Daryl Ditz Testimony at Congressional Hearing on TSCA Chemical Control

This is a continuation of my series taking a closer look at the November 17, 2009 Congressional hearings on "Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination." Earlier I gave an overall summary. Today I look at the testimony of Daryl Ditz, a Senior Policy Advisor for the Center for International Environmental Law.

Ditz started by saying that "despite its aspirational title, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has failed to assess, let alone guarantee, the safety of the great majority of chemicals in use today." He further suggested that "TSCA stymies action by EPA and other agencies, perpetuates a reliance on dangerous substances, leaves businesses in the dark, and undermines U.S. competitiveness." Needless to say, Mr. Ditz believes the time is right to modernize TSCA.

He offered three recommendations for fixing TSCA.

1) To expedite action, Ditz said that "Congress should authorize EPA to promptly identify and phase out non-essential uses of a set of high-priority chemicals." He believes that "a slow, cumbersome safety determination process for these high-priority chemicals is neither necessary nor appropriate." He identifies these as the "worst-of-the-worst," defined primarily as those chemicals that exhibit PBT properties, i.e., Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic. Many PBT chemicals have already been identified and are characterized by remaining largely unchanged in the environment or people's bodies for long periods of time, biomagnify up the food chain (e.g., concentrations get higher as you move from plant to animal to higher order animal), and show high toxicity. Ditz believes that the old "unreasonable risk" standard in TSCA has actually prevented EPA from taking action on chemicals it knows need to be regulated.

2) Congress should "authorize EPA to prioritize the order in which all chemicals, new as well as existing, are assessed against a health-based standard." Ditz said that industry should be required to prove the safety of their chemicals (rather than the current system in which EPA must demonstrate lack of safety). He mentioned that the 2008 Kid Safe Chemical Act (which was never passed) would have prioritized chemicals for further review, but that prioritization shouldn't be used to exclude them from review, just determine the order they are reviewed. He noted that the previous administration's ChAMP initiative was "misguided" in that in trying to sort through nearly 7000 chemicals it "wrongly labeled 'low risk'" many chemicals on the basis of inadequate and unreliable data. Ditz felt the process advocated by the American Chemistry Council in its recently released "principles for TSCA modernization" would "repeat this mistake by subjecting only a fraction of existing chemicals," often based on limited data, to a safety determination and "letting the majority of chemicals sidestep credible evaluation."

3) Congress should ensure that "up-to-date, comprehensive information is available on all chemicals, to protect the health and safety of Americans and foster confidence in the market." Ditz noted repeatedly that the quantity and quality of data available in which to do these prioritizations was severely limited for most chemicals. He said that "U.S. policy should require chemical manufacturers to develop, submit and periodically update data on the potential hazards, exposures, and uses of chemicals they manufacture or import." He insisted that minimum data requirements are needed because major data gaps limit the ability to make informed assessments.

Finally, Mr. Ditz seconded the need for CDC and other organizations to conduct biomonitoring as "an important check on human exposures in the real world." He also believes that the ongoing efforts in Europe (REACH) and Canada (Chemical Categorization Program) can be used to help inform the evaluation of chemicals in the United States.

Tomorrow I will take a look at the testimony of William J. Greggs, a consultant for the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the Soap and Detergent Association (and formerly with Procter & Gamble).

Eric Sampson Testimony at Congressional Hearing on Chemical Control

Yesterday I gave a summary of the testimony of EPA Assistant Administrator Steve Owens from the November 17, 2009 Congressional hearings on "Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination." Earlier I gave an overall summary. Today I continue with the series as I take a closer look at the testimony of Eric Sampson, who is Director of the Division of Laboratory Sciences in the National Center for Environmental Health with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which we all know as the CDC.

Sampson emphasized the value of biomonitoring in prioritization efforts. He described the current CDC biomonitoring programs and how they may be expanded. For those who don't know, biomonitoring refers to the taking of samples from humans, usually blood and urine samples, and analyzing them for a variety of chemicals. Sampson notes that biomonitoring, unlike measures of environmental samples like air, soil, water and food, tells the actual amount of chemical from all sources that gets into people. He did say that biomonitoring is pretty far ahead of the science of interpreting what they see, but is still valuable for a variety of human health purposes such as "identifying relative levels of exposure in the population, particularly in children and other vulnerable groups," as well as "setting priorities for research into the health effects of chemicals."

He gave an overview of several ongoing biomonitoring efforts, including the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is a snapshot study repeated several times since the 1970s and then every two years since 1999. The Fourth National Exposure Report is due out by the end of this year. CDC also does targeted biomonitoring surveys in partnership with states, other federal agencies, academic institutions, and international organizations. One important collaboration is the National Children's Study, which is "designed to follow 100,000 children from conception to ae 21.

