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

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

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

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

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Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) at least tried to keep the main focus on fixing the inherent problems with the severely outdated and often ineffective existing chemical law.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book Review – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

I periodically review books that address the issue of communicating science to the public. As suggested by its title – Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future - this book acknowledges the limits of the public’s understanding of science and how science works. But I felt the book was most powerful because it focuses on the role of scientists in disseminating scientific information.

The first two chapters give a very nice background on the role science has played, from its high funding and close relationships with policy-makers soon after World War II, to its period of low funding and disconnect from policy-makers, to the more recent “war on science” (the topic of Mooney’s previous book).

Much of the main part of the book looks at the intersection of science and other institutions. Individual chapters look at science as it relates to politics, to religion, to its portrayal in Hollywood, and to journalism, all within the subcontext of C.P. Snow’s “two cultures” theme. In short, different ways of thinking, and different needs, affect the interaction of the two institutions in the dyad. For example, whereas the needs of the media are episodic, science is more incremental. So every incremental finding coming from scientific studies can be picked up by the media and presented as if it is a revelation. Except it might suggest the opposite of yesterday’s revelation. No matter that the two studies merely looked at different parts of the picture and support the full knowledge base, the media assume each piece stands on its own. This can be, and usually is, highly confusing to the public. Similar conflicts in the messaging occur between science and religion, scientist depiction in film (usually as a stereotypical caricature), and politics.

One chapter discusses the role of blogs. As newspapers and broadcast media have been eliminating science coverage, at least 1000 science blogs have sprung up. While blogs can help disseminate information broadly, the authors say “[t]he problem with the internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it; There’s tons of information available, but much of it is crap.” Misinformation thrives, and those who want to manipulate the debate can publish whatever they want, and unfortunately, usually do. Much of it is biased, inaccurate, or outright fabrication. Which is why blogs may be useful for rapidly getting the word out, they cannot be relied upon for an accurate assessment of the science itself. The exception, perhaps, are blogs written by the scientists themselves.

The authors refer repeatedly in the book to Carl Sagan, an astronomer who was also a stellar communicator, but whose popularity was often seen by other scientists as an indignity (i.e., to traditional scientists who preferred to do their science and leave the communication to others). But in the end the authors of Unscientific America, one a journalist and the other a scientist, assert that disseminating the science to the lay public, to the media, and to policy-makers is an “integral part of the job description of scientists themselves.” Essentially, they say that it should be part of every scientist’s responsibility to communicate the science accurately, and to make sure that the science is not misrepresented by those who would misuse it.

The book is eminently readable and surprisingly insightful. The book is definitely worth the read.

Climate Change Evidence and Causes: A New Communication Tool from Two of the World's Foremost Scientific Organizations

A new report was issued on February 26, 2014 by two of the world's foremost scientific organizations: The US National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society in the UK. Climate Change: Evidence and Causes documents the science behind man-made climate change, and does so in a manner that is more accessible to the lay public. From the web page:

Written by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists and reviewed by climate scientists and others, the publication is intended as a brief, readable reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative information on the some of the questions that continue to be asked.

The report goes a long way toward communicating the science. It presents the technical issues in a concise, clear, "Question & Answer" format. Each question is answered with a highlighted conclusion followed by a longer explanation, which usually includes one or more relatively simple graphics that make the data more easy to understand. Overall, the report is a good example of how to communicate science.

What I like about the report is that it clearly states the questions that most policymakers and educators want to know. The first question: Is the climate warming? The second: How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities? These two fundamental questions are answered clearly. Yes, the climate is warming, and the reason we know that human activity is the major cause is summarized.

It's common for the public to be confused on a variety of climate change related issues, in part because of the complexity of the science but also because of the organized disinformation campaigns of lobbyists. The National Academy and Royal Society present the answers to these questions. What role does the sun play? Is the current level of CO2 unprecedented? Does the rate of warming vary from decade to decade (and why)? How confident are scientists that the Earth will warm further over the coming century?


Every major question is addressed in a way that can be understood by scientists and non-scientists alike. And the answers are clear - the planet is warming and human activity is the primary cause.

To help get the word out, a  live webcast and discussion of the report release is scheduled for Thursday, February 27, 2014 from 10:00-11:30 am EST. More information can be found on the release web page.


While this report, along with the recent and forthcoming more extensive reports from the IPCC and other scientific bodies, won't stop the lobbyists from misrepresenting the science, it does do a good job getting the science across to a wider audience. It is likely still too technical, however, for much of the general public. Therefore, it is imperative that other organizations, video producers, science writers, teachers, and other communicators take this information and make it even more accessible. Communication doesn't stop with issuing a report. It starts.

