This blog was co-authored by Surbhi Sarang, EDF Legal Fellow. Since taking the helm at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt has attempted to hide his activities from scrutiny by limiting the public’s access to information. He has ended the decades-long, bipartisan practice of releasing the daily schedules of top agency leadership, removed EPA webpages, […]

This blog was co-authored by Surbhi Sarang, EDF Legal Fellow. Since taking the helm at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt has attempted to hide his activities from scrutiny by limiting the public’s access to information. He has ended the decades-long, bipartisan practice of releasing the daily schedules of top agency leadership, removed EPA webpages, […]

The post The fight for transparency and accountability at EPA appeared first on Climate 411.

By Drew Nelson

The call to reduce oil and gas methane emissions landed a one-two punch this week that should provide Canada all the motivation it needs to get ahead of this global trend and prepare its energy industry for the future.

First, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook analysis stated the future of the natural gas industry will depend on “industry demonstrating credibly that methane emissions from oil and gas operations are being minimised.” IEA reports as much as 76 million metric tons of methane is emitted around the world each year from both oil and gas facilities. For customers and companies, that’s $34 billion dollars of lost product and profit. There are also significant health and air quality benefits to reducing these emissions as hazardous air pollutants and smog-inducing toxins are removed when companies control methane pollution.

IEA also highlighted that a 75 percent reduction of those emissions is possible today using existing technologies. To put that in context, a reduction on that order would have the same short term climate impact as removing all the vehicles in the world from the road. For all of us, it’s one of the quickest and most affordable opportunities to slow climate change.

Then today, the companies of the Oil & Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) announced they will “work towards near zero methane emissions” from their operations. OGCI members (BP, China National Petroleum Company, Eni, Pemex, Reliance Industries Limited, Repsol, Royal Dutch Shell, Saudi Aramco, Statoil and Total) produce about 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas and operate in 55 countries. This commitment to make methane reductions a priority for their global operations comes of the heels of ExxonMobil’s aggressive methane reduction plan for its U.S. shale operations.

These positive developments come just after the publication of a peer reviewed study in Environmental Science and Technology that found methane emissions from Alberta’s oil and gas industry are 25 to 50 percent higher than official inventory estimates suggest. Further, many of these emissions are due to intentional venting associated with oil production.

Last week, I suggested the methane challenge puts the global oil and gas industry at a crossroad: IEA’s analysis underscores the urgency of that point, and OGCI’s and ExxonMobil’s announcements demonstrate that leading energy companies have already chosen which direction they will turn.

The momentum behind oil and gas methane reductions is unmistakable. Now is the time for Canada and Alberta to ensure that their federal and provincial methane regulations position their local energy companies for the future and contribute to local and national climate commitments.

Markets reward those who create or anticipate trends, not those who react to them. Canada still has time to get ahead of the methane challenge by quickly finalizing strong federal methane regulations and by Alberta proposing equally strong regulations to address the higher-than-reported emissions revealed in last week’s study.

The call to reduce oil and gas methane emissions landed a one-two punch this week that should provide Canada all the motivation it needs to get ahead of this global trend and prepare its energy industry for the future. First, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook analysis stated the future of the natural […]

The call to reduce oil and gas methane emissions landed a one-two punch this week that should provide Canada all the motivation it needs to get ahead of this global trend and prepare its energy industry for the future. First, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook analysis stated the future of the natural […]

The call to reduce oil and gas methane emissions landed a one-two punch this week that should provide Canada all the motivation it needs to get ahead of this global trend and prepare its energy industry for the future. First, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook analysis stated the future of the natural […]

The call to reduce oil and gas methane emissions landed a one-two punch this week that should provide Canada all the motivation it needs to get ahead of this global trend and prepare its energy industry for the future. First, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook analysis stated the future of the natural […]

The post Methane momentum builds, time for Canada to follow through with strong action appeared first on Energy Exchange.

By Ben Ratner

This post was co-authored by Drew Nelson. 

