This is What Scientists Can Do to Stop Climate Science Denial in Congress

As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) noted in his on-the-floor rebuttal of the ubiquitous science denial of Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), "the only place where denial is 'credible' is here in Congress where money from fossil fuel interests" is prevalent. Whitehouse was responding to Inhofe's latest act of denial, the blocking of a simple non-controversial resolution introduced by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) that acknowledged the National Climate Assessment conclusion that man-made climate change is happening.

In the Senate, any Senator can block resolutions even if the other 99 Senators want to vote for it. Inhofe is renowned for his "global warming is a hoax" talking point, which he repeats whenever he gets the chance. Not surprisingly for someone from the fossil fuel-dependent state of Oklahoma, Inhofe receives considerable campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.

This isn't the first time Whitehouse has stood up to climate deniers. But this particular event provides a useful exemplar for how scientists can stop climate change denial in Congress.



As the video above shows, Whitehouse is well-versed in both the science of climate change and the rebuttals to common talking points used by climate science deniers. Clearly he has been listening to scientists. I discussed the role of scientists in making policy in this earlier post, and this shows the value of scientist involvement.

Whitehouse points out some of the critical science that shows Inhofe's statements are misinformative. Whereas Inhofe repeats the talking point that "atmospheric temperatures haven't risen/have plateaued/are cooling/are whichever of the many versions he pantomimes (all false),"  Whitehouse correctly notes that the vast majority (97+%) of heat goes into the oceans initially and that atmospheric temperatures are more susceptible to short-term variations. Whitehouse got his information from scientists; Inhofe got his information from lobbyists.

Whitehouse also points out that virtually all climate scientists agree that the voluminous data unequivocally demonstrate that our actions are warming the planet. While Inhofe cites a ridiculous and fraudulent "petition," Whitehouse correctly notes that every scientific organization in the world confirms what NASA, NOAA, the US Navy, the Department of Defense all tell us. And if federal government scientific organizations aren't enough, Whitehouse tells us that the Property Casualty and Reinsurance Industry, the US Congress of Catholic Bishops, and major corporations like Coke, Pepsi, Walmart, Mars, Google, Apple, and Nike all are very concerned about climate change.

All of this has come from scientists. It is scientists that have provided their services to regulators and policy makers so that they can provide informed, scientifically-based, rebuttals to the political talking points of the climate science deniers in Congress. Even the younger Republicans decry the science denial among the Republican Party old guard/Tea Party wing. "People know better," Whitehouse says. And they do.

One of Whitehouse's most direct statements rebutting Inhofe is "To say that we have no warming is just not factual."

That's where we scientists need to step in. It is our role, and our obligation, to communicate the science accurately and repeatedly to those policy makers who take to heart their public responsibility to act on, rather than deny, reality.

House Hearing on Chemicals in Commerce Act Shows Politics in Action, not TSCA Reform

Yesterday, March 12, 2014, the House Environment and the Economy Subcommittee held a hearing on its version of a TSCA reform bill. As noted last week, a discussion draft of the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA) was released on February 27th. The bill reflects the "business first" leanings of the House Republican majority, which shouldn't be surprising given how that majority lumped environmental issues with economic ones in naming their subcommittee.

It wasn't difficult to figure out which witnesses had been called by each political party. Some represented various corporations and trade associations of industry, while others represented worker unions and health advocacy organizations. All provided their input on the CICA discussion draft. You can read the full witness list and their written testimony, plus watch the video of their oral testimony at the hearing here. A background document and the full CICA discussion draft are also available. You can read analyses of the bill and hearing here and here. An NGO analysis of the bill can be read here. See my earlier article for other NGO and trade association feedback.

All the usual posturing occurred during the hearing. Industry representatives assured the subcommittee that industry wants the public to believe chemicals are safe. NGOs and health advocates expressed concern that neither CICA nor the Senate's CSIA would adequately protect public health and the environment. House members mimed their party's assigned positions.

If that sounds cynical, it is. But it accurately reflects the lack of seriousness by the House to address the problem. TSCA is broken. Everyone agrees that TSCA is broken. They may differ on how much and how best to proceed, but they agree that reforming TSCA is necessary, and that it should be done now. The Senate's Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) at least tried to keep the main focus on fixing the inherent problems with the severely outdated and often ineffective existing chemical law. While the CSIA includes none of the pre-market testing originally advocated by health and environmental advocates, it does give EPA some additional flexibility and authority to ask for new data. The Senate's CSIA isn't perfect, but most stakeholders agree that it is a step in the right direction. And it's workable.

