Why the TSCA Reform Bills Should Become Law Even Though They Won't Make Us Any Safer

Recently there has been a sudden surge in support for passing bills in both the House and Senate to modernize the four-decade-old Toxic Substances Control Act, i.e., TSCA. This post will explain why this is happening, why TSCA Reform can pass now, and why it should pass - even though it likely will do nothing substantial to make us safer.

What is TSCA anyway?

For those who missed it, TSCA was passed in 1976. That's right, when Gerald Ford, the only President never to have been elected to either the presidency or vice-presidency (Hint: Nixon and Agnew were, in fact, crooks), signed it into law. TSCA was designed to regulate commercial chemicals before they could be put on the market. Well, except for the 65,000 or so chemicals that were already on the market - those chemicals got grandfathered onto an Inventory, a list of chemicals it was okay to use despite none of them ever having been tested for safety. New chemicals had to go through a review by the Environmental Protection Agency, though the EPA could not actually require any safety testing unless they could prove that the chemicals were dangerous...which they found hard to do since they couldn't require anyone to do any safety testing. You can see why there was a need to reform TSCA.

Which no one did for nearly 40 years.

Why COULDN'T TSCA be reformed before?

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) tried. In 2005 he introduced the first of several TSCA reform bills that were immediately relegated to the wastebasket with zero action. Not one ever got out of committee. For ten years the Republican Party, along with a few Democrats from states heavy on chemical industry influences, managed to block a half-dozen or more attempts by Lautenberg in the Senate (and Henry Waxman [D-CA)] in the House) from ever getting a vote.

Lautenberg's initial bill would have fundamentally changed our chemical control system by requiring companies to provide substantial health and safety data on chemicals before they went onto the market. It would have also required companies to provide data for all of the 65,000 chemicals that had been grandfathered onto the Inventory (plus, all the 25,000 or so additional chemicals that were added to the Inventory after only rudimentary model-based evaluation by EPA).

While needed, the requirements were functionally unworkable under our current review structure. When Europe passed a law called REACH that required essentially the same data, they also created an entirely new chemicals agency staffed with at least 500 people and a system for collecting and evaluating the millions of data points that would be coming their way over a ten year period.

A new agency! The EPA would not have been able to handle the workload, especially given the Congressional defunding and forced retirement of key staffers that has been plaguing them for the last decade or more. There is no way Congress would even boost their staff to handle the new data, never mind create an entirely new agency. That one fact killed any chance of a workable solution.

Lautenberg continued to try to revise his bills over the next 10 years, making them more and more industry-friendly with each iteration. His latest version, offered up soon before he passed away, was supported by then-committee chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who frequently sparred with then-ranking member and serial climate denier James Inhofe (R-OK). Her conflicts with Inhofe were seamlessly passed to his replacement, Senator David Vitter (R-LA), when he began working with Lautenberg on a new, even more industry-friendly, bill. After Lautenberg's death, Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) joined with Vitter to come up with the precursor to the current Senate bill. While the bipartisanship was nice, the dropping of all the fundamental reforms originally proposed by Lautenberg make Boxer a bitter enemy of the bill.

Why CAN TSCA reform pass now?

The answer is easy, though it's also a reflection of the rather cynical power of lobbyists when it comes to making laws. After blocking serious consideration of TSCA reform for a decade, Industry found itself in a position where Republicans were in control of the House and Senate. Sensing that the window of opportunity was short - there is no guarantee the Democrats won't take back the Senate in 2016 - Industry decided to facilitate the bill-writing process. How much of the bills were written, as opposed to merely influenced, by Industry is something only insiders know, but clearly the new bills serve Industry more than they serve opposing environmental and health Advocacy groups or the public. And so bills suddenly appeared in the Senate and the House, the latter of which has been adamantly against anything that smells of new regulation, never mind complete reform of the primary chemical control law.

Another reason TSCA reform can pass now is because Barbara Boxer announced she is retiring at the end of her present term, i.e., after the 2016 elections. Given her long-time power and influence on the key committee in charge of reform, this decision clears the way for Democrats to support the TSCA reform bill presented by Industry via Vitter/Udall.

It's also clear that everyone knows that this bill (the Senate one) is the only bill that could ever get passed, either before, now, or later. This is it. It might get a few tweaks still, but the basic requirements and structure are the only ones that can garner enough support - and do so at the right time, which is now - to ever get passed. It's also clear that President Obama will gladly sign any bill that passes Congress given the rarity of such an event.

Why SHOULD TSCA reform pass now?

Part of the reason it should pass is what I just said in the paragraph above. It's the only one that can pass, and no one would argue that modernization of TSCA isn't way overdue.

Another reason is because EPA has been effectively hog-tied for the last 10 years with very little it could do to ensure the safety of chemicals, especially legacy chemicals, i.e., those on the Inventory that have never been tested for safety. The new bills don't require up-front testing to be submitted on old or new chemicals en masse, but the bills do provide EPA with a better mechanism for requesting data be provided on specific chemicals. It isn't great, but it's better. More importantly, the bills provide a better mechanism for looking at those legacy chemicals. That is a big deal. (Insert appropriate Joe Bidenesque qualifier)

In any case, the new bills will allow EPA to move forward even though they likely won't have the resources to move very far or very fast.

What ROADBLOCKS remain to making TSCA reform into law?

Anyone familiar with Washington knows that Congress can often find a way to self-destruct, even on things that most of them agree on. With the election year already in its craziest jockeying for attention period, the window for passage is small, and getting smaller every day. Senators believe they can get a vote on their version of the bill before the fast-approaching August recess, and with more than half of all Senators and true bipartisan support, passage is likely. Which gets us to the first roadblock.

The House version of the bill, which passed by a vote of 398 to 1, is laughable. While that might seem harsh, it's likely an understatement. As already noted, the Republican-controlled House is strictly anti-regulation. Because of radical gerrymandering, House Republicans know they are likely to be reelected no matter how irresponsible or radical they act. Not surprisingly, there is tacit understanding from all parties that the more contentious portions of the House bill will essentially be morphed into something palatable for all. In other words, the final TSCA reform law will largely reflect the Senate version. The Senate version even has the most politically safe name it could have been given, the "Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act."

The second and third roadblocks, which will be part of the first one above, are that there may be tweaking of two key provisions in the bills: preemption and risk standard. I won't go into detail about what they are because, frankly, they have no actual meaning with respect to the functioning of the law.

That last sentence will come as a shock to Industry and Advocacy lobbyists who have spent much of the last few years arguing over these exact provisions. But that's that point. These two provisions got the attention because they distracted from the real issue, which is how much data to require up-front for new and legacy chemicals. As seen above, Industry clearly won that battle.

The preemption issue has been claimed as the most important issue by Industry. The threat of up to 50 state-based chemical control laws is why Industry has wanted TSCA reform so badly (the Industry-friendly version of TSCA reform, to be clear). Industry strongly lobbied for provisions in the new TSCA that would bar states from taking action while EPA is evaluating the chemicals, a process that in some cases has taken decades with no resolution. The risk standard has also been contentious for basically the same reason, to make EPA spend tons of time building a case AGAINST a chemical (rather than Industry making a case FOR the chemical).

So if they are so important, how can they be so meaningless?

While on paper these may seem like they could have a massive impact on regulation, in the real world they don't. In this real world you get two things happening:

1) No matter what decision EPA reaches, they will get sued. If Industry is unhappy, Industry will sue the EPA and/or use whatever "hearing" provisions in the new law to keep EPA from banning or severely restricting their chemical for as long as they can. Using this strategy under the old law has kept some chemicals on the market for decades, all the while providing substantial profit while the manufacture develops a replacement. Similarly, if Advocacy groups are unhappy, they too can sue and/or use whatever provisions to keep the pressure on the chemical. Granted, the options and success rate of Advocacy groups are much more limited than they are for Industry - this new law will be no exception - but the power of Advocacy groups doesn't stop there anyway.

1a) As a corollary, EPA knows that its greatest pressure point is the threat of action. In the past EPA has managed to get Industry to participate in "voluntary" actions to increase data collection and influence how a particular company makes business decisions about pursuing putting, or keeping, chemicals on the market. The new TSCA law will increase EPA's ability to put unofficial pressure on manufacturers because the law will give EPA more authority to require data for chemicals raising safety questions.

