Preview Newsletter
ACC AM
-
(ACC Mentioned) DR. OZ: BPA – Get the Science
Apr 3, 2015 | Marco Island Sun Times
By Michael Roizen, MD and Mehmet Oz, MD
Proponents of BPA (the ubiquitous chemical bisphenol-A) are fueling a science war. -
A Rare Opportunity to Fix America's Chemical Safety Law: Richard Denison (Opinion)
Apr 5, 2015 | Cleveland.com
By Richard Denison
I have spent much of my career at the Environmental Defense Fund doing battle with the chemical industry and its Republican allies in Congress, particularly around our nation's main toxics law. -
Eric Uram: Ashley Decision Makes Our Homes Less Toxic
Apr 5, 2015 | LaCrosseTribune.com
By Eric Uram
It is official: You can now do something about a hidden hazard in your home by replacing it with something that’s not only safer but easier to find. -
Minnesota Cites Preemption In Opposition To TSCA Reform Bill
Apr 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
Minnesota is voicing its objections to bipartisan Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) due to language in the bill that the state says would to an “extraordinary and possibly unprecedented degree” preempt Minnesota and other states from enacting their own chemicals management programs. -
Chemical Board May Share Power Following White House Reconsideration of Interim Chief
Apr 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
The White House has backed off from its plan to install Manuel Ehrlich Jr. as interim chairman of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board after encountering broad congressional and stakeholder opposition, Bloomberg BNA has learned. -
Letters: New EPA Mercury Rules Are Inconsistent and Illogical
Apr 3, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
It is helpful that the EPA’s Janet McCabe commented on Brian Potts’s March 24 op-ed concerning the new mercury regulations for power plants (Letters, March 26). -
Senate Democrats Likely to Preserve Climate, Environment Stance With Schumer as Leader
Apr 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Dean Scott
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the presumptive next leader of Senate Democrats, hasn't been seen as an especially forceful public advocate on environmental issues and for climate action, but former congressional aides and other observers told Bloomberg BNA his past votes and statements show he will maintain the party's support for those issues. -
Looming Departures Usher in New Leaders on Environment
Apr 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental advocates are optimistic about Democrats who are taking leading positions in the fight to counter climate change, even as their most powerful long-term allies are heading out the door. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Panel Advances Railroad Policy Overhaul
Apr 6, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
...The freight rail industry has undergone “dramatic changes” since the board’s creation in 1996, says Calvin M. Dooley, CEO of the American Chemistry Council , a chemical industry trade group.
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
(ACC Mentioned) DR. OZ: BPA – Get the Science
Apr 3, 2015 | Marco Island Sun Times
By Michael Roizen, MD and Mehmet Oz, MD
Proponents of BPA (the ubiquitous chemical bisphenol-A) are fueling a science war. To counter the growing sentiment that BPA is harmful, chemical-industry lobbyists recently launched a splashy advertising campaign asking consumers to "listen to the science" about BPA. We agree!
But why would proponents of something that is now judged too toxic for pregnant mothers and babies tell you to look at the science? Well, let's look at the science.
Where it is found: BPA is used to make strong, transparent plastics for food storage and packaging. It's in the thin, slightly powdery coating on the thermal paper used for most cash-register receipts. It's used in the epoxy resins that line most food cans and in some fire retardants in electronics.
What the chemical industry says: The American Chemistry Council is correct that the Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority say BPA is safe at the levels most of us are exposed to.
What we say: The FDA and EFSA haven't yet taken into account a growing body of research suggesting that even at low levels, repeated exposure to BPA can change your endocrine functions (BPA is a hormone disruptor) and have other long-lasting effects on developing fetuses and infants, as well as damaging sperm quality. Other research is even more troubling.
What nearly 100 human studies have found: Everyday BPA exposure is associated with troubling and increasingly common health issues such as behavior and reproductive problems; high blood pressure; polycystic ovarian syndrome, and weight-related problems, such as diabetes.