In contrast, the House's CICA doesn't even bother to pretend that its goal is to assure chemical safety. It's clear that the House CICA has three goals.

1) Roll back the very few industry concessions in the already industry-friendly Senate CSIA.

2) Further undermine EPA's authority to take action to protect human health and the environment.

3) Throw red meat to the most rabid supporters of the Republican party.

So cynical, yes. And that is a shame. The House held a series of hearings to "collect information on TSCA," so looked like it was taking this issue seriously. As shocking as it was to see the lack of knowledge by many members of the committee on issues in which it claims oversight, the draft bill that resulted from all those hearings is even more disturbing. It reflects an out-of-control partisan attack on the health and safety of all Americans. As such, industry should be rejecting CICA rather than giving it lip service. If industry wants to avoid the patchwork of state bills regulating chemicals, the renewed efforts by NGOs to enact those state and local bills, and the absolute loss of public faith in industry veracity, then industry should be telling the majority that runs the House to issue a new version of CICA more in line with the modified CSIA currently being negotiated in the Senate.

If TSCA isn't modernized this year, it won't be modernized. Ever. It's time for the House to stop playing political games and start doing their job. This is about public safety, not making political points.

House Issues TSCA Reform Discussion Draft - Mocks Attempts at Chemical Safety Modernization

On February 27, 2014 the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a "discussion draft" of what it calls the Chemicals in Commerce Act (CICA). In doing so it mocked the bipartisan efforts by the Senate to modernize the nearly 40-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and showed that partisan politics still rules the lower chamber of Congress.

In short, the CICA is a step backwards. The press release headline from Ranking Member and long-time advocate for chemical safety reform Henry Waxman says it all: "Rep. Waxman Statement on Republican TSCA Reform Bill Draft." While the Senate bill, dubbed the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) received demonstrative support from both parties and largely would enhance the ability to ensure chemical safety, the House CICA, in Waxman's words, "would weaken current law and endanger public health."

The NGO Safer Chemicals Healthy Families lists several deficiencies with the bill. They describe the draft thusly:

Well, the chemical industry interests are reaching deep into their bag of tricks with the draft “Chemicals In Commerce Act” released by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) this week. Who do they think they’re fooling?

This draft is a vehicle for more secrets, more safety data loopholes, and faster introduction of untested chemicals—all disguised as “reform” of a badly outdated 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.

The Environmental Defense Fund, which supports the Senate's bipartisan TSCA reform bill, described a scenario in which the USEPA would have to prove not only that a chemical put on the market was dangerous, but also find a replacement for it before any action could be taken to remove it. And that was only the first of a series of "Major Problems" with the CICA draft.

Even the American Chemistry Council, a strong advocate and heavily involved in the writing of the bipartisan Senate version of the bill, was lukewarm on the House Republicans draft. In an perfunctory press release, ACC touted the Senate bill while giving boilerplate praise to Rep. Shimkus' williness to hold hearings. The House draft bill got some discussion at the chemical industry sponsored GlobalChem conference this week, but it was clear the Senate bill is the preferred path forward.

So what happens next? The House plans to hold at least three hearings on its CICA draft, which at least shows a willingness to move forward with a bill (a positive step). That said, the House Republican CICA reflects the Republican history of attempting to restrict EPA's ability to protect human health and the environment, something the Senate bipartisan CSIA bill has tried to correct. After all, the entire reason we are discussing chemical safety reform is because the current law, TSCA, makes it too difficult for EPA to regulate chemicals. The House bill would make that problem worse.

But the chemical industry wants TSCA reform. They don't like having to deal with 50 different rules from 50 different states. Industry knows that failure to reform TSCA will be the impetus for NGOs to heighten their advocacy for severe state-based restrictions on chemicals that are deemed unsafe. Industry knows that the Senate bipartisan bill dropped all of the major requirements the NGOs wanted, thus making this the most industry-friendly bill industry could have hoped to achieve. Industry also likely knows that the House CICA bill is a non-starter designed to pander to the tea party wing of the Republican party and can't possible pass in its current form.

