fbpx

Month: April 2023

Pentingnya Peneliti Indonesia Meneliti Kebijakan Harm Reduction di Negara Lain

Rokok elektrik, atau yang dikenal juga dengan nama vape, saat ini merupakan produk yang digunakan oleh banyak orang di seluruh dunia, termasuk juga di Indonesia. Kita, khususnya yang tinggal di wilayah perkotaan, tentu sudah tidak asing lagi melihat penggunaan rokok elektrik di berbagai tempat.

Indonesia sendiri memiliki jumlah populasi pengguna vape yang tidak kecil. Tercatat pada tahun 2022 lalu misalnya, Indonesia memiliki sekitar 2,2 juta pengguna vape, di mana angka ini merupakan peningkatan sebesar 40% dari tahun 2021 (ekonomi.bisnis.com, 18/7/2022).

Jumlah pengguna di atas 2 juta orang tentu bukan merupakan angka yang kecil. Dengan besarnya jumlah pengguna vape tersebut, tentu ada alasan yang beragam yang membuat para konsumen untuk menggunakan produk tersebut. Mulai dari alasan finansial, bahwa secara total biaya vape lebih murah dibandingkan rokok, hingga vape digunakan sebagai alat yang dapat membantu para penggunanya untuk mengurangi atau berhenti merokok.

Vape atau rokok elektrik sendiri memang sudah menjadi salah satu alat yang difungsikan untuk membantu para perokok untuk mengurangi hingga menghentikan kebiasaan merokoknya. Inggris misalnya, melalui National Health Service (NHS), telah merekomendasikan rokok elektrik sebagai alat untuk membantu para perokok untuk berhenti merokok (nhs.uk, 10/10/2022).

Di sisi lain, tidak sedikit pula pihak-pihak yang memiliki tanggapan negatif terhadap fenomena meningkatnya pengguna vape di Indonesia. Mereka yang memiliki sikap sangat kontra, umumnya berpandangan bahwa vape atau rokok elektrik merupakan produk yang sangat berbahaya bagi kesehatan publik sehingga harus dilarang, atau setidaknya diregulasi secara sangat ketat.

Beberapa lembaga kesehatan dunia sendiri justru telah menyatakan bahwa rokok elektrik atau vape merupakan produk yang lebih aman dibandingkan rokok konvensional yang dibakar. Lembaga kesehatan publik asal Inggris, Public Health England, misalnya, pada tahun 2015 lalu, mengeluarkan laporan yang menyatakan bahwa vape merupakan produk yang 95% lebih tidak berbahaya bila dibandingkan dengan rokok konvensional yang dibakar (theguardian.com, 28/12/2018).

Itulah sebabnya, vape cukup sering digunakan sebagai alat untuk membantu kebijakan harm reduction dari rokok. Harm reduction sendiri merupakan serangkaian kebijakan atau program yang ditujukan untuk mengurangi dampak negatif dari penggunaan produk tertentu yang berbahaya, seperti rokok misalnya.

Menjadikan vape atau rokok elektrik sebagai alat untuk membantu program dan kebijakan harm reduction sendiri mungkin merupakan sesuatu yang belum terlalu akrab di telinga publik. Tidak bisa dipungkiri, salah satu penyebab utama dari hal ini adalah masih banyak pihak-pihak yang memiliki pandangan bahwa vape merupakan produk yang sama bahayanya, atau bahkan jauh lebih berbahaya, dari rokok konvensional yang dibakar.

Untuk itu, sangat penting bagi para peneliti dan juga para pembuat kebijakan untuk bekerja sama dan saling bertukar pengalaman dengan para peneliti dan juga pembuat kebijakan harm reduction di negara lain. Indonesia sendiri sebenarnya sudah memiliki potensi untuk melakukan hal tersebut.

Beberapa waktu lalu misalnya, ada peneliti asal Indonesia yang memaparkan penelitian mengenai pengurangan bahaya tembakau di sebuah konferensi di ibukota Filipina, Manila. Dalam konferensi tersebut, tim peneliti dari Fakultas Kedokteran Gigi Universitas Padjadjaran (FKG UNPAD) memaparkan mengenai penelitian mereka mengenai masalah tingkat merokok yang tinggi di Indonesia dan dampaknya terhadap kesehatan, khususnya terhadap kesehatan gigi dan mulut.

Dalam pemaparannya, tim FKG UNPAD menyatakan bahwa terdapat perbedaan profil risiko pengguna vape dan produk tembakau yang dipanaskan dengan rokok konvensional. Risiko vape dan tembakau yang dipanaskan terhadap kesehatan lebih rendah bila dibandingkan dengan rokok (tribunnews.com, 24/3/2023).

Selain itu, dipaparkan juga oleh tim tersebut bahwa produk vape dan tembakau yang dipanaskan memiliki peran potensial untuk membantu para perokok aktif untuk mengurangi kebiasaan merokoknya. Tidak hanya itu, tim dari FKG UNPAD tersebut juga melakukan studi yang mengevaluasi penggunaan vape dan tembakau yang dipanaskan secara jangka panjang, yang juga berkolaborasi dengan berbagai peneliti dari negara lain seperti Italia, Polandia, dan Moldova (tribunnews.com, 24/3/2023).

Adanya peran aktif para peneliti Indonesia di konferensi internasional dan juga kerja sama dengan peneliti dari negara lain tentu merupakan hal yang patut untuk diapresiasi dan didukung. Permasalahan kesehatan publik yang disebabkan oleh rokok tentu bukan hanya masalah besar yang melanda Indonesia, tetapi juga masalah besar yang dialami oleh banyak negara di dunia.

Sebagai penutup, rokok merupakan salah satu masalah kesehatan publik terbesar di Indonesia saat ini, mengingat bahwa Indonesia merupakan salah satu negara dengan prevalensi perokok dewasa tertinggi di dunia. Melalui kerjasama dan kolaborasi penelitian tersebut, diharapkan akan tercipta ekosistem penelitian mengenai program dan kebijakan harm reduction yang lebih komprehensif, dan para peneliti dan pembuat kebijakan di Indonesia bisa saling belajar satu sama lain dan bertukar pengalaman dengan para peneliti dan pembuat kebijakan dari negara-negara lain.

Originally published here

L’INCOHÉRENCE DES SUBVENTIONS EN EUROPE

Nous devons revenir aux principes fondateurs du marché commun.

Selon une tendance que j’ai décrite à plusieurs reprises dans La Chronique Agora, les pays européens s’orientent de plus en plus vers des modèles de subventionnement de l’industrie, dans le but de s’aligner sur les très vastes projets des États-Unis visant à soutenir les transitions économiques respectueuses du climat. Cela a créé une situation dans laquelle l’Union européenne punit les États qui soutiennent leur industrie nationale, mais les incite également à le faire.

Prenons un exemple dans lequel la Commission européenne applique strictement les règles anti-subventions de l’Union.

La Commission européenne vient de décider, à juste titre, que les aides d’État accordées par l’Italie à la compagnie aérienne en difficulté Alitalia (qui a depuis fait faillite et s’est rebaptisée « ITA Airways ») n’étaient pas conformes aux règles de l’UE. Rome a accordé à la compagnie aérienne un total de 1,3 milliard d’euros de prêts en 2017 et 2019 – selon Bruxelles – sans indication palpable que la compagnie serait en mesure de rembourser les prêts ; 400 millions d’euros de ce prêt doivent maintenant être remboursés aux contribuables italiens, a statué la Commission. Cependant, ITA Airways affirme qu’elle n’est pas responsable de la dette accumulée par Alitalia, ce qui signifie que Rome ne sera probablement pas en mesure de se conformer à la décision.

« La solution à long terme ne réside pas dans les subventions publiques », explique Ebba Bush, vice-premier ministre et ministre des Affaires suédoise, interrogée sur les projets de l’UE visant à augmenter considérablement les subventions pour contrer la « loi sur la réduction de l’inflation » américaine (IRA). Certaines des plus grandes économies européennes, telles que la France et l’Allemagne, ont fait pression en faveur d’un assouplissement des règles de l’Union en matière d’aides d’État afin de rester compétitives au niveau mondial dans les secteurs verts. Des pays plus petits, dont la Suède, qui assure la présidence tournante du Conseil, ont toutefois averti que le marché intérieur pourrait être menacé si Bruxelles permettait de donner trop d’argent aux plus grandes économies de l’Union.

L’assouplissement des règles relatives aux aides d’État a été motivé par la forte augmentation des prix de l’énergie et le risque de voir l’industrie européenne se déplacer vers les États-Unis en réponse à l’IRA, qui est entré en vigueur en août 2022 et offre des subventions d’une valeur de 369 milliards de dollars pour les « investissements verts », à la suite de quoi les entreprises envisagent de se délocaliser vers les États-Unis.

