By EDF Blogs

Smuttynose Brewery in New Hampshire uses clean energy incentives to succeed.

By Roger Stephenson, EDF’s senior adviser for New Hampshire affairs

In New Hampshire, the clean energy economy is at a crossroads. On one hand, the legislature and governor remain ambivalent at best about clean energy and its role in our state moving forward. But local businesses are confident that renewable energy and energy efficiency choices already are making a positive impact. And many are calling for clean energy policies in the state to be strengthened.

Several owners were kind enough to share their time and explain what clean energy means to them and their businesses.  Through a series of videos, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is now sharing those stories with lawmakers, fellow business community leaders, and the clean energy sector.

Last fall, EDF sought out businesses that were growing, competing, and thriving in the Granite State with the help of existing clean energy policies. We worked closely with The Nature Conservancy, New Hampshire’s Community Development Finance Authority, and the NH Clean Tech Council.

The search did not take long: Manufacturers; restaurants; construction companies and hotels; advanced manufacturing facilities; and Main Street mom and pops are investing in their competitive future with clean energy.

Here are two samples of these enlightening clean energy videos.

Cormack Construction

In this video, Gordon Cormack explains how his Madison company – Cormack Construction, a medium-size general contracting and construction management company – is hedging against fossil fuel price volatility with electricity and heating powered by the sun.

Smuttynose  Brewing Company

Peter Egelston's sustainability journey began with energy efficiency incentives from his utility; his Smuttynose  Brewing Company facility is now LEED Gold certified, only the second brewery in the U.S. and the third industrial facility in New Hampshire to be recognized as such. Peter advises that more businesses need access to clean energy incentives and choice.

 

As we enter spring, New Hampshire lawmakers are divided on major clean energy policies like the Energy Efficiency Fund and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The public utilities commission is weighing the costs and benefits of large and small solar installations as it works to establish new net metering rules.  The Governor is re-directing priorities in his Office of Energy and Planning and will influence how the state’s 10-year energy strategy is updated and implemented.

Yet amidst this policy and political ambivalence, leaders in businesses large and small are voicing their desires, and demands, for clean energy choice and access. We’re listening, and our work with those businesses continues. We hope to continue sharing their stories with our elected leaders on these urgent issues, as well.

Check out our other clean energy videos on YouTube, including Renewable Solar Returns $$ to Throwback Brewery, New Hampshire Ski Slope & Resort Saves Big with Clean Energy, and New Hampshire Taxpayers Win with Renewable Energy.

By EDF Blogs

Smuttynose Brewery in New Hampshire uses clean energy incentives to succeed.

By Roger Stephenson, EDF’s senior adviser for New Hampshire affairs

In New Hampshire, the clean energy economy is at a crossroads. On one hand, the legislature and governor remain ambivalent at best about clean energy and its role in our state moving forward. But local businesses are confident that renewable energy and energy efficiency choices already are making a positive impact. And many are calling for clean energy policies in the state to be strengthened.

Several owners were kind enough to share their time and explain what clean energy means to them and their businesses.  Through a series of videos, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is now sharing those stories with lawmakers, fellow business community leaders, and the clean energy sector.

Last fall, EDF sought out businesses that were growing, competing, and thriving in the Granite State with the help of existing clean energy policies. We worked closely with The Nature Conservancy, New Hampshire’s Community Development Finance Authority, and the NH Clean Tech Council.

The search did not take long: Manufacturers; restaurants; construction companies and hotels; advanced manufacturing facilities; and Main Street mom and pops are investing in their competitive future with clean energy.

Here are two samples of these enlightening clean energy videos.

Cormack Construction

In this video, Gordon Cormack explains how his Madison company – Cormack Construction, a medium-size general contracting and construction management company – is hedging against fossil fuel price volatility with electricity and heating powered by the sun.

Smuttynose  Brewing Company

Peter Egelston's sustainability journey began with energy efficiency incentives from his utility; his Smuttynose  Brewing Company facility is now LEED Gold certified, only the second brewery in the U.S. and the third industrial facility in New Hampshire to be recognized as such. Peter advises that more businesses need access to clean energy incentives and choice.

 

As we enter spring, New Hampshire lawmakers are divided on major clean energy policies like the Energy Efficiency Fund and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The public utilities commission is weighing the costs and benefits of large and small solar installations as it works to establish new net metering rules.  The Governor is re-directing priorities in his Office of Energy and Planning and will influence how the state’s 10-year energy strategy is updated and implemented.

Yet amidst this policy and political ambivalence, leaders in businesses large and small are voicing their desires, and demands, for clean energy choice and access. We’re listening, and our work with those businesses continues. We hope to continue sharing their stories with our elected leaders on these urgent issues, as well.

Check out our other clean energy videos on YouTube, including Renewable Solar Returns $$ to Throwback Brewery, New Hampshire Ski Slope & Resort Saves Big with Clean Energy, and New Hampshire Taxpayers Win with Renewable Energy.

By EDF Blogs

Smuttynose Brewery in New Hampshire uses clean energy incentives to succeed.

By Roger Stephenson, EDF’s senior adviser for New Hampshire affairs

In New Hampshire, the clean energy economy is at a crossroads. On one hand, the legislature and governor remain ambivalent at best about clean energy and its role in our state moving forward. But local businesses are confident that renewable energy and energy efficiency choices already are making a positive impact. And many are calling for clean energy policies in the state to be strengthened.

Several owners were kind enough to share their time and explain what clean energy means to them and their businesses.  Through a series of videos, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is now sharing those stories with lawmakers, fellow business community leaders, and the clean energy sector.

Last fall, EDF sought out businesses that were growing, competing, and thriving in the Granite State with the help of existing clean energy policies. We worked closely with The Nature Conservancy, New Hampshire’s Community Development Finance Authority, and the NH Clean Tech Council.

The search did not take long: Manufacturers; restaurants; construction companies and hotels; advanced manufacturing facilities; and Main Street mom and pops are investing in their competitive future with clean energy.

Here are two samples of these enlightening clean energy videos.

Cormack Construction

In this video, Gordon Cormack explains how his Madison company – Cormack Construction, a medium-size general contracting and construction management company – is hedging against fossil fuel price volatility with electricity and heating powered by the sun.

Smuttynose  Brewing Company

Peter Egelston's sustainability journey began with energy efficiency incentives from his utility; his Smuttynose  Brewing Company facility is now LEED Gold certified, only the second brewery in the U.S. and the third industrial facility in New Hampshire to be recognized as such. Peter advises that more businesses need access to clean energy incentives and choice.

 

As we enter spring, New Hampshire lawmakers are divided on major clean energy policies like the Energy Efficiency Fund and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The public utilities commission is weighing the costs and benefits of large and small solar installations as it works to establish new net metering rules.  The Governor is re-directing priorities in his Office of Energy and Planning and will influence how the state’s 10-year energy strategy is updated and implemented.

Yet amidst this policy and political ambivalence, leaders in businesses large and small are voicing their desires, and demands, for clean energy choice and access. We’re listening, and our work with those businesses continues. We hope to continue sharing their stories with our elected leaders on these urgent issues, as well.

Check out our other clean energy videos on YouTube, including Renewable Solar Returns $$ to Throwback Brewery, New Hampshire Ski Slope & Resort Saves Big with Clean Energy, and New Hampshire Taxpayers Win with Renewable Energy.

By Roger Stephenson, EDF’s senior adviser for New Hampshire affairs In New Hampshire, the clean energy economy is at a crossroads. On one hand, the legislature and governor remain ambivalent at best about clean energy and its role in our state moving forward. But local businesses are confident that renewable energy and energy efficiency choices […]

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This is a Moms Clean Air Force exclusive interview with Congressman Brad Schneider of Illinois:

What is unique about protecting your district’s resources?