The most likely scenario, therefore, is that after some political showmanship on the House side, the Senate bill - with potentially significant "tweaks" to address issues already raised - will be passed in the Senate and sent to the House. Once there it is almost certain that enough votes would appear to pass the bill and finally update TSCA. Why so certain? Because industry has a bill that puts very little burden on them while giving them something to tout in press releases. Industry will tell House Republicans to pass the Senate bill. Democrats will vote for it because it does take measurable steps to improve health and safety.

Once the modified CSIA is law, the Republican-led House will go back to their obsessive attempts to defund and otherwise restrict EPA's authority, while the House simultaneously works to insulate industry from scrutiny. Industry wins both ways, but at least with the CSIA in place the public also gains some additional power to ensure the safety of chemicals. It isn't great, but it's better than what we have now.

Senate Committee Approves Gina McCarthy Nomination for EPA Administrator

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved Gina McCarthy's nomination to be the next EPA Administrator. After Republicans boycotted an attempted committee vote last week, eight Republicans showed up today. All eight voted against McCarthy, while all 10 Democrats voted for her. Even Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg left his sick-bed to make the vote.

McCarthy's nomination now moves to the full Senate where she is expected to be confirmed despite Republican gamesmanship. Republican Senator David Vitter has indicated he will vote for her confirmation. The one remaining political game-playing is by Republican Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri who says he will maintain a hold on her nomination until EPA sets a schedule for release of an environmental impact statement for a site in Missouri. Of course, EPA can't release the EIS until they have an Administrator to sign it. The Administrator-nominee that Blunt is holding up.

McCarthy is the current EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Under her watch the EPA has issued significant air pollution regulations, which is the main reason why Republicans are holding up her nomination.

Senator Lautenberg will not seek reelection

As I've previously indicated would be likely, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey has decided not to seek reelection in 2014. Lautenberg, who will be 90 years old during the campaign, will let younger candidates run for his seat.

Corey Booker, the popular Mayor of Newark, NJ, has already announced that he would run for Lautenberg's seat. Representative Frank Pallone had also privately indicated that he would likely run if Lautenberg chose to step down, though he has not yet made it official.

Lautenberg Steps Down as Chair of Toxic Chemicals Subcommittee

Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, long a champion of efforts to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), will no longer chair the Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Lautenberg, of course, has introduced several versions of a Safe Chemicals Act over previous Congresses.

Replacing Lautenberg as chair will be Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico. Barbara Boxer of California chairs the full EPW Committee. David Vitter of Louisiana had already replaced Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma as ranking minority member of the committee. The main reason given for the change to Udall on the toxics subcommittee is that Lautenberg has taken up the chair for the Financial Services subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee and simply will not have time. Lautenberg is up for reelection in 2014, though at 90 years old it seems unlikely he will run.

Meanwhile, Lautenberg expects to continue his push for TSCA reform during the current Congress, and with Vitter apparently working with industry to craft a counter-bill, it is possible that we'll see some sort of TSCA reform bill at least reach debate.

Senate Moves TSCA Bill to Vote After Contentious Hearing

[Update: The Safe Chemicals Act has been approved by vote of the Committee on July 25, 2012] As noted yesterday, the Senate held a hearing on "EPA's authorities to control toxic chemicals." The hearing built on many previous hearings to gather information relevant to the reform of the TSCA chemical control law.  The hearing began fairly benignly but ended rather contentiously, with Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) preparing for a markup of the Safe Chemicals Act bill today, July 25, 2012.

The hearing ostensibly was in response to an investigative series published recently by the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune series argued that "two powerful chemical industries - Big tobacco and chemical manufacturers - waged deceptive campaigns that led to the proliferation" of flame retardant chemicals such as the PBDEs. Witnesses during the hearing included Dr. Heather Stapleton, an expert on flame retardant chemicals at Duke University, and Marshall Moore, Director of Technology, Advocacy and Marketing at Chemtura, a manufacturer of PBDEs and one of the companies specifically identified by the Chicago Tribune.

In their opening statements the Senators offered reiterations of their usual positions. Democrats focused on the toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation of PBDEs in particular and chemicals in general. Republicans, in particular Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and David Vitter (R-LA), expressed their disappointment that the Democratic majority of the committee was planning to bring Lautenberg's Safe Chemical Act bill to markup. Republicans felt that this meant the end of the "bipartisan" discussions in which Democratic and Republican members of the committee and their staffs had engaged for the year and a half since the introduction of Lautenberg's bill.