Margrethe Vestager, vice-commissaire de l’UE, affirme qu’il est essentiel de préserver l’intégrité du marché unique de l’UE. « Quoi que nous fassions, nous devons éviter une course aux subventions », a-t-elle ajouté. La Commission propose de simplifier le calcul des aides d’État, d’accélérer les approbations et d’élargir le champ d’application de l’encadrement temporaire de crise et de transition – adopté à la suite de l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie – afin de « soutenir toutes les sources d’énergie renouvelables possibles ».

Cet encadrement propose également une « option temporaire très exceptionnelle d’aide d’alignement ». Le projet suggère que les États membres soient autorisés à égaler les subventions offertes par les pays tiers, afin de garantir que les investissements ne soient pas « injustement détournés vers le plus offrant en dehors de l’Europe ». Les dispositions ne s’appliquent qu’aux secteurs affectés par l’IRA, et des conditions strictes seraient imposées, notamment si le projet profite à plus d’un État membre, a indiqué Mme Vestager.

Même en prétendant qu’il y aura des contrôles stricts sur l’utilisation des aides d’État, la Commission européenne a des antécédents plutôt occasionnels en ce qui concerne l’application de règles strictes (Alitalia est l’une d’entre elles). En général, Bruxelles énumère toutes sortes de raisons exceptionnelles pour lesquelles un paquet particulier d’un milliard d’euros a été approuvé et, dans le cas de COVID-19, a emprunté des sommes incroyables sur le dos des contribuables de l’UE.

En théorie, l’Union européenne s’efforce de créer un marché exempt de distorsions anticoncurrentielles, mais en réalité, elle ne fait pas grand-chose pour y parvenir. L’IRA américain a touché un point sensible : non seulement l’Europe peut revenir au protectionnisme, mais elle peut aussi le faire en prétendant le faire au nom du développement durable. Après tout, nous diront les bureaucrates, quel meilleur scénario qu’une guerre commerciale qui protège l’environnement ?

Voici les principaux problèmes liés à l’ouverture des portes de l’État dans l’UE :

  • bien que plafonnée à 150 millions d’euros par entreprise, l’aide ne tient pas compte de la taille et des concurrents européens, ce qui signifie qu’elle bénéficiera de manière disproportionnée aux grandes entreprises par rapport aux PME ;
  • les pays les plus pauvres de l’UE – même s’ils sont autorisés – ne sont tout simplement pas en mesure d’accorder autant d’aides d’État qu’un pays comme l’Allemagne, ce qui crée de nouveaux déséquilibres sur le marché ;
  • les grandes entreprises sont également en mesure d’augmenter leurs subventions sur plusieurs continents, car l’UE autorise le dépassement du plafond s’il existe un risque palpable de voir les investissements quitter le marché unique.

Nous devons revenir aux principes fondateurs du marché commun : le libre-échange, l’absence de distorsions du marché dues à des normes réglementaires injustes pour les produits et les services, et l’absence de subventions. Nous ne pouvons tout simplement pas nous le permettre, tant sur le plan financier qu’économique.

Originally published here

SEN. CRUZ, COLLEAGUES REINTRODUCE BILL TO ELIMINATE CHEMICAL TAX

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), John Kennedy (R-La.),  Mike Lee (R-Utah), and John Barrasso (R-Wy.) today reintroduced the Chemical Tax Repeal Act to eliminate the Superfund Tax imposed by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Sen. Cruz previously introduced this bill in 2021.

The 2021 infrastructure law imposed roughly $15 billion worth of taxes on 42 different chemicals, critical minerals, and metallic elements that are the building blocks of common household items such as plastics, rubber, concrete, soap, lightbulbs, and electronics. Texas is home to forty percent of the country’s chemical manufacturing plants, and would be heavily impacted by this tax.

Upon reintroduction, Sen. Cruz said: 

“Inflation has skyrocketed under President Biden, and his Chemical Tax would only make things worse. This tax increases prices on Texas and American manufacturers, driving up the prices of everyday household items that families need. Repealing this tax would benefit those most harmed by Washington’s out-of-control, inflation-driving spending: American families and those on a fixed income.”

Deputy Director of the consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center, Yaël Ossowski, said:

“In a time of persistent inflation and escalating trade wars, we must do everything we can to ease imposed burdens and costs on consumers. Repealing taxes on necessary chemicals and components — all pivotal to American manufacturing, domestic production, and increased competition — is a great measure that will go a long way in making lives for consumers just that much easier. We praise any efforts that help make products and services more affordable for American families.”

