What if anyone in the world could access expert help and advice on fisheries management with just the click of button? Overfishing is a global problem that can only be overcome by a global effort to address it. But there is no one-size-sits-all approach. Fisheries managers need access to tools and methods that can be […]

By Ben Levitan

This summer was anything but quiet for climate policy.

In June, President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit blocked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt's attempt to suspend protections from climate-destabilizing oil and gas pollution, calling the move “unauthorized” and “unreasonable.”

In August, two judges of the same court reminded EPA of its “affirmative statutory obligation to regulate greenhouse gases,” citing longstanding Supreme Court precedent.

Now, the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey and the record strength of Hurricane Irma are showing us what’s at stake, as sea level rises and extreme weather becomes more frequent.

Meanwhile, Administrator Pruitt has continued his pattern of deeply misleading statements about climate change and EPA’s responsibility to protect public health and the environment.

Pruitt uses these statements in an attempt to justify rolling back vital public health and environmental safeguards. In just his first four months in office, he took action against more than 30 health and environmental protections, including the Clean Power Plan — our first and only national limit on carbon pollution from existing power plants.

As America’s proven, life-saving environmental protections come under attack, here are four facts about climate law and science to help cut through Pruitt’s distortions.

1. EPA has an affirmative statutory obligation to regulate climate pollution

Administrator Pruitt frequently questions EPA’s ability and authority to regulate climate pollutants under the Clean Air Act. But contrary to Pruitt’s claims, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Clean Air Act covers climate pollution.

• In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court held that climate pollutants “without a doubt” and “unambiguous[ly]” meet the definition of “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act.
• In its subsequent American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP) opinion, the Supreme Court found that section 111 of the Clean Air Act — the section under which EPA issued the Clean Power Plan — “speaks directly” to the regulation of climate pollution from existing power plants. (Even opponents of climate protections conceded that point during oral argument.)
• The Court again recognized EPA’s authority to regulate climate pollution in a third decision, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (UARG).

Former EPA administrators serving in both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that “Congress has already made the policy decision to regulate” air pollutants that EPA determines — based on scientific factors — endanger the public health or welfare.

That’s why we now enjoy protections from air pollutants like cancer-causing benzene, brain-damaging lead, and lung-impairing particulates. We may not have had those protections if former EPA Administrators had shared Pruitt’s myopic view of the agency’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act.

As the Supreme Court stated in Massachusetts v. EPA, Congress:

underst[oo]d that without regulatory flexibility, changing circumstances and scientific developments would soon render the Clean Air Act obsolete. The broad language … reflects an intentional effort to confer the flexibility necessary to forestall such obsolescence.

In issuing the Clean Power Plan and other climate protections, EPA scrupulously fulfilled the mandate with which Congress entrusted it. The Clean Power Plan also reflected the Supreme Court’s finding in AEP that climate pollution from existing power plants was covered by section 111.

Administrator Pruitt has seriously misconstrued judicial rulings that conflict with his policy goals.

For example, he claimed that the Supreme Court’s UARG decision “said the authority the previous administration was trying to say that they had in regulating carbon dioxide wasn’t there.”

Pruitt overlooks the fact that the UARG opinion upheld the vast majority of what EPA had done, including the requirement that sources subject to certain permitting obligations under the Clean Air Act utilize “best available control technology” for climate pollution. The Supreme Court only took issue with EPA’s potential regulation of a subset of sources constituting a small percentage of total emissions, which did not implicate EPA’s fundamental obligation to regulate climate pollution.

2. EPA’s obligation to regulate climate pollution is based on scientific factors, not the Administrator’s policy preferences

Administrator Pruitt’s most dangerous Supreme Court misinterpretation might be his twist on Massachusetts v. EPA, a landmark decision that set the foundation for many of the climate protections that followed.

In Pruitt’s reading, when it comes to climate pollution, the Supreme Court held only that EPA “must make a decision whether [to] regulate or not.”

But the Supreme Court actually held that EPA was required to determine — again, based on scientific factors — whether climate pollution endangers public health or welfare.

In 2009, EPA concluded that climate pollution indeed poses a clear danger to public health and welfare, based on an exhaustive review of an expansive array of published studies and surveys of peer-reviewed literature prepared by the U.S. government’s Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The D.C. Circuit upheld this Endangerment Finding against a barrage of legal attacks, finding that it was based on “substantial scientific evidence.”

After issuing the Endangerment Finding, EPA was statutorily obligated to follow the Clean Air Act’s process for regulating the dangerous pollution.

Administrator Pruitt’s position more closely resembles the losing argument in Massachusetts v. EPA. The George W. Bush Administration had justified its decision not to regulate climate pollution based on factors completely unrelated to public health or welfare. But the Supreme Court brushed aside EPA’s “laundry list of reasons not to regulate” and ruled that the agency was not free to — in Pruitt’s words — “make a decision” not to regulate. Rather, EPA must conduct a science-based evaluation of the risks that climate pollution poses to public health and welfare, and if the science supports an Endangerment Finding, regulation must follow.

3. The scientific evidence of climate change is overwhelming

Climate change is happening now. As climate pollution continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, it will bring melting sea ice and glaciers, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather including heat waves, floods, and droughts.

Administrator Pruitt attempts to minimize this threat by focusing on uncertainty. In Pruitt’s parlance, we still have more to learn about “the precision of measurement” when it comes to the effects of climate pollution. But the fact that there are still productive areas for research doesn’t mean we should disregard the vast amount that we already know.

As the American Meteorological Society recently told a different Trump Administration official:

[S]kepticism and debate are always welcome,” but “[s]kepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that EPA cannot decline to regulate climate pollution due to:

some residual uncertainty … The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding.

