful fruits and veggies, sometimes finding the smell of bacon irresistible. -
EU Carcinogen Label for Titanium Dioxide Seen as Trade Threat
Apr 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A European Union plan to add warning labels to products with titanium dioxide is under fire from the governments of the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand for potentially disrupting the multi-billion dollar trade in the substance and relevant products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Energy to Construct Five Chemical Recycling Plants in Indonesia
Apr 5, 2019 | Plastics Today
By Stephen Moore
Plastic Energy Limited has reached an agreement with the province of West Java in Indonesia to build five chemical recycling plants. -
Under Rick Perry, Energy Efficiency Standards Targeted
Apr 4, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
A refrigerator purchased today requires only about a quarter of the electricity of a model purchased in the mid-1970s. Similar statistics can be cited for washing machines, air conditioners and thousands of other appliances. -
Industrial Hemp Is The Answer To Petrochemical Dependency
Apr 4, 2019 | Forbes
By Ellis Talton and Remington Tonar
Over the last three weeks, the Houston, TX area has been besieged by chemical fires—the latest resulting in the death of one person and the hospitalization of two others. -
Fracking Could be Heading Us Into the Next Financial Crisis
Apr 4, 2019 | Citizen Truth
By Peter Castagno
The fracking revolution has led to private equity’s highest allocation of investment in fossil fuels in 20 years, but is it basically a Ponzi scheme? -
Is Fracking out of Gas as a Hot-Button Democratic Issue?
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Kelsey Brugger
As the nation's natural gas production booms, Democrats eyeing the White House may find themselves in a fracking fight. -
Cheap Gas Could Shackle Booming Export Industry
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Business leaders are warning that new investment in infrastructure for liquefied natural gas exports and imports across the globe is facing a critical hurdle: cheap gas. -
Colorado E&Ps to Face More Scrutiny Under Oil, Gas Bill
Apr 4, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Despite oil and gas industry pushback, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis is expected to sign into law within the next two weeks legislation that would give local authorities more oversight over exploration and production (E&P) operations. -
Oil and Gas Regulators Gain Power in New Mexico
Apr 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brenna Goth
Oil and gas regulators in New Mexico can soon sanction companies for violations under a law that restores authority they lost roughly a decade ago. -
One Dead, Two Seriously Injured in Fire at Kmco Specialty Chemical Plant in Houston Area
Apr 4, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
An explosion and fire at the KMCO chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, killed one worker, James Earl “Bubba” Mangum, and critically injured two others on April 2. The specialty chemical manufacturer makes products for automotive, petroleum, industrial, and agricultural markets. -
Chemical Safety Board Appeals Reporting Rule Order
Apr 4, 2019 | Bloomberg Environment
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board wants an appeals court to overturn a ruling that the agency issue a chemical reporting regulation within a year. The board initially appeared to comply with the order. -
Tar Sands Crude Shipments Quietly Increased In Oregon, With Regulators In the Dark
Apr 4, 2019 | Oregon Public Broadcasting
By Tony Schick
If oil is moving through Oregon, it’s Michael Zollitsch’s job to know about it. He oversees the state’s emergency responses to oil spills and other environmental disasters. -
Political Gridlock Blocks Infrastructure Progress and Costs Our Economy
Apr 4, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Adie Tomer and Lara Fishbane
Infrastructure talks are heating up again. In just the last week, 2020 presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar pitched a trillion-dollar infrastructure proposal while the Trump administration and Congress continue to flirt with major infrastructure packages. This kind of thinking reflects clear public support for greater investment. -
Bill Would Require EPA Limits on Toxic Chemical From Refineries
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
EPA would have to set first-ever numerical limits on oil refinery emissions of hydrogen cyanide under legislation introduced yesterday by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.). -
House Committee Advances Paris Climate Deal Bill
Apr 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
A Democratic bill to keep the U.S. in the Paris agreement on climate change was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, though it likely won’t go anywhere in the Senate. -
Democrats Advance Bill To Block Paris Climate Deal Exit On Party-Line Vote
Apr 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
House Democrats have advanced on a party-line vote a leadership-backed bill that would block President Donald Trump's pledge to leave the Paris climate agreement, arguing the measure is an opportunity to force Republican lawmakers to develop their own strategy to tackle climate change. -
2 Climate Panels in 2 Eras, With Different First Hearings
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
The last time the House had a select committee on climate change, the panel opened with a topic about as weighty as they come: the dual threats of oil dependence and global warming — and how those two problems could destabilize the world. -
Committee Can't Quite Get Past 'Partisan Ridiculousness'
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
Rep. Gary Palmer doesn't believe there is consensus about what causes climate change. -
Global CO2 Levels 'Unprecedented' in Last 3M Years
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
If global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius — the ambitious goal encapsulated in the Paris Agreement — they'll have risen beyond anything the Earth has experienced in the last 3 million years. -
Insurer Warns of Existential Threat on Climate Policy
Apr 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Katherine Chiglinsky
Chubb Ltd.’s Evan Greenberg is urging lawmakers to address the rising threat of climate change after $160 billion in global economic losses from a practically “biblical” year of catastrophes.
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) American Foods Stay Good Longer, but Is It Worth It?
Apr 5, 2019 | Yahoo News
By Mikaela Conley
In the U.S., bread is whiter, cakes and cookies are brighter, and grocery food typically has a longer shelf life than in Europe. That’s the result of the more than 10,000 chemicals allowed to be used in the growing, making and preserving of foods and beverages in the U.S. — including some that are banned in Europe (and elsewhere in the world, as well) because of their links to myriad health risks, including cancers, neurological disorders and behavioral issues in children.
While additives do play a sometimes necessary role in the preservation of certain foods, many experts say that some of the most common U.S. additives are unnecessary and could be causing significant harm to consumers’ health. Still, as the American diet has become more processed, commercialized and synthetic over the last several decades, the proliferation of these additives has grown.
These substances’ widespread use in the U.S. also has to do with laxer food regulation by the U.S., notably in comparison with the European Union. While the EU tends to take a more precautionary, protective and preventive approach to potentially harmful additives, the United States tends to take a reactive one, often removing a substance from use only if there is overwhelming evidence that it causes significant harm.
Regulation differences have come under even greater scrutiny in the last several months at least partially because of Brexit. As the U.K. attempts to move toward exiting the EU, many of its citizens and experts have expressed concern that Britain will be subjected to foods coming into the country that have been inspected and regulated by U.S. agencies and not the EU. In an editorial published in the Lancet in March, Tim Lang, professor of food policy at the University of London, writes: “Few analysts think EU standards are perfect, but comparing EU, U.S., and other food standards, we concluded that EU regulatory standards are among the highest in the world and rightly prioritise prevention over remediation.”
The European Commission is known to take a more cautious approach to its food chemical safety analysis. When requesting the use of a new food chemical, a manufacturer must submit an application identifying the additive, its manufacturing process and methods of analyses, its chemical reaction with food, its purpose and proposed uses. Also required is toxicological data on the effects it might have on human metabolism, subchronic and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity (the ability for a substance to induce tumors), genotoxicity (the destructive effect on a cell's genetic material), reproduction and developmental toxicity (the toxic effects of a substance on the reproductive ability of an organism and the development of its offspring) and, if required, other studies. Based on this data, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) then determines the level below which the intake of the substance can be considered safe — the so-called acceptable daily intake, or ADI. The EFSA also estimates, based on the proposed uses in the different foodstuffs requested, whether it is possible to exceed the ADI. Only if the ADI cannot be exceeded is the use of the food additive considered safe.
The EFSA was created in 2002 and tasked with reevaluating the safety of additives that had been approved before its existence. The FDA’s Food Additives Amendment, also known as the Delaney Clause, was passed in 1958 to stop companies from using any chemicals that have links to cancer but, unlike the EFSA, there was no look-back program, so if a chemical had already been approved, its safety was not reevaluated, even if no or very little data was available at the time it was entered. The substances were simply grandfathered in to safety status.
“As defined in the FDA’s regulations, ‘safety’ for substances used in food means that there is reasonable scientific certainty that the substance is not harmful when used as intended,” said Megan McSeveney, a spokesperson for the Food and Drug Administration. “This safety standard applies to uses of food additives, color additives and substances that are GRAS (generally recognized as safe).”
Jessica Garay Redmond, assistant professor in the department of food safety, nutrition and policy at Syracuse University, said: “Unfortunately, the overall health and wellness of the U.S. population is not the primary concern when food policies are created.”
Maricel V. Maffini, a consultant for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said that for most of these additives, long-term effects aren’t researched or even considered in the regulation process. Information on how the substances affect chronic diseases, fetal development, how multiple chemicals can affect the same organ or susceptibility to diseases later in life is all missing from the discussion.
“The great majority of the additives purposely added in food in the U.S., when tested, are tested in adult animals,” which means that developmental effects in fetuses or in children are not considered in testing, said Maffini. “In a study we published in 2013, we found that only 6.7 percent have reproductive or developmental data in FDA’s database, and overall only 21.6 percent have feeding studies needed to estimate a safe level of exposure in the population.”
In fact, in a policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2018, the agency warns about the harms of these substances to health and highlights that they often are an even greater risk to children.
Along with differences between agency approaches in the U.S. and EU, diet and lifestyle also play a significant role in the consumption and, in turn, safety of such foods. Americans tend to eat a diet much higher in processed foods, and because of this, food additives and preservatives are viewed as highly important to the ability for manufacturers to mass produce the items, Devin Bowes, a doctoral student in biological design at Arizona State University, explained. In Europe, processed foods are not as much of a staple in the average diet, so the use of chemicals to increase shelf life is not considered as important as it is in the U.S.
This could be having an impact on Americans’ overall health. When comparing life expectancies with other developed nations, the United States consistently ranks at or near the bottom of the list, and in 2018, for the third year in a row, life expectancy dropped in the nation. There are several explanations for why the U.S. ranks so poorly, but many experts say the American diet, which typically contains significantly more processed foods than those of other cultures around the world, may also be in part to blame.
According to the U.S. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the majority of Americans exceed the recommendations for added sugars, saturated fats and sodium, and three-quarters of Americans have an eating pattern that is too low in vegetables, fruits, dairy and healthy oils. The amount of processed foods, and thus food additives and preservatives, consumed tends to be greater in the U.S. than in other developed nations.
“Due to this difference, it may seem too far out of reach for the U.S. to adopt the regulatory practices the EU employs unless dramatic changes to the American diet are made, such as eating more fresh foods and less processed foods,” said Bowes. “This would considerably decrease the consumption of various [additives and preservatives], thereby decreasing exposure to the potential toxicity of these chemicals via ingestion.”
Bowes also noted the disconnect in the public’s understanding of scientific evidence in the U.S., which appears much more of an issue than in Europe. “This could be in part due to the major lobbyists who hold such great power over what information is disseminated and what is hidden,” said Bowes.
Lisa Lefferts, a senior scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has petitioned the FDA to ban, or at the very least require specific warning labels, but Lefferts said CSPI has been mostly unsuccessful because of the influence of food and chemical interest groups, including the Grocery Manufacturers of America and the American Chemistry Council.
Lefferts summed up American food regulations bluntly: “The U.S. system for ensuring the [understanding and] safety of substances added to food is broken.”
While food safety experts say there are several concerning food substances that remain legal in both the EU and the U.S. -- including aspartame, BPA and nitrates -- listed below are five used in the making and preserving of mass-produced food in the United States that are otherwise banned or highly regulated in Europe and in other areas of the developed world. Critics say they are some of the most common and controversial that are found in mass-produced American food.Potassium bromate" data-reactid="66" style="font-size: 1.4em; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Potassium bromate
Potassium bromate, which is considered a “flour improver,” is an oxidizing agent that strengthens dough and enhances elasticity. It is a common additive in U.S. mass-produced breads, doughs and cookies. The chemical has been used in baked goods in the U.S. since 1914, when it was patented, and it was first approved by the FDA in 1941, according to the American Association for Clinical Chemistry. When Japanese researchers found in 1982 through a series of studies that the additive caused cancer in the thyroids, kidneys and other body parts of rats and mice, several countries and regions, including the EU, China, Canada, Brazil and India, banned the substance from food. According to the Environmental Working Group, “the [baking] industry claims potassium bromate is theoretically fully converted into potassium bromide, a similar yet non-carcinogenic chemical, during baking. But testing in the United Kingdom revealed that potassium bromate remains detectable after baking, with six out of six unwrapped breads and seven out of 22 packaged breads containing measurable levels.” TheInternational Agency for Research on Cancer classifies potassium bromate as a category 2B carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic to humans).
“We petitioned FDA to ban potassium bromate in 1999, charging even then that the FDA had known for years that it caused cancer in laboratory animals,” said Lefferts. “FDA only urged bakers to voluntarily stop using it. Many have, but others still use it.”Azodicarbonamide" data-reactid="69" style="font-size: 1.4em; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Azodicarbonamide
Another chemical that is often used in mass-produced breads, cereals and doughs, azodicarbonamide, is also known as the “yoga mat chemical” because it is often also found in foamed plastics, like mats and the soles of shoes. It is a whitening agent that has been banned in the EU since 2005, and in other areas, including Australia and Singapore. While the chemical itself, researchers say, is relatively harmless when consumed in small doses, the World Health Organization linked it to asthma and allergies if directly inhaled. Furthermore, it can break down during the baking process into two other compounds, semicarbazide and urethane. Semicarbazide, according to the Centers for Science in the Public Interest, caused cancers of the lung and blood vessels in mice, but poses a negligible risk to humans. Urethane is a recognized carcinogen by the National Toxicology Program, in association with the Department of Health and Human Services.
“Considering that many breads don't contain azodicarbonamide and that its use slightly increases exposure to a carcinogen, this is hardly a chemical that we need in our food supply,” Lefferts wrote in a statement regarding its use in the U.S.Brominated vegetable oil" data-reactid="72" style="font-size: 1.4em; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Brominated vegetable oil
Brominated vegetable oil, or BVO, acts as an emulsifier in citrus-flavored beverages, preventing the flavoring from separating during distribution. The substance contains bromine, which is the element found in brominated flame retardants and which appears to build up over time in the body. In high amounts drunk over long periods, BVO-laced beverages have been linked to loss of memory and muscle coordination, headaches and fatigue. BVO is banned in Japan and Europe but legal in the U.S. and can be found in several types of citrus sodas and drinks, including Mountain Dew and Diet Mountain Dew. For years, the FDA categorized the chemical as “Generally recognized as safe,” but the agency revised its safety guidance on April 1, 2018, noting that the substance is only safe in small amounts. No major studies have shown links between BVO and human health outcomes, although anecdotal accounts have circulated on social media. Still, because of public outcry about the chemical in 2014, PepsiCo did remove the additive from Gatorade, but it continues to use it in Mountain Dew and Diet Mountain Dew. PepsiCo declined a request to comment on its use of BVO for Yahoo News.Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH)" data-reactid="74" style="font-size: 1.4em; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 1em; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; line-height: 1.4em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH)
Unlike the other substances listed, recombinant bovine growth hormone, or rBGH, is not an additive but rather a synthetic hormone that is used by many American dairy farmers to increase milk production in cows. The FDA approved Monsanto’s patent for its hormone, marketed as Posilac in 1993, and it is now owned and produced by Brazilian company Union Agener. It is banned for use in the EU, Canada and several other places.