2) The real power of Advocacy groups is in building public pressure on target chemicals. In the past this has meant some chemicals that are safe-for-use (i.e., safe if used properly) may have been unfairly pressured out of existence. On the other hand, chemicals that might have stayed on the market despite safety concerns have been forced into oblivion because of public pressure. The new law should actually make it easier to exert public pressure because supposedly the more questionable chemicals could be required to have a more substantial data set.

So in practice it will be public pressure that will take an even greater role in whether a chemical stays on the market (or perhaps even gets there in the first place). Despite attempts to limit the ability of states to regulate chemicals (i.e., preemption), states will still be able to take action on anything the EPA hasn't walled off by their own investigations. For any state-centric concerns, i.e., create undue risk within a state, that state will likely still have the opportunity to address those concerns. In any case, states and Advocacy groups will be gearing up to educate the public about chemicals of concern, and that market-based pressure will do more to change the decision-making habit of Industry than the new regulations.

The bottom line is that the TSCA reform law that emerges in the next few weeks or months will likely pass, and it should pass. While some Advocacy groups will complain that it doesn't go far enough (which it doesn't) and Industry groups will complain in public of the new requirements (while popping champagne corks in private boardrooms), the fact is that TSCA reform is desperately needed, the final bill will be the best that anyone can hope to achieve, and despite its limitations it will provide real improved opportunities for EPA to move forward in their quest to protect the public from unreasonable risk of chemicals. The law itself won't make us safer, but the fact that we'll be focused on identifying and prioritizing chemicals to take a closer look rather than waving our hands in the air doing nothing...well, that focus will make us safer.

The Confidence of the Dumb

Recently I was reading a lively piece by Tom Nichols in a blog called The Federalist. Nichols was lamenting "The Death of Expertise." The piece is a worthy read that, unfortunately, won't be read by most of the people who need to read it. Feel free to pause your attention and go read it now (as long as you come back here for the rest).

I won't rehash what Nichols has so eloquently said. But I was struck by one section he calls, "The Confidence of the Dumb." Along with his observation that too many people believe their uninformed opinion is just as valid as his highly informed expertise, this section captures the essence of the biggest communication problem facing scientists right now. He says:

"There’s also that immutable problem known as “human nature.” It has a name now: it’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect, which says, in sum, that the dumber you are, the more confident you are that you’re not actually dumb. And when you get invested in being aggressively dumb…well, the last thing you want to encounter are experts who disagree with you, and so you dismiss them in order to maintain your unreasonably high opinion of yourself."

I think there is more to it than just the need to avoid admitting dumbness. Looked at in a slightly different way, the confidence of the dumb can be described as the arrogance of ignorance. People don't like to appear ignorant, even when it is clear that they are. So they create a world around them in which their "lack of knowledge" is simply redefined as "superior knowledge." Voila! Problem solved. No longer to do they need to learn anything. Fact is whatever they decide is fact, even when it is counter to fact. Perhaps especially when it is counter to fact.

Once people decide that whatever they claim is "real enough," they gain utter confidence in their ability to state this new reality. It is why people on the internet can state emphatically and with great confidence that man-made climate change is a hoax, or that "chemtrails" are a secret plot to spray chemicals on an unsuspecting populace, or that any number of other conspiracy theories with no merit are somehow "real" and that they, the uninformed, know this and all the experts who say otherwise are part of whatever plot necessary to fulfill the conspiracy. Constructing this alternate reality relieves them of the danger that learning actual facts may demonstrate they are wrong.

This is where the arrogance of the ignorant takes over. Having completely invested their self-worth in a fantasy world, there is no going back. To do so would be to admit their heightened self-worth was misplaced. The only option is to put on the bravado of confidence. A swagger to hide the insecurity.

Which presents a problem for scientists. In our training we are taught to identify and define any uncertainty. We not only document it, we quantify it. Uncertainty is how we see where the gaps are that need further study. In contrast, climate deniers (and chemtrail conspiracists, etc.) state with absolute certainty things that in actuality have very little certainty. In most cases, they state with certainty things that have already unequivocally been demonstrated as false. Then they repeat. And repeat again. Repeat it enough and it becomes truth. Or so it seems.

We'll discuss more on how to deal with the confidence of the dumb, and more specifically the arrogance of the ignorant. To give you a sense of how difficult that is, try arguing with someone who insists that Elvis is alive.

[Photo Credit - Daniel Stockman]

Head of Royal Society Says Freedom of Information Laws are Being Used to Harass Scientists

Sir Paul Nurse, president of the prestigious Royal Society in London, says that freedom of information (FOI) laws are being misused in organized attempts to harass climate scientists.  While emphasizing that FOI laws are important tools needed to ensure transparency, Nurse, the Nobel Prize winner for Medicine in 2001, argues that anti-climate science lobbying groups have orchestrated an organized campaign of requesting "data and other research materials" for the primary purposes of intimidating climate scientists and slowing down both research and legitimate communication of the science.

According to The Guardian online, another scientist, Bob Ward of Grantham Research Institute, complained that FOI requestors weren't interested in the science but rather the requests were "being used in an aggressive and organized way" to look for problems and errors.  And according to Chris Mooney in relation to another FOI fishing expedition involving Michael Mann in the US, the climate science deniers will twist whatever they receive into whatever they need it to be to confirm their predetermined belief.  Just as they did for the infamous climategate emails, which despite six separate investigations exonerating all the scientists involved, yet the climate denial industry continues to treat as a condemnation of the science (which it wasn't).

The UK FOI requests have been overly burdensome on researchers, as requests have included "among other things, all drafts of scientific papers prior to their publication in journals, with annotations, explaining why changes were made between successive versions."  Again, the intent isn't to understand better the science or the research. According to Nurse, the net result is that which the organized campaigns intended - intimidation and time taken away from doing research.

Scientists, of course, need to be more open and transparent, but then they, like all of us, produce many emails a day on things that aren't particularly interesting or controversial.  To have to organize them for FOI release even though they have no meaning limits their ability to do research.  To have to spend even more time correcting the often intentional misinterpretation (or disinterpretation) of their words by climate change deniers is a burden no professional should have to bear. 

FOI is important for transparency, and the Royal Society and others are looking for ways to bring the process up to speed with modern technology.  But unfortunately there are many who are abusing FOI, not to improve transparency, but to harass climate scientists and disinform the public.  The harassment has to stop.

Senate Narrowly Misses Their Chance to Deny Climate Science

Yesterday there were four votes in the Senate related to climate science.  The amendments were designed to either further limit EPA's ability to do what the Clean Air Act and a Supreme Court decision compelled them to do...complete an endangerment finding and then regulate accordingly greenhouse gases.  In March the Republican-led House voted to deny amendments acknowledging the state of the science.  And yesterday the Senate did essentially the same thing.

Brad Johnson, writing on a left-leaning blog called The Wonk Room describes it this way:

McConnell Amendment: Four pollution-fueled Democrats embraced the “Energy Tax Prevention Act” — the extremist legislation introduced by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to literally deny the science of global warming. The Democrats who voted for the McConnell amendment, which failed by a 50-50 vote, were Sen. Mary Landrieu (LA), Joe Manchin (WV), Ben Nelson (NE), and Mark Pryor (AR). In the 2010 cycle, Koch Industries contributed $39,500 to Landrieu, $36,500 to Nelson, and $30,000 to Pryor. Manchin’s 2010 election was fueled by over $500,000 from coal and oil interests.

Rockefeller Amendment: Nine Democrats voted for Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-WV) amendment for a two-year moratorium on climate rules, which failed by a 12-88 vote: Sen. Kent Conrad (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Landrieu, Manchin, Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, and Jim Webb (VA).

Stabenow-Brown Amendment: Seven Democrats voted for Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Sen. Sherrod Brown’s (D-OH) amendment to suspend, for 2 years, any Environmental Protection Agency enforcement of greenhouse gas regulations, to exempt American agriculture from greenhouse gas regulations, and to increase the number of companies eligible to participate in the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit Program, which failed 7-93: Brown, Robert Casey (PA), Conrad, Amy Klobuchar (MN), Johnson, Pryor, and Stabenow.

Baucus Amendment: Seven Democrats voted for Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) amendment to prohibit the regulation of greenhouse gases from certain sources, which also failed 7-93: Baucus, Mark Begich (AK), Kay Hagan (NC), Carl Levin (MI), Klobuchar, Conrad, and Johnson.

