en-us 30 140 20 http://www.progressivereform.org http://www.progressivereform.org/imgs/printPageLogo.gif http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=3C1045C9-C33C-A114-1FC736FABB37E777 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=3C1045C9-C33C-A114-1FC736FABB37E777 Fri, 11 May 2012 09:22:24 EST Two years ago tomorrow, Saturday, EPA sent a seemingly modest idea over to the White House for a quick review. The agency wanted to establish a simple list of "chemicals of concern." These weren't chemicals that were necessarily going to be subject to bans or other restrictions, but they present significant enough hazards and are distributed widely enough in the environment to raise some eyebrows among EPA's toxics staff. Among the chemicals that were being proposed for inclusion on the list: phthalates, PBDEs, and BPA. The rule wasn't expected to cost much, but EPA sent it to the White House anyway, probably because this was the first time the agency would use a particular statutory authority Congress first granted in 1972. But two years after EPA sent the proposal to the White House, it is still sitting on a desk somewhere at OIRA, and I think it's time to say it: OIRA has killed this rule. It's troubling that such a small thing as a list of dangerous chemicals could be dashed by the White House. In 2009, GAO added EPA's toxics program to its list of "high-risk programs warranting attention from Congress and the executive branch." Surely, this is not the kind of attention GAO had in mind. GAO's auditors have noted that EPA has a limited ability to provide the public with information on chemical production and risk because of TSCA's prohibitions on the disclosure of confidential business information. About 95 percent of the notices companies have provided to EPA on new chemicals contain some information claimed as confidential. Matt Shudtz http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=3C1045C9-C33C-A114-1FC736FABB37E777 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=378CC1B8-BDE6-3ADD-DF64CB34B26B7A5C http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=378CC1B8-BDE6-3ADD-DF64CB34B26B7A5C Thu, 10 May 2012 12:20:10 EST President Obama issued the latest salvo in the Administration's efforts to placate the business community this morning, in the form of a new Executive Order called "Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens." The Order would expand and enhance the unfunded mandate that would require agencies to scour through the rule books, finding "excessive" rules that would save regulated companies big money. As I have written elsewhere in this space, the latest example of such an effort would jeopardize food safety by allowing huge poultry processors to self-inspect for salmonella, not incidentally making the lot of the workers who are already overburdened by workplace safety hazards close to intolerable. The new order sugarcoats its regressive mandate by instructing agencies to seek "public comment" on regulatory "look-backs," which in practice does not mean comments from mom and pop, who are unlikely to spend their spare time on regulations.gov watching out for the manufacture of dangerous consumer products. While nice in theory, this window dressing cannot obscure the fact that the process announced here is explicitly tilted in a one-way direction toward deregulation. The public comments could include calls to strengthen existing protections, and such strengthening might very well be good for the economy - as regulations often are, industry's "job-killing" rhetoric notwithstanding. Yet the order explicitly says that agencies are to prioritize "those initiatives that will produce significant quantifiable monetary savings or significant quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens." The White House is saying agencies should take all the public comment - but prioritize the de-regulation ideas. The Administration has sought no new funding for agencies to re-examine existing rules. OIRA Administrator Cass Sunstein has been questioned by reporters and concerned Members of Congress on how agencies can do this work without taking away from existing work to protect the public; he has repeatedly asserted that agencies will simply get the work done. This is nonsense. A check of the latest regulatory agendas shows agencies are behind on countless important rules to protect the public's health and safety. The EPA, for example, recently delayed, again, a rule to limit mercury and other toxic pollutants from industrial boilers. Going on a hunt for existing regulations to weaken cannot help these busy and under-resourced agencies in their efforts to adopt important new protections for the public as they become inundated in requests from regulated industries to scale back their efforts to protect public health and safety. Having the White House pile on at this moment, when it has already effectively shut down efforts to promulgate long overdue rules to protect workers from silica, asthmatics from smog, and children from heavy agricultural machinery, is a sign that Mr. Sunstein and his staff are less interested in making sure that regulatory agencies are fulfilling their statutory obligation to protect Americans and the environment from a variety of possible harms, than they are in placating industry critics of the President. Rena Steinzor http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=378CC1B8-BDE6-3ADD-DF64CB34B26B7A5C http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=31B345E6-96BF-DC8A-10AD98597C6FBAB8 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=31B345E6-96BF-DC8A-10AD98597C6FBAB8 Wed, 9 May 2012 09:04:34 EST When the Administration withdrew a rule last month prohibiting young agricultural workers from performing some particularly dangerous tasks, the Department of Labor's statement didnt't just say it was tabling the proposal, or reconsidering it, or even starting over from scratch. It went an extra step, adding: "To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration." Given that farm accidents are a very real concern, it's hard to read such an unusually vocal commitment to inaction as anything other than a political gesture. Indeed, the Administration won plaudits from big ag and its supporters. But if the White House actually thought that throwing young agricultural workers under the bus would truly satisfy the appetite of the opposition - and change the politics of the issue - it was wrong. Here was Janet Fisher, West Virginia's Deputy Agriculture Commissioner, speaking to the Register-Herald of Beckley: "They had so much of an outcry from farming communities around the country they decided to back off, for now." The Texas Farm Bureau said that "cooler heads have prevailed - for now." And here was the editorial page of the Boston Herald: "Take the proposed nanny-state farm-worker regulation withdrawn (but not killed) by the Labor Department last month." If you're thinking the Herald might suffer consequences for just making stuff up, don't hold your breath. The decision to back off this regulation is a true profile in cowardice. The White House could and should have stood up to the dishonest assertion by industry that the reg would stop family farmers from putting their children to work in the family business. For better or worse, they were exempted from the proposed rule. That notwithstanding, the Administration surrendered, quashing the proposal in an attempt to appease the opposition. In post-truth politics, giving the other side what they want doesn't necessarily yield much, if anything, in the public debate. The Boston Herald editorial page just doesn't care. Condemning young agricultural workers to more severe injuries, in other words, is not just bad policy, but is unlikely to win over many of the voters it was targeting. Ben Somberg http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=31B345E6-96BF-DC8A-10AD98597C6FBAB8 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2CDD9355-C88D-A676-3C8157B685C9D925 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2CDD9355-C88D-A676-3C8157B685C9D925 Tue, 8 May 2012 10:32:39 EST Electoral politics or public policy? Policy or politics? One ripe example of how the White House rides herd on health and safety agencies, thinking about politics, not policy to determine what they should do, is provided by the latest poster child for curbing allegedly "excessive rules": a U.S. Department of Agriculture proposal to take federal inspectors off the lines at poultry processing plants and substitute inspections by workers who would simultaneously cope with a speed-up on the line from 90 to 175 birds/minute. According to White House regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, regulatory decisions made in the name of the President are based on an objective consideration of the merits of health and safety rules, and he has the paperwork to prove it. Executive Order 12,866, Executive Order 13563, Circular A-4, and a wad of memoranda intone just what kinds of detailed analyses agencies are expected to perform before their regulatory proposals cross his desk. Some examples from EO 12,866: Each agency shall assess both the costs and the benefits of the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Each agency shall base its decisions on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information concerning the need for, and consequences of, the intended regulation. Coordinated review of agency rulemaking [by the White House] is necessary to ensure that ... decisions made by one agency do not conflict with the policies or actions taken or planned by another agency. Rena Steinzor http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2CDD9355-C88D-A676-3C8157B685C9D925 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2769FC54-EE26-5684-A00D889FF30BA96A http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2769FC54-EE26-5684-A00D889FF30BA96A Mon, 7 May 2012 09:08:41 EST Cross-posted from Legal Planet. You would think that by now federal agencies would have the NEPA process pretty well down. After all, it's been the law since 1970, requiring that every federal agency prepare an environmental impact statement before committing itself to environmentally harmful actions. And it's not that hard to do. Agencies just have to describe the action, alternatives to it, and their effects on the environment relative to not taking the action. Pretty straightforward, really, but a new decision from the 4th Circuit shows that there are still some agencies (and some federal judges) that don't, or won't, get it. Back in the day, the architects of NEPA knew that some agencies would resist giving any real consideration to the environmental costs of their actions. So they designed the EIS requirement to force agencies not only to document the expected environmental impacts of proposed