Book Review – Hell and High Water: Global Warming – the Solution and the Politics - and What We Should Do by Joseph Romm

Climate change is here...and there is hell to pay. Hell and High Water is a must-read book for everyone interested in global warming and climate science. Joseph Romm holds a PhD in Physics from MIT, was acting assistant secretary at the Department of Energy in the Clinton Administration (in which he headed the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy), and founder of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions. Many will be familiar with Romm’s writing in the blog, Climate Progress, and Time Magazine has called him “the Web’s most influential climate-change blogger.”

As the title of this 2007 book suggests, the contents are split into two main parts. In Part I, Romm tells us the state of the current science, and then takes us through the likely scenarios for the near future (2000-2025), the intermediate near future (2025-2050), and the slightly further near future (2050-2100). As time passes – and as inaction continues – we advance through increasingly frequent and severe climatic events to what Romm calls “planetary purgatory” in which intense drought is seen in some areas while other areas (e.g., coastlines) experience intense flooding. Finally, barring significant action that begins now, we face “hell and high water,” irreversible global warming and sea level rise. Romm supports these scenarios with facts and the full backing of the scientific consensus.

In Part II, Romm takes us through the politics and the solutions. He informs us that we already have the technology to begin dealing with the situation, and to do so before the situation worsens to the point where solutions are much more difficult to initiate. So we can solve this problem. What is missing is the political will. Confounding this is the intentional disinformation being forwarded by free market lobbying groups whose masterful use of rhetoric confuses the public and makes it incredibly difficult for policy-makers to take the needed action. Try on this advice from Frank Luntz in his infamous 2002 “straight talk” strategy memo to conservatives wishing to deny and delay action on global warming:

“It can be helpful to think of environmental (and other) issues in terms of a story. A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than the dry recitation of the truth.” [my emphasis added]

In other words, at least in the climate change denialist book, lying is okay if it gets your desired point across. And according to Romm this is exactly what the global warming deniers and delayers have been doing. The goal is delay, delay, delay...deny, deny, deny.

But Romm also offers solutions. A lot of solutions. And most are based on technologies that already exist today and can be carried out if policy-makers are allowed to put them into practice. Solutions that include putting a price on carbon that can be traded in such a way that companies that reduce their emissions will make money. Solutions like plug-in electric cars (not hydrogen fuel cell cars, which Romm suggests is more of a shell game to delay action than a viable technology). And many more.

In his concluding chapter, “The End of Politics,” Romm says that the public – you and me – need to demand change. He notes that everyone must become a “climate champion” that will take whatever action we can to put policy-makers in a position where they can honestly implement adequate policies. Romm says that he does “believe that if we fail to act in time, it will be the single biggest regret any of us has at the end of our lives.”

This book is a powerful look at the problems we face with global warming, the solutions that already exist to deal with it, and the politics that keeps us from implementing them. It is a easily readable book for everyone, whether scientifically trained or not. I highly recommend this book for all to read. Readers can also keep up with Romm’s continuing efforts to debunk climate change deniers at http://climateprogress.org/.

President Obama Likely to Go to Copenhagen for Climate Change Meeting

Will he or won't he? That's the question that people worldwide have been asking regarding whether US President Barack Obama will go to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) scheduled for December 7-18, 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. All indications are that the answer is Yes, He Will.

In an interview Monday with Reuters news agency, Obama said

"if I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge then certainly that's something that I will do."

My bet is that he will. In fact, barring some major incident that keeps him at home, I think he will make a point of going to show that world that the US is serious in its desire to take a leadership role in developing solutions to climate change. It is important that he demonstrate that the noise coming from the Republican minority will not stop the US from setting caps on greenhouse gas emissions, even if climate change legislation doesn't make it through the Senate before the meeting in Copenhagen.

Progress has been slow, both in the US and the international community. The previously hoped for major breakthrough agreement is now a distant memory, but there is optimism that COP15 will result in a "framework" agreement. According to President Obama in his Reuters interview,

"I think the question is can we create a set of principles, building blocks, that allow for ongoing and continuing progress on the issue and that's something I'm confident we can achieve."