As I've noted here before, it's perfectly acceptable to debate the policy options for dealing with climate change.  But the votes on these amendments, and those earlier in the House, are not on policy options but rather politicians exerting their political veto of science itself.   Regarding climate change, the US National Academies of Sciences last year noted that:

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

This state of climate science is concurred by very nearly all active climate researchers, the most recent IPCC report, the National Academies of all of the major countries of the world, and pretty much all of the major scientific organizations on the planet.  Every single one of whom concur that the climate is changing and that human activity is the major cause.  The US National Academies even recently called it "settled fact."

And yet, here are both houses of Congress voting to deny the science because they don't want to have to do the hard work of honestly debating policy options to deal with the science.  The political debate should be focused on finding solutions, not denying the science and hog-tying the agency compelled by the science.

Newspapers and Two former EPA Administrators Speak Out Against GOP Attacks on EPA Authority

As most of us are aware, there is an effort underway by the Republican-led House of Representatives to restrict the ability of the USEPA to regulate, in particular EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  I came across a post on the climate blog Climate Progress that compiles several of the most recent editorials by newspapers, as well as an Op-Ed by two former EPA Administrators appointed by Republican Presidents.

In the latter, former EPA Administrators William Ruckelshaus (appointed by Ronald Reagan) and Christine Todd Whitman (a former NJ Republican Governor and appointed by George W. Bush) decry:

Today the agency President Richard Nixon created in response to the public outcry over visible air pollution and flammable rivers is under siege. The Senate is poised to vote on a bill that would, for the first time, “disapprove” of a scientifically based finding, in this case that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. 

These two Administrators point out that:

This finding was extensively reviewed by officials in the administrations of presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It was finalized by the Environmental Protection Agency in response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision that greenhouse gases fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. 

Rather than engage in an honest and responsible debate on possible policy solutions, House Republicans have instead chosen to deny the science in order to avoid responsibility.  In their Op-Ed, Ruckelshaus and Whitman remind Congress that the people demanded EPA deal with the sources of the pollution that had given us air we could see and rivers that caught fire.  Actions taken by Congress (e.g., passing the Clean Air Act), the President (Nixon created the EPA by Executive Order), and the EPA through responsible regulations have given us cleaner and safer air and water along with a host of other changes that protect our health and environment.  The Administrators say:

It has taken four decades to put in place the infrastructure to ensure that pollution is controlled through limitations on corporate, municipal and individual conduct. Dismantle that infrastructure today, and a new one would have to be created tomorrow at great expense and at great sacrifice to America’s public health and environment. The American public will not long stand for an end to regulations that have protected their health and quality of life. 

Links to newspaper editorials can be found on the Climate Progress site.  Climate Progress is run by Dr. Joseph Romm, a former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy during the Clinton Administration.

EPA to Issue Test Rules for Remaining Unsponsored HPV Chemicals

Recently the USEPA published a final test rule requiring testing on 19 High Production Volume chemicals.  These were chemicals that were not sponsored by chemical manufacturers during the voluntary HPV Challenge program.  Since no one claimed them they came to be known as "orphan" chemicals.  And now EPA is planning to get the rest of them into the orphanage this year for testing.

At least that is the plan.

The reality is a bit less ambitious.  This second final test rule, which was published in the Federal Register only a week or so ago, was proposed way back in July of 2008...2-1/2 years ago.  The first final test rule was published in 2006 after having been proposed in the year 2000!  A third proposed rule was published almost a year ago and EPA hopes to get it final "sometime this year."  A fourth proposed rule is in the works.  The likelihood of the fourth rule going final this year is, well, not.

Even then this will cover only about 100 of the orphan chemicals from the 10-year long (plus 5-year overdue) HPV Challenge program.  There are several hundred other chemicals that are high production volume, that is, produced at over 1 million pounds per year, that are not even on EPA's radar to be proposed for testing.  And then there are the thousands of chemicals grandfathered onto the TSCA Inventory that have not been fully tested.  The orphan chemical question is one of the reasons put forth for why TSCA reform is so desperately needed.

All of this plays into the ongoing debate about what, or even if, will happen with TSCA reform this year.  The bills introduced last year are dead and new bills, should anyone in the House try to introduce one, will most likely have a different flavor than those from the last Congress.  A different flavor may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view, but the real question is whether there will be any flavor.  Industry says they want a federal law so they don't have to deal with a patchwork of state laws.  Environmental and health advocacy groups (NGOs) clearly want there to be TSCA reform.  Which would suggest that the path forward is clear.

But then.  This is Congress.

The (Un?)Likelihood of TSCA Chemical Reform?

Reform of the ancient (in regulatory terms) Toxic Substances Control Act seemed to be finally on the front burner during 2010.  After years of promising, the Democratic-led House and Senate each introduced bills. The House, led by Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman and subcommittee chair Bobby Rush, even held a series of meetings with stakeholders.  This in addition to several public hearings on both the House and Senate side.

And then came the election.

The question now is a matter of priority.  With the Republican party gaining control of the House, Representative Waxman is no longer chair (he becomes ranking member).  Instead the committee, which has a broad oversight mandate, is being chaired by Republican Representative Fred Upton who has stated that he will focus on repealing the health care law passed in the last Congress (a vote was held this week), "fighting rampant regulations," and reducing spending, including that of the EPA.

In short, no one seems to know at this point whether the committee will get around to addressing TSCA reform, or for that matter, whether TSCA reform bills will even be reintroduced.  On the Senate side the Democrats still have control and thus still chair the various committees.  Long-time TSCA reform champion Senator Frank Lautenberg has stressed that he plans to reintroduce his "Safe Chemicals Act," but he didn't provide a timetable.  Even if he does there would need to be a bill introduced on the House side, and right now it is not a very high priority for Representative Upton or Speaker Boehner.  So we will have to wait.

While that happens the NGOs have redoubled their efforts to push TSCA reform legislation, and barring action on the federal level are pursuing state level actions.  But as a commenter on my post yesterday pointed out, the past election resulted in strong conservative gains in many state legislatures, which along with  continuing fiscal uncertainty, is likely to limit the ability of states to pick up the slack.  Meanwhile, the message coming from industry has generally been that they prefer federal level modernization of TSCA rather than a patchwork of state regulations, either on individual chemicals (including bans) or as "TSCA Reform Lite."  And while some parts of industry, e.g., larger companies, may be comfortable with greater health and safety disclosure since they may have already compiled the data for REACH, other parts of industry argue that they are less capable of handling extensive data submission demands on, e.g., lower volume chemicals.  These special "small and medium sized entities" issues were addressed to some extent in the legislation proposed in 2010, but it remains unclear what form any new legislation may take.  In short, there are a lot of issues still to be worked out should Congress decide to move forward.

I would not expect any activity on TSCA before summer or even fall, and after that the dynamics of a presidential election year may distract members of Congress from issues like TSCA reform.  So we will have to wait and see. 

No TSCA Chemical Reform This Year - What About Next Year?

The TSCA reform proposals put forth in bills by the Democratically controlled House and Senate in 2010 are now in the "didn't get to it" bin for the few weeks left in the current Congressional session.  In January the current minority party becomes the majority in the House, and closes the gap in the Senate.  So the question on everyone's mind (well, everyone that is a stakeholder interested in reform/modernization of the 34-year old TSCA law) is "What will happen in 2011?"

Or maybe 2012?

Because of the way Congress works any TSCA reform bills will need to be reintroduced in the next Congress before any action can be taken.  The House bill was introduced this past year by Democrats Henry Waxman and Bobby Rush, both of whom won reelection but will no longer be chairing the full committee and subcommittee, respectively, responsible for shepherding the law through the House.  As of this writing the Republican party had not yet determined who would take over the chairmanships of the key committee, but the contenders have been fairly public about their priorities and TSCA reform isn't necessarily at the top of their list.  The Senate will remain in Democratic control, though perhaps with a bit less leeway than this past Congress.  Senator Lautenberg has been passionate about TSCA reform (Kid Safe Chemical Act/Safe Chemical Act), but health and age may (or may not) limit his future influence.

Industry remains dedicated to modernizing TSCA, in large part because one federal law is easier to handle than 50 (or more) state, regional, and local laws.  With a likely more industry-friendly chairmanship in the House, this might be a good opportunity to get a new law passed that will keep what industry considers to be "what works" of the old law while enhancing protections for human health and the environment.  But different industry groups differ on how to go about doing that.