Democrats countered that the "bipartisan" discussions were going nowhere and it was time to get Republican views out in the open with a markup and committee vote on the bill. Lautenberg reminded his colleagues that he first introduced a version of the Safe Chemicals Act in 2005 and that over the last seven years there had been dozens of hearings, meetings, and consultations with Republicans on the best way to reform TSCA. All stakeholders have agreed publicly many times that TSCA is in dire need of reform, a position EPA acting Assistant Administrator Jim Jones reiterated in his testimony. Indeed, Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act bill has clearly migrated from a more NGO-approved (all data for all chemicals) approach in the original to a more Industry-friendly (prioritization) approach in the current version. The markup is an attempt by Democrats to put the Republican position on record given that passage of a TSCA reform bill is highly unlikely in this Congress, and perhaps impossible in the next Congress depending on the results of this fall's election.

Democrats were clearly frustrated with the Republicans during the hearing. This became especially evident during the second panel in which Senator Boxer repeatedly made it clear which witnesses were called by the majority party (Democrats) and which were called by the minority party (Republicans). Boxer also repeatedly praised the courage of mother and former Maine House leader Hannah Pingree, who had said during questioning that "the chemical industry does not always tell us the truth." Boxer similarly praised the work of fireman Tony Stefani, who heads a Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation, which he started after he and his fellow firefighters were found to have higher incidences of the kind of cancers that he claims "are usually seen in workers in chemical manufacturing."

In contrast, Boxer several times addressed chemical manufacturing representative Marshall Moore in ways that can euphemistically described as "direct." She told Moore that "he needs to apologize" for "grossly distorting" a study on which he relied for demonstrating effectiveness and safety of flame retardant chemicals. Boxer also told Moore that "take a course in ethics" because the industry had set up a "phony fire safety group" (based on the charges in the Tribune series). Moore was remarkably calm and respectful given Boxer's direct accusations and insisted that his company and others had conducted and provided to EPA dozens of studies to aid the assessment.


The hearing demonstrated that TSCA reform, despite the repeated public assurances by all stakeholders that modernization was necessary and desirable, is likely not going to happen. As noted, while the Republicans expressed their disappointment that the bill will go to markup and probably to a committee vote, Democrats expressed their continued desire to work on a bipartisan bill, which they now believe can better be accomplished by an open debate on the Senate floor where each individual Senator would be able to put their views on record.

Of course, even in the unlikely event that a bill could be passed in the Senate (virtually all bills now must pass 60 votes for cloture before they can even make it to the floor for a vote), there is essentially no chance that the Republican-controlled House would even take up a companion bill.


More information and downloads of the testimony can be found on the committee hearing page.

TODAY - Senate Hearing on Exposures to Toxic Chemicals

There will be a Senate hearing today, Tuesday, July 24, 2012 to hear witnesses on the topic "Oversight on EPA Authorities to Control Exposures to Toxic Chemicals." The hearing is being held by the Full Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and its Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and Environmental Health. The subcommittee is chaired by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) who has been working for several years to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) originally passed in 1976.

Lautenberg and other Democratic members of the committee are planning a markup and vote on his Safe Chemicals Act bill on Wednesday. Republican members immediately balked at the idea, noting that they were not given any warning of the vote. At the previous hearing by this subcommittee many months ago, Democrats had practically begged Republicans and industry to "give us a bill," i.e., rather than merely say the current bill was inadequate, actually propose a bill that Republicans and industry could live with given that all parties claim to want a workable modernization of TSCA. Republicans and industry declined to do so.

While the Safe Chemicals Act - TSCA reform - has been largely ignored during this election year, it has received renewed interest lately as the result of a Chicago Tribune investigative series that accused the chemical industry of misleading the public and regulators about both the effectiveness and safety of brominated flame retardants.

Today's hearing begins at 10:00 am ET in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate building. The hearing will be webcast. The full agenda and list of witnesses is below:

Opening Remarks

Panel 1

The Honorable Jim Jones Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Panel 2

Hannah Pingree Mother, Former Speaker of the Maine House of Representatives

Dr. Heather M. Stapelton Assistant Professor of Environmental Chemistry, Environment Sciences & Policy, Nicholas School of the Environment Duke University

Marshall Moore Director, Technology, Advocacy and Marketing Great Lakes Solutions, A Chemtura Business

William K. Rawson Partner, Chair, Environment, Land & Resources Department Latham & Watkins LLP

Tony Stefani President, Founder San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation