Washington state leads nation on new regulations against toxic chemicals
Presumably the usage of 'earlier this year' means 2023, not 2024...
A new act implemented earlier this year in Washington has banned five chemical classes in 10 product categories throughout the state, making it the nation's strongest law regulating toxic chemicals in products. The Safer Products for Washington program, an outgrowth of the Pollution Prevention for Our Future Act signed by Gov. Jay Inslee in 2019, is setting a precedent for other states and changing the game for the U.S. chemical industry.
The law gives the Washington Department of Ecology the authority to require companies to disclose ingredients in products that may use toxic chemicals, and to enforce the mitigation or complete elimination of them. If safer alternatives exist, the law requires they be used to replace toxic chemicals. Companies that refuse to comply will be fined.
"We saw that the current risk-based paradigm was not working at all," said Laurie Valeriano, the executive director of Toxic Free Future, a grassroots organization based in Seattle that pushed for the act. "It's an entirely failed approach that does not really drive the use of the safest chemicals and materials in our economy."
|
COP28 Leader Slammed after claim against fossil fuel phaseout
"There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phaseout of fossil fuel is what's going to achieve 1.5C."
In his remarks revealed earlier this week by The Guardian, Al Jaber not only attempted to discredit the idea that preserving a livable climate requires phasing out fossil fuels—he attempted to paint the idea as extremist.
He said he expected a "sober and mature conversation," not an "alarmist" one, when former Ireland president Mary Robinson asked him during a panel discussion whether he would support a global effort to phase out fossil fuels. He appeared offended she even asked.
Al Jaber has attempted to walk back these comments amid uproar this week, claiming he believes "the phase down and the phaseout of fossil fuel is inevitable." Even U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry has shrugged off the comments, saying they probably "came out the wrong way."
🙄
|
How a Fossil Fuel Treaty Could Support the Paris Agreement
Inside Climate News is among the websites I subscribe to in my RSS feed. And largely I love their coverage. This headline got my attention, worrying that the fossil fuel lobbyists had gotten to them. But I ended up enjoying this article and getting a better insight into what could be useful and helpful. Will it ultimately be used for good? I honestly doubt it, but it raised an excellent point regarding that we're sort of going into this backwards by trying to lessen demand which puts no cap on production.
From the intro:
What we’re seeing here at COP28 is that fossil fuels have finally been dragged center stage, in part because of the fossil fuel treaty campaign around the world for the last three years raising awareness about the fact that we are not aligning the production of fossil fuels with Paris goals. Right now we are on track to produce 110 percent more oil, gas, and coal between now and 2030 than we can ever burn if we want to meet the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
We need new agreements between countries on who gets to produce what fossil fuels and how much, and for how long. We need a plan that’s based on equity and fairness to align production with a global carbon budget. And we’re going to need new financial mechanisms and cooperation to support countries in, first of all, stopping the expansion of fossil fuels, and then secondly, winding down the production of fossil fuels.
There are so many countries today that are expanding the production of fossil fuels just to feed their debt. So some of the areas that are being looked at under a fossil fuel treaty include debt relief or tax agreements and trade agreements in order to make stopping the expansion and production and winding down production viable for many countries around the world.
From the first actual Question and Answer of the article after the intro:
There’s something intuitive about the notion that we should be producing less fossil fuel. But I’ve also heard well reasoned arguments that targeting supply specifically will either be ineffective, because other countries will simply increase production to meet demand, or that if it is effective and begins to crimp supply, that it would lead to energy price spikes and volatility that would undermine political support and potentially hurt developing nations the most. What’s your response to these critiques?
Trying to phase out fossil fuels by designing policy that is only to reduce demand is like trying to cut with one half of the scissors. We need to cut both supply and demand because what we build today will be what we use tomorrow. So we’ve had 30 years of climate policy and negotiations, designed just to reduce demand. And it’s not working. It’s not working fast enough to keep us safe.
|
How a Fossil Fuel Treaty Could Support the Paris Agreement
Inside Climate News is among the websites I subscribe to in my RSS feed. And largely I love their coverage. This headline got my attention, worrying that the fossil fuel lobbyists had gotten to them. But I ended up enjoying this article and getting a better insight into what could be useful and helpful. Will it ultimately be used for good? I honestly doubt it, but it raised an excellent point regarding that we're sort of going into this backwards by trying to lessen demand which puts no cap on production.
From the intro:
What we’re seeing here at COP28 is that fossil fuels have finally been dragged center stage, in part because of the fossil fuel treaty campaign around the world for the last three years raising awareness about the fact that we are not aligning the production of fossil fuels with Paris goals. Right now we are on track to produce 110 percent more oil, gas, and coal between now and 2030 than we can ever burn if we want to meet the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
We need new agreements between countries on who gets to produce what fossil fuels and how much, and for how long. We need a plan that’s based on equity and fairness to align production with a global carbon budget. And we’re going to need new financial mechanisms and cooperation to support countries in, first of all, stopping the expansion of fossil fuels, and then secondly, winding down the production of fossil fuels.
There are so many countries today that are expanding the production of fossil fuels just to feed their debt. So some of the areas that are being looked at under a fossil fuel treaty include debt relief or tax agreements and trade agreements in order to make stopping the expansion and production and winding down production viable for many countries around the world.
From the first actual Question and Answer of the article after the intro:
There’s something intuitive about the notion that we should be producing less fossil fuel. But I’ve also heard well reasoned arguments that targeting supply specifically will either be ineffective, because other countries will simply increase production to meet demand, or that if it is effective and begins to crimp supply, that it would lead to energy price spikes and volatility that would undermine political support and potentially hurt developing nations the most. What’s your response to these critiques?
Trying to phase out fossil fuels by designing policy that is only to reduce demand is like trying to cut with one half of the scissors. We need to cut both supply and demand because what we build today will be what we use tomorrow. So we’ve had 30 years of climate policy and negotiations, designed just to reduce demand. And it’s not working. It’s not working fast enough to keep us safe.
|
"Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution"
Scientists have uncovered how air pollution causes lung cancer in groundbreaking research that promises to rewrite our understanding of the disease.
The findings outline how fine particulates contained in car fumes "awaken" dormant mutations in lung cells and tip them into a cancerous state. The work helps explain why so many non-smokers develop lung cancer and is a "wake-up call" about the damaging impact of pollution on human health.
|
