Economics can play a starring role when it comes to creating policy solutions for public health and wildlife, but not in assessing the problem.

The post As much as Trump would like, economics do not trump science. These laws say so. first appeared on Growing Returns.

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

We spend eight hours each night sleeping—totaling almost one-third of our lives. During that time, our bodies get a break to heal and rejuvenate. But our mattresses and bedding may contain chemicals that expose us to toxic chemicals linked to cancer, fertility problems, hormone disruption, and...

Smokestack pollution is putting your health at risk, but EPA is stalling on taking action. Regional.

Smokestack pollution is putting your health at risk, but EPA is stalling on taking action. Regional.

These technology trends can pave way for global climate action

This was first published by World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda.

A fresh wave of technological innovation is deepening our understanding of tough environmental challenges – and also giving us new ways to solve them. As thousands of business leaders and policymakers gather in San Francisco for the Global Climate Action Summit, these game-changing innovations will be showing up all over town.

One example will be new approaches for measuring and reducing emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that has pound for pound more than 80 times the near-term warming power of carbon dioxide.

Human-made methane emissions are responsible for a quarter of all the warming we’re experiencing today. That’s a problem, but it’s also an enormous opportunity.

Sign up for my biweekly Innovation newsletter

One of the largest sources of methane is the oil and gas industry. Indeed, natural gas is mostly methane. And it turns out that reducing these industrial methane emissions is the fastest, most cost-effective way to slow the rate of warming, even as we continue working hard to decarbonize our energy system.

But we didn’t know that until recently – or at least we couldn’t prove it – because nobody knew how much methane was coming from the oil and gas sector.

Data shines spotlight on methane problem at a critical time

Five years ago, Environmental Defense Fund set out to measure methane emissions from the United States oil and gas sector. We launched an unprecedented scientific research effort involving more than 140 researchers from 40 institutions, along with four dozen oil and gas companies that provided site access and technical advice.

Researchers used a range of technologies – including sensors mounted on drones, airplanes and even Google Street View cars – to measure emissions at every link of the supply chain, from remote well heads to pipes under your local street.

Results were published in over 30 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. A synthesis paper published this summer in Science concluded that the U.S. oil and gas industry emits 13 million metric tons of methane each year– nearly 60 percent more than current Environmental Protection Agency estimates. But these emissions can be controlled, often through simple maintenance.

Data from the project has been instrumental in convincing both industry leaders and policymakers that they have a serious methane challenge. The findings helped shape new regulations in states such as Colorado, Wyoming, California and Pennsylvania; along with national policies to reduce emission from oil and gas production on federal and tribal land.

Now, we’re using the data to hold the line against misguided attempts by the current administration to roll back those standards.

Digitization of oil and gas industry can help cut emissions by 45%

Worldwide, the International Energy Agency reckons that oil and gas methane emissions are about 75 million metric tons – enough to generate all of Africa’s electricity twice over. The IEA estimates that industry could reduce those emissions 75 percent using existing technologies, two-thirds of that at no net cost.

We at EDF are calling for a 45 percent reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions by 2025. That would have the same 20-year climate benefit as closing one-third of the world’s coal plants. Results on such a scale are conceivable thanks to growing digitization in the industry. For example, reliable, low-cost sensors, remote monitoring and oilfield internet-of-things can help energy companies reduce emissions and eliminate waste of saleable gas at the same time.

To help realize these prospects, EDF is working with Shell to test continuous monitoring technologies developed by entrepreneurs who took part in our Mobile Monitoring Challenge. We’ve also partnered with Stanford University and ExxonMobil to look at mobile detection technologies, using aircraft and drones.

Data-driven transparency is sparking competition within the industry itself. In April, BP set its first quantitative methane target. The following month, ExxonMobil committed to cut emissions and flared gas volumes. Shell, Qatar Petroleum and other producers have also committed to reduce methane emissions across the natural gas supply chain.

We’re taking the methane mission into space

Now we’re pushing the technological envelope even farther by developing MethaneSAT – a satellite mission due to launch in 2021, and designed to continuously map and measure methane emissions with exacting precision almost anywhere on the planet. MethaneSAT will make it possible to “see” emissions in places where they’re difficult to track today.

Data from MethaneSAT will be available for free to anyone. It will help countries, companies and citizens spot problems, identify reduction opportunities and measure progress over time. It’s just one of several space-based methane monitoring tools now in the works.

The European Space Agency, for example, launched its TROPOMI satellite in 2017. And a private company called GHGSAT has one satellite in orbit and another due to launch within the year.

Some have likened this to a new space race. But I see it as a wave of transformational change emerging from multiple nodes across an innovation ecosystem. Each has different, but complimentary, capabilities, together offering multiple streams of data to paint an unassailable picture of the problem.