The CEOs of ten leading oil and gas companies today announced intentions to move toward “near-zero” methane emissions, pledging to set a quantitative reduction target by this time next year. At first blush, it might sound like a modest step – a promise to make a promise. In fact, the CEOs announcement constitutes an important and welcome recognition that oil and gas methane emissions impact the climate, are too high, and must be reduced. The new pledge comes just days after the International Energy Agency previewed its analysis showing that methane is a “critical issue for the long term natural gas outlook” and steep emission reductions are possible with today’s technology, and enormously cost effective.

From Social Issue to Business Issue

The 10 companies, which together are responsible for 20 percent of global production, joined forces three years ago to form the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative. Last year, they invested $1 billion to accelerate commercial deployment of low carbon energy technologies. The new pledge is the next important step on the road to decarbonizing their operations, with methane playing a central role.

Industry progress on methane has steadily accelerated over the past two years. Just last month, the CEO of XTO Energy, the shale gas subsidiary of ExxonMobil, announced a set of commitments to continuously reduce methane emissions from its U.S. production and midstream operations. Shell and Statoil are also piloting continuous methane monitoring solutions at well sites in Alberta and Texas.

The near-zero aspiration is warranted. Methane emissions from human activities drive about 25% of the warming our planet experiences today, with the global oil and gas industry a major pollution source. Aggressive action to reduce methane is not a substitute for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but it is a necessary complement to those efforts that the oil and gas industry must be challenged to make.

Keeping the Promise

Lofty ambitions require strong actions to take flight. So how do we know whether the OGCI companies hit the mark? Here are five signs to watch:

• Scope – To meet its full potential for impact, the scope of the commitment must match the size of the challenge. That means next year’s commitment should accelerate methane action in: (1) both oil and gas operations; and (2) joint ventures and other production collaborations with non-OGCI members that are core to the business model of multi-nationals.
  
  Somewhere between 40 and 50% of methane from the combined sector comes from oil production; leaving out these emissions means ignoring half the problem. Moreover, OGCI members can leverage their considerable influence and access – if not outright control – to drive enhanced methane management through the vast network of development projects pursued in tandem with other operators.
• Ambition – IEA found about 75% emission reductions are achievable using existing technology, setting a mark that industry leaders can embrace. Per IEA, achieving a 75% reduction from current emission levels would have the same near-term climate benefit as closing all the coal fired power plants in China. That’s one of the cheapest, most impactful ways that exists today to reduce GHG emissions.OGCI’s ambition must match the scale of the opportunity. For precedent, look no further than OGCI member Eni, which recently set a goal to cut upstream fugitive emissions from its oil and gas facilities by 80 percent worldwide.
• Early Progress – Tangible examples of early progress toward the target are essential. We will look for concrete short and medium term commitments that build momentum and inspire confidence that technologies and practices are being deployed to achieve quantifiable reductions on the pathway to “near zero.” Short term markers may include actions like setting zero emission design standards for new facilities; swapping out old, high-emitting equipment for more modern technology; and instituting regular leak detection and repair programs.
• Innovation – A long list of innovators are ready and willing to help industry tackle the methane challenge with new tech, but they can’t make a dent without stronger industry demand. Through its investment fund and global reach, OGCI can catalyze the development of new, even more cost-effective approaches to reduce methane and commercially scale those innovations.
  
  Projects like the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge, MONITOR, and independent trials by individual operators are surfacing better, faster, cheaper mobile solutions to detection and quantification. Further, OGCI can use its market influence to drive up deployment of these solutions, while driving costs down. Capital invested in technologies, combined with a partnership approach with technologists, is vital to take methane innovation to the next level.
• Transparency – The credibility of the OGCI efforts will depend on regular and robust reporting that provides a window into OGCI member companies’ actions, progress, and results. For example, the frequency, scope, and methodology for leak detection and repair, and what insights these efforts yield into root causes of emissions can help move us toward prevention. Transparency will benefit OGCI in other ways – for example, helping the global technology community know where the methane mitigation market is going.

OCGI still has a lot of work to do to deliver on the expectations they’ve created. But we know it’s possible to achieve dramatic methane emission reductions quickly and cost-effectively. Investors, advocates, and others will be pushing hard to keep the wheels of progress turning.