• A new study from New Jersey's Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine has found an association between BPA levels in children and risk for autism spectrum disorder.
• A recent lab study from the University of Houston found that exposure to BPA used as flame-retardants in computers, cellphones and other electronics may be linked to unwanted weight gain.
• Another new study puts the health-care cost of obesity related to BPA at more than $1.5 billion dollars over several decades.
Those who know agree: When Newsweek recently interviewed 20 prominent scientists who research BPA, the majority said it's likely the chemical is linked to all of those health problems and to several forms of cancer as well, though more study is needed. "There's too much data consistent across studies ... time and time again ... to ignore it and suggest BPA has no effect on humans," one researcher said.
How does BPA cause trouble? When it gets into living cells, BPA is an endocrine disruptor. Not only does that mess with your metabolism and lead to weight gain, it also acts like estrogen and may have a particularly strong effect on fetal sexual development. (It feminizes male infants in many animal experiments.) It also might have an effect on brain development given its ability to change the activation of genes: Animal studies – and some research in children – suggest it might increase the risk for aggression and anxiety.
Here's what you can do: Although BPA is in many products you're in contact with every day, and alternative chemicals from the same bisphenol family (bisphenol B, C, E, F, G, M, P, PH, S, TMC and Z) used in many plastics labeled "BPA-free" may have similar effects, these strategies can help you reduce your exposure:
1. Don't heat/microwave food or drinks in plastic containers. Heat speeds the transfer of BPA from plastics into edibles. Store food, especially acidic foods like tomato sauce, in glass or uncoated metal containers.
2. Say "no thanks" to receipts, tickets and anything else printed on thermal paper. If you take one, wash your hands. BPA may be absorbed through the skin and can hitchhike from your fingers into your body when you eat.
3. Eat fresh instead of canned fruit. Ditto for veggies. Avoiding plastic food packaging whenever possible will reduce your exposure, too.
Now that you've listened to the science, do you think glass will make a comeback?
Mehmet Oz, M.D. is host of "The Dr. Oz Show," and Mike Roizen, M.D. is chief wellness officer and chair of Wellness Institute at Cleveland Clinic. To live your healthiest, tune into "The Dr. Oz Show" or visit sharecare.com. (c) 2015 Michael Roizen, M.D. and Mehmet Oz, M.D. Distributed by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
-
A Rare Opportunity to Fix America's Chemical Safety Law: Richard Denison (Opinion)
Apr 5, 2015 | Cleveland.com
By Richard Denison
I have spent much of my career at the Environmental Defense Fund doing battle with the chemical industry and its Republican allies in Congress, particularly around our nation's main toxics law. So I never would have expected to be to testifying -- at the invitation of the majority -- at a hearing on a strongly bipartisan bill to reform that law. Yet that is exactly what happened last month. Ironically, I owe thanks for this to Democrats: the late liberal lion Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and, more recently, Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico.
A greatly improved version of legislation they negotiated with Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana -- among the chemical industry's staunchest allies in Congress --was introduced last month. Named in honor of Lautenberg, the new legislation fixes the biggest problems with our badly broken and outdated law, and it has the kind of bipartisan support -- with seven other Democrats and eight other Republicans as original co-sponsors -- that means it could actually pass into law. Congress should embrace this chance to protect Americans from toxic chemicals.
It has long been clear that the current law offers scant protection from dangerous and untested chemicals -- chemicals found in everything from our cleaning products to our couches and even the clothes we wear. The Toxic Substances Control Act has not been updated since it was first enacted in 1976, and hence has fallen far behind the science that increasingly links common chemicals to cancer, infertility, diabetes, Parkinson's and other illnesses. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is named appropriately for a second reason: It is our best shot ever to bring TSCA into the 21st century.
This legislation did not suddenly arise in this Congress; it is the culmination of a decade of legislative effort, most of it led by the late Sen. Lautenberg, who grasped early on the pressing need to reform TSCA. Lautenberg established a reputation as a liberal champion through a career fighting big tobacco, but he had the courage to recognize that chemical safety reform would never be realized without opening up a bipartisan path forward.