Just as we have used the U.S. methane data to spur new policies and better business practices, we will use data from MethaneSAT and from our allies to help reach our 45 percent reduction goal by 2025. Our aim to virtually eliminate the industry’s methane emissions by 2050.

Sensors manage supply chains and make fishing vessels “smart”

We’re deploying advanced sensor technologies to help create a healthier environment in other ways, too – from Google cars mapping air pollution and its health effects to wearable bracelets that track your daily chemical exposure.

Elsewhere, retailers and consumer brands are using blockchain to improve accountability and sustainability across far-flung supply chains. Sensors can help farmers reduce the amount of chemicals on their fields, and “smart boats” can help fishermen manage their catch effectively, increasing profits and fish in the sea.

It’s no coincidence the Global Climate Action Summit is happening in California, the heart of America’s most innovative sector and the state that has led the nation in environmental stewardship. California has proven time and again that a strong economy and healthy environment go hand in hand. Now more than ever, technology is the key to making this a worldwide success story.

Get innovation updates

We’ll send occasional updates about developments in technology, science and the environment.

Thanks for subscribing to Innovation and the Environment.

krives September 6, 2018 - 08:13

Leave a comment

A new report details how conservation can financially benefit farmers and their business partners.

Recent research on corporate sustainability indicates that companies still have a long journey ahead in order to meet their sustainability goals. Only four percent of companies recently surveyed by Bain & Company feel that they’ve succeeded in achieving their sustainability goals, while 47% feel that they’ve failed altogether. These numbers might seem discouraging to some, but not […]

Trump's EPA is flouting the law when approving new chemicals. Here are 3 examples.

 This summer, New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances got the green light from the Environmental Protection Agency to begin importing a potentially toxic chemical known as Jeffamine diacrylamide to the United States.

The company says it will import 1,000 kilograms of the chemical annually for use in a wide array of industrial, commercial and household products such as floor cleaners, cat litter and fabric refresher sprays to reduce “malodors.”

Political appointees at the EPA quietly overruled the recommendations of its own professional staff, ramming through an approval of the chemical in direct contempt of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Here are three reasons EPA’s decision is so alarming – and what it tells us about the agency’s intentions for chemical safety going forward.

1. EPA sidestepped requirements under 2016 federal law

In its July 30 decision, the EPA determined that Jeffamine diacrylamide is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” under TSCA. That means IFF can begin to import and sell the chemical on the American market without any conditions or limits.

This is a complete reversal from the interim decision EPA professional staff made when the company filed its initial notice. They recommended restricting the chemical because of insufficient information about its health effects, and its structural similarity to known and highly toxic chemicals.

Because of the radical shift by President Trump’s political appointees, however, the EPA will not regulate Jeffamine diacrylamide – meaning, it won’t place a single limit or require more information or additional testing of the chemical.

That’s in spite of the fact that Jeffamine diacrylamide falls under the “acrylamides” category. This class of chemicals can cause cancer and be toxic to human reproductive, developmental and neurological systems.

More details on how the EPA sidestepped the law

2. EPA gave a possibly toxic chemical unfettered access to market

The stamp of approval the EPA gave Jeffamine diacrylamide gives free rein to any company that wants to make this chemical in any amount, and for any use. Companies that want a piece of the market also won’t have to test the chemical themselves – much less tell the EPA how or where they market it.

Because the EPA has allowed this chemical to enter the market without any conditions whatsoever, there’s no way to know where it may pop up. In fact, IFF has indicated that it’s also interested in selling it for use in “down-the-drain” products such as general cleaners, laundry detergents and bar soaps.

EPA’s reckless approach for a potentially dangerous chemical such as Jeffamine diacrylamide doesn’t bode well for chemical safety in America.

More on the implications of this chemical approval

3. EPA ignored serious health concerns

Interestingly, IFF itself indicated that its chemical falls under the toxic acrylamides category, the class of chemicals known to be highly hazardous to human health.

With its final decision on Jeffamine diacrylamide, however, the EPA made a surprise move. With scant explanation and no additional data or publicly available analysis, it instead assigned the chemical into a second category that the EPA says poses significantly fewer health concerns. Voilà, toxic problem gone.

This shift radically departed from the key alert identified by both the company and the EPA’s own assessment tools, and ignored very real health concerns surrounding Jeffamine diacrylamide. Moreover, the agency has not made its full risk assessment public.

More on how the EPA downplayed chemical concerns

So what happens if the agency’s reassessment is wrong and it just gave carte blanche to a chemical that can harm people? We may not know until it’s too late:

Because there’s no order or limits placed on manufacturing, processing or use, the chemical will now enter the market in any number of everyday products, and there will be no testing to determine just how real that health risk is to us.

What’s clear is just how reckless the EPA’s review process for new chemicals has become.