EPA answered that question in its 2009 Endangerment Finding, and since then, the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused climate change has continued to grow.

In the final draft of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s latest Climate Science Special Report — which is currently under review by political officials in the Trump Administration — climate scientists determined that, in the last few years:

stronger evidence has emerged for continuing, rapid, human-caused warming of the global atmosphere and ocean.

The year 2016 marked the third consecutive year of record-high global surface temperatures, and 2017 marked the third consecutive year of record-low winter Arctic sea ice. Meanwhile, the rate of sea level rise is increasing.

In contrast to the extensive scientific research demonstrating the role of climate pollution in destabilizing our climate, Administrator Pruitt has proposed a (possibly televised) “red team/blue team” exercise in which opposing teams of government-selected experts debate climate science.

Christine Todd Whitman, who served as EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush, characterized the red team/blue team exercise as “a shameful attempt to confuse the public into accepting the false premise that there is no need to regulate fossil fuels.”

Pruitt has acknowledged that he is “not a scientist” but nonetheless suggested that his red team/blue team exercise would represent “what science is all about.” Anticipating that some scientists might be reluctant to participate, he taunted:

If you’re going to win and if you’re so certain about it, come and do your deal.

But for most scientists, their “deal” is a careful process of observation, experimentation, and peer review — even when it doesn’t fit between commercial breaks.

However Pruitt manages his red team/blue team exercise, it can’t alter the conclusions of the massive body of climate research developed by thousands of scientists over decades of conscientious inquiry.

4. The American public supports policies to address climate change

One argument that Administrator Pruitt advanced for his red team/blue team exercise is that “the American people would be very interested in consuming that.”

Actually, Americans in every state have already shown an appetite for addressing climate change.

A recent survey found that large majorities of Americans support regulating greenhouse gases as a pollutant, setting strict carbon dioxide limits on existing coal-fired power plants, and requiring utilities to produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources.

In fact, each of those policies garnered majority support in every Congressional district in America.

A majority of Americans opposed the decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, as did the CEOs of many prominent businesses.

And the Clean Power Plan was supported in court by a broad and diverse coalition of 18 states, 60 cities, public health experts, leading business innovators (including Google, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft), leading legal and technical experts, major consumer protection and low-income ratepayer organizations (including Consumers Union and Public Citizen), faith groups, more than 200 current and former members of Congress, and many others. (You can read their legal briefs on EDF’s website.)

Administrator Pruitt’s legal and scientific distortions show no sign of abating, and neither does his destructive rollback of public health and environmental protections. But his efforts have been rife with legal deficiencies. As EDF President Fred Krupp recently wrote, Pruitt “may have finally met his match: the law.”

Shortly after the D.C. Circuit blocked Pruitt from suspending protections from oil and gas pollution, and in the face of legal challenges from EDF and many others, Pruitt withdrew his unlawful delay of another Clean Air Act protection – the implementation of a national health-based smog standard.

EDF will continue to demand that Pruitt fulfill his solemn responsibility to protect the health of our communities and families under our nation’s bipartisan and time-tested environmental laws.

This summer was anything but quiet for climate policy. In June, President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit blocked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt’s attempt to suspend protections from climate-destabilizing oil and gas pollution, […]

The post Scott Pruitt’s relentless distortions of climate science and law appeared first on Climate 411.

By Ben Levitan

This summer was anything but quiet for climate policy.

In June, President Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit blocked Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt's attempt to suspend protections from climate-destabilizing oil and gas pollution, calling the move “unauthorized” and “unreasonable.”

In August, two judges of the same court reminded EPA of its “affirmative statutory obligation to regulate greenhouse gases,” citing longstanding Supreme Court precedent.

Now, the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey and the record strength of Hurricane Irma are showing us what’s at stake, as sea level rises and extreme weather becomes more frequent.

Meanwhile, Administrator Pruitt has continued his pattern of deeply misleading statements about climate change and EPA’s responsibility to protect public health and the environment.

Pruitt uses these statements in an attempt to justify rolling back vital public health and environmental safeguards. In just his first four months in office, he took action against more than 30 health and environmental protections, including the Clean Power Plan — our first and only national limit on carbon pollution from existing power plants.

As America’s proven, life-saving environmental protections come under attack, here are four facts about climate law and science to help cut through Pruitt’s distortions.

1. EPA has an affirmative statutory obligation to regulate climate pollution

Administrator Pruitt frequently questions EPA’s ability and authority to regulate climate pollutants under the Clean Air Act. But contrary to Pruitt’s claims, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Clean Air Act covers climate pollution.

• In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Court held that climate pollutants “without a doubt” and “unambiguous[ly]” meet the definition of “air pollutant” under the Clean Air Act.
• In its subsequent American Electric Power v. Connecticut (AEP) opinion, the Supreme Court found that section 111 of the Clean Air Act — the section under which EPA issued the Clean Power Plan — “speaks directly” to the regulation of climate pollution from existing power plants. (Even opponents of climate protections conceded that point during oral argument.)
• The Court again recognized EPA’s authority to regulate climate pollution in a third decision, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA (UARG).

Former EPA administrators serving in both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that “Congress has already made the policy decision to regulate” air pollutants that EPA determines — based on scientific factors — endanger the public health or welfare.

That’s why we now enjoy protections from air pollutants like cancer-causing benzene, brain-damaging lead, and lung-impairing particulates. We may not have had those protections if former EPA Administrators had shared Pruitt’s myopic view of the agency’s responsibility under the Clean Air Act.

As the Supreme Court stated in Massachusetts v. EPA, Congress:

underst[oo]d that without regulatory flexibility, changing circumstances and scientific developments would soon render the Clean Air Act obsolete. The broad language … reflects an intentional effort to confer the flexibility necessary to forestall such obsolescence.