Read the full text here

The UK to Handout a Million Vape Starter Kits to Smokers Seeking to Quit

The Ministry of Health will be giving out the kits as part of a new anti-smoking drive which includes plans for a crackdown on illicit vape sales. 

While official UK public health groups such as Public Health England (PHE) and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) keep assuring that there is no teen vaping epidemic while arguing in favour of the benefits of vapes for smoking cessation, the Guardian has just released an article claiming that teen vaping is a “public health catastrophe.”

“I am concerned that we are sleepwalking into a public health catastrophe with a generation of children hooked on nicotine,” said Prof. Andrew Bush, a consultant paediatric chest physician at Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals, as quoted by the Guardian. The article went on to quote a number of parents who are voicing their concerns about their children’s vaping habits.

Meanwhile, the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) cited a 2021 Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) report, which examined vaping behaviours among youths in the UK, and found that an overwhelming majority (83%) of teens and pre-teens aged between 11 and 18, have never tried or even heard of e-cigarettes. This finding has remained consistent since 2017.

Read the full text here

Online Security Concerns Shouldn’t Enable a Surveillance State

At the 2012 London Olympics, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the World Wide Web, crafted the message “This Is For Everyone.” And at that time digitized opportunities felt limitless. Now, a little more than a decade later, that message might read “This is for Everyone – Pending Oversight and Approval.”

Indeed, tech accountability proposals and high profile hearings with Silicon’s finest were plentiful last year and this year shows no signs of slowing down. Governmental officials of both parties have proven to have a never-ending interest in meddling in online anonymity, as the recently proposed RESTRICT Act shows.

RESTRICT stands for Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communication Technology – the name says it all. 

Essentially, this act grants the Department of Commerce the authority to interfere with any data of any user and prosecute any activity based on any possibility of a threat – and any disapproval for interference derived from Congress can only be brought forth after the fact. If this sounds out of proportion, read it for yourself.

While other proposed bills, such as Section 230, have (wrongly) placed service providers and social media networks as the target for regulation, the RESTRICT Act applies to everyone.

Under the RESTRICT Act, all internet-based interactions and transactions would be subject to surveillance and scrutiny, which is why some have dubbed the RESTRICT Act to be ‘the Patriot Act 2.0.’ Such an assertion, however, is too kind, since the ‘sneak and peek’ approaches that were allowed under the Patriot Act pale in comparison to the constant oversight of online affairs that the RESTRICT Act would enable.

It is also worth noting that the Patriot Act was set to expire in 2005 but, like many government programs, it has been preserved and currently lives on under the USA Freedom Act of 2015. And although the USA Freedom Act had a planned expiration date set for 2020, it is also still hanging on.

It seems unlikely the RESTRICT Act will gain any real traction given its extreme nature, but proposals like these act as prototypes or concept tests for what might come next – and stranger things have happened.

It was just a little over a year ago, for example, when the Biden Administration launched the Disinformation Governance Board, aka the ‘Ministry of Truth.’ Nina Jankowicz, the appointed ‘disinformation czar,’ went viral on TikTok with a revamped (and ridiculed) rendition of ‘Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,’ and backlash quickly ensued as the board was evidently too Orwellian for the American public to stomach. 

The states are getting in on the act too. Take for example the Arkansas legislature’s recent passing of an “online youth safety” bill, which itself mirrors a law which Utah passed last month. 

Arkansas’s Social Media Safety Act, signed by Gov. Sanders, requires all online users to prove whether they are age-appropriate for certain platforms and content, which thereby necessitates the collection of biometric and personal data for ID verification. 

Any online anonymity or semblance of data privacy has been revoked by the state in the name of safeguarding children. Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center, rightly asserts that the government is now poised to be “the final arbiter of whether young people access the Internet at all.” 

Parental ability (and responsibility) to play a part in the digital lives of their children is being delegated to government bureaucrats, and it won’t be long until other state legislatures follow suit. Connecticut looks to be next.

What is truly disturbing about these laws is that they enable government overreach in places that the market has already been providing solutions for online child safety. Concerns over data management and data access have resulted in cyber security’s being one of the fastest growing markets, with lucrative positions for those studying to be information analysts and data scientists. 

As it so happens, none other than Sir Tim Berners-Lee has launched a decentralization project to tackle data rights management. His is one of many initiatives that should be incentivised by user interests and left unencumbered by political interference

Historical and empirical evidence proves that a decentralized economy leads to progress and prosperity, so we should enable our digital economy with the same approach. 

