Corporate Environmental Lawyer

New Guidance On Social Cost Of Carbon

By E. Lynn Grayson

The Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon – a multiple federal agency initiative – has issued new guidance on the social cost of carbon to estimate the climate benefits of any rulemakings or other federal actions. Regulators are now assuming that it's worth about $36 to avoid an extra ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere up from the old figure of $22 per ton.

The social cost of carbon–the marginal external costs resulting from enhanced climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions–is an important concept in environmental policy. It is closely related to the Pigou tax, the price that should apply to emissions if the aim is to maximize global welfare. The social cost of carbon could therefore theoretically inform assessment of the desirable intensity of climate policy, and it plays a crucial role in any cost-benefit analysis of emission abatement initiatives.

There are two major challenges to estimating the social cost of carbon. First, everything about climate change and its impacts is uncertain. This is partly because climate change is primarily a problem in the future; and partly because both the human and natural components of the Earth system–and thus both the drivers and the impacts of global climate change–are complex and only partially understood. Second, any assessment of the seriousness of climate change requires value judgments about the relative importance of temporal impacts: those that occur now and in the future; spatial impacts: those that impact people near and far across the globe; and the risk aversion of society for uncertain impacts: the more severe damages that may occur less likely, but still plausible, futures.

According to the guidance, the social cost of carbon is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk and the value of ecosystem services due to climate change.

IEA Releases World Energy Outlook Special Report

By E. Lynn Grayson

A new report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) seeks to bring climate change concerns back on top of the policy agenda by demonstrating that the dilemma can be tackled at no net economic cost. The IEA's Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map report said that carbon dioxide emissions grew at a rate of 1.4 percent in 2012, reaching a record high of 31.6 gigatons released into the atmosphere. The world's average temperatures are on track to increase between 6.5 and 9.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, said the IEA, an independent research group established by the world's industrialized nations.

Emissions of greenhouse gases have fallen in the U.S. recently to levels not seen since the mid-1990s, largely because of a natural gas boom that has prompted a shift in power generation away from coal. The IEA report noted "China experienced the largest growth in CO2 emissions, but the increase was one of the lowest it has seen in a decade," driven in part by the greater deployment of renewable energy.

The group recommended curtailing the use and construction of inefficient coal-fired plants and boosting use of renewable energy and natural gas.

To learn more about the IEA's work and this report, visit www.worldenergyoutlook.org/energyclimatemap.

 

USGS Releases Water And Sediment Priority Constituents Monitoring Report

By E. Lynn Grayson

The USGS has released a new report, Prioritization of Constituents for National and Regional Scale Ambient Monitoring of Water and Sediment in the United States, that addresses the methodology used to prioritize constituents to be assessed. This effort was undertaken in preparation for the third decade of the National Water – Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) including the time period 2013-2023.

Constituents were prioritized by the NAWQA National Target Analyte Strategy Work Group on the basis of available information on physical and chemical properties, observed or predicted environmental occurrence and fate, and observed or anticipated adverse effects on human health or aquatic life.

The constituents were ranked in three tiers:

• Tier 1 with those having the highest priority on the basis of their likelihood of environmental occurrence in ambient water or sediment, or likelihood of effects on human health or aquatic life;
• Tier 2 for constituents of intermediate priority on the basis of their lower likelihood of environmental occurrence or lower likelihood of effects on human health or aquatic life; and
• Tier 3 of those with low or no priority for monitoring. 

Overall, 2,541 constituents were assessed with 1,081 constituents identified for ranking in Tier 1. Constituent groups included volatile organic compounds in water; pesticides in water or sediment; pharmaceuticals and hormones in water or sediment; trace elements and other inorganic constituents in water or sediment; cyanotoxins in surface water; lipophilic organic compounds in sediment; disinfection byproducts in water; high-production-volume chemicals in water; wastewater-indicator and industrial compounds in water; and radionuclides in water.

USGS began the NAWQA program in 1991 to develop long-term and consistent information on U.S. streams, rivers, and groundwater, how the conditions are changing over time, and how natural features and human activities affect these features, according to the USGS website.