The advocacy community remains adamant that TSCA is outdated, and in fact never really worked well at all from a health protection point of view.  They continue to push for a new law, both through renewed activism at the state level and by putting pressure on industry to come up with "concrete proposals" for a revised law.

As is normal for situations in which party control of one or both houses of Congress changes, there will be time needed to "staff up" the committees, "feel out" the likelihood of compromise by various stakeholders, and "learn something" from ongoing international activities like the Canadian chemical management plan and Europe's REACH registration.  So we should expect not to see much overt action for at least the first six to 10 months of this next Congress (though there may be some behind the scenes wrangling going on).  That suggests that TSCA reform bills might not hit the floor until late 2011 or even into 2012.  That said, with a likely contentious presidential election year going on in 2012, there are concerns among many that TSCA reform might be a priority for a future time.

Getting TSCA Chemical Reform Right - Are We Close?

What’s important is that we do it right. With 96 percent of all manufactured goods touched by chemistry, any new law must protect public safety without destroying jobs or America’s ability to continue leading the world in innovation.

Such are the words of Cal Dooley, President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, one of the leading trade associations representing the chemical industry.  Dooley, who is a former Congressman so knows how the political process works, was responding to an editorial in the Las Vegas Sun. The editorial supported the idea that chemicals on the market should be tested to "ensure product safety."  The paper asserted that "manufacturers can simply refuse to test their chemicals, allowing them to claim that they do not have information on toxicity or cancer-causing potential."

Dooley took exception to some of what the editorial said, saying that the editorial "significantly exaggerates the state of the nation’s product safety regulations, serving to confuse rather than inform your readers."  He agrees that the current TSCA law "needs to be updated," and reminded the Sun that the American Chemistry Council "has been participating in the public discussion of this for the past two years."

Yesterday I mentioned that "jobs" had become a new catchword for TSCA reform.  In his letter to the editor, Dooley noted that "in Nevada alone, our industry contributes to over 2,000 direct jobs, and for every chemical industry job, an additional 1.7 jobs are created within the state’s economy. With an unemployment rate at an astounding 14.2 percent, Nevadans should look carefully at any new regulation that might affect their jobs, and not just accept proposals at face value."

The key to all of this is getting TSCA reform right.  Advocacy groups want all chemicals to be tested; industry wants to have a focused, prioritized testing regime that is more manageable for both them and EPA.  They rightly point to the massive ongoing REACH effort, including the creation of an entirely new chemicals agency to handle the receipt of tens of thousands of data dossiers. Given that EPA is unlikely to get that kind of new funding, a more workable solution that provides data on the most toxic and/or most widely used chemicals is probably closer to being "doable."

With TSCA Chemical Reform Likely to be Pushed Off Until Next Year - What Happens Now?

TSCA reform is dead.  Long live TSCA reform.

Okay, maybe too melodramatic.  But it would seem that the chances of passing a TSCA bill anytime in this session of Congress are pretty much done.  So with that in mind, what's next?  The answer of course is nobody really knows, and we aren't likely to know until after we see the outcome of the elections in November.

But we can make some guesses.  To begin with, we can assume that some sort of bill will be reintroduced in the next Congress, probably mid to late next year (2012 is a presidential election year).

First off, it is highly likely that the final reintroduced bills will shift toward a less data intensive system.  By that I mean that there will not likely be a requirement for all existing chemicals to have a complete data set produced and submitted to EPA in the fashion of REACH in Europe.  Even with the tiered approach (i.e., chemicals of highest tonnages are required to register first, smaller tonnages later), the REACH system has been a huge burden on industry.  Massive numbers of man-hours, costs, and coordination among sometimes hundreds of competitors to produce data dossiers have been needed, plus several years of activity, to get to a point where companies are struggling just to pass the initial completeness checks.  And then only 5% of those dossiers are required to be reviewed by the chemicals agency.  That's a lot of work to fill a lot of file cabinets.  But does it make us safer?  Not in the short run at least because it will take years of review even for those 5% to see if there are any risks.

Secondly, look for lots of action in the states. There are two reasons why industry has been publicly in favor of TSCA reform.  The first is simply public relations.  But the second is because they understand that TSCA reform is needed to avoid the patchwork of 50 sets of state regulations.  In the past industry had to worry about only a few states "going proactive," (e.g., California), but now there are many states who have been actively trying to ban specific chemicals, put restrictions on the use of chemicals like phthalates in baby bottles, and banning plastic bags.  And that is no accident.  Advocacy groups have actively worked with states to develop state-level regulations in an effort to push the federal-level process along.

Thirdly, look for Democrats (assuming they maintain control of both houses of Congress) to figure out how TSCA reform will help create jobs.  With the country still in the throes of a recession, and with predictions that it might be a while before we get the unemployment rate down, jobs are on everyone's mind.  The code word "jobs" was dropped by representatives of both parties in the House hearing held at the end of last month.  And industry representatives have been quoted saying that the new law cannot inhibit innovation or cost the industry jobs.  So if lawmakers want industry input they have to include the "jobs" code words in their language as they move forward.

Finally, this is an opportunity.  While no one could credibly argue that the process of TSCA reform is moving too fast (it took years of promises before the bills were introduced), the time between now and the reintroduction can be used wisely by all stakeholders to ensure the best combination of protection of human health and the environment with a workable plan that encourages job creation, green chemistry, and innovation.  Now is the time for everyone to put in a good faith effort.  I'm just not sure everyone is ready to do that.

More on how the November elections may impact the TSCA Chemical Reform bills being debated

Yesterday I wrote a commentary piece about how the likely change in numbers of Republicans and Democrats could affect the ongoing discussions to revise TSCA. A commenter raised some good points so I thought today I would expand on my responses.

To begin with the commenter opined that my "political analysis in this case is simplistic and overly tied to conventional wisdom." He (or she, the comment was Anonymous) noted that "the industry position on TSCA reform is not at all monolithic. There are divisions within the ranks and conflicting needs from within the business community. Some industry industry interests want more than has been proposed. Others want the burden shifted to other sectors."

To which I wholeheartedly agree. In my reply I noted that "the industry position is not at all monolithic, nor for that matter is the NGO position or the positions of the individual companies (or of the American people, should they even have an opinion)." I also pointed out that "clearly the end user, small enterprise, and specialty manufacturers and formulators have different desires, and concerns, than the larger manufacturers. This is especially true in comparison to the multinational companies who may find that their significant resources and prior data generation for HPV and REACH gives them a distinct competitive advantage."

The "environmental/health friendly tone" you ascribe to the current bills belies the fact that there are many in that camp that find portions of the proposals to be unworkable and incomplete on practical grounds.

Again, I agree. Not surprisingly "there are portions of the proposals that are more than acceptable, and patently unacceptable, to both sides (and all the other sides)." Furthermore, I also agreed "that the situation is much more intricate, intertwined, and complicated than what can be presented in the very limited space I had available." I believe I've discussed many of these differences of opinion and the desired options of various stakeholders in my previous writings in this post. Yesterday's posting was one of my occasional commentaries in which I speculated "on the influences of a likely change in political power after November."

Then there's the American people, who overwhelmingly want safer products. Then there's the state chemical policy experiment where every new law has been voted in with overwhelming bipartisan support.

I actually didn't address this directly in my reply but here again the commenter makes an excellent observation. Clearly "the American people" want safe products. However, defining what is "safe" and how to demonstrate it is obviously more difficult than simply saying you want safe products. Many of the "American people," for example, also don't want too much government interference that could stifle innovation. Where is that line?

The political landscape for safer chemicals legislation is complicated and will defy conventional partisan analysis in the end.

I suppose my piece yesterday did seem to suggest "conventional partisan analysis," but if that is the case it certainly doesn't reflect my understanding of the process. On the other hand, wisdom becomes conventional for a reason...there is usually good support for it, at least on the general level.

I agree we'll see substantive TSCA reform, but I find it senseless to speculate around a duality of who it will be friendlier to when that reality doesn't really exist.

I disagree that such speculation is senseless. I noted that "to ignore the differences of position, even if they are generalities, is to ignore the realities of the debate." While I agreed earlier that the "conventional wisdom" is oversimplified (rather than merely "simplistic"), the fact is that the two parties have very different views on the level of government regulation that is appropriate. I think Representative Barton and the Republican Study Committee made that point quite clear this past week.