They key point of Dr. Sampson's testimony is that biomonitoring data by the CDC and other organizations can be an important tool in prioritizing chemicals for further review. Several studies have already shown that hundreds of chemicals are routinely found in the blood (including cord blood), breast milk, and urine, and that these findings can help identify those chemicals of greatest concern for review. He also notes that past biomonitoring has helped regulators "monitor the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce exposures," as was demonstrated by tracking lead concentrations in blood as lead-based gasoline additives were phased out.

It should be noted that the Kid Safe Chemical Act of 2008, some version of which is expected to be reintroduced in this session of Congress, included a greater emphasis on biomonitoring. Whether it is in the new version remains to be seen as California's attempt to institute a biomonitoring program have been stymied by the economic downturn.

Tomorrow I'll take a closer look at the testimony of Daryl Ditz, Senior Policy Adviser at the Center for International Law, who urged Congress to focus first on "the worst of the worst" chemicals.

Steve Owens testimony at Congressional Hearings on TSCA Chemical Control

Yesterday I gave an overall summary of the November 17, 2009 Congressional hearings regarding TSCA chemical control modernization in the House. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, chaired by Illinois Representative Bobby Rush, listened to a series of witnesses on the subject of "Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination." See yesterday for a brief review of each testimony.

Today I take a closer look at the testimony of Steve Owens, who is the new Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. OPPTS would have the major role for EPA in any new version of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Owens made a point of reminding the Representatives that TSCA, which was enacted in 1976, is the only major environmental statute that has not been reauthorized. In addition, the TSCA Inventory was created by simply grandfathering all the existing chemicals at the time - about 63,000 of them - onto a list with the intent of reviewing them for safety considerations at some later date. After 33 years, only about 200 have been required by EPA to have any safety testing done, and "only five of these existing chemicals have been regulated under TSCA's ban authority."

Owens also noted that "today, advances in toxicology and analytical chemistry are revealing new pathways of exposure." In particular he mentioned "subtle and troubling effects of many chemicals on hormone systems, human reproduction, intellectual development and cognition, particularly in young children." He added that it was "clear that in order for EPA to properly do its job of protecting human health and the environment, TSCA must be updated and strengthened. EPA needs the tools to do the job the public expects."

He reiterated the principles introduced by Administrator Lisa Jackson in late September, which I've summarized previously.

Owens then talked about "a number of steps that EPA will be taking over the coming months to put in place a multi-pronged approach to strengthen EPA's efforts to manage industrial chemicals." He noted that the ChAMP program was reviewed and determined to be "too focused on categorizing thousands of chemicals, which would take years." He said the reviews also showed that "most of the evaluation was based on limited and incomplete test and exposure data." In short, ChAMP was a lot of effort and not much value.

Instead they are starting up an "enhanced chemical management program," which will "require that companies submit information to fill the remaining gaps in basic health and safety data on HPV chemicals." EPA also plans to "make the reporting to chemical use information more transparent, more current, more useful, and more useable by the public." In short, Owens said that Administrator Jackson directed his office "in the interim to utilize our current authority under TSCA to the fullest extent possible, including Section 6 authority to label, restrict, or ban a chemical, to ensure that we do everything we can to protect the American people from dangerous chemicals."

EPA is currently "evaluating an initial set of chemicals based on available hazard, exposure and use information." Factors used to prioritize this initial set include:

1) use in consumer products (because people may have regular exposure to them even though they usually are not of particular hazard)

2) presence in human blood (e.g., chemicals found in recent biomonitoring studies by the CDC and advocacy groups)

3) persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic characteristics (i.e., PBT chemicals, which my remain in humans or the environment for a long time without breaking down, plus are toxic)

4) toxicity (for obvious reasons)

5) production volume (the voluntary HPV Challenge programs and the EU's new mandatory REACH program also focused on chemicals made in the highest volumes)

Once prioritized, EPA plans to complete and make public a series of "action plans" that will "outline the risks that use of these chemicals may present and what steps we may take to address those concerns."

EPA would then engage with stakeholders (both manufacturers, users, and the public) to prioritize additional chemicals for evaluation. Owens noted that EPA plans to make new action plans available to the public every four months.

According to EPA's web site, they are currently evaluating an initial set of chemicals for action plan development, including:

* Benzidine dyes and pigments
* Bisphenol A (BPA)
* Penta, octa, and decabromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in products
* Perfluorinated chemicals
* Phthalates
* Short-chain chlorinated paraffins

Four of these will have action plans released in December.