Our district is fortunate to be located on the shore of Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes are one of our country’s greatest natural wonders, containing one fifth of the planet’s fresh water, providing water for 30 million people. Protecting the Great Lakes for future generations is critical for both the economy and quality of life of Tenth District residents and our region. That’s a key reason why I am extremely troubled by President Trump’s budget proposal to entirely eliminate the $300 million annual investment in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. In the past, this program has received strong support from both sides of the aisle for its work to clean up our Great Lakes, control invasive species, restore habitats and reduce run-off. I’m committed to working with colleagues to preserve this important program for our environment.

As a parent are you worried about any specific effects of climate change on your children and the children of your district?

Of course I am worried about climate change, not just for my children but for all children. I feel a great responsibility to make sure we pass to the next generation a sustainably healthy environment. But I fear that if our government blindly ignores the very real threat of climate change, the consequences will be dire. From rising sea levels, to more frequent and more powerful storms, to expanding droughts and increasing desertification, the effects of failing to act now are potentially catastrophic for our children’s future.

That’s why last month I introduced the CLIMATE Act (Congressional Leadership to Mitigate Administration Threats to the Earth Act, HR 1812) to block President Trump’s dangerous executive order. We need to lead on climate change, not just to protect our environment and national security, but to also ensure that the green energy jobs of tomorrow are created here at home

Why is a bipartisan effort so important to you when working on issues of air quality?

It used to be that protecting our environment was always a bipartisan issue. Remember, it was under President Nixon that the EPA was created and that the Clean Water Act became law. Democrat or Republican, we all breathe the same air, drink the same water, and live on the same planet. Similarly, our children all suffer the consequences of a deteriorating environment – whether it be increased incidents of asthma and allergies or worsening severe weather events due to global climate change. This is an area where we should be able to work together. On a more practical level, Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, and we need to work together in a bipartisan manner in order to make any progress on these important issues.

Is there anything you’d like to share that is important for Moms Clean Air Force members to know?

The most important thing I can tell you is keep doing what you are doing, it is having a great impact.  It is through the grassroots work of groups like Moms Clean Air Force that we will win the battles that are ahead of us. More importantly, through your efforts we will make sure that our children inherit a healthy environment and sustainable planet. Keep up the great work and please stay in touch with my office. We want to hear from you!

Brad Schneider represents Illinois’s 10th District in the United States House of Representatives, where he is serving his second term. As a member of Congress, Brad is focused on building a thriving economy that works for all of us, and ensuring every child has the opportunity for a quality education and a rising standard of living. He knows that our communities are stronger when small businesses invest and grow, our environment is healthy, and people are working together for a better future. Brad and his wife, Julie, have been residents of Deerfield for more than 25 years, where they created a home, built their careers, and, most importantly, raised two sons, Adam and Daniel.

TELL CONGRESS: PROTECT EPA

By Richard Denison

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

The lead article in this past Sunday’s New York Times is titled “With Trump Appointees, a Raft of Potential Conflicts and ‘No Transparency’.”  It features several prominent examples of recent political appointments of industry representatives and industry lobbyists to key policy positions where they are now charged with or involved in reviewing or crafting the very same agency regulations and policies that were the focus of their paid private sector work just prior to their appointments.

Add EPA’s implementation of the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the list.

Dr. Nancy Beck has just been appointed Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and reportedly started in that position on Monday, April 17, 2017.  Dr. Beck is moving into her new position at EPA directly from her job as Senior Director, Regulatory Science Policy, Division of Regulatory & Technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a position she has held since January, 2012.  ACC is the main trade association for the chemicals industry, with a membership of more than 150 chemical companies, including such behemoths as BASF, Dow, DuPont and ExxonMobil.

In her new job, Dr. Beck is expected to play a key role in implementing the new reforms made to TSCA, including in critical decisions that EPA will be making literally any day now, many of them driven by firm statutory deadlines.  These decisions will directly affect the financial interests of the companies represented by ACC.  And they will involve deciding whether or not the agency should take positions for which Dr. Beck has advocated on behalf of her former employer, as recently as last month.  Any reasonable person would see a conflict here, one sufficient to seriously question whose interests Dr. Beck will be representing in playing such a role in TSCA implementation.  But as the Times article indicates, this Administration appears to have little concern about the fox guarding the henhouse.

Nor does this situation bode well for the prospect of creating a credible federal system capable of restoring public and market confidence in the safety of chemicals – which was the key reason that such strong bipartisan and stakeholder support gelled behind the major reforms made to TSCA just last June.  Placing a key chemical industry player in a position where she will now have direct and major influence over the direction that reform will take raises serious new doubts about the industry’s claims that it supports providing EPA with stronger, independent authority and resources to vigorously establish the safety of chemicals in and entering commerce.  

ACC’s and Dr. Beck’s deep involvement in TSCA reform and implementation

Dr. Beck’s employer until last week, ACC, was deeply involved in the debate over and negotiations that led to last year’s reforms of TSCA, and it remains highly active in seeking to influence the pace and direction of its implementation.  In her capacity as a senior director at ACC, Dr. Beck was personally involved in these activities, representing ACC at numerous fora, testifying on behalf of ACC before Congress, and authoring comments submitted to EPA that provided ACC’s views on various TSCA implementation activities being undertaken by EPA, including the development of the rules that will govern how the law is implemented for years or decades to come.

ACC’s advocacy is to be expected, given ACC’s purpose, as was Dr. Beck’s while at ACC.  However, the depth and breadth of both her and her very recent employer’s engagement and interest in influencing EPA’s actions in implementing TSCA raise clear and pressing concerns with respect to her new position at EPA.

Dr. Beck’s engagement in TSCA implementation while at ACC was so important to her that it was the main feature of an August 2016 profile of her that appeared on her alma mater’s web page:

A key part of Beck’s current role at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is to actively engage with agencies on proposed policies, procedures, and guidance related to chemical risk assessment.  She will focus in the coming year on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century, signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2016. The legislation updates the Toxic Substances Control Act passed in 1976.

Here are a few examples of recent materials and comments from Dr. Beck that advocate for ACC’s positions on issues directly relevant to TSCA implementation and illustrate the currency and extent of her efforts on behalf of ACC to influence the very decisions she will now be in a position to help make at EPA:

• Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, at a Hearing on the agency’s use of science in the rulemaking process, April 9, 2017
• ACC Comments to Inform EPA’s Rulemaking on the Conduct of Risk Evaluations under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, August 8, 2016
• Transcript: Chemical Safety Advisory Committee Open Meeting – Peer Review Draft Assessment for TSCA Work Plan Chemical 1-Bromopropane, May 24, 2016 [this chemical is one of the first 10 on which EPA will conduct risk evaluations under TSCA]

 

ACC’s interest in key decisions in which Dr. Beck will be involved

Dr. Beck’s role will likely encompass decisions related to multiple rules EPA has recently proposed that are mandated or authorized under the new law.  The proposed rules include several that will establish the framework under which the new law will operate for years to come and which the law requires to be finalized by June of this year.  The proposed rules also include several that would ban or otherwise restrict high-risk uses of three highly toxic chemicals.  Another proposed rule under development in which she can be expected to have a role will establish an industry fee system authorized by the new law under which EPA can collect fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to cover the agency’s costs of administering various aspects of the new law’s chemical review and regulatory program.

