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.

ECHA Provides Tools to Help Chemical Companies Prepare Authorization Applications for REACH

Now that the first deadline for REACH registration has passed, and responsible parties at registering companies have had a chance to take a vacation and catch up on other work, it's time for some companies to turn their attention to the "A" in REACH - Authorization.  And the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has now provided some tools to help companies do just that.

Authorization, of course, is the part of REACH where ECHA has determined that a particular "substance of very high concern" presents too great a risk and therefore intends to remove it from commerce.  Manufacturers of those chemicals put onto Annex XIV of REACH, the authorization list, must apply to receive authorization to continue using the chemical.  If no authorization is granted the chemical will be banned from commerce in the EU at the end of the specified sunset perios, which for the handful of chemicals added so far is 2014 or 2015.  If authorized, the chemical would be limited to uses that are critical and can be controlled, and where there are no available substitutes, and for only a limited period of time allotted to find or develop a substitute.

The new tools include "templates to document an analysis of alternatives, a socio-economic analysis and a substitution plan."   There is also a "Fee Calculator" to estimate how much it will cost to submit their application (but not how much to prepare the application). There are also a new Data Submission Manual that "explains in detail how to prepare an Application for Authorisation using IUCLID 5.3, and how to use the web forms for dossier submission."

More information is available on the ECHA web site.

Guidance on how to prepare the authorization application can be downloaded as a PDF here.

Guidance on how to prepare the socio-economic analysis can be downloaded as a PDF here.

Chemical Review Committee Recommends Six Additions to Rotterdam Convention PIC List of Hazardous Substances

Six new chemicals were recommended to be added to the Rotterdam Convention list of hazardous substances subject to prior informed consent (PIC) proceedings before shipment.  These recommendations were made by the Chemical Review Committee during meetings held in Rome on March 28-April 1.  The PIC procedure provides all Parties with an opportunity to make informed decisions as to whether they will consent to future imports of the chemicals listed in Annex III of the Convention.

The six chemicals recommended for listing include three pesticides (endosulfan, azinphos methyl, and Gramoxone Super) and three industrial chemicals (perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), its salts, and precursors; pentabromodiphenyl ether (penta-BDE) commercial mixtures; and octabromodiphenyl ether (octa-BDE) commercial mixtures).  If approved by the conference of parties, the chemicals would be added to the Annex III list of controlled substances.  The next conference of the parties to the Rotterdam Convention will be held in Geneva, Switzerland on June 20-24, 2011.

More information about the Rotterdam Convention can be found here. 

As with other international agreements, the United States signed on to the agreement but has never ratified it.  Thus the US is relegated to offering opinions as an observer but has no voting rights.  Ironically, Jim Willis, the Chemical Control Division Director at EPA, is about to move to Geneva to take over as Executive Secretary for the Rotterdam, Stockholm and Basel Conventions.  

The article here talks about how the Rotterdam Convention and Prior Informed Consent fits into recent discussions on TSCA chemical reform in the US.

Democratic Congressman Waxman Requests PBT Data from Chemical Companies

Democratic Representative Henry A. Waxman (CA), who is Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is asking chemical manufacturers to provide information on "the production of chemicals that are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT’s)."  Waxman, along with Illionios Congressman Bobby Rush, introduced the House's version of the TSCA reform legislation in 2010.  Since those bills died at the end of the last Congress with no action, and little prospect of the Republican-led House introducing bill this year, Waxman seems intent on keeping the pressure on the chemical industry to reveal data.  According to the press release on the minority site for the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Waxman states:

“These chemicals are of particular concern.  We need better information from manufacturers to understand what is already being done to protect the American people, and what more may need to be done through modernization of the Toxic Substances Control Act.”

PBTs are "highly resistant to degradation in the environment," "build up in the food chain and in the human body," and "cause adverse health effects in exposed individuals."  These persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic properties have been used by the EPA and other jurisdictions (including Canada and the EU) to prioritize chemicals of greatest concern for closer evaluation.

Waxman sent letters to the CEOs of 15 major chemical manufacturers, including 3M, DuPont, BASF, Huntsman, Chevron, PPG, and others requesting information on what they are doing to determine if a chemical they plan to start producing is a PBT, and if so, whether they would continue to develop the chemical for production.  He also asked what companies are doing to determine if existing chemicals they already produce are PBT, and if so, whether they plan to continue production.  In both cases, if the decision is to continue to place the PBT chemical on the market, what steps are they taking to adequately address "the risks posed by the chemical."