He also continues talks with China, who with the US make up the two largest emitters in the world, and remains confident that they can agree on a framework that will then be the basis for additional efforts.

So we will see. But my bet is on Obama being in Copenhagen in the chill of winter.

Michele Bachmann Tea Party Rally - An Honest Man's Perspective

Today I spoke with a man who attended the Michele Bachmann's Tea Party rally near the capitol in Washington DC. He was an honest man. With honest concerns. Most of which were based on faulty information. He told me his thoughts, and I listened.

He had traveled to Washington DC from Tennessee, along with his mother and 86 year old father (which he proudly told to everyone in sight). They had come to DC the day before and had taken in the World War II Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial (his Dad's favorite), and of course, the Bachmann Rally today. He was proud of the service his Dad gave in the second world war, and his own 17 years of service in the Tennessee National Guard. He was proud of his life of labor as a wood cutter. He was proud to be an American. He told me there were "100,000 people at the rally" (best estimates were about 10,000).

He said he was in DC to "stop healthcare." His basis of opposition - that "he didn't believe anyone else should have to pay for his health care." That's it. That's how he saw the entire health care debate. [I didn't mention that we already pay for the health care of others through increased insurance premiums.]

On Afghanistan, he called it "Obama's Vietnam." He felt that when General McChrystal came asking for 40,000 more troops Obama's only response should have been, "I'll give you 100,000, now go get them." He felt that "it's been two months" [since McChrystal's initial report] and Obama needed to do something now. Again, that's it. He saw the entire decision-making process about Afghanistan to be simply a matter of saturating the area with hundreds of thousands of troops because the general wanted them. He did understand that bin Laden and al qaeda are in the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that Pakistan wasn't doing its job (and he even understood why it was so difficult for Pakistan to do so). But to him it all came down to some variation of "fish or cut bait," with his preferred action to be "fish...and do it with lots of poles."

So why am I telling this story? Mainly to draw out the following take-home points.

1) There are real people with real concerns out there.

2) Much of that concern is based on misinformation.

3) Details aren't that relevant, what matters is the big picture message.

4) These are the people that the White House and the Congress need to reach.

So, how does the WH and Congress reach out to average, every day, honest Americans who base their feelings on their gut and the simple messages (even if the messages are often based on incorrect details)?

First, politicians need to stop talking only to themselves. They need to start listening better to the people. And by people I mean to real people like the guy I spoke with today, not the professional instigators with lobbyist talking points. Not other Congressman who come armed with nothing but their party's political talking points. And not the pundits, who mostly don't know diddly but play like they are informed on TV. And when I say listen, I mean listen. Not stand quietly while someone talks and then respond with their own prepackaged talking points. Listen. Ask questions. Learn. Think about what really matters to the people, even if they mess up a few details or mime some talking points they heard on their favorite cable propaganda station.

Second, ensure that the misinformation is corrected in people's minds. Put the facts online so people can fact check for themselves, but remember that many people rely more on word of mouth at church and in their neighborhoods and just don't trust anything politicians say. So find a way to get the facts out there.

Third, speak to the people. Tell them why health care reform 1) will not do what they most fear it will do, and 2) will benefit them and their families and their children. Tell them why it isn't wise to "just send 100,000 troops when the general asks for 40,000," for example, because 100,000 troops (or a million) won't help us reach our goals because x, y and z also need to be fixed. Oh, and tell them what are goal(s) actually are in Afghanistan. Tell them why dealing with climate change is important to them and to their grandchildren. And if you aren't ready to make a decision, tell them why it will take a little longer.

Fourth, keep the minority party honest. Not surprisingly, the minority party tends to think that their best route to winning back seats is to keep the majority party from getting anything accomplished. They often lie. Don't let them. Call them out for lies. There is plenty of room for honest ideological differences, but our elected officials are elected to represent our interests, not their own reelection interests. And lying serves no one's interests but the liars.