Other near-term actions mandated or authorized under the law in which Dr. Beck can be expected to play a significant role include:  defining the scopes of the first 10 risk evaluations EPA will undertake under the new law, including which uses, hazards and exposures of each chemical, and which potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, will be included; guidance that will prescribe the form and content of draft chemical risk evaluations that the chemical industry or other persons can submit to the agency for its consideration; a strategic plan promoting the development and use of non-vertebrate testing methods and strategies; various agency practices and procedures and policy decisions and guidance documents affecting the agency’s identification, prioritization, risk evaluation and regulation of both existing chemicals (those already in commerce) and new chemicals (those companies intend to produce or import); and myriad chemical-specific decisions mandated or authorized under TSCA.

ACC member companies make or process all of the specific chemicals for which EPA has proposed restrictions, and most or all of the chemicals for which EPA has initiated risk evaluations and is now determining their scopes.  ACC member companies also routinely notify EPA of their intent to manufacture new chemicals, including many that are now under active review by EPA’s new chemicals program.  These companies will also be directly impacted by the policies, procedures and guidance being developed for use by EPA in carrying out its mandates and authorities under TSCA.

In all of these activities, ACC and Dr. Beck on its behalf have taken and strongly advocated for positions intended to further the financial interests of their members.  For example, ACC’s positions call for inclusion or modification of provisions in EPA’s rules to limit requirements or burdens on ACC member companies.  It also seeks to incorporate and prescribe in detail specific scientific policies and procedures and testing and assessment methods that are favored by ACC and its members and for which ACC and Dr. Beck have advocated for many years in many different fora.

More questions

All this leaves us with more questions than answers in Dr. Beck’s case.  For example:

• On what specific issues will she be working in her new position at EPA?
• What aspects of her work at EPA would constitute a conflict of interest or an appearance of a lack of impartiality?
• Will she recuse herself from any deliberations or decisions at EPA? If so, which ones?

 

 

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Lead Senior Scientist. The lead article in this past Sunday’s New York Times is titled “With Trump Appointees, a Raft of Potential Conflicts and ‘No Transparency’.”  It features several prominent examples of recent political appointments of industry representatives and industry lobbyists to key policy positions where they are now charged with […]

By Richard Denison

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

The lead article in this past Sunday’s New York Times is titled “With Trump Appointees, a Raft of Potential Conflicts and ‘No Transparency’.”  It features several prominent examples of recent political appointments of industry representatives and industry lobbyists to key policy positions where they are now charged with or involved in reviewing or crafting the very same agency regulations and policies that were the focus of their paid private sector work just prior to their appointments.

Add EPA’s implementation of the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the list.

Dr. Nancy Beck has just been appointed Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and reportedly started in that position on Monday, April 17, 2017.  Dr. Beck is moving into her new position at EPA directly from her job as Senior Director, Regulatory Science Policy, Division of Regulatory & Technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a position she has held since January, 2012.  ACC is the main trade association for the chemicals industry, with a membership of more than 150 chemical companies, including such behemoths as BASF, Dow, DuPont and ExxonMobil.

In her new job, Dr. Beck is expected to play a key role in implementing the new reforms made to TSCA, including in critical decisions that EPA will be making literally any day now, many of them driven by firm statutory deadlines.  These decisions will directly affect the financial interests of the companies represented by ACC.  And they will involve deciding whether or not the agency should take positions for which Dr. Beck has advocated on behalf of her former employer, as recently as last month.  Any reasonable person would see a conflict here, one sufficient to seriously question whose interests Dr. Beck will be representing in playing such a role in TSCA implementation.  But as the Times article indicates, this Administration appears to have little concern about the fox guarding the henhouse.

Nor does this situation bode well for the prospect of creating a credible federal system capable of restoring public and market confidence in the safety of chemicals – which was the key reason that such strong bipartisan and stakeholder support gelled behind the major reforms made to TSCA just last June.  Placing a key chemical industry player in a position where she will now have direct and major influence over the direction that reform will take raises serious new doubts about the industry’s claims that it supports providing EPA with stronger, independent authority and resources to vigorously establish the safety of chemicals in and entering commerce.  

ACC’s and Dr. Beck’s deep involvement in TSCA reform and implementation

Dr. Beck’s employer until last week, ACC, was deeply involved in the debate over and negotiations that led to last year’s reforms of TSCA, and it remains highly active in seeking to influence the pace and direction of its implementation.  In her capacity as a senior director at ACC, Dr. Beck was personally involved in these activities, representing ACC at numerous fora, testifying on behalf of ACC before Congress, and authoring comments submitted to EPA that provided ACC’s views on various TSCA implementation activities being undertaken by EPA, including the development of the rules that will govern how the law is implemented for years or decades to come.

ACC’s advocacy is to be expected, given ACC’s purpose, as was Dr. Beck’s while at ACC.  However, the depth and breadth of both her and her very recent employer’s engagement and interest in influencing EPA’s actions in implementing TSCA raise clear and pressing concerns with respect to her new position at EPA.

Dr. Beck’s engagement in TSCA implementation while at ACC was so important to her that it was the main feature of an August 2016 profile of her that appeared on her alma mater’s web page:

A key part of Beck’s current role at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is to actively engage with agencies on proposed policies, procedures, and guidance related to chemical risk assessment.  She will focus in the coming year on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century, signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2016. The legislation updates the Toxic Substances Control Act passed in 1976.

Here are a few examples of recent materials and comments from Dr. Beck that advocate for ACC’s positions on issues directly relevant to TSCA implementation and illustrate the currency and extent of her efforts on behalf of ACC to influence the very decisions she will now be in a position to help make at EPA:

• Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, at a Hearing on the agency’s use of science in the rulemaking process, April 9, 2017
• ACC Comments to Inform EPA’s Rulemaking on the Conduct of Risk Evaluations under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, August 8, 2016
• Transcript: Chemical Safety Advisory Committee Open Meeting – Peer Review Draft Assessment for TSCA Work Plan Chemical 1-Bromopropane, May 24, 2016 [this chemical is one of the first 10 on which EPA will conduct risk evaluations under TSCA]

 

ACC’s interest in key decisions in which Dr. Beck will be involved

Dr. Beck’s role will likely encompass decisions related to multiple rules EPA has recently proposed that are mandated or authorized under the new law.  The proposed rules include several that will establish the framework under which the new law will operate for years to come and which the law requires to be finalized by June of this year.  The proposed rules also include several that would ban or otherwise restrict high-risk uses of three highly toxic chemicals.  Another proposed rule under development in which she can be expected to have a role will establish an industry fee system authorized by the new law under which EPA can collect fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to cover the agency’s costs of administering various aspects of the new law’s chemical review and regulatory program.

Other near-term actions mandated or authorized under the law in which Dr. Beck can be expected to play a significant role include:  defining the scopes of the first 10 risk evaluations EPA will undertake under the new law, including which uses, hazards and exposures of each chemical, and which potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, will be included; guidance that will prescribe the form and content of draft chemical risk evaluations that the chemical industry or other persons can submit to the agency for its consideration; a strategic plan promoting the development and use of non-vertebrate testing methods and strategies; various agency practices and procedures and policy decisions and guidance documents affecting the agency’s identification, prioritization, risk evaluation and regulation of both existing chemicals (those already in commerce) and new chemicals (those companies intend to produce or import); and myriad chemical-specific decisions mandated or authorized under TSCA.

ACC member companies make or process all of the specific chemicals for which EPA has proposed restrictions, and most or all of the chemicals for which EPA has initiated risk evaluations and is now determining their scopes.  ACC member companies also routinely notify EPA of their intent to manufacture new chemicals, including many that are now under active review by EPA’s new chemicals program.  These companies will also be directly impacted by the policies, procedures and guidance being developed for use by EPA in carrying out its mandates and authorities under TSCA.