While scientists say that rBGH likely does not have specific negative effects on humans because it is mostly destroyed during the pasteurization process, its use stimulates in the cow another hormone, insulin-like growth factor, or IGF-1. Cow’s milk that is treated with rBGH has higher levels of IGF-1, which is not broken down in the pasteurization process, and some studies have shown that IGF-1 can make its way into the human bloodstream after digestion. According to the American Cancer Society, IGF-1 levels at the high end of the normal range may influence the development of tumors in the breast, prostate and colon in humans.
Furthermore, cows that are administered the hormone suffer significantly more than their nonhormone-fed counterparts from reproductive issues and mastitis, an inflammatory of the tissue that can cause infections in udders due to overproduction of milk. And critics say the use of rBGH is animal cruelty. In 1999, an EU science report on animal health and welfare noted that the use of hormones causes "severe and unnecessary pain, suffering and distress" for the animals. Finally, because of the additional infections, farmers administer significantly more antibiotics to the cows, often in a preventive manner, before an infection even occurs. The practice has left the medical community particularly concerned because of the continuous rise of antibiotic resistance in humans,according to the CDC.
Color dyes (including Yellow No. 5 and No. 6, Red No. 40, Blue No. 1 and No. 2)
Color dyes are those seemingly innocuous ingredients listed on many brightly packaged cakes, cookies and cereals that are often marketed to children. While many color dyes aren’t completely banned in Europe, several common ones in the U.S., including Red No. 40 and Yellow No. 5 and 6 (which make up about 90 percent of the dyes certified for food use in the United States) require a warning label on European packaging. By law, foods that contain the dyes must state that the food “may have an adverse effect on attention and activity in children.” That’s because, in several studies, including research published in 2018 in the journal Pediatrics, color dyes have shown links to behavioral issues in children, including hyperactivity, learning impairment and aggressiveness. A 2012 meta-analysis on color additives reviewed 24 studies related to the topic and concluded that the substances affect a child’s hyperactivity, and that when foods that contain color dyes are removed from a child’s diet, hyperactivity is reduced.
In a statement to Yahoo News, General Mills, which is the umbrella company for dozens of food brands that use various additives, including color dyes, said the company has at times removed artificial food dyes where it was able to find natural coloring ingredients that consumers found acceptable. But some substitutions didn’t work out, because consumers preferred the original formulas.
“We have had at least one situation — Trix cereal — where consumers said they wanted natural coloring. We provided it and then we received many complaints,” said Mike Siemienas, a General Mills spokesman. “We brought back the artificial coloring in a Classic Trix variety using the traditional recipe, and the positive consumer response has exceeded our expectations, so our approach is to provide consumer choice, always following the latest FDA regulations on food safety.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-lags-behind-europe-in-food-safety-regulations-experts-say-090000861.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) PLASTIMAGEN ‘19: Braskem Idesa Aims at Circular Economy
Apr 4, 2019 | ICIS
Braskem Idesa has joined the Operation Clean Sweep (OCS) programme to minimise pellet leakage at its plants to prevent potential damage to the environment, a company source said on the sidelines of PLASTIMAGEN MEXICO 2019.
“We joined the OCS program this past February through the National Association of the Plastic Industry (ANIPAC) in Mexico because we want to prevent the loss of pellets that could impact the environment negatively,” the source said.
The campaign is a global effort, with many participating plastics plants in different countries supporting every segment of the plastic chain, from the resin producer to the reclaimer.
The goal of the programme is to drive awareness through workshops that will foster good housekeeping measures resulting in zero pellet, flake and powder loss for a plastic-free environment.
The OCS is an international programme originally launched by the Plastics Industry Association and the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division designed to prevent resin pellet, flake and powder loss, which could end up in the marine environment.
Braskem Idesa has also joined other campaigns towards a circular economy such as the Picplast programme that delivers awareness courses to educate the public and the sponsorship of BioBox machines in Mexico City and Vera Cruz to recycle plastic bottles in exchange for reward points.
For the last year, Braskem Idesa has been developing Wecycle, a company initiative “that aims at the utilisation of plastic waste throughout the production chain, contributing to recycling”, the source said, which would “incorporate a certain percentage of recycled plastic” in the production of its plastics.
Braskem Idesa is one of the two polyethylene producers in Mexico along with PEMEX.
The Braskem Idesa petrochemical complex started operations three years ago and is currently running above 80% of capacity, producing over 2m tonnes of high-density and low-density polyethylene since start of operations in June 2016.
PLASTIMAGEN MEXICO 2019 takes place on 2-5 April in Mexico City, Mexico.
https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2019/04/04/10344137/plastimagen-19-braskem-idesa-aims-at-circular-economy/
-
Faced With Poor Court Record, Trump EPA Seeks Voluntary Remands
Apr 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
With a notable losing record in seeking to delay or roll back Obama-era rules, the Trump EPA has sought and won voluntary remand in several recent cases challenging the agency's policies, potentially avoiding additional losses and giving the administration a new opportunity to scale back the policies though any changes will likely still face new suits.
Asking court for such remands is not unique to the Trump administration, legal experts say, but it is a tactic that is usually successful because courts tend to give EPA and other federal agencies great deference in their decisions and because granting remand avoids taking up the courts' time and money to resolve a dispute.
“Quite frankly, it works usually,” an attorney representing environmental groups says of remand requests. “It's very attractive to the courts.”
And both the environmental attorney and one representing industry clients say EPA will often seek voluntary remand when it has made a legal error or there are potential legal problems with the agency's position.
“They do it when they feel vulnerable,” the environmental attorney says.
The legal experts say another common situation where EPA will ask for voluntary remand is when something new has arisen, such as a new ruling or new facts, or a change in administration, although occasionally, the environmental attorney says, the remand request can be over seemingly nothing.
The environmentalist attorney says it would be hard to determine whether requests for voluntary remand, especially without vacating the regulation or policy being challenged, have increased under the Trump administration.
But EPA's requests for remand come as recent analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) at the New York University School of Law finds that the Trump administration's efforts to defend its rules seeking to delay or reverse Obama-era policies fared much more poorly than other administrations.
While the government typically prevails in such Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges about 70 percent of the time, the IPI analysis shows that the Trump administration's “win rate” is a mere 6 percent.
In all, the analysis shows the administration has lost 34 of 36 lawsuits challenging policies covering all federal agencies, though many of those govern EPA decisions.
For example, in Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2017 vacated the Trump EPA's rule that sought to delay Obama-era requirements governing methane emissions from new oil and gas facilities.
And in Air Alliance Houston v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit in 2018 also vacated the Trump EPA's rule seeking to delay the Obama-era Risk Management Plan (RMP) update.
By contrast, EPA has recently won a series of decisions where courts have granted their requests for voluntary remand after admitting legal error.
But Bethany Davis Noll, IPI's litigation director and author of the recent analysis, says cases where EPA and other agencies admit error and seek remand should count as a loss. In cases where an agency admits to an error, “remand without vacatur doesn't help with the numbers,” she says.
Remand Without Vacature
For example, in Gulf Restoration Network, et al. v. EPA, et al., EPA acknowledged that it had failed to comply with Endangered Species Act consultation requirements when it approved revised Louisiana dissolved oxygen water quality standards (WQS).
While EPA asked for a remand without vacatur, the court in its Feb. 22 order partially vacated the dissolved oxygen standard, noting the agency had essentially agreed to a partial vacatur when it told the court Louisiana planned to forgo using the disputed standard in most discharge permits.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last month granted EPA’s request to remand without vacatur its 2018 revisions to the Obama-era coal ash disposal rule in Waterkeeper Alliance, et al. v. EPA, et al.
EPA agreed to reconsider the ash rule revisions that it enacted in July based on a separate D.C. Circuit decision, Aug. 21’s Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG), et al., v. EPA, et al., where a unanimous panel held that the broader Obama-era ash disposal rule was too lenient and must be strengthened.
And in a case that drew national attention, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine late last year granted EPA's request for a voluntary remand in Maine v. Wheeler, a case involving the state's challenge to the Obama administration's controversial decision rejecting some of Maine WQS covering tribal lands.
The Trump administration when it came in asked the court to put the case on hold while it determined whether it would continue with the Obama EPA's defense of the WQS rejection. And then the Trump EPA initially agreed to allow the case to proceed.
But after Andrew Wheeler took over as then-acting EPA administrator last year, and a new Region 1 administrator was put in place, the agency asked the court to remand the issue without vacatur, saying it had “decided to change, and not to defend” the 2015 decision.
Industry Requests
Additionally, D.C. Circuit judges at oral argument last month in Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA signaled they are likelyto back calls from some refrigerant chemical manufacturers to remand to EPA an Obama-era policy on replacing ozone-depleting or climate-warming refrigerants, over the objection of rival refrigerant makers and environmentalists.
While EPA did not request the remand, the agency is supporting the request where Mexichem and Arkema argue the court's ruling in an earlier case known as Mexichem I requires remand because the Obama-era rule is inconsistent with that ruling.
The industry attorney says many times when EPA requests remand there have been negotiations going on between the agency and industry plaintiffs who are challenging an EPA action. EPA agrees the rule needs to be fixed, and usually the petitioner does not object because EPA has said it will fix the rule to address the petitioners' complaint, the attorney says.
The environmentalist attorney, however, finds remand requests frustrating because even when EPA has admitted error, there is no guarantee the agency will change its decision to comport with environmentalists' position. In many cases, EPA makes essentially the same decision but explains it better so that courts give the agency deference.
“It's frustrating,” the environmentalist attorney says of remand requests. There is nothing in the APA that explicitly allows for voluntary remand but there is a large body of case law allowing the practice, the attorney says.
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/faced-poor-court-record-trump-epa-seeks-voluntary-remands
-
(ACC Mentioned) Wheeler Seeks To Harmonize EPA Risk Practices, Adding To IRIS Pressure
Apr 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Administrator Andrew Wheeler is asking top EPA scientists to develop new guidance aimed at harmonizing risk assessment practices across the agency, an effort that sources say is likely to put further pressure on the agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program and its conservative approaches.
The effort appears to echo a controversial plan pushed by Nancy Beck, EPA's current deputy toxics chief when she served in the Bush administration. The plan sought to craft harmonized risk assessment guidance for EPA and other agencies, though a draft version of that guidance was shot down by the National Academy of Sciences in 2007.
It could also bolster future implementation of the administration's controversial science transparency rule, should it be completed, which has already targeted IRIS' and other programs' use of strict, default linear dose-response models, which generally assume that any exposure to carcinogens carries some level of risk.
EPA did not return requests seeking comment.
According to an internal agency document reviewed by Inside EPA, EPA's Science Advisor, in response to a request from Wheeler, recommended at a recent meeting of the agency's Science and Technology Policy Council (STPC) that the group “consider a set of hazard and dose-response issues and decide on which issues the [agency's Risk Assessment Forum (RAF)] should develop harmonized approaches across the agency.”
The RAF, a group of risk assessors from various agency programs, will develop “EPA-wide guidance where risk-assessment practices diverge across EPA offices that conduct hazard and dose-response evaluations,” the document says.
The project's objectives also require RAF to consider “existing and new science and/or methods that could influence EPA-wide guidance.”
And any EPA-wide guidance “should be based on validated scientific findings or best practices, distinct from risk management decision-making,” the document says.
It requires STPC, a group of senior career officials, to “support this effort by assuring necessary staff are available to enable timely success of the effort at each stage” of the project.
But Wheeler's request for new guidance was viewed as sufficiently unclear that STPC members decided to seek further clarification, agency sources say.
The request may delay the project, which appears to be on a fast track, as it is seeking a draft version to be completed by “late Fall” of 2019 and a final version by December 2020 “but sooner if possible.”
Moreover, the RAF, an interagency group of risk assessors who collaborate on agency-wide risk assessment policy, moves slowly and its projects often remain in progress after years. According to its website, RAF has not published since 2016.
“People weren't available to work on RAF” projects, one former EPA source tells Inside EPA. “That was always a problem for RAF” getting anything done. The source expects that the project will “go around in circles until we get a new president.”
Pressure On IRIS
Nevertheless, agency sources view the new project as another way to pressure EPA's IRIS program, which the Trump EPA has sought to sideline -- first through requests to slash its budget, assigning its staff to work on toxics office assessments and then last summer and fall, a six-month review of its agenda of assessments, which paralyzed the program and led to its agenda being scaled back.
One agency source suggested Wheeler's call for the guidance may stem from differences in how the IRIS program, the pesticides program, and the nascent toxics program assess chemicals and an interest in harmonizing their approaches.
The IRIS program and pesticides office have adopted different risk values on chemicals that have multiple uses, raising issues in the past. The pesticides office has access to, and generally bases its assessments upon, large guideline studies performed by or funded by industry, while the IRIS program largely uses studies published in public scientific journals.
Such issues could also occur with the toxics program, which is crafting its first assessments in a new program authorized by Congress' 2016 revision of the Toxic Substances Control Act. For example, the first draft toxics office assessment, released last November, also relies on studies provided by industry -- many initially claimed as trade secret.
The internal agency document includes several examples of issues it seeks to harmonize, including “linear vs. threshold dose response extrapolation, non-cancer hazard identifiers, and updating reference dose and reference concentration processes.”
Though seemingly arcane, these issues are complex and can be controversial.
Perhaps best known is the debate about whether dose-response extrapolation should be linear or show a threshold, or non-linear response. Because many decisions involving chemicals are based on animal toxicology studies in which lab animals are exposed to amounts far greater than humans experience in the environment, extrapolation is used to model dose-response at human exposure levels.
A linear extrapolation assumes that any amount of exposure carries some amount of risk. By contrast, non-linear, or threshold models, assume that there is some level of exposure below which no harm is expected to occur. This assumption is generally applied to chemicals that cause harms other than cancer.
EPA's 2005 Cancer Risk Assessment Guidance directs that EPA risk assessors use linear extrapolation as a default, or when the chemical is considered mutagenic. Nonlinear extrapolation can be used if there is sufficient evidence that a chemical has a non-mutagenic biological mechanism for producing cancer.