The new bill is built on legislation Lautenberg introduced with Sen. Vitter in May 2013, less than two weeks before Lautenberg's death. Nearly two years of negotiations between Sens. Udall and Vitter have yielded an even stronger bill that gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the tools necessary to strengthen health protections for American families. Among the most important improvements: The new legislation requires an affirmative safety finding for new chemicals before they can come on the market. It mandates comprehensive reviews of chemicals already in use against a health-based standard instead of the paralyzing cost-benefit standard required under the current law. It explicitly requires protection of vulnerable populations like infants and pregnant women. And it drives far more information on chemicals into the open by imposing stricter limits on companies' ability to claim it is confidential.
Rare political circumstances have opened a narrow window to pass meaningful reform. This has come about in part because business interests finally realize that a stronger federal system is necessary to restore Americans' confidence in the safety of chemicals.
Of course, the bill is a compromise. Among the most contentious aspects is the balance it seeks to strike between federal and state authority: The bill gives U.S. EPA exclusive authority to act under some circumstances, while preserving other state actions. That's too much pre-emption of state authority for some groups, and too little for others. Not surprisingly, there remain entrenched factions that would rather not see the bill move forward. It's hard to break out of the Washington view that one side wins only when the other side loses.
Under the current system, however, all Americans are losing. The failures of TSCA represent a serious and growing public health calamity. American families cannot afford to watch Congress squander the best opportunity ever to improve protections from toxic chemicals.
Richard Denison is a lead senior scientist in the Environmental Defense Fund's Health Program.
-
Eric Uram: Ashley Decision Makes Our Homes Less Toxic
Apr 5, 2015 | LaCrosseTribune.com
By Eric Uram
It is official: You can now do something about a hidden hazard in your home by replacing it with something that’s not only safer but easier to find.
Toxic flame retardant chemicals, once required by law to meet fire safety standards in California, will no longer go into much of the furniture sold there — or in Wisconsin or anywhere else for that matter — thanks in part to Ashley Furniture, the nation’s largest furniture manufacturer and retailer headquartered in Arcadia.
With newly created California standards eliminating required inclusion of chemical flame retardants for furniture sold there, groups and citizens of the national Mind the Store Campaign sought a national transition by asking Ashley Furniture and other furniture manufacturers to commit to a date-certain end for these chemicals in all products, not just those destined for California.
Thankfully, as of Jan. 1, Ashley committed to end uses in their products and now helps lead the furniture industry nationally with this commitment.
Why did California change its mind? Because the science justifying chemical flame retardants was flawed. Recent studies show exposures — through inhalation and ingestion of house dust; direct contact with furniture; and for firefighters, by exposure to smoke when responding to fires — are linked to cancer, developmental problems, diminished IQ and impaired fertility while offering little or no improvement in fires safety.
This move by Ashley will help protect children, workers, consumers, firefighters and the environment by eliminating exposures and releases during chemical production, product manufacturing, consumer use and disposal.
The commitment by Ashley, as the nation’s largest manufacturer of furniture, truly helps move the ball for the entire nation on protecting everyone from unnecessary toxic chemicals. All stemming from one state’s regulation.
Efforts like California’s help innovate larger-scale policy change. We need regulatory innovation to make other, everyday products like children’s toys and clothing, cleaning products and even building materials safer and easier to obtain. Not just for the sake of today’s children, but for creating a healthier and more sustainable tomorrow.
But movement is underway in our nation’s capital to address the law regulating toxics issues — the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. Currently, the chemical industry supports ending the concept of states as policy incubators as well as limiting Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to prohibit toxic chemicals in consumer products.
When proposals are introduced, Wisconsin residents need assurances that good isn’t oversold by ignoring harm. By learning from what Ashley is accomplishing, Wisconsin should support reforms to TSCA that maintain states as policy innovators and EPA as the cop on the beat for determining chemical safety in the marketplace.