In all of these activities, ACC and Dr. Beck on its behalf have taken and strongly advocated for positions intended to further the financial interests of their members.  For example, ACC’s positions call for inclusion or modification of provisions in EPA’s rules to limit requirements or burdens on ACC member companies.  It also seeks to incorporate and prescribe in detail specific scientific policies and procedures and testing and assessment methods that are favored by ACC and its members and for which ACC and Dr. Beck have advocated for many years in many different fora.

More questions

All this leaves us with more questions than answers in Dr. Beck’s case.  For example:

• On what specific issues will she be working in her new position at EPA?
• What aspects of her work at EPA would constitute a conflict of interest or an appearance of a lack of impartiality?
• Will she recuse herself from any deliberations or decisions at EPA? If so, which ones?

 

 

By Richard Denison

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

The lead article in this past Sunday’s New York Times is titled “With Trump Appointees, a Raft of Potential Conflicts and ‘No Transparency’.”  It features several prominent examples of recent political appointments of industry representatives and industry lobbyists to key policy positions where they are now charged with or involved in reviewing or crafting the very same agency regulations and policies that were the focus of their paid private sector work just prior to their appointments.

Add EPA’s implementation of the newly amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the list.

Dr. Nancy Beck has just been appointed Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and reportedly started in that position on Monday, April 17, 2017.  Dr. Beck is moving into her new position at EPA directly from her job as Senior Director, Regulatory Science Policy, Division of Regulatory & Technical Affairs at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a position she has held since January, 2012.  ACC is the main trade association for the chemicals industry, with a membership of more than 150 chemical companies, including such behemoths as BASF, Dow, DuPont and ExxonMobil.

In her new job, Dr. Beck is expected to play a key role in implementing the new reforms made to TSCA, including in critical decisions that EPA will be making literally any day now, many of them driven by firm statutory deadlines.  These decisions will directly affect the financial interests of the companies represented by ACC.  And they will involve deciding whether or not the agency should take positions for which Dr. Beck has advocated on behalf of her former employer, as recently as last month.  Any reasonable person would see a conflict here, one sufficient to seriously question whose interests Dr. Beck will be representing in playing such a role in TSCA implementation.  But as the Times article indicates, this Administration appears to have little concern about the fox guarding the henhouse.

Nor does this situation bode well for the prospect of creating a credible federal system capable of restoring public and market confidence in the safety of chemicals – which was the key reason that such strong bipartisan and stakeholder support gelled behind the major reforms made to TSCA just last June.  Placing a key chemical industry player in a position where she will now have direct and major influence over the direction that reform will take raises serious new doubts about the industry’s claims that it supports providing EPA with stronger, independent authority and resources to vigorously establish the safety of chemicals in and entering commerce.  

ACC’s and Dr. Beck’s deep involvement in TSCA reform and implementation

Dr. Beck’s employer until last week, ACC, was deeply involved in the debate over and negotiations that led to last year’s reforms of TSCA, and it remains highly active in seeking to influence the pace and direction of its implementation.  In her capacity as a senior director at ACC, Dr. Beck was personally involved in these activities, representing ACC at numerous fora, testifying on behalf of ACC before Congress, and authoring comments submitted to EPA that provided ACC’s views on various TSCA implementation activities being undertaken by EPA, including the development of the rules that will govern how the law is implemented for years or decades to come.

ACC’s advocacy is to be expected, given ACC’s purpose, as was Dr. Beck’s while at ACC.  However, the depth and breadth of both her and her very recent employer’s engagement and interest in influencing EPA’s actions in implementing TSCA raise clear and pressing concerns with respect to her new position at EPA.

Dr. Beck’s engagement in TSCA implementation while at ACC was so important to her that it was the main feature of an August 2016 profile of her that appeared on her alma mater’s web page:

A key part of Beck’s current role at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is to actively engage with agencies on proposed policies, procedures, and guidance related to chemical risk assessment.  She will focus in the coming year on the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century, signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2016. The legislation updates the Toxic Substances Control Act passed in 1976.

Here are a few examples of recent materials and comments from Dr. Beck that advocate for ACC’s positions on issues directly relevant to TSCA implementation and illustrate the currency and extent of her efforts on behalf of ACC to influence the very decisions she will now be in a position to help make at EPA:

• Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, at a Hearing on the agency’s use of science in the rulemaking process, April 9, 2017
• ACC Comments to Inform EPA’s Rulemaking on the Conduct of Risk Evaluations under the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, August 8, 2016
• Transcript: Chemical Safety Advisory Committee Open Meeting – Peer Review Draft Assessment for TSCA Work Plan Chemical 1-Bromopropane, May 24, 2016 [this chemical is one of the first 10 on which EPA will conduct risk evaluations under TSCA]

 

ACC’s interest in key decisions in which Dr. Beck will be involved

Dr. Beck’s role will likely encompass decisions related to multiple rules EPA has recently proposed that are mandated or authorized under the new law.  The proposed rules include several that will establish the framework under which the new law will operate for years to come and which the law requires to be finalized by June of this year.  The proposed rules also include several that would ban or otherwise restrict high-risk uses of three highly toxic chemicals.  Another proposed rule under development in which she can be expected to have a role will establish an industry fee system authorized by the new law under which EPA can collect fees from chemical manufacturers and processors to cover the agency’s costs of administering various aspects of the new law’s chemical review and regulatory program.

Other near-term actions mandated or authorized under the law in which Dr. Beck can be expected to play a significant role include:  defining the scopes of the first 10 risk evaluations EPA will undertake under the new law, including which uses, hazards and exposures of each chemical, and which potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations, will be included; guidance that will prescribe the form and content of draft chemical risk evaluations that the chemical industry or other persons can submit to the agency for its consideration; a strategic plan promoting the development and use of non-vertebrate testing methods and strategies; various agency practices and procedures and policy decisions and guidance documents affecting the agency’s identification, prioritization, risk evaluation and regulation of both existing chemicals (those already in commerce) and new chemicals (those companies intend to produce or import); and myriad chemical-specific decisions mandated or authorized under TSCA.

ACC member companies make or process all of the specific chemicals for which EPA has proposed restrictions, and most or all of the chemicals for which EPA has initiated risk evaluations and is now determining their scopes.  ACC member companies also routinely notify EPA of their intent to manufacture new chemicals, including many that are now under active review by EPA’s new chemicals program.  These companies will also be directly impacted by the policies, procedures and guidance being developed for use by EPA in carrying out its mandates and authorities under TSCA.

In all of these activities, ACC and Dr. Beck on its behalf have taken and strongly advocated for positions intended to further the financial interests of their members.  For example, ACC’s positions call for inclusion or modification of provisions in EPA’s rules to limit requirements or burdens on ACC member companies.  It also seeks to incorporate and prescribe in detail specific scientific policies and procedures and testing and assessment methods that are favored by ACC and its members and for which ACC and Dr. Beck have advocated for many years in many different fora.

More questions

All this leaves us with more questions than answers in Dr. Beck’s case.  For example:

• On what specific issues will she be working in her new position at EPA?
• What aspects of her work at EPA would constitute a conflict of interest or an appearance of a lack of impartiality?
• Will she recuse herself from any deliberations or decisions at EPA? If so, which ones?

 

 

Written by Marcia G. Yerman

As you probably know, President Trump has unveiled executive orders to derail environmental goals put into play by the Obama administration.

Trump and his administration are also talking about expanding fossil fuel extraction on public lands. Furthermore, they are getting ready to hand over America’s leadership role in the fight against climate change — most likely to China.

China

China, whose urban inhabitants frequently don masks to breathe, is looking down the road. One example is the plan to replace almost 70,000 taxis in Beijing, run on fossil fuels, with electric models.