Rep. Waxman indicated that he "would appreciate a response to these questions no later than April 22, 2011."

UK Intends to Stop Animal Testing on Household Products - Animal Rights Groups Rejoice

Recently the UK government signaled that it would end animal testing for household products.  And at least one animal welfare group has expressed its pleasure.  The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, more popularly known as BUAV, said that they welcomed "a statement made by Home Office Minister, Lynne Featherstone that the Government intends to ban the animal testing of both finished household products and their ingredients." 

BUAV notes that the "statement comes in response to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Adrian Sanders MP on March 28th 2011" and that the ban will include “all products that are primarily intended for use in the home, including detergents and other laundry products, household cleaners, air-fresheners, toilet blocks, polishes, paper products such as infant nappies [i.e., diapers], paints, glues (and removers), other furnishing and DIY products and household pesticides.”

Governments and animal welfare groups around the globe are working on ways to reduce or eliminate animal testing of chemicals.  I have discussed before how organizations are working to develop alternative testing methods.   Current protocols for testing chemicals and products involve doing in vivo, that is, in life, tests using various animals - mostly mice, rats and rabbits - as surrogates to assess toxicity.  So while some NGOs argue that more testing is necessary to characterize the hazards of chemicals, animal welfare groups argue that such animal testing is both cruel and unnecessary.

For more about BUAV you can check out their web sites: BUAV and Go Cruelty Free.

Maine Takes a Look at its Chemical Control Law - Is the Kid-Safe Products Act a Goner?

In 2008 lawmakers in the state of Maine passed a law that "enables Maine environmental regulators to recommend bans on potentially hazardous chemicals in consumer products used by children." Called the Kid-Safe Products Act, the law is now getting another look as critics argue that it "is another example of over-regulation stifling business growth in Maine."  Proponents argue that the law "protects children from harmful chemicals."

Now lawmakers are considering two new bills that would modify the original law, for better or worse depending on who you ask.  As the Bangor Daily News (BDN) reports, one of the bills would:

...either add some flexibility to an over-reaching law that discourages business growth or essentially render toothless a statute that protects Maine children from toxic chemicals.

The other bill would adjust the requirements of the law such Maine DEP "would identify 50 to 100 high-priority chemicals for additional scrutiny."  The current law stipulates a list of 1,751 'chemicals of high concern' that many are concerned hamper business investment.  Needless to say the discussion brings out the usual differences between environmental and health advocacy groups and the business community, in particular the Maine Chamber of Commerce.  As Kevin Miller notes in his BDN article:

The Maine State Chamber of Commerce has played a significant — and controversial — role in generating support for Hamper’s bill.

In an “action alert” to members and supporters, the Maine State Chamber of Commerce stated that the definition of a “children’s product” in the law encompasses “any item sold for residential or commercial use” in Maine, including packaging or components.

But critics accuse the Chamber of intentionally misleading members by leaving out the rest of the definition. Children’s products, according to the law, are consumer products “intended for use by children … and any consumer product containing a chemical of high concern that when used or disposed of will likely result in a child’s or a fetus’s being exposed to that chemical.”

Defenders of the Kid-Safe Products Act also accused the Chamber of causing undue concern by suggesting that the law gives the DEP broad powers to ban chemicals when, in actuality, the Legislature has final say on any proposed prohibitions.

Kevin Miller's Bangor Daily News article can be read in full here.

Chris Mooney -Are Scientists Ignorant About Ignorance...When It Comes to Understanding How Climate Denial Works?

Many have probably heard of Chris Mooney, the columnist, blogger and author of several books including "The Republican War on Science" and "Unscientific America" (co-authored with scientist Sheril Kirshenbaum).  He has in the past said that scientists need to get out and talk to the public more.  But today in his column in the blog called Desmogblog Mooney suggests that scientists have to have a better understanding of how climate denial, and science denial in general, works.  It isn't so much about ignorance.  He notes:

As anyone who reads DeSmogBlog knows very well, the top climate skeptics are, you know, scientists. They are not ignorant of the scientific method. They may cleverly twist and abuse its findings, perhaps, but they all learned it, and were awarded advanced degrees for doing so. These are not “poorly educated people” we're dealing with. Not remotely.

I think he may be giving too much credit to "skeptics" as opposed to "denialists," but he makes the case that there are actually skeptics who are scientists and they are most certainly not ignorant of how science works. Mooney goes on to say:

And as for the nonscientist citizens who encounter the climate debate, and don’t know what to think? They may be confused, but it doesn’t make them ignorant about the scientific method. They also may be deflated, uncertain about what’s true—because the media is not doing its job of adjudicating.