The USGS report is available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5218/sir12-5218.pdf.

USDA And EPA Launch U.S. Food Waste Challenge

By E. Lynn Grayson

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in collaboration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) launched the U.S. Food Waste Challenge this week, calling on others across the food chain – including producer groups, processors, manufacturers, retailers, communities, and other government agencies – to join the effort to reduce, recover, and recycle food waste. Secretary Tom Vilsack and EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe were joined at the event by representatives from private-sector partners and supporters including Rio Farms, Unilever, General Mills, the Food Waste Reduction Alliance, Feeding America, and Rock and Wrap It Up!

Food waste in the United States is estimated at roughly between 30 to 40 percent of the food supply. In 2010, an estimated 133 billion pounds of food from U.S. retail food stores, restaurants, and homes never made it into people's stomachs. The amount of uneaten food in homes and restaurants was valued at almost $390 per U.S. consumer in 2008, more than an average month's worth of food expenditures.

Food waste the single largest type of waste entering our landfills – Americans throw away up to 40 percent of their food. Addressing this issue not only helps with combating hunger and saving money, but also with combating possible climate change-related impacts, according to EPA.

The goal of the U.S. Food Waste Challenge is to lead a fundamental shift in how we think about and manage food and food waste in this country. The Challenge includes a goal to have 400 partner organizations by 2015 and 1,000 by 2020.

As part of its contribution to the U.S. Food Waste Challenge, USDA is initiating a wide range of activities including activities to reduce waste in the school meals program, educate consumers about food waste and food storage, and develop new technologies to reduce food waste. USDA will also work with industry to increase donations from imported produce that does not meet quality standards, streamline procedures for donating wholesome misbranded meat and poultry products, update U.S. food loss estimates at the retail level, and pilot-test a meat-composting program to reduce the amount of meat being sent to landfills from food safety inspection labs.

Through its Food Recovery Challenge, EPA will provide U.S. Food Waste Challenge participants with the opportunity to access data management software and technical assistance (www.epa.gov/smm/foodrecovery/) to help them quantify and improve their sustainable food management practices.

To join the Challenge and learn more about USDA's activities and the activities of those who have already joined, visit: www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/index.htm.

This Food Waste Challenge was a coordinated initiative with World Environmental Day 2013 where this year's theme is Think.Eat.Save focusing on food waste and the related environmental impacts.

Food Waste And Environmental Impacts Are Focus of World Environment Day

By E. Lynn Grayson

 Today is World Environment Day (WED) and celebrations are going around the world to raise awareness about the need to protect natural resouces and the environment. This year's focus for WED is Think.Eat. Save related to the interconnection between food waste and environmental impacts. Below is a summary of food and related environmental statistics: 

• 40% of food Americans have available to them goes uneaten. This equates to $165.6 billion in food is wasted each year.
• In the United States alone, consumers waste 10 times more food per capita than those in Southeast Asia.
• Reducing food losses by just 15% would mean enough food to feed more than 25 million people in America. Today 1 in 6 Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables.
• 50% more food is wasted today than in the mid 1970s.
• 10% of the entire U.S. budget, 50% of land and 80% of water is utilized to get food from farms to fork.
• Throwing out ½ a hamburger equates to the same water usage as taking a 60 minute shower.
• Most of this nutrient rich uneaten food is thrown out and ends up in landfills becoming the second largest component of landfills, and the single largest component of municipal solid waste, where it accounts for almost 25% of U.S. methane emissions.

Celebrate today by learning more about the environmental impacts of food waste and what you can do to reduce your "foodprint" by visiting http://www.thinkeatsave.org

 

 

 

 

Reducing Food Waste For Businesses

By E. Lynn Grayson

According to EPA, more food reaches landfills and incinerators than any other single material in municipal solid waste (MSW). In 2010 alone, more than 34 million tons of food waste was generated, with only three percent diverted from landfills and incinerators for composting.

How Can I Divert Food From Landfills?