Is the recent cold weather due to climate change? Richard Alley and how to communicate the science (video)

Recently, much of the United States was hit with excessively cold weather. Immediately the chorus of "skeptics" fluttered onto to every media outlet to decry that global warming couldn't possibly be real because, after all, it's cold outside. In winter. While the rest of the planet is actually warmer than normal. So how do scientists communicate to the public that human activity is warming the planet when there is so much noise?

One way is to repeat that the IPCC has increased its confidence that we are warming the planet. It is unequivocal. Then point them to the IPCC reports. Of course, at over 2200 pages, there is a good chance that the public isn't going to read the report, or even the 33-page summary. Even if they tried, the reports are just too technical for the general public.

So how do we communicate the science to the public in an era of "skeptics?"

One way is by video. There are many short, informative videos that get across the basic science. I'll provide some examples of those in future posts. For this post take a look at the following video of Dr. Richard Alley being interviewed on CNN by Christiane Amanpour.



Dr. Alley is a quintessential scientist in many respects. His wild hair, beard, and nerdy glasses epitomize what many people think scientists should look like (minus the white lab coat). Alley is renowned for the high level of his scientific research and exhibits the excitement and animation of a man who loves his work. He also tends to talk in terms the public can understand. He's a scientist for the public, in a crazy sort of way.

On the flip side, at nearly 8 minutes long, the video is on the outer edges of the time most people are willing to listen to an interview. Especially an interview of a guy sitting in a chair. That said, Alley is able to make several succinct points:

- the cold weather we've been getting is mostly just weather

- climate change is happening now

- while some people (colder areas) might enjoy a warmer planet, other people (warmer areas) are already at the limits of their ability to live in their climates (so...warming will make their locations unlivable)

- like saving for retirement, if we start now to reduced carbon emissions the process is much easier and cheaper than waiting until the last minute (age 65 or catastrophic climate change)

Overall, Dr. Alley's video provides some useful tips to other scientists who are seeking to communicate science to the public. And that is what they should be doing.

Communicating Science - A TEDx Talk by Sheril Kirshenbaum

I ran across the following video recently and felt that it does a very good job of identifying some of the problems scientists experience communicating their science to the public. Even better, it provides some simple ideas on how to communicate better.

Sheril Kirshembaum is co-author with Chris Mooney of the book Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. She is also the author, appropriately enough with Valentine's Day upon us, The Science of Kissing. As the Director of The Energy Poll at The University of Texas at Austin, Kirshenbaum focuses on how "to enhance public understanding of energy issues and improve communication between scientists, policymakers, and the public."

Here's the video:



As scientists we are used to talking to other scientists. Traditionally we've left the communicating-to-the-public part up to other people. We've even frowned on the idea of being "popular scientists" (think, Carl Sagan). But with the ability of any blogger or lobbyist to saturate the internet with misinformation, the need for scientists to communicate science has become a necessity. Kirshenbaum and others (think, Michael Mann) are helping to make that happen.

And so will we. More to come.

"Epic Fail" in Communications - Dealing with Chemicals in an Emergency

Chemicals are all around us. Mostly they make our lives easier. Without them our lives would be, in many minds, primitive. But sometimes chemicals suddenly become a bad thing. Like the West Virginia spill that dumped a chemical known as MCHM into Elk River and contaminated water supplies for weeks. The spill reemphasized the importance of having good emergency response plans and communication. It also reemphasized that such plans and communication are woefully lacking.

Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), has written extensively on the "epic fail" in West Virginia and on chemical communication issues in general. I'll let you read his series of blogs on the subject.

One point Denison brings out is the inadequacy of Material Safety Data Sheets, commonly called MSDSs. He delves into the difficulties caused to first responders by lack of up-to-date information...even to the point of not knowing there was more than one chemical involved in the spill. This is not a new problem. In fact, it is tragically common.

MSDSs list basic information about the chemical, such as name, identifying information, basic physical-chemical properties, toxicity, and environmental toxicity. They also list basic first aid steps, how to fight any fires that involve the chemicals, storage, and disposal. Or at least this is what they do in theory. In reality, many MSDSs hold the name of the chemical as confidential business information. The basic properties are often missing. And toxicity and environmental toxicity data are usually limited to, well, no data. What toxicity that do appear are often outdated, some based on tests that were conducted decades ago. Just as often the actual study reports for any data cited cannot be located in the files. Or maybe can be located after a delay. If pressed.