In issuing the Clean Power Plan and other climate protections, EPA scrupulously fulfilled the mandate with which Congress entrusted it. The Clean Power Plan also reflected the Supreme Court’s finding in AEP that climate pollution from existing power plants was covered by section 111.

Administrator Pruitt has seriously misconstrued judicial rulings that conflict with his policy goals.

For example, he claimed that the Supreme Court’s UARG decision “said the authority the previous administration was trying to say that they had in regulating carbon dioxide wasn’t there.”

Pruitt overlooks the fact that the UARG opinion upheld the vast majority of what EPA had done, including the requirement that sources subject to certain permitting obligations under the Clean Air Act utilize “best available control technology” for climate pollution. The Supreme Court only took issue with EPA’s potential regulation of a subset of sources constituting a small percentage of total emissions, which did not implicate EPA’s fundamental obligation to regulate climate pollution.

2. EPA’s obligation to regulate climate pollution is based on scientific factors, not the Administrator’s policy preferences

Administrator Pruitt’s most dangerous Supreme Court misinterpretation might be his twist on Massachusetts v. EPA, a landmark decision that set the foundation for many of the climate protections that followed.

In Pruitt’s reading, when it comes to climate pollution, the Supreme Court held only that EPA “must make a decision whether [to] regulate or not.”

But the Supreme Court actually held that EPA was required to determine — again, based on scientific factors — whether climate pollution endangers public health or welfare.

In 2009, EPA concluded that climate pollution indeed poses a clear danger to public health and welfare, based on an exhaustive review of an expansive array of published studies and surveys of peer-reviewed literature prepared by the U.S. government’s Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The D.C. Circuit upheld this Endangerment Finding against a barrage of legal attacks, finding that it was based on “substantial scientific evidence.”

After issuing the Endangerment Finding, EPA was statutorily obligated to follow the Clean Air Act’s process for regulating the dangerous pollution.

Administrator Pruitt’s position more closely resembles the losing argument in Massachusetts v. EPA. The George W. Bush Administration had justified its decision not to regulate climate pollution based on factors completely unrelated to public health or welfare. But the Supreme Court brushed aside EPA’s “laundry list of reasons not to regulate” and ruled that the agency was not free to — in Pruitt’s words — “make a decision” not to regulate. Rather, EPA must conduct a science-based evaluation of the risks that climate pollution poses to public health and welfare, and if the science supports an Endangerment Finding, regulation must follow.

3. The scientific evidence of climate change is overwhelming

Climate change is happening now. As climate pollution continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, it will bring melting sea ice and glaciers, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather including heat waves, floods, and droughts.

Administrator Pruitt attempts to minimize this threat by focusing on uncertainty. In Pruitt’s parlance, we still have more to learn about “the precision of measurement” when it comes to the effects of climate pollution. But the fact that there are still productive areas for research doesn’t mean we should disregard the vast amount that we already know.

As the American Meteorological Society recently told a different Trump Administration official:

[S]kepticism and debate are always welcome,” but “[s]kepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that EPA cannot decline to regulate climate pollution due to:

some residual uncertainty … The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists to make an endangerment finding.

EPA answered that question in its 2009 Endangerment Finding, and since then, the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused climate change has continued to grow.

In the final draft of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s latest Climate Science Special Report — which is currently under review by political officials in the Trump Administration — climate scientists determined that, in the last few years:

stronger evidence has emerged for continuing, rapid, human-caused warming of the global atmosphere and ocean.

The year 2016 marked the third consecutive year of record-high global surface temperatures, and 2017 marked the third consecutive year of record-low winter Arctic sea ice. Meanwhile, the rate of sea level rise is increasing.

In contrast to the extensive scientific research demonstrating the role of climate pollution in destabilizing our climate, Administrator Pruitt has proposed a (possibly televised) “red team/blue team” exercise in which opposing teams of government-selected experts debate climate science.

Christine Todd Whitman, who served as EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush, characterized the red team/blue team exercise as “a shameful attempt to confuse the public into accepting the false premise that there is no need to regulate fossil fuels.”

Pruitt has acknowledged that he is “not a scientist” but nonetheless suggested that his red team/blue team exercise would represent “what science is all about.” Anticipating that some scientists might be reluctant to participate, he taunted:

If you’re going to win and if you’re so certain about it, come and do your deal.

But for most scientists, their “deal” is a careful process of observation, experimentation, and peer review — even when it doesn’t fit between commercial breaks.

However Pruitt manages his red team/blue team exercise, it can’t alter the conclusions of the massive body of climate research developed by thousands of scientists over decades of conscientious inquiry.

4. The American public supports policies to address climate change

One argument that Administrator Pruitt advanced for his red team/blue team exercise is that “the American people would be very interested in consuming that.”

Actually, Americans in every state have already shown an appetite for addressing climate change.

A recent survey found that large majorities of Americans support regulating greenhouse gases as a pollutant, setting strict carbon dioxide limits on existing coal-fired power plants, and requiring utilities to produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources.

In fact, each of those policies garnered majority support in every Congressional district in America.

A majority of Americans opposed the decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, as did the CEOs of many prominent businesses.

And the Clean Power Plan was supported in court by a broad and diverse coalition of 18 states, 60 cities, public health experts, leading business innovators (including Google, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft), leading legal and technical experts, major consumer protection and low-income ratepayer organizations (including Consumers Union and Public Citizen), faith groups, more than 200 current and former members of Congress, and many others. (You can read their legal briefs on EDF’s website.)