Industry and other regulated entities have long protested the implementation of this guidance, particularly by the IRIS program, whose assessments rarely step away from the linear defaults. Critics charge this results in overly-stringent risk analyses that drive strict policies.
Science Transparency Rule
The Trump EPA has already signaled it plans to limit the use of linear models. Its controversial proposed science transparency rule, which requires EPA regulatory decisions be based only on publicly available data, notes that “there is a growing empirical evidence of non-linearity in the concentration-response function for specific pollutants and health effects,” the proposed rule says. “The use of default models, without consideration of alternatives or model uncertainty, can obscure the scientific justification for EPA actions.”
The proposal has drawn strong criticism from Democrats, environmentalists and science groups. Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, called this language “a laser-guided missile because it goes right to the heart of the war industry has been waging against the risk assessment science used by EPA and called for by the nation's most prestigious scientific body, the [NAS],” he wrote in an April 2018 blog post.
Denison says that science has “steadily challenged” the assumption proponents of nonlinear dose-response make as they argue that most substances have a level of exposure below which there is no risk. Denison argues that “even if such a threshold appears to exist in, say, a test conducted in laboratory animals, when extrapolated to a diverse human population the notion that a threshold actually exists rapidly falls apart. That is because the human population exhibits enormous variation in genetics, health status, life stage, background and co-exposures, etc.”
He pointed to Beck, one of President Trump's first appointees at EPA, as a likely source of the linear language. Beck, a toxicologist, came to EPA as deputy of the toxics office from the chemical industry trade group American Chemistry Council, where she was a frequent critic of the IRIS program and how it conducts dose-response analysis.
Before that, she served in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs during the Bush administration, where she helped author a controversial bulletin on risk assessment practices.
While she defended the document as “establishing some minimum standards and expectations” across the federal government, critics said it could undermine existing regulatory approaches at EPA and elsewhere. And EPA staff argued that Beck had inappropriate influence on the final product, because she took an interagency detail at EPA where she was viewed as being able to influence EPA's comments to OMB on the draft guidance she wrote.
After a critical review from NAS calling for the draft guide to be withdrawn, OMB replaced the bulletin in September 2007 with a scaled-back memorandum that generally reiterated Clinton administration risk assessment principles.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/wheeler-seeks-harmonize-epa-risk-practices-adding-iris-pressure
-
Apr 4, 2019 | The Baltimore Sun
By Luke Broadwater
The Maryland General Assembly gave final approval Wednesday night to a bill that would make Maryland the first state in the country to ban polystyrene foam food containers and cups.
The House of Delegates voted 100-37 to approve the legislation sponsored by Del. Brooke Lierman, a Baltimore Democrat.
It was Lierman’s third attempt to pass the bill.
“After three years of hard work, I'm thrilled to see Maryland be a leader in the fight to end our reliance on single-use plastics that are polluting our state, country, and world by passing a bill to prohibit foam food containers,” Lierman said. “The health of the Chesapeake Bay, our waterways, our neighborhoods, and our children’s futures depends on our willingness to do the hard work of cleaning the mess that we inherited and created.”
The legislation had already passed the state Senate by a 31-13 vote. The Senate bill was sponsored by Sen. Cheryl Kagan, a Montgomery County Democrat.
The measure now advances to the desk of Republican Gov. Larry Hogan, who has not taken a position yet on whether he would sign the bill.
The bill passed both chambers with more than enough votes to override a veto should the governor issue one.
The legislation contains some exceptions. For example, foam products packaged outside Maryland — such as cups containing ramen noodles — could still be sold. Also exempted are foam products used to package raw or butchered meat and foam products not used for food service.
The ban would take effect July 1, 2020. County officials would be in charge of enforcing the ban, and could issue $250 fines.
The measure is among the priorities of Democratic leaders of the General Assembly.
Several local governments in Maryland, including Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, Baltimore City, and most recently Anne Arundel County, have already banned foam products.
Critics of the statewide legislation expressed concern that a ban would cause difficulty or increased expenses for farmers, small businesses and nonprofit organizations. They said alternatives to foam are more costly.
At a hearing on the bill, Josh Young, a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council, the industry’s trade group, called the ban a “harsh action” and said Maryland would be the “only state to ban an entire class of safe and effective products.”
Supporters countered that foam products are not easily recyclable and don’t break down in the environment, making them a particularly difficult form of litter to deal with.
To emphasize that point, the Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore had celebrated House passage of the ban by announcing that Mr. Trash Wheel, the garbage and flotsam collector at the mouth of the Jones Falls in the Inner Harbor, has scooped more than 1 million bits of polystyrene since it was launched in 2014.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-foam-ban-passes-20190403-story.html
-
BPS May Have Prostate Effects, Suggests Rodent Study
Apr 4, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Bisphenol S (BPS) may act as an endocrine disruptor in the prostate, according to a Brazilian rodent study.
BPS is the least expensive alternative to BPA, which is listed on the candidate list of substances of very high concern because it is toxic to reproduction, and has endocrine-disrupting properties that cause probable serious effects to human health and the environment.
As a result, EU paper manufacturers are increasingly substituting BPA with BPS in thermal paper, following the former's 2016 restriction, which will come into force in 2020.
"The unregulated production of these bisphenol analogues has promoted a large release of these compounds into the environment, and knowledge of the impact of these substances on health is still very scarce," write the Brazilian researchers in the journal Reproductive Toxicology.
Led by Fernanda Cristina Alcantara Santos from the Federal University of Goiás, the researchers exposed gerbils to BPS over 28 days before analysing their prostates. They found that BPS had similar effects in the prostate as BPA, for example increasing cell proliferation rates.
The researchers now call for additional dose-response tests.
In a 2015 Opinion, Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) said that BPS is "suspected to have many of the same adverse health effects as BPA".
Belgium is evaluating BPS as a potential endocrine disruptor and suspected CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic) substance.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75973/bps-may-have-prostate-effects-suggests-rodent-study?q=endocrine&layout=modal
-
States Step Up Criticism Of EPA's PFAS Plan, Seek Binding Mandates
Apr 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
Groups representing state environment officials are publicly criticizing EPA's recently released multi-media action plan for addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), citing weaknesses across many program areas and calling for the agency to go farther such as by setting binding standards for contaminants across multiple media.
In an April 4 letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the four groups say they “appreciate” the PFAS action plan, noting that it was crafted based on input from states along with other stakeholders, but argue that the agency’s plan to address the contaminants through its toxics, safe drinking water, waste and Clean Water Act (CWA) programs each suffers from a host of gaps and weaknesses.
They say the action plan fails to recognize that many more PFAS may be impacting human health and the environment beyond the two most common contaminants -- perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). They “encourage” the agency to go beyond these and beyond drinking water, “and consider setting contaminant levels for other PFAS in various media."
Further, they advise EPA to look to state standards and guidance on PFAS and other resources, rather than duplicating the work already done by states that have crafted their own policies for the contaminants, as it looks to accomplish the tasks in the action plan.
The letter was signed by the executive directors of the Environmental Council of the States, which represents many state environment commissioners; the Association of Clean Water Administrators, which represents state water-quality regulators; the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators; and the Association of State & Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
PFAS are a class of thousands of non-stick chemicals that have been used in a host of consumer and industrial products and processes and have been linked to adverse health effects including certain cancers, ulcerative colitis and other conditions.
EPA on Feb. 14 unveiled an action plan to tackle PFAS pollution across several media that includes some enforcement and research measures, but only begins the process of setting binding water and waste policies.
Under the plan, EPA has also begun the regulatory process for listing PFOA and PFOS as hazardous waste under the Superfund law, plans to issue interim groundwater cleanup recommendations for contaminated sites -- although that guidance is reportedly tied up in an interagency dispute between EPA and the Department of Defense over cleanup levels -- and will expand PFAS monitoring in drinking water in future years, among other measures.
The agency's commitments fell short of calls from environmentalists and many states for strict policy limits on the substances. In particular, critics dismissed the plan for deferring until the end of the year a decision on whether to set an enforceable drinking water standard, known as a maximum contaminant level (MCL), for PFOS and PFOA.
Many individual states joined in those critiques, but the April 4 letter marks the nonpartisan interstate groups’ first public attack on the plan.
State Critiques
In their new letter, the state organizations call out what they say are a host of weaknesses in that plan, and sets out a more aggressive PFAS agenda they say EPA should adopt instead -- including a suite of rules that would create binding cleanup mandates for drinking water and contaminated sites.
On the Toxic Substances & Control Act (TSCA) front, states say EPA should rely on TSCA and other regulatory actions to keep PFAS “out of the environment,” rather than solely relying on treatment to solve issues related to PFAS. “Banning production and import of products containing PFAS is critical to addressing the problem,” they say, suggesting the initial step of identifying safer alternatives to the substances for specific products.
They also call for more specificity in EPA’s agenda, such as adding timelines and deadlines to a variety of items where EPA is currently promising to act only at an unspecified point in the future.
On Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) matters, the groups say EPA should begin the work for developing a SDWA MCL while finishing its regulatory determination for the MCL, rather than waiting for the determination process to finish before starting to craft the enforceable limit. The letter says such quick action is critical to impacted communities' ability to access financial resources for high-cost mitigation and cleanup.
In the absence of federal action, many states have begun setting their own advisory levels or concentration limits to address PFAS in drinking water, groundwater and surface water. But the groups note that some states are barred by law from adopting standards more stringent than the federal policy.
The groups say that in order to avoid such conflicts, EPA should “use States as a guide and work with the States in a timely manner to establish standards for PFAS that are scientifically defensible and provide adequate flexibility for States to address the unique circumstances of their States."
On waste, the organizations encourage EPA to quickly list PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law -- a measure that would trigger Superfund liability for releases of the chemicals, aiding regulators and communities in cleaning up contamination and recovering costs from responsible parties.
But they further ask the agency to consider whether wastes containing PFAS should also be listed as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA). They note that as cleanup operations proceed to remove PFOA and PFOS from the environment, “wastes containing PFAS from water and wastewater treatment, site clean-up, ongoing industrial processes and landfill leachate will continue to be generated and managed."
They also ask for an opportunity to review the pending groundwater cleanup guidance currently held up in interagency review due to debate between agencies over which cleanup level they should apply.
On CWA matters, they say the agency needs to develop a water quality standard that would limit PFAS concentrations in surface waters. “Surface water quality standards form the basis of any further [CWA] regulation and needs to be addressed simultaneously with the Agency's other efforts,” they say.
The letter continues that EPA should also aid in developing test methods that would allow states to monitor PFAS levels in surface water and wastewater discharges.
On wastewater, they call for an accelerated timeline for addressing PFAS in wastewater discharges. “PFAS will continue to be a problem for drinking water entities that have intakes on surface water bodies that also receive wastewater discharges and will potentially have public health and ecological impacts if States cannot limit the discharge of PFAS before 2021."
The groups also ask EPA to expand methods for testing for the plethora of chemicals grouped together as PFAS, noting EPA's drinking water method currently only tests for 18 of the substances; and ask for federal leadership in coordinating with states and other federal agencies on boosting lab capacity for evaluating PFAS samples. Further, the states say EPA should support research and develop guidance on treatment technologies for removing PFAS from surface water.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-step-criticism-epas-pfas-plan-seek-binding-mandates
-
Lawmakers Lay out PFAS Legislation Strategy
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
Lawmakers who are pushing for actions to address toxic nonstick chemicals known as PFAS are eyeing the appropriations process as a way to get their legislation through Congress.
Michigan Democrats, including Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Rep. Dan Kildee, are reviving a bill that would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay for the cost of treating health conditions linked to PFAS exposure to PFAS (E&E Daily, April 4).
The "PFAS Action Act of 2019" would require EPA to designate the suite of substances as hazardous under the Superfund law (E&E News PM, March 1).
Other PFAS legislation introduced this year includes the "PFAS Detection Act." The legislation authorizes funding for the U.S. Geological Survey to carry out nationwide sampling for PFAS (E&E Daily, March 29).
"At this point, I think strategically we'll get the most movement by trying to do this through the appropriations process," Stabenow told reporters yesterday about efforts to pass PFAS legislation.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have long been used in products such as military firefighting foam and nonstick cookware.
Some of the thousands of chemicals in the PFAS family have been linked to health problems and have caused concern about drinking water quality near current and former military installations and some industrial sites.
Kildee emphasized that the issue has had support from both sides of the aisle. "The conversation that we've been having in the House is that we may move bills simultaneously. Any one aspect of this by itself will not solve this problem," Kildee said.
Also on the agenda is a "significant increase" in appropriations for cleanup, he added. "Leadership in the House is committed to getting something through."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/04/05/stories/1060143687
-
Dangerous Plastics Are a Threat to Us and Future Generations
Apr 4, 2019 | Common Dreams
By Meena Miriam Yust
Every day people make decisions about what to eat, sometimes opting for colorful fruits and veggies, sometimes finding the smell of bacon irresistible. At the end of the day people are controlling their own health. What is remarkable though, is the possibility that something one swallows today could have a lasting effect on future offspring—children, grandchildren, great grandchildren. New research is finding a generational impact of certain chemicals. This time it’s not the bacon we’re worried about—but plastics and the toxins within them.
Twenty years ago, researchers at Washington State University discovered accidentally that the now-infamous bisphenol A (BPA) was leaching out of plastic cages, harming the mice within. The contamination caused abnormalities in mice eggs and fertility. Numerous subsequent studies found BPA exposure affects adult fertility and health across species, including monkeys, fish, and humans. Known to decrease sperm count in rats and to cause breast cancer in women, BPA was banned in 2012 by the FDA from being used in baby bottles and sippy cups. Yet BPA is still used in many products, including epoxy resins used to coat canned foods. A 2004 study of 2,517 people found that 93% had detectable quantities of BPA’s by-product in their urine.
Since the toxic effects of BPA came to light, several replacement bisphenols were quickly brought to market by chemical companies and are now in widespread use. Twenty years after the BPA toxicity discovery, by remarkable chance, the same Washington State University lab recently noticed again that something was amiss with their mice. This time the mice were housed in cages comprised of replacement bisphenols, largely believed to be safer than BPA. The researchers subsequently performed controlled studies with several of the replacement bisphenols including BPS, a widely used replacement.
Results demonstrated that the new bisphenols behaved similarly to BPA, causing health problems including detrimental effects on fertility in both males and females, reported in Cell Biology in September 2018. Scientist Sarah Hunt explained, “This paper reports a strange déjà vu experience in our laboratory.” What the lab discovered once with BPA, it was seeing again with the replacements. Perhaps most troubling were the long-lasting effects of the toxins. Even if all bisphenols could be magically eliminated today, the toxic effects would still last about three generations through the germline of people already exposed. This means bisphenols ingested today could affect the fertility of one’s great grandchildren.