Fifth, "It's the Economy, Stupid." The state of the economy, real or perceived, is the driving force behind much of the angst right now. It matters not that the economy tanked last year, well before Obama was elected, the perception is that he needs to fix it...and he needs to fix it fast. Fiscal responsibility is the common thread for everyone no matter to which party they belong. Health care, climate change, finance reform, and other major legislative pursuits actually should improve the economy in the long run, but people tend to have a very short time horizon, and even shorter memories of how we got here. So make the tough decisions, and follow rule 3 above.

I learned a lot from my conversation today with an honest man. We should listen to each other more often .

No Time to Lose on Climate Change!! Angela Merkel Lectures the US Congress

"We all know, we have no time to lose."

These are the words of German Chancellor Angela Merkel today in an address to a joint session of the US Congress.

And she didn't stop there. She also said that dealing with climate change is one of the great tests of the 21st Century and that "in December the world will look to us, to the Americans and the Europeans," for leadership.

Most Republicans sat quietly during this while Democrats gave Chacellor Merkel a standing ovation.

I agree with Chancellor Merkel. Climate change is the test of our lifetimes. The Democratic majority and President Obama understand this and are taking a leadership role in guiding both the US and the world toward finding solutions.

Meanwhile, the Republicans dither. They whine that "EPA hasn't done an analysis of the impact," which, of course, is false. EPA has done an analysis. Republicans whine that they "don't have enough time to read the bill," though the major issues have been discussed for the last 9 months, the revised draft bill has been available for at least a week (and the original bill was available long before), and the process of discussion is ongoing. Perhaps if Republicans assigned their staffs to work on the bill rather than immediately find a microphone to whine about it they would actually be able to accomplish their jobs.

Merkel noted that "curbing greenhouse gas emissions would spur growth in innovative jobs" in the US, in Europe, and worldwide. Republicans seem intent on doing nothing but stand in the way of any meaningful legislation because they think it will help them keep their own jobs in next year's elections.

It's time for all of us to insist that Republicans start contributing to the solution rather than putting all their efforts into blocking any attempt by others to look out for the future of the United States.

For more information, read the articles in the Washington Post, BBC News, and CNN.

Auto Industry Worried Chemical Regulations in US Will Look Like Europe's REACH Program

As Senator Lautenberg prepares to introduce chemical control reform legislation in the US, possibly as early as this month, some in the auto industry are worried that they will be severely impacted. But then, maybe not. There is a lot of misinformation out there and everyone seems to be worried about US chemical legislation somehow mirroring the worst parts of REACH, the chemical legislation that has industry frustrated in Europe.

While the reform (or modernization, if you prefer) of the 33 year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is unlikely to look exactly like REACH, there clearly are some facets of REACH that will be in the new law. EPA, industry and the advocacy community all seem to be on the same page with respect to the general principles, but still differ considerably on the details.

The auto industry, and for that matter most other industries, were concerned about potentially significant disruptions to the supply chain as companies not normally considering themselves in the chemicals business were brought into the review process. But the experience of the auto industry in Europe has suggested that even REACH hasn't been as disruptive as they expected. That doesn't mean it has been easy for the smaller firms, but the larger firms have had the resources to be ahead of the game.

So the wait continues to see if the newly introduced chemical control legislation will look like REACH, the previously introduced Kid Safe Chemical Act, or something completely different.

Revised Senate Climate Bill Released Today - Plus the EPA Analysis

Today the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) released a “chairman’s mark” of the climate bill she co-authored with fellow Senator John Kerry (D-MA). This revised version includes "new provisions for allocating emission allowances, providing consumer rebates, promoting the use renewable energy and fuels, addressing the use of clean-coal technologies, and encouraging certain forestry and agriculture practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

In addition to the revised bill, Boxer also released an EPA analysis that shows "the Senate plan would cost no more than the House-passed cap-and-trade proposal."

Three days of legislative hearings by Boxer’s committee begin Tuesday, October 27th, which she hopes will lead to a markup of the bill in November.