• Source Reduction/Prevention

  Preventing food waste before it is created

• Feeding People

  Donating fresh, wholesome food to those in need

• Feeding Animals

  Feeding safe, fresh food scraps to animals like pig farms

• Industrial Uses

  Rendering fats, oils, and grease and turning it into products or biofuel

• Composting

  Turning food waste into a valuable soil amendment

• Anaerobic Digestion

  Turning food waste into renewable energy and a valuable soil amendment

Why Divert Food Waste From Landfills?

Reducing the amount of food wasted has significant economic, social & environmental benefits:

Environmental Benefits

• Reduce Methane From Landfills
• Reduce Resource Use Associated with Food Production
• Create A Valuable Soil Amendment

Economic Benefits

• Lower Disposal Costs
• Reduce Over-Purchasing and Labor Costs
• Receive Tax Benefits by Donating Food

Social Benefits

• Feed People, Not Landfills

For more insights on the connection between environmental protection and food waste, visit EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/waste/conserve/foodwaste/.

THINK.EAT.SAVE – Celebrate World Environmental Day June 5, 2013.

World Environment Day 5 June 2013

By E. Lynn Grayson

World Environment Day (WED) once again will be celebrated around the world this Wednesday, June 5th. The theme for this year's WED is Think.Eat.Save. Think.Eat.Save is an anti-food waste and food loss campaign that encourages you to reduce your foodprint. Given the enormous imbalance in lifestyles and the resultant devastating effects on the environment, this year's theme – Think.Eat.Save – encourages you to become more aware of the environmental impact of the food choices you make and empowers you to make informed decisions.

If food is wasted, it means that all the resources and inputs used in the production of all the food are also lost. For example, it takes about 1,000 litres of water to produce 1 litre of milk and about 16,000 litres goes into a cow's food to make a hamburger. The resulting greenhouse gas emissions from the cows themselves, and throughout the food supply chain, all end up in vain when we waste food.

In fact,  global food production occupies 25% of all habitable land and is responsible for 70% of fresh water consumption, 80% of deforestation, and 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. It is the largest single driver of biodiversity loss and land-use change, according to WED's guidance materials.

WED is celebrated each year to raise awareness of the need to take positive environmental action. It is sponsored by the United States Environment Program (UNEP).

In recognition of WED, many of our blogs this week will address food waste, sustainable consumption and the environmental impacts of agriculture and food processing.

For more information about WED, visit UNEP website at http://www.unep.org/wed/.

IEC Supports IL Fracking Bill

By E. Lynn Grayson

The IEC's Executive Director, Jennifer Walling, yesterday announced in an editorial in Crain's Chicago Business that the IEC supports Illinois fracking bill, SB 1715. While IEC does not support high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, this appears to be a compromise position to ensure fracking operations move forward subject to meaningful environmental regulations.

In her editorial, Ms. Walling addressed two critical points:

First, although the extraction potential of oil and gas through fracking in Illinois is unknown, oil and gas companies already have leased thousands of acres of mineral rights in southern Illinois. There is considerable evidence new fracking technology is already occurring here and it will be expanding in the near future.

The second critical fact is that Illinois has almost no regulations governing fracking. Without legislation to stringently regulate fracking, Illinois is in a highly vulnerable position. Current mining and extraction laws in Illinois are horrifically inadequate to regulate this new, highly industrialized fracking process, putting Illinois property owners at risk for the same sort of water contamination that has happened in other states. Illinois law today does not require water testing either before or after fracking. We have no setback laws governing how closely wells can be placed near homes or schools, rivers or lakes, parks or natural areas.

In short, fracking can occur anywhere in Illinois today.

While SB 1715 is compromise legislation, key provisions are included that were sought by a coalition of environmental groups such as:

• Waste water must be stored in closed-loop tanks rather than open pits, except in rare emergency circumstances.
• Well and surface water must be tested before fracturing and must be monitored after fracturing. If contamination is shown, the operator is presumed liable and must rebut that presumption.
• Robust opportunities for public participation and opportunities for citizen suits to enforce the law.
• Strong well construction standards.
• Full disclosure of chemicals – even trade secrets must be disclosed to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and health care professionals.
• Ban on injecting diesel compounds, setbacks, well-plugging requirements, a required water management plan which includes total water usage, and natural gas flaring requirements to minimize air pollution.