The bisphenol case demonstrates that FDA bans do not necessarily solve the root problem. Chemical companies tend to roll out similar chemicals to those that have been banned, because this is the easiest way to bring something to market quickly. But more testing is needed before chemicals are released into the environment. Long term problems such as generational infertility and cancer risk often cannot easily be examined in clinical trials, and environmental effects are not rigorously analyzed prior to release.
The Washington State University study also proved that damaged and heated plastics are particularly deadly, as the damaged cages leached more toxins. This should serve as a warning for those who microwave food in plastic containers for their families. And it should remind us that discarded plastic bottles degrading in oceans and rivers are releasing toxins that cause irreversible infertility.
The current estimate of plastics in our oceans is approximately 150 million metric tons. By 2050, the amount is expected to ‘outweigh the fish,’ according to Jim Leape, co-director of the Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions. A recent study has determined microplastics (small plastic particles) are present in every river and lake in Britain. And they have been found in tap water, everywhere from the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC to the Trump Grill in New York. A study of 159 drinking water samples on five continents found that 83% of those samples were contaminated. Plastics are everywhere, from the highest mountains to the deepest parts of the ocean and Arctic. Nanoplastics less than 50 nanometers long have even been found in plankton, which is ingested by fish that humans eat.
Scientists are finding that plastics are disrupting marine mammals’ ability to reproduce. Many forms of plastic including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and Bisphenol A are endocrine disruptors, meaning they affect the hormonal systems of animals. An orca of adult age called Lulu, researchers recently found, was barren as if she was a juvenile. Analysis revealed very high levels of PCBs in her lipid tissues. One orca pod off the coast of Scotland has not produced a calf in 25 years. Despite bans on PCBs 30 years ago, toxins remain in orca mothers’ milk, and are passed from mother to baby. A recent study published in the journal Science predicts that half the world’s population of orcas will be extinct in just a few decades due to PCB poisoning. Researchers have also found that despite the PCB ban in Europe, levels of PCBs have not decreased, indicated that they may be leaching out of landfills. Hormone disruptors have also been found to impair male frogs’ fertility, and to cause tadpoles to more frequently develop ovaries rather than testicles, thus skewing the proportion of males to females. Similar problems have been found in fish. Reproductive risks associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals span species.
Bisphenol A is known to decrease sperm count and to cause cancer in many species. Its counterpart replacement plastics (BPS, BPF, BPAF, BPZ, BPP, BHPF… to name just a few), researchers have recently discovered, are no better. Whether these pollutants have already affected humans is anyone’s guess, but it would be wise to view statistics during the time period since plastics became popular, starting in the 1960s, and to see if there is a significant trend over time.
It appears there is. Notably, a 2017 study found that sperm counts per milliliter declined by more than 50% from 1973 to 2011, with total sperm counts down almost 60%. Two other recent studies have demonstrated that over the past few decades in the U.S. and Europe, both sperm count and motility have decreased.
The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) recently debated a proposed legally binding treaty to address plastic pollution. One objective of the proposed treaty was to phase out single use plastics by 2025. Norway also suggested a global agreement for handling ocean plastic pollution. Sadly, the U.S. was the largest voice against the proposed treaty and the proposed global waste disposal plan.
Eventually a non-legally-binding agreement was reached in which the U.S. watered down the language to “significantly reduce” plastics by 2030, eleven years from now. One UN delegate described the Trump representatives as “trying to remove all targets and timelines.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. has been exporting large quantities of plastics overseas for years, historically mostly to China. In the previous year, 70% was exported to China and Hong Kong. But in 2018, China banned imports of plastic waste. Since the ban the U.S. has looked to poorer nations for its overseas garbage dump. Unearthed, Greenpeace’s research group, has found that in the first six months of 2018, almost half of U.S. plastic wastewas sent to developing countries: Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam. U.S. plastic waste exports to Thailand went up by nearly 2,000% this year.
Most developing nations do not have sufficient recycling infrastructure to properly handle plastic waste. On Earth Day 2018, the top producers of mismanaged ocean plastic waste were ranked by tons of waste. The top five after China were Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. In some cases as in parts of the Philippines, recycling is done laboriously by hand, picking bottles out of large dumps. As this is very difficult and time consuming, large quantities find their way into oceans and rivers. Sadly and not surprisingly, the Pasig River in the Philippines transports approximately 72,000 tons of plastic downstream, and has been declared “biologically dead” since 1990. Instead of helping these countries to develop recycling infrastructure, we are sending them more toxic waste.
We might think we are kicking the can down the road by sending plastics overseas but they will wash right back up on the Hawaiian and California coast. Beachgoers might witness solid litter washing ashore, or unearthed from the stomachs of dead whales. Or they might not notice the pollution — instead unknowingly consuming microplastics in their next Ahi Tuna sandwich. On the East Coast, one might encounter them in a glass of water at the Trump Grill in New York. There is only one world sink after all. Tossing poison to the other end of the tub only works for so long - it will inevitably, over time, mix and wash back to your side of the water. And when one of us is diagnosed with cancer, do we really know the cause?
It is instructive to remember the orca Lulu, a mammal like us, who no longer produces eggs. And to remember that if sperm counts continue to decline at the present rate, they will soon reach levels where it becomes difficult to have children. By then, the world’s water supply may be irreversibly contaminated and an enforceable treaty will be too late.
Postponing a legally binding treaty may put us on the path of our fellow mammals the orcas, half of which already face inevitable extinction worldwide. And we can not forget the tragedy of the orca Tahlequah, who last summer carried her dead calf for a record 17 days and 1,000 miles in mourning.
Eleven years may be too late.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/04/04/dangerous-plastics-are-threat-us-and-future-generations
-
EU Carcinogen Label for Titanium Dioxide Seen as Trade Threat
Apr 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
A European Union plan to add warning labels to products with titanium dioxide is under fire from the governments of the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand for potentially disrupting the multi-billion dollar trade in the substance and relevant products.
Under a proposed update to EU chemical classification and labeling rules, liquids and powders comprised of 1 percent or more of titanium dioxide particles would have to carry warnings about the possible formation of “dangerous” droplets and dust.
Titanium dioxide is a natural substance derived from certain minerals that is widely used to make products opaque and to whiten them. These products include paints, cleaning products, cosmetics, toothpaste, sunscreens, paper, and plastics. It is also used as a food additive.
But the European Chemicals Agency’s scientific committees have said it should be classified in the EU as cancer-causing when inhaled, which would trigger the labeling requirements.
An EU regulatory committee could vote on the proposal as soon as April 11 or 12, although it hasn’t been confirmed yet that a vote will take place.
Trade ConcernsWhen the EU circulated the proposal to classify titanium dioxide as carcinogen via the World Trade Organization’s Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. criticized it.
The U.S. response—sent to the EU in March—said Europe should delay the measure while it considers “alternative, less trade-disruptive means to manage the potential hazards” of titanium dioxide.
U.S. exporters sell $3 billion worth of titanium dioxide annually, plus $7 billion to $8 billion of products containing the substance that could be caught up in the labeling requirements, the U.S. response said.
The American Coatings Association, American Cleaning Institute, International Association of Color Manufacturers, and Toy Association, all of which were named in the U.S. response as concerned about the EU proposal, did not respond to requests for comment.
Australia and New Zealand raised similar concerns about the EU proposal. The Australian response said a health assessment had found there wasn’t enough evidence to identify titanium dioxide as a human health risk, even when it was composed of nano-particles.
The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm—which would adopt the proposed update to the classification and labeling if approved by the regulatory committee—said in an email that it had “taken note of the comments” sent by the three governments.
No One HappyAdopting the titanium dioxide classification and labeling rule is likely to please no one.
In “realistic conditions,” titanium dioxide particles are non-hazardous, and the dangers of the substance would be better addressed through workplace safety rules setting limits on exposure to dust, the Titanium Dioxide Manufacturers Association said in an email. The association represents companies including Evonik Resource Efficiency GmbH and Dallas-based Kronos, Inc.
The classification of the substance as a carcinogen would also mean that waste containing titanium dioxide would be considered hazardous, triggering special treatment rules and leading to increased “costs related to hazardous waste handling and recovery, meaning that safe products are taken out of the circular economy,” the association said.
But the EU proposal on titanium dioxide was “weaker than it should be” because it would only relate to particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers or more, and would not cover all products containing the substance, said Tatiana Santos, chemicals policy manager for green group the European Environmental Bureau.
EU decisions on classification and labeling of chemicals should follow a “purely intrinsic hazard-based procedure” and should not be influenced by trade concerns, Santos said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/eu-carcinogen-label-for-titanium-dioxide-seen-as-trade-threat
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Energy to Construct Five Chemical Recycling Plants in Indonesia
Apr 5, 2019 | Plastics Today
By Stephen Moore
Plastic Energy Limited has reached an agreement with the province of West Java in Indonesia to build five chemical recycling plants. Plastic Energy uses patented thermal anaerobic conversion (TAC) technology to convert mixed stream end-of-life plastics such as polypropylene, polyethylene, and polystyrene into fuels.
The TAC process heats waste plastic in the absence of oxygen until it melts and the polymer molecules break down to form a rich, saturated hydrocarbon vapor. The condensable products are converted to hydrocarbon products while the non-condensable gases are collected separately and combusted to process energy. Raw diesel, light oil (naphtha) and synthetic gas components are collected. Naphtha and diesel can be stored and sold to the petrochemical industry to convert back into plastics or used as transportation fuels. Syngas is used to operate the plant.
The memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the Governor of West Java, Ridwan Kamil, follows campaigns – including the United Nations (UN) Clean Seas, the Global Plastic Action Partnership, and the Our Ocean Conference – to reduce plastic pollution and, in particular, plastics reaching the ocean around Indonesia, a country which is second only to China for leaking plastic into the sea (see graphic).
The Indonesian government has made addressing the plastic waste issue a priority, with an ambitious commitment to reduce marine plastic debris by 70 percent by 2025.
The waste management industry in Indonesia is still in its early stages of development, and as such infrastructure development still faces a range of challenges. Plastic Energy is exploring partnerships with a range of public and private sector organizations to address these challenges and to facilitate the construction of these plants, and to make West Java a showcase for the rest of Indonesia.
Indonesia is the world’s second-biggest source of plastic ocean debris. [Sources: American Chemistry Council (data), Nova Chemicals (graphic)
Governor Ridwan Kamil commented: “West Java is the largest province in Indonesia in terms of population. We have 50 million people and 27 cities. West Java is also known as the province with a vision of green development, and are creating a series of strategies to make sure our future is sustainable. One of the big issues we are facing is plastic waste. So, therefore, I am very happy to sign this MoU with Plastic Energy, a British company that can transform plastic waste into fuel, something which is very useful. We are committed to ensuring this project is executed in a proper, transparent and professional way. We want to be the first region in Indonesia to have the facilities to transform plastic waste into energy and into fuel, through this partnership with Plastic Energy.”
Carlos Monreal, Founder and CEO of Plastic Energy commented: “We are delighted to be able to make a significant contribution to Indonesia’s battle to reduce plastic pollution. Through the introduction of these plants, we will give value to plastic waste which is usually sent to landfill and sometimes mismanaged which leads to the pollution of the ocean.”
Plastic Energy has two industrial plants which have been operational for more than three years in Spain and earlier this year reached an MoU agreement with Sabic to provide feedstock for the production of certified circular polymers, following the establishment of a commercial plant in the Netherlands.
https://www.plasticstoday.com/sustainability/plastic-energy-construct-five-chemical-recycling-plants-indonesia/158807241360577
-
Under Rick Perry, Energy Efficiency Standards Targeted
Apr 4, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
A refrigerator purchased today requires only about a quarter of the electricity of a model purchased in the mid-1970s. Similar statistics can be cited for washing machines, air conditioners and thousands of other appliances.
The sea change follows the creation more than three decades ago of a federal standard on how much electricity appliances, equipment and other machinery consume - familiar nowadays through the Energy Star program, which denotes products that exceed minimum efficiency specifications.
But now Energy Secretary Rick Perry is leading a campaign for a radical change to the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program that critics say would slow decades worth of efficiency gains. That has prompted a debate in Washington whether appliances can get all that much more efficient and whether standard-setting needs to be scaled back.
Energy officials are proposing that efficiency specifications only be changed if they result in a savings of half a quad of energy over 30 years - the equivalent of about 4 percent of U.S. electricity demand in a given year.
The Energy Department declined to make officials available to discuss the proposal, but at a hearing in the House Energy and Commerce Hearing earlier this month Daniel Simmons, assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy, defended the move as necessary to reduce burden on government and industry for what is an expensive and time-consuming process.
“These improvements,” he testified, “will help reduce the burden of the process by which standards are developed, which can be costly and time consuming for stakeholders, and ensure that consumers’ interest in avoiding significant increases in upfront cost and a loss of product choice are protected.”
Such a move upends decades of practice by Democratic and Republican administrations that consistently increased energy efficiency standards and would effectively make impossible numerous energy savings initiatives.
Oil embargo roots
Environmental and energy efficiency lobbyists have come out in force to oppose it, maintaining that it is part of a larger strategy to roll back efficiency standards at the behest of manufacturing executives who argue appliances are about as energy efficient as they’re going to get. Earlier this year, the Energy Department said it would scale back a new standard for more energy efficient light bulbs set to go into effect next year, reducing the number of bulbs that would need to comply by about half, according to analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“By our calculation, appliance standard is the second largest energy savings program after the vehicle fuel economy standard,” said Steve Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. “You have an administration that really doesn’t believe in regulation, so they are proposing to change the process to issue a lot less regulations.”
The Appliance and Equipment Standards Program dates back to the mid-1970s, when, in the wake of the Arab oil embargo that sent energy costs skyrocketing, Congress passed a sweeping law to reduce U.S. energy demand while increasing domestic supplies of coal, oil and natural gas. Nowadays, more than 60 different products used in homes, businesses and factories are regulated under the efficiency standard.
With climate change forecasts getting more dire and more attention in Washington, members of both parties are looking for avenues to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And more efficient machinery means less electricity demand, which ultimately amounts to less pollution.
But not all energy efficiency gains are created equal.
The Department of Energy has set 57 appliance and equipment standards since the mid 1980s, resulting in an energy savings of 113 quads — the equivalent of eight years’ worth of U.S. power demand — according to the administration’s analysis. But more than 95 percent of those savings come from just 34 standards, each of which met or exceeded the threshold Perry now wants to set.. The remaining 23 standards combined accounted for just 4 percent of the energy savings.