As has become the norm, Republicans have threatened that they will try to block committee action on the bill based on their claims that there has not been enough time to sufficiently review the new 923-page legislative package. This is disingenuous. The draft bill has been avaiable for quite some time and this version just provides some additional information. Furthermore, this is the beginning of the process, with hearings scheduled and plenty of time for Republicans to have their staffs read the bill and provide them with analyses. There is also plenty of time for Republicans, and other Democrats, to provide their input and amendments to the bill before the final markup in November.

It's time for both parties to legislate. That means actively contributing to the development of legislation rather than staking out a politically-motivated position without making any attempt to resolve issues.

Links to the revised bill, the EPA analysis, and the House bill, along with additional analysis can be found in an article printed in the New York Times today. Other climate change related posts on this blog can be found here.

Chemical Industry Wants Input to Changes in US Chemical Control Policy

Representatives from the chemical industry are calling for a more formal process for the development of a new chemical regulation policy in the United States. As reported here previously, the US Congress has been working hard to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which has been the authorizing legislation for regulating chemicals in the US for over thirty years. However, virtually everyone agrees that it needs to be "modernized."

There are calls from all sides for a comprehensive review of TSCA that includes input from a broad range of stakeholders, including industry and advocacy groups. All sides also agree on the basic principles for reform (or modernization), and the need to examine the European REACH system for what works and what doesn't work. Industry in particular would not like to see a system as cumbersome as REACH, but feel that some of the concepts can be applied within a US-based system that prioritizes chemicals for closer review.

The timing on when this will occur remains uncertain. Senator Frank Lautenberg has been promising to reintroduce the Kid Safe Chemical Act any day, though he's been saying that since the beginning of the year. Currently Congress is pretty busy with health care, climate change, and likely finance reform bills, so it's quite possible that the introduction of a TSCA modernization bill will not happen until 2010.

Industry and advocacy groups have been meeting with Congressional staff off and on for months, and a delegation from a trade association and member companies is expected to visit Senator Lautenberg’s office in the near future to discuss their concerns. It is likely that the TSCA reform principles released by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson a couple weeks ago will shape whatever proposal is put forward.

It is clear that most people think that chemical control reform in the US is going to happen even though there is some uncertainty as to when and in what form. But the overlapping general principles offered by EPA, industry, and advocacy groups offer a good idea of what the new legislation will cover. Of course, the devil is in the details.

I'll continue to update as new information becomes available. I'll provide more in-depth analysis of the principles in my next post.

Apparently even George Bush felt that Greenhouse Gases needed to be regulated

"U.S. EPA released a long-sequestered document on global warming today showing the George W. Bush administration had concluded in December 2007 that greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles were endangering public welfare and needed to be regulated under the Clean Air Act."

This is how the New York Times opens its article today.

Furthermore:

"This draft finding demonstrates that in 2007 the science was as clear as it is today," EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said. "The conclusions reached then by EPA scientists should have been made public and should have been considered."

The original endangerment finding document was written by Jason Burnett, a top adviser to then-EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. According to the Times article,

"There was a lot of political pressure during the Bush administration to suppress it after they decided to change course," Burnett said today. "It didn't support their new position."

Links to the full Bush endangerment report and the current Obama endangerment report can both be found in the NYT article linked here.

EPA Administrator Jackson Offers More Insight into the "Essential Principles" for TSCA Chemical Control Reform

Administrator Jackson, with a small entourage that included Steve Owens, the new Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, participated in a forum this past week convened to offer the viewpoints of various stakeholders on chemical control reform in the United States. Jackson reiterated the 6 essential principles and indicated that EPA would more actively use its existing authority while TSCA reform worked its way through the legislative process.

The forum itself was sponsored by a wide variety of industry and advocacy groups, each with their own point of view of what needed to be done as legislators develop a bill to reform the current chemical control act.