The fact is that most in industry feel the bills go too far in modernizing the law. And most of the advocacy NGOs would feel the bills do not go far enough in many respects. As the old adage says, "the devil is in the details." And I think most would agree that the preferred details lean one direction for the Republicans and the other direction for the Democrats. And while certainly within the caucuses there are shades of opinion, in the current partisan environment those shades are less and less gray and more and more black and white. I think this will have an influence on the nature of the final bills when they get reintroduced next year. Others may disagree.

Will the November Elections "Reform" TSCA Chemical Reform?

As anyone reading my posts on this site knows already, the US Congress has introduced bills in the House and Senate to reform/modernize TSCA, the 34 year old Toxic Substances Control Act. But those following the process also know that this year is a mid-term election year and that the minority party - the Republicans - are expected to make substantial gains in the number of seats they hold. Some believe that the Republican party will gain the majority in either the House or Senate, or both.

So what does this mean for TSCA reform?

It could mean a lot. The Democratic majority in key committees is led by very environmentally minded leadership from California - Barbara Boxer for the Senate EPW committee and Henry Waxman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey has also taken the lead in the Senate as chairman of the relevant subcommittee in Boxer's EPW committee. A Republican takeover would put significantly less environmentally and health-aware chairs in place. Even significant gains in seats would shift the balance of power more into the Republican view, which tends to put more emphasis on industry than would the Democratic view.

So would Republican gains kill TSCA reform? No. At least, probably not. Industry is generally in agreement that modernization of TSCA is necessary, primarily because industry would rather deal with one federal-level law than a hodgepodge of 50 state laws (plus a few regional rules tossed in to further complicate compliance).

So while some sort of TSCA reform in 2011 seems inevitable, most would agree that it will be more industry-friendly than the current bills being offered.

Another major concern is funding of EPA. No matter what the final law looks like, and despite the desire to shift the burden of proof onto industry, it is clear that EPA will have much more work to do with the updated regulations. In short, much more information means much more review. In the EU, REACH created an entirely new agency to do the work. In the US, EPA has struggled with reduced funding for many years, and the current economic situation most assuredly will limit any new funding to deal with new mandates.

So what will the final Safe Chemicals Act look like? We don't know for sure. But it's a safe bet that after the November elections it will shift from the more environmental/health friendly tone of the current bills to a more industry friendly tone in the final bills likely to be reintroduced in 2011.

Thoughts on the Final Senate Hearing on TSCA Chemical Control Reform

Yes, I said the final hearing. This most certainly will be the end of the hearings, marking number 5 or 6 (I lost count) over the last year in the House and Senate. Yesterday's hearing was rather brief, only a little over an hour, with Democratic Senators Lautenberg (NJ) and Whitehouse (RI) present for the duration and Republican Senator Vitter (LA) reading his very brief opening statement and then leaving. No other Senators participated, which is why the questioning was so brief.

So what was new? In short, not much (see full testimony on the EPW web site and also linked individually below). My sense was this was a perfunctory hearing as a courtesy to industry but that the bill is pretty much ready to be introduced. I would expect it within days and certainly no later than the end of the month.

The witnesses, all from industry, offered much similarity in their comments, though I think you could see a difference between the manufacturers and the downstream users of chemicals. The manufacturers, represented by Dow Chemical, Dupont, Boron Specialties (for SOCMA) and NPRA (petrochemical companies) generally focused on having EPA prioritize chemicals for further review, and then only for those chemicals require additional hazard testing and exposure information to be provided. There was a concern that the new law not impose restrictions and bans that would disrupt markets and uses. They felt that EPA should be given more power to require new information as needed, but that there should not be a REACH-like general data call-in for all chemicals based solely on tonnage and not relative hazard or risk.

The two downstream users, represented by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Construction Specialties, emphasized that they are ready and willing to move toward sustainable chemistry in their products but often lack the information they need to make decisions. They advocated a "know and disclose" policy in which chemical companies would be required to pass along sufficient information on the chemicals in products being purchased by downstream users so that downstream users can assess their best options. If needed, they felt a third party could be used to protect the confidential business information of the manufacturers.

In the end it seems there are basic questions that may result in some disagreement on the details of the new law, despite there being significant agreement by all stakeholders that TSCA must be modernized. In their public statements, industry clearly has indicated they believe EPA should do the up-front work of assessing the TSCA Inventory, prioritizing a subset of chemicals that need closer attention, and focusing their data call-in efforts only on that subset. They do not support a general data call-in along the lines of REACH, especially if there is no attempt to "reset" the TSCA Inventory beforehand (i.e., eliminate those chemicals on the Inventory that just are not produced any more).

Senators Lautenberg and Whitehouse, on the other hand, seem very much focused on the "protection of human health and the environment" side of the discussion. They clearly believe that we need health and safety data on all chemicals in the market place. Their public pronouncements indicate that they believe the onus should be on industry to provide sufficient data for assessment, but that they don't necessarily trust industry to make that safety determination themselves. Senator Whitehouse, in fact, in his final questioning yesterday, asked (rhetorically) whether it made sense to trust the chemical companies to avow safety of their products like we trusted the tobacco companies to avow safety of cigarettes. Perhaps not a particularly valid criticism, but it does seem to reflect the Democratic Senators' belief that industry should be required to provide data and EPA should be responsible for making a final safety determination.

Previous commentary on TSCA reform can be found by going here and scrolling down.

"Grassroots" and Federal TSCA Chemical Reform

Grassroots has become a bit of a tenuous term these days. It used to mean that local people got together and started pushing for or against some issue of concern to them. And like grass, it grows from the bottom up until there is a field of activity that impacts the issue. That was in the old days. Now it seems that grassroots means a top down manufacturing of public opinion organized by trade associations, unions, or advocacy groups.

That isn't all bad, I suppose. It can help focus the issues in such a way that local people who are busy with their daily lives can become aware of issues that impact them. The internet has given everyone (including me) a chance to blog about what they think, but also a mechanism by which lobbying organizations can affect public opinion in ways that benefit them (the lobbying organizations, not the public). I guess my concern is that it has to be clear for whom (or what) the "grassroots" are actually rooting.

As has become all too obvious in such issues as climate change, there are many organizations that sound scientific but are really front groups for lobbying efforts. They don't actually conduct science, but rather cherry pick that which can be made to appear to support their goals. While not so extreme, I have seen some organizations starting to pop up that suggest superficially that they are "non-profit" organizations interested in the social welfare of TSCA reform. They give the illusion of being grassroots when in fact they are coalitions of industry groups lobbying for changes to TSCA that maximize the benefits and minimize the obligations of industry. Nothing wrong with looking out for industry interests, just as there is nothing wrong with the advocacy organizations looking out for the public interests, but it just seems that to do so surreptitiously is unbecoming.

I'll have more thoughts on the interaction between science and policy in future pieces. And I'll continue to keep everyone up to date on the upcoming TSCA reform bill. I will also begin addressing some of the issues and questions raised in comments to this blog, so please continue to ask for and offer insights into key issues that may not be getting enough attention.

States, Regions, and Federals - The Conflicting Interests of TSCA Chemical Reform

The perceived lack of teeth in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has led many US states to initiate their own state-level actions to regulate what they call toxic chemicals. Recently I noted that 13 states (no, not just the original 13 colonies) had released "a set of principles designed to ensure that the debate over reforming the nation’s outdated chemical policy stays focused on protecting public health and the environment."

Regional influences are also getting into the act. The Great Lakes Binational Toxics Strategy seeks to address chemicals of concern to the Great Lakes and includes the surrounding US states and Canadian provinces.

And of course the federal Environmental Protection Agency has issued its "essential principles" for TSCA reform.

All of this virtually guarantees that a federal level modernization of TSCA will happen soon. While Senator Lautenberg could be introducing his bill any day now, introducing it doesn't mean passage into law, as can be attested by the fact that this would be the 3rd time he has introduced legislation. The key difference this time, however, is that the industry is behind "modernization." On Tuesday, for example, a new "Michigan Coalition for Chemical Safety" was formed in which "business, manufacturing, agriculture and bioscience leaders" look for a national level reform of TSCA. Not surprisingly, Michigan was one of the 13 states mentioned above. The Coalition is actually a Michigan Chapter of the national Coalition for Chemical Safety, an industry association whose mission is to "create a comprehensive overhaul of the TSCA that protects public safety, promotes industry innovation and preserves jobs." [Interestingly, Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund has had a running conversation on his blog about how the CCS is an "astroturf" group more interested in protecting their own interests than public safety.]