From the point of view of appliance and equipment manufacturers, achieving those remaining marginal savings is not worth the costs involved. Sometimes, they say, the standards are even counterproductive.
Turning heads
Three years ago, under former president Barack Obama, the Energy Department proposed a new tougher standard on dishwashers. While reducing energy and water consumption, the dishwashers were not all that good at washing, leading consumers to rewash their dishes and use more energy and water, said Joe McGuire, president of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, an industry trade group.
“It all comes down to whether the standard is going to save a significant amount of energy or not,” he said. “People want refrigerators that are going to keep the food preserved and washing machines that clean their clothes. For many of these products, we’re at the point of diminishing returns.”
After years of largely bipartisan agreement on efficiency standards, Perry’s proposal has turned heads.
Democrats have come out forcefully against it, noting the administration has refused to finalize new efficiency standards on products including refrigerators and air conditioners, as required by Congress.
“Sadly, the progress on this important program came to a grinding halt when President Trump was inaugurated,” Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said at the hearing this month. “Today, all of us who care about the issue of climate change have a chance to condemn (the Energy Department’s) delays. National energy efficiency standards for appliances are one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
House Republicans, meanwhile, are defending the Energy Department's proposal as a necessary fix to delays in standard setting that have dogged Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Under the law the Energy Department must reassess efficiency standards to determine if improved technology allows them to be raised. The department then must either raise them or explain why it’s not.
“There’s not a lot of flexibility, which too often has led to unnecessary deadlines and rushed federal regulations,” said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., the top Republican on the House energy committee.
The Department of Energy, which is reviewing public comments on Perry’s proposal, expects to finalize the change in standards later this year.
See you in court
That is likely to set off more legal scrutiny on a Trump administration that has seen its efforts to roll back federal regulations repeatedly challenged in court by environmental and other advocates.
In 1985, the D.C. Circuit of Appeals ruled that under the 1970’s-era energy law the Energy Department could only decide against increasing efficiency standards if the energy savings proved “genuinely trivial.” The Trump administration’s own analysis found that standards not meeting the proposed threshold added up to energy savings equivalent to one-third of annual U.S. electricity demand.
“Depending on what they do, aspects of this could well be challenged in court,” Nadel said.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Under-Rick-Perry-energy-efficiency-standards-13740828.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
Industrial Hemp Is The Answer To Petrochemical Dependency
Apr 4, 2019 | Forbes
By Ellis Talton and Remington Tonar
Over the last three weeks, the Houston, TX area has been besieged by chemical fires—the latest resulting in the death of one person and the hospitalization of two others. A few weeks ago, another petrochemical facility caught on fire, consuming 11 storage tanks and sending toxic materials spewing into the air and Houston ship channel. During the initial fire, smoke billowing from the facility created a dark cloud that stretched over 20 miles across the City of Houston.
These types of incidents cast a pall over the petrochemical industry and reinforce the urgency of finding more environmentally-friendly—and human-friendly—solutions. Nonetheless, our dependency on petrochemicals has proven hard to overcome, largely because these materials are as versatile as they are volatile. From fuel to plastics to textiles to paper to packaging to construction materials to cleaning supplies, petroleum-based products are critical to our industrial infrastructure and way of life.
Although there are numerous companies and researchers attempting to use synthetic biology to obsolete our petro-industrial complex, much of this research is a long way from commercialization. Interestingly, however, there is a naturally-occurring and increasingly-popular material that can be used to manufacture many of the same products we now make from petroleum-derived materials—and you have undoubtedly already heard of it. That material is hemp.
Industrial hemp, not to be confused with marijuana, was recently removedfrom the federal government’s schedule of controlled substances in the 2018 Farm Bill. The crop can be used to make everything from biodegradable plastic to construction materials like flooring, siding, drywall and insulation to paper to clothing to soap to biofuels made from hemp seeds and stalks. Porsche is even using hemp-based material in the body of its 718 Cayman GT4 Clubsport track car to reduce the weight while maintaining rigidity and safety.
Needless to say, a shift to these natural, biodegradable and recyclable hemp-based products could have significant benefits for the environment and human health. From reducing the nearly 8 million metric tons of plastic that infiltrate our oceans every year to allaying consumer concerns over petrochemicals in beauty and hygiene products to the role that hemp can play in removing toxins from soil, the benefits of a more hemp-driven industrial base are hard to ignore—to say nothing of the $20,000 to $50,000 per acre that hemp farmers can make, according to Bodhi Urban, CEO of leading seed supplier HGH Seed.
Yet, despite the surprising number of materials for which industrial hemp could serve as a petrochemical alternative, an array of infrastructural obstacles prevent hemp from becoming a viable challenger to petroleum-based industries.
First, even though hemp was widely grown around the country up until a century ago, the knowledge, facilities and equipment required to cultivate, process and distribute hemp are no longer commonplace. This infrastructural vacuum has created challenges around everything from seed genetics to planting to irrigation to harvesting to processing to pricing to distribution.
“Other crops have a long history of breeding programs,” notes Lawrence Smart, a professor at Cornell University's School of Integrative Plant Science and a leading hemp researcher. “But there’s still no gene bank for hemp. There needs to be an investment in research.” Additionally, there’s a significant shortage of processing capacity. “One of the biggest problems is balancing production with processing capacity,” says Smart. “Growers aren’t going to plant it unless someone is going to buy it.”
Second, the hemp supply chain is considerably opaque. There’s no assurance that the seeds you’re buying will perform as advertised. Inconsistencies in lab tests abound. No industry-wide standards exist for quality control or product labeling. The absence of this basic transparency adds additional risk and complexity to growing hemp in a way that complies with regulations and yields a consistent, high quality commodity.
“Seed suppliers must work to have as little variance as possible,” says Urban of HGH Seed, who points out that there is already a $21 million lawsuit in Oregon over seeds that didn’t perform as advertised. “We’ve been able to achieve consistency and keep THC levels down throughout the duration of the harvest,” Urban notes of his strains. Delivering on these promises, he says, is vital to building trust in individual suppliers and the industry as a whole.
Third, there is still a tremendous amount of regulatory uncertainty surrounding the industry. The 2018 Farm Bill legalized hemp—provided it contains under 0.3% THC (the psychoactive chemical in marijuana)—but leaves its regulation up to the states and requires state departments of agriculture to develop a plan for monitoring its cultivation. Most states are currently considering legislation to do so. The FDA also maintains a ban on interstate trade of some hemp-derived products under its purview.
Although it seems like these obstacles make it nearly impossible for industrial hemp to challenge the petroleum industry, the latter is increasingly facing many of the same problems.
Whereas hemp is undoubtedly becoming less regulated, petro-based industries are coming under increasing regulatory pressure. Many emerging Democratic politicians such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg have advocated for aggressiverestrictions on fossil fuel driven companies. At the same time, the equipment petroleum-based industries rely on today is becoming antiquated, as evidenced by the growing push to digitalize the energy and petrochemical value chain. Accidents like the recent ones in Texas also demonstrate that the industry’s existing safety equipment has plenty of shortcomings. Finally, as trust in the energy industry continues to decline in the United States, the agriculture and food industries are working on ways to increase that trust. Companies like Ripe.io, for example, are using blockchain to track food from farm to table. Other startups like Provision Analytics are using big data to help smaller food manufacturers gain supply chain transparency. Eventually, these same types of solutions will help the hemp industry increase transparency and traceability from seed to shelf.
While the trends favor hemp, they are unlikely to allow industrial hemp to outproduce or outcompete petrochemical products any time soon. Nevertheless, the growing understanding of, interest in and infrastructure for hemp will certainly allow it to have a permanent place in our economy, one that will contribute to a greener, healthier world.
“I think there are going to be novel scientific discoveries in this plant that can lead to impactful applications,” says Smart. “If we can develop hemp products as a bio-based replacement for fossil fuels, there’s tremendous potential.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellistalton/2019/04/04/industrial-hemp-is-the-answer-to-petrochemical-dependency/#770a50ec72d8
-
Fracking Could be Heading Us Into the Next Financial Crisis
Apr 4, 2019 | Citizen Truth
By Peter Castagno
The fracking revolution has led to private equity’s highest allocation of investment in fossil fuels in 20 years, but is it basically a Ponzi scheme?
United States natural gas consumption increased 10% in 2018. The U.S. energy boom has been largely driven by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the process of breaking rock with pressurized liquid to extract internal fossil fuel contents, but some experts have recently warned fracking is set to create the next economic crisis.
Is Fracking a Bubble?
Fracking is expected to grow another 44 percent between 2011 and 2040, as technological advancements have granted speculators access to previously inaccessible sites.
Bethany Mclean, the investigative journalist who first revealed Enron’s fraudulent accounting practices in her book “The Smartest Guys in the Room”, has pointed to fracking as a new economic bubble in the fossil fuel sector.
Mclean contends that while fracking demands huge amounts of investment, it is not actually profitable. The low-interest rates of the past decade have allowed investors to pump capital into the U.S. fracking revolution, spurred by politicians seeking domestic energy independence from fossil fuel imports.
The fracking revolution has led to private equity’s highest allocation of investment in fossil fuels in 20 years. But according to Mclean’s estimations, they’re investing in what is basically a Ponzi scheme. A recent report by the credit rating agency Moody’s shows that 90% of the debt issued by private equity is rated B2 or lower, putting that debt within the seven lowest possible ratings possible (including default).
Fracking locations lose 69% of their gains after one year, and 85% after three years, forcing them to continue raising capital in order to open new locations to expand production and pay off creditors. Hedge Fund Manager Jim Chanos referred to shale oil companies as “creatures of the capital markets,” because without money from Wall Street (which has been provided with near-zero interest money from the fed) they would not exist. To highlight the absurdity of the situation, here is a quote from the CEO of Anadarko Petroleum imploring speculators to slow lending to his industry at an investor conference:
“The biggest problem our industry faces today is you guys. You guys can help us help ourselves. It’s kind of like going to AA. You know, we need a partner. We really need the investment community to show discipline.” – Anadarko CEO Al Walker, 2017Fracking Has its Supporters
Proponents of fracking challenge Mclean’s assertions, arguing that natural gas is an ideal transition to renewable energy that supports over a million American jobs. But with solar and wind now cheaper than coal (and steadily improving in efficiency), and the urgency required to cut emissions to meet IPCC targets, setting up fossil fuel infrastructure as an “energy bridge” to renewables is less desirable than investing directly in clean energy.
According to economist Dean Baker, Mclean is correct in her analysis on the weak economic foundations of the natural gas energy boom, but believes a jump back to 2014 oil prices would make fracking profitable. He proceeded to comment he does not predict this will happen.
U.S. shale and natural gas production reflects a larger economic predicament – large amounts of low-interest credit pumped into inefficient sectors of the economy that cannot support themselves without subsidies. Because public companies are required to pursue quarterly expansion, huge debt buildups must be used to placate the need for never-ending “growth.” This has resulted in a debt-laden economy where debt is often paid off by taking on more debt.
From causing pollution to the direct link between fracking and an increased frequency of earthquakes, the external costs of fracking surpass the risk of bad debt. With even the profitability of fracking in question, are the consequences of perpetuating fossil fuel production, and delaying the shift to renewables that experts deem vital to avoid climate catastrophe worth the cost?
https://citizentruth.org/fracking-could-be-heading-us-into-the-next-financial-crisis/
-
Is Fracking out of Gas as a Hot-Button Democratic Issue?
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Kelsey Brugger
As the nation's natural gas production booms, Democrats eyeing the White House may find themselves in a fracking fight.
The fossil fuel has been called a "bridge" that could wean the nation off coal and help curb climate change. But it releases methane pollution when burned, and the process of extracting it has been tied to water and health issues.
With the Green New Deal now a leading issue heading into the presidential election, Democratic contenders may face increased pressure to clarify where they stand. And the issue could split Democrats as hydraulic fracturing splits rock.
Already pushing potential White House seekers is independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Last month the Oregon Legislature advanced a bill to ban fracking for 10 years. Sanders immediately praised the move.
"Fracking pollutes water, degrades air quality and worsens climate change," he tweeted on March 19. "When we are in the White House we are going to ban fracking nationwide and rapidly move to renewable energy."
Sanders is aiming to pull his primary challengers to the left on the issue — as he did in 2016. He and his supporters forced the Democratic National Committee to debate "fracking," the politicized buzzword for hydraulic fracturing, in the party platform and on the campaign trail. Sanders ripped the Obama administration after federal agencies in June 2016 found it was unlikely that offshore fracking would damage the environment.
Several of the Democratic candidates have avoided specifying their positions in the past — with the exceptions of Sanders and John Hickenlooper, former Colorado governor and presidential candidate who supports fracking that is regulated.
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke also has a record on the issue, but his precise position is murkier. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently lauded him as an "environmentalist," he also has close ties to the oil industry. Last fall, he told the Midland Reporter-Telegram that natural gas production in Texas is cleaner than coal-fired plants in India and China.
"I'd much rather they burn natural gas from Texas that's connected to jobs here," he said.
Several other candidates have earned high marks from the League of Conservation Voters but have stopped short of calling for a fracking ban. One fracking bill, the "FRAC Act," which would have required oil companies to disclose the chemicals used in the process, never had a congressional hearing (Energywire, Nov. 2, 2018).
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) has said she was "skeptical" of fracking, The Sacramento Beereported in 2016. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has called for stronger environmental protections, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) has more recently opposed fossil fuels after calling fracking safe and economical in past years (E&E Daily, March 15).
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has generally called for making the transition to "clean energy" in her infrastructure plan (Greenwire, March 28).
Yet it remains to be seen if "fracking" will catch on as a key political issue in the primary race and where each of the Democrats would fall.
If it does emerge, Jennifer Duffy of The Cook Political Report said Democrats would push back on Republican economic arguments by addressing "the costs to the community that result from fracking and the damage it does."
A veteran energy lobbyist predicted that argument could resonate in states such as North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia — where shale gas production surged in the last decade. Others doubted the issue would resonate beyond the affected communities. "Presidential candidates have largely moved on," said RL Miller, political director of Climate Hawks Vote.
Yet Paul Bledsoe of the Progressive Policy Institute thought the primary race could generally shape up to be "the keep-it-in-the-ground crowd versus the environmental realists."
"It could be that Sanders wants to pick this fight," Bledsoe said.Enter the Green New Deal
The 2016 Democratic Party platform was silent on a fracking ban.
Leading up to 2016, party insiders had fiercely debated the topic. Instead of a ban, they opted to "incentivize" renewable energy over new natural gas power plants. They also called for more federal oversight of fracturing.