Originally published here

Commissioner Breton’s Fair Share demands address the wrong recipient

The EU’s proposal to make platforms contribute to developing digital infrastructure may seem reasonable and easy to help telco operators, but it would create more problems than it solves.

Last May, Commissioner Breton proposed making platforms contribute to developing digital infrastructure, such as 5G networks, which received mixed reactions. Some voices in the telecom industry argue that content providers and streaming platforms are not paying their ‘fair share’ for using the networks that transmit their content. They point to the high traffic generated by streaming services, which strains their infrastructure and resources.

However, this is not true. Implementing these fair share rules would result in higher consumer costs, as companies like Netflix, Disney, Sky – NowTV, and the Italian Mediaset Play would be required to pay for broadband networks.

The battle for ‘fair share’ contributions has revealed a massive problem in European’s connectivity market: Telco providers are expected to build out Europe’s data highways but lack the capital to do it quickly. The lack of money puts European economies at a competitive disadvantage, and something needs to be done. Unfortunately, Commissioner Breton and his allies in some legacy telco companies see the culprit in a growing group of digital content providers.

Implementing these fair share rules would result in higher consumer costs, as companies like Netflix, Disney, Sky – NowTV, and the Italian Mediaset Play would be required to pay for broadband networks.

The argument that content providers do not want to pay their fair share for network use does not hold up to scrutiny. This is because internet service providers, which in many member states own the infrastructure, are not allowed to block services or traffic except for security reasons, thanks to regulation 2015/2120, the so-called Open Internet Regulation.

Applying the fair share idea to streaming services would go against this provision, as it would require some providers to pay for network use, giving them a different treatment over others.

Telecom providers charge consumers for network access and data; hence they are already compensated for using their infrastructure. Instead of imposing unfair fees on content providers, the EU could work with member states to reduce the cost of spectrum licenses, which are the fees that telecom companies pay to access the radio frequency spectrum necessary for transmitting wireless signals.

These fees can be exorbitantly expensive in many member states. Some might still remember Germany auctioning off the 3G/UMTS spectrum for a total of €50 billion in 2000. That’s €620 per German resident telco companies had less to build the needed data infrastructure. Lowering, or even fully scrapping, these fees would give telecom providers more capital, allowing them to invest in infrastructure and improve their services.

Right now, spectrum is usually only ’given away’ for two decades. Proper ownership and functioning secondary markets for spectrum across the entire EU would also bring more dynamism into our connectivity market. Despite the rhetoric that the end of intra-EU roaming led us to a single market for connectivity, Europe is still far away from a harmonised telco market. Creating a competitive European connectivity and telco market might bring higher returns than Breton’s attempt to tax predominantly US-based content platforms. This, in turn, would benefit consumers by increasing competition, driving down prices, and improving the quality of telecom services.

The battle for ‘fair share’ contributions has revealed a massive problem in European’s connectivity market: Telco providers are expected to build out Europe’s data highways but lack the capital to do it quickly

Whilst the EU’s proposal to make platforms contribute to developing digital infrastructure may seem reasonable and easy to help telco operators, it would create more problems than it solves. Some member states’ hunger for revenues has massively crippled the EU’s connectivity and available capital for significant network infrastructure investments. Consumers still pay the bill for spectrum auctions through sky-high prices for mobile phone plans in Germany and other countries such as the United Kingdom. On the other hand, member states in the Baltics are merely charged between €5 and €35 per citizen, leaving the network providers with the necessary cash to build out infrastructure.

The telecom industry’s financial difficulties are better addressed by reducing the cost of spectrum licenses rather than imposing unfair fees on content providers. A new approach to spectrum would benefit consumers by increasing competition, driving down prices, and improving the quality of telecom services.

Originally published here

QUAND LES VICTIMES DES LOIS ANTI-CARBONE PRENNENT LE POUVOIR

La victoire électorale du parti des agriculteurs néerlandais préfigure les prochaines batailles environnementales en Europe.

Le Mouvement des agriculteurs citoyens néerlandais (BBB) a remporté une grande victoire lors des élections provinciales du pays, le 15 mars dernier. Avec 19,36% des voix et 139 des 572 sièges en jeu, il est devenu, 4 ans après sa création, le plus puissant parti du pays au niveau local.