India

Maybe Trump could hold a meeting with members of the Indian government to get a peek at their National Electricity Plan? India is working to “harness the potential” of renewable energy sources. They are number four in the world for “installed capacity of wind turbine power plants.” They have declared an aim of being at a 60 percent level of renewable energy by 2027.

European Union

Except for Greece and Poland, the European Union has just announced that no more coal plants will be built after 2020. A press release from Eurelectric, whose tag line is “Electricity for Europe,” stated a commitment to achieving “carbon-neutral” electricity. It outlines the point of view that the Paris Agreement decarbonization objectives are “essential to guarantee long-term sustainability of the global economy.”

Germany has chosen 2015 as their target date to get the majority of their energy from renewable sources. They also see this accomplishment as a path to being competitive on an international business level.

Yet, Trump is building an agenda directed by the interests of his fossil fuel connected cabinet, and climate deniers like Senator James Inhofe.

If we continue on that path we will be joining nations who lack the financial resources to do anything but burn coal and fossil fuels.

America has a choice

With a lack of climate initiative from the Trump administration, other nations are pushing the envelope to create a robust green energy job sector. And in his typical provocative manner, Trump is taking a walk back to protect the economics of polluters, as he aims to “stop all payments of American tax dollars to the United Nations global warming programs.” 

Perhaps no one has told him that Mar-a-Lago – where Trump has spent many of his weekends as president – is among the most vulnerable properties in the county. ProPublica assesses, “Most of the resort could be underwater by 2100, and the lowest areas already flood during certain tides.”

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

Following today’s approval by the CPRA Board, plan now moves to state legislature for passage (Baton Rouge, LA—April 19, 2017) Today, the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) Board unanimously approved the 2017 Coastal Master Plan, the state’s blueprint for coastal restoration and protection efforts. The plan, which is updated every five years with the best-available science, now moves to the state legislature for passage. More than 40 Louisiana businesses, associations and chambers of commerce expressed their support for ...

Read The Full Story

The post Leading Businesses Call on Louisiana Legislature to Pass the Coastal Master Plan appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Following today’s approval by the CPRA Board, plan now moves to state legislature for passage (Baton Rouge, LA—April 19, 2017) Today, the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) Board unanimously approved the 2017 Coastal Master Plan, the state’s blueprint for coastal restoration and protection efforts. The plan, which is updated every five years with the best-available science, now moves to the state legislature for passage. More than 40 Louisiana businesses, associations and chambers of commerce expressed their support for ...

Read The Full Story

The post Leading Businesses Call on Louisiana Legislature to Pass the Coastal Master Plan appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Following today’s approval by the CPRA Board, plan now moves to state legislature for passage (Baton Rouge, LA—April 19, 2017) Today, the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) Board unanimously approved the 2017 Coastal Master Plan, the state’s blueprint for coastal restoration and protection efforts. The plan, which is updated every five years with the best-available science, now moves to the state legislature for passage. More than 40 Louisiana businesses, associations and chambers of commerce expressed their support for ...

Read The Full Story

The post Leading Businesses Call on Louisiana Legislature to Pass the Coastal Master Plan appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Suzy Friedman

Scott Henry, 27, a partner and business development manager for LongView Farms

Every year right before Commodity Classic, EDF brings together a group of farmers who share their lessons learned in sustainable agriculture – and offer insights on bringing conservation practices to scale. These producers are our advisors, sounding boards and partners. They help us understand what agricultural policies really look like when implemented on the farm, and how best to convey to farmers that not all environmentalists point fingers at ag.

This year we had a new addition to the group, someone who brought an important perspective because he’s far younger than the average-aged farmer. Scott Henry is a 27-year-old partner and business development manager for LongView Farms, a row crop grain operation in central Iowa that specializes in seed production. Scott is responsible for business growth, strategy, production operations and the implementation of precision agriculture technology across the farm.

I asked Scott about his start in farming, about the importance of financial expertise in agriculture and whether sustainability really is good for growers’ bottom lines.

How did you first become interested in farming?

LongView Farms in Iowa

I grew up on a family farm, so I’ve had some kind of involvement in agriculture since I was 14 years old. But my interest wasn’t in driving tractors and combines – I really wanted to understand the business side of running a farm. That’s why I pursued a degree in ag business and finance, and spent a few years after college working for a large diversified farm operation. A few years later, I decided to come back to the family farm.

What kind of education did you pursue to become an ag and business expert?

As an undergrad at Iowa State University, I wanted to take practical business and finance courses. This was important to me because most ag programs are focused only on direct ag management economics and not broader farm business finance. I chose to pursue a finance major along with an ag major because in thinking about coming back to the farm after college, I realized I needed both ag economics knowledge and general business management skills – along with a bigger professional network.

That’s when I decided to pursue a Master's in Agricultural Economics from Purdue University and an MBA from the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University.

Meet sustainable agriculture's new whiz kid: Scott Henry of @LongViewFarms, via…
Click To Tweet

What’s the value for other farmers in sharpening their finance and business skills?

Having a solid understanding of accounting and business management is more important than ever as margins continue to tighten up. There are countless weeklong courses in the off-season that can be a great “crash course” type of option. One great resource is The Executive Program for Agricultural Producers (TEPAP), administered by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension.

But if courses aren’t an option and you don’t have a strong support network, I’d encourage my fellow farmers to use some sort of financial advisory service.

Why did you decide to connect with EDF’s ag advisory group?

"On a personal level, my family farm has 'long view' in our name for a reason – one of our key values is land stewardship."

I first heard of EDF from AGree advisor and personal friend Kristin Weeks Duncanson, who encouraged me to work with a business-minded organization and advocate for sound sustainable practices in the ag industry.

It’s no secret that farmers don’t like regulations, but as consumers’ demands change, we need to work with policymakers, not against them – and to focus on facts and science.

On a personal level, my family farm has “long view” in our name for a reason – one of our key values is land stewardship. We’re focused on supplying an income for our family over the long-term, and this means we have to implement practices today that maintain our land for tomorrow.

What kinds of conservation practices do you use on your farm?

Our biggest focus is on nutrient management – we are big believers in the 4Rs of nutrient stewardship. We’re trying to reduce the total number of nitrogen units that we apply, but more importantly we want to avoid losing fertilizer to the environment.

We also participate in the Land O’Lakes SUSTAIN® platform – thanks to SUSTAIN’s training, our local co-op has really pushed land stewardship practices here in Iowa. We participate in the Unilever/ADM Sustainable Soy Continuous Improvement Program as well.

It’s also important to note that stewardship is more than tillage and production practices – collecting data and being able to track and understand the growing process is a big part of it, too. We have spent a lot of time and energy investing in the technologies and software to help us understand each and every practice and to know all of the details about how our grain was grown.

I always say that sustainability makes good business sense, but you’re the real expert on this – so is it true?

It’s easy to say yes and more contrarian to say no – but the way I think of it is that the returns will be judged many years from now – so how do we justify that investment today?

I think the competitive advantage into the future is for producers who are willing to accept and embrace change and try new things. That may seem odd to traditionalists in our industry, but that is where you will have your chance to get ahead.

Related:

Farmers’ voices are essential to figuring out sustainability. Let’s listen up. >>

This Iowa farmer proves that profit and sustainability go hand in hand >>

By Suzy Friedman

Scott Henry, 27, a partner and business development manager for LongView Farms

Every year right before Commodity Classic, EDF brings together a group of farmers who share their lessons learned in sustainable agriculture – and offer insights on bringing conservation practices to scale. These producers are our advisors, sounding boards and partners. They help us understand what agricultural policies really look like when implemented on the farm, and how best to convey to farmers that not all environmentalists point fingers at ag.