In any case, industry would much prefer that any changes be made at the national level to TSCA rather than a hodgepodge of state level actions that make it more difficult to comply. Which is why the major industry trade associations have been working with Senate and House members to lobby for what they see is a rational path forward. Meanwhile, health and environmental advocacy groups have been doing the same. And recently the debate seems to have finally been discovered in the blogosphere.

This last point is dangerous, in my opinion. Like the climate change debate, while the science is pretty overwhelming, the blogosphere tends to thrive on polarization. I'll have more about this in future posts.

Why TSCA Chemical Reform is Needed - The Lost Orphan Chemicals

As a Senate hearing on reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gets underway today, word comes that EPA is working on a new rule that will mandate that companies who plan to manufacture or use dozens of High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals will have to provide the data EPA lacks before the agency will approves the new uses. The significant new use rule (SNUR) has been used before by EPA, but never to this extent. The SNUR is expected to be issued along with a new Section 4 test rule requiring data on "orphan chemicals."

And orphans are what I really want to talk about. Way back in 1998 a voluntary program called the HPV Chemical Challenge was initiated. Industry agreed to provide health and safety data on a list of about 2800 HPV chemicals, that is, chemicals that are produced at volumes of more than 1 million pounds per year. The program was supposed to be completed by 2003, later extended to 2005, and as of this writing in 2010 still has not been completed (though EPA long ago moved most of their resources to other programs). While there are many problems in compliance with the voluntary program, there were also several hundred chemicals for which no company stepped forward to sponsor. These "orphan chemicals" were the subject of three Section 4 test rules, plus the 4th that is now in preparation.

But the first one, originally proposed in 2000 but only finalized in 2006, is the only one that has actually been implemented...and then for only 17 of the original 37 chemicals proposed. The second and third test rules, covering only 19 and 29 chemicals respectively, have languished in the proposed stage as industry challenges the EPA request. Keep in mind that all EPA is doing is requiring there to be health and safety testing on chemicals that are produced in very high quantities and for which Agency experts suspect potential for hazard. Meanwhile, there are hundreds more "orphans" to be addressed, along with about 1800 other HPV chemicals for which industry did provide data and several hundred others for which industry promised to provide data but have failed to follow through.

This is just one of many examples of how the hurdles are so high for EPA under the current version of TSCA that they can't even require companies to provide health and safety testing on very high production volume chemicals. The process of even proposing such testing takes years and only a few chemicals can be addressed at a time.

Clearly the current TSCA law is broken in this respect. Perhaps today's hearing will help speed up the process of introducing the new bill. The time for action has arrived.

[Update on yesterday's post in which I suggested that perhaps Senator Boxer would be the one to sponsor the Senate version of the Kid Safe Chemical Act. However, I received a comment noting "on good authority that it is Senator Lautenberg who is writing the bill. Senator Boxer is still neck deep in Cap and Trade." Senator Lautenberg, of course, introduced the previous versions.]

Dissecting a False Climate Denialist Claim (aka, Why Credibility Matters, aka How Science Works)

The following quote was from a climate denialist on another site:

Alarmists actually believe if you can dig up dirt on someone--that falsifies all his science. An example would be what they did to S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with credentials out the wazoo! They associated him with oil and tobacco interests, so now all his science is allegedly out the window!

This quote intentionally lies. Why? Because no one says that if you can dig up dirt on someone it falsifies his science. The poster than goes on to lie more by creating a completely fabricated series of stories to "prove" his false - and irrelevant - point.

Let's dissect the statement into its pieces:

"Alarmists actually believe if you can dig up dirt on someone--that falsifies all his science."

False. The poster steers the reader into ridiculous territory, suggesting as one of a series of similar examples that somehow Einstein's science would be ignored because he cheated on his wife. The fact is that none of the discussions of credibility have anything to do with the personal lives of the people being offered as "experts in climate science" by the denialists. Steering the conversation toward a false straw man is one of the denialists most common ploys. It allows them to pose some ridiculous and untrue premise that they then shoot down. The idea is to distract from the lack of credibility and veracity of their positions.

Needless to say, most people would not even have known if Einstein was cheating on his wife when he proposed the theory of relativity. Certainly no scientist would care at all what Einstein's marital arrangements were. And no one today cares whether S. Fred Singer cheated on his wife. Or even if he has a wife.

The important point is that the significance of Einstein's proposal wasn't established until Einstein had done much more research and that research had been confirmed by others. Which took many many years of research, mathematical proofs, and tweaking to his theory. His credibility wasn't determined because one day he said "eureka." It was determined only after the tests of scrutiny and time were met. That is a critical point that I will come back to shortly.

"An example would be what they did to S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist with credentials out the wazoo!

The part about "what they did to S. Fred Singer" is false. The assertions of S. Fred Singer's credentials are mostly false, though one could stretch the case enough to give him some credit for studies in the field. The claim by another denialist that Singer is "one of the most authored expert climate scientist around!" is patently false. Singer, who will be 86 in September, has a degree in electrical engineering and a doctorate in physics. He helped design the first instruments to be used in satellites for measuring ozone and other atmospheric parameters. His focus was more on space and the hardware of satellites and instruments, not on climate science itself, though certainly the instruments were used by others to assess climatological and meteorological parameters (which are not the same thing, nor is building instruments the same as studying climate). So while Singer has credentials, mostly they aren't actually in climate science, though he can assume some credit in those areas, primarily later in life and more as a consultant than as a scientist.

It's also interesting to note that Singer lists himself as Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, which may be true (I wasn't able to confirm the Emeritus status, though he certainly was a professor) and if so he has every right to make the claim. But Singer hasn't been an actual professor at the University of Virginia since 1994. Since then (and actually, well before then) he has been a consultant to the tobacco and oil industries and has served as "founder" for several "science sounding" organizations fronting for free market lobbying groups. So why doesn't he introduce himself as President of SEPP or one of the other organizations? Well, because SEPP is well known as being a front group and not a real science organization. Relying on the "Professor Emeritus" label rather than his current affiliations is just one of the common tricks used by denialists to presume greater credibility than they deserve. [One denialist, Dr. David Evans, claims prominently at the top of his resume to be "Rocket Scientist," though he is an electrical engineer that hasn't done any research in rocket science, or for that matter, climate science.]

"They associated him with oil and tobacco interests,..."

False. Singer associated himself with oil and tobacco interests. He wrote opinion pieces on their behalf that claimed smoking didn't cause cancer, all while the tobacco companies own scientists were telling them that smoking did cause cancer. He also worked for the oil industry in a similar controversial capacity, including the infamous API strategy report that documented how they would go about hiding the truth about global warming. Now, I happen to know that many scientists who work for the oil and tobacco industries who are absolutely committed to ensuring the safety of their products (within the inherent risks of the products themselves, obviously smoking causes cancer no matter what you do with it). So why is it important that Singer is associated with these industries? It actually isn't because of the association, but because he has done so in a way that tries to hide and deny the scientific truth instead of inform the science. He has acted as more as their PR (Public Relations) front man on science issues rather than as a scientist. It turns out Singer isn't alone, as all of the most cited climate skeptic scientists are associated with free market lobbying groups whose charters require them to fight anything that might lead to policy options they don't like (and thus require them to deny the science).

..."so now all his science is allegedly out the window!"

False. Singer's "science" must stand on its own merits just like any other scientist. The controversy about his "science" arises because 1) he hasn't actually done much science, 2) what he did do was long ago and in another field, and 3) what he has done related to climate science largely hasn't stood the tests of scrutiny and time. Singer designed instruments for satellites based on his expertise in electrical engineering and physics. His actual research in climate science has been limited, and he hasn't done real research in quite some time. He has, however, become one of the most visible skeptic scientists because he's been around so long. His credibility really is limited to those in the free market groups and to the public who assume that he must be an expert because the free market groups saturate the airwaves with him. In truth, he's often wrong on the science he supports, including thinking that Phobos (a moon of Mars) was artificial (and hollow!)[it isn't], that passive smoke doesn't cause cancer [it does], that CFCs were irrelevant to ozone depletion [again wrong], and that the impacts of the Kuwaiti oil fires would be local and over in 3 days [they weren't]. It seems Singer's "science" is more related to who he is consulting for at the time then the actual science. In short, he is a professional contrarian, i.e., someone who will always be willing to say the opposite of what the science community says.