This post was co-authored by Drew Nelson.  The CEOs of ten leading oil and gas companies today announced intentions to move toward “near-zero” methane emissions, pledging to set a quantitative reduction target by this time next year. At first blush, it might sound like a modest step – a promise to make a promise. In […]

This post was co-authored by Drew Nelson.  The CEOs of ten leading oil and gas companies today announced intentions to move toward “near-zero” methane emissions, pledging to set a quantitative reduction target by this time next year. At first blush, it might sound like a modest step – a promise to make a promise. In […]

This post was co-authored by Drew Nelson.  The CEOs of ten leading oil and gas companies today announced intentions to move toward “near-zero” methane emissions, pledging to set a quantitative reduction target by this time next year. At first blush, it might sound like a modest step – a promise to make a promise. In […]

The post Oil & gas CEOs up their methane pledge: Here’s what to watch for as promises turn to action appeared first on Energy Exchange.

This post was co-authored by Drew Nelson.  The CEOs of ten leading oil and gas companies today announced intentions to move toward “near-zero” methane emissions, pledging to set a quantitative reduction target by this time next year. At first blush, it might sound like a modest step – a promise to make a promise. In […]

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This article was written by the  Center for Environmental Health:

Oakland, CA —A new article released online today in the peer-reviewed journal Reviews on Environmental Health shows that substances widely used in unconventional oil and natural gas (UOG) development and operations have been linked to impaired brain function in infants, children, and young adults. These impairments include learning disabilities, ADHD, dyslexia, sensory deficits, mental retardation, and autism spectrum disorders. The paper concludes that public health prevention techniques, and stronger state and national regulatory standards are needed in UOG development.

“The peer-reviewed research demonstrates that exposure to chemicals associated with fracking can be dangerous for developing brains. To protect infants and children from potential life-long health impacts, state and federal agencies need to implement sensible rules for siting and managing fracking and other unconventional oil and gas operations. Families deserve protection and children deserve a healthy future, ” said said Ellen Webb, MPH, Health Sciences and Advocacy Manager for Center for Environmental Health (CEH), the lead author of the review.

The review finds that at least five pollutant categories associated with fracking are also associated with increased neurological and neurodevelopmental problems in children: heavy metals (arsenic and manganese), particulate matter (PM), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). These five pollutant groups are associated with neurotoxicity, neuroinflammation, psychomotor effects, and neuromuscular effects. Some of these pollutant categories are also linked with neural tube defects and neurodevelopmental effects such as impaired memory, intellectual function, learning and cognitive function. In addition, young children who experience frequent exposure to these pollutants are at particularly high risk for chronic neurological diseases.

The article, “Neurodevelopmental and Neurological Effects of Chemicals Associated with Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Operations and their Potential Effects on Infants and Children,” reviewed the scientific and medical literature relevant to neurodevelopmental health impacts associated with fracking and other UOG methods.

Following a growing number of epidemiological studies indicating that oil and gas development is associated with adverse health effects, such as increased adverse birth outcomes, hospitalization rates, and respiratory impacts, this comprehensive literature review adds to the growing scientific concern that fracking poses unacceptable health risks to nearby communities.

“Endocrine disrupting compounds pose a significant risk to human health, especially when exposure occurs during fetal and childhood development when hormone sensitive organs are forming,” said Dr. Heather Patisaul, one of the corresponding authors of the review and a Professor in the Center for Human Health and the Environment at the North Carolina State University College of Sciences in Raleigh, North Carolina. “That we know so little about the chemical composition of fracking fluid and the possible endocrine disrupting properties of these chemicals is a significant concern.”

“Scientific evidence is rapidly emerging on the health effects from fracking,” said Dr. Eric London, Director of the Autism Treatment Laboratory in Developmental Disabilities at the New York State Institute for Basic Research and the senior author of the review. “This article focuses on the potential for adverse effects of fracking operations on the neurological health of infants and children during their most fragile, vulnerable stages of early development. A similar level of concern should be applied to the role of these environmental toxicants in brain development as we would for infectious diseases.”

