Communicating Climate Change in an Era of "Skeptics"

So man-made climate change is real. It's happening. And it's due largely to human activity. That is the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their most recent update on the state-of-the-science.

The IPCC concluded that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and it "is extremely likely [95-100% certainty] that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

You can't get any more clear than that.  It's warming, and we're the main cause. Oh, and we need to do something about it because there are severe ramifications to all mankind from the changes to our climate. It's unequivocal.

So why aren't we doing anything? Why aren't the two parties in the United States Congress competing to come up with the best plan for dealing with this unequivocal, extremely serious, issue? Why don't we see the British Parliament and the European Union debating policy options? Why is Australia, after beginning to institute one policy mechanism, suddenly trying to repeal the measure?

We've identified a problem, the science is clear, the consensus of the world's scientific experts is nearly unanimous. So why aren't we taking action? It's a question for the ages.

Actually, it's not all that complicated. Us humans are a funky species in that we have the capacity to make choices that change our circumstances. And yet we hate to change. We get comfortable, though "comfortable" often just means "being used to the way things are" even when "the way things are" isn't really how we would prefer them to be. Just think about the number of people who say they hate their jobs, yet hate the prospect of quitting and finding something new. We hate change.

Add in that there is an entire industry of climate "skeptics." These skeptics provide the cover us "afraid of change" humans need to avoid making the tough decision to change. I'll talk more about climate skeptics in the future, but suffice to say there are the professional "skeptics," those who get paid to provide the fodder, and amateur "skeptics," those who quite unskeptically swallow that fodder.

This leads to a dangerous dynamic in which some parts of society intentionally misrepresent the state-of-the-science (largely because they don't like the policy options) and other parts of society gobble up the misrepresentations (largely because they don't want to know the state-of-the-science...because it makes them feel uncomfortable).

So how do scientists and other interested parties effectively communicate the science so that we take the necessary action? It doesn't help that scientists are used to conversing with other scientists in language that can be incomprehensible to the general public. Publish in a scientific journal, debate in scientific meetings, and let someone else communicate the information to the people deciding how to address the science in the public policy arena. Well, we've seen how well that works, especially when there are people out there with wide influence who feel their source of profit might be threatened.

I'll get into how scientists and other can communicate the concepts of man-made climate change to the public in future posts. The first lesson is - scientists have to communicate to the public. Directly. And often.

Baby it's Cold Outside...Does that mean Global Warming is a Hoax?

A large part of the United States just experienced immensely cold weather, in some cases smashing records that have stood for decades. Cities as south as Atlanta hit single-digit temperatures, while northern cities like Chicago were closer to minus 20 degrees F. Driven by a phenomenon called the "polar vortex," the extreme weather led to nearly two dozen cold-related deaths. Despite the tragedies, certain politicians did their annual dance of claiming man-made climate change is a hoax. So all this cold means that man-made global warming isn't real, right?

Needless to say for anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of the difference between climate and weather, a few days of cold weather in winter doesn't disprove global warming any more than a few days of hot weather in summer proves it. Weather is weather, and nothing in global warming science says that winters will suddenly become balmy tropics every year. Climate change is all about the trend in global averages over time. And while the United States was experiencing record-breaking cold, Australia and New Zealand were experiencing record-breaking heat. Right now the planet is - on average - warmer than normal. That doesn't make the United States feel any warmer (especially with the wind chills), but it does help put extreme weather events into context.

In September 2013 the Intergovernmental Program for Climate Change, called the IPCC by friend and foe alike, released the latest update in its series on the state of our climate. The first volume addresses the Physical Science Basis of climate change. You can read the full 2,216-page report, or scan the 33-page Summary for Policymakers.

The IPCC concluded that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." They note that "atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased."

The IPCC also concludes that  "it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." ["Extremely likely" is defined by the IPCC to be 95-100% confidence]

So climate change is happening, and human activity is the main driver. Baby, it may be cold outside (after all, it is winter), but we are warming our planet. In fact, the dynamics of that warming may be why the polar air has vortexed it's way down to the United States instead of staying where it should be, up at the north pole.

As we move forward, we'll talk more about the challenges of communicating man-made global warming to the public in the face of the annual parade of politicians rushing to call climate change a "hoax" every time it snows. It's a huge challenge, but it's critical for the future of all of us in the global community that policymakers take responsibility for addressing a scientific issue that will only continue to become more acute the longer we choose not to take action.

The Dake Page Revival

Welcome!

The Dake Page is undergoing a revival in 2014. For a variety of reasons the page didn't receive very many updates in 2013 and focused primarily on reporting of news. As this year unfolds expect to see more emphasis on analysis of key scientific issues, reviews of relevant books, and discussions on how to improve the communication of science between scientists, policymakers, and the public.

That last point is critical. Too often scientists try to talk to the public as if they were talking to their fellow scientists at scientific meetings, only slower. Saying things like "Anthropogenic Climate Change, or AGW, has resulted in a 0.8°C increase in the global average surface temperature...zzzzzz..." really isn't very helpful to the general public looking out their window and seeing the New Year's day snowfall. Especially when there are people out there getting paid to confuse the public. Likewise, to have a policymaker, e.g., a U.S. Senator or Representative, suggest that utter falsehoods created by a British tabloid writer associated with a "think tank" are somehow "science" is doing a disservice to the public.

Two areas along the nexus of science and policy will get special attention because they represent critical scientific issues that need immediate response.

One is man-made climate change. We are warming our planet. This is certain. We know what needs to be done to address this problem. We'll take a look at what we know and how to get beyond the man-made roadblocks to dealing with this critical issue.

The other is modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). We currently have agreement from all parties, all stakeholders, and the public that the law that is supposed to ensure "protection of human health and the environment" needs to be updated. We have a proposed bill on the table. It isn't perfect. We'll discuss why it could pass anyway, and perhaps why it should.

There will be other topics as well, but these two will be the primary focus, along with their corollaries. Expect some unexpected connections as well.

So for those who have loyally followed The Dake Page for the last 7 years, thank you and welcome to the rejuvenation. For those just discovering the site, welcome. I hope we all can learn something about how how scientists and policy interact, and how both can better communicate with the public.

House Hearing - The Chemical Safety Improvement Act - November 13, 2013

As noted previously, the House Environment and the Economy subcommittee is holding a hearing Wednesday, November 13, 2013 in Room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing begins at 10:15 am and will be live-streamed for those who can't squeeze into the hearing room.

The hearing is focused on evaluation of the bipartisan TSCA reform bill introduced earlier this year in the Senate by the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and David Vitter (R-LA). Called the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), the Senate bill is likely to be the basis for any House bill offered in this Congress.

Background documents are available on the House committee website. Currently scheduled witnesses include Senators Vitter (R-LA) and Udall (D-NM), who are working together to bring the Senate bill to fruition. Udall stepped in for original sponsor Frank Lautenberg upon his death and as surrogate for Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Also, in a change from past hearings, Assistant Administrator Jim Jones will present EPA's thoughts on the bill.

In a far-reaching effort to get different viewpoints, other witnesses include some from industry and from NGOs: Cal Dooley of the American Chemistry Council, Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund, Ernie Rosenberg of the American Cleaning Institute, and Andy Igrejas of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, as well as Wendy Wagner of the University of Texas School of Law and Richard Goss of the Information Technology Industry Council. Other witnesses may also be called. Most notably missing is Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group, which is one of the NGOs who are not quite as on board with the bill as ACC and EDF.

The fact that the House has moved from initial forays into how TSCA works in general to evaluation of a specific bill suggests that the House is willing to actually pass legislation at least close to what the bipartisan CSIA offers. That's likely a good thing as there really isn't any other opportunity for a TSCA reform bill other than the CSIA getting through Congress, and all parties agree that TSCA is severely outdated and must be reformed. That said, there are only a handful of legislative days left before Congress takes yet another break, so it's just unreasonable to think that a bill will be passed before next year.

Of course, next year is a mid-term election year, which creates a new dynamic. Whether that dynamic increases or decreases the likelihood of passage will be the topic of a future post.

For updates and more information on the hearing go to the hearing website.

Witnesses: 

Panel I:
The Honorable David Vitter

• Member
• United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Udall

• Member
• United States Senate

- See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/s-1009-chemical-safety-improvement-act#sthash.Y9dL1SLa.dpuf

Witnesses: 

Panel I:
The Honorable David Vitter

• Member
• United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Udall

• Member
• United States Senate

Panel II:

The Honorable Jim Jones

• Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Washington, D.C.
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Panel III:

Calvin M. Dooley

• President and CEO
• American Chemistry Council
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Richard Denison, Ph.D.

• Senior Scientist
• Environmental Defense Fund
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Ernie Rosenberg

• President and CEO
• American Cleaning Institute
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Andy Igrejas

• National Campaign Director
• Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Wendy Wagner

• Joe A. Worsham Centennial Professor
• The University of Texas School of Law
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Richard E. Goss

• Vice President, Environment and Sustainability
• Information Technology Industry Council
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

- See more at: http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/s-1009-chemical-safety-improvement-act#sthash.Y9dL1SLa.dpuf

Witnesses: 

Panel I:

House to Consider Senate TSCA Reform Bill

The House Environment and the Economy subcommittee chaired by Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) is expected to begin specific evaluation of the bipartisan TSCA reform bill introduced earlier this year in the Senate by the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and David Vitter (R-LA). I'll link to the committee hearing page when it is listed, but right now it appears to be set for Wednesday, November 13, 2013.

The Senate bill, called the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), was a surprise introduction, coming only a month after Senator Lautenberg had introduced the latest version of his own TSCA reform bill. Lautenberg had been a staunch advocate for chemical safety, working tirelessly since 2005 to reform the 37 year old law. He died shortly after the CSIA was introduced, leading some to suggest that his was pushed into agreeing to a bipartisan bill that is clearly much more industry friendly than his own bill.

At least two dozen Senators - split roughly equally between Democrats and Republicans - have signed on as co-sponsors to the CSIA. Several hearings in the Senate and House occurred earlier in the summer but no action has been taken recently given distractions such as summer holidays and the arbitrary government shutdown.

The fact that the House will take up review of the bill suggests that there has been behind-the-scenes effort to move the bill along. Industry loves the bill because it avoids any significant across-the-board data requirements (such as those required in Europe's REACH program). Environmental and health advocates are split on the bill for that same reason and others, but most acknowledge that this bill does make improvements over the Toxic Substances Control Act it is designed to replace.

As the process moves forward I'll have more on the bill, its pluses and minuses, and its likelihood of passage. Right now it's the only game in town. The question remains - is it the right game?

One news report on the upcoming hearing is at The Hill. The hearing will be announced on the committee website.

New IPCC Report Shows Certainty that Human Activity is Causing Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued its long-awaited update on the state of the climate, and the certainty that human activity is causing it has grown. This is the first of a series of reports and documents the efforts over the last seven years of Working Group I (WGI). With 209 Lead Authors, 50 Review Editors, 600 Contributing Authors and hundreds more reviewers, this volume of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) "provides a comprehensive assessment of the physical science basis of climate change."

Among the key findings are that it is unequivocal, i.e., absolute certainty, that the the planet is warming. WGI also has increased the confidence that human activity is the major cause. In 2007 the IPCC conservatively stated that there was a greater than 90% certainty of human causes - that has now been raised to 95%-100% certainty. In other words, the planet is warming and we are the main reason why.

The IPCC also states with high confidence that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, that glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and that Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.

There is also high confidence that sea level has been rising faster than anytime in the last two thousand years.

The IPCC AR5 report of the physical science basis can be downloaded in full at the IPCC website. A Summary for Policymakers is also available.

This is the first of four reports to be issued. The Working Group II report on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability will be issued in March 2014. The Working Group III report on mitigation of climate change will be come out in April 2014. Finally, the Synthesis Report, which summarizes all three technical reports, will be issued in October 2014.

House Holds TSCA Reform Hearing September 18, 2013

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding a hearing on TSCA Reform Wednesday, September 18, 2013. Starting at 2 pm EDT, the hearing will be held live in the 2123 Rayburn House Building hearing room. A live webcast can be viewed when the hearing begins.

The title of the hearing is: “Regulation of Existing Chemicals and the Role of Pre-Emption under Sections 6 and 18 of the Toxic Substances Control Act."

This continues a series of "fact-finding" hearings sponsored by the House. A TSCA reform bill called the Safe Chemicals Improvement Act will introduced by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator David Vitter. The bipartisan bill has substantial support on both sides of the aisle in the Senate, though EPW Chair Barbara Boxer is not one of them. One of the concerns raised by both parties are the preemption provisions. Boxer and the state of California (and other states) are concerned the current Senate bill's provisions will block any state action on toxic chemicals even if EPA does not take sufficient action to protect human health and the public. Hence the House focus on that issue in today's hearing.

The list of witnesses is below, along with links to their written testimony. The hearing is expected to be livecast on the committee's web page.

Panel One:

Mark A. Greenwood

Principal

• Greenwood Environmental Counsel PLLC
• Washington, D.C.
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Justin Johnson, Deputy Secretary

• Vermont Agency for Natural Resources
• Waterbury, VT 
• On behalf of the Environmental Council of the States
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

William K. Rawson

• Partner and Chair, Chemical Regulation, 
• Product Strategy & Defense Practice
• Latham & Watkins, LLP
• Washington, D.C.
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Jennifer Thomas

• Director, Federal Government Affairs
• Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
• Washington, DC
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Lemuel M. Srolovic 

• Chief, Environmental Protection Bureau 
• NYS Office of the Attorney General
• New York, New York
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Linda Reinstein

• President/CEO and Co-Founder
• Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
• Redondo Beach, California
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Senate Committee Hearing on TSCA Reform Wednesday July 31 2013

The Senate Environment and Public Work Committee, led by Senator Barbara Boxer, is holding a hearing on TSCA Reform Wednesday, July 31, 2013. Starting at 9:30 am EDT, the hearing will be held live in the 406 Dirksen Senate Building hearing room. A live webcast can be viewed when the hearing begins. The purpose of the hearing: “Strengthening Public Health Protections by Addressing Toxic Chemical Threats.” Mainly it is a mechanism for EPW Chair Boxer to address her concerns related to the bipartisan Safe Chemicals Improvement Act bill introduced by the late Senator Frank Lautenberg and Senator David Vitter. The bipartisan bill came as a surprise only a month after Lautenberg had reintroduced his Safe Chemicals Act bill. Boxer called the hearing in an effort to ensure that industry had not unduly influenced the ailing Lautenberg and gotten a death-bed commitment for an industry-friendly bill that is dramatically different than Lautenberg's own bill. Other concerns to be addressed with be the preemption provisions, which the state of California (and other states) are concerned will block any state action on toxic chemicals even if EPA does not take sufficient action to protect human health and the public. A long list of witnesses have been identified: Panel 1 Mr. Michael A. Troncoso Senior Counsel Office of the Attorney General, California Mr. H. Michael Dorsey Chief, Homeland Security and Emergency Response West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection Mr. Ken Zarker Manager, Pollution Prevention & Regulatory Assistance Section Washington State Department of Ecology Panel 2 Mr. Daniel Rosenberg Senior Attorney Natural Resource Defense Council Mr. Thomas McGarity Professor of Law University of Texas at Austin Ms. Linda Fisher Vice President of Safety, Health and Environment and Chief Sustainability Officer DuPont Mr. Stephen A. Owens of Counsel, Squire Sanders, LLP Ms. Linda Reinstein Executive Director and Cofounder Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization Ms. Robin Greenwald of Counsel Weitz & Luzxenberg Mr. Mark N. Duvall Principal Beveridge & Diamond, PC Mr. Ken Cook President and Co-founder Environmental Working Group Panel 3 Ms. Nancy Buermeyer Senior Policy Strategist Breast Cancer Fund Ms. Susan Vickers, RSM Vice President of Community Health Dignity Health Ms. Mauren F. Gorsen, Esq. Partner Alston + Bird, LLP Dr. Jonathan Borak, MD, DABT Clinical Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health Clinical Professor of Medicine Yale School of Medicine Mr. Cecil Corbin-Mark Deputy Director/Director of Policy Initiatives We Act for Environmental Justice Ms. Dorothy Felix President Mossville Environmental Action Now Mr. Andrew R. Hackman Vice President of Government Affairs Toy Industry Association, Inc. Ms. Ansje Miller Eastern States Director Center for Environmental Health For more information and the link to the live feed, go to the EPW hearing page.			3

House Subcommittee Hearing on Toxic Substances Control Act

On June 13, 2013 the House Energy & Commerce Committee's Subscommittee on Environment and the Economy will hold a hearing titled "Title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act: Understanding its History and Reviewing its Impact." This hearing begins the process in the House as the Senate begins debate on the bipartisan Lautenberg-Vitter Safer Chemical Improvement Act bill introduced in the Senate.

Witnesses invited to speak are:

Kathleen M. Roberts
B&C Consortia Management LLC (a legal and consulting firm)

Charles M. Auer
Charles M. Auer & Associates LLC (consulting firm; former head of EPA's chemicals group)

Alfredo Gomez
Government Accountability Office (researches and produces analysis of government programs)

Beth Bosley
Boron Specialties LLC (industry)

Jeanne Rizzo
Breast Cancer Fund (health advocacy)

Daniel Rosenberg
Natural Resources Defense Council (environmental NGO)

The hearing will take place on June 13th at 10:15 am room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building. More details and the invitation-only witnesses will be posted on the Energy and Commerce subcommittee's webpage.

A background memo is available.

House Committee Will Hold Hearing on TSCA Reform

Following up on the surprise introduction of a bipartisan TSCA reform bill in the Senate, the House Energy & Commerce Committee's environment and economy subcommittee has scheduled a hearing to discuss "Title I of the Toxic Substances Control Act: Understanding its History and Reviewing its Impact." It's unclear how whether this hearing is a counter to the Lautenberg-Vitter Safer Chemical Improvement Act bill introduced in the Senate, or the beginning of support for the measure.

The Senate is controlled by Democrats, the House by Republicans. Given that the bill was developed by Senator Vitter and the chemical industry and includes significant compromise on the part of the Democrats and environmental groups as opposed to Lautenberg's previous Safe Chemical Act bills, it's likely the House action is to pave the way for some sort of TSCA reform bill to be put into law. The bill was introduced with a dozen bipartisan cosponsors as Senator Lautenberg was living what turned out to be his final days; he died on June 3rd less than two weeks after the bill was introduced.

The hearing will take place on June 13th at 10:15 am room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building. More details and the invitation-only witnesses will be posted on the subcommittee's web page.

Senator Frank Lautenberg has died

Long-time advocate of safer chemicals, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), has died at the age of 89.

Read more here.

And here.

Lautenberg has repeatedly pushed for modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). He recently co-sponsored a bill with Senator David Vitter (R-LA) only weeks after reintroducing his own bill.

The cause of death was viral pneumonia. The Senator had been ill for the last few months. He survived a bout with cancer several years ago.

The surprise introduction of the Safer Chemicals Improvement Act (SCIA) was seen by some as a sign that Senator Lautenberg's health had deteriorated and that his colleagues wanted to honor him with a chemicals bill that could pass the Senate.

Republican Governor Chris Christie will appoint someone to fill Lautenberg's seat.

Senators Lautenberg and Vitter Announce Bipartisan Chemical Safety Improvement Act

In a surprise move, Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ), long a champion of safer chemicals, and Republican Senator David Vitter (LA) jointly announced introduction of the Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013. 