The issue caused conflict between Sanders and Hillary Clinton, exposing a rift in the party. Sanders prided himself as the only candidate willing to take on the fossil fuel industry (Climatewire, July 8, 2016).
But Clinton's campaign believed such an absolute ban could actually impede methane regulations and other rules. In private emails, members of her campaign criticized Sanders' fracking position as too extreme but acknowledged that in states like Colorado the issue was dicey (Energywire, Oct. 13, 2016).
Today, the politics are different. The sudden popularity of the Green New Deal has helped amplify climate change as a top-tier issue for Democrats in Congress for perhaps the first time in a decade, when Congress debated cap and trade. Around that time in 2010, the Oscar-nominated film "Gasland" was intensifying the issue of fracking for average Americans.
"This brand-new movement on climate change — the Sunrise Movement — these people grew up watching 'Gasland,'" said the film's creator and director Josh Fox. "These people come from front-line communities."
Fox said that objecting to the fossil fuel industry is key for Democrats in the 2020 elections.
"If the Democrats are not with the total ban on fracking and with taking fossil fuel money, then they are heading down the same path that lost the election for Hillary," he said.
Recent polling of likely Democratic voters shows that climate change is a leading issue, just trailing health care. Normington, Petts & Associates and Hart Research surveyed 1,765 voters in a handful of states that have early primaries.
Specifically on fracking, the most recent national polls were conducted in 2016, when Gallup found 51 percent of Americans opposed it. That's an 11 percent increase from the year prior. There appears, however, to be no definitive data on American attitudes on fracking.Winning or 'awkward' position?
Natural gas and oil have hit record production levels in the United States and dramatically changed the country's economy. Today, most wells drilled are high-volume hydraulic fracturing with long horizontal wellbores. The process involves bending the wellbore horizontally and then blasting fluids into the rock formation to extract more oil or gas. In essence, banning fracking in the United States would largely wipe out a huge swath of oil and gas production.
Sanders has earned points in drought-ridden places like Colorado or Texas where fracking has become a flashpoint because of water issues. That sentiment has intensified as the Trump administration pushes to expand oil and gas drilling on public land.
"Fracking" has also been an economic boon in states like Pennsylvania, which sits atop the lucrative Marcellus Shale play. Matto Mildenberger, political science professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, noted there will be "so much desire to ensure that Pennsylvania returns to the Democratic column there won't be an appetite to contest this particular issue."
Fracking proponents stressed that spending on natural gas per household has decreased by more than a quarter from 2008 and 2014.
"So it's discouraging that so many lawmakers known for championing the economically disadvantaged stand opposed to domestic energy development," wrote Ohio conservative Paula Bolyard yesterday in RealClearEnergy.
In general, debate exists in environmental circles about the extent to which natural gas has reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the past decade, Mildenberger added. The rise of cheap natural gas has pushed out coal plants, which emit about 50 percent more carbon dioxide when comparing new plants, data shows. But methane leaks from increased oil and natural gas operations — which are more potent than carbon dioxide — have negated emissions benefits to an unknown degree.
Hickenlooper knows fracking well. He once famously drank frack fluid and as Colorado governor threatened to sue municipalities that enacted local bans. He later opposed a statewide fracking initiative. In a moderate fashion, he worked with the industry to strengthen methane rules.
"He made clear where he stood," said Jeremy Nichols of WildEarth Guardians. "He genuinely believes we can frack our way to a safe climate.
"The other candidates [need to] more clearly articulate where they stand on fossil fuel production," Nichols said. "It'll expose who the real leaders are."
WildEarth Guardians has emphatically called for an end to all oil and gas production. It prides itself as being like a group of street fighters and has grown considerably in recent years.
Still, many environmentalists argue that natural gas plays a role in the energy transition.
"Shale growth has been a huge economic bonanza for a lot of the country, and I think there are Democrats who are really going to begin to make that case," Bledsoe said, adding that it could be a "popular position with most of the Democratic electorate."
Frank Maisano, senior principal at the energy law firm Bracewell, added that shale production has spurred the development of renewables in the past decade. He said the Democratic candidates who target natural gas in the primary race could find themselves in an awkward position later on.
"They are not talking to the mainstream voter right now. They are talking to the more progressive, environmentally conscious voter," he said. "Will they put themselves too far out there, so they can't pull back?"
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/05/stories/1060143951
-
Cheap Gas Could Shackle Booming Export Industry
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Business leaders are warning that new investment in infrastructure for liquefied natural gas exports and imports across the globe is facing a critical hurdle: cheap gas.
Prior warnings that LNG supply may overtake demand for at least a few years are proving prescient today as suppliers are forced to cope with low prices in what is now a buyers' market.
That's poised to change after 2022 as new demand for the increasingly popular fuel takes hold, according to experts, but today's low prices may delay investment decisions that could meet future demand.
That's the takeaway from a survey of professionals in LNG supply and trading conducted by the global industrial consultancy DNV GL. Though there's wide agreement that new LNG supply decisions must be taken this year and beyond, current soft pricing may see companies hesitate to take them, respondents reported.
"Global LNG export capacity will increase by 45 percent between 2017 and 2022, with 90 percent of this capacity coming from projects already sanctioned in the U.S. and Australia," DNG GL analysts say in the new report. "However, there are concerns about supply and infrastructure capacity beyond this point."
When the question was posed to LNG business insiders, 85 percent of respondents said they see a need for further LNG export and import capacity to be built beyond what's already been planned or sanctioned.
Most expressed doubts that supply capacity will meet new demand post-2022, with nearly 70 percent reporting that current low gas prices are holding back investments, in particular investments in so-called mega-projects like the recently sanctioned LNG Canada project.
The survey also shows that concerns over supply matching rising LNG demand are felt most strongly in Asia.
Though LNG supply now exceeds demand and is pressuring LNG prices, 43 percent of senior executives surveyed globally told the analysts that the situation is poised to reverse itself and that in five years, demand will exceed LNG supplies. Just looking at executives based in the Asia-Pacific region, 61 percent in the region fear LNG demand will be higher than supply in five years.
The Asia-Pacific is by far the fastest-growing market for LNG, with most executives pointing to China, India, Japan and South Korea among the top destinations for rising export volumes. A majority agree that demand in China will rise faster than in any other market.
As if to underscore that point, this week, French energy giant Total announced it had scored a long-term LNG supply contract with a major Chinese utility. The contract commits the trading arm of Guanghui Energy Co. to purchase 700,000 tons of LNG per year from Total's global LNG portfolio, for a period of 10 years. Total's executives noted in the announcement that China's LNG imports grew by around 41 percent last year.
The DNV GL 2019 global LNG survey also revealed a dispute within the market, with sellers revealing that long-term contracts must continue to be the foundation of LNG sales. Buyers are insisting on greater flexibility in contract terms.
The analysts call it a "fundamental disconnect" that may be resolved through innovative contracting schemes designed to give both sides partly what they want.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/05/stories/1060143683
-
Colorado E&Ps to Face More Scrutiny Under Oil, Gas Bill
Apr 4, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Despite oil and gas industry pushback, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis is expected to sign into law within the next two weeks legislation that would give local authorities more oversight over exploration and production (E&P) operations.
The Colorado General Assembly on Wednesday passed Senate Bill (SB) 181, which was fast-tracked in a month's time by the new Democratic majority and forwarded to the governor’s desk.
The state Senate concurred with House changes, but overall, the legislation failed to cede to strong opposition from the energy industry.
"SB 181 is the most comprehensive oil and gas legislation Colorado has seen in decades, and while a few critical amendments were added that begin to address some of industry's concerns and provide a degree of certainty, our industry remains firmly opposed to this bill," said leaders of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) and the Colorado Petroleum Council (CPC) in a joint statement.
COGA CEO Dan Haley and CPC’s Ben Marter said the legislation "threatens" the E&P sector's role as a pillar in the state's economy. However, they complimented the state lawmakers involved for listening to their concerns. The industry was promised a seat at the table in the subsequent "highly complex regulatory rulemakings following the bill's enactment."
"That will be critical to minimizing the bill's negative impacts on our state, and we hope the process can begin immediately," Haley and Marter said.
After a streamlined process, the House last week approved the plan to give local government expanded oversight into future oil and gas development while updating the state's role to establish standards for the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) and make it a full-time board appointed by the governor.
About a dozen amendments narrowed the local authority to require action by cities and counties to be "reasonable," and more difficult to impose total bans on drilling. Similarly, there is now language that requires that the COGCC be "re-professionalized" in its makeup and authority.
Throughout the accelerated legislative process, SB 181 drew vocal opposition and spurred an effort by current and former county elected officials to get a measure on the November statewide ballot that would essentially repeal the legislation.
The legislation is part of a long line of statewide ballot measures and local government ordinances aimed at the issue of more local control over energy operations, including a series of bans on hydraulic fracturing that began in 2013. Colorado voters last November rejected by a 57% margin Proposition 112, a measure that would have prevented some drilling in the state.
The new law, if enacted, would add about $3 million in annual costs to the state budget.
The impact for local governments is expected to lead to the biggest potential changes. However, limits to authority were added calling for "reasonable" actions by local authorities; action in a "reasonable manner," and local rules/standards that are "necessary and reasonable."
The actions also are explicitly limited to the local county or city's own boundaries, preventing city-county disputes.
The bill changes the minimum amount of unobligated funds in the environmental fund in any given fiscal year, and it changes the COGCC’s leeway in authorizing multiple drilling units in pooling only if more than half of the mineral interest-holders agree to be pooled.
The COGCC’s emphasis would be on protecting public health and the environment instead of "fostering" development of natural resource industries.
The bill also expands the role of the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC), with the commission mandated to establish rules to minimize methane and other emissions from oil and gas facilities.
Operators also would be required to install continuous monitoring equipment for hazardous air pollution. Eventually, this could create additional permitting requirements for operators, depending on what AQCC rules are adopted.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117938-colorado-eps-to-face-more-scrutiny-under-oil-gas-bill
-
Oil and Gas Regulators Gain Power in New Mexico
Apr 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brenna Goth
Oil and gas regulators in New Mexico can soon sanction companies for violations under a law that restores authority they lost roughly a decade ago.
Changes signed into law by Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham April 3 also clarify regulation of produced water, an industry byproduct. Both issues emerged as concerns this year for legislators who want to protect the state’s environment amid an oil and gas boom.
The new law returns enforcement authority to New Mexico’s Oil Conservation Division after a 2009 state Supreme Court decision stripped the agency of penalty power, leaving enforcement to the state’s attorney general.
Now the division can penalize companies up to $2,500 a day per violation for most types of noncompliance starting in 2020. Penalties applied outside of court will be capped at $200,000.
The regulation of produced water, or the fluid created from oil and natural gas extraction, split the support of environmental groups. The law outlines that companies are responsible for the mineral-heavy water, and can sell or treat it.
The state aims to save fresh water and encourage recycling produced water, bill sponsor Rep. Nathan Small, a Democrat, said in a statement. But some environmental groups said the impacts of those changes are unknown, with potential harm to clean water protections.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oil-and-gas-regulators-gain-power-in-new-mexico
-
One Dead, Two Seriously Injured in Fire at Kmco Specialty Chemical Plant in Houston Area
Apr 4, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson
An explosion and fire at the KMCO chemical plant in Crosby, Texas, killed one worker, James Earl “Bubba” Mangum, and critically injured two others on April 2. The specialty chemical manufacturer makes products for automotive, petroleum, industrial, and agricultural markets.
Accident information was scant as of C&EN deadline, but the fire is thought to have been caused by a leaking transfer hose that released flammable isobutylene. The isobutylene ignited and the fire spread to tanks holding ethanol and a warehouse, said Rachel Moreno, a spokesperson for the Harris County Fire Marshal. The community within a one-mile (1.6 km) radius of the plant was ordered to shelter in place for several hours until the fire was put out.
As of C&EN deadline, investigators had been unable to enter the plant, which is located near Houston, to determine the exact cause of the incident, Moreno said.
Likewise, investigators had been unable to enter the accident site of a March 17 tank farm fire at the nearby Intercontinental Terminals Co. facility in Deer Park, Moreno said. Eleven tanks at the large distribution facility caught fire and burned for three days. A mix of chemicals from the plant and fire-fighting foams was released to air and into the nearby Houston Ship Channel, which closed for several days.
Both accidents are being investigated by the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
Meanwhile a coalition of local and national environmental and community groups, several of which are in the Houston area, are suing the US Environmental Protection Agency over a nearly 30-year delay in issuing protective regulations under provisions in the Clean Water Act.
The delayed provisions call for the EPA to develop regulations requiring chemical companies to prepare plans to prevent and respond to potential worst-case scenario spills of hazardous substances, including spills triggered by explosions, fires, and natural disasters that endanger people’s health and contaminate water resources. The suit notes the growing threat of climate change and the increasing frequency of hurricanes and flooding and their impact in chemically related industrial areas.
“From Hurricane Katrina to Hurricane Harvey, we’ve repeatedly witnessed communities inundated by toxic flood waters—laced with an unknown concoction of hazardous chemical substances. Black, brown, and poor communities are more likely to be impacted by chemical spills and suffer the health impacts of pollution,” says Michele Roberts, National Co-Coordinator of the Environmental Justice Health Alliance.
The Alliance along with Clean Water Action and Natural Resources Defense Council initiated the suit.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/One-dead-two-seriously-injured/97/i14
-
Chemical Safety Board Appeals Reporting Rule Order
Apr 4, 2019 | Bloomberg Environment
By Sam Pearson
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board wants an appeals court to overturn a ruling that the agency issue a chemical reporting regulation within a year. The board initially appeared to comply with the order.
At a public business meeting March 12, Kristen Kulinowski, a board member serving as its interim executive authority, said the agency would issue a notice of proposed rulemaking this summer for a regulation to require companies to submit chemical release information. Justice Department attorneys...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/safety/chemical-safety-board-appeals-reporting-rule-order
-
Tar Sands Crude Shipments Quietly Increased In Oregon, With Regulators In the Dark
Apr 4, 2019 | Oregon Public Broadcasting
By Tony Schick
If oil is moving through Oregon, it’s Michael Zollitsch’s job to know about it. He oversees the state’s emergency responses to oil spills and other environmental disasters.
But last March, when Bloomberg News reported oil from Canada’s tar sands was rolling through Zenith Energy’s storage facility in Northwest Portland on its way to Asia, it caught him by surprise.
“News to me!!” he wrote to his staff at Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality, and to Richard Franklin, a regional spill coordinator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“Me, too!” Franklin wrote back.
It wasn’t the first time oil spill regulators were in the dark about oil shipments through Oregon, and it wouldn’t be the last.