The review released today, co-authored by CEH and partners found serious health risks, including:

• Cognition, Motor & Intellect: Varying levels of exposure to chemicals associated with fracking have been linked with psychomotor effect and neuromuscular effects and neurodevelopmental impairments in memory, attention, learning and intelligence testing in children.
• Reductions in full-scale and verbal IQ scores in children and symptoms of depression, anxiety and problems with attention in children resulting from high prenatal exposure to PAH.
• Degenerative disorders and neurodevelopmental brain disorders may be associated with ambient air pollution such as particulate matter. Researchers looking at air pollution have consistently encountered neuroinflammation, damage suggestive of oxidative stress and direct neuronal damage. Neurodevelopmental brain disorders, which affect 10-15% of all births in the U.S. include learning disabilities, ADHD, dyslexia, sensory deficits, mental retardation, and autism spectrum disorders.
• Behavioral effects including impulsivity, aggression, hyperactivity in children and adolescents.
• Prenatal PAH exposure has been shown to cause reductions of white matter in the brain that resulted in high scores for ADHD symptoms and conduct disorder problems.
• Altered hormone function, behavior and disorders: Of the over 750 chemicals used throughout the process of hydraulic fracturing, more than 100 are known or suspected EDCs. A mounting number of studies have reported EDC activity in surface and/or groundwater near UOG operations. Exposure to neuro EDCs that disrupt hormone function during critical periods of prenatal development may enhance susceptibility to sex- and/or hormonally-differentiated behavioral disorders. These and other outcomes have been interpreted to indicate that EDC exposure might contribute to the etiology of disorders with sex-biased prevalence rates such as autism spectrum disorders, ADHD and depression. Studies have linked neuro EDCs with adverse neural and behavioral outcomes in a variety of animal models, including impaired social interaction/activity, increased anxiety and aggression, modified brain sex differences, altered hippocampal spine density and advanced puberty.
• Neurodevelopmental effects from endocrine disruption: Fracking chemicals including PAHs, have been associated with adverse neurodevelopmental effects. Studies have reported PAHs in ambient air samples near UOG operations. Gestational and in vivo PAH exposure in humans has been linked with several adverse neurodevelopmental effects, including small for gestational age (SGA), reduced length, reduced weight and head circumference. Researchers believe that these adverse effects during fetal development may be caused by PAHs’ ability to change endocrine hormone and receptor levels. Neurodevelopmental outcomes such as head circumference and low birth weight can have important implications for future learning; both have been correlated with poorer cognitive functioning and school performance as well as lower IQ.
• Neural Tube Defects (NTDs): Studies have linked maternal exposure to some of these fracking chemicals to neural tube defects (both anencephaly and spina bifida) in both experimental animals and human infants. Studies have shown a positive association between maternal exposure to heavy metals, ambient benzene, and PAHs during pregnancy and increased rates of neural tube defects.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

It’s five years post-Sandy.

Expectations and high hopes for forward movement on protecting our children from the effects of climate change have been dashed this past year. It has been a disaster for those of us who received the on-the-ground message in 2012, when Sandy’s raging waters surged over home territory.

I lived in Manhattan at the time. There was the wreckage of downed trees in my neighborhood, but nothing like what my friends below 14th Street experienced. They had no electricity and saw submerged cars from their windows. None of us could believe the photos of the water swirling through the subway stations. (The MTA plans to close down the heavily used L train, for over one year in 2019, to fix storm damage.)

It’s tough to remain upbeat when Trump and his cabinet of fossil fuel cronies refuse to acknowledge the science associated with a warming planet. Here’s a running list of how the Trump administration is changing the environment and harming our families.

I would doubt that Scott Pruitt has read the new study that looks at how flood hazards in New York City are directly related to “storm surges and rising sea levels.” It’s received plenty of traction in the media: Headlines have blared that after 2030, New York City will be the recipient of major flooding every 5 years as a result of climate change.

Considering the fact that Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria occurred in rapid succession this year, one can only observe in disbelief how the Trump administration refuses to accept the prevailing science. Pruitt maintains that it is an “unsettled” issue that must be relitigated. The EPA has taken the term climate change off its website (eliminating data and resources), and on October 23, it canceled the participation of 3 EPA scientists in a conference taking place in Rhode Island.

Hello! Anybody home?

Well, the lights apparently are still on at the Government Accountability Office, referenced as the “congressional watchdog.” They sent a report to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources which concluded:

“Climate change impacts are already costing the federal government money, and these costs will likely increase over time as the climate continues to change.”