Le 30 mai prochain, lors des élections sénatoriales, il devrait obtenir environ 15 des 75 sièges de la Première Chambre (équivalente à notre Sénat), gagnant ainsi une place majeure dans l’échiquier politique national. Il pourra ainsi saper les efforts du gouvernement du Premier ministre Mark Rutte, dont la coalition reste majoritaire dans la Seconde Chambre (équivalente à notre Assemblée nationale).

A l’origine d’une protestation

Le BBB n’a été créé qu’en 2019, mais il a bénéficié d’un soutien populaire à la suite de la décision du gouvernement de réduire considérablement les émissions d’azote en fermant environ un tiers des exploitations agricoles néerlandaises. Et sa victoire dans les urnes n’est probablement qu’un début.

Au cours de l’été dernier, les agriculteurs néerlandais ont protesté contre la politique prévue par le gouvernement en bloquant des routes et des aéroports, et en jetant du fumier sur les fonctionnaires. Le gouvernement de La Haye tente de suivre les directives de l’UE en réduisant les émissions d’azote de 50 % d’ici à 2030. Les émissions d’oxyde nitreux et de méthane sont des sous-produits de l’élevage, par exemple lorsque le fumier est déposé.

Les Pays-Bas, ainsi que le Danemark, l’Irlande et la région flamande de la Belgique, bénéficiaient d’exemptions concernant les plafonds fixés par l’UE pour le fumier en raison de leur faible superficie, mais cette exemption est sur le point de prendre fin pour les agriculteurs néerlandais.

Le gouvernement de Mark Rutte entend réduire les émissions en rachetant les éleveurs, même si ces derniers n’ont guère manifesté d’intérêt pour les cartes-cadeaux.

Le BBB a été critiqué pour ses positions anti-immigration et son hostilité à l’élargissement de l’UE, mais son succès dans les sondages n’a pas grand-chose à voir avec un glissement à droite aux Pays-Bas. En fait, ce scrutin a non seulement attiré de nouveaux électeurs qui ont utilisé les élections provinciales comme un sondage sur le gouvernement, mais il a également porté un coup important aux partis d’extrême droite qui ont subi de lourdes pertes, notamment le « Foorum vor Democratie » (15 sièges, contre 86 en 2019).

Symptôme européen

Le gouvernement néerlandais n’a donc que deux options. Prétendre qu’il s’agit d’une phase politique temporaire, exploiter le fait que ce nouveau parti fera inévitablement des erreurs de communication, et continuer sur la même voie… ou en changer. Il semble que cette dernière option devienne inévitable, et pas seulement parce que le gouvernement a besoin de l’approbation de la Première Chambre pour ses objectifs de réduction d’émissions d’azote.

S’il est possible que la coalition de M. Rutte trouve des voix à l’extrême-gauche, cette stratégie ne serait pas sans inconvénients. Les sénateurs verts et d’extrême gauche sont susceptibles de soutenir les objectifs de la réduction des émissions d’azote, mais aussi de demander des objectifs encore plus ambitieux pour l’avenir, ce qui ne ferait qu’aggraver le climat politique.

Le Premier ministre Mark Rutte, surnommé « Teflon Mark » (pour sa capacité à surmonter de multiples crises politiques au cours de ses 13 années de mandat), est également confronté à la possibilité que les membres de sa propre coalition quadripartite se dégonflent au cours du processus.

Les événements politiques qui se déroulent aux Pays-Bas sont un symptôme de ce qui risque de se produire dans toute l’Europe. L’agriculture, un domaine habituellement réservé aux débats politiques obscurs et aux réunions de commissions qui durent des heures et font bailler, est en train de devenir un élément central des ambitions vertes de l’Europe. Le secteur agricole est indéniablement responsable d’une grande partie des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, mais il s’est retrouvé injustement ciblé par des règles simplistes.

Des promesses intenables

La politique néerlandaise d’élimination progressive d’un tiers des exploitations agricoles est née du constat que le seul moyen réaliste de réduire les émissions de manière fiable serait de réduire considérablement les secteurs de l’aviation et de la construction, deux secteurs que les Pays-Bas ne peuvent pas se permettre de manière réaliste compte tenu de leur activité économique.

La décision de cibler les agriculteurs en dernier recours est emblématique de l’approche européenne qui suscitera beaucoup d’hostilité : c’est l’histoire parfaite pour créer des mouvements populistes.

Au cours de la dernière décennie, l’Europe a fait des promesses ambitieuses en matière d’objectifs d’émissions, mais maintenant que l’UE et ses États membres sont confrontés à la réalité de la manière dont ces objectifs seront atteints, il est probable que les choses se gâtent.