actions, but to release that information to the public, providing an opportunity for the political process to correct any overzealous pursuit of their primary missions. With the help of citizens who were ready to litigate when NEPA's procedures were bypassed, most federal agencies learned relatively quickly that they now must own up to the environmental costs of their decisions. But not all, or at least not when they are trying to please state and local partners. Holly Doremus http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=2769FC54-EE26-5684-A00D889FF30BA96A http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=187E5CAA-0301-7DA3-132DE9EFEC1FF3C3 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=187E5CAA-0301-7DA3-132DE9EFEC1FF3C3 Fri, 4 May 2012 11:36:25 EST In the nearly 20 years since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force, the linkages between trade and environmental harm have become clearer than ever. Trade agreements can lead to significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly when countries do not have sufficient environmental laws, policies, and institutions - and trade alone will not increase the demand for higher environmental standards. Instead, free trade agreements (FTAs) may lead to significant increases in pollution and serious adverse impacts from certain economic sectors. CPR Member Scholars Carmen Gonzalez, David Hunter, John Knox, and I sent a letter today to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk to express our concerns. We argued that when the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative drafts trade promotion authority legislation to implement the Trans Pacific Partnership and other future trade agreements, it should include strong environmental protection provisions. We make eight recommendations for draft trade promotion authority that would ensure that free trade agreements (FTAs) improve trade-environment linkages: "Country Readiness." Prior to the adoption of any FTA, the USTR should evaluate the institutional and legal capacity of the prospective trading partner in the context of assessing a country's readiness to enter into an FTA with the United States. Any problems should be resolved prior to signing the FTA. Environmental Impact Assessment. To inform and assist with the evaluation of a country's institutional and legal capacity, the United States should assess the potential environmental impacts of an FTA on the prospective trading partner. Post-Implementation Impact Monitoring. Once the FTA is in effect, the United States should evaluate the environmental impacts of the FTA to determine whether any adjustments should be made to (a) the FTA's core trade obligations; (b) legislation, institutions, and institutional structures needed to implement the FTA; and (c) the type and amount of capacity building given to U.S. trading partners. Multilateral Environmental Agreements. The United States should include provisions in the TPP and future FTAs that exempt trade restrictions in multilateral environmental agreements from trade challenges. Chris Wold http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=187E5CAA-0301-7DA3-132DE9EFEC1FF3C3 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=13E03E65-AA47-DB73-5A54272D0613EC47 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=13E03E65-AA47-DB73-5A54272D0613EC47 Thu, 3 May 2012 14:05:02 EST By CPR President Rena Steinzor and Media Manager Ben Somberg Internal EPA emails obtained by CPR through a FOIA request reveal EPA officials' frustration regarding the White House's efforts to triangulate House Republicans' ferocious attacks on regulations. A White House letter last year emphasizing regulatory costs but barely describing the lives saved and injuries avoided by strong protections angered environmental and public health advocates. The newly released emails show that top EPA officials - who were not even consulted - were also not pleased. On August 26 of last year, Speaker of the House John Boehner sent President Obama a letter requesting that the Administration provide a list of "planned new rules that would have an estimated economic impact of more than $1 billion." The goal, of course, was to continue the GOP's focus on the costs of regulations (the headline of Boehner's press release: "Citing Spike in Red Tape, Speaker Boehner Seeks Info from White House on Job-Threatening Regulations"). The information Boehner was requesting was already publicly available, but that wasn't the point; the point was to drive an anti-regulatory message. And it worked: The Washington Post ran a story under the headline "Boehner asks Obama to detail $1 billion regulations." And so it was disappointing when the White House took the bait - hook, line, and sinker. President Obama responded to Boehner four days later with a two-page letter that attempted to convince the Speaker (an impossible mission no matter the facts) that the Administration was very busy reducing regulatory costs. In a 19-sentence letter, the President managed only one sentence making the positive case for regulations ("And in 2009 and 2010, the benefits of such rules -- including not only monetary savings but also lives saved and illnesses prevented -- exceeded the costs by tens of billions of dollars.") The rest of the letter was playing on Boehner's anti-regulation turf. Rena Steinzor http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=13E03E65-AA47-DB73-5A54272D0613EC47 