The bipartisan cosponsors include: co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Charles Schumer (D-NY), James Inhofe (R-OK), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and John Hoeven (R-ND).

 More details on Senator Lautenberg's website.

Reaction from the American Chemistry Council.

From the American Cleaning Institute.


From the Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA). CSPA also provides a table comparing the new Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013 with TSCA.

From Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (a coalition of health and environmental advocates).

According to the announcement, "the Lautenberg-Vitter “Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013” would:

• Require Safety Evaluations for All Chemicals: All active chemicals in commerce must be evaluated for safety and labeled as either “high” or “low” priority chemical based on potential risk to human health and the environment.  For high priority chemicals, EPA must conduct further safety evaluations. 
• Protect Public Health from Unsafe Chemicals: If a chemical is found to be unsafe, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the necessary authority to take action.  This can range from labeling requirements to the full phase-out or ban of a chemical.  
•  Prioritize Chemicals for Review: The Environmental Protection Agency will have to transparently assess risk, determine safety, and apply any needed measures to manage risks.
• Screen New Chemicals for Safety: New chemicals entering the market must be screened for safety and the EPA is given the authority to prohibit unsafe chemicals from entering the market. 
• Secure Necessary Health and Safety Information: The legislation allows EPA to secure necessary health and safety information from chemical manufacturers, while directing EPA to rely first on existing information to avoid duplicative testing. 
• Promote Innovation and Safer Chemistry: This legislation provides clear paths to getting new chemistry on the market and protects trade secrets and intellectual property from disclosure. 
• Protect Children and Pregnant Women: The legislation requires EPA to evaluate the risks posed to particularly vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women, when evaluating the safety of a chemical—a provision not included in existing law.
• Give States and Municipalities a Say:  States and local governments will have the opportunity to provide input on prioritization, safety assessment and the safety determination processes, requiring timely response from EPA, and the bill establishes a waiver process to allow state regulations or laws to remain in effect when circumstances warrant it.  

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.

GAO Issues Report on EPA's Effort to Enhance TSCA Chemical Regulation

At the request of some members of Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted another study on how EPA "has increased efforts to assess and control chemicals." GAO concludes that progress has been made but EPA could "strengthen its approach."

From the highlights:

GAO was asked to evaluate EPA’s efforts to strengthen its management of chemicals. This report determines the extent to which (1) EPA has made progress implementing its new approach and (2) EPA’s new approach positions it to achieve its goal of ensuring the safety of chemicals. GAO examined agency documents and TSCA rulemaking and interviewed agency officials and stakeholders from industry and environmental organizations.

The starting point was the 2009 announcement by EPA of TSCA reform principles. Because TSCA reform bills, most notably those introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg, have not resulted in any update to the 1976 law, EPA has been working hard to maximize its current authority under TSCA. The GAO assessed its progress. The results are mixed, at best.

The results of EPA’s data collection activities, in most cases, have yet to be realized, and it may take several years before EPA obtains much of the data it is seeking.

In fact, the GAO summarizes:

Of the 83 chemicals EPA has prioritized for risk assessment, it initiated 7 assessments in 2012 and plans to start 18 additional assessments in 2013 and 2014. However, it may take several years to complete these initial risk assessments and, at the agency’s current pace, over a decade to complete all 83, especially as EPA does not have the toxicity and exposure data needed for 58 of the 83 chemicals prioritized for risk assessment.

While GAO recommends that EPA "develop strategies that address challenges impeding its ability to ensure chemical safety," the impeding challenges are well known - Congress simply won't take the steps necessary to modernize the nearly four-decade-old chemical law.

In a letter responding to the draft GAO report, Acting Assistant Administrator James Jones noted that GAO has several times before called for Congress to update the antiquated TSCA law:

It is EPA's position that, absent such statutory changes, the Agency will not be able to successfully meet the goal of ensuring chemical safety now and into the future.

With no realistic update to the law in sight, and constant attacks on EPA's budget, any blame for lack of chemical safety should be placed where it belongs - on Congress.

The full GAO report can be downloaded here.