I should make the distinction between Singer's "science" and Singer's science. Actual science comes about through the peer-review process. "Sciency sounding" opinions are not science, they are opinions. Much of what people call Singer's "science" is actually blog articles, op-eds, speculation, contrarian testimony, etc. However, Singer does have some actual science that has been published in peer-reviewed journals. There actually isn't that much of it, but just like other scientists if it has undergone real peer-review it can be called science (which like all individual papers, must pass the tests of scrutiny and time, of which peer-review is actually only the first step). As such, Singer's actual science is already part of the data on which the consensus is based, or for any newer stuff, will be based on as we move forward. His actual peer-reviewed work will join the thousands of other relevant peer-reviewed papers that are being published by other scientists, including those who are actually working in climate science.


So, to wrap this up, let's come back to credibility. The poster whose comment I've used above is suggesting that scientists are "digging up dirt" on skeptic scientists in an attempt to "demean the science." That is false. No one cares about "dirt" on anyone else (except perhaps the poster). The truth is that credibility matters.

Would you trust your brain surgery to a brain surgeon (i.e., someone who has been trained in brain surgery and has performed several brain surgeries) or to a podiatrist (i.e., someone who might know where the skull is but not the difference between a cerebellum and an antebellum)?

Certainly no one would trust a non-scientific free market lobbying organization over every major scientific organization in the world when it comes to climate science.

That's point one.

Point two is the shear farce of proposing that any one scientist, or any one paper, can invalidate the entire history of climate science. That just isn't how science works.

Science works incrementally. That means that every single peer-reviewed paper represents some scientific experiment or concept that someone has been able to document enough to pass the initial scrutiny of many other scientists expert in that same field. But that paper may only look at one tiny piece of the puzzle. Think of a 1000 piece puzzle. Each paper may look closely at one piece of the puzzle, or perhaps a small section of pieces (say, the tip of the top of the Empire State Building in a puzzle of the New York City skyline). In fact, there may be many papers that look closely at that same piece to get a complete picture of what that piece looks like (e.g., looking at the tip of the Empire State Building from the North, the South, the East, the West, close up, further away, from the base, from a plane flying overhead, etc.). Only when you put all the papers related to that tip of the Building together will scientists fully understand that the one piece of the puzzle is the tip of the Empire State Building.

Now do that same thing for each of the other 999 pieces in the puzzle.

Only after each piece has been thoroughly examined and pieced together can scientists finally feel confident that the puzzle is of the New York City skyline. Only when there is overwhelming evidence that the puzzle is a NYC skyline will the scientists feel confident to say there is a scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus is not like taking a poll. Personal opinions are irrelevant to science. You have to prove each piece along the way, and so does every other scientist. The science must stand the test of scrutiny. And this takes time. Sometimes a long time. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, took many years and many experiments and mathematical proofs before it became accepted by the scientific community.


So the denialists say, well, my guy is another Einstein and the world just hasn't caught up to his brilliance yet. False. The point is that the skeptics put themselves forth as more of "The Terminator" than as scientists. They exclaim that their paper (or more often than not, their blog article) completely invalidates all the other work. As noted above, the idea that one paper can invalidate all the other work is not scientifically defensible. For two reasons.

First, because no one study or paper is science. Einstein's first paper on relativity was merely a proposal of his theory. He then followed it up with many other papers and many other experiments and mathematical calculations. Other scientists also added their experiments, calculations, and theories. Only after there was sufficient supporting evidence to confirm the original was it considered valid. In fact, the theory was tweaked quite a bit along the way, as newer experiments helped fine tune and correct for inaccuracies. That is how science works. It is incremental, and it is collaborative. And it takes time.

Secondly, the skeptics papers cannot pass even the initial tests of scrutiny. Many cannot even get past the initial peer-review process and are merely posted on blogs, which other skeptics then cut-and-paste and pass along as the "be all and end all." Most are drivel, fraudulent, or merely unsupportable. That is why science has a peer-review process. Anyone can write a paper and claim whatever they want. And unfortunately some do. So the papers are screened to ensure that the methods are documented, the results are fully presented, and the conclusions reflect the reality of the data.

And peer-review is only the first step. Papers that pass peer-review and get published must then continue to withstand the scrutiny of a broader community of scientists. Any questions raised must be answered. Further study must confirm the initial findings.

Only the sum of the relevant and reliable data from peer-reviewed publications can lead to a conclusion of what the data tell us. Only after all the pieces of the puzzle have been examined can one reach a scientific consensus. You most certainly cannot hold up one piece of a puzzle that looks like a brick in the Empire State Building and claim that the Empire State Building has no windows.

That doesn't mean that all the pieces must fit exactly. If you put together a 1000 piece puzzle of the NYC skyline and find that 10 pieces are missing randomly from it, you can still tell that it is a puzzle of the NYC skyline. Even if a few of the pieces seem to be from the wrong puzzle, you can still tell it is a NYC skyline. Scientific consensus does not have be unanimous. Some scientists need more information to feel confident in the conclusion, others may disagree for some reason even when it is obvious to most other scientists. And as we've seen, some scientists are just contrarians (some legitimately, others because free market organizations pay hefty consulting fees).

But the bottom line is that it is the sum total of all of the peer-reviewed papers on a scientific topic that lead to the conclusions.

Unfortunately, the skeptics seem to be following the wishes of the free market lobbying groups, who simply don't like the possible policy options and therefore have retroactively concluded the science must be wrong. They start with a conclusion and then cherry pick the data (or simply lie about it) to support their predetermined conclusions.

Science starts with a question, which leads to other questions, which leads to some answers and lots more questions. Eventually, there are enough answers to lead to a scientific consensus. In the case of climate change, it was tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies by thousands of researchers from every scientific organization imaginable over more then three decades that eventually led to confidence enough in what was going on to reach a scientific consensus.

They certainly didn't copy it off some blog one day.

USEPA Offers "Strategic Plan" for Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals

This week the USEPA released a "Strategic Plan for Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals," which departs from "the traditional risk assessment approach that relies heavily on data generated through the intentional dosing of experimental animals." As most people know, animal welfare issues have led to a desire to find non-animal testing methods. At the same time there is pressure to provide data that adequately characterizes the hazards and risks of industrial and consumer chemicals.

According to EPA, while the traditional approach

"has provided EPA with sound science to support regulatory decision making over the past several decades, EPA must address ever-increasing demands, including consideration of complex issues such as cumulative exposures, life-stage vulnerabilities, and genetic susceptibilities, not to mention the increasing number of chemicals and cost of toxicity testing. A new approach is proposed to address these demands, an approach based on the application of advances in molecular biology and computational sciences to transform toxicity testing and risk assessment practices."

Based on a 2007 report by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies, "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: a Vision and a Strategy," an Agency workgroup coordinated to produce the new Strategic Plan that "focuses on identifying and evaluating "toxicity pathways," i.e., cellular response pathways responsible for adverse health effects when sufficiently perturbed by environmental agents under realistic exposure conditions."

While EPA expects that the new paradigm will "create more efficient and cost-effective means to screen and prioritize for further assessment the tens of thousands of chemicals that are already found in the environment," there is some question as to whether that expectation is realistic. For example, I see four major challenges.

1) Developing and validating the methodologies: Development of new methods generally takes many iterations to determine the conditions that provide the most information with reliability and repeatability. Thus, it will likely be quite a few years before the methods being developed can be used for decision-making. Can we wait that long?

2) Translating expressions of exposure at the gene, protein, molecular, and cellular levels to the target organ and organism level: Whereas a standard animal study provides easily interpretable and accepted measures of toxicity (e.g., death, loss of body weight, reduced reproduction), the new methods provide much more nuanced results whose toxicological significance may be very difficult to establish. These subtle responses may simply be adaptive rather than result in diminished capacity.

3) Communicating why this is better than the current QSAR-based screening methods: The new methods will serve only as screening tools for prioritizing chemicals for further review. Ultimately the final risk management decision-making may still be based on the established standard testing methods. EPA will need to explain why these new screening level methods are better than the current US approach to screening chemicals. This may be especially difficult given that a Canadian prioritization program reviewed the 23,000 chemicals on its existing chemicals inventory based largely on existing study data and QSAR analysis.

4) Funding: The 2007 NRC report “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century” suggested that transitioning into this new computational, informational, and molecular-based strategy would require $100M in funding every year for a period of 10-20 years. Given the current economic situation and competing issues such as climate change, TSCA reform, green chemistry, endocrine disruption, and others, it is hard to imagine that adequate funding can be made available for this endeavor.