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=0F52AD3D-CB5E-DB59-373FC982EEFE109C http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=0F52AD3D-CB5E-DB59-373FC982EEFE109C Wed, 2 May 2012 16:51:56 EST On one level, President Obama's Executive Order issued Tuesday, "Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation," seems benign enough. After all, who would be against international cooperation and a desire to "reduce, eliminate or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements"? Moreover, the Order on its face does little more than set out priorities and procedures for enhancing international regulatory cooperation. Unfortunately, this Order is a one-way regulatory ratchet that leads only to deregulatory changes in the United States that at best will provide no new protection to U.S. citizens or the environment. The Order is motivated solely to eliminate "unnecessary" differences in regulatory requirements that "might impair the ability of American businesses to export and compete internationally." The priority for regulators is clear. Scour our regulations and compare them to those of our trading partners - or better yet simply let the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lead you - to identify those areas of "unnecessary" differences. What then? Eliminate the differences by rewriting U.S. regulations to those of our trading partners, so many of whom have terrible worker safety and environmental policies (hint: China). Nothing in the Order asks the agencies to conduct the hard negotiations or cooperation to change, let alone increase, the protections of our trading partners. The clear expectation is that "unnecessary" differences will lead to the United States conforming our standards to those of the foreign regulators. If "unnecessary" is read narrowly enough, the order could do little damage to our environmental and public health protections - but the pressures and signals in this Order all point toward an expansive witch hunt for "unnecessary" regulatory differences. The Chamber of Commerce's unusually zealous approval of this Order is not to be overlooked. David Hunter http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=0F52AD3D-CB5E-DB59-373FC982EEFE109C http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=08A5B515-BA05-B72A-9AE04583A239DE21 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=08A5B515-BA05-B72A-9AE04583A239DE21 Tue, 1 May 2012 09:46:00 EST a(broad) perspective Today's post is third in a series on a recent CPR white paper, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties. Each month, this series will discuss one of these ten treaties. Previous posts are here. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal Adopted and Opened for Signature on March 22, 1989 Entered into Force on May 5, 1992 Signed by the United States on March 22, 1990 Sent to the Senate, May 17, 1991, and approved by the Senate on August 11, 1992 Loaded with toxic ash from Philadelphia waste incinerators, the Khian Sea, a cargo ship, left port in 1986 - and spent two years wandering at sea attempting to dispose the ash. Some of the ash was dumped in Haiti as so-called "topsoil," and the remaining ash disappeared somewhere between Singapore and Sri Lanka. Years later, at trial, the crew admitted dumping the nearly 10,000 tons of toxic ash in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. It was one of the most outrageous incidents of toxic waste dumping - but sadly, this was hardly an isolated incident. Today, international trade in hazardous waste is a multi-billion dollar industry that moves highly toxic materials, such as pesticide residues, used solvents, and process wastes from manufacturing. The fastest growing part of the trade is electronic waste (such as laptops, cellphones, and televisions), which contain lead, mercury, and other toxic components. And just like the Khian Sea incident, there is still an enormous incentive to ship waste to poor countries with lax or nonexistent environmental regulation. Noah Sachs http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=08A5B515-BA05-B72A-9AE04583A239DE21 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=04A61C18-FADD-E938-4E01F56FC8E76594 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=04A61C18-FADD-E938-4E01F56FC8E76594 Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:07:18 EST In its own words, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is "an independent federal agency dedicated to improving the administrative process through consensus-driven applied research, providing nonpartisan expert advice and recommendations for improvement of federal agency procedures." On Tuesday afternoon, ACUS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are jointly sponsoring an event at the Chamber, "Next Steps & Implementation of ACUS Recommendations on: Incorporation by Reference & International Regulatory Cooperation." That's over the line, particularly given the agenda of the event, argue CPR President Rena Steinzor and Member Scholar Thomas McGarity, in a letter to Paul Verkuil, ACUS's Chairman. Steinzor and McGarity write: Especially in this early period of its rebirth, the organization cannot afford to be perceived as taking sides in the enormously destructive crusade against regulation that the Chamber and other powerful industry groups are leading. The letter is here. Ben Somberg