Before arriving at this conclusion, the authors noted that since 2007, the government has shelled out $350 billion on extreme weather and fire events. $34 to $100 billion is the projected price tag by the time 2099 rolls around.

Where does this leave average people who were impacted by Hurricane Sandy? This, I am happy to report, is good news.

It leaves us activated!

Resist and Rise

On October 28, there will be a #SANDY5 march. It will commence in Brooklyn and feature Sandy survivors and first responders, members of frontline communities, and those who insist that New York’s elected officials take a proactive stand on mandating real traction to climate action. There will also be events in the other boroughs, Long Island and New Jersey.

The public is starting to connect the dots between concerns that have previously been looked at individually. Climate denial, corporate dollars, environmental justice, food security — the total picture is coming into focus.

On this fifth anniversary of the superstorm that opened the “floodgates” in more ways than one, the tide toward demanding change is gaining traction.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. [Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.] [See clarification added on 10-26-17 in brackets below.] The New York Times’ investigation “Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots” published this past Sunday cited evidence that Nancy Beck – a […]

By Richard Denison

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist.

[Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.]

[See clarification added on 10-26-17 in brackets below.]

The New York Times’ investigation “Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots” published this past Sunday cited evidence that Nancy Beck – a political appointee in EPA’s chemical safety office who until May was a senior official at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) – is questioning the need for EPA’s proposed rule to ban the use of the deadly chemical dichloromethane (also called methylene chloride) in paint and coating removers.  These products are responsible for dozens of deaths in recent years.

The Times’ story also noted in its last paragraph that Beck and Michael Dourson – the Trump Administration’s controversial nominee to lead EPA’s chemical safety office – are co-authors on a 2016 paper that was funded by ACC.  That paper was published in the industry’s go-to journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, where Dourson has published most of his papers.

The paper is of interest and relevant for another reason as well:  Dourson and Beck assert that the acceptable risk levels EPA has set for 24 chemicals are all too stringent and should be relaxed by anywhere from 2.5 to 150 fold.  (Funny, isn’t it, how the numbers for all 24 chemicals all went in the same direction?)

Among these 24 chemicals is the paint-stripping chemical dichloromethane (aka methylene chloride).  This chemical is a particularly concerning one:  It is a likely carcinogen and is linked to numerous other chronic health impacts, but it is also acutely and tragically lethal.   Dourson and Beck call for EPA’s standard for the chemical to be relaxed to a level that is 8.3 times less protective. [Clarification added 10-26-17:  This factor applies to EPA's ingestion standard (reference dose); Dourson and Beck's proposed adjustment to EPA's inhalation standard (reference concentration) was 2.5-fold less protective.]

The Times article makes clear that, despite her prior work on this chemical while at ACC, and the fact that this chemical is made by numerous ACC companies, Beck has not recused herself from making decisions about its risk and regulatory responses – decisions that are being considered at EPA even as I write.  Indeed, as I noted earlier this week, her astounding ethics agreement gives her wide latitude to work on issues in which ACC has financial interests in order to ensure those interests are taken into account.

In Dourson’s nomination hearing held by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on October 4, he was repeatedly asked if he would, if confirmed, recuse himself from work on chemicals he had been paid by industry to work on, and he repeatedly refused to say he would do so.

One more reason that Michael Dourson should not be entrusted with our health and the Senate should reject his nomination to head EPA’s toxics office.

Just yesterday, Dourson’s nomination was voted out of the committee by an 11-10 vote.  The fight over his nomination now moves to the full Senate.

 

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. [Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.] [See clarification added on 10-26-17 in brackets below.] The New York Times’ investigation “Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots” published this past Sunday cited evidence that Nancy Beck – a […]

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. [Use this link to see all of our posts on Dourson.] [See clarification added on 10-26-17 in brackets below.] The New York Times’ investigation “Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry Insider Helps Call the Shots” published this past Sunday cited evidence that Nancy Beck – a […]

As a Trump Administration appointee tries to dismantle EPA’s credibility as a guardian of public health and the environment, other actors have been stepping up. We recently examined retailers leading the way on removing chemicals of concern from the marketplace – but there has also been significant activity from state governments and companies to increase […]