Administrator Pruitt’s legal and scientific distortions show no sign of abating, and neither does his destructive rollback of public health and environmental protections. But his efforts have been rife with legal deficiencies. As EDF President Fred Krupp recently wrote, Pruitt “may have finally met his match: the law.”

Shortly after the D.C. Circuit blocked Pruitt from suspending protections from oil and gas pollution, and in the face of legal challenges from EDF and many others, Pruitt withdrew his unlawful delay of another Clean Air Act protection – the implementation of a national health-based smog standard.

EDF will continue to demand that Pruitt fulfill his solemn responsibility to protect the health of our communities and families under our nation’s bipartisan and time-tested environmental laws.

By Richard Denison

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

Environmental Defense Fund has made no secret of our view that many elements of the final framework rules issued by the Trump EPA in July to implement recent reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are contrary to law and fail to reflect the best available science.  The rules EPA had proposed in January were heavily rewritten by a Trump political appointee, Dr. Nancy Beck, who until her arrival at the agency at the end of April was a senior official at the chemical industry’s main trade association, the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

In our view, the final rules largely destroyed the careful balance that characterized the efforts to reform TSCA and the final product of that effort, the Lautenberg Act.  In many respects, the final rules governing how EPA will identify and prioritize chemicals and evaluate their risks now mirror the demands of the chemical industry, reflected in comments they had submitted earlier – some of which Beck herself had co-authored.

These are among the reasons EDF as well as other NGOs and health and labor groups have had no choice but to file legal challenges to these rules.

Lest you have any doubt that the final rules are heavily skewed in industry’s direction, a development in these legal cases just yesterday should dispel it.  A broad coalition of industry groups – including Dr. Beck’s previous employer ACC – has filed motions to intervene in these cases in order to defend EPA’s rules (see here and here).  Parties to the motion constitute a remarkable list:

• American Chemistry Council
• American Coatings Association
• American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
• American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
• American Forest and Paper Association
• American Petroleum Institute
• Battery Council International
• Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
• EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) Industry Alliance
• IPC – Association Connecting Electronics Industries
• National Association of Chemical Distributors
• National Mining Association
• Polyurethane Manufacturers Association
• Silver Nanotechnology Working Group
• Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA)
• Styrene Information and Resource Center
• Utility Solid Waste Advocacy Group

Yesterday was the deadline for parties seeking to intervene in the cases to have done so.  Among those that had issued a “call to arms” to industry to intervene to defend EPA’s rules were leading Washington, DC industry law firms that represent these trade groups and their members.  For example, Wiley-Rein issued this client alert five days after our lawsuits were filed (emphasis added):

Also on August 11th the Natural Resources Defense Council, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition, the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental advocacy organizations filed lawsuits challenging the EPA’s final Prioritization and Risk Evaluation Rules. While the petitions are light on details, they generally allege that EPA abused its discretion when issuing the final rules. The specific issues the petitioners have with the final rules are not yet clear, but these groups have publicly expressed concern with EPA’s interpretation of how it will review the conditions under which a chemical is known or reasonably foreseen to be used. Therefore, companies that make, import, process or use a chemical that is being evaluated by EPA now or in the future need to consider getting involved and supporting the rule [sic] as it now stands.

Step back for a minute and consider the unusual nature of this development:  When was the last time such a heavy-hitters list of industry groups rushed in to support EPA regulations?

More evidence of the topsy-turvy world we’re living in under the most anti-environmental and anti-regulatory administration in modern history.

Despite its professed support just over a year ago for balance and compromise in TSCA reform, the industry has shifted  in this new political climate to short-term, opportunistic thinking.  But that isn’t going to solve the problem that brought the industry to the TSCA negotiating table:  The lack of confidence in the safety of its enterprise, a problem that can only be expected to grow as regulations are rolled back and the public learns more about the millions of pounds of chemicals released into the environment from industrial facilities in the wake of hurricanes.

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. Environmental Defense Fund has made no secret of our view that many elements of the final framework rules issued by the Trump EPA in July to implement recent reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are contrary to law and fail to reflect the best available science.  […]

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. Environmental Defense Fund has made no secret of our view that many elements of the final framework rules issued by the Trump EPA in July to implement recent reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are contrary to law and fail to reflect the best available science.  […]

By Richard Denison

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

Environmental Defense Fund has made no secret of our view that many elements of the final framework rules issued by the Trump EPA in July to implement recent reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) are contrary to law and fail to reflect the best available science.  The rules EPA had proposed in January were heavily rewritten by a Trump political appointee, Dr. Nancy Beck, who until her arrival at the agency at the end of April was a senior official at the chemical industry’s main trade association, the American Chemistry Council (ACC).

In our view, the final rules largely destroyed the careful balance that characterized the efforts to reform TSCA and the final product of that effort, the Lautenberg Act.  In many respects, the final rules governing how EPA will identify and prioritize chemicals and evaluate their risks now mirror the demands of the chemical industry, reflected in comments they had submitted earlier – some of which Beck herself had co-authored.

These are among the reasons EDF as well as other NGOs and health and labor groups have had no choice but to file legal challenges to these rules.