There has been some improvement. In some cases. In 1998 a voluntary program called the High Production Volume Challenge resulted in the compilation of a large amount of health and safety data for the 2000 or so highest volume chemicals. Mostly these data were sent to EPA, made available on a website, then ignored. [EPA did try to do screening risk assessments, but this process seemed to change every few years.] Being voluntary, no requirement to update MSDSs was included, and mostly they weren't. Then in 2007 the REACH program in Europe required extensive data for every chemical in commerce. REACH did require that MSDSs (called SDSs in Europe) to be updated with actual test information.

However, as the West Virginia situation shows, most MSDSs remain a jumble of missing information and boilerplate warnings designed to limit the manufacturer's liability in the event of a problem. They are more insurance requirements than they are assurance of safety and proper handling. Saying "may cause skin irritation" but not having any actual data that demonstrates skin irritation isn't particularly meaningful. Are the data available to make this judgment, or is the catchphrase just there in case someone gets irritated? Either way, the MSDS is not doing what it is supposed to be doing - give reliable information that informs the user.

As Congress moves closer to reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), will they make MSDSs useful? Or simply continue the illusion?

[Note that the House held a hearing on February 4th in which they essentially said that a TSCA reform bill (likely a tweaked version of the CSIA) will be decided this year.]

January 9, 2014, spill of multiple chemicals into West Virginia’s Elk River, it’s b - See more at: http://blogs.edf.org/health/2014/01/26/epic-fail-in-west-virginia-chemical-spill-poor-information-poor-communications-poor-decisions/#more-2985

January 9, 2014, spill of multiple chemicals into West Virginia’s Elk River, it’s b - See more at: http://blogs.edf.org/health/2014/01/26/epic-fail-in-west-virginia-chemical-spill-poor-information-poor-communications-poor-decisions/#more-2985

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]

Reforming TSCA - Protecting the Public from Chemicals and Uncertainty

TSCA reform. You've probably heard about it. After all, we've been talking about it for nearly 40 years. And yet nothing has changed. With Senator David Vitter (R-LA) announcing that he will run for Governor of Louisiana in 2015, the current attempt to reform TSCA may or may not actually happen.

For those new to the idea, TSCA is the Toxic Substances Control Act. It was passed in 1976 to fill in a massive gap in our nation's regulatory framework. TSCA requires that new chemicals undergo a review prior to being manufactured for the market. However, very little data are required to be submitted, and no health and safety data are required. Therefore, that "review" must be done by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) using a series of models to predict the potential for toxicity, environmental fate, degradation, and virtually all the other key properties. EPA then models potential exposure to workers, the general public, fish, and animals and plants. If EPA thinks there may be a problem (based on all of this modeling and very little data), they can ask for additional data or deny the application.

Oh, and the EPA must do all this within 90 days or the new chemical can be manufactured by default.


Given the large number of new chemicals offered every year (between 1000 and 2000), the lack of substantive data in many cases, and the short time EPA has to make a decision, it isn't surprising that the vast majority of new chemicals are allowed to be manufactured.

For the roughly 63,000 existing chemicals already on the market when TSCA was passed, the law simply grandfathered those chemicals onto a TSCA Inventory. The assumption was that these chemicals must be safe because they were already being used. With the exception of a several chemicals that were later shown to have very high hazard, very little has been done to evaluate the risk from these existing chemicals.

Most chemicals are safe. That should be made clear. We use chemicals dozens of times in every day life. They are in our shampoo, our soaps, our kitchen cleaning solutions, the keyboards we type on, and the monitors we stare at all day long. Without chemicals, life as we know it would be something none of us has ever known. And most of those chemicals can be used safely, assuming we use them as they are designed.

On the other hand, maybe some can't. Enough cases have arisen of chemicals suddenly being discovered to be hazardous under normal use conditions to confirm that sometimes chemicals are not safe.

So how do we know?

In future posts I'll take a look at the two core issues - ensuring safety and communicating that safety to the public. I'll also take a look at the current bill in Congress that attempts to reform TSCA. The Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA) is a bipartisan measure that presents the best opportunity for improving the control of chemicals in the United States. It's not a perfect bill - far from it. But it is passable and does make some needed changes. Can Congress drop the partisan games long enough to pass on something they largely agree on? Will Senator Vitter's gubernatorial bid help or hurt the cause? Can it be done before the 2014 mid-term congressional elections, the result of which will almost certainly doom industry to an onslaught of advocacy group attacks and a hodgepodge of state-based regulation?

What do you think?

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.