There is a lot of general agreement that some form of "modernization" of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is needed. There also was quite a bit of agreement at the general principles level (e.g., chemicals put on the market should be safe). However, the "devil is in the details" and industry prefers risk-based assessment while NGOs prefer more emphasis on reducing hazard no matter what the exposure. Industry feels EPA should do the prioritizing to identify chemicals for which companies would provide more data, while the NGOs lean more toward industry providing at least some base set data.

Both industry and NGOs have been in deep discussions with Congress all year about a reform bill. Senator Lautenberg’s staff and Waxman/Rush’s staff have been working diligently on a new bill, which suggests they won't simply just reintroduce the same old Kid Safe bill. But there is some question of when a bill might actually be introduced, and then when it might actually be passed.

My own sense is that while it’s possible that a bill could be introduced at any time, passage will require more stakeholder involvement before anything meaningful is submitted. There has been quite a bit of involvement so far, but it seemed it just wasn’t ready for prime time yet. There is, however, quite a bit of agreement of the need for further stakeholder meetings to iron out the sticky details, and to do so together so they could agree on a reasonable bill. If the forum from this past week is the beginning of further dialogue, we might just see something being passed in this Congress. If not, it's quite possible that a chemical control law will have to wait until after the current big issues of health care reform, climate change, finance reform get passed, which puts it right in the middle of next year's election campaigns.

That said, there is a real sense that all the stars are in alignment for something to happen. And with industry apparently in agreement, it seems just a matter of Congress finding the time to get it on the schedule (and assuming no major power shifts occur in the next election).

More Americans Win Nobel Prizes

It's that time of year again...Nobel Prize week. Each day the Nobel Prize committee will announce the winners of this year's awards for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award.

This year the first three announcements have involved a lot of Americans, something that isn't always the case for this international award.

On Monday, three Americans shared the Nobel Prize for Medicine "for the discovery of how chromosomes are protected by telomeres and the enzyme telomerase." Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Grieder and Jack W. Szostak each get 1/3 of the prize.

On Tuesday, 1/2 the Nobel Prize for Physics went to Charles K. Kao "for groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication." The other half was split between Willard S. Boyle and George E. Smith "for the invention of an imaging semiconductor circuit – the CCD sensor."

And today, two Americans and an Israeli share equally in the Nobel Prize for Chemistry "for studies of the structure and function of the ribosome." They are Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz, and Ada Yonath.

The remaining prizes will be announced in the following days.

It is important to keep in mind that the Nobel Prizes are given for work that may have been done decades ago, only after the significance of their achievements have become clear. It is critical that we continue to provide support for scientists in various fields for both basic and applied research. Without it our innovation for the future is sure to suffer.

New Report Updates Climate Change Science - It's Getting Worse, Faster

In anticipation of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the International Alliance of Research Universities has issued a report presenting an update of a broad range of research relating to climate change. The report synthesizes "the newest research results relating to climate change and what action can be taken in response to climate change."

According to the IARU, "the 36 page report is written for non-specialists and is based on discussions and presentations made at the scientific congress “Climate change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” held in Copenhagen in March."

The report is organised into six key messages:

1. Climatic Trends. Recent observations indicate that many aspects of the climate are changing according to the more severe IPCC projections. Sea level rise is changing at even greater rates than IPCC projections and new modelling methods suggest a rise of around one metre by 2100. Since 2007, Arctic sea ice has rapidly decreased. Recent work has indicated that the vulnerability of natural carbon sinks will further amplify these changes.

2. Social and Environmental Disruption. Although a 2ºC rise is the quoted threshold above which climate change is deemed dangerous, this level still has significant risks for society and the environment. For example, modelling studies indicate that a 2ºC temperature rise would double the death rate caused by heatwaves. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing acidification of the oceans and threatening marine ecosystems. There are already reports of 19 per cent decrease in the growth of Great Barrier Reef corals.

3. Long-term strategy: Global targets and timetables. Recent studies indicate that if the peak and subsequent decline of greenhouse gases (GHGs) does not occur until after 2020, emission reduction rates will have to exceed 5 per cent per year to meet the 2ºC threshold. Immediate reductions are needed with a long-term expectation that carbon prices will rise.