This year we had a new addition to the group, someone who brought an important perspective because he’s far younger than the average-aged farmer. Scott Henry is a 27-year-old partner and business development manager for LongView Farms, a row crop grain operation in central Iowa that specializes in seed production. Scott is responsible for business growth, strategy, production operations and the implementation of precision agriculture technology across the farm.

I asked Scott about his start in farming, about the importance of financial expertise in agriculture and whether sustainability really is good for growers’ bottom lines.

How did you first become interested in farming?

LongView Farms in Iowa

I grew up on a family farm, so I’ve had some kind of involvement in agriculture since I was 14 years old. But my interest wasn’t in driving tractors and combines – I really wanted to understand the business side of running a farm. That’s why I pursued a degree in ag business and finance, and spent a few years after college working for a large diversified farm operation. A few years later, I decided to come back to the family farm.

What kind of education did you pursue to become an ag and business expert?

As an undergrad at Iowa State University, I wanted to take practical business and finance courses. This was important to me because most ag programs are focused only on direct ag management economics and not broader farm business finance. I chose to pursue a finance major along with an ag major because in thinking about coming back to the farm after college, I realized I needed both ag economics knowledge and general business management skills – along with a bigger professional network.

That’s when I decided to pursue a Master's in Agricultural Economics from Purdue University and an MBA from the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University.

Meet sustainable agriculture's new whiz kid: Scott Henry of @LongViewFarms, via…
Click To Tweet

What’s the value for other farmers in sharpening their finance and business skills?

Having a solid understanding of accounting and business management is more important than ever as margins continue to tighten up. There are countless weeklong courses in the off-season that can be a great “crash course” type of option. One great resource is The Executive Program for Agricultural Producers (TEPAP), administered by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension.

But if courses aren’t an option and you don’t have a strong support network, I’d encourage my fellow farmers to use some sort of financial advisory service.

Why did you decide to connect with EDF’s ag advisory group?

"On a personal level, my family farm has 'long view' in our name for a reason – one of our key values is land stewardship."

I first heard of EDF from AGree advisor and personal friend Kristin Weeks Duncanson, who encouraged me to work with a business-minded organization and advocate for sound sustainable practices in the ag industry.

It’s no secret that farmers don’t like regulations, but as consumers’ demands change, we need to work with policymakers, not against them – and to focus on facts and science.

On a personal level, my family farm has “long view” in our name for a reason – one of our key values is land stewardship. We’re focused on supplying an income for our family over the long-term, and this means we have to implement practices today that maintain our land for tomorrow.

What kinds of conservation practices do you use on your farm?

Our biggest focus is on nutrient management – we are big believers in the 4Rs of nutrient stewardship. We’re trying to reduce the total number of nitrogen units that we apply, but more importantly we want to avoid losing fertilizer to the environment.

We also participate in the Land O’Lakes SUSTAIN® platform – thanks to SUSTAIN’s training, our local co-op has really pushed land stewardship practices here in Iowa. We participate in the Unilever/ADM Sustainable Soy Continuous Improvement Program as well.

It’s also important to note that stewardship is more than tillage and production practices – collecting data and being able to track and understand the growing process is a big part of it, too. We have spent a lot of time and energy investing in the technologies and software to help us understand each and every practice and to know all of the details about how our grain was grown.

I always say that sustainability makes good business sense, but you’re the real expert on this – so is it true?

It’s easy to say yes and more contrarian to say no – but the way I think of it is that the returns will be judged many years from now – so how do we justify that investment today?

I think the competitive advantage into the future is for producers who are willing to accept and embrace change and try new things. That may seem odd to traditionalists in our industry, but that is where you will have your chance to get ahead.

Related:

Farmers’ voices are essential to figuring out sustainability. Let’s listen up. >>

This Iowa farmer proves that profit and sustainability go hand in hand >>

Pruitt visits East Chicago's toxic neighborhoods – while slashing funding for lead control, cleanup

Scott Pruitt, the deeply controversial head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is off to East Chicago today – a trip that coincides with his plan to strip away many of EPA’s pollution limits and to dramatically cut his agency’s budget.

The hypocrisy of it all hasn’t been lost on community activists who fought for years to try to protect East Chicago children living atop a toxic Superfund site from lead poisoning.

Not only is the Trump administration eliminating federal funding for lead detection and mitigation programs – it’s also asking Congress to slash funding for Superfund cleanup by a whopping 30 percent. These and other EPA cuts have ramifications not just for East Chicago, but for polluted communities nationwide.

A poster child for environmental injustice

A small city in the northwestern corner of Indiana, East Chicago may be the place that best illustrates the importance of having a strong EPA, and the safeguards it enforces, to protect our kids’ health.

The city is the home of USS Lead, a former industrial site contaminated with lead and arsenic – two extremely hazardous chemicals that can have devastating impacts on young children.

Fifty-one percent of residents in East Chicago are Hispanic and 43 percent African-American. More than one-third, 36 percent, fall below the poverty line. Such demographics are very much part of the USS lead site story; to this day, poor people of color in the United States are more likely to live in or near polluted areas.

In 2009, USS Lead was named one of the most contaminated sites in the country. It’s a particularly alarming situation because a housing complex, home to more than 1,000 people, including 600 children, was built on top of the former lead smelter.

Making things worse, when the EPA tested residents’ tap water [PDF] last year, 40 percent of the homes showed high levels of lead due to a separate problem of insufficient use of corrosion control in water pipes.

Gov. Mike Pence: This is no emergency

The local government sought a declaration of emergency from then-Governor Mike Pence, which he rejected. In February of this year, his successor Gov. Eric Holcomb successfully granted the disaster request Pence had denied.

This emergency action doesn’t deflect the bigger challenge posed by the Trump administration’s proposed cuts, which directly affect lead poisoning prevention programs and children’s health.

The Trump White House has also called into question EPA’s mandate to rehabilitate toxic lands. The president’s proposed budget cuts Superfund – the program responsible for the East Chicago cleanup – by $330 million.

East Chicago may catch a break because it has settlement funds to move forward, but there are many other sites nationwide that would be left with toxic land and water, and no support for remediation.

Pence, meanwhile, has yet to visit the Indiana neighborhoods at the center of the lead crisis.

Is Congress taking notes?

Unfortunately, the Pruitt-Trump budget would also cut the EPA’s enforcement office by 31 percent, letting many corporate polluters off the hook.

This office is responsible for holding the companies accountable for their share of the cleanup, such as a 2014 action that forced Atlantic Richfield and DuPont to spend an estimated $21 million at the East Chicago Superfund site.

Perhaps we should thank Administrator Pruitt for visiting East Chicago today. It may not have been his intention, but he’s showing the whole country how much we need an EPA strong enough to protect our health and to fight back against big polluters. We can only hope Congress won’t miss the lesson. 

EDF Action: Tell Congress to reject EPA budget cuts Anonymous April 19, 2017 - 10:52

See comments

Put Mr. Pruitt in East Chicago and see what he would do then. He is such a hypocrite [and the] most non-human person to come to this administration. Ooops, I mean the second non human: The first one is the president.

Donna Dutton April 19, 2017 at 6:08 pm

So many of the problems in Chicago are self inflicted! Time and time again, the city and the state have approved these activities and the proximate housing and development. It is not the federal government's responsibility to bail out Chicago in perpetuity.

JTM April 20, 2017 at 10:16 pm

JTM: East Chicago is in Indiana not Chicago. Two different states.

Harbor Girl 88 April 25, 2017 at 4:33 pm

In reply to So many of the problems in by JTM

Did you even read the article? Who said anything about Chicago?