Lest you have any doubt that the final rules are heavily skewed in industry’s direction, a development in these legal cases just yesterday should dispel it.  A broad coalition of industry groups – including Dr. Beck’s previous employer ACC – has filed motions to intervene in these cases in order to defend EPA’s rules (see here and here).  Parties to the motion constitute a remarkable list:

• American Chemistry Council
• American Coatings Association
• American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
• American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
• American Forest and Paper Association
• American Petroleum Institute
• Battery Council International
• Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
• EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) Industry Alliance
• IPC – Association Connecting Electronics Industries
• National Association of Chemical Distributors
• National Mining Association
• Polyurethane Manufacturers Association
• Silver Nanotechnology Working Group
• Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA)
• Styrene Information and Resource Center
• Utility Solid Waste Advocacy Group

Yesterday was the deadline for parties seeking to intervene in the cases to have done so.  Among those that had issued a “call to arms” to industry to intervene to defend EPA’s rules were leading Washington, DC industry law firms that represent these trade groups and their members.  For example, Wiley-Rein issued this client alert five days after our lawsuits were filed (emphasis added):

Also on August 11th the Natural Resources Defense Council, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families Coalition, the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental advocacy organizations filed lawsuits challenging the EPA’s final Prioritization and Risk Evaluation Rules. While the petitions are light on details, they generally allege that EPA abused its discretion when issuing the final rules. The specific issues the petitioners have with the final rules are not yet clear, but these groups have publicly expressed concern with EPA’s interpretation of how it will review the conditions under which a chemical is known or reasonably foreseen to be used. Therefore, companies that make, import, process or use a chemical that is being evaluated by EPA now or in the future need to consider getting involved and supporting the rule [sic] as it now stands.

Step back for a minute and consider the unusual nature of this development:  When was the last time such a heavy-hitters list of industry groups rushed in to support EPA regulations?

More evidence of the topsy-turvy world we’re living in under the most anti-environmental and anti-regulatory administration in modern history.

Despite its professed support just over a year ago for balance and compromise in TSCA reform, the industry has shifted  in this new political climate to short-term, opportunistic thinking.  But that isn’t going to solve the problem that brought the industry to the TSCA negotiating table:  The lack of confidence in the safety of its enterprise, a problem that can only be expected to grow as regulations are rolled back and the public learns more about the millions of pounds of chemicals released into the environment from industrial facilities in the wake of hurricanes.

Pennsylvania clean air and clean water protections are at risk--potentially exposing children and families to the dangerous effects of irresponsible fracking procedures. MCAF. C3. Regional.

A hired gun for tobacco and chemical industries, this EPA nominee would undermine chemical safety

A man who has defended tobacco and chemical industry interests, supported the use of a dangerous pesticide, and played down concerns over toxic toys may soon be in charge of chemical safety for our entire nation.

Michael Dourson’s nomination fits a pattern that has become all-too-familiar since the Trump administration took charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this year and began to roll back public health protections. The nominee faced some tough questions from senators at his confirmation hearing this week, but remains in the running.

If confirmed to head the EPA’s chemical safety program, Dourson could well accelerate the administration’s push to return America to its toxic past. It’s easy to see why.

Defended tobacco and Teflon

If confirmed to the top job at the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Dourson will be regulating his old industry friends. It’s a pattern we keep seeing with Trump’s administration as the president and his appointees turn the federal government’s mission to protect public health on its head.

Dourson’s paid work for industry goes back several decades and includes work he did for the tobacco industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Also on his resume is his work involving the “Teflon” chemical PFOA, which continues to affect drinking water in places such as West Virginia, Ohio, New York and Vermont. And he worked for the manufacturer of the controversial pesticide chlorpyrifos, which Dourson defended and the Trump EPA decided not to ban despite expert calls to do so.

Dourson: Toxic toys? Kids should wash hands.

Among other things, Dourson’s company used industry money to develop and run a now-defunct website, “kidschemicalsafety.org,” with copy penned by staff from chemical industry consulting firms who sought to put chemical hazards “into context.”

The website told parents, for example, that even water can be toxic at high exposure levels, “but few people would want to ban” water.

It also played down concerns about chemicals in products such as toys, shifting the burden to parents by suggesting they make sure to read labels, keep toys out of their children’s mouths, and make sure kids wash their hands after playing.

Dourson: “Jesus hung out” with shady people, too

Of course, none of Dourson’s work will come as a shock to anyone who has followed industry tactics closely. Whether professional climate deniers or big tobacco, manufacturing doubt is a well-known dark art.

The problem here is that if the Senate votes to confirm him, Dourson will speak from a government office.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration installed a top official from the main chemical industry lobbying group to direct  changes to rules that will determine how chemicals are reviewed for safety. The changes she made could undermine efforts to protect us from harmful chemicals for many years to come, according to Politico.

Given his track record, we don’t see Dourson taking steps needed to stem the use of dangerous chemicals.

After all, this is the man who defended his work for tobacco to downplay concerns about second-hand smoke by saying “Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors.”

That logic may help Dourson sleep at night, but it won’t provide much solace to those of us who were hoping the new law would do a better job protecting  us from toxic chemicals.

Who’s who at the EPA? Latest staff picks continue alarming trend. krives September 12, 2017 - 09:54

A hired gun for tobacco and chemical industries, this EPA nominee would undermine chemical safety

A man who has defended tobacco and chemical industry interests, supported the use of a dangerous pesticide, and played down concerns over toxic toys may soon be in charge of chemical safety for our entire nation.

Michael Dourson’s nomination fits a pattern that has become all-too-familiar since the Trump administration took charge of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency this year and began to roll back public health protections. The nominee faced some tough questions from senators at his confirmation hearing this week, but remains in the running.

If confirmed to head the EPA’s chemical safety program, Dourson could well accelerate the administration’s push to return America to its toxic past. It’s easy to see why.

Defended tobacco and Teflon

If confirmed to the top job at the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Dourson will be regulating his old industry friends. It’s a pattern we keep seeing with Trump’s administration as the president and his appointees turn the federal government’s mission to protect public health on its head.