4. Equity Dimensions. The impacts of climate change are greater for the poor, the uneducated and the isolated. In a 2050 world of 9 billion people, carbon emissions per capita will need to be about 2 tonnes of CO2 per annum, or less, to avoid dangerous climate change. Current per capita emissions vary widely. For example, in the USA they are over 20 tonnes and in China (which has the greatest total emissions) they are 4 tonnes.

5. Inaction is inexcusable. Renewable energy technologies are already available and, combined with reduced energy use and improved efficiency, they have the potential to achieve a 50 per cent decrease in GHG emissions by 2050. There are also positive developments in land management, deforestation and transport.

6. Meeting the Challenge. Cultural dimensions of climate change need to be included in research and policy. For example, a recent analysis indicated that 12 billion people could be nourished on less than one third of the present agricultural area by using the best sites for the most appropriate crops. Linking climate change with broader consumption and production issues can help sustainable development but will require long-term global deals.

The full report can be downloaded at the IARU conference site here.

If you skipped over it, go back and read key message 1 above. It's getting worse, faster than we had anticipated. Now reread key message 5 above.

The time to act is now.

EPA outlines "Essential Principles" for TSCA Chemical Control Reform

Previously I have reported on EPA's shutting down of the voluntary ChAMP program of chemical control priortization. We've been waiting for word of what might replace it as reform of TSCA - the current chemical control law in the US - is under discussion in a very busy Congress. Well, the first signs of a framework are beginning to emerge in a presentation given by EPA Administrator yesterday.

Jackson outlines a series of "principles" that she hopes will be incorporated into new legislation. These principles underline the core belief of the Administration, which is that "it is important to work together to quickly modernize and strengthen the tools available in TSCA to increase confidence that chemicals used in commerce, which are vital to our Nation’s economy, are safe and do not endanger the public health and welfare of consumers, workers, and especially sensitive sub-populations such as children, or the environment."

According to Jackson and the EPA web site:

The following Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation (Principles) are provided to help inform efforts underway in this Congress to reauthorize and significantly strengthen the effectiveness of TSCA. These Principles present Administration goals for updated legislation that will give EPA the mechanisms and authorities to expeditiously target chemicals of concern and promptly assess and regulate new and existing chemicals.

Principle No. 1: Chemicals Should Be Reviewed Against Safety Standards That Are Based on Sound Science and Reflect Risk-based Criteria Protective of Human Health and the Environment.

EPA should have clear authority to establish safety standards that are based on scientific risk assessments. Sound science should be the basis for the assessment of chemical risks, while recognizing the need to assess and manage risk in the face of uncertainty.

Principle No. 2: Manufacturers Should Provide EPA With the Necessary Information to Conclude That New and Existing Chemicals Are Safe and Do Not Endanger Public Health or the Environment.

Manufacturers should be required to provide sufficient hazard, exposure, and use data for a chemical to support a determination by the Agency that the chemical meets the safety standard. Exposure and hazard assessments from manufacturers should be required to include a thorough review of the chemical’s risks to sensitive subpopulations.

Where manufacturers do not submit sufficient information, EPA should have the necessary authority and tools, such as data call in, to quickly and efficiently require testing or obtain other information from manufacturers that is relevant to determining the safety of chemicals. EPA should also be provided the necessary authority to efficiently follow up on chemicals which have been previously assessed (e.g., requiring additional data or testing, or taking action to reduce risk) if there is a change which may affect safety, such as increased production volume, new uses or new information on potential hazards or exposures. EPA’s authority to require submission of use and exposure information should extend to downstream processors and users of chemicals.

Principle No. 3: Risk Management Decisions Should Take into Account Sensitive Subpopulations, Cost, Availability of Substitutes and Other Relevant Considerations.

EPA should have clear authority to take risk management actions when chemicals do not meet the safety standard, with flexibility to take into account a range of considerations, including children’s health, economic costs, social benefits, and equity concerns.