Johnny Deutche April 26, 2017 at 8:47 am

In reply to So many of the problems in by JTM

Johnny Deutche - don't try to check me. I did read the article. I lived in East Chicago for over 30 years. That is precisely why I READ the article. If you see, I was replying to JTM, not commenting on the article.

Harbor Girl 88 April 26, 2017 at 9:53 am

Pruitt visits East Chicago's toxic neighborhoods – while slashing funding for lead control, cleanup

Scott Pruitt, the deeply controversial head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is off to East Chicago today – a trip that coincides with his plan to strip away many of EPA’s pollution limits and to dramatically cut his agency’s budget.

The hypocrisy of it all hasn’t been lost on community activists who fought for years to try to protect East Chicago children living atop a toxic Superfund site from lead poisoning.

Not only is the Trump administration eliminating federal funding for lead detection and mitigation programs – it’s also asking Congress to slash funding for Superfund cleanup by a whopping 30 percent. These and other EPA cuts have ramifications not just for East Chicago, but for polluted communities nationwide.

A poster child for environmental injustice

A small city in the northwestern corner of Indiana, East Chicago may be the place that best illustrates the importance of having a strong EPA, and the safeguards it enforces, to protect our kids’ health.

The city is the home of USS Lead, a former industrial site contaminated with lead and arsenic – two extremely hazardous chemicals that can have devastating impacts on young children.

Fifty-one percent of residents in East Chicago are Hispanic and 43 percent African-American. More than one-third, 36 percent, fall below the poverty line. Such demographics are very much part of the USS lead site story; to this day, poor people of color in the United States are more likely to live in or near polluted areas.

In 2009, USS Lead was named one of the most contaminated sites in the country. It’s a particularly alarming situation because a housing complex, home to more than 1,000 people, including 600 children, was built on top of the former lead smelter.

Making things worse, when the EPA tested residents’ tap water [PDF] last year, 40 percent of the homes showed high levels of lead due to a separate problem of insufficient use of corrosion control in water pipes.

Gov. Mike Pence: This is no emergency

The local government sought a declaration of emergency from then-Governor Mike Pence, which he rejected. In February of this year, his successor Gov. Eric Holcomb successfully granted the disaster request Pence had denied.

This emergency action doesn’t deflect the bigger challenge posed by the Trump administration’s proposed cuts, which directly affect lead poisoning prevention programs and children’s health.

The Trump White House has also called into question EPA’s mandate to rehabilitate toxic lands. The president’s proposed budget cuts Superfund – the program responsible for the East Chicago cleanup – by $330 million.

East Chicago may catch a break because it has settlement funds to move forward, but there are many other sites nationwide that would be left with toxic land and water, and no support for remediation.

Pence, meanwhile, has yet to visit the Indiana neighborhoods at the center of the lead crisis.

Is Congress taking notes?

Unfortunately, the Pruitt-Trump budget would also cut the EPA’s enforcement office by 31 percent, letting many corporate polluters off the hook.

This office is responsible for holding the companies accountable for their share of the cleanup, such as a 2014 action that forced Atlantic Richfield and DuPont to spend an estimated $21 million at the East Chicago Superfund site.

Perhaps we should thank Administrator Pruitt for visiting East Chicago today. It may not have been his intention, but he’s showing the whole country how much we need an EPA strong enough to protect our health and to fight back against big polluters. We can only hope Congress won’t miss the lesson. 

EDF Action: Tell Congress to reject EPA budget cuts Anonymous April 19, 2017 - 10:52

See comments

Put Mr. Pruitt in East Chicago and see what he would do then. He is such a hypocrite [and the] most non-human person to come to this administration. Ooops, I mean the second non human: The first one is the president.

Donna Dutton April 19, 2017 at 6:08 pm

So many of the problems in Chicago are self inflicted! Time and time again, the city and the state have approved these activities and the proximate housing and development. It is not the federal government's responsibility to bail out Chicago in perpetuity.

JTM April 20, 2017 at 10:16 pm

JTM: East Chicago is in Indiana not Chicago. Two different states.

Harbor Girl 88 April 25, 2017 at 4:33 pm

In reply to So many of the problems in by JTM

Did you even read the article? Who said anything about Chicago?

Johnny Deutche April 26, 2017 at 8:47 am

In reply to So many of the problems in by JTM

Johnny Deutche - don't try to check me. I did read the article. I lived in East Chicago for over 30 years. That is precisely why I READ the article. If you see, I was replying to JTM, not commenting on the article.

Harbor Girl 88 April 26, 2017 at 9:53 am

By Fred Krupp

With the Trump Administration pulling back on federal climate action, I am heartened to see that U.S. businesses are starting to assert their leadership role in the fight for a cleaner, safer world. Bold leadership is an essential factor for business today — and no company is delivering on this more than Walmart.

The world's largest retailer recently announced Project Gigaton, arguably one of the most ambitious efforts to reduce climate pollution by any U.S. corporation.

With Project Gigaton, Walmart and its suppliers are committing to a ‘moon shot’ goal – removing a gigaton of greenhouse gas emissions from the company's global supply chain by 2030. That's more than the annual emissions of Germany. It's the equivalent of taking 211 million cars off the road every year. In a word, it’s transformational.

Breaking the mold together, then and now

Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund

Eleven years ago, I traveled to the top of Mount Washington with then Walmart CEO Lee Scott, and we talked about the company's vast potential to drive environmental progress. Since then, an amazing ripple effect has spread across the entire retail sector. Working together, EDF, Walmart and others have gathered commitments for optimized fertilizer use on 23 million acres of U.S. farmland; eradicated 36 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions across the retail supply chain; and improved the health and safety of hundreds of thousands of everyday products like shampoo and laundry detergent. This work is invisible to most, but massive on an environmental scale, and nothing less than trailblazing for how business leadership and legacy is measured.

For the last quarter century Environmental Defense Fund has proven the power of business-NGO partnerships to create wins for both business and the environment. Walmart’s willingness to challenge itself and its supply chain to do better has meshed perfectly with EDF’s pragmatic approach to forging innovative solutions.

Back in 2005, it was uncommon business news when Walmart announced aspirational goals to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, to create zero waste, and to sell products that sustain our resources and environment. Neither Walmart nor EDF knew how we’d achieve those goals, but we set off on the journey together and found success along the way.

Walmart is in it for the long haul

For leading brands like Walmart and their suppliers, long-term economics will always outweigh short-term politics. Staying the course on sustainability is motivated by competitiveness, innovation, job creation and consumer demand. Smart business leaders understand that a thriving economy depends on a thriving environment. This is not an either/or choice. By 2050, we will have 9.5 billion global consumers, all demanding more food, goods and services. The commitment to Project Gigaton signals Walmart’s readiness to plan accordingly.

For leading brands like Walmart, long-term economics will always outweigh short-term politics.
Click To Tweet

The Project Gigaton challenge is massive, but by working collaboratively, our confidence for success is high. The modern supply chain is responsible for 60% of all greenhouse gas emissions, 80% of all water use and 66% of all tropical deforestation.  This is not a goal that Walmart can do alone. It takes committed collaboration: of NGOs, partners, and an extensive network of suppliers – many leading brands in their own right – to drive reductions from factories to farms to forests, fleets and beyond.

Creating long-term prosperity for business and the environment requires long-term commitment from both business and NGOs. Together, EDF and Walmart have already climbed one mountain, and now we are ready to ascend even steeper peaks. The planet is counting on us.