Dourson’s paid work for industry goes back several decades and includes work he did for the tobacco industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Also on his resume is his work involving the “Teflon” chemical PFOA, which continues to affect drinking water in places such as West Virginia, Ohio, New York and Vermont. And he worked for the manufacturer of the controversial pesticide chlorpyrifos, which Dourson defended and the Trump EPA decided not to ban despite expert calls to do so.

Dourson: Toxic toys? Kids should wash hands.

Among other things, Dourson’s company used industry money to develop and run a now-defunct website, “kidschemicalsafety.org,” with copy penned by staff from chemical industry consulting firms who sought to put chemical hazards “into context.”

The website told parents, for example, that even water can be toxic at high exposure levels, “but few people would want to ban” water.

It also played down concerns about chemicals in products such as toys, shifting the burden to parents by suggesting they make sure to read labels, keep toys out of their children’s mouths, and make sure kids wash their hands after playing.

Dourson: “Jesus hung out” with shady people, too

Of course, none of Dourson’s work will come as a shock to anyone who has followed industry tactics closely. Whether professional climate deniers or big tobacco, manufacturing doubt is a well-known dark art.

The problem here is that if the Senate votes to confirm him, Dourson will speak from a government office.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration installed a top official from the main chemical industry lobbying group to direct  changes to rules that will determine how chemicals are reviewed for safety. The changes she made could undermine efforts to protect us from harmful chemicals for many years to come, according to Politico.

Given his track record, we don’t see Dourson taking steps needed to stem the use of dangerous chemicals.

After all, this is the man who defended his work for tobacco to downplay concerns about second-hand smoke by saying “Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors.”

That logic may help Dourson sleep at night, but it won’t provide much solace to those of us who were hoping the new law would do a better job protecting  us from toxic chemicals.

Who’s who at the EPA? Latest staff picks continue alarming trend. krives September 12, 2017 - 09:54

By Sean Wright

Environmental Defense Fund Q&A with Tim Goodman, Hermes Investment Management

Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at Hermes Investment Management

When burned, natural gas produces half the carbon as coal, so it is often touted as a “bridge” fuel to a cleaner energy future. But the carbon advantage of natural gas may be lost if too much of it escapes across its value chain.

Natural gas is mostly methane, which, unburned, is a highly potent greenhouse gas accounting for roughly a quarter of today’s global warming. Worldwide, oil and gas companies leak and vent an estimated $30 billion of methane each year into the atmosphere.

EDF’s Sean Wright sat down with Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at London-based Hermes Investment Management. Goodman, who views methane management as practical self-help for the industry to pursue, engages with oil and gas companies on strategies to manage their methane emissions. This is the first of a two-part conversation with Hermes, a global investment firm, whose stewardship service Hermes EOS, advises $330.4 billion in assets.

Wright: Do you think the oil and gas industry is changing its overall attitude towards climate after the historic Paris agreement and recent successful shareholder resolutions? If so, how do you see that change manifesting itself?

Goodman: I think climate change is obviously an existential question for the industry. The really big question is can it actually change in response to Paris? The industry is beginning to respond as a result of Paris and shareholder proposals and other stakeholder pressure. You’re seeing some of the majors increasing their gas exposure at the expense of oil. You’re seeing a number of international oil companies reducing or ending their exposure to particularly high carbon or high risk assets, such as the Canadian oil sands or the Arctic. The oil and gas industry is also starting to place a greater focus on methane management and its own emissions.

Wright: What about investors – what do you think is driving the continued momentum around methane and climate as we see larger and more mainstream funds tackling these issues?

Goodman: Let’s talk about climate for the moment – the roles of both investors and companies in the run up to the Paris agreement and during the negotiations were crucial. The investors made it absolutely clear that they wanted to see a successful Paris agreement. Addressing climate change is good for business and good for their portfolios. And we saw this with the Exxon vote – the two-degree scenario proposal where mainstream asset managers voted for this proposal. We believe that this happened because of the underlying pressure asset managers were getting from their own clients who have a long-term perspective and see climate change as a risk to their funds.

Specifically on methane, it’s practical self-help for the industry to embark on methane management. It’s an obvious practical measure for investors to engage upon. If you can reduce your contribution to greenhouse gases, save money, and gain revenue by being more efficient and safe, why wouldn’t you do that? It’s an easy entree into engaging with the oil and gas industry. Whereas the existential question, what’s your business going to look like 20 years from now, is a more difficult question perhaps both for the industry and the companies themselves.

Wright: You pretty much just explained why Hermes prioritized methane – is that correct?

Goodman: Yes. But the science is a big part of it. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon – the more that we can minimize its effects, the greater the window the world has to transition to a low carbon economy. Methane’s effects don’t last as long as carbon, but if we don’t tackle methane, we aren’t taking meaningful action to move to a low-carbon economy.

Wright: What do you see as the risks of unmanaged methane emissions?

Goodman: There is an economic risk and benefit for companies. Most of the measures to manage methane are relatively low-cost and can very easily be implemented for new projects. If you’re not doing them, for example, and you’re fracking shale, you’re at a competitive disadvantage to your peers. The cost-benefits perhaps are more difficult, but still there, in existing infrastructure. But particularly among the oil majors, their relationship with their host governments, local communities, and other stakeholders is vital. It’s important for companies to demonstrate good corporate citizenship. If you’re a laggard on methane, you’re more likely to be considered as an irresponsible partner both commercially and also in your local community. So I think oil and gas companies risk massive reputational and legal risks if they’re not managing methane effectively, notwithstanding the economic benefits.

Ignoring methane problem puts oil & gas companies "at a competitive disadvantage." See more…
Click To Tweet

Wright: What do you typically hear from operators in your conversations about methane management? Do you hear different things from operators in different parts of the world?