For now, when considering new furniture purchases, consumers need to find the new, updated label indicating compliance with California’s new standard — TB 117-2013. This means the attached furniture still meets all national fire safety standards, but is free of toxic flame retardant chemicals.
This commitment by Ashley truly helps move the ball for protecting everyone from unnecessary toxic chemicals while still ensuring public safety — something with which we can all live.
Eric Uram is a member of Sierra Club’s National Toxics Team.
-
Minnesota Cites Preemption In Opposition To TSCA Reform Bill
Apr 3, 2015 | InsideEPA
Minnesota is voicing its objections to bipartisan Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) due to language in the bill that the state says would to an “extraordinary and possibly unprecedented degree” preempt Minnesota and other states from enacting their own chemicals management programs.
In a March 23 letter to Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK) and ranking member Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the state's top environmental official says “pre‐emption language and the extraordinary restrictions on states’ abilities to co‐enforce federal regulations or take action when the federal government is unable or unwilling to do so mean we are unable to support” the bill, introduced as S. 697.
The letter notes what Minnesota sees as the precedent-setting extent to which “states are excluded from having any role relating to chemicals of concern within their borders,” writes John Linc Stine, commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), making it the latest of several states to oppose the bill.
Sens. David Vitter (R-LA) and Tom Udall (D-NM) introduced S. 697 with bipartisan backing, and tout it as a much-needed overhaul of the 1976 TSCA to address chemicals EPA has struggled to regulate.
But Boxer and several states have criticized the measure for a host of reasons, including concerns over preemption-- the same dispute that frustrated previous attempts at TSCA reform.
Maryland, California, Massachusetts, Vermont, and at least four others have expressed concern over the legislation, meaning Minnesota pushes the total states opposed on the record to at least nine.
Of particular concern is language in the bill that critics say would restrict states from enacting identical chemical management rules. They also say it would block existing state chemicals rules when EPA launches a safety assessment for a chemical it deems "high-priority" under the prioritization scheme that the bill would establish -- which states charge could leave a “regulatory gap” of up to seven years before a final EPA rule was in place.
Also of concern to advocates of states' chemicals programs is language that some state officials could potentially jeopardize existing regulation of chemical releases under state laws aimed at regulating air and water quality, though proponents of the legislation say that those programs would be protected.
In the letter to Inhofe and Boxer, MPCA's Stine highlights those three concerns as the reason why the agency cannot support the bill, saying the language that would allow preemption of state action related to water quality, air quality or waste treatment or disposal if the action is “inconsistent with the action of the Administrator” is a “vague but potentially expansive provision that could limit states' abilities to address potentially hazardous chemicals under not just TSCA, but other state and federal statutes.”
-
Chemical Board May Share Power Following White House Reconsideration of Interim Chief
Apr 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Iafolla
The White House has backed off from its plan to install Manuel Ehrlich Jr. as interim chairman of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board after encountering broad congressional and stakeholder opposition, Bloomberg BNA has learned.
Although the Chemical Safety Board's leadership remains in flux, board members appear to have a chance to decide how to fill the vacuum created by Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso's recent resignation, according to sources familiar with the administration's plans.
“That's the best possible outcome,” Mike Wright, the United Steelworkers’ director of health, safety and environment, told Bloomberg BNA April 3. “It's important for the board to work together.”
Should the board reach an agreement to assign executive and administrative authority to one or more of its members, the CSB would have a functioning leadership structure in place as it awaits a confirmed agency chief. The White House nominated Vanessa Allen Sutherland, chief counsel of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to be chairwoman of the CSB.
CSB in Turmoil
The CSB has been in turmoil since Ehrlich and Moure-Eraso's contentious move on Jan. 28 to consolidate agency power in the chairman's office. The board members’ March 4 appearance at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing was followed by a bipartisan call for Moure-Eraso's ouster.
Moure-Eraso stepped down as CSB chairman March 26 under White House pressure. He remains at the agency as a board member but is expected to leave by April 10.