Mooney makes a good point, but may also be conflating separate issues here.  As he suggests, there are non-scientists out there who do have enough of an understanding of the scientific method to be able to intellectually understand the scientific principles.  That, however, doesn't mean there aren't also people who have no clue about science, method or otherwise.  Still, one must assume that those who are capable of understanding must intentionally have chosen not to understand the science.  Or perhaps more likely, to simply have chosen to deny the science.

Which presents scientists with the problem facing many scientists, i.e., "frustrated not only by the persistence, but by the powerful resurgence of climate denial, many scientists are outraged."  Outrage in itself rarely succeeds in winning over the public.  And yet scientists must ensure that the science isn't misrepresented by those in denial either, as this carries over to honest, hard working, yet non-scientific members of society who want to do what is right but truly can't separate the wheat from the chaff.

Hopefully Mooney in future columns will explore this issue further.  It will definitely be a topic of this blog in the future.

Read Chris Mooney's full Desmogblog article here.

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 Declassifies Previously Confidential Health and Safety Study Information

Following through on its efforts to increase transparency, the USEPA last week declassified the chemical identities of a total of 42 health and safety studies.  Sounds all CIA and spy-ish, doesn't it.  Previously the chemical identity for each of these studies was considered protected by confidential business information (CBI).  Now the public can not only see the studies but know on what chemicals the studies were done.

According to EPA's press release, "in 2010, EPA both challenged industry to declassify unwarranted CBI claims and issued new guidance on EPA's review and declassification process for confidentiality claims for the identity of a chemical in health and safety studies."  So "the posted declassifications of confidentiality claims are the result of both the Agency's and industry's review of CBI claims."

EPA plans to post CBI declassifications on its web site "on a regular basis."  Almost all of the studies had been submitted as part of Section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This section of the law "requires U.S. chemical manufacturers, importers, processors, and distributors to notify EPA immediately after obtaining information on any of their chemical substances or mixtures that reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment. 8(e) notices should be submitted within 30 calendar days after obtaining information that a substance or mixture presents a substantial risk."  In other words, any information suggesting substantial risk.

More information and a list of the documents being declassified can be found here.

Industry is wary of the declassifications, noting that confidential business information protections are needed to keep competitors from finding out what chemicals go into various products.  The NGO, Environmental Defense Fund, on the other hand, welcomed the release.  As EDF scientist Richard Denison put it:

I am very glad to see EPA's payment of this first dividend on its promise to ensure that health and safety information submitted under TSCA is, as Congress clearly intended, made publicly available — including the identity of the chemicals to which the information pertains.  EPA needs also to provide the public with the means to track the status of EPA's challenges, reviews and determinations pertaining to the legitimacy of CBI claims, and of industry's compliance with or challenges to EPA's noble effort...As this effort proceeds, let's hope it reaches the hundreds or thousands of other studies that should have been made public long ago.

 

Jim Willis - EPA Chemical Control Division Director - Leaving for UNEP

The director of the EPA's chemical control division, Jim Willis, has tendered his resignation from the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT).  He will become the Executive Secretary of the Basel, Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions under the United Nations Environment Program.  He will be based in Geneva, Switzerland.

I have discussed these international conventions in previous articles. The Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions deal with reduction or elimination of specific listed chemicals that are considered to be hazardous and persistent in the environment. The Basel Convention is designed to control hazardous waste disposal.  Since they primarily deal with PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic) chemicals, especially those that may be transported long distances, the role seems perfect for Willis and his experience at EPA.  Ironically, while the US signed the treaties Congress has never ratified them.  That means we can offer our views but must sit by without a vote.

According to the letter sent to EPA staff by Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director of OPPT"

"Jim will be responsible for managing the secretariats for the three treaties, which together encompass the global legal regime for the environmentally sound management of chemicals and wastes...Jim's accomplishments at EPA are many and he will be greatly missed."

Cleland-Hamnett also noted that Maria Doa will take over Willis' position as Director of the Chemical Control Division at EPA.  Tala Henry will be acting director of the National Program Chemicals Division (Doa's current job) and Brian Symmes will return to his position as the Deputy in that group.

ECHA plans 6th Stakeholder Day in Helsinki to Update on REACH chemical progress

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) will be holding their Sixth Stakeholders’ Day on May 18, 2011 in Helsinki.  As with the previous five stakeholder days, this one will provide updates on the progress of REACH, as well as share insights and expectations of future obligations.  There will also be various training sessions on REACH, CLP, and new for this day, the Chesar tool. 