Goodman: Methane management is part of a number of important issues that we’re engaging with the industry on, including other pollution, health and safety, human rights, corruption and climate change. What we’re hearing on methane does vary. It’s fair to say in some emerging markets methane management is not often discussed by investors with those companies. But when we do address this topic in these markets, the companies show interest and want to know why it’s important to us, what they should be doing, how they should be disclosing, etc. So we’re often having positive and interesting conversations in these markets.

In the developed markets, there’s a difference. And I think there’s a distinction between Europe and North America. The EU companies, particularly the majors, are realizing it’s an important issue and are talking about it and disclosing at least some data. In private dialogue with North American companies, it is clear methane is often an important issue for them, but their disclosure is less convincing. It does vary around the world, but you also have this interesting phenomenon, where some companies seem to be doing a good job in private dialogue, but the disclosure lags behind what they are actually doing. We also see companies attempting to present their efforts in a better light than perhaps they deserve. It’s a complex mixture, which is why engagement is so important because we are able to view the reality on the ground through private dialogue.

For more information on EDF’s investor resources on methane mitigation, please see our recent report, An Investor’s Guide to Methane, or subscribe to our newsletter.

By Sean Wright

Environmental Defense Fund Q&A with Tim Goodman, Hermes Investment Management

Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at Hermes Investment Management

When burned, natural gas produces half the carbon as coal, so it is often touted as a “bridge” fuel to a cleaner energy future. But the carbon advantage of natural gas may be lost if too much of it escapes across its value chain.

Natural gas is mostly methane, which, unburned, is a highly potent greenhouse gas accounting for roughly a quarter of today’s global warming. Worldwide, oil and gas companies leak and vent an estimated $30 billion of methane each year into the atmosphere.

EDF’s Sean Wright sat down with Tim Goodman, Director of Engagement at London-based Hermes Investment Management. Goodman, who views methane management as practical self-help for the industry to pursue, engages with oil and gas companies on strategies to manage their methane emissions. This is the first of a two-part conversation with Hermes, a global investment firm, whose stewardship service Hermes EOS, advises $330.4 billion in assets.

Wright: Do you think the oil and gas industry is changing its overall attitude towards climate after the historic Paris agreement and recent successful shareholder resolutions? If so, how do you see that change manifesting itself?

Goodman: I think climate change is obviously an existential question for the industry. The really big question is can it actually change in response to Paris? The industry is beginning to respond as a result of Paris and shareholder proposals and other stakeholder pressure. You’re seeing some of the majors increasing their gas exposure at the expense of oil. You’re seeing a number of international oil companies reducing or ending their exposure to particularly high carbon or high risk assets, such as the Canadian oil sands or the Arctic. The oil and gas industry is also starting to place a greater focus on methane management and its own emissions.

Wright: What about investors – what do you think is driving the continued momentum around methane and climate as we see larger and more mainstream funds tackling these issues?

Goodman: Let’s talk about climate for the moment – the roles of both investors and companies in the run up to the Paris agreement and during the negotiations were crucial. The investors made it absolutely clear that they wanted to see a successful Paris agreement. Addressing climate change is good for business and good for their portfolios. And we saw this with the Exxon vote – the two-degree scenario proposal where mainstream asset managers voted for this proposal. We believe that this happened because of the underlying pressure asset managers were getting from their own clients who have a long-term perspective and see climate change as a risk to their funds.

Specifically on methane, it’s practical self-help for the industry to embark on methane management. It’s an obvious practical measure for investors to engage upon. If you can reduce your contribution to greenhouse gases, save money, and gain revenue by being more efficient and safe, why wouldn’t you do that? It’s an easy entree into engaging with the oil and gas industry. Whereas the existential question, what’s your business going to look like 20 years from now, is a more difficult question perhaps both for the industry and the companies themselves.

Wright: You pretty much just explained why Hermes prioritized methane – is that correct?

Goodman: Yes. But the science is a big part of it. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon – the more that we can minimize its effects, the greater the window the world has to transition to a low carbon economy. Methane’s effects don’t last as long as carbon, but if we don’t tackle methane, we aren’t taking meaningful action to move to a low-carbon economy.

Wright: What do you see as the risks of unmanaged methane emissions?

Goodman: There is an economic risk and benefit for companies. Most of the measures to manage methane are relatively low-cost and can very easily be implemented for new projects. If you’re not doing them, for example, and you’re fracking shale, you’re at a competitive disadvantage to your peers. The cost-benefits perhaps are more difficult, but still there, in existing infrastructure. But particularly among the oil majors, their relationship with their host governments, local communities, and other stakeholders is vital. It’s important for companies to demonstrate good corporate citizenship. If you’re a laggard on methane, you’re more likely to be considered as an irresponsible partner both commercially and also in your local community. So I think oil and gas companies risk massive reputational and legal risks if they’re not managing methane effectively, notwithstanding the economic benefits.

Ignoring methane problem puts oil & gas companies "at a competitive disadvantage." See more…
Click To Tweet

Wright: What do you typically hear from operators in your conversations about methane management? Do you hear different things from operators in different parts of the world?

Goodman: Methane management is part of a number of important issues that we’re engaging with the industry on, including other pollution, health and safety, human rights, corruption and climate change. What we’re hearing on methane does vary. It’s fair to say in some emerging markets methane management is not often discussed by investors with those companies. But when we do address this topic in these markets, the companies show interest and want to know why it’s important to us, what they should be doing, how they should be disclosing, etc. So we’re often having positive and interesting conversations in these markets.