Reports that the White House would install Ehrlich, a former chemical industry safety consultant aligned with Moure-Eraso, as interim chairman were met with surprise and disapproval from organized labor and industry representatives, as well as current and former agency personnel (62 DEN A-18, 4/1/15).
The White House did not respond to a Bloomberg BNA request for comment.
A CSB staffer told Bloomberg BNA that it is crucial for the board members to reach a power-sharing agreement as soon as possible to move past the distraction of leadership uncertainty. But the board would be able to put aside differences should a major chemical incident occur, the staffer said.
In addition to Ehrlich and the outgoing Moure-Eraso, the board is manned by Mark Griffon and Richard Engler. Griffon and Engler opposed the January move to consolidate the chairman's power over the agency, but Ehrlich and Moure-Eraso blocked attempts to restore the agency's previous governance structure.
Unresolved Issues
While the board members seem to have a chance to reach a power-sharing arrangement, many issues remain unresolved, starting with agency governance.
Once Moure-Eraso leaves the board, Griffon and Engler would have the votes to restore the 18 board orders that had set policy for personnel, spending, board meetings, communications, investigations and general administration of the agency. But the board may delay reconsideration of the agency's governance structure until Sutherland joins as chairwoman.
Leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the CSB, have requested detailed and extensive information about the move to consolidate power (60 DEN A-14, 3/30/15).
The fate of CSB Managing Director Daniel Horowitz and General Counsel Richard Loeb also appears uncertain. Members of the House Oversight Committee from both parties have asked the White House to remove Horowitz and Loeb along with Moure-Eraso (55 DEN A-8, 3/23/15).
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has yet to schedule a hearing for Sutherland or Kristen Kulinowski, a research staff member at the Science and Technology Policy Institute nominated to join the board as a member.
-
Letters: New EPA Mercury Rules Are Inconsistent and Illogical
Apr 3, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
It is helpful that the EPA’s Janet McCabe commented on Brian Potts’s March 24 op-ed concerning the new mercury regulations for power plants (Letters, March 26). The new rules do not forecast a single death from mercury exposure for anyone, anywhere. The only harm actually expected is a two-thousandths of a percent of one IQ point per baby. The EPA’s estimate of the annual cost of the new rules is $10 billion. Using this data, one finds that the EPA values an IQ point at $19.6 million, suggesting that the life of a person with an IQ of 110 would be worth $2.2 billion. By contrast, most courts accept estimates of $2 million to $5 million as the value of a human life in the U.S., or 500 to 1,000 times less than the EPA’s implicit valuation. Must we expect so little competence from an agency with the power of the EPA?
Dick Meloy
Norwalk, Conn.
Long ago, when mercury in swordfish was the public scare of the day for the first time, a study of swordfish and tuna from the Smithsonian and other natural-history museums was published in Science in 1972, comparing mercury levels in fish caught between 1878 and 1909, before there were many coal-fired power plants, to tuna caught in 1971. It found that the carnivorous fish had no more mercury in it than fish caught in 1971. It seems that Mother Nature regularly showers the Earth with lots of mercury from volcanos and other sources.
J. Daniel Techentin
Dunnellon, Fla.
If mercury is so dangerous, how come the EPA hasn’t recalled the compact fluorescent light bulbs which it has encouraged us to use in our homes? CFLs contain mercury and emit mercury vapor if they are broken or cracked. In industrial use they are considered hazardous waste for disposal purposes. Is that mercury safe because the environmental lobby approves of “green” lighting?
Daniel McConohy
San Pedro, Calif.
-
Senate Democrats Likely to Preserve Climate, Environment Stance With Schumer as Leader
Apr 6, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anthony Adragna and Dean Scott
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the presumptive next leader of Senate Democrats, hasn't been seen as an especially forceful public advocate on environmental issues and for climate action, but former congressional aides and other observers told Bloomberg BNA his past votes and statements show he will maintain the party's support for those issues.