Documents obtained by OPB under Oregon’s public records law show regulators struggled for months to get straight answers about what kind of oil was moving on trains — dubbed “rolling pipelines” by their critics — through Portland and when.
State officials resorted to tracking ships along the Columbia River and guessing how much oil they might be loading based on the amount of ballast water on board — a far cry from the 24-hour notice Washington facilities send regulators for all oil-by-rail shipments.
When DEQ did learn the chemical makeup of that oil, according to the documents, they discovered a potential risk of toxic inhalation for workers and neighbors of the facility: The oil contains enough hydrogen sulfide that the safety data sheets for the product call for spill responders to wear not just masks but fully supplied air, similar to a scuba tank.
Megan Mastal, a public relations representative for Zenith, which operates 24 facilities in the U.S. and internationally, said in an emailed statement thatthe company has been up front with regulators and that the oil it handles does not pose any additional hazards.
“Our customers trust us with safe and efficient storage of their critical product,” Mastal said. “Zenith provides services to some of the largest companies in the world and has passed their vigorous inspection and vetting requirements. We are proud of our employees and their dedication to our safety-first culture.”Oregon Lags
For six years oil trains have been rolling through Oregon — including one in 2016 that derailed and exploded in the Columbia River Gorge. And yet, the government workers charged with preventing and cleaning up oil spills in Oregon remain as in the dark as ever about many of these shipments. That’s largely because of successful industry lobbying efforts and the reluctance of Oregon’s legislature to pass rules already enacted in neighboring states.
While lawmakers have passed bans on offshore oil drilling and fracking — both unlikely prospects in Oregon — they have done relatively little to regulate the real and present danger that oil could spill from trains rumbling through the state.
For the fourth session in a row, the Oregon Legislature is now considering new rules for oil trains. House Bill 2209 would require DEQ oversight of railroad oil spill planning and assesses fees on railroads to help pay for the state’s work.
Already this session, lawmakers have introduced two bills that would match the stronger requirements in Washington — and let them die without so much as a public hearing. Now, with the session in its 12th week, lawmakers are advancing a less restrictive proposal, House Bill 2209, which was developed in collaboration with Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF Railway, among others.
This comes as oil-by-rail shipments out of Canada’s oil sands have been on the rise. Existing businesses in Oregon have quietly shifted operations to handle more of it, even as plans for brand new fossil fuel projects have been rejected up and down the Northwest.
With the loosest rules on the West Coast, environmentalists fear Oregon has become the path of least resistance for an oil that sinks in water and, they say, could devastate iconic fisheries and waterways.
On the Columbia River, a company known as Global Partners LP successfully changed its port lease to allow for heavy crude at its Clatskanie, Oregon, facility. That facility was originally built as a bio-refinery in 2009 with $36 million in green energy loans and tax tax credits from the state.
And on the Willamette River, an oil terminal owned by Zenith Energy in Northwest Portland is under construction to nearly quadruple railcar loading capacity at what used to be an asphalt plant.
“This is really troubling, to see that Oregon’s environmental laws aren’t standing up to oil trains in the way most people would expect. Particularly in the wake of the Mosier oil train disaster. It’s really alarming,” said Dan Serres, conservation director for the Columbia Riverkeeper.
DEQ’s attempts to regulate the Zenith terminal show how ill-informed and ill-prepared the state’s oil spill responders can be under the state’s current regulations for oil by rail.Regulators In The Dark
At various points throughout 2018, Zenith’s terminal manager informed DEQ that the company was switching away from Canadian crude to a lighter oil, and that it was moving away from crude entirely, according to agency emails.
The company also switched its planned oil spill drill to prepare for diesel instead of tar sands crude — an entirely different type of response.
“He claims that over the next 3 years the facility will primarily be handling diesel and he does not expect any more shipments of the heavy crude oil for some time,” Scott Smith, who regulates the Zenith facility for DEQ, wrote in an email to colleagues.
That didn’t happen.
Zenith continued to handle heavy crude from Canada. Its current construction indicates it is increasing that business.
In an emailed statement, Mastal said Zenith never told DEQ it was shifting operations away from crude oil, only that it was switching the type of crude oil. She also said a large part of the company’s Portland business plan is now attracting renewable fuels.
“There appears to be a misunderstanding of industry terminology as it relates to various grades and types of oil,” Mastal said in the statement.
Records show it took Smith weeks to obtain the chemical data sheets telling him exactly what the terminal was handling, something he usually gets before a new product is being shipped.
“One of the most important things we look at it is, ‘What is the oil or chemical that spilled and its physical and chemical properties?’” Smith later told OPB. “They determine how we respond.”
Those sheets contained another surprise: There’s hydrogen sulfide in the dilbit crude, as the industry refers to diluted bitumen crude from the tar sands.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/tar-sands-crude-oil-trains-oregon-legislature/
-
Political Gridlock Blocks Infrastructure Progress and Costs Our Economy
Apr 4, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Adie Tomer and Lara Fishbane
Infrastructure talks are heating up again. In just the last week, 2020 presidential candidate Amy Klobuchar pitched a trillion-dollar infrastructure proposal while the Trump administration and Congress continue to flirt with major infrastructure packages. This kind of thinking reflects clear public support for greater investment.
While these concepts and conversations suggest bipartisanship could deliver infrastructure reform, the current state of national politics delivers anything but an infrastructure boost. Put bluntly, when political discord leads to infrastructure failure, it doesn’t just deepen our distrust of government—it also takes our economy down with it.
After all, it was only months ago when fights between House Democrats and the Republican White House spilled over into our airports. With public employees and contractors forced to work without pay during the budget shutdown, it was little surprise that TSA security officers and air traffic controllers started calling in sick. Then, 35 days after the shutdown began, LaGuardia Airport closed due to staffing shortages. The budget fight ended just hours later.
While the budget fight may be over (for now), our political system is regularly causing less perceptible but more sustained disruptions to our road, water, and other physical networks. We can no longer afford this kind of unnecessary economic harm due to short-sighted politics.
This administration’s trade and tariff policies serve as a potent example of self-inflicted economic harm. Since the Trump administration applied tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, the cost index for steel mill products alone rose by almost 14 percent from March 2018 to January 2019. This directly impacts our state departments of transportation, their local peers, and water authorities who all rely on steel and aluminum to construct major capital projects. As Mark Niquette at Bloomberg reported, states from California to Michigan to Virginia have already seen certain project costs jump by millions of dollars. Meanwhile, steel and aluminum manufacturers in the U.S. have been hit hard by the costs, needing to lay off workers to close budget gaps.
Price increases can act as a fiscal virus, infecting an agency’s entire project pipeline. Since infrastructure agencies work on tight budgets and are naturally capital-constrained, there’s only so much construction to go around. So, when current projects start costing significantly more, agencies have no choice but to delay other projects. If the tariffs remain in future years—and the politically-motivated rhetoric suggests the president will keep them—the effects will only compound as more projects are either delayed or outright scrapped.
The net result: lower quality infrastructure than if the country never instituted the new tariffs. Oddly enough, while the president pushes a trade war to boost global competitiveness, our domestic infrastructure will be less prepared to power our economy once the war is over.
ADVERTISEMENT
Politics disrupting our infrastructure stretches far beyond tariff fights. For example, the U.S. Department of Transportation has now twice delayed promised capital grants to local transit agencies. Similarly, Congress and the Federal Aviation Administration cannot agree on how to manage and comprehensively fund a new satellite-based air traffic control system. They’re all guaranteed ways to raise infrastructure costs in the long-term and reduce public trust today.
That’s why these next two- and four-year periods are so important at the federal level.
For the nearly two years remaining on President’s Trump term, there is a major negotiation coming with congressional Democrats around our next surface transportation bill, if not a larger infrastructure package. If the two parties can craft a bill that boosts investment around long-run needs—from resilience to electrification to digitalization—and reduce tariff impacts in the process, we’ll all be in a better place. Washington has the chance to give long-run certainty to our state and local partners, who build all the projects and pay the majority of costs, anyway.
But if political compromise doesn’t happen—and we have our doubts—the pressure will only be higher on the next Congress and president to deliver a more collaborative, bipartisan vision for the country’s future. It’s why we’re not just watching what happens on the Hill these next couple years, but why we all should carefully watch the infrastructure and trade platforms put together by the Democratic candidates for president.
Of course, everyday Americans use infrastructure systems that remind us what political compromise can deliver. The national highway network is still one of the world’s great capital projects. The commercial air network is the busiest and safest in the world. We’ve grown accustomed to clean water access and are shocked when it fails.
But we have to remember how easily our politics can upend high-functioning infrastructure. As the budget fight grounded planes at one of the busiest airports in our nation’s biggest city, stacking up on the runway, the image said it all. Unnecessary gridlock eventually drags us all down.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/437371-political-gridlock-blocks-infrastructure-progress-and
-
Bill Would Require EPA Limits on Toxic Chemical From Refineries
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
EPA would have to set first-ever numerical limits on oil refinery emissions of hydrogen cyanide under legislation introduced yesterday by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).
The bill, H.R. 2092, would amend the Clean Air Act to require EPA to set limits on releases of the toxic chemical within two years of the measure's enactment, based on "the best available science" and the maximum degree of reduction that the agency deems achievable.
The industry would then have another year to come into compliance. Fence line monitoring and online public reporting of emissions would also be required.
"One of our government's most important responsibilities is to protect the health and well-being of the communities we represent," DeGette said at a press conference last month in Denver, according to a news release. "In this case, the federal government failed to meet those obligations."
Inhalation of small amounts of hydrogen cyanide can cause headaches, nausea and vomiting, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. In larger quantities, the chemical may lead to fainting, seizures or death.
Refineries are exploiting a Clean Air Act loophole that allows them to decide their own emissions limits for a specific chemical when EPA has not done so, according to the release from DeGette's office.
She cited the example of the Suncor Energy oil refinery near Denver. Last year, The Denver Postreported the plant was spewing 8.5 tons of hydrogen cyanide annually; with no federal standards in place, community groups wanted EPA to force Colorado regulators to set limits on the plant's emissions (Energywire, April 23, 2018). The release cites similar examples of refineries in New Mexico, Ohio and Texas that all sought permits "of their own to start using yet-to-be-regulated amounts of hydrogen cyanide."
The bill is expected to be referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee; DeGette chairs the panel's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/04/05/stories/1060144041
-
House Committee Advances Paris Climate Deal Bill
Apr 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
A Democratic bill to keep the U.S. in the Paris agreement on climate change was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, though it likely won’t go anywhere in the Senate.
The bill, H.R. 9, passed 29-19 in a party-line vote on April 4. It is now scheduled for a markup hearing on April 9 in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and is likely to pass the full House afer a vote in early May.
The legislation would require the president to develop a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet the country’s voluntary goals in the 2015 Paris pact, when the U.S. agreed to cut emissions by at least 26 percent by 2025, measured against 2005 levels.
The bill has the backing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and is expected to pass. But it likely won’t be taken up in the Republican-led Senate.
“We have a moral obligation to future generations to do this,” said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who chaired a morning hearing at the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis focused on youth activism on climate change. “It shouldn’t be partisan. We should be working together.”
GOP Amendments FailRepublicans said the legislation was being rushed to the floor without a proper hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and with no bipartisan support.
“This is not how good law is made,” committee ranking member Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said.
President Donald Trump in June 2017 announced he would pull the U.S. out of climate pact. The withdrawal can’t take effect until November 2020.
All five Republican amendments to the bill failed on a party-line vote, and the remainder were withdrawn. Democrats complained that the efforts to insert Republican priorities, like promoting nuclear power and hydropower, were stalled passage of an inevitable outcome.
“Each one of these is a gotcha amendment,” Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) said. “I think we’re wasting our time.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-committee-advances-paris-climate-deal-bill
-
Democrats Advance Bill To Block Paris Climate Deal Exit On Party-Line Vote
Apr 4, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
House Democrats have advanced on a party-line vote a leadership-backed bill that would block President Donald Trump's pledge to leave the Paris climate agreement, arguing the measure is an opportunity to force Republican lawmakers to develop their own strategy to tackle climate change.
GOP lawmakers have been “telling us how they're really serious about climate and how much they would like to see innovation,” said House Energy & Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), during an April 4 markup.
He added: “We're going to give them a chance to show that they're serious about climate change and innovation. We're asking Republicans and Trump, essentially, what's your plan?”
However, Republicans at the markup reiterated an array of arguments against the Paris Agreement, including claims that it would disadvantage domestic industries relative to the developing world, it was unlawfully adopted without Senate ratification and that the Obama administration's greenhouse gas target is too onerous.
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), the committee's ranking member, said that he and other GOP lawmakers are open to working with Democrats on various climate-related bills, including measures to modernize the power grid, support carbon capture technology and encourage climate adaptation.
Republicans, though, are “trying to make sure consumers don't get hijacked with higher prices on energy,” he said.
Given the disagreements, the bill, H.R. 9 advanced along party lines, 29-19.
In addition to blocking all federal funds for actions that advance a Paris withdrawal, the bill would also require the White House to submit within 120 days a plan for the United States to achieve the Obama administration's Paris target of reducing GHGs 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
Trump in June 2017 pledged to leave the deal, though he cannot complete that step until November 2020 under the terms of the agreement.
“We have time to reverse this disastrous decision,” said Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA).
Democrats voted down a series of GOP amendments that would require any Paris plan to incorporate various technologies -- such as nuclear, hydropower and liquefied natural gas -- arguing that the agreement is technology-neutral.
The committee also defeated a GOP amendment that would block U.S. participation in the deal until China and Russia agree to “equivalent” GHG targets.
Republicans at the markup frequently cast doubt on the notion that China, India or Russia would achieve their Paris pledges, particularly since such targets are not binding at the international level. “Does anyone in this room actually expect China and India will abide by their commitment without having enforcement and penalties?” said Rep. David McKinley (R-WV).
'So Afraid'
Democrats disputed the claim that countries such as China are making no progress on GHGs, citing that country's massive investments in a renewables and electric vehicles, as well as its new power sector cap-and-trade program.
They also said the Paris deal's lack of binding targets is a feature intended to spur wider global participation, and that it would allow Trump to offer a GHG plan that he believes is achievable. His refusal to do so, they say, shows he does not take the climate change threat seriously.
“I don't know why [Republicans] are so afraid of keeping us in the Paris Agreement,” said Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), adding that it would help ensure her state's auto industry does not fall behind on technological advancements such as electric vehicles.
Despite Democrats' assurance that any Paris goals are voluntary on a global basis, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) reiterated a long-standing fear that U.S. participation in the agreement could be the basis of a lawsuit “to compel the U.S. to conduct regulatory rulemaking.”