And so it begins. TSCA reform is in the works and all stakeholders agree that the way the US manages chemicals needs to be modernized. I'll continue to provide updates and commentary as the process moves forward.

Tomorrow I'll talk more about what Eric Sampson at the CDC had to say about the value of biomonitoring in prioritization efforts.

Summary of Congressional Hearings on TSCA Chemical Control

As I noted yesterday, the House held a hearing on November 17th, 2009 to discuss prioritization of chemicals for control in the United States. This is part of the process for introducing a reform (or "modernization") of TSCA, the prevailing chemical control law for the last 33 years.

Here's a quick summary of the main points from each speaker's testimony. I will do more in-depth reviews of each in the following days.

Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator in EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, indicated that EPA does not have sufficient authority to reevaluate existing chemicals that were grandfathered into the Inventory at the time of its creation. He explained that EPA will prioritize chemicals based on their presence in human blood, whether they are PBTs, their toxicity, and their volume of production. Mr. Owens also mentioned EPA’s plan to issue “action plans” for a set of chemicals every four months, starting in December.

I'll talk more about Steve Owens' testimony tomorrow.

Eric Sampson, Director of the Division of Laboratory Sciences in the National Center for Environmental Health with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, emphasized the value of biomonitoring in prioritization efforts.

Daryl Ditz, a Senior Policy Advisor for the Center for International Environmental Law, proposed three ways to fix TSCA, beginning with giving EPA the authority to effectively regulate “the worst of the worst” chemicals.

William J. Greggs, a consultant for the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the Soap and Detergent Association (and formerly with Procter & Gamble), stated that prioritization of chemicals should be based on hazard and exposure.

Beth Bosley, a consultant for the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, suggested to the Congresspersons that TSCA should be amended in a way that does not eliminate jobs or useful chemicals.

More analysis will follow in the coming days. Past articles related to TSCA can be found here.

US and China Announce Clean Energy Cooperation to Combat Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Today in Beijing, US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao announced a package of measures "to strengthen cooperation between the United States and China on clean energy."

According to President Obama,

I want to reaffirm the fact that the American people are interested in stronger relations with the people of China, and that the more that we can encourage people-to-people exchanges that are consistent with the discussions that we're having at the government level, the more that China and the United States will be able to work cooperatively on a whole range of issues -- both economic issues, security issues, and global issues that are in the interest not just of our two nations but the entire world.

The two Presidents announced a series of major areas of cooperation:

The U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center will facilitate joint research and development of clean energy technologies by teams of scientists and engineers from the United States and China, as well as serve as a clearinghouse to help researchers in each country.

The U.S.-China Electric Vehicles Initiative will include joint standards development, demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, technical roadmapping and public education projects, all aimed at eventual deployment of electric vehicles to reduce oil dependence.

The U.S. China Energy Efficiency Action Plan will allow the two countries to work together to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, industrial facilities, and consumer appliances, culminating with an annual U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Forum, rotating between the two countries.

The U.S. China Renewable Energy Partnership will facilitate development of roadmaps for wide-spread renewable energy deployment. A new Advanced Grid Working Group made up of American and Chinese developers and strategists will help plan for grid modernization in both countries, and a new U.S.-China Renewable Energy Forum will be held annually, rotating between the two countries.

A 21st Century Coal Initiative, for which the two Presidents pledged to promote cooperation on cleaner uses of coal, will include large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects.

A Shale Gas Initiative, will allow the U.S. and China to use experience gained in the United States to assess China’s shale gas potential, promote environmentally-sustainable development of shale gas resources, conduct joint technical studies to accelerate development of shale gas resources in China, and promote shale gas investment in China through the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, study tours, and workshops.

The U.S. China Energy Cooperation Program will leverage private sector resources for project development work in China across a broad array of clean energy projects, to the benefit of both nations.

More available on the White House blog.

Congress to Hold Hearings TODAY on "Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination"

The Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing today, Tuesday, November 17, 2009 entitled, "Prioritizing Chemicals for Safety Determination," the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing will examine the options for prioritizing chemicals for safety determinations in the event that the Committee amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

WITNESSES:

Steve Owens, Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Environmental Protection Agency

Eric Sampson, Director, Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Daryl Ditz, Senior Policy Advisor, Center for International Environmental Law

William J. Greggs, Consultant, Consumer Specialty Products Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the Soap and Detergent Association

Beth Bosley, Consultant, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates


WHEN: 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, November 17

WHERE: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building

The subcommittee, which is chaired by Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush, is in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce chaired by California Rep. Henry Waxman. This is a follow up to hearings held earlier in the year on finding ways to modernize the 33 year old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

I will have a summary after the hearing.

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.