By any measure, Schumer boasts a pro-environment record—he has a lifetime rating of 91 percent from the League of Conservation Voters—and has consistently backed action to address the effects of human activity on climate change. But his Senate priorities largely have been on non-environmental issues such as immigration, health care and financial industry regulation.
The New York Democrat has been virtually silent on the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, which is at the heart of President Barack Obama's climate agenda, although Schumer has supported it during Senate votes. His office also could not provide any statements Schumer has made backing international negotiations toward a global climate change agreement, although they said he was among 35 senators who signed a March 31 letter backing U.S. leadership in getting a global accord finalized this year.
Former Senate leadership aides, nevertheless, expect Schumer will broaden his priorities to include the environment and climate change once he succeeds Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as leader of the Senate Democratic caucus. They said a party leader's priorities reflect those of the caucus, and Senate Democrats undoubtedly will continue to push for stronger environmental protections.
“He hasn't been weak on these issues; they just haven't been on his personal forefront,” Gerald Warburg, a former Senate Democratic leadership aide now with the University of Virginia, told Bloomberg BNA. “I don't think it's a stretch at all for Senator Schumer to effectively and articulately state those views.”
Reid, the current Senate minority leader, announced March 27 he wouldn't run for re-election and immediately voiced support for Schumer as his successor. A majority of Senate Democrats have committed to backing Schumer for leader, according to Bloomberg News.
Schumer's spokesman declined to comment on the degree to which he would elevate environmental and climate issues assuming he succeeds Reid, noting the Nevada senator still has more than a year and a half left in his tenure.
Analysts previously called Schumer a mixed bag on energy issues, noting his opposition to projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline and stronger rules for crude-by-rail shipments, but also his backing of hydraulic fracturing, which has triggered environmental concerns (62 DEN A-2, 4/1/15).
Slammed Climate Deniers
When he has addressed climate change publicly, Schumer has been an advocate for climate science that has linked human activities to rising sea level and increasing temperatures.
“Climate deniers like to claim there are competing stories about whether this is true, usually pushing polluter talking points that there is not a scientific consensus on climate change,” Schumer said during a March 2014 all-night floor session Senate Democrats held to urge climate action. “We know this is utterly false. Climate change deniers need to wake up and realize the scientific diagnosis about warming the planet is real.”
Schumer also backed all three major Senate floor votes on proposals to impose mandatory caps on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions caps in 2003, 2005 and in 2008, when he voted yes on a procedural vote on the Climate Security Act, which would have set up an economy-wide emissions trading system for greenhouse gases but was easily defeated.
All three of those bills ultimately failed to clear the Senate.
In 2005, he backed an amendment from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to a broader energy package that would have required reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010. And in 2003, Schumer supported the Climate Stewardship Act, which would have required electric utilities, manufacturers and other economic sectors to cut back greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010.
Recognizes Need for Action
Former Senate leadership aides and environmental groups said Schumer would continue to be a strong environmental advocate and would work hard to defend Obama's Climate Action Plan from Senate attacks to weaken it.
“Right now, he's very strong on the need to uphold the president's Climate Action Plan,” Frances Beinecke, former president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg BNA about Schumer. “He knows these issues are incredibly important.”
Beinecke described Schumer as a “real leader” on environmental issues and said he would continue to be a “smart, effective” advocate. There was “no doubt” Schumer would push environmental issues as Senate Democratic leader, Beinecke said, adding that she has had multiple discussions with the senior New York senator on the environment.
Several observers predicted Schumer would serve as a continuation of Reid's strategy toward environmental protection—defending administration actions, such as its carbon emissions limits for power plants and its effort to redefine the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, from Republican attempts to weaken or nullify them.
“I think his environmental bona fides are solid, and I wouldn't worry he hasn't been too vocal,” Eric Washburn, former Senate Democratic leadership aide and a principal at Bracewell & Giuliani, told Bloomberg BNA. If there are attacks on the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, “I would suspect he would get vocal,” he said.