Global Warming Denialists - The Art of Deception

Global warming denialists are carrying on an ideologically motivated campaign to discredit real climate science. And they are doing so by willfully and repeatedly misrepresenting the state of our knowledge. They have several methods that all scientists and every citizen should be on the look out for, and these methods should be exposed for what they are - purposeful deceit of the public.

Some of the more prevalent methods to deceive the public include:

"Global warming is just a theory, and the science is still unsettled"

Denialists are fond of manipulating the public by misrepresenting the meaning of scientific theory. They do this to suggest that the science of climate change is still unsettled. But the science of climate change is clear. The scientific consensus is clear.

"The IPCC is ignoring the science"

Except that it isn't. The IPCC, and the thousands of researchers on whose studies the IPCC relies for its compilation of the state-of-the-science, examine every legitimate study that has been conducted regarding climate science. Any new valid data are also incorporated into the discussion, which is why the IPCC, for example, revises its reports every few years - they are incorporating newer data. Claims of "they are ignoring solar forcing" and others, for example, are patently false, and the denialists know this but continue with their charade.

"Many scientists disagree with the IPCC"

Some legitimate scientists legitimately disagree with parts of the consensus. And as legitimate scientists they present their real scientific data to real scientific peer-review. As yet, the legitimate disagreement has been on specific data or on specific interpretation. But these disagreements have been unpersuasive to the vast community of scientists as far as changing the consensus. It comes down to the preponderance of evidence. And the preponderance of the evidence remains clear. Most of the time these legitimate scientists actually, in the end, provide support to the consensus by helping to fine-tune specific details.

"So and so scientist says that global warming is wrong"

To scientists this is one of the most despicable and deceitful ploys used by global warming denialists. They "quote" a certain scientist to suggest that the scientist agrees with their denialist position. Except they selectively quote to misrepresent the scientist's position. Several scientists have had to issue corrections - often repeatedly - to clarify their position or even to deny that their research says what the denialists say it means. One scientist has been fighting for years to stop denialists from continuing to misquote his research, which they continue to do intentionally to claim the exact opposite of what the scientist's research actually concludes. Another had to issue a statement - and even ensure it was posted on his Wiki biography - to refute the way denialists have mischaracterized his views. A major scientific organization had to issue a press release to warn that denialists had fraudulently mimicked its journal design with the explicit goal of suggesting the organization supported their view. It does not.

"Independent organization scientists refute global warming"

One of the favorite means for denialists to deceive the public is to create a "science sounding" organization and pass it off as independent. This despite the fact that all the funding comes from industry donors, ideological foundations, and "private citizens" (who oddly enough tend to be associated with industry donors and ideological foundations). The claim of independence is farcical, as these organizations are merely front groups for the industrial and ideological firms who fund them. Even the handful of scientists they employ are shared amongst the groups to create the illusion that there are more dissenters than are there in truth. More deceit.

"A conference to present the science refuting the global warmist agenda"

Another trick of the denialists is to sponsor a conference in which will be presented "the real science that global warmists ignore." As noted above, no real science is ignored, so this in itself is deceit. But the deceit goes even further as the conference is billed as a scientific conference when in fact it is nothing but an advocacy meeting designed to confuse the public and influence politicians. The recent conference sponsored by the conservative Heartland Institute is a perfect example of the deception employed by the global warming denialist industry. Besides the ideologically oriented HI, the conference was co-sponsored by 57 other organizations, every one of which were ideological, libertarian, anti-tax, pro-business and free-market organizations. No scientific organizations participated. The handful of "science sounding" organizations (about 6 of 57) were the deceitful front groups mentioned in the last point. No new scientific data were presented, and in fact the only science presented was the same old information that has been repeated for years. Any legitimate science would be presented at legitimate scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. As such, any legitimate science is already part of the consensus and any new legitimate data will be added to the analysis. The conference was a sham designed to deceive.

"Such and such a source says..."

One common ploy is circular citation. The denialist industry creates a "press release" masquerading as scientific opinion. It then ensures that it circulates to its network of bloggers - some paid, others merely ideological lackeys - for distribution. Call it the "cut-and-paste" method of creating the impression that there is more uncertainty than there is, more disagreement than there is, and more authority than there is. Citing a blog that stole from another blog that stole from another blog that got it from the industry denialist machine is a combination of lazy and deceitful. The intent is to create an implied volume of information when it is in fact nothing more than creative plagiarism. Given that any person with a computer can publish anything they want without any kind of check on its factual integrity, no blog can be used for anything more than ascertaining the blogger's opinion, which by definition is tuned to their inherent biases. That's why you get the same sort of "conspiracy theory" stories showing up on "conspiracy theory" blogs. In short, citing a blog as a source of scientific fact is meaningless, not to mention that it and shows a lack of scientific understanding and/or a willingness to deceive.

"The science definitively says that global warming is not happening"

False. Often this comes in the form of "we know that the temperatures are cooling" or "the sun is causing global warming." These are third-grade level misunderstandings (at best) or intentional misrepresentations (most likely) of the science. But by making the statement definitively the denialists know it sounds authoritative to the public. Just like former vice-president Dick Cheney stating definitively that Saddam Hussein had WMDs (he did not) and that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks (they were not). Being authoritative does not change a lie into the truth, but it does cynically take advantage of the natural tendency for people to assume forceful statements represent reality. This is deception and should be called deception.

"Global warmists are pushing a political agenda for the funding"

This is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. Climate scientists toiled for decades doing research, generally with very limited funding. Anyone who knows how much scientists get paid know they don't do it "for the money." In fact, for the denialist industry (funded lavishly by some of the biggest corporations on the planet) to disingenuously suggest that the science is political and their obvious political is science is, well, audacity at its most cynical.

"Al Gore's theories..."

One common ploy - called misdirection by public relations firms and professional magicians alike - is to suggest that Al Gore "invented" global warming, and thus it is a political rather than scientific consensus. Al Gore is a former politician and now businessman who also just happens to have a three decade interest in science issues. His "Inconvenient Truth" presentation is designed to communicate the long-time research of climate scientists. He didn't invent global warming, he is merely a messenger. The science itself has nothing to do with Al Gore, and the denialists know this. They merely use Gore in their sleight-of-hand attempts to misdirect attention away from the fact that there is a clear scientific consensus on global warming.

"Repetition"

Repetition ties all the previous deceit together into a continuous stream of "information" that by shear volume and tenacity is designed to create the illusion of authority. The same handful of "points" are repeated over and over again long after they have been discredited as false, illogical, or just plain silly. The same "experts" are trotted out even though it has been shown that their scientific credibility and integrity is equivocal (to be clear, some of these are legitimate scientists who legitimately disagree, but many are being used as shills by the denialist industry and others are mere charlatans selling snake oil for the industry money). The same "science is being ignored" line is repeated even after it has been shown that the science has already been incorporated into the consensus (even, in fact, after pointing to a specific set of pages in which this point is discussed). The repetition of falsehood is part of the ploy. And it is dishonest.

"Global warmists only demean the "skeptics" because they can't discredit the science"

This is a favorite tactic. As noted above, all real science is presented to the scientific community for peer-review and discussion. Most of the "science" of the skeptics has been shown time and time again to be spurious, incorrect, or irrelevant. Much of it is deliberately misleading, misrepresented, or outright fraudulent. Many scientists and others have spent considerable time evaluating the "cut-and-pasted from blog" science of denialists, and even after their contention is shown to be false and/or completely uninformed or illogical, they continue to repeat the same untruths.

As scientists, and as human beings, we must ask ourselves whether it is "unkind" to call a liar a liar. Should we ignore dishonesty by the denialists because to point out their dishonesty might hurt their feelings? But think about this. Would one not call a murderer a murderer because it would be "unkind" to the murderer? Is it not unkind to the victims to not stand up for their rights? Is it unkind to call Bernie Madoff a swindler, when he in fact is a swindler? What of the rights of his victims? Is it unkind to refute deception?

Should we not call a deceiver a deceiver?

The denialist industry has undertaken a campaign of deception that follows the same playbook as the "smoking isn't addictive and doesn't cause cancer" playbook of the past. Even some of the players are the same. So should a scientist, or a non-scientist who also lives on this planet, stand back and allow the denialists to deceive the public for their own ideological profit?

I think the answer is clear.