Follow Fred on Twitter, @FredKrupp

 

By Fred Krupp

With the Trump Administration pulling back on federal climate action, I am heartened to see that U.S. businesses are starting to assert their leadership role in the fight for a cleaner, safer world. Bold leadership is an essential factor for business today — and no company is delivering on this more than Walmart.

The world's largest retailer recently announced Project Gigaton, arguably one of the most ambitious efforts to reduce climate pollution by any U.S. corporation.

With Project Gigaton, Walmart and its suppliers are committing to a ‘moon shot’ goal – removing a gigaton of greenhouse gas emissions from the company's global supply chain by 2030. That's more than the annual emissions of Germany. It's the equivalent of taking 211 million cars off the road every year. In a word, it’s transformational.

Breaking the mold together, then and now

Fred Krupp, President, Environmental Defense Fund

Eleven years ago, I traveled to the top of Mount Washington with then Walmart CEO Lee Scott, and we talked about the company's vast potential to drive environmental progress. Since then, an amazing ripple effect has spread across the entire retail sector. Working together, EDF, Walmart and others have gathered commitments for optimized fertilizer use on 23 million acres of U.S. farmland; eradicated 36 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions across the retail supply chain; and improved the health and safety of hundreds of thousands of everyday products like shampoo and laundry detergent. This work is invisible to most, but massive on an environmental scale, and nothing less than trailblazing for how business leadership and legacy is measured.

For the last quarter century Environmental Defense Fund has proven the power of business-NGO partnerships to create wins for both business and the environment. Walmart’s willingness to challenge itself and its supply chain to do better has meshed perfectly with EDF’s pragmatic approach to forging innovative solutions.

Back in 2005, it was uncommon business news when Walmart announced aspirational goals to be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, to create zero waste, and to sell products that sustain our resources and environment. Neither Walmart nor EDF knew how we’d achieve those goals, but we set off on the journey together and found success along the way.

Walmart is in it for the long haul

For leading brands like Walmart and their suppliers, long-term economics will always outweigh short-term politics. Staying the course on sustainability is motivated by competitiveness, innovation, job creation and consumer demand. Smart business leaders understand that a thriving economy depends on a thriving environment. This is not an either/or choice. By 2050, we will have 9.5 billion global consumers, all demanding more food, goods and services. The commitment to Project Gigaton signals Walmart’s readiness to plan accordingly.

For leading brands like Walmart, long-term economics will always outweigh short-term politics.
Click To Tweet

The Project Gigaton challenge is massive, but by working collaboratively, our confidence for success is high. The modern supply chain is responsible for 60% of all greenhouse gas emissions, 80% of all water use and 66% of all tropical deforestation.  This is not a goal that Walmart can do alone. It takes committed collaboration: of NGOs, partners, and an extensive network of suppliers – many leading brands in their own right – to drive reductions from factories to farms to forests, fleets and beyond.

Creating long-term prosperity for business and the environment requires long-term commitment from both business and NGOs. Together, EDF and Walmart have already climbed one mountain, and now we are ready to ascend even steeper peaks. The planet is counting on us.

Follow Fred on Twitter, @FredKrupp

 

By Elizabeth Sturcken

 

At a time when leadership from the federal government is decidedly lacking, today’s launch of Walmart’s Project Gigaton is a cause for celebration. It is proof that companies can step up to advance solutions that will help business, people and nature thrive.

Just like Walmart itself, this is big.

The world’s largest retailer has launched an initiative to remove 1 gigaton (that’s 1 billion tons — billion with a “b”) of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from its supply chain by 2030. To put that in perspective, that is the equivalent of removing the annual emissions of Germany — the world’s fourth-largest economy — from the atmosphere. This audacious goal is impressive; it’s corporate America’s “moon shot,” and it shows real leadership.

Why? Because, according to The Sustainability Consortium, the modern supply chain is responsible for 60 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions, 80 percent of all water use and 66 percent of all tropical deforestation. And with the global population projected to swell to 9.5 billion consumers by 2050, it is clear there is not just a crucial opportunity for businesses to meet growing global demand, there is also a real need to protect the planet. Embracing sustainable practices is no longer an option for business. It is an imperative. The planet needs fast action at a massive scale.

So do forward-looking CEOs. Shareholders are rewarding resiliency when companies climate-proof their global operations. And customers, especially millennials, expect sustainability to be baked into the things they buy. In short, business is looking to drive bottom-line value, including growth, with sustainability.

Elizabeth Sturcken, Managing Director, EDF+Business

Which explains the significant Project Gigaton commitments being made by companies like Unilever (20 million metric tons of GHG reduction) and Land O’ Lakes (20 million acres sustainably farmed) and commitments made in the past six months by Apple, Amazon, Google, PepsiCo, Smithfield Foods and others.

Execution and delivery

But setting goals is just the first step. The execution and delivery must follow to complete this journey.

Which brings me back to this moon shot: Walmart cannot do this alone. Project Gigaton will take a village — in this case, the tens of thousands of companies that make up Walmart’s global supplier network — to make this goal a reality. And that’s a good thing: Eliminating GHG emissions at this scale will reverberate across entire sectors and industries. It will be the change to “business as usual” that’s long overdue.

That’s all fine and well, rhetorically. But what if you’re a CEO or CSR exec who’s facing the hard reality of “Where do I start”?

Some new research by Environmental Defense Fund starts to sketch out a roadmap to success — and illustrates the need for supply-chain partners to get on the bus. While we’re just at the beginning of a deep dive into the sustainability of the U.S. retail supply chain, our initial findings show two things:  the complexity and emission hotspots of box chain retailers and three clear, initial areas of focus:

1. The supply chain is the largest source of emissions. If there was any doubt left, put it to rest: 80 percent of retail emissions occur in the supply chain; 12 percent are associated with the use and disposal of products and 8 percent come directly from retail operations — mostly buildings and facilities.
2. Grocery is a huge hotspot and opportunity. Are you a retailer? Food company? Agricultural service provider? Farmer? Nearly half — 48 percent — of supply-chain greenhouse gas emissions come from the grocery category, which encompasses everything from fresh meat, veggies and dairy, to bakery, dry goods, beverages, snacks and frozen products. Together, these and other products emits 1.7 gigatons of GHGs (there’s that billion thing again). In other words, food production — and food waste — is definitely a place to make your numbers — and to make a difference. (Talk about low-hanging fruit!)
3. Electricity is the biggest activity that contributes to emissions. From factories to farmhouses, whether powering a business or refrigerating an item at home, using electricity is the largest activity that produces emissions for consumer packaged goods production. Think about that: by tackling electricity use, whether from conservation or renewable energy, business leaders can not only run a more efficient operation, they can also engage their customers on which products to buy and how to best use them. That’s good business.

For those who have been paying attention to these issues for decades, these big opportunities won’t come as a surprise. But they help sharpen the focus for supply-chain professionals searching to answer the question of where to put effort and investment to get the most emissions-reduction results. Scale and speed are necessary. Knowing where to focus is critical. The EDF research is in the early stages and we plan to release the full results later this year.

In the meantime, kudos to Walmart. As suppliers make commitments for Project Gigaton that will drive reductions from factories to farms to forests to fleets, it will become imperative to identify hotspots to enable the largest impact. That’s exactly what drives innovation and the environmental impact we need.

The supply chain may be complicated, but the rewards are well worth it: thriving companies, thriving communities and a thriving planet.

Jump on the Project Gigaton moon shot. It’s leaving the launching pad, with or without you.

Follow Elizabeth on Twitter, @esturcken

Stay on top of the latest facts, information and resources aimed at the intersection of business and the environment. Sign up for the EDF+Business blog. [contact-form-7]

Insert Twitter/Facebook sharecard image. (ideal size 1200x630px)