http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=04A61C18-FADD-E938-4E01F56FC8E76594 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=F414D64C-00C2-D342-A3C55E020F13F175 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=F414D64C-00C2-D342-A3C55E020F13F175 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:54:40 EST The irony is palpable, though clearly intentional. More than forty years ago, Congress kicked off the "environmental decade" by adopting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA's goals are to ensure that federal agencies whose developmental missions often incline them to ignore or place a low priority on environmental protection to consider the possible adverse environmental consequences of major actions before committing to them, and to make the results of that evaluation publicly available. NEPA sought to assure balanced consideration of the economic and social benefits of proposed agency actions that tended to be the focus of private proponents and the agencies themselves, and the environmental costs that previously had received short shrift. Assessments of NEPA differ, but many environmental policy experts agree that the law has effectively forced agencies to look at possible adverse environmental consequences before they leap into project approval and implementation. NEPA's most important practical impact may have been bringing to light environmental problems that agencies have been able to mitigate or eliminate at reasonable costs and without sacrificing project goals. Taking their cue from NEPA's successful integration of environmental matters into agency decisionmaking processes, developers, industry, and their political allies in the ensuing years lobbied for and got a series of statutes and executive orders in the ensuing years that require agencies whose missions are to protect health, safety, and the environment to place greater emphasis on the economic impacts of regulatory decisions. These laws have slowed down the regulatory process and contributed to weaker regulations. Now, the same forces that sought to restore "balance" in the wake of NEPA's focus on environmental concerns, by forcing regulatory agencies to place more emphasis on economic impacts, are supporting legislation that would significantly undercut NEPA by handcuffing the ability of agencies to conscientiously implement that law. Adoption of this legislation would go a long way to recreating exactly the problem Congress targeted when it adopted NEPA - a skewing of government decisionmaking processes toward approval of projects regardless of their potential adverse environmental effects. Robert Glicksman http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=F414D64C-00C2-D342-A3C55E020F13F175 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=F4950EDF-0720-49B3-E9CF944947AD8F5C http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=F4950EDF-0720-49B3-E9CF944947AD8F5C Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:14:47 EST Yesterday evening, when press coverage had ebbed for the day, the Department of Labor issued a short, four-paragraph press release announcing it was withdrawing a rule on child labor on farms. The withdrawal came after energetic attacks by the American Farm Bureau, Republicans in Congress, Sarah Palin, and - shockingly - Al Franken (D-MN). Last year, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis said: "Children employed in agriculture are some of the most vulnerable workers in America." "Ensuring their welfare is a priority of the department, and this proposal is another element of our comprehensive approach." The Administration pledged to protect young workers in dangerous jobs, and now they've thrown that pledge out the window. Yesterday, the Administration said this: "The Obama administration is firmly committed to promoting family farmers and respecting the rural way of life, especially the role that parents and other family members play in passing those traditions down through the generations. The Obama administration is also deeply committed to listening and responding to what Americans across the country have to say about proposed rules and regulations. As a result, the Department of Labor is announcing today the withdrawal of the proposed rule dealing with children under the age of 16 who work in agricultural vocations." Give that excuse to the families of Alex Pacas (19) and Wyatt Whitebread (14), who were sent into a grain elevator without required safety harnesses to "walk the corn," breaking up clumps so the grain could be removed from the elevator efficiently. The boys slipped into a hollow pocket, a common hazard in the industry, which is why the harnesses are required. They were smothered to death. Or we could ask the reaction of the families of another pair of boys, Tyler Zander and Bryce Gannon, both 17, whose legs got caught in a giant auger used to pull the grain into storage silos, causing grievous injuries. Rena Steinzor http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=F4950EDF-0720-49B3-E9CF944947AD8F5C http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=F5BD522A-9722-C177-041EF16828A08880 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=F5BD522A-9722-C177-041EF16828A08880 Mon, 30 Apr 2012 09:21:21 EST Last week, Bloomberg News ran a curious story conflating a range of issues under the banner of regulatory rollbacks. The piece keys off of the ongoing GOP push to deregulate