Get policy and political updates

Friday digests from our staff keep you up to date on the week’s events.

Thanks for subscribing to In case you missed it

krives September 5, 2018 - 09:48

Trump's EPA is flouting the law when approving new chemicals. Here are 3 examples.

 This summer, New York-based International Flavors & Fragrances got the green light from the Environmental Protection Agency to begin importing a potentially toxic chemical known as Jeffamine diacrylamide to the United States.

The company says it will import 1,000 kilograms of the chemical annually for use in a wide array of industrial, commercial and household products such as floor cleaners, cat litter and fabric refresher sprays to reduce “malodors.”

Political appointees at the EPA quietly overruled the recommendations of its own professional staff, ramming through an approval of the chemical in direct contempt of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Here are three reasons EPA’s decision is so alarming – and what it tells us about the agency’s intentions for chemical safety going forward.

1. EPA sidestepped requirements under 2016 federal law

In its July 30 decision, the EPA determined that Jeffamine diacrylamide is “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” under TSCA. That means IFF can begin to import and sell the chemical on the American market without any conditions or limits.

This is a complete reversal from the interim decision EPA professional staff made when the company filed its initial notice. They recommended restricting the chemical because of insufficient information about its health effects, and its structural similarity to known and highly toxic chemicals.

Because of the radical shift by President Trump’s political appointees, however, the EPA will not regulate Jeffamine diacrylamide – meaning, it won’t place a single limit or require more information or additional testing of the chemical.

That’s in spite of the fact that Jeffamine diacrylamide falls under the “acrylamides” category. This class of chemicals can cause cancer and be toxic to human reproductive, developmental and neurological systems.

More details on how the EPA sidestepped the law

2. EPA gave a possibly toxic chemical unfettered access to market

The stamp of approval the EPA gave Jeffamine diacrylamide gives free rein to any company that wants to make this chemical in any amount, and for any use. Companies that want a piece of the market also won’t have to test the chemical themselves – much less tell the EPA how or where they market it.

Because the EPA has allowed this chemical to enter the market without any conditions whatsoever, there’s no way to know where it may pop up. In fact, IFF has indicated that it’s also interested in selling it for use in “down-the-drain” products such as general cleaners, laundry detergents and bar soaps.

EPA’s reckless approach for a potentially dangerous chemical such as Jeffamine diacrylamide doesn’t bode well for chemical safety in America.

More on the implications of this chemical approval

3. EPA ignored serious health concerns

Interestingly, IFF itself indicated that its chemical falls under the toxic acrylamides category, the class of chemicals known to be highly hazardous to human health.

With its final decision on Jeffamine diacrylamide, however, the EPA made a surprise move. With scant explanation and no additional data or publicly available analysis, it instead assigned the chemical into a second category that the EPA says poses significantly fewer health concerns. Voilà, toxic problem gone.

This shift radically departed from the key alert identified by both the company and the EPA’s own assessment tools, and ignored very real health concerns surrounding Jeffamine diacrylamide. Moreover, the agency has not made its full risk assessment public.

More on how the EPA downplayed chemical concerns

So what happens if the agency’s reassessment is wrong and it just gave carte blanche to a chemical that can harm people? We may not know until it’s too late:

Because there’s no order or limits placed on manufacturing, processing or use, the chemical will now enter the market in any number of everyday products, and there will be no testing to determine just how real that health risk is to us.

What’s clear is just how reckless the EPA’s review process for new chemicals has become.

Get policy and political updates

Friday digests from our staff keep you up to date on the week’s events.

Thanks for subscribing to In case you missed it

krives September 5, 2018 - 09:48

Written by Diane MacEachern

After all the devastating fires, torrential floods, and extreme droughts we’ve seen so far this year, Moms want climate change to be front and center in the minds of all politicians – regardless of political party. Asking questions lets politicians know we care about climate...

California laid the groundwork today to leverage the state’s ambitious climate program to help protect tropical forests around the world.

Climate ambition is often thought of in terms of the stringency of emission reduction commitments, expressed by countries under the landmark Paris Agreement as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). While the NDCs that have been pledged by countries are important, they are only the first step. To truly assess progress in reducing global climate pollution, it […]

Climate ambition is often thought of in terms of the stringency of emission reduction commitments, expressed by countries under the landmark Paris Agreement as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). While the NDCs that have been pledged by countries are important, they are only the first step. To truly assess progress in reducing global climate pollution, it […]

Climate ambition is often thought of in terms of the stringency of emission reduction commitments, expressed by countries under the landmark Paris Agreement as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). While the NDCs that have been pledged by countries are important, they are only the first step. To truly assess progress in reducing global climate pollution, it […]

The post Once is enough: how climate negotiators can protect the environmental integrity of the Paris Agreement by avoiding double counting appeared first on Climate 411.