Principle No. 4: Manufacturers and EPA Should Assess and Act on Priority Chemicals, Both Existing and New, in a Timely Manner.

EPA should have authority to set priorities for conducting safety reviews on existing chemicals based on relevant risk and exposure considerations. Clear, enforceable and practicable deadlines applicable to the Agency and industry should be set for completion of chemical reviews, in particular those that might impact sensitive sub-populations.

Principle No. 5: Green Chemistry Should Be Encouraged and Provisions Assuring Transparency and Public Access to Information Should Be Strengthened.

The design of safer and more sustainable chemicals, processes, and products should be encouraged and supported through research, education, recognition, and other means. The goal of these efforts should be to increase the design, manufacture, and use of lower risk, more energy efficient and sustainable chemical products and processes.

TSCA reform should include stricter requirements for a manufacturer’s claim of Confidential Business Information (CBI). Manufacturers should be required to substantiate their claims of confidentiality. Data relevant to health and safety should not be claimed or otherwise treated as CBI. EPA should be able to negotiate with other governments (local, state, and foreign) on appropriate sharing of CBI with the necessary protections, when necessary to protect public health and safety.

Principle No. 6: EPA Should Be Given a Sustained Source of Funding for Implementation.

Implementation of the law should be adequately and consistently funded, in order to meet the goal of assuring the safety of chemicals, and to maintain public confidence that EPA is meeting that goal. To that end, manufacturers of chemicals should support the costs of Agency implementation, including the review of information provided by manufacturers.

I will be looking more closely into these principles and reporting further in the days ahead.

Senate Climate Change Bill Expected September 30th

It appears that Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer Sources will finally introduce climate change legislation on Wednesday, September 30th. Boxer is planning hearings in her Environment & Public Works Committee during the week of Oct. 5 with a markup the following week.

According to a New York Times article, the two Senators "hope will be the vehicle for broader Senate negotiations and an eventual conference with the House," acknowledging that this is "just a 'starting point' in a bid to win over moderate and conservative Democrats, as well as Republicans."

This is the beginning of what will eventually be a climate change bill coming from the Senate, which then will go to conference with the bill passed earlier this year by the House and on to President Obama for signature. The timing of the final law being in place remains pretty uncertain at this point, but while possible, it's likely it won't be ready before the global climate change meeting in Copenhagen in December. But progress is being made.

Are biodegradable plastics the answer to the Pacific gyre?

Not long ago I posted here about a continent of plastic circulating in the Pacific gyre, and how slow degradation of some plastics may actually be releasing toxins. Since then a great deal of discussion has taken place as what might be possible solutions. Some have suggested biodegradable materials, including biodegradable plastics, while others suggest that just adds to the problem.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the primary organization for large chemicals manufacturers in the United States, including the plastics industry recently issued a press release entitled "Degradable Materials Hold Great Promise, But Not a Current "Solution" to Preventable Marine Litter." In it they first argue that it is all marine debris, not just plastics, that are the problem. The then note that there isn't any one easy answer, but that most agree that "recycling, coupled with tough litter abatement laws, well-run municipal waste management systems, and behavioral changes," are needed.

The idea of biodegradable plastics and other materials has been met with mixed reviews. In general these degrade into less harmful materials, and if fully biodegradable, into carbon dioxide and water. But as the ACC release notes, Keep Los Angeles Beautiful has suggested that the perception of biodegradability actually leads people to litter more, as they think the litter will "just go away."

Another concern is that "biodegradable" is often defined broadly to include plastics that break down into smaller particles but retain much of the original chemical composition. Small particles are mistaken by marine life as food and ingested, which presents both the risk of possible leaching of materials into the bloodstream but also the risk of blockage, which keeps animals from eating normal food, extracting nutrition, and eliminating waste. Another option are bioplastics, which are actually created from renewal biomass sources such as vegetable oil and corn starch (normal plastics are derived from petroleum based sources).

So the jury is still out on what to do, but clearly the process begins with each of us, including limiting our plastic (e.g., less bottles of water and soda), recycling, and not tossing out trash into the environment.