America. That effort has been going on for decades, of course, but in the wake of the recession (made possible, not coincidentally, by deregulation in the economic sector), GOP leaders and their business allies and funders have rebranded it, and now argue that that "burdensome" economic, health, safety and environmental regulations are in fact the cause of economic distress. Most of the GOP rhetoric has been aimed at federal regulation. But the Bloomberg piece breaks some new ground, sweeping together a hodgepodge of state regulations and laws, overlaying it with an uncritical reference to some shoddy right-wing research, and presenting the resulting brew as the state and local expression of the GOP's anti-regulatory campaign. In the first three paragraphs of the story, the reader is given purported evidence that regulations are bad for the economy, and treated to a quote from a blogger for the right-wing Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) alerting us to a "national focus on reducing regulation...some of [which] is about jobs and revenue and some of [which] is about less government." The supposed evidence of regulatory burden is an unattributed study (the article eventually explains it was "issued" by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but never names the source) concluding that "regulation cut gross state output in California by $493 billion a year." A little Googling reveals that the study was conducted by two researchers at California State University, Sacramento, apparently under contract from the Governor's Office of Small Business Advocate. Much as a similar report from the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy has been discredited by a number of sources for its ridiculous methodology, the California version uses similar methods and got similar reviews. California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office dismembers its methodology and conclusions, making clear that it piles bad estimates on top of bad methodology, charitably describing its flaws with words like "deficient," "problems," "special difficulties, "inappropriate," and "overstated." Bloomberg, on the other hand, presents it as if its calculation were the revealed truth. Matt Freeman http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=F5BD522A-9722-C177-041EF16828A08880 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=EEE484C3-FE7C-7CDF-D8B3EDBBD3A8930D http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=EEE484C3-FE7C-7CDF-D8B3EDBBD3A8930D Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:43:48 EST With considerable media flourish, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Tuesday the first and so far only criminal charges related to the BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe that killed 11 workers, and did profound violence to the Gulf of Mexico and the local economies dependent up on it. One Kurt Mix, 50, an engineer involved in designing the failed "top kill" remedy, was indicted for obstruction of justice. More specifically, he's accused of deleting text messages from his phone that he knew were to be collected as evidence in the case.. Prosecutors made Mix do a perp walk for reporters, with the New York Times reporting that he "surrendered" in Houston, "wearing a light purple shirt and pair of khakis without a belt." Several legal experts, including Professors Richard Lazarus (former executive director of the Oil Spill Commission) and David Uhlmann (former chief DOJ environmental crimes prosecutor) predicted that the arrest of Mix would help prosecutors build cases against those further up the food chain. With all due respect to these hopeful - really wishful - predictions, it's way too soon for DOJ to take a victory lap. For one thing, Attorney General Eric Holder has amassed an underwhelming track record in prosecuting perpetrators of unspeakable and fatal health, safety, and workplace crimes, including Don Blankenship, former chief executive officer of Massey Energy, whose obsession with "digging coal" without pausing to ensure safety requirements are met, led to extraordinarily hazardous working conditions at the Upper Big Branch mine, where 29 miners died in the worst disaster in 40 years; and Stewart Parnell, the chief executive of the Peanut Corporation of America, whose decision to ship peanut paste that tested positive for salmonella killed nine and sickened hundreds. Elsewhere in the regulatory arena, Holder has not yet delivered on prosecuting financial crimes documented in two dozen books, television programs, and movies. Rena Steinzor http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=EEE484C3-FE7C-7CDF-D8B3EDBBD3A8930D http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=E4664A35-D41B-2025-284CEFD189F48E58 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=E4664A35-D41B-2025-284CEFD189F48E58 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:49:46 EST EPA's March 27 release of a proposed rule to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new fossil-fuel power plants has reignited the long-standing debate over whether the Clean Air Act is an appropriate mechanism for controlling industrial sources. Congressional bills to repeal EPA's CAA authority have been repeatedly (though unsuccessfully) introduced. Many environmentalists, while welcoming EPA's initiative in the absence of any alternative, have suggested that new federal climate legislation