He cited section 115 of the Clean Air Act, a little-used provision that governs international air pollution and may give EPA the authority to craft an economy-wide framework to reduce GHGs. The option had been under serious consideration by Democrats and environmental groups in the run-up to the 2016 election, but has been mostly dormant in the Trump era. It would hinge on EPA making a “reciprocity” determination that other countries are making efforts to reduce emissions, a finding that some argue could be fulfilled using the Paris deal.
But legal experts have previously rejected Griffith's concerns. Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law argued in May 2017 that section 115 “provides statutory authority for a willing administration to create a coherent, market-based, and cost-effective approach to reducing GHG emissions. But it does not pose the legal threat” that Republicans claim, given judicial roadblocks to forcing a recalcitrant administration to take such a step.
At the Energy & Commerce markup, Republicans also complained that the bill did not go through “regular order” because it was not considered at all in the environment subcommittee and did not receive a legislative hearing in the full committee before Democrats held the markup.
Pallone during April 3 remarks addressed this, saying that the Foreign Affairs Committee has primary jurisdiction over the bill, and that Energy & Commerce has secondary jurisdiction. In addition, he said Democratic leadership wants to bring up the bill just after the two-week recess that begins April 15.
As such, he held the markup in an effort to give the energy panel some opportunity to consider the legislation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/democrats-advance-bill-block-paris-climate-deal-exit-party-line-vote
-
2 Climate Panels in 2 Eras, With Different First Hearings
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
The last time the House had a select committee on climate change, the panel opened with a topic about as weighty as they come: the dual threats of oil dependence and global warming — and how those two problems could destabilize the world.
The April 2007 discussion was chaired by then-Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and he kicked off the inaugural hearing of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming with an impassioned call to arms.
"This committee has been given an awesome charge, to press the institutions of democracy, to change business as usual in an overdue effort to respond to the twin challenges of our dependence on imported oil and the looming catastrophe of global warming," Markey said at the time (Greenwire, April 18, 2007).
Yesterday, the successor to Markey's committee held its first substantial hearing. But that panel, led by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), began with a markedly different topic — young people and global warming.
"We're starting with the Americans who are the most affected by the climate crisis," Castor said.
The difference in focus is a reflection, perhaps, of how the politics of global warming have changed between the end of the first climate panel in December 2010 and the launch of the new one this year.
It may also say something about the diminished expectations for the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, which was born this year amid controversy.
Castor's panel came into being after youth activists flooded the halls of Congress in the aftermath of the 2018 elections and demanded that the new House Democratic majority make climate change a priority.
The most vocal of those activists were with a group called the Sunrise Movement, and they urged lawmakers to form a committee that would focus on crafting what they dubbed a Green New Deal — a broad vision to fight climate change with a government-led jobs program.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders rejected that idea, however, and instead formed the select committee to look at climate change more generally.
Yesterday's hearing can be seen as an overture to the youth activists who got the ball rolling — though it's notable that no one from the Sunrise Movement, whose protests included rallies inside Pelosi's office, testified before Castor's climate panel.
Instead of Sunrise activists, the panel listened to a handful of other environmental advocates who all spoke broadly about the looming threat of a warmer planet and their efforts to combat the problem. Little was said about the Green New Deal.
"In just my 18 ½ years on this Earth, my community has experienced two 500-year floods," said Chris Suggs, a student activist from Kinston, N.C.
Another witness, Aji Piper of Seattle, talked about his role as one of the plaintiffs in a closely watched court case, Juliana v. United States, in which young people have made the argument that the federal government bears responsibility for contributing to climate change.
"Like youth who have come before us in the civil rights movement and other social justice movements, it is often the young among us that shine the light on systems of injustice," said Piper, 18.
Lawmakers generally listened and responded politely to the young witnesses — sometimes with advice.
"Do not waste your energy preaching to the converted," said Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). "It's good for your ego, and it will make you feel good, [but] it's not necessary."
As it happened, the hearing provided a platform to preach to someone who isn't part of the climate choir.
One Republican on the panel, Rep. Gary Palmer of Alabama, said after the hearing that the "science is not settled" on climate change, despite the broad scientific consensus that human activity is driving global warming.
"Climate has a history. We've had an ice age; we've had the interglacial periods," he said. "Now human activity has an impact, and it could have an impact in future climate change, but if you don't look at the whole spectrum and you only focus on one thing, then your solutions might not be adequate" (Climatewire, March 1).
The comments were a throwback to the previous climate panel led by Markey, which featured Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin as the top Republican. In response to Markey's opening statement more than a decade ago, Sensenbrenner also questioned climate science.
"I know that this is an area where the science seems to be the most skewed, and politicians and pundits aren't doing very much to clarify it," he said. "While science has taught us many things about climate change and greenhouse gas, one area where there is no scientific consensus, contrary to popular belief, is the effects of climate change."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/05/stories/1060143791
-
Committee Can't Quite Get Past 'Partisan Ridiculousness'
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
Rep. Gary Palmer doesn't believe there is consensus about what causes climate change.
Toward the end of the first hearing of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis yesterday, the Alabama Republican asked to enter into the record a narrow section of the most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that suggests climate change is not causing an increase in the number of hurricanes and tropical storms.
"Human activity has an impact ... but if you don't look at the whole spectrum and you only focus on one thing, then your solutions might not be adequate," he later told reporters, adding that "the science is not settled."
The vast majority of climate scientists believe human greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of recent climate change, which has fueled more intense storms. But Palmer's comments were just one example of the banter at a hearing that was more about messaging than developing policy.
Ranking member Garret Graves (R-La.) said he hopes to halt the "partisan ridiculousness that surrounds this issue." But both sides showed yesterday that they weren't quite ready to put that approach aside.
Across the dais, Democrats praised the leadership of young climate activists brought in to testify. They spent most of their time talking about why climate policy was important to them or asking questions to make a point.
Chairwoman Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) opened the questioning by asking the witnesses what inspires "hope and optimism in the face of such a daunting problem."
Then, at multiple points during the hearing, Castor ducked out to vote on amendments to the climate bill she was shepherding through the Energy and Commerce Committee.
It was a sign of the dynamic between the two panels, which has been tense at times, even though Castor serves on both. Energy and Commerce has the legislative authority, much to the pleasure of Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), while the select committee is on track to be the Democratic climate marketing team.'Important context'
Democratic Rep. Ben Ray Luján, who is plotting a run for Senate in New Mexico, focused on the moral and religious imperative to act on climate change, while other Democratic members highlighted the effects of climate change to their districts.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) conceded that the select panel hearing was partly about messaging, but he said it provided "important context" for the panel's work moving forward.
The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis met yesterday for its first official hearing. Nick Sobczyk/E&E News
"There's some of that, sure, but you never know what's going to break through, even for members who may start this journey in one place," Huffman told E&E News after the hearing. "Over the course of our fact-finding and the testimony we hear and the conversations we have, I hope we change some minds."
Democrats brought in Aji Piper, a plaintiff in Juliana v. United States, the so-called kids' climate case. Also at the table was Chris Suggs, a student activist from Kinston, N.C., and Melody Zhang, co-chair of the Young Evangelicals for Climate Action.
They spoke at times about the threat climate change poses to younger generations, as well as its sometimes disproportionate effects on low-income communities.
The Republican side called on Lindsay Cooper, a policy analyst with the Louisiana Office of Coastal Activities. She touted the state's coastal restoration efforts in the face of sea-level rise.'Put this thing back on the rails'
Huffman said it was a "positive" sign for future debates on the committee that Graves had invited a witness who accepts mainstream climate science.
But the ranking member said that although he appreciated the engagement of the youth leaders who testified, the first hearing gave him the impression that the select panel would be a "messaging committee," adding that he would try to "put this thing back on the rails."
"I am hopeful moving forward that this isn't just a messaging forum because I really didn't sign up for that," Graves told reporters.
Still, Graves' side engaged in a messaging war of its own throughout yesterday's hearings. Besides Palmer's comments, several Republicans suggested that the climate has always changed, a talking point often used to sow doubt about the impact of man-made emissions.
To be sure, they appeared interested in coastal adaptation, but Republicans wanted to make certain the sun isn't setting on fossil fuels.'War on coal'
Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) read out a letter he said he received from a young man who works in oil and gas, highlighting the economic benefits of the industry in his home state.
And Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.Va.) even suggested that the Obama administration's much-maligned "war on coal" had helped cause the opioid crisis in her state.
"We saw this with the war on coal from the Obama administration," she said, decrying "top-down" government regulations.
"The decimation of the coal industry in my state ravaged the economy, particularly in the southern part of the state. It created great hopelessness and ultimately led to the rise of our opioid crisis."
The partisan split wasn't much different at Energy and Commerce yesterday, even though that panel has been more genial so far during its first few climate hearings.
The committee advanced H.R. 9, a Democratic leadership climate bill on which Castor is the lead sponsor (E&E News PM, April 4).
Republicans offered a series of amendments to account for economic costs and to prop up nuclear, hydropower and natural gas, but Democrats voted them down.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/04/05/stories/1060143811
-
Global CO2 Levels 'Unprecedented' in Last 3M Years
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Chelsea Harvey
If global temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius — the ambitious goal encapsulated in the Paris Agreement — they'll have risen beyond anything the Earth has experienced in the last 3 million years.
That's according to a new modeling study published Wednesday in Science Advances. The study also suggests that the present-day atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations of more than 405 parts per million are "unprecedented" in that time.
The research, led by Matteo Willeit of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, focuses on climatic changes throughout the Quaternary Period, the most recent geologic period in the Earth's history. It extends from the present day to about 3 million years into the past.
Analyses of ancient sediments, collected from the ocean floor, show that the Quaternary has been characterized by periodic swings in the climate, marked by the cyclic growth and retreat of ice sheets across the Northern Hemisphere. During the first half of the Quaternary Period, these swings typically occurred about every 41,000 years. Starting about a million years ago, the shifts have spaced out to a 100,000-year cycle.
The researchers were interested in investigating some of the drivers behind these climate swings and the reason for the relatively sudden shift in their spacing.
"[T]he ultimate causes of these transitions in glacial cycle dynamics remain debated," Willeit noted in a recent blog post explaining the new research.
Scientists have suggested the causes may include changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, changes on the Earth's surface affecting the behavior of the ice sheets — or combinations of both.
In the new study, the researchers conducted a series of simulations using an Earth system model. It's designed to capture the behavior of the oceans, atmosphere and ice sheets in response to factors, including carbon dioxide concentrations and shifts in the Earth's orbit.
Rather than running a single model simulation of the past 3 million years, the researchers ran a series of shorter simulations covering various segments of time in history. Together, the simulations covered the complete Quaternary Period.
The researchers say it may be the first time a series of simulations covering such a long period of Earth's history has accurately captured the climate changes indicated by ancient sediment records.
The findings suggest that both changing carbon dioxide concentrations and changing landscape features have been key drivers of climate change and ice sheet behavior over the past 3 million years.
If the simulations are accurate, a gradual drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations around the start of the Quaternary Period helped trigger the growth of ice sheets across the Northern Hemisphere. That started the cyclic pattern of glacier growth and retreat.
Over time, the movement of the ice sheets began to erode away the sediment layer beneath them. This changed the amount of friction between the glaciers and the bedrock, and also likely produced clouds of dust that darkened the surface of the ice and caused it to absorb more heat. Both of these factors would have altered the rate at which the ice melted and moved.
Together, these factors seem to explain the climate shifts scientists have recorded from the past 3 million years. That gives researchers better insight into the kinds of factors that can affect large-scale climatic changes across the surface of the Earth and how to best represent them in models.
They also provide some important context about present-day climate change. The simulations indicate that across the entire last 3 million years, carbon dioxide concentrations never rose any higher than their current levels.
And the results suggest that, despite many up-and-down fluctuations in global temperatures during this time, the climate always stayed within 2 C of the preindustrial threshold that scientists now use as a benchmark against modern climate change.
The findings confirm that the planet's current trajectory is probably unlike anything it's experienced in millions of years.
Failure to meet the Paris Agreement's targets will not only significantly alter the climate humans have been accustomed to in the recent past, the researchers write, but will push the globe "beyond climatic conditions experienced during the entire current geological period."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/04/05/stories/1060143853
-
Insurer Warns of Existential Threat on Climate Policy
Apr 4, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Katherine Chiglinsky
Chubb Ltd.’s Evan Greenberg is urging lawmakers to address the rising threat of climate change after $160 billion in global economic losses from a practically “biblical” year of catastrophes.
“Given the long-term threat and the short-term nature of politics, the failure of policy makers to address climate change, including these issues and the costs of living in or near high-risk areas, is an existential threat,” Greenberg, Chubb’s chief executive officer, said in his annual letter to shareholders April 4.
“As notable were the sheer number of natural events, which exceeded ’17’s total, the almost biblical range -- wind, fire, flood, quake -- and the diversity of places from which they originated.”
Insurers have been dealing with heightened costs from natural catastrophes in the past few years. Industry losses from those disasters totaled $80 billion in 2018, double the average of the past 30 years, Munich Re AG has said.
Improving Risk ToolsGreenberg, the son of former American International Group Inc. CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, has transformed Chubb into a $63 billion company with footholds in both personal and commercial lines. He noted that the industry is using better tools to account for climate risks, although some models, such as those for wildfires, remain “relatively crude.”
He also joined the chorus of executives warning that the deadly California wildfire seasons have created a problem in that insurance market. Allstate Corp. CEO Tom Wilson has said that the insurer hasn’t wanted to grow in California until it can charge customers amounts it deems appropriate for the risk. Rival Travelers Cos. has talked with regulators about increasing its prices on some homeowners’ policies in the state.
California’s starting to see signs of a problem with the availability of insurance, Greenberg said.
“If the kinds of wildfire events we have seen the last two years continue, that problem is going to grow,” Greenberg said. “We must face the reality that there is a greater cost citizens must bear to remain protected. Insurers don’t have a printing press.”
As for flood insurance, he dangled a note of intrigue. Chubb is going on the offense in its approach to flood risk, offering greater protection to businesses and consumers. As for what exactly that will mean in the future, he told shareholders only: “Stay tuned.”
PoliticsHe delivered a warning to politicians about America’s reputation on the global stage, saying that the U.S. is a “growing source of instability” for its allies.
“America’s reputation for reliability and its credibility on the world stage have been damaged,” Greenberg wrote. “We are undermining the liberal world order we constructed, including a system of strategic alliances we built and supported for over seven decades.”
The U.S.’s relationship with China is not one of enemies, he said. The U.S. tends to overestimate China, which has “deep structural issues,” according to Greenberg. China needs to implement some reforms, which could boost domestic and foreign confidence in the region, he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/insurer-warns-of-existential-threat-on-climate-policy
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