La stratégie « Farm to Fork » de l’Union européenne connaît le même sort : le commissaire à l’Agriculture de la Commission européenne, Janusz Wojciechowski, a déclaré qu’il pensait que cette stratégie désavantage injustement les Etats membres d’Europe de l’Est. Ce même commissaire est pourtant censé défendre les politiques de réduction des pesticides, des engrais et de l’utilisation des terres agricoles.

Selon une étude d’impact réalisée par l’USDA, cette stratégie entraînerait une baisse de la production agricole comprise entre 7 et 12%. Dans le même temps, la baisse du PIB de l’UE représenterait 76% de la baisse du PIB mondial. Les ménages à faibles revenus, qui souffrent déjà de l’inflation, subiraient une pression encore plus forte et seraient très probablement politisés.

Ces dernières années ont vu défiler de jeunes activistes climatiques qui ont dressé des listes de demandes politiques ambitieuses. Dans les années à venir, ce seront les manifestations de ceux qui devront les financer.

Originally published here

The devil’s bargain on eliminating PFAS

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been headlining newspapers across the nation as of late. States like Maine have pushed rules and regulations to limit the presence of PFAS in consumer products; the EPA recommended PFAS water limits that are near zero, and class action lawsuits have embroiled producers.

PFAS, a diverse group of man-made chemicals used in everything from microchip production to pharmaceuticals and medical implants, are under the gun, to put it mildly. In fact, St. Paul-based 3M, in response to the mounting pressure, announced in December that it would be seeking to leave the market altogether with hopes of no longer producing any PFAS at all by 2025.

Critics of the current regulatory approach to PFAS have warned that eliminating the production of PFAS in the U.S. entirely would create huge supply chain disruptions for everyday consumer goods, and create a laundry list of externalities. In fact, it would appear that U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum sees the writing on the wall and the disaster that will unfold if the U.S. produces no PFAS whatsoever. The Democratic congresswoman from Minnesota’s Fourth District explained that 3M leaving the market presents a national security risk, primarily because of how vital PFAS is for chip production. Congress, and the Biden administration, allocated $53 billion to increase chip production in the U.S., with the hopes of ending U.S. reliance on China for chips.

This is where the PFAS debate gets geopolitical. McCollum went so far as to say that the Biden administration could mandate that 3M continue to produce PFAS, and use the Defense Production Act, which requires private companies to prioritize the government’s needs.

So on one hand, we have government agencies significantly limiting PFAS in the U.S., while at the same time Congress may counter those efforts to require PFAS to continue to be produced domestically. It would appear that legislators are starting to realize that phasing out PFAS production in the U.S. doesn’t eliminate the demand for PFAS along the supply chain, which means that microchip producers, for example, will have to import these chemicals to avoid a production shortage. This is no easy feat, given that in 2019, the last time production data was available, the U.S. domestically produced 625 million pounds of PFAS, with only 54 million pounds being imported. A 571 million pound shortfall is a significant sum.

And where would U.S. chip manufacturers import PFAS from if U.S. production ceased? Ironically, U.S. chip producers would have to import the bulk of that shortfall from China, which completely undermines the purpose of reshoring chip production in the U.S. We know that this is likely what will happen because it already happened in Europe when 3M’s Belgium plant was temporarily shut down. Major Korean chip producers like Samsung and SK Hynix purchased PFAS from Chinese suppliers to avoid production shortages.

It certainly makes great sense to try to decouple from China in regards to chips, especially with increased tensions over Taiwan’s autonomy and Biden’s commitment to militarily defend Taiwan if the People’s Republic of China does invade. That is something that is becoming increasingly more likely with China’s President Xi Jinping instructing China’s military to be prepared for an invasion by 2027.

If U.S. chip producers end up having to import PFAS to produce chips, the U.S. will be setting the table for a scenario eerily similar to Europe’s reliance on Russian gas. If, or when, China invades Taiwan, the U.S. would be in an active armed conflict with a country who is now the primary supplier of vital inputs for microchips. In that scenario, those imports likely end, either by decision from China, or sanctions against China, grinding the supply chain to a halt.

And the cost of this would be astronomical. For example, chip shortages cost the U.S. economy $240 billion in 2021. The shortage heavily affected the auto industry, costing manufacturers $210 billion in revenue as cars sat in lots waiting for chips to be installed. A true national chip shortage, not just with cars but with all products reliant on chips, would be so costly that it is difficult to actually forecast.