would be preferable to applying the CAA. In a recently published article, Climate Change, the Clean Air Act, and Industrial Pollution, published in a UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy symposium on the Clean Air Act and GHG regulation, I take up a slice of the complex debate about the value of the CAA. I explore how using the Clean Air Act to reduce GHGs from stationary sources, including industrial and fossil-fuel electrical generating facilities, would affect many other pollutants, termed co-pollutants. Though co-pollutant impacts are only one of many relevant factors, the inquiry helps shed light on the benefits and drawbacks of the Clean Air Act as a climate policy mechanism, both on its own terms and in comparison with a frequently proposed alternative - a cap-and-trade program. The article reveals that there are no easy answers, and contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the CAA in particular and climate policy choices more generally. An initial question demands an answer: if we're talking about GHG controls, why should we care about their impacts on other pollutants? Ultimately, addressing climate change will require fundamental transformations in our energy and industrial infrastructure, changes with widespread environmental, economic, political, and social implications. Climate policies premised on a vision that integrates those implications, co-pollutant implications among them, will provide greater benefits and fewer drawbacks than a narrow focus on GHG reductions alone. Given the strong connection between GHGs and their co-pollutants, climate policies are likely to have significant co-pollutant consequences that could, in some instances, impact our assessment of alternative climate policies. In the energy sector, for example, continued reliance on coal combined with carbon capture and sequestration would substantially increase co-pollutant emissions, while increased energy efficiency or renewable energy would reduce co-pollutant emissions. Alice Kaswan http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=E4664A35-D41B-2025-284CEFD189F48E58 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=DF81E14D-D06C-F828-A80345DFABD320CE http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=DF81E14D-D06C-F828-A80345DFABD320CE Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:01:47 EST I spent last Friday - the second anniversary of the BP Blowout - in the vast basement of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court building, shifting in my metal chair, ignoring the talk-show chatter from the flat screens, and keeping an eye on the red digit counter to know when my number was up. I'd been called for jury duty. Whether I will eventually be deployed is up to the gods, but until then I had resolved to study (with the help of this building's creaking Wi-Fi system) all 2,000 pages of the proposed multibillion-dollar settlement in the Deepwater Horizon case - the settlement made public last week by BP and thousands of Gulf Coast residents and businesses. (I blogged earlier when the broad outline of this settlement was first announced here.) Now some of you may wish to savor the details, poring over the documents page-by-page between sips of Courvoisier. But for the rest, I've got the bottom line [SPOILER ALERT]: The proposed settlement rewards plaintiffs' hard bargaining, puts a crimp in federal and state hopes for a speedy trial, and demonstrates once again that despite the size of this deal, the main course is yet to come, in the form of federal civil fines and possible criminal prosecution. Robert Verchick http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=DF81E14D-D06C-F828-A80345DFABD320CE http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=CFE742A5-ACF0-11D2-BC1A22D34ACC14C9 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=CFE742A5-ACF0-11D2-BC1A22D34ACC14C9 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:18:33 EST Earlier this month Washington State's Department of Ecology released its integrated climate response strategy, Preparing for a Changing Climate. The strategy again demonstrates that the state is a leader when it comes to preparing for climate change impacts (see also NRDC's recent report examining climate preparedness in all 50 states). What makes Washington a leader? Well, the political leadership is willing to address climate change impacts, and the scientific community is active and engaged and generates the information and data needed to make decisions on climate change adaptation actions. (None of this discussion, of course, should mean giving any less urgency to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the first place). Remarkably, the state has made rough economic calculations for the cost of inaction - $10 billion by 2020 as a result of increased health costs, flooding and coastal destruction, forest fires, drought, and other impacts - and the benefits of ecosystem services from forests, wildlife, and other natural resources. For example, in 2006 recreational and commercial fishing supported more than 16,000 jobs and $540 million in personal income and outdoors recreation added nearly $3.1 billion to the economy. Armed with this information, lawmakers, policymakers, and agency regulators can begin to make the critical decisions needed to adapt to climate change. As the state's report notes, "Many options with low or no costs can be implemented today that will significantly improve our prosperity now and in the future. In other cases, the costs of preparing our natural and built environments to cope with the impacts of changing climate will be more substantial. Such costs are far less, however, than costs of inaction." Catherine O'Neill http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=CFE742A5-ACF0-11D2-BC1A22D34ACC14C9 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=CAC84F71-FBA4-5EB0-2A654230CDB6D4C2 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=CAC84F71-FBA4-5EB0-2A654230CDB6D4C2 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:26:47 EST On March 19, in a major economic policy address, Mitt Romney painted a portrait of a real-life "victim" of the Obama Administration's supposed overregulation: This administration's burdensome regulations are even invading the freedom of everyday Americans. Mike and Chantell Sackett run a small business in Idaho. They saved enough money to buy a piece of property and build a modest home on it. But days after they broke ground, an EPA regulator told them to stop digging. The EPA said they were building on a wetland. But the Sacketts' property isn't on the wetlands register. It sits in a residential area. Nevertheless, the EPA wouldn't let them appeal the decision. It told the Sacketts they weren't allowed to go to court. An unelected government bureaucrat robbed them of their freedom. They were given no recourse, no remedy. They could do what the EPA wanted, or they could risk millions of dollars in fines. The New York Times report that afternoon on the speech, by Ashley Parker, noted some important information that the Romney camp either missed or ignored: However, Mr. Romney did not mention that the Sacketts encountered their run-in with the EPA under President George W. Bush's administration, not under Mr. Obama. A spokeswoman for Mr. Romney's campaign did not respond to questions about the discrepancy. Oops! Ben Somberg http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=CAC84F71-FBA4-5EB0-2A654230CDB6D4C2 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=CBC7BDCA-D05B-112E-883E4138B6E21B99 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=CBC7BDCA-D05B-112E-883E4138B6E21B99 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:05:38 EST The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report today detailing the challenges that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) faces in writing regulations to protect America's workers from unsafe and unhealthful workplaces. The report was released at a hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, chaired by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), on "Delays in OSHA's Standard-Setting Process and the Impact on Worker Safety." Both the GAO report and testimony presented at the hearing tell a depressing tale of an agency that, after 30 years of constant attacks from the business community, conservative think tanks, and reactionary members of Congress, has very nearly folded its rulemaking tent. The GAO found that between 1981 and 2010, the time that it took for the agency to develop and promulgate occupational safety and health standards ranged from 15 months (for an easily promulgated safety standard) to 19 years, and averaged more than 7 years. How have we come to this pass? OSHA got off to a very good start. During its first ten years of existence, the agency promulgated 21 safety standards and 13 important health standards (one of which addressed 14 different carcinogens), all of which continue to afford substantial protection to workers. By the late 1970s, however, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses had made OSHA the poster child for their demands for "regulatory reform." Thomas McGarity http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=CBC7BDCA-D05B-112E-883E4138B6E21B99 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=C66FE6E1-B310-23A9-B6393B4F464DBA33 http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=C66FE6E1-B310-23A9-B6393B4F464DBA33 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:11:56 EST CPR Member Scholar Noah Sachs and I submitted comments yesterday to FDA regarding the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) petition to the agency on BPA. In September, the ACC petitioned FDA to remove approval for the use of BPA in "infant feeding bottles and certain spill-proof cups" (Rena Steinzor and I explained at the time the story behind the seemingly counter-intuitive move). In our comments this week, we advocate for FDA to utilize its full rulemaking authority and take broader regulatory action to protect the public against BPA. Specifically, we propose: Issuing new regulations encompassing the ACC's Petition and Rep. Edward Markey's March 16, 2012 Petitions concerning abandoned uses; Banning a much broader range of BPA uses without reference to age limits or target consumers; and Mandating labeling of BPA in all food contact materials. As we explain in the comments, convincing scientific evidence supports these broader measures because of the demonstrated low-dose effects of BPA and other endocrine disrupting chemicals. These low-dose effects are not properly accounted for in current risk assessments of BPA and it is the role of FDA to act on behalf of all consumers' safety. Aimee Simpson http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=C66FE6E1-B310-23A9-B6393B4F464DBA33