The Chesar tool day of training will be held on May 17th and is critical for constructing and running exposure assessments.  Chesar is the Chemical Assessment and Reporting tool and is extremely useful for the safety assessment and chemical safety report, if one knows how to use it.  So the training day is a welcome addition.

Information on the Stakeholder's Day can be found on the ECHA website.

More information about the Chesar training can be found here.

Waiting for TSCA Chemical Reform? Keep Waiting

Readers of this site will know that I have talked a lot about the efforts to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  Bills were introduced in 2010 by both the House and Senate, and many hearings and stakeholder meetings were held.  But what seemed to be a clear path to passing an update to the 35 year old law now seems to be a distant memory.  The likelihood of legislation being introduced, never mind passed, in the current Congress is pretty much zero.

This is the sense suggested by several recent events.  The industry still notes their general concurrence that a federal level program update is needed, the actual follow through seems unlikely any time soon.  One reason is because industry feels that the bills introduced by Democrats Lautenberg in the Senate and Waxman/Rush in the House were completely unworkable.  So much so that to try to modify them would be an impossible task.

While it would seem a good time to get more industry-friendly legislation enacted during the current Congress, there is a sense that the next Congress will be even more conducive to business interests.  This is largely based on the assumption that the Republican party will not only hold (and perhaps expand) the majority in the House, but that they will likely take the majority in the Senate as well.  Given the number of Democratic Senators up for reelection and/or retiring, that likelihood seems almost certain.  So with both houses controlled by the Republicans the feeling is that there would be no need to compromise as much with the Senate as would be needed now.

The ultimate goal of any TSCA modernization from industry's perspective is to enable continued innovation in the development of new chemicals, where the US had led Europe and other nations for many years.

So expect no serious effort to pass TSCA reform in 2011 or 2012, with the prospects for 2013 and 2014 depending largely on the results of the 2012 elections.

Gains in Reducing Persistent Chemicals May be Lost to Climate Change

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (thankfully called simply POPs) has been working to reduce the emissions of these chemicals for many years.  But a new report suggests that some of the gains made may be reversed by the effects of climate change.  The report, "Climate Change and POPs: Predicting the Impacts" was issued by the United Nations Environment Program last month.

The report notes that:

Significant climate-induced changes are foreseen in relation to future releases of POPs into the environment, their long-range transport and environmental fate, and human and environmental exposure, subsequently leading to higher health risks for both human populations and the environment. The report also addresses the synergies between the climate change and POPs policy agendas and identifies areas of uncertainty and existing gaps in data, information and knowledge.

The report suggests that persistent chemicals, i.e., those that stay in the environment for a long time without breaking down into components of lesser concern, may mobilize from wherever they are and be available for long-range transport.  Warmer temperatures overall could increase emissions of POPs from soil, water, and ice, which could have significant ramifications.

The full report can be downloaded here.

Google.Org to Facilitate Scientists' Communication of Climate Change

The philanthropic arm of Google, aka Google.Org, has organized a team of 21 climate scientists to help communicate the realities of climate science.  The main goal is to counter the "climate change skeptics who have created a political megaphone in Washington" to "create noise" and disinform, rather than inform, the public and policy-makers.  The level of disinformation was evident in the recent Republican led denial of scientific knowledge.

The 21 scientists will serve for one year as Google Science Communication Fellows. According to google.org, "these fellows were elected from a pool of applicants of early to mid-career Ph.D. scientists nominated by leaders in climate change research and science-based institutions across the U.S."  The focus of the fellows is on communicating the science, so google.org "chose scientists who had the strongest potential to become excellent communicators."  The list of scientists can be found here.

Paul Higgins, who is one of the Google Fellows and an associate policy director at the American Meteorological Society, noted the disconnect between scientists and policy-makers:

"We are seeing very clearly with climate change that our policy choices are currently not grounded in knowledge and understanding...If we were well informed as a society — and if policymakers were well informed — then they would be taking the risk that climate change should be taken seriously."

According to Google, Kelly Levin, a senior research associate at the World Resources Institute, hoped that the program would "engage wider audiences in the scientific discussion."  Further, she noted:

"Given the pace and scale of human-induced climate change, it is of great importance that climate change science, and the urgency of addressing the climate change problem, is communicated effectively to the public and decision makers."

 More information about the program can be read here.