At the end of the day, PFAS policy needs to encompass the full view on costs and benefits, taking into account the emerging geopolitical discussion. There has to be a path forward that allows for responsible production, ensuring clean drinking water, while avoiding a wholesale chip shortage and the chaos that would ensue.

Originally published here

How a Sweden pushback against essential oils would hurt consumers

Whether you’re applying perfume before a night out or mosquito repellent this summer, you might use essential oils in the process. The concentrated extractions from plants are used widely in the home and not only for wellness bloggers – they freshen up your laundry, treat your acne, and fend off fruit flies. Yet under EU new rules pushed, essential oil use could become severely disrupted. The Swedish presidency of the European Union has the chance to keep insect bites away from our summers.

The EU’s Chemical Agency ECHA has announced plans to shift its assessments of chemical compounds (which includes even simple plant extracts) from a risk-based assessment to a hazard-based assessment. The difference is not merely semantic. In risk communications, “risk” and “hazard” mean different things in the English language.

Let’s use the example of just being outside. The sun represents a hazard, because outside of giving you a sunburn through its UV light, it can cause more severe conditions such as skin cancer. People manage this hazard by limiting their exposure, such as standing in the shade, bringing in a parasol or applying sun cream. The equation thus becomes risk = hazard x exposure. The question of any risk assessment is therefore: how likely is it that a certain product will negatively affect its users?

If you applied a hazard-based approach to life, you would fear cars on roads you are not crossing, duck under planes that are flying at a normal altitude, or, quite frankly, not go outside at all. Unfortunately, ECHA intends on applying this overtly overcautious approach to essential oils, by labeling them as dangerous. The agency is incentivised to assess essential oil under the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation ((EC) No 1272/2008), meaning it would require them to carry warning labels pointing to its danger or be restricted from sale.

As with anything, dosage makes the difference. While a glass of water is perfectly safe, consuming more than five liters in under an hour could actually kill you through water intoxication. The same applies to essential oil: while mosquito-repellent is perfectly safe for humans to use and (fortunately) very unpleasant to mosquitos, it can be toxic if you drink it. While this fact seems obvious to consumers, who are also advised to keep essential oils or chemicals such as cleaning products away from children, it appears to escape regulators who believe it is a hazardous substance.

If consumers do not have access to essential oil products or are disincentivized from their use, they are likely to shift to artificial and possibly more harmful alternatives, such as bug repellents containing diethyltoluamide, known as DEET, which can affect the human nervous system and negatively impact plants and animals.

Warning labels can have a lasting effect on how consumers view the products they buy. If essential oils are subdued by unwarranted danger labels, it could shift consumers to worse alternatives, and impact an industry that is also important. In 2022, the global market value of essential oil surpassed €24 billion. In 2021, France exported over €450 million worth of essential oil products. This means that regulation currently supported by the Swedish presidency would not only affect consumers in the EU and Sweden alike, it would also undermine this country’s own vibrant and developing industry.

Chemical policy is nerdy, and it’s certainly not as appealing as the essential oil used to make our perfumes. Yet it is important to remind regulators that a paternalistic and hazard-based approach to their classification is neither necessary nor practical. Policy-makers need to weigh the risks and benefits of each product and act accordingly. In this case, acting accordingly means NOT labeling everything that contains essential oils as dangerous, most importantly… because in moderate use they aren’t.

Originally published here

Illinois Considers a Vape Ban in Public Spaces

State Senator Julie Morrison has been striving to put an end to tobacco use by teens since entering the General Assembly. In 2019, she passed a law that increased the state’s tobacco age limit to 21. And after carrying out extensive work to combat smoking, she has turned her attention to vapes.

The state’s existing Smoke Free Illinois Act has prohibited smoking in public and within 15 feet of entrances since 2007. However, when this law took effect most people used combustible tobacco, and now Morrison would like to extend it to vaping via Senate Bill 1561. Last year she also set in place a measure that restricts marketing of vaping productsso that it does not appeal to minors.

Meanwhile in 2022, Senate Bill 3854 was introduced to ban flavoured products including THC vaping devices, heat-not-burn systems and chewing tobacco products. In response to this bill and in line with arguments by tobacco harm reduction experts, Elizabeth Hicks from the U.S. Affairs analyst with the Consumer Choice Center, said that enacting a flavour ban for vaping products, will just lead former smokers back to smoking.

Read the full text here

Scroll to top
en_USEN