In the developed markets, there’s a difference. And I think there’s a distinction between Europe and North America. The EU companies, particularly the majors, are realizing it’s an important issue and are talking about it and disclosing at least some data. In private dialogue with North American companies, it is clear methane is often an important issue for them, but their disclosure is less convincing. It does vary around the world, but you also have this interesting phenomenon, where some companies seem to be doing a good job in private dialogue, but the disclosure lags behind what they are actually doing. We also see companies attempting to present their efforts in a better light than perhaps they deserve. It’s a complex mixture, which is why engagement is so important because we are able to view the reality on the ground through private dialogue.

For more information on EDF’s investor resources on methane mitigation, please see our recent report, An Investor’s Guide to Methane, or subscribe to our newsletter.

Written by Diane MacEachern

At a packed hearing in Washington, D.C., moms told EPA officials in no uncertain terms to protect the air their babies breathe and help stop climate change by leaving current vehicle greenhouse gas standards and fuel efficiency requirements alone.

“I like cars, but I don’t like pollution,” testified Trisha Sheehan, National Field Manager for Moms Clean Air Force, as her adorable 6-month old son, Lincoln fidgeted on her lap. “Tailpipe pollution degrades air quality, triggers asthma attacks, and makes climate change worse. As a parent, I am very concerned about climate change, which threatens the health and future of my children…We need to do everything we can to limit the pollution that is warming our planet and harming our families.”

That “everything” includes reducing the carbon dioxide (CO2) cars emit when they burn gasoline, and increasing the number of miles a vehicle travels on every gallon of gasoline burned. Cars and light trucks are a critical target here because almost 30% of greenhouse gases comes from transportation.

EPA recognized this in 2012 when it set reasonable vehicle emissions standards that, by 2025, would see America use 12 billion fewer barrels of oil, reduce dangerous tail-pipe pollution by 6 billion metric tons, and save individual consumers as much as $1,620 at the pump.

That the Trump Administration has asked EPA to consider rolling back such effective standards makes no sense, admonished the vast majority of the 110 individuals who testified, especially in the wake of the climate change-fueled devastation wrought by Hurricane Harvey. Representatives of organizations ranging from the American Lung Association to the American Thoracic Society to the Parliament of the World’s Religions to retired NASA scientists and military officers all argued in favor of either maintaining or strengthening the standards that are already on the books.

“The decision to reopen…the CAFE standards is unnecessary, wasteful and harmful to American interests,” said retired Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney, CEO of the American Security Project, a non-partisan advocacy group focused on national security. Mr. Cheney argued that higher CAFE standards reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil while reducing the carbon emissions linked to climate change.

Many of those testifying in favor of strong standards said they were doing so because it is the ethical position to take.

“It is EPA’s legal and moral obligation to limit carbon dioxide pollution from the transportation sector.” said Elizabeth Brandt, D.C. organizer for Moms Clean Air Force. “If we do not meet the challenge of climate change with American innovation, then our children will face more natural disasters, food shortages, tick borne diseases, and the loss of our shorelines.”

Others said they support standards to limit greenhouse gas emissions and increase fuel efficiency because otherwise, American automakers will lose their competitive edge in the global economy.

Dan Boone, president of United Steelworkers Local 970 in Cleveland, OH, reminded the EPA officials at the hearing that the very regulations they’re considering overturning “inspire innovations that create jobs.”

“We’re now doing some manufacturing for Tesla and they’re about as green as you can get,” Boone said. “It’s important to keep those standards strong and keep driving innovation.”

When it was my turn to testify, I noted that I never would have received my Master of Science degree if my thesis had argued for what the EPA is considering right now; rolling back one of the single-most effective programs created by any Administration to reduce GHG emissions.

“My professors would most certainly have said to me, “We thought you were smarter than a 5th grader. Evidently, you’re not!!'”

“Climate change is here, it’s happening now, and it threatens the health of our children and communities,” said Molly Rauch, Public Health Policy Director for Moms Clean Air Force, during the very first panel of the day. “The carbon pollution standards are a win-win for moms: they help reduce the carbon dioxide pollution that is driving climate change, and they save us money at the pump at the same time. That’s why, as parents, we oppose any rollbacks to these standards.”

“To me, the most important reason not to reverse course is our children,” Mollie Michel, Pennsylvania organizer for Moms Clean Air Force, reinforced during her testimony later in the day. “Among other detrimental effects, rollbacks will further contribute to climate change, worsening symptoms for the 6.3 million children in this country who suffer from asthma.”

“Nobody voted to make America dirty again,” concluded Trisha Sheehan as baby Lincoln looked on. “Rolling back vehicle efficiency and clean car standards will only increase pollution and trigger negative public health impacts like asthma attacks and heart attacks due to impacts from climate change.”

Though those testifying at the hearing supported the standards by as much as 25 to 1, there’s no guarantee that the standards will survive. That’s why it’s important for you to add your voice to keep clean car standards, by October 5, 2017. Thank you.

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Governor Wolf claims he is protecting the health of Pennsylvanians and their environment, but his actions since taking office tell a different story. We need the Pennsylvania legislature to step up. Regional. C4.

Governor Wolf claims he is protecting the health of Pennsylvanians and their environment, but his actions since taking office tell a different story. We need the Pennsylvania legislature to step up. Regional. C4.

Corporate oil and gas giants - some of the world's most profitable companies - are granted hundreds of millions of dollars in tax subsidies each year. MCAF. C3. Regional.

Corporate oil and gas giants - some of the world's most profitable companies - are granted hundreds of millions of dollars in tax subsidies each year. MCAF. C3. Regional.

Corporate oil and gas giants - some of the world's most profitable companies - are granted hundreds of millions of dollars in tax subsidies each year. MCAF. C3. Regional.

The monarch butterfly: a symbol of beauty and rebirth; one of nature's most delicate and awe-inspiring creatures. MCAF. C3. Regional.