250-406 approach - Administration of Clearwell eDiscovery Platform 7.x Updated: 2023

In today’s edition, we’ll give a rundown of the energy and permitting provisions that are included in the new debt ceiling deal, which the House Rules Committee will consider today. But first:

As negotiators seeking a global plastics treaty gather in Paris this week for another round of talks, the Biden administration is pushing to let countries come up with their own pledges — a less stringent approach similar to that of the Paris agreement on climate change.

At its furthest reaching, a treaty could institute binding caps on how much plastic gets made and what chemicals get put into it, with the goal of pulling down production levels that are forecast to double within a few years. But others are advocating a much more limited approach, arguing that voluntary pledges to reduce the amount of plastic flowing into the world’s oceans and to make it easier to recycle would win more global support and would still be a good step.

The effort to draft an agreement remains in its opening phases, but in any project so ambitious, the rules set at the beginning can do a lot to shape the deal reached at the end. Diplomats will be haggling over the options the first version of the treaty should include, as well as who gets to hold the pen to write it. All of this will affect the course of talks that aim to wrap up by the end of 2024.

The outcome could make the difference between an ambitious effort to reduce plastic in public life and a much more limited one environmentalists say would do much less to protect people from the harms of manufacturing the long-lived material.

• “If we're serious as a global community about averting climate change and about addressing the three planetary crises of biodiversity loss, pollution and climate change, we have to be thinking about reducing plastic production,” Jane Patton, the campaign manager for plastics and petrochemicals at the Center for International Environmental Law, said by phone from Paris.

So far the discussions have broken into a few camps. 

• On the side of global production caps is the High Ambition Coalition of more than 50 countries, which is led by Rwanda and Norway and includes the members of the European Union, Mexico, Nigeria, Britain and Canada.
• The United States, Saudi Arabia and other big fossil fuel and plastics producers want the more limited approach.

“Plastic has many vital applications in our lives, such as life-saving medical devices and materials that make cars more energy efficient. Our focus is on plastic pollution. We need to take a comprehensive approach to combatting it throughout the lifecycle of plastic,” said Monica Medina, assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, in a statement during the last negotiation round in December.

The Biden administration and others say they want to eliminate plastics pollution by 2040. The U.N. Environment Program says a garbage truck full of plastic is dumped into the world’s oceans every minute.

The U.S. approach would make the plastics treaty similar to the Paris agreement on climate change, which relies on individual countries making commitments to reduce their emissions. Advocates say that approach matches the politics of the moment. Detractors say the world is still heating up too fast, a clear indicator of failure.

The United States also wants a treaty “focused on the protection of human health and the environment from plastic pollution,” according to an official summary of its views published ahead of the negotiation. But anti-plastic campaigners say it’s a mistake to focus on the narrower problem of pollution, rather than the entire process of producing plastic.

The Biden administration’s negotiating position has drawn flak from some fellow Democrats, including Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Rep. Jared Huffman (Calif.), who sent a letter last week to President Biden saying that “we urge you to stop thinking of this as just a pollution problem and to recognize it as the public health, justice and climate crisis that it poses.”

Civil society groups say they will be keeping close watch as talks unfold in the coming days.

“The treaty must protect the environment and health,” Björn Beeler, the international coordinator at the International Pollutants Elimination Network, said by phone from Paris. “And when you look at environment, you can say you’re looking at stopping leakage [into the ocean]. But when you're looking at health, you're really talking about the invisible threats to human health and to biodiversity as well from these toxic chemicals into plastics. The idea of circularity completely misses the health angle.”

Over the weekend, House Republicans and President Biden announced a deal to raise the federal debt ceiling and fund the government for the next two years. 

If approved by Congress, the deal would expedite approval of all necessary permits for the controversial Mountain Valley Pipeline, which would carry natural gas from West Virginia to the Southeast. The 303-mile pipeline, a top priority of Sens. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), has faced a string of legal setbacks from environmentalists since its inception, but the new provisions would block almost all such challenges. 

The bill also proposes streamlining the landmark National Environmental Policy Act to limit its requirements on some projects, and studying the capacity of the country’s grid to transfer electricity from region to region.

Republican leaders said they plan to work with the White House later on how to speed up major electric transmission projects — a top Democratic priority key to meeting Biden’s renewable-energy goals — but excluded such provisions from this deal. The White House also said it fended off efforts to cut billions in spending from major climate and emissions reduction legislation Biden had championed, including from the Inflation Reduction Act, The Post’s Timothy Puko reports. 

Many environmental groups yesterday took issue with the administration’s approval of the pipeline, saying it undermines the nation’s targets to reduce air and water pollution and would further burden environmental justice communities. 

But proponents, like Manchin, argue that it is crucial to ensuring energy security. The White House also said the pipeline was likely to be completed soon anyway. 

“It’s something that there’s a high degree of interest in, but I think, as a practical matter, this provision doesn’t have much of an effect,” White House climate adviser John Podesta said, according to audio of a Sunday evening call with House Democrats obtained by The Post.

With less than a week left before the default deadline, the deal faces an uncertain path through the House and the Senate. House Republicans can afford to lose up to 111 votes to pass the bill, if 107 House Democrats also approve it. In the Senate, at least nine Republicans will need to join all 51 members of the Democratic caucus to send the bill to Biden’s desk.

The Biden administration is looking for ways to persuade China, the world’s largest polluter, to curb its carbon emissions even as the nations’ relationship grows more fragile, Michael Birnbaum and Christian Shepherd report for The Post. 

Since negotiations between U.S. climate envoy John F. Kerry and his Chinese counterparts stalled in August over Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, Chinese provinces have accelerated their approvals of new coal power plants, sparking fears that China is moving away from its climate goals. 

Experts have long said that any global effort to tackle climate change will depend largely on Beijing, since Chinese manufacturing of clean energy equipment is so dominant and the country is responsible for more than double the annual emissions of the United States. 

But the dilemma comes as attitudes toward China in Washington are hardening, narrowing the space Kerry and other diplomats have to engage about the climate — a syllabu where the nations' interests have previously aligned. The Inflation Reduction Act is also adding to the friction, mainly because it focuses on building a domestic renewables industry at the expense of Chinese producers. 

Biden administration officials are trying to get talks back on track while also exploring other tools, such as tariffs, that could be tied to the emissions level of products such as steel and aluminum. A pilot program with the European Union to impose levies on carbon-intensive imports is under discussion, although there is no established price for emissions inside the United States.

As the Biden administration allocates billions of dollars in new climate subsidies, environmentally challenged industries are sharpening their green pitches to prove that they are not polluting relics. But some are mistakenly saying their plants can help stop climate change even as environmental groups are trying to shut them down, Evan Halper reports for The Post. 

Without the money from the Inflation Reduction Act, a growing number of these kinds of businesses could soon be obsolete, adding urgency to the race to show that they could be just as much of a solution to global warming as solar farms. But for now, some might be biting off more than they can chew.

Oil companies are arguing that a chemical process of melting down plastic and repurposing it for things such as jet fuel is not incineration at all, but “advanced recycling.” And the ethanol industry, burdened with scientific findings that its product has a heavier carbon footprint than gasoline, is positioning itself as the linchpin of climate-friendly air travel.

Meanwhile, waste incineration operators that create electricity argue that the technology is more sustainable than landfills, but federal data shows they are emitters of toxins such as particulate matter, dioxins, lead and mercury that are linked to health problems.

Earth isn’t just another picture to burn. Got any ideas, Swifties?