The preferred course of action for the IEC would have been passage of a fracking moratorium. Since a moratorium was not a political reality, the IEC is supporting proposed SB 1715 to regulate fracking operations. In lending IEC's support, Ms. Walling noted:

"Our support for these safeguards does not represent an endorsement of fracking. However, with risky fracking operations legal today, hundreds of thousands of acres leased for drilling, and evidence the drilling has already begun, it is essential for the Legislature to pass tough restrictions immediately to protect our communities. SB 1715 ends the possibility of high-risk unregulated fracking occurring in Illinois and we support it."

Wal-Mart Pleads Guilty And Agrees To Pay $82M Fine For Improper Disposal Of Hazardous Substances

By Steven M. Siros

On May 28, 2013, Wal-Mart entered a guilty plea with respect to charges filed by the Department of Justice alleging that Wal-Mart violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) at its stores in California and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) at a recycling and repackaging facility located in Missouri. With respect to its California stores, Wal-Mart pleaded guilty to the illegal dumping of corrosive and hazardous liquid wastes into drains that led to publicly owned treatment works at multiple retail stores in Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Lake, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, Sonoma, and Santa Clara counties. Wal-Mart agreed to pay $60 million to resolve the California CWA charges. With respect to its recycling and repacking facility in Missouri, Wal-Mart pleaded guilty to violations of FIFRA. According to the plea agreement, Wal-Mart failed to properly train its employees with respect to the required handling of pesticides that were returned to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is alleged to have sent these pesticides to its recycling warehouse in Missouri where the pesticides were mixed together and then offered for sale to customers in containers that were not labeled with the required registration, ingredients, or use information for the pesticides. Wal-Mart agreed to pay $14 million to resolve the Missouri charges.

Finally, Wal-Mart entered into a consent order with U.S. EPA pursuant to which Wal-Mart is required to implement a comprehensive, nationwide environmental compliance agreement to manage hazardous waste generated at its stores. The agreement includes requirements to ensure adequate environmental personnel and training at all levels of the company, proper identification and management of hazardous wastes, and the development and implementation of Environmental Management Systems at its stores and return centers. Compliance with this agreement is a condition of probation imposed in the above-referenced criminal cases. As part of this consent order, Wal-Mart also agreed to pay a $7.6 million civil penalty. To see a copy of the consent order, please click here.

China’s Toxic Rice Bowl

By E. Lynn Grayson

This weekend as many celebrated Rachel Carson's birthday, we remembered her environmental work and the landmark publication of her book, Silent Spring. In doing so, we should be reminded of how far environmental protection efforts have advanced in the U.S. and continue to progress in addressing both existing but also new challenges. While some are frustrated or disappointed at the lack of progress on key environmental concerns,  appreciating how far we have come with environmental protection initiatives is easier to view when compared to the performance of other countries such as China. Con sider the following news story regarding cadmium contamination.

This weekend, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial titled, China's Toxic Rice Bowl. The editorial addressed the contamination of rice with cadmium – a heavy metal that causes cancer, kidney failure and other diseases.

In China, heavy industry is responsible for dumping cadmium into rivers. Cadmium contamination has been detected not only in rice crops but has caused fish kills, contaminated water supplies and caused acute cadmium poisoning in entire villages.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the full extent of soil contamination is unknown and activists who expose polluters are regularly imprisoned. Local officials protect mines and factories that provide revenue, both legitimate and corrupt. Likewise, officials allow farmers to continue to grow and to sell their contaminated rice crops to avoid any relocation or compensation that may be required.

While environmental challenges remain to be addressed in the U.S., there are regulatory, civil and criminal systems in place to manage and respond to problems, both government initiated as well as citizens' actions. Moreover, U.S. businesses have made environmental protection a priority for many years and often are the champions of improved and new environmental and sustainability intiatives.

For many reasons, China's governmental systems as well as private industry there appear unable to effectively respond to growing environmental threats and food safety challenges.