Two former senior Reid aides—Washburn and Jim Manley, who is now senior director at QGA Public Affairs—said Schumer would be a strong successor on environmental issues and would support Obama Administration efforts to address climate change.
“Senator Schumer is a strong supporter of environmental policies, and I assume that's going to continue,” Manley told Bloomberg BNA. “I don't see [Schumer's becoming leader] having much of any effect on the caucus and/or its views on environmental policies.”
Multiple observers said Schumer represents a state vulnerable to sea level rise, as seen by October 2012's Hurricane Sandy that inflicted an estimated $62 billion in damage to surrounding states.
“Anybody in New York who doubted the effects of climate change changed their minds after Sandy,” Schumer said during remarks following the People's Climate March, a September 2014 demonstration supporting climate action in New York City.
-
Looming Departures Usher in New Leaders on Environment
Apr 6, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental advocates are optimistic about Democrats who are taking leading positions in the fight to counter climate change, even as their most powerful long-term allies are heading out the door.
The beginning of 2017 will see President Obama, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) all leaving their positions, just two years after environmental stalwart Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) left Capitol Hill.
In their place come newer arrivals like Sens. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
When those senators led their colleagues with events like last year’s all-night debate for climate change and organizing non-binding votes to recognize climate change, they demonstrated that they’re capable of environmental leadership, greens said.
“You are seeing this new breed and generation of young Senate leaders like Schatz and Whitehouse, who shook things up last year when they did the all-nighter and rallied their young cohorts to essentially stage a filibuster on the need to act on climate,” said Melinda Pierce, the top lobbyist for the Sierra Club.
Pierce sees senators like Schatz and Whitehouse as the face of a Democratic caucus that is more unified than it has ever been before behind support for climate policies like Obama’s carbon rules for power plants.
“I do think you’ll see them taking on greater leadership,” Pierce said. “And we couldn’t be more delighted.”
RL Miller, co-founder of the super PAC Climate Hawks Vote, said Schatz and Whitehouse are at the top of her radar in terms of what she calls “climate hawks.”
“We’ve got two very, very strong voices who show no signs of leaving the Senate anytime soon,” Miller said, adding to the list Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has said he may run for president in 2016.
To Miller, Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) are also on the list of relative newcomers who score well on the Climate Hawks scorecard, which takes into account votes, speeches, statements and other actions to identify the most climate-friendly lawmakers.
“While I’m very sad to see Harry Reid in particular go, he has done extraordinary things on behalf of his state, on behalf of national climate leadership … there is another generation, and I’m excited for that new generation,” Miller said.
Greens are also hopeful that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the top contender for the Democratic nomination for president, could be elected and carry on Obama’s policies.
“No reason to believe she will not continue her record when she was in the Senate of being a strong environmental vote,” said Pierce. “We obviously have high hopes and would be delighted to see Hillary Clinton at the helm.”
But while newer Democrats could carry the environmental mantle, departures of long-time green allies leave a definite leadership void.
Among the new leaders will be Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), likely to take over from Reid as minority leader, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who was brought onto the leadership team in a new position created just for her: strategic policy adviser for the Democratic Policy and Communications Center.
“Obviously, Reid’s shoes are big and will be hard to fill, and it will be interesting to work with a leader like Schumer, should that transpire,” said Pierce, who added that Warren has a “strong” record on environmental voting. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Panel Advances Railroad Policy Overhaul
Apr 6, 2015 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
...The freight rail industry has undergone “dramatic changes” since the board’s creation in 1996, says Calvin M. Dooley, CEO of the American Chemistry Council , a chemical industry trade group. “We need to update STB’s policies so the board is better equipped to deal with today’s freight rail challenges, including ongoing service problems and growing rate issues,” he says...
Access to full text unavailable -- subscription required.
Story can be found at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i14/Senate-Panel-Advances-Railroad-Policy.html
Congressional Hearings - There are no clips to report at this time.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested