Energy Transfer Partners, the Dallas-based developer of the heavily criticized Dakota Access Pipeline, has filed a massive $1 billion lawsuit against activist groups including Greenpeace, Earth First!, BankTrack, the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand. Energy Transfer claims that by protesting, and encouraging others to protest the pipeline, the actions of the groups “violated federal and state racketeering statutes, defamation, and constituted defamation and tortious interference under North Dakota law.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in North Dakota. Energy Transfer is claiming that the groups embarked on a campaign of misinformation about the pipeline, sparking the drawn-out protests, and funded and supported eco-terrorists. A press release about the lawsuit from Energy Transfer claims:

In addition to its misinformation campaign, the Enterprise directly and indirectly funded eco-terrorists on the ground in North Dakota.  These groups formed their own outlaw camp among peaceful protestors gathered near Lake Oahe, and exploited the peaceful activities of these groups to further the Enterprise’s corrupt agenda by inducing and directing violent and destructive attacks against law enforcement as well as Plaintiffs’ property and personnel.

The Dakota Access pipeline was heavily protested throughout the fall, but ultimately was able to be completed after President Donald Trump signed a presidential memo allowing the massive project. Construction was completed in April 2017. Greenpeace’s response to the recently-filed lawsuit actually pointed out a connection between Trump and Energy Transfer–the developers are being represented by Marc Kasowitz’s law firm. Kasowitz is one of Trump’s personal lawyers. Greenpeace USA General Counsel Tom Wetterer released a statement that included: “It is yet another classic ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation’ (SLAPP), not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation. This has now become a pattern of harassment by corporate bullies, with Trump’s attorneys leading the way.”

Representatives from other groups named in the suit, including the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand, dispute the allegations and say they still oppose the pipeline.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dakota Access Pipeline Developer Sues Greenpeace, Other Activist Groups appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Homeland Security waived more than three dozen environmental laws and regulations Wednesday to speed up the first phase of construction of border wall projects near San Diego.

#NoWallsNoWaivers
#Resist#ResistTrump#RevitalizeNotMilitarize#OurLands pic.twitter.com/80JZkd5Maa

— cyndi tuell (@cctuell) August 1, 2017

The projects will be constructed along an approximately 15-mile segment of land that starts at the Pacific Ocean and extends eastward toward a point called Border Monument 251, according to a statement from the DHS. The waiver follows one of President Donald Trump’s January executive orders, which called for greater security along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The DHS invoked a 1996 law to waive several environmental protections, including a law that would have required the department to assess the environmental impact the wall would have. In spite of the waivers, the department maintained in a statement that they are “committed to environmental stewardship with respect to these projects.”

The statement read:

DHS has been coordinating and consulting–and intends to continue doing so–with other federal and state resource agencies to ensure impacts to the environment, wildlife, and cultural and historic artifacts are analyzed and minimized, to the extent possible.

However, environmental advocates and border wall opponents weren’t convinced. The Center for Biological Diversity, which sued the DHS in June to obtain documents on Trump’s border wall prototypes, published a statement condemning the waiver and the wall. Brian Segee, and attorney for the center, criticized Trump’s planned wall for being harmful to the environment and the people who live near the border.

“Trump wants to scare people into letting him ignore the law and endanger wildlife and people,” Segee said in the statement. “Trump’s wall is a divisive symbol of fear and hatred, and it does real harm to the landscape and communities.”

In another critique of the decision, American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers cautioned against impulsively expediting the border wall.

“Today’s announcement by DHS is a disturbing sign that President Trump will barrel ahead with building a border wall no matter the cost to taxpayers or effect on our environment,” he said. “Given the widespread skepticism towards the effectiveness of the border wall by leaders in both parties–including the new White House Chief of Staff–effective safeguards are more important than ever to prevent President Trump from spending tens of billions of dollars and radically transforming our Southwestern border based solely upon his whims and impulses.”

Environmentalists fear that Trump’s border wall would negatively impact the surrounding environment through actions such as impeding animal migration and increasing floods in the desert. Segee pointed out that the construction wouldn’t be limited to just the wall, but would include roads, lighting, and other infrastructure that would accompany it.

In a May study, the Center for Biological Diversity found that the wall and related infrastructure would potentially affect 93 threatened, endangered, and candidate species. But the full impact of such large-scale construction projects cannot be known unless an environmental impact assessment is performed, a procedural step that DHS does not appear to see as a necessity.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DHS Waives Environmental Rules To Build San Diego Border Wall appeared first on Law Street.

A hearings judge in Hawaii ruled the state could reissue a building permit for a telescope on Mauna Kea, a 14,000-foot dormant volcano that has become a lighting rod over the past few years. While the ruling is sure to fan the flames of a long-simmering conflict between astronomers and Native Hawaiians, the telescope has a ways to go before it can decipher the deepest mysteries of the universe.

The $1.4 billion behemoth, commonly called the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), would be the largest telescope in the Northern Hemisphere. It is one of three mammoth-sized telescopes being considered around the globe–the other two are in Chile. The project is backed by researchers at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California, who say it would be used to observe far-away planets and galaxies. India, China, and Canada have reportedly invested in the project as well.

Would a gigantic observatory despoil Hawaii’s sacred Mauna Kea? A judge says no. https://t.co/APwOLJEZ3y

— NYT Science (@NYTScience) July 28, 2017

But a faction of environmental groups and Native Hawaiians have passionately protested the telescope’s construction on Mauna Kea. The legal battle over Mauna Kea, considered a sacred site by some native groups, began in 2011, two years after the site was selected as the future home of the TMT. The state’s Board of Land and Natural Resources issued a permit for the telescope, which was contested by the project’s opponents to no avail.

In 2015, the Hawaii Supreme Court revoked the building permit, saying the board cut corners in approving the telescope. The application process started over, and retired Judge Riki May Amano was appointed to rule on whether or not the board should be granted the ability to issue a new building permit. On Wednesday, Amano decided that the board should be able to do so, on the condition that workers and astronomers undergo “mandatory cultural and natural resources training.”

“TMT welcomes the recommendation that a state permit be issued, and we respectfully look forward to the next steps,” Ed Stone, executive director of the TMT International Observatory, said in a statement. “We are grateful to all our supporters and friends who have been with us during the hearing process and over the past 10 years, and we remain respectful of the process to ensure the proper stewardship of Mauna Kea.”

Hawaii Gov. David Ige has also expressed support for the project. In a statement released after Amano’s decision, Ige said: “I support the coexistence of astronomy and culture on Mauna Kea along with better management of the mountain.”

Next up, the board will hear arguments on whether or not to accept Amano’s ruling. Regardless of the board’s decision, the case is likely to wind up back at the Hawaii Supreme Court. The telescope’s directors said if the telescope does not get built on Mauna Kea, it will end up in the Canary Islands off the coast of Spain.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Says Telescope on Hawaii’s Sacred Mauna Kea Should be Built appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Britain’s Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs released documents detailing the country’s plan to reduce air pollution over the next several years. Most notably, the United Kingdom will ban the sale of new petrol or diesel-powered cars and vans by 2040.

In addition to the ban on gas vehicles, the government reiterated its desire to fully implement its recently-announced £2.7 billion investments into low-emission taxis, car-rental programs, roads, and green bus retrofits.

In its plan, the government pledges to be the “the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.”

Europe’s Green Trend

Britain’s announcement comes at a time when air quality levels are increasingly at the forefront of policies across Europe, as the continent tries to grapple with the increased effects of climate change.

“It’s important we all gear up for a significant change, which deals not just with the problems to health caused by emissions but the broader problems caused in terms of accelerating climate change,” Britain’s Environment Secretary Michael Gove said.

New diesel and petrol cars are to be banned from 2040 as part of a new strategy to tackle air pollution https://t.co/Bmj3JSq6BN pic.twitter.com/MEjFNoqO9R

— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 26, 2017

Britain’s new policy mimics France’s ban on gas and diesel cars by 2040, which was announced last month after the country struggled with dense smog and pollution in its larger urban areas. It’s also inspiring some Irish politicians to advocate for a similar commitment.

“If Ireland doesn’t change it’s in the danger of becoming a dumping ground. We need to set a date and work from it, without targets we are rudderless,” said Ireland’s Green Party Councillor Ciaran Cuffe.

Too Little, Too Late?

Some politicians, including former Labour Leader Ed Miliband, are saying that this announcement is largely meant to act as a media charade, to distract from ongoing Brexit negotiations and the fact that the U.K. government has been slow to tackle the issue seriously.

Fear that new car petrol/diesel ban in 23 years time is smokescreen for weak measures to tackle 40,000 deaths a year from air pollution now.

— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) July 25, 2017

Criticism is also emerging from industry officials who condemn the government’s plan because of the negative ramifications it may have on car manufacturing jobs.

“Outright bans risk undermining the current market for new cars and our sector, which supports over 800,000 jobs across the U.K.,” said Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Even among supporters of a gas car ban, some are critical of the timeline, which they consider to be too forgiving.

Areeba Hamid, a clean air campaigner at Greenpeace UK said: “We cannot wait nearly a quarter of a century for real action to tackle the public health emergency caused by air pollution.”

While 2040 was set as a benchmark by other countries, India has stated that every vehicle sold in the country should be powered by electricity by 2030.

Norway has adopted a similar rule, but has set its target to ban diesel-powered vehicles by 2025. Forty percent of all cars sold in Norway last year were electric or hybrid, making the country a leader in this area.

Maybe Not…

In comparison to some other countries, the U.K.’s goals seem far off. Yet, researchers are confident that the market might naturally transition to cleaner cars sooner than politicians expect.

The Dutch financial group ING released a report earlier this month predicting that the electric car market will see a major breakthrough between 2017 and 2024, and could supply 100 percent of Europe’s car demand by 2035.

Car manufacturers aren’t wasting any time either. Tesla made waves when it announced its mass market electric Model 3 car earlier this month.

Also this month, Volvo said that all of its cars would be be completely or partially electric by 2019. Volvo’s chief executive Håkan Samuelsson called for the “end of the solely combustion engine-powered car.” And BMW announced on Tuesday that it would start building an electric model of the Mini compact car in England through 2023.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain to Ban Sale of Gas and Diesel Cars by 2040 appeared first on Law Street.

Volvo has set itself apart from other mainstream automakers this month by announcing that all of its new models from 2019 onwards will be electric or hybrid. Five fully electric models and a range of hybrids will become available between 2019 and 2021. In a year in which Tesla has surpassed Ford Motors and GM in market value, the shift toward electric can only be seen as a smart move for Volvo. But, interestingly enough, it was not actually a choice made to corner the American market.

Volvo is owned by Geely Motors, a little known Chinese company that purchased the Swedish brand from Ford in 2010 for a fraction of the cost that Ford had originally paid. The purchase could have driven Volvo into the ground but instead has given it new life in the Chinese market, where government regulations favor electric and hybrid vehicles in large cities. Geely has built a name for itself with its reinvigoration of Volvo and has now moved on to purchasing the makers of London’s ubiquitous black cabs, the racing brand Lotus, and the flying car start-up Terrafugia. Volvo is not the only brand under the Geely umbrella to go green–Geely opened a solar powered factory near Coventry, England this year which has created all-electric cabs for London Taxi Co. The UK government has been preparing plans to give taxi drivers grants for switching to these low emission cabs.

Geely stock price has been climbing ever upward over the past several years, tripling over the course of 2016-2017. The Chinese juggernaut may not be a household name in the U.S. at the moment, but it is expanding across Europe and into the Southeast Asian market, where American automakers have historically struggled to gain a foothold. If the company continues to commit to low emissions vehicles and transforming iconic brands into electric powerhouses its success may spread to the American market. Although the company will probably never have the immense production facilities of its direct competitors, with Ford and GM sales taking a downward turn, Geely may have found its moment to begin edging into the North American market.

The shift to electric has been underway for several years and Volvo is truly just a high profile manifestation of a larger trend–however every effort to drive consumers toward electric energy should be applauded. From the Nissan Leaf to Tesla’s more affordable Model S to the ever popular Prius, electric and hybrid vehicles are now settling into a price range that first time buyers are more comfortable with–but what about drivers with loyalty to a certain brand? In those instances, a massive transformation like the one Volvo is undergoing captures a section of consumers that may never have planned to buy electric–but could change their minds when the vehicle comes from a name they trust. Whether or not the Volvo transition is just a drop in the bucket on the path to a fully electric future, Geely clearly has a vision and commitment to electric energy that makes it unique in the conventional automotive market.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Geely Motors: The Power Behind Volvo’s Electric Bid appeared first on Law Street.

Jerry Brown, the governor of California, made no bones about the dangers of climate change at a public hearing last week, calling it a “threat to organized human existence.” As the Trump Administration removes the U.S. from the frontline in the battle against climate change, cities and states have stepped forward to fill the void.

Monday evening, after hours of intense debate and an energized push from Brown himself, California lawmakers voted to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program through 2030. The current system, implemented in 2012, is set to expire in 2020. Extending the program, which Brown has been trying to spread to other states, has galvanized critics from two disparate corners: liberals and environmental groups who think it is too cautious, and Republicans who see it as a job killer.

But Brown, at 79 and nearing the end of his fourth term in office, has argued cap-and-trade is an effective way to combat carbon emissions while allowing economic growth.

“America is facing not just a climate crisis with the rest of the world, we are facing a political crisis,” Brown told lawmakers at the four-hour public hearing last week, after introducing the cap-and-trade extension bill. “Can democracy actually work? Is there a sufficient consensus that we can govern ourselves? That, I submit to you, is an open question.”

Brown has positioned himself as a buffer against President Donald Trump’s systematic unraveling of the Obama Administration’s climate regulations. In the wake of Trump’s decision to remove the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, Brown and a number of other governors and mayors have soothed concerns at home and abroad. Brown recently traveled to China to talk climate change, and will attend a climate summit in Germany later this year.

While other governors and mayors have pledged to double-down on green initiatives and other carbon-cutting regulations, Brown has remained steadfast in his cap-and-trade approach. Championed by those who would like to fight climate change with a market-based system, cap-and-trade issues limited permits to carbon-producing companies, dictating how much carbon they can emit in a given time period. Some permits are free, others are auctioned off; companies can then sell, buy, and trade permits among each other.

But Brown’s extension effort received pushback from environmental groups and state lawmakers. Senate Republicans sent a letter last week to Brown, expressing their opposition to the bill, which is paired with another measure that seeks to improve air quality.

“We are committed to protecting and enhancing California’s environment,” a group of state Republican lawmakers wrote, adding that the cap-and-trade program is a “crushing blow to California residents and small business negatively impacting their quality of life.”

California progressives have also criticized the plan, though for a vastly different reason: many say it does not do enough to halt carbon emissions. Environmental justice groups see Brown’s bill as a capitulation to the oil and gas industry, and argue it includes too many compromises to pro-industry Republicans and moderate Democrats.

“It’s California climate policy that’s been written by big oil,” Amy Vanderwarker, co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, recently said about the bill. “At a time when all eyes are on California, we have to stand strong and say this is not something we can support.”

After the bill passed Monday night, Brown applauded Californians for standing against “the existential threat of our time” by extending the cap-and-trade program. He also thanked both Republicans and Democrats who “set aside their differences, came together and took courageous action.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Extends Cap-and-Trade Program Through 2030 appeared first on Law Street.

Oceana is challenging the Trump Administration’s withdrawal of a proposed Obama-era rule that would have limited the number of protected marine animals that could be “incidentally captured” by drift gillnets. Oceana, a non-profit ocean conservation and advocacy organization, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on July 12 against the U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

In 2015, the Pacific Fishery Management Council introduced a proposal for hard caps, or limits, on the number of injuries or deaths of nine protected species allowed during a rolling two-year or four-year period.

The Obama Administration published a proposal of how to implement the caps in October 2016 that would temporarily close a thresher shark and swordfish drift gillnet fishery in California if that fishery reached the cap. According to NOAA, gillnets are walls of netting with holes that fish can fit their heads through, but not the rest of their bodies. When the animal tries to back out, their gills get caught on the net. The more the animal struggles to free itself, the more it becomes entangled in the netting.

In addition to the swordfish that are intentionally being fished off the coast of California, the nets also accidentally trap marine animals that are considered “protected species.” The regulation would have protected fin, humpback, and sperm whales; leatherback, loggerhead, olive ridley, and green sea turtles; short-fin pilot whales; and bottlenose dolphins. However, the Trump Administration withdrew the proposal in June after the NMFS decided that the proposed changes “are not warranted at this time.”

Oceana released a statement on July 13 regarding the lawsuit. It said the proposed rule would have been an opportunity for the fishery to reduce “bycatch,” or species being caught inadvertently, and adopt “cleaner fishing methods” such as deep-set buoy gear or harpoon gear. Oceana attorney Mariel Combs said in the statement that “the withdrawal of this important protection … is plainly illegal.”

“Drift gillnets are a dirty and unsustainable way to catch swordfish,” Combs said. “Incremental steps, like limits on bycatch, are important tools to help move toward cleaner fishing. The Fisheries Service has supported these measures in the past, and its change of course is both disappointing and illegal.”

This isn’t the first time the Trump Administration has reversed some of the Obama Administration’s environmental decisions. In June, six environmental conservation groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency for suspending Obama-era regulations that limited leaks of harmful toxins during oil and gas production.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oceana Sues Government for Withdrawing Proposed Rule to Protect Marine Life appeared first on Law Street.

France’s new environment minister just announced the Macron Administration’s first series of new environmental measures, which aim to make the country carbon-neutral by 2050. These measures were also created with the intention of maintaining the country’s leadership in fulfilling the commitments created by the Paris Agreement.

One of the more ambitious portions of this plan was the announcement that France plans to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040. This would inevitably force the country’s car owners to switch to electric and hybrid cars–which Volvo announced Wednesday it would start exclusively producing in 2019. Part of the plan includes providing lower income households with aid so they can swap their polluting vehicles for cleaner alternatives.

Ecology Minister Nicolas Hulot called the move a “veritable revolution” and “a way to fight against air pollution” as a question of public health policy. He added that while it might seem like a difficult objective for France’s car manufacturers to accomplish, they have the resources and plans in place to do so successfully. Automotive experts have agreed with Hulot’s statements.

“The timescale involved here is sufficiently long term to be taken seriously,” said Professor David Bailey, an automotive industry expert at Aston University. “If enacted it would send a very clear signal to manufacturers and consumers of the direction of travel and may accelerate a transition to electric cars.”

With these new measures, France has joined the Netherlands, Norway, Germany, and India as countries that plan on eliminating internal combustion engine-powered cars to some degree before 2030. It also coincides with a Bloomberg News Energy Finance report that predicts electric cars will make up 54 percent of all light-duty vehicles by 2040, up 19 percent from what was previously thought.

Other French environmental plans include eventually ending the importation of products that contribute to deforestation around the world–particularly in the Amazon rainforest, Congo, and South-East Asia–such as palm oil and unsustainably grown soya. Hulot stated that deforestation represents 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and added that it would be “schizophrenic” to encourage the continued production of these items. France has also pledged to reduce nuclear energy from 75 per cent to 50 per cent of the country’s energy mix by 2025.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post France Reveals Series of New Environmental Measures appeared first on Law Street.

A federal appeals court on Monday blocked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt from temporarily freezing an Obama-era regulation on methane gas emissions. The ruling represents the first legal setback Pruitt has faced during his months-long quest to dismantle the Obama Administration’s environmental rules.

The case highlighted the split between the EPA’s growing cadre of opponents, mostly made up of environmental groups, and its allies, mostly made up of industry groups. It specifically pitted Pruitt and the American Petroleum Institute against six environmental groups. The plaintiffs, which include the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, brought their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June.

The events that led to the court’s 2-1 decision began in June 2016, when the EPA announced a rule that would require oil and gas companies to, among other things, monitor and reduce methane gas emissions. The rule was set to take effect in August 2016; companies would be required to conduct an “initial monitoring survey” of their methane emissions by June 2017.

In April, soon after Pruitt was anointed head of the EPA, he announced a 90-day delay of the methane rule. And in June, Pruitt proposed an extension of the stay for two years. Monday’s ruling struck down Pruitt’s 90-day delay; a separate hearing will be held on the two year extension.

The EPA “lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to stay the rule, and we therefore grant petitioners’ motion to vacate the stay,” Judges David Tatel and Robert Wilkins wrote in the majority opinion. Pruitt’s 90-day stay, the judges said, “is essentially an order delaying the rule’s effective date, and this court has held that such orders are tantamount to amending or revoking a rule.”

In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Pruitt defended his stay, saying that it did not necessarily portend a complete reversal of the rule. He argued: “Just because you provide a time for implementation or compliance that’s longer doesn’t mean that you’re going to necessarily reverse or redirect the rule.”

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Janice Rogers Brown largely echoed Pruitt’s point, saying, “The Court presumes a certain outcome from EPA’s reconsideration, one that a stay alone gives us no basis to presume.”

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is typically emitted during the fracking process for natural gas. According to a fact sheet released by the EPA last year, methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas in the U.S., behind carbon dioxide. About one-third of methane emissions come from natural gas, the fact sheet says, adding that the Obama Administration’s methane regulation would have reduced 510,000 tons of methane gas by 2025.

The court’s ruling was a victory for environmental groups, many of which have found themselves in staunch opposition to the governmental body that is supposed to share their goals. David Doniger, director of the Natural Resource Defense Council’s climate and clean air program, said in a statement:

“This ruling declares EPA’s action illegal — and slams the brakes on Trump Administration’s brazen efforts to put the interests of corporate polluters ahead of protecting the public and the environment.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Appeals Court Hands EPA Admin Scott Pruitt Legal Defeat appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released a draft recovery plan for endangered Mexican gray wolves on Thursday. An Arizona district court ordered the FWS to complete the plan by the end of November.

The last time the FWS revised the recovery plan for the Mexican wolves was 1982. The new recovery plan focuses on increasing wolf populations in Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico.

“At the time of recovery, the Service expects Mexican wolf populations to be stable or increasing in abundance, well-distributed geographically within their historical range, and genetically diverse,” a FWS statement said.

The recovery plan provides for the establishment and maintenance of “a minimum of two resilient, genetically diverse Mexican wolf populations.” According to the plan, the Mexican gray wolf will be considered for downlisting from endangered to threatened status when there are at least 320 wolves in the U.S. and 170 wolves in Mexico.

Michael Robinson, a conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that threshold is “far fewer wolves than the number scientists have said is necessary for a viable population.” Robinson also criticized the plan for not including regions that scientists have said would be “essential to their long-term survival,” including the Grand Canyon.

Before becoming endangered, the Mexican gray wolf, or “el lobo,” roamed northern Mexico and throughout Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The Mexican gray wolf was listed as an endangered subspecies under the Endangered Species Act in 1976, and was absorbed into the endangered species listing of the gray wolf in 1978. Efforts to reintroduce wolves to the wild began in the late 1990s.

According to the Mexican Wolf Interagency Field, there are currently only about 100 Mexican gray wolves in New Mexico and Arizona. Environmentalists and wildlife advocates have supported efforts to release more captive wolves into the wild. However, they met opposition with ranchers and rural leaders who worried that the wolves would attack livestock and wild game.

In June 2016, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish brought a case against the U.S. Department of the Interior, the FWS, and certain government officials for releasing two Mexican gray wolf pups in New Mexico without a state permit. New Mexico, along with 18 other states, argued that the Endangered Species Act required the federal government to work with them to determine how species would be reintroduced inside of their borders. The district court enjoined the defendants from releasing any Mexican gray wolves into New Mexico without a state permit.

In April 2017, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish had failed to present sufficient evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm due to the release of the wolves. The appellate court reversed and vacated the district court’s injunction and remanded the case to the district court.

Following the FWS’s release of the recovery plan draft this week, Bryan Bird, Southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife, called the plan a “backroom deal” that restricts the wolves from moving in suitable habitats. He also noted that President Donald Trump’s planned border wall will cut off access for wolves trying to pass between the U.S. and Mexico and make the wolves “incapable of beating the clock of extinction.”

“Future generations should have the chance to hear wolves howl on the landscape,” Bird said. “Scientists–not politicians who had undue influence on the recovery plan for Mexican gray wolves–should be making decisions about how best to protect endangered species and their habitat.”

The FWS will hold information meetings in July where members of the public will be able to submit comments on the draft recovery plan in Flagstaff, Arizona; Pinetop, Arizona; Truth or Consequences, New Mexico; and Albuquerque, New Mexico. People can also submit comments on the document online.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Wildlife Officials Draft Court-Ordered Recovery Plan for Mexican Gray Wolf appeared first on Law Street.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers are moving forward with plans to repeal the Clean Water Rule, an Obama-era water pollution regulation that’s long been on the Trump Administration’s chopping block.

The Obama Administration signed the Clean Water Rule in 2015, extending existing pollution protections of larger bodies of water under the Clean Water Act of 1972 to include all “navigable waters,” including smaller bodies such as rivers, streams, and wetlands. Opponents of the rule included farmers who claimed it infringed on their property rights. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in February to review that rule.

“It is in the national interest to ensure that that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing, regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution,” the order read.

The Clean Water Rule provides for the protection of about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said by rescinding the rule, the government will restore power to states, farmers, and businesses.

“We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation’s farmers and businesses,” Pruitt said in the EPA’s announcement. “This is the first step in the two-step process to redefine ‘waters of the U.S.’ and we are committed to moving through this re-evaluation to quickly provide regulatory certainty, in a way that is thoughtful, transparent and collaborative with other agencies and the public.”

Pruitt released a proposal Tuesday that would rescind the Clean Water Rule and revert regulations to the language in the Clean Water Act prior to the 2015 definition of “waters of the United States” or WOTUS.

Environmentalists opposed the Trump Administration’s rescission of the rule. Without regulations, they said, the nation’s water would be threatened by pollution. John Rumpler, senior attorney and clean water program director at Environment America, spoke out against the EPA proposal.

“Repealing the Clean Water Rule turns the mission of the EPA on its head: Instead of safeguarding our drinking water, Scott Pruitt is proposing to stop protecting drinking water sources for 1 in 3 Americans,” Rumpler said. “It defies common sense, sound science, and the will of the American people.”

Clean Water Action President and CEO Bob Wendelgass also released a statement, saying that the only people who stand to gain from the Clean Water Rule repeal are special interest groups.

“The Clean Water Rule is essential to public health,” Wendelgass said. “It is vital to communities that rely on healthy wetlands and streams to power small businesses and provide drinking water. We’re not going to protect clean water by ignoring science and common sense. Americans understand that–yet President Trump and Scott Pruitt don’t seem to.”

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EPA Moves To Repeal Obama Administration’s Clean Water Rule appeared first on Law Street.

The long legal battle over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline looks like it will continue to drag on after a recent court ruling.

Last week, U.S District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the pipeline, owned and constructed by Energy Transfer Partners, had not undergone an adequate environmental review by the Army Corps of Engineers and that a more thorough environmental review is needed. He wrote:

[The Army] did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial.

However, it was a partial victory for the environmentalists and Native American tribes who opposed the pipeline’s construction. Boasberg said that oil could still flow through the pipeline at this time but indicated that he would make a formal ruling on that decision at a later date.

The judge asked lawyers from both sides to submit written arguments to determine whether the pipeline should be shut down while the Army Corps of Engineers makes its evaluation, or if it should continue to transport oil. A lawyer representing the Sioux tribe expects a decision to be made in September.

This is only the most recent development in the long and complicated battle to establish the 1,200-mile pipeline that will transfer crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois. Since the Army Corps of Engineers published a plan to approve the pipeline route in 2015, there has been a wave of protests, legal challenges, and executive orders to determine the project’s status.

In December 2016, the Obama Administration temporarily halted the construction of a controversial segment of the Dakota Access Pipeline, citing the need for a further environmental review. But when Trump took office in January, he signed an executive order calling on the Army to expedite the review process and complete construction as soon as possible.

The Army is still in the process of determining a timeline for the environmental review, but according to the Army Corps of Engineers Lawyer Mathew Marinelli, the Army will have an updated schedule when the first briefs are required by the court on July 17.

The order for a new environmental review in Dakota has created yet another issue for Energy Transfer Partners. The company’s construction of another $4.2 billion natural gas pipeline is under a rare public investigation for pollution in Ohio wetlands and the destruction of a historic home. The company could lose $10 million a week if it fails to finish construction by November 1.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Judge Orders Further Environmental Review for Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration rejected Obama-era proposals on Monday that would limit the number of endangered whales, dolphins, and sea turtles that can be killed or injured by sword-fishing nets on the West Coast.

This announcement came through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fisheries division and cited studies showing how the number of marine mammals and turtles trapped in long, drifting gill nets–fishing nets that are hung vertically so that fish get trapped in them by their gills–have decreased over the years. A spokesman added that the restriction “would have imposed a cost on the industry to solve a problem that has already been addressed.”

The Pacific Fishery Management Council, which manages fisheries in California, Oregon, and Washington introduced the cap in 2015 and it received support from both the fishing industry and environmental groups. Unsurprisingly, those who supported the bill back then were critical of the decision to reject the rules now.

“The Trump Administration has declared war on whales, dolphins and turtles off the coast of California,” Todd Steiner, director of the Turtle Island Restoration Network, told the Los Angeles Times. “This determination will only lead to more potential litigation and legislation involving this fishery. It’s not a good sign.”

Had these proposals been enacted, gill net fisheries could be closed for up to two years if too many animals belonging to nine groups of whales, sea turtles, or dolphins got caught in the nets. The rule would have applied to fewer than 20 fishing vessels.

But the NOAA Fisheries referenced its own analysis that found that the cost of enacting these protections outweighed the benefits, and the fishing industry had implemented measures that greatly reduced the deaths and injuries of protected marine mammals. These measures included better training for skippers of fishing boats, sound warnings–or pingers–attached to fishing nets to reduce the risk of by-catch, and wider openings at the top of nets that gave whales, dolphins, and turtles a better chance to escape. Also referenced was the declining number of protected animal deaths. Deaths and injuries to protected whales dropped from over 50 in 1992 to about one or two a year through 2015. Dolphin deaths and injuries went from almost 400 annually to only a few per year in that same timespan. Pacific leatherback turtles dropped from 17 in 1993 to no more than one a year by 2015.

What NOAA numbers also show, however, is that the number of overall sword-fish net vessels dropped from a high of 129 in 1994 to 20 in 2016. Steiner attributed the drop in animal deaths to this statistic, as opposed to fishermen choosing to abide by these standards.

“The numbers caught per set have not gone down,” Steiner said. “The California gill-net fishery kills more marine mammals than all other West Coast fisheries combined.”

Katherine Kilduff, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, told the AP that even if by-catch numbers are decreasing, gill nets continue to kill and injure many rare species, such as leatherback turtles, humpback whales, and sperm whales. For some species, their numbers are so few that if even one or two are caught by gill nets, the overall effect can be devastating. Because of that, these restrictions are necessary additions to existing policy, she added.

This is the second recent move by the Trump Administration to roll back Obama-era protections on endangered species. Just last week, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said that his department would review a conservation plan for the greater sage grouse with the intention of opening up more of the declining bird’s habitat to oil and gas development.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Axes Proposed Rules Meant to Protect Endangered Marine Life appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration is proposing to allow seismic air guns to survey oil and gas deposits along the U.S. Atlantic coast, but some environmentalists are concerned that the surveys could harm marine mammals.

Seismic air gun surveys use ships that tow seismic air guns. The guns are used to shoot compressed air through the water and into the seabed. That blast reflects back information about oil and gas deposits below the seabed, according to Oceana, an international advocacy organization focused on ocean conservation. The guns shoot compressed air every 10 to 12 seconds, said Ingrid Beidron, a marine scientist and campaign manager at Oceana.

The use of seismic air guns has a controversial history due to its impact on the environment. The Associated Press reported that the United States has not conducted any seismic air gun surveys in the mid- and south-Atlantic regions for at least 30 years. In January, the Obama Administration denied six energy companies’ applications for permits to conduct air gun seismic surveys in those regions. In May, under the Trump Administration, the Department of the Interior began reviewing those same six applications.

Most recently, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration took action on those applications by releasing a proposal by the National Marine Fisheries Service on June 6 outlining the details of the plan as it seeks permits for the use of five seismic air gun surveys that could incidentally harass marine mammals.

The proposal includes measures to minimize harm to marine mammals such as prescribing a standard exclusion zone and, under some circumstances, shutting down the acoustic source so as not to disturb marine mammals. However, many environmental organizations, local governments, and businesses remain opposed to seismic air gun surveys.

Michael Jasny, director of marine mammal protection for the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a blog post that some of the potential negative effects of the surveys could include causing marine animals to abandon their habitats, preventing animals from feeding regularly, obstructing animals’ communication, and injuring and killing fish and invertebrates.

The Endangered Species Act prohibits the “take”–or harassment, harming, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capture or collection–of species listed as “endangered” or “threatened. However, a 1982 amendment to the Act allowed for taking that is “incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.”

The proposal in question lists five energy companies’ seismic operations, each spanning a range of days. The shortest operation would be 70 days; the longest, 308. According to the proposal, the seismic operations would generally occur within 200 nautical miles of the coast between Delaware and Cape Canaveral, Florida, with some additional activity up to 350 nautical miles from the shore. The operations would typically occur 24 hours per day.

Jasny called the surveys “an environmentally assaultive activity” that will open the east coast to offshore oil drilling. Over 120 East Coast communities, over 1,200 elected officials, over 41,000 businesses, and over 500,000 fishing families have opposed seismic air gun surveys and/or offshore drilling, according to Oceana.

If the NMFS finds that the taking will have a “negligible impact on the species or stock(s)” and “will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence users,” an incidental harassment authorization will be granted. Individuals can comment on the proposal until July 6, exactly 30 days after the date on which the proposal was released, by contacting Jolie Harrision at the NMFS.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Environmentalists Blast the Trump Administration Plans for Seismic Air Gun Surveys appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, 10 new states joined the U.S. Climate Alliance, affirming their dedication to “aggressive action on climate change” in light of President Donald Trump’s pull-out from the Paris Accord.

The Alliance now has 13 state members, including the three founding members. Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York, Jay Inslee of Washington State, and Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California formed the group to reduce emissions and continue pushing for climate change policy, according to a release on Inslee’s website.

“Those of us who understand science and feel the urgency of protecting our children’s air and water are as united as ever in confronting one of the greatest challenges of our lifetime,” Inslee said in the release. “Our collective efforts to act on climate will ensure we maintain the United State’s commitment to curb carbon pollution while advancing a clean energy economy that will bring good-paying jobs to America’s workers.”

The coalition announced Monday that Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia have all joined.

In a release, Cuomo called the decision to leave the Paris Accord “irresponsible,” and said that the group is committed to meeting the agreement’s goals to reduce carbon emissions 26-28 percent from 2005 levels and meet or exceed the targets of President Barack Obama’s landmark climate policy, the Clean Power Plan.

“We welcome these 10 new members and look forward to collaborating and maintaining the momentum in the global effort to protect our planet, while jumpstarting the clean energy economy,” Cuomo said.

New York is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington’s irresponsible actions. #ActOnClimate

— Andrew Cuomo (@NYGovCuomo) June 1, 2017

Pulling Out of Paris

The U.S. Climate Alliance was formed just days after Trump announced his decision to exit the agreement, making the U.S. one of three countries worldwide that did not sign on to the Accord. The other two are Syria and Nicaragua.

The president said the 195-nation climate agreement, which was negotiated under Obama and ratified into international law last November, would hurt the U.S. economy and American sovereignty, despite opposition from members of Congress and key players in his own administration.

Since pulling out of Paris, Trump has been criticized by American politicians, world leaders, scientists, celebrities, business leaders, educators, and the public. Two high-profile members of Trump’s advisory councils, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Disney CEO Bob Iger, have both stepped down from their roles on the councils following the withdrawal.

Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 1, 2017

“Forging Ahead”

In addition to the 13-state climate alliance, other localized groups have formed to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to protecting the planet.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is bringing together hundreds of businesses, university leaders, mayors, and governors in an unnamed alliance, which had more than 1,200 signatures when the pledge closed on Monday.

Bloomberg’s charitable organization, Bloomberg Philanthropies, also pledged $15 million to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which he said the group stands to lose from Washington as a result of Trump’s exit from the Paris Agreement.

“Americans are not walking away from the Paris Climate Agreement,” Bloomberg said in a statement. “Just the opposite–we are forging ahead.”

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ten More States Join U.S. Climate Alliance in Wake of Paris Withdrawal appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, six environmental conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after the agency suspended portions of an Obama-era legislation intended to limit leaks of methane and other harmful toxins during oil and gas production.  

The regulations surrounding these leaks were detailed in the 2016 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) passed by the Obama Administration last June. They were meant to go into effect last weekend. The new rules would require oil and gas companies to invest in resources to regularly detect leaks in their well equipment and make repairs as needed.

The groups behind the lawsuit–which include the Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Earthworks–are now calling on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to stop the EPA’s move and reverse it altogether. They claim that the 90-day stay of the rule, issued by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, failed to give the public prior notice or the opportunity to comment on the action. This information, they say, is required by the Clean Air Act, one of the country’s first modern environmental laws.

“In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law,” said Meleah Geertsma, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The Trump Administration does not have unlimited power to put people’s health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this.”

Scientists say methane is more dangerous than we think. The Energy Defense Fund estimates that methane is up to 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide, making it more efficient at trapping heat. 

“By emitting just a little bit of methane, mankind is greatly accelerating the rate of climatic change,” said Energy Defense Fund chief scientist Steve Hamburg.

Pruitt wants to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to review these requirements, assess economic impacts, and report back to the agency, even though the original rule had already given companies a year to do so before it took effect. The EPA argues its right to issue the 90-day stay is also included in the Clean Air Act under section 307, which allows it to reconsider the law as long as “the reconsideration does not postpone the effectiveness of the rule.” But environmentalists argue any delays in implementation would indeed hinder its effectiveness. 

Industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute argue that many companies are already checking their equipment for leaks, making the methane rule redundant and unnecessarily costly.

This lawsuit is now one of many actions taken against the Trump climate change policies. Environmentalists sued the administration after the controversial Keystone XL pipeline was approved in March. Just last week, a number of school, companies and states have rallied around Michael Bloomberg to uphold the Paris Agreement on climate change, defying Trump after he announced on Friday that the U.S. would pull out of the deal.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservationists Sue EPA over Delay of Obama-era Methane Rule appeared first on Law Street.

A few minutes past 9 a.m. on Wednesday, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet that had much of the world on the edge of its seat:

I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Soon after Trump posted that tweet, the New York Times reported that he is expected to pull out of the 195-nation climate pact, according to three U.S. officials. One senior official told the Times that the decision was not final, and that specifics had yet to be hammered out.

But still, if the president makes good on one of his signature campaign pledges–he said he would “cancel” the agreement–the government’s commitment to combating climate change would essentially vanish–a symbolic blow that could lead other countries to withdraw.

The climate accord–an effort spearheaded by President Barack Obama and signed in Paris in December 2015–has split many of the key actors in Trump’s orbit; Congress has also taken opposing sides on the matter largely, but not exclusively, among party lines.

Leading the charge to abort the accord is Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon, a highly influential force in Trump’s ascendance to the White House, sees it as making good on a central campaign promise. Despite reports that Bannon was losing sway with the president in recent weeks, his “don’t forget who got you here” line seems to resonate with Trump.

Scott Pruitt, the EPA director, has also lobbied Trump to withdraw from the pact. In an interview on “Fox & Friends” in April, Pruitt said: “It’s a bad deal for America. It was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach.”

But there are competing voices as well, with some of Trump’s aides arguing to remain in the agreement or to work on re-tooling it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Ivanka Trump have argued that leaving the climate deal could jeopardize relationships with allies–like Europe–and leave the U.S. in a less powerful position in setting the rules for the global climate change discussion in the future.

Tillerson is expected to meet privately with Trump on Wednesday afternoon–perhaps to deliver a final plea to remain in the pact.

Several major corporations–including oil and natural gas giants like ExxonMobil–support remaining in the agreement. Darren Woods, Exxon’s CEO, recently wrote a letter to Trump, saying that the U.S., by being part of the accord, “will maintain a seat at the negotiating table to ensure a level playing field so that all energy sources and technologies are treated equitably in an open, transparent and competitive global market so as to achieve economic growth and poverty reduction at the lowest cost to society.”

Congress, like the White House, is breaking along a few different fault lines–some GOP representatives and senators have urged Trump to remain in the agreement, while dozens of others have implored him to withdraw. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is one of the more vocal Republican voices supporting the pact. In a letter to Trump earlier this month, co-signed by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), she wrote:

Climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and to address the effects already being seen worldwide. For international climate efforts to advance, is is essential that the United States keep a seat at the table.

Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker, GOP Senators from South Carolina and Tennessee, respectively, have also argued that staying in the accord would benefit the United States. Graham recently said leaving it “would be bad for the party, bad for the country.”

Other Republican senators have either remained mum on the subject, or have lobbied Trump to exit the deal. A letter sent last week to Trump, signed by 22 GOP members of the Senate, argued that remaining in the agreement “would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan,” an Obama-era initiative that has yet to go into effect.

“Accordingly,” the senators wrote, ” we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Do the Trump Team and Congress Stand on the Paris Climate Accord? appeared first on Law Street.

Three Republican Senators joined the entire field of Democrats on Wednesday to uphold an Obama-era environmental regulation, the first to withstand the Trump Administration’s pointed efforts to roll back the previous administration’s environmental agenda. The Methane Waste Prevention Rule was drafted by the Obama Administration late in his term, part of a flurry of executive actions aimed at bolstering his environmental legacy.

In the weeks leading up to Wednesday’s vote, a handful of Republican Senators were on the fence about withholding or repealing the regulation. A few Democrats were up in the air well. Because of the hurried drafting of the rule in the waning days of the Obama Administration, some saw it as potentially burdensome and not as effective as it could be. In the end, all 48 Democrats and Independents, as well as three Republicans–Senators Lindsey Graham (SC), John McCain (AZ), and Susan Collins (ME)–voted to keep the measure in place.

McCain, who was targeted in an intense lobbying effort by environmental groups in the weeks leading up to the vote, said controlling methane emissions “is an important public health and air quality issue.” He added: “I join the call for strong action to reduce pollution from venting, flaring and leaks associated with oil and gas production operations on public and Indian land.” However McCain, like many Republicans and some Democrats, urged Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to re-write the rule.

The Bureau of Land Management enacted the regulation last November. It effectively forces oil and gas companies operating on public lands to capture methane, a greenhouse gas, rather than burning it off into the atmosphere. The rule would prevent 180,000 tons of methane from being burned into the atmosphere each year, according to federal estimates. Supporters of the rule contend it is a necessary addition in the fight against climate change. Critics say it is redundant–as many states already draft protections against methane emissions–and inhibits job creation.

“Unfortunately, the previous administration’s methane rule was not a balanced approach,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), one of the Republicans who nearly supported keeping the rule, wrote in a statement. “As written, it would have hurt our economy and cost jobs in Ohio by forcing small independent operators to close existing wells and slowing responsible energy production on federal lands. There’s a better way.”

Portman added the Interior Department “should do more to prevent methane venting and flaring on federal lands.” In a letter to Portman, Zinke, the Interior Department secretary, said he would “act within my authority as Secretary to craft solutions that incentivize responsible development.” Zinke added that he shares “concerns regarding methane waste and agree that we must manage our public lands in a pragmatic way.”

Over the past few months, the Trump Administration has been using a 1996 law, the Congressional Review Act, to dismantle a trove of Obama-era environmental regulations. Previously, the law was seldom used by presidents to undo executive actions of their predecessors. The Trump Administration has pushed Congress to utilize its powers 13 times over the past 60 days. But the window allowing the administration to use the bill is expected to end on Thursday; it is only effective within the first 60 days after a regulation is drafted.

But despite the successful preservation of the rule, White House officials signaled that they still intend on drastically reshaping it. Kate MacGregor, the Interior Department’s acting assistant secretary for land and minerals, said: “The vote today in the Senate doesn’t impact the administration’s commitment to spurring investment in responsible energy development and ensuring smart regulatory protections.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Three Republicans Rebuke Trump’s Efforts to Dismantle Environmental Protections appeared first on Law Street.

A tunnel that is used for storing radioactive waste has partially collapsed in Washington state, causing the Hanford nuclear site to announce a state of emergency, sending thousands of workers into hiding. The hole in the tunnel at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation means that radioactive particles could leak out in the atmosphere, but by noon on Tuesday, there were no signs of airborne radiation.

Still, workers at the plant were told to take cover, turn off ventilation systems, and avoid eating and drinking. The warning affected thousands of workers and all federal buildings in Hanford. However, even though the damage was worse than first estimated, no radioactive waste is stored in the tunnel that collapsed. Also, the warning did not extend to civilians living nearby. But it was a serious incident that could have been way worse. Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said:

This is a potentially serious event. I can see why the site ordered emergency measures. Collapse of the earth covering the tunnels could lead to a considerable radiological release.

The nuclear site is located some 170 miles from Seattle. Starting in the 1940’s, the federal government manufactured plutonium there. In fact, the site is where the material for the first nuclear bomb came from. It’s no longer in use and the Energy Department is cleaning it up, but that is a lengthy process.

The nation’s largest nuclear waste site was on high alert after a tunnel containing radioactive materials collapsed https://t.co/TmezOwVAQ6 pic.twitter.com/YLOaUVRFfo

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) May 9, 2017

According to Reuters, Hanford has often been described as the most contaminated nuclear site in the country. And Lyman said that many of the tunnels on the site do contain radioactive materials that can cause severe illness or death if humans are exposed. The process of cleaning up the site began in 1989 and is expected to take at least 50 years to complete.

The disposal method at Hanford was to put railcars full of the radioactive materials and equipment in tunnels and leave them there, as there is no way to destroy radioactive waste. The radioactive cars were so dangerous that several empty cars had to be placed in between them and the locomotive, so that the conductor wouldn’t be exposed to radiation. Hanford received its last radioactive material in the 1990’s.

The plan is to eventually come up with a better solution, for example to incase all the railcars in concrete. But that would be an extremely dangerous operation. Washington Governor Jay Inslee agreed Tuesday that the situation is serious. “This is a serious situation, and ensuring the safety of the workers and the community is the top priority,” he said. “We will continue to monitor this situation and assist the federal government in its response.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tunnel With Radioactive Waste Collapses in Washington State appeared first on Law Street.

In January, seven members of Greenpeace scaled a 270-foot crane at a construction site near the White House and unfurled a massive banner with the word “resist” printed in block letters. In April, Greenpeace members blocked the entrance to Coca-Cola’s UK headquarters with a 2.5 ton sculpture of a seagull regurgitating plastic and unfurled a banner reading “Stop Dirty Pipeline Deals!” on the center stage of Credit Suisse’s annual shareholder meeting. All of these Greenpeace interventions grabbed headlines but they did not shut down operations of the White House, Coca-Cola, or Credit Suisse. Greenpeace’s banners certainly entertain and uplift, but do they actually have an impact?

While Greenpeace would be nothing without its partnerships with local NGOs, it does have more brand recognition and funding than local organizations. Greenpeace campaigners unrolling banners and installing sculptures gain more publicity than a handful of protesters picketing outside of Coca-Cola headquarters. Images of a Greenpeace demonstration go viral within hours and that kind of power grants the group access to negotiations that smaller organizations never get. Greenpeace negotiators have worked with dozens of major corporations, including Nestlé, Mattel, LEGO, and McDonald’s, to address how the companies can reduce their carbon footprint, protect the environment, and divest from harmful supply chains.

Under the Trump Administration, when sustainability and climate change are treated like myths, businesses will feel no pressure to commit to green practices–unless they are publicly called out and the public is educated about their operations. The Science March and the People’s Climate March were powerful but brief–the true work will be sustaining the outrage and activism that those marches created over a four year period. Greenpeace has the network, the funding and the name recognition to turn individual protests into a larger, more cohesive movement.

Activists can continue to do their work challenging corporations but should also look to the local level as 2018 approaches. If they choose to expand the “market based campaigning” strategy they’ve used against corporations in the past to local and federal governments, they could build powerful local power bases. Imagine Greenpeace banners in town meetings or on the campaign trail during the mid-term elections–the setting for a Greenpeace campaign doesn’t always have to be a corporate meeting and negotiations should not be reserved for corporate sustainability departments.

When Greenpeace was founded in 1971, its first activists leased a fishing boat called the Phyllis Cormack and set sail for Alaska, protesting nuclear testing off of the coast by putting themselves in harm’s way. This ship was stopped by the U.S. Coast Guard and turned back–but several members of the Coast Guard crew signed a letter supporting the protesters’ mission and the media attention the boat drew contributed to ending nuclear testing in Alaska. So, while that first fishing boat could easily have been written off as just another publicity stunt, look what it launched.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Beyond Symbolic: Greenpeace in the Trump Era appeared first on Law Street.

After President Trump signed an executive order last week, every national monument of 100,000 acres or more created since January 1, 1996, is under threat. At least 25 national parks and monuments established under Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton will all be subject to review.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 has been used by presidents from both political parties to protect hundreds of millions of acres of land, but overnight, dozens of parks and monuments are now at risk. The parks under review include Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, Marianas Trench near Guam, and the Vermilion Cliffs in Arizona. Many of these parks are concentrated in the West and Southwest, but marine reserves in both the Pacific and Atlantic are also under threat. With a second executive order approving offshore drilling in previously protected areas signed last Friday, marine environments are in an especially precarious position.

Trump framed the national parks as a “massive federal land grab” and claimed to be giving power back to the states, but by gutting public land protections, he is opening the parks up to industries that they have long been protected from. If the acreage of national parks is reduced, the land will be available for drilling, mining, and logging. The argument for defending states’ rights is a transparent cover for promoting commercial interests.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke went so far as to state that Trump is concerned national parks result in the loss of jobs and reduced wages. This concern is based on zero evidence. The National Park Service helps add hundreds of thousands of jobs to the economy, which is why economists encouraged President Obama to frequently use the Antiquities Act while in office. In 2016, visitors to national parks spent an estimated $18.4 billion in local gateway regions (communities within 60 miles of a park). Hotels, campgrounds, restaurants, and bars flourish in areas around national parks. The parks are undeniably popular–hundreds of millions of visitors stream to them each year and the number of visitors has been rapidly rising for the past three years. States orient their entire tourism industries around their national parks and reap the benefits accordingly. For example, in Utah, national park tourism at the state’s 13 sites created $1.6 billion in revenue last year. It’s an interesting statistic considering that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch claims that President Obama abused the Antiquities Act and now supports Trump’s executive order.

If Trump truly believes parks are draining public funds, then he should be attacking the private vendors that monopolize concessions and merchandising within the parks. If he really sees designating parks as an individual state’s responsibility, he should have placed state governments in charge of the review, not Ryan Zinke. If Trump truly cared about parks having a negative impact on the economy, he should have established a review of park spending, not a review of the parks’ existence. Disbanding the parks is not a bold move to cut government spending or limit the authority of the federal government–it’s a transparent power grab from the private companies that Trump is beholden to.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post An Executive Order Without Justification: Attacking the National Parks appeared first on Law Street.

Reversing what President Barack Obama did to protect federal waters only four months ago, President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to expand offshore drilling in the Arctic and the Atlantic Oceans. The order also looks into the possibility of drilling in current marine sanctuaries in the Pacific and Atlantic, and halts the creation of any new sanctuaries.

While signing the order, “America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” Trump emphasized that it would boost the economy and the job market. “We’re unleashing American energy and clearing the way for thousands and thousands of high-paying American energy jobs,” he said.

Trump claimed that this order will help America on its way toward becoming energy independent. Increasing the use of domestic energy was one of his campaign promises. He said energy independence would create job opportunities.

Trump’s new offshore drilling order is even worse than environmentalists expectedhttps://t.co/9mIiV4UUMl

— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) April 28, 2017

However, while Trump’s order is meant to increase the use of fossil fuel and get coal jobs back, China is further developing its use of renewable energy sources. A new research report published this week shows that wind and solar power in China could attract as much as $782 billion in investments between 2016 and 2030.

The BP oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 is often recognized as the worst oil spill in U.S. history; it claimed 11 human lives. The environmental fine BP had to pay, $18.7 billion, could not undo the impact it had on the environment and wildlife. But in his new order, Trump asks Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to repeal some of the safety rules that were implemented after the disaster, as he believes they are “burdensome regulations that slow job creation.”

At the very end of his presidency, Obama used a little known law from 1953 to block further drilling for fossil fuel in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. He ordered a freeze of fossil fuel exploration in 98 percent of federal waters, or 115 million acres, off the coast of Alaska, and restricted drilling in 3.8 million additional acres. Environmentalists cheered the decision.

I joined 27 Senators to call on Trump to protect our coastlines from #OffshoreDrilling & today I’m taking this fight to the #Senate floor pic.twitter.com/owZczcTMj2

— Sen. Maria Cantwell (@SenatorCantwell) April 28, 2017

Environmental groups called Trump’s recent order reckless and maybe even illegal, and several Democratic Senators have said they will fight his attempt to expand offshore drilling. Interim executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, Kristen Miller, said:

In no point in history has a president challenged another administration’s permanent withdrawals. Trump’s action could set a dangerous precedent, which will only undermine the powers of the office of the president.

Trump signed the order on his 99^th day in office. He has signed more executive orders during his first 100 days than any other president.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs Order to Reverse Obama’s Ban on Offshore Drilling appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday was the March for Science in many cities around the U.S. (and the world). According to the organizers, over 600 cities participated yesterday. The organizers explain the purpose:

People who value science have remained silent for far too long in the face of policies that ignore scientific evidence and endanger both human life and the future of our world. New policies threaten to further restrict scientists’ ability to research and communicate their findings.  We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence, but seek to eliminate it entirely.  Staying silent is a luxury that we can no longer afford.  We must stand together and support science.

The application of science to policy is not a partisan issue. Anti-science agendas and policies have been advanced by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and they harm everyone — without exception. Science should neither serve special interests nor be rejected based on personal convictions. At its core, science is a tool for seeking answers.  It can and should influence policy and guide our long-term decision-making.

But, as with many of this year’s protests, one of the highlights was the awesome signs many protesters came up with. Check out some of the best in the slideshow below:

These Awesome Science March Signs Prove Scientists have a Sense of Humour | https://t.co/11IBFaC8Gi pic.twitter.com/E2wItAgQgs

— Academia Obscura (@AcademiaObscura) April 23, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Killer Signs at the March for Science appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that could scrap former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. What does it mean for the future of U.S. environmental policy?

What is the Clean Power Plan?

In 2015, Obama introduced the Clean Power Plan (CPP) as an effort to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. It gave each state a different quota for reducing its emissions, allowing states the independence to develop their own plans to meet these requirements. States would have had to submit their ideas by 2016, or 2018 if an extended deadline had been approved. If a state failed to do so, then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would implement its own plan in that state. States would have had until the year 2022 to actually put their plans in action.

What will happen to the Paris climate agreement?

The Obama Administration’s goal was to bring emission levels to at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. It was announced prior to the 2015 Paris climate talks to show the U.S. commitment to lowering emissions. Following the conference, the U.S. joined almost 200 other involved countries in a pledge to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Trump’s order gives the EPA the authority to rework the previous plan. But without the previous administration’s policy in place, the United States may not be able to carry out its end of the agreement reached in Paris. Though the White House hasn’t taken an official position on the Paris climate agreement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently called it a “bad deal” and Trump has considered removing the U.S. from the agreement over doubts about the existence of climate change. If Trump follows through with exiting the agreement, the U.S. could end up setting a precedent for other countries to back out of their pledges.

According to the New York Times, Trump’s inner circle is divided over whether or not to remain in the agreement. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are reportedly concerned that withdrawing could damage the U.S.’s relationship with the other countries involved, but senior adviser Steve Bannon wants out.

Will the new policy bring back jobs?

The CPP was not popular with everyone. Two dozen states sued the Obama Administration over concerns that the policy would hurt their coal industries, because it urged states to transition from relying on fossil fuels to relying on natural gas and renewable energy. But Trump’s move won’t necessarily restore many of the jobs lost by coal miners; the mining industry has been on the decline for several years, and humans are being replaced by technology. While Trump’s executive order makes good on many of his campaign promises, it may not garner its intended results.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs Executive Order to Get Rid of Obama’s Clean Power Plan appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who is on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has become known for defying climate research and trying to prove that global warming is a hoax. In 2014 he brought a snowball to the Senate floor. Back then, 2014 was the hottest year on record and Inhofe asked the chair, “You know what this is?” before throwing the snowball. On Thursday, he appeared in an interview on CNN’s “New Day” and accused the Environmental Protection Agency of brainwashing American kids with propaganda.

It is not clear whether he really doesn’t believe in science, or if he doesn’t understand it, or if he’s just trying to make a political point. But he actually said, without providing any examples or proof: “we are going to take all this stuff that comes out of the EPA that is brainwashing our kids, that is propaganda, things that aren’t true, allegations.” Inhofe was referring to Donald Trump’s new budget proposal, which shows huge cuts in the funding for the EPA.

A lot of people were outraged by Inhofe’s comments.

The deniers have taken over. Future generations will despise these people for their recklessness and selfishness. https://t.co/TBR6kmuoBx

— Peter Daou (@peterdaou) March 15, 2017

Lunatics like this are one of the main reasons your clean water is at risk https://t.co/esoPQErEpB

— Jordan (@JordanChariton) March 16, 2017

When interviewer Poppy Harlow asked Inhofe to explain his remarks about brainwashing, he avoided the question and instead started praising Scott Pruitt, the new head of the EPA, who sued the agency when he was the attorney general of Oklahoma.

Inhofe has made this allegation before; in July he made similar comments to radio host Eric Metaxas. He told Metaxas he “was the first one back in 2002 to tell the truth about the global warming stuff and all of that.” Then he told an anecdote in which his granddaughter asked him why he doesn’t understand global warming. Inhofe told the radio host, “I did some checking and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out.”

In 2010, Inhofe took his grandchildren to build an igloo on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and named it “Al Gore’s New Home.” He has called global warming the “the greatest hoax” ever imposed on Americans. Now, given the GOP’s control of the government, he has a chance to do some real damage. “Now he and his cronies have far more reach and are far more dangerous than they’ve ever been… That’s good news for the polluters but horrible news for public health,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senator James Inhofe Claims the EPA is Brainwashing Our Kids appeared first on Law Street.

Bucking scientific consensus in the U.S. and around the world, Scott Pruitt on Thursday questioned the belief that carbon dioxide is a “primary contributor” to climate change. Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will soon be rolling back many of President Barack Obama’s environmental regulations, perhaps as early as next week. And now, as Pruitt publicly undermines the widely accepted dangers of carbon dioxide, some worry that he will launch an attack against the EPA’s rule that the agency is obligated to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, also known as an “endangerment finding.” 

In 2009, the EPA issued this endangerment finding, which concluded that carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases, is a threat to “the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The agency reviewed thousands of published studies, poring over findings from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others.

Pruitt, in an interview with CNBC, undermined his own agency’s previous conclusions. “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he said, referring to the impact carbon dioxide has on global warming. 

Under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA stipulated that it was a duty of the agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The American Chemistry Council and other groups appealed the findings to a federal circuit court in D.C. In June 2012, the court upheld the EPA’s decision. Soon after, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the endangerment finding has stood its ground ever since.

That is, until President Donald Trump chose Pruitt–a longtime ally of the oil and gas industry and a determined opponent of environmental regulations–to lead the EPA. In his Senate hearing in January, Pruitt was asked if he would consider revisiting the endangerment finding. “It is there, and it needs to be enforced and respected,” he said.

Despite Pruitt’s apparent promise to respect the EPA’s finding, its future standing is not guaranteed. For one, the energy industry has been lobbying the Trump Administration to construct a legal case against the endangerment finding. Pruitt, or anyone else in the administration, does not have the unilateral authority to unravel the endangerment finding, because it was upheld in court.

If Pruitt decides to heed the calls of energy lobbyists, and balk the international scientific consensus, he would need to build a science-based legal challenge to the D.C. court’s 2012 ruling. Given the body of evidence supporting the EPA’s initial finding, that carbon dioxide does indeed contribute to global warming, and is a public health threat, Pruitt would have a difficult time building a successful legal challenge. But that does not mean he won’t try.

“President Trump’s campaign commitment was to undo President Obama’s entire climate edifice,” Myron Ebell, who worked on Trump’s EPA transition team, told the New York Times. “They’re thinking through the whole thing,” he said, adding: “I do think they are looking at reopening the endangerment finding.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Scott Pruitt Unravel the EPA’s Endangerment Finding? appeared first on Law Street.

After almost a year of protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline, demonstrators at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation went out in a literal blaze of glory Wednesday. Most of the occupants cleared the main protest camp ahead of a government-ordered 2 p.m. deadline, but not before first setting fire to their tents as part of an exit ceremony.

A handful of occupants remained on the grounds in a final act of defiance. Authorities arrested 10 people for not complying with evacuation orders, while a seven-year-old boy and 17-year-old girl at the site were hospitalized for burns.

The protest site in Cannon Ball, North Dakota resides close to where the government plans to build a 1,172-mile pipeline to transport crude oil through the Dakotas and Iowa to Illinois. The cause united environmentalists attempting to hinder the transportation of fossil fuels and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who opposes the pipeline over concerns that it will destroy sacred sites and contaminate their drinking water.

Months of Pipeline Opposition

Over the summer, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, arguing that it did not properly consult the tribe beforehand and violated the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. 

A judge later denied the injunction request in September. This prompted the company building the pipeline to counter sue the tribe for interfering with construction. Small protests at the designated pipeline locations began to expand in August following the countersuit.

In the fall, Standing Rock began to attract national attention as confrontations between demonstrators–who call themselves water protectors–and private security guards became violent. Protesters reported being pepper sprayed and bitten by security dogs, and a few officers also said they had been injured. 

In late October, military personnel and police in riot gear attempted to force protesters out of an encampment by using pepper-spray and firing beanbag rounds at the crowds. According to authorities, the protesters were attacking officers with firebombs and debris.

Social Media Intervenes and Tensions Escalate

News about the movement spread on social media as Facebook users from across the country “checked in” at Standing Rock to prevent police from finding protesters online (although the effectiveness of this effort was unclear) and show solidarity with those present at the site.

Tensions escalated even more the following month when authorities shot rubber bullets at demonstrators who had been praying, and sprayed water cannons on crowds right before Thanksgiving weekend as temperatures dropped below freezing.

Temporary Reprieve

Protesters achieved a temporary victory in December when the Obama administration and the Army announced that they would suspend work on the project and consider “alternative routes for the pipeline crossing.”

However, President Donald Trump made the decision to move forward with building the pipeline just a few days into his presidency, which brings us to today. Protesters were told to evacuate by Wednesday because of expected floods at the site. The state of North Dakota offered shelter and bus tickets to those exiting the campground.

But the protests aren’t over yet–the movement will just take place elsewhere. In March, a group of activists are planning to march on Washington, D.C. for four days, where they will set up a prayer camp on the National Mall.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters Leave Campsite Before Evacuation Deadline appeared first on Law Street.

The Doomsday Clock is ticking.

No, not literally. But on Thursday, a group of scientists moved the hands of the symbolic clock 30 seconds closer to midnight as a result of threats posed by climate change and President Donald Trump.

So what is this clock, if not an instrument used to tell time?

It was created in 1947 by scientists involved in the Manhattan Project–an effort led by the United States to develop atomic weapons during World War II–to warn people about potential disasters caused by nuclear war. The closer it is to midnight, the greater the possibility of an impending catastrophe.

The hands now sit at 2.5 minutes from midnight, the closest they have been since 1953, when they were moved to 2 minutes from midnight as a result of Russia and the United States testing hydrogen bombs during the Cold War.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which oversees the clock, said in a release that “world leaders have failed to come to grips with humanity’s most pressing existential threats: nuclear weapons and climate change.”

Specifically, the Bulletin cited Trump’s “disturbing comments” about nuclear weapons, dismissal of climate change, and the rise of “strident nationalism” as factors that affected the decision to change the time.

A statement from the Bulletin’s Science and Security board referenced growing nuclear arsenals in North Korea and Russia, as well as in Pakistan and India where relations have been tense for decades. Although it praised the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal to limit nuclear programs in Iran, the board questioned how long the deal would last under Trump’s administration.

Additionally, the statement criticized the lack of progress made at the Marrakech Climate Change Conference, following the Paris Accord.

Another issue the board took into account was the risk posed by new, autonomous technologies, like self-driving cars. The scientists described a troubling hypothetical scenario in which such machinery could be used for weapons that  “make ‘kill’ decisions without human input or supervision.” The statement also warned of threats to democracy, like fake news and election hacking.

So how do we turn the clock back?

The board called upon leaders across the world, including Trump, to consider expert opinions and scientific evidence as they make decisions and create policies regarding the environment and use of nuclear weapons.

But it also urged average citizens to pressure their leaders, particularly on social media, to reduce nuclear arm programs, commit to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and consider the consequences of new technologies.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does it Mean When the Doomsday Clock Ticks Closer to Midnight? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–2016 was just named the hottest year on record. This is the third year in a row that Earth set a new record high, with average surface temperatures 1.69 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20^th century average. Actually, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concluded that last year was the hottest year globally on both land and ocean since record keeping began in 1880. In a separate report, NASA officials also announced that 2016 was the warmest year they have on record. And if that’s not enough to scare you–what climate science may look like moving forward might.

Leading up to the inauguration of a climate skeptic president and his team, the Guardian is doing a 24-hour live reporting roundup, highlighting different climate facts. According to their numbers, the president-elect’s vacation home, Mar-a-Lago in Florida, will soon be in danger from floods. By 2045, a weak Category 2 hurricane could bring the seawater up to the main building. Just an hour south, the pace of the sea-level rise in Miami has tripled in the past ten years.

Many Americans have already been displaced due to climate change as they live in places that are vulnerable to rising sea levels. In August, residents in Shishmaref, Alaska, voted to move their village to avoid having their homes flooded by the sea. They had already lost 2,500 to 3,000 feet of land to coastal erosion in the past 35 years. Five out of the ten international cities that are most vulnerable to rising sea levels are American: New York, Boston, New Orleans, Tampa, and Miami.

2016 was the hottest year on record. Children are the first to suffer from the effects of #climatechange. @nytimes https://t.co/SXqecIGlv8

— UNICEF (@UNICEF) January 19, 2017

What’s more? Crops in the U.S. are estimated to be cut almost in half because of the warmer temperatures. The U.S. saw 15 natural disasters caused by climate change last year, which cost the country 138 lives and over $1 billion to fix. California has had a drought for several years, and just saw some rain that may provide some relief. But experts warn that this won’t end the longtime pattern of droughts, which are now just part of California’s climate, and may worsen in the future. Increasing temperatures will make the ups and downs more dramatic. It also makes it difficult to replenish the snow in the mountains that supplies water during the dry periods.

The scientific community is virtually unanimous: Climate change is a global crisis requiring bold action. Rick Perry? He doesn’t agree.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 19, 2017

Trump has talked about pulling out of the Paris climate agreement; a deal that 194 countries have signed that aims to limit the global warming to a 2 degree Celsius increase from what the average temperature was pre-industrialization. If Trump were to follow through with his promise, he wouldn’t be able to pull out for three years. But many countries still worry that he could make that move. That’s a problem–the U.S. historically has been the largest CO2 emitter globally. And if we don’t set an example and limit our emissions, then why should other countries make the effort?

In the rest of the world there is significantly less discussion about whether climate change is “real”—the question usually tends to be “what do we do?” Even China, which was named the worst climate polluter in the world in 2006, emphasized the importance of sticking to the deal when President Xi Jinping became the first Chinese leader to speak at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week.

In a 2014 survey by market research group Ipsos Mori, America has a higher population of climate change deniers than any other country that participated in the survey. And another survey by Pew Research Center showed that the number of Americans who do not believe humans have contributed to climate change is about 50 percent. The results showed a big discrepancy between the opinions of the general public and those of scientists. Alan Leshner from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) collaborated on the survey. “It’s partly a function of the American educational system that does a terrible job… at educating young people in science, math and technology,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Global Climate Crisis: 2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record appeared first on Law Street.

Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for the head of the Environmental Protection Agency appeared before part of the Senate for his confirmation hearing on Wednesday. Pruitt, a former attorney general of Oklahoma, said he would like to shift some regulatory control from the federal government to the states. He purported that being pro-energy and pro-environment can be mutually exclusive. And while he acknowledged that climate change and human activity are linked, he questioned just how strong that causality is.

As attorney general, Pruitt advocated on behalf of states’ rights in the face of what he saw as federal overreach. In fact, Pruitt sued the EPA 14 times; he also led the 27-state lawsuit against President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. If he is confirmed as the next EPA chief, Pruitt could become involved in some of the lawsuits that he filed. In Wednesday’s hearing, Senate Democrats asked Pruitt if he would recuse himself from those lawsuits. He did not commit to doing so.

Scott Pruitt will not say whether he will agree to upholding California’s high vehicle pollution standards. That is unacceptable.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) January 18, 2017

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) introduced Pruitt: “Yes, as attorney general, Scott fought the EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the outgoing administration on many fronts,” he said, “but all of these suits were brought to protect state and local interests from overzealous and activist agencies.” Outside the hearing room, protesters, some wearing pink hats and surgical masks, others donning oil rig gear, represented the dueling sides of the hearing itself: Democrats who questioned Pruitt’s ties to the energy industry, and Pruitt’s long-held disdain for environmental activists and what he sees as job-killing regulations.

“We must reject as a nation the false paradigm that if you’re pro-energy you’re anti-environment, and if you’re pro-environment you’re anti-energy,” Pruitt said during the hearing. In his opening remarks, Pruitt, who is often called a climate denier, clarified his stance on climate change: “Science tells us that the climate is changing and human activity in some manner impacts that change,” he said. “The human ability to measure with precision the extent of that impact is subject to continuing debate and dialogue, as well they should be.”

If we look at EPA’s major legacy rule – CPP, WOTUS, haze, CSPAR, tailoring rule – the agency is batting 0.00. #confirmpruitt

— Jim Inhofe (@jiminhofe) January 18, 2017

Pruitt’s hearing was on the same day the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a report that said 2016 was earth’s hottest year on record, since at least 1880, when record keeping began. Though he made clear that the EPA under his watch would grant more power to state legislatures, Pruitt mentioned the Flint, Michigan water crisis as an instance when the federal agency failed to do enough.

“In Flint, the EPA should have acted faster. With air quality, water quality across state lines, there is a role where EPA is important,” he said. Pruitt added that he does not know the science behind lead poisoning: “I haven’t looked at the scientific research,” he said.

In 2009, the EPA found that carbon emissions endanger humans and warm the planet. That ruling serves as the basis for subsequent emissions regulations, including Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Pruitt, who Democrats worry will scrap a number of regulations, said he would enforce that ruling. “It is there, and it needs to be enforced and respected,” he said. Pruitt is expected to pass a full Senate confirmation, as all 51 Republicans will likely support him; Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is also expected to support Pruitt.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scott Pruitt: Trump’s Choice to Lead the EPA Defends His Record of Suing the EPA appeared first on Law Street.

Gray wolves, and sage grouse, and prairie chickens–oh my! A new GOP aim may reduce protections for a handful of endangered species.

According to the Associated Press, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said that he “would love to invalidate” the Endangered Species Act (ESA)–although it’s unclear exactly how–and he may now have the support he needs with an incoming Republican president and Republican-dominated Congress.

Republican lawmakers have previously tried to limit the number of species included on the endangered species list, complaining that protecting these animals may restrict drilling, logging, mining, and hunting. Bishop said he believed that the act had been “hijacked” and “used for control of the land.” He claims that the ESA does not actually serve the purpose of restoring endangered species.

The act was passed in 1973 to prevent the extinction of the bald eagle, which was later taken off the endangered species list. The act outlines the requirements for listing a species as endangered and allows the federal government to undertake measures to recover those species. Once recovered, a species may be delisted and no longer subject to government protection as long as its population remains stable.

In the most recent effort to limit the scope of the act, Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) introduced a bill on January 10, backed by 11 Republicans and three Democrats, to delist the gray wolf in the Great Lakes region and Wyoming. The wolf, which often preys on game animals and livestock, was already delisted in Montana and Idaho in 2011, but two of its sub-species are close to extinction, according to Newsweek.

Though President-elect Donald Trump has not expressed a position on the Endangered Species Act, he has discussed plans to better utilize federal lands for drilling and mining.

Throughout President Barack Obama’s tenure, efforts to curb the act–by dropping restrictions for certain species, for example–have been blocked by Democratic lawmakers. According to The Hill, Republican leaders behind the measures have felt that the ESA is ineffective and imposes unnecessary restrictions on landowners.

Meanwhile, the list of endangered animals continues to grow. Recently, a type of bumblebee became the first bee–and one of 300 species added by the Obama administration–to make the list.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Lawmakers Look to Curb Endangered Species Act Under Trump Administration appeared first on Law Street.

President Barack Obama, while vacationing in Hawaii on Tuesday, used an obscure 1953 law to protect millions of acres of federally owned waters in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans from future gas and oil drilling. With weeks left in his presidency, Obama’s unilateral action could make it difficult for President-elect Donald Trump to pursue drilling in the protected regions. Existing licenses will not be affected.

Leaning on the rarely-used 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Obama froze fossil fuel exploration in 98 percent of federally owned waters off the coast of Alaska, totaling 115 million acres. And 3.8 million acres in the Atlantic, stretching from Norfolk, Virginia to the tip of Maine, will be restricted from further drilling. Obama’s sweeping actions were in conjunction with similar moratoriums on drilling in Arctic waters off the Canadian coast by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“These actions, and Canada’s parallel actions, protect a sensitive and unique ecosystem that is unlike any other region on earth,” Obama said in a statement. “They reflect the scientific assessment that even with the high safety standards that both our countries have put in place, the risks of an oil spill in this region are significant and our ability to clean up from a spill in the region’s harsh conditions is limited.”

Bold measure by @POTUS to protect the Arctic Ocean and parts of the Atlantic, (1/2)

— Al Gore (@algore) December 20, 2016

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act contains a clause that allows the president to “withdraw from disposition any of the unleashed lands of the outer Continental Shelf.” Obama’s team is confident that what the bill lacks–language allowing a president to redact any actions taken under the bill–will provide a bulwark against future drilling in the protected areas. Trump’s cabinet, most notably his appointment to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, has a pro-drilling bent.

Obama, who has often used unilateral power as a means of pushing climate change action, is confident there is little Trump’s team can do to erase Tuesday’s move. Amending the 1953 act is one potential course of action, but doing so would require 60 votes in the Senate; Republicans hold 52 Senate seats. Environmental groups praised the new protections, while oil industry groups warned they could result in a future of oil dependence.

Congressmen were also split on the issue. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) said the new protections “put the interests of millions of Americans ahead of those of Big Oil,” while Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT), the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, called Obama’s actions “an abuse of power.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Protects Millions of Acres from Future Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling appeared first on Law Street.

The five structures rise out of the Atlantic Ocean, in a perfect horizontal line. They look like toy pinwheels when viewed from the coast. But these five behemoths are certainly not toys–they’re the country’s first offshore wind turbines, spinning and generating power off the coast of Block Island, Rhode Island, a tiny vacation hamlet sandwiched between Long Island to the west and Martha’s Vineyard to the east.

“Rhode Island is proud to be home to the nation’s first offshore wind farm–and I’m proud to be the only governor in America who can say we have steel in the water and blades spinning over the ocean,” said Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo, in a statement from Deepwater Wind, the company that built the wind farm. The turbines were completed in August, testing was completed by October, and on Monday, they finally started spinning.

This is America’s very first offshore wind farm, off the coast of Rhode Island, which came online this week https://t.co/hfiGy197Ld

— Sustainable Business (@GuardianSustBiz) December 13, 2016

Block Island’s residents previously relied on diesel-fueled generators to power their homes, but with Deepwater Wind’s groundbreaking project, 17,000 homes, or 90 percent of the island’s electricity needs, will be generated by the powerful gales that blow just off the coast. Still, Rhode Island is the smallest state in the country, and the wind farm is expected to generate only one percent of the state’s electricity. The $300 million project is set to shave off 40,000 tons of carbon emissions each year, according to Deepwater Wind.

With the environmental costs of fossil fuels becoming increasingly clear to scientists, politicians and private companies are working in concert to embark on job-creating projects that provide energy from clean sources. “With this project, we’ve put hundreds of our local workers to work at-sea and at our world-class ports and are growing this innovative industry. I applaud Deepwater Wind for leading the way,” Raimondo said.

Wind farms already dot the country, with more springing up over the past few years. There are about 50,000 turbines on U.S. land, supplying roughly five percent of the country’s energy. But while offshore farms are more expensive to build, and more difficult, they have a significant upside, as winds are stronger and more consistent over water than land, and offshore turbines could generate much more power than those on land.

While many Republicans deny or downplay the effects of climate change, offshore wind farm projects have attracted bi-partisan support. Governor Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat of New York, set a goal for 50 percent of New York’s energy to be generated by renewable sources by 2030. And Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, a Republican, signed a bill that orders state utility companies to work with offshore wind farms companies.

Many subsidized renewable energy undertakings are built on a policy drafted by the Republican-led Congress under President George W. Bush, the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which provides “loan guarantees for entities that develop or use innovative technologies that avoid the by-production of greenhouse gases.”

“As the Ocean State, we’re motivated by our shared belief that we need to produce and consume cleaner, more sustainable energy and leave our kids a healthier planet,” Raimondo said. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post First Offshore Wind Farm in the U.S. Begins Operations in Rhode Island appeared first on Law Street.

The President-elect has been criticized because he claimed that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. The new proposed head of the EPA is a climate change denier. And the new proposed Secretary of State is an oil company CEO with close ties to Russia. So, it’s no wonder that environmentalists across the globe are worrying. Now, American climate scientists are copying as much of their research and climate data as possible onto independent computer servers, in an attempt to protect the information from any political interference.

“Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, or at least something you’d want to hedge against,” said Nick Santos to the Washington Post. He is an environmental researcher at the University of California at Davis and spent last weekend copying climate data onto a non-governmental server that will be available to the public. Other efforts include “guerrilla archiving” in Toronto–meaning the copying of irreplaceable public data–discussions on how to download as much information as possible as quickly as possible, and the creation of a website for storing all this scientific information.

This isn’t something we should have to be worried about as researchers in the developed world. But here we are.https://t.co/m9nTzWgvF7

— Ari Belasen (@DrBelasen) December 13, 2016

On Friday, Trump’s transition team sent a questionnaire to the Department of Energy to find out the names of employees who attended domestic and international climate talks. It also asked about all publications written by employees at the department’s laboratories for the past three years. This could be a sign of coming retaliation against employees who simply were doing their jobs, and drew criticism from Democrats and environmentalists.

Yes Mr. Trump, climate change is a “hoax.” It was just a haphazard occurrence that that 13 of the 15 hottest years have occurred since 2000. pic.twitter.com/2kvVpjTNb5

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 12, 2016

On Tuesday, however, the Energy Department’s spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said it would not comply with Trump’s request. He said that the demand for individual names of employees left many people in the department feeling unsettled. He said:

We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department. We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.

For many people it is deeply worrying that several of Trump’s cabinet picks are skeptical about climate change, which is a fact the vast majority of scientists in the world agree upon. Michael Halpern from the Center for Science and Democracy said it’s not unreasonable to believe the new government would want to get rid of climate data that proves a fact that they dispute. “There is a fine line between being paranoid and being prepared, and scientists are doing their best to be prepared…” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Scientists Rush to Back Up Climate Data Before Trump Takes Office appeared first on Law Street.

In Paris, officials are making use of excess heat from electrical appliances to heat up the city’s swimming pools. This environmentally friendly move is spearheaded by Jean-François Martins, deputy mayor in charge of sports. He wants to make swimming pools more sustainable. Paris is in the running to host the 2024 Olympic Games, and becoming more eco-friendly would help its chances both to win the bid, and to save money in the process.

Specifically, France is utilizing the excess heat from computer servers and sewage systems. Wastewater coming from 2.2 million Parisians’ sinks, toilets, washing machines, and dishwashers keep a temperature of about 55 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Some swimming pools are being built on top of the sewers, so that the water and waste run directly underneath the pool, where the heat gets captured through metal plates in the pipes. Then, a pump system transfers the warmth to the pool water. Next year, a start-up company is planning to install several hundred computer servers in the basement of a building with a swimming pool in the city’s 13th Arrondissement. The heat generated by the servers will be captured and transferred to a boiler that warms up the water as well as locker rooms. “We wish to reduce the environmental impact and ecological footprint of these facilities, while reducing chemical product use,” said Martins.

On the whole, Paris is making an effort to be progressive on climate issues. The city’s mayor, Anne Hidalgo, recently announced a ban on car traffic on a two-mile stretch along the Seine. The area will be transformed into a river promenade for pedestrians and cyclists. As a part of Hidalgo’s anti-pollution campaign “Paris Breathes,” the plan had the support of 55 percent of Parisians, even though some on the right opposed it. Paris is actually one of the most polluted cities in the European Union and air pollution is calculated to contribute to 2,500 deaths in the inner city every year.

Décision historique au #ConseildeParis : la fin d’une autoroute urbaine à Paris et la reconquête de la Seine. pic.twitter.com/Q0TQLzuHjA

— Anne Hidalgo (@Anne_Hidalgo) September 26, 2016

Monday, December 12 marks the one-year anniversary of the adoption of the Paris agreement, the first global deal aimed at battling climate change. Representatives from 200 nations met in Paris and agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. President-elect Donald Trump has previously said that he will withdraw from the Paris agreement when he takes office. On Sunday he said, “nobody really knows” why climate change happens, but claimed that he is “open-minded.” Both France’s President Francois Hollande and its former president, Nicolas Sarkozy, reacted to the statement. Sarkozy suggested a tariff on imported American products in case Trump backs out. Hollande said: “The United States, the most powerful economy in the world, the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, must respect the commitments that were made. It’s not simply their duty, it’s in their interest.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paris is Reusing Energy From Wastewater to Heat Swimming Pools appeared first on Law Street.

It’s not exactly surprising when President-elect Donald Trump contradicts himself on certain policy views: he’s taken differing stances on issues such as immigration, Obamacare, and gay marriage, among many others. But his inconsistency on climate change just this week has been causing some major whiplash for anyone following Trump’s opinions on the issue closely.

Earlier this week, in a meeting reportedly set up by Ivanka Trump, Al Gore met with the President-elect to discuss the issue of climate change. While the details of the discussion have not been disclosed, Gore told reporters that the two looked for “areas of common ground” in the “interesting discussion.” Trump also allegedly met with Leonardo DiCaprio to discuss green jobs, and was gifted a copy of DiCaprio’s climate change documentary, which he reportedly promised to watch.

While those meetings may have offered some hope to environmental activists, those hopes came crashing down after Trump announced yesterday that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt would be his appointment to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt has called the issue of climate change “far from settled” and referred to himself as the “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” in his official bio.

The appointment of Pruitt falls more in line with the Donald Trump who has called climate change a “hoax” and has called for abandoning Obama’s climate change actions such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the Clean Power Plan.

Trump has continuously stated that he’s “not a huge believer” in man-made global warming, and while he’s claimed that the research as it stands isn’t conclusive on the issue, he also doesn’t seem to be interested in investing in further research.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

On the other hand, Politico has reported that Ivanka Trump plans on making climate change one of her “signature issues.” While this might just reflect a difference of opinion between the President-elect and his daughter, Trump has also made comments that have shown a more balanced approach on the issue, such as his comments to the New York Times post-election:

“I think there is some connectivity” between humans and climate change, Trump says.

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 22, 2016

If this inconsistency indicates anything besides Trump’s own lack of convictions, it’s that Trump will likely take a backseat on the issue and allow his advisors and appointees to decide what role the U.S. will play in the fight against climate change. While Ivanka puts on a deceptive show of being a climate change spokeswoman, our new EPA director will likely be rolling back the progress made during the Obama administration.

If anything’s certain, it’s that we’re in for an unpredictable four years.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Trump’s Confusing Stances on Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

The Weather Channel decided to strike back at Breitbart News after it published a not-so-accurate article claiming that climate change is a hoax last week, and used a Weather Channel clip to back up the piece.

In the Breitbart piece, the writer, James Delingpole, claimed that increasing temperatures over the past few years are only due to El Nino and that global temperatures have plummeted since the middle of 2016. He also wrote that the “alarmist community” has been quiet about this, mostly because “lefties” get their information from “unreliable fake news sites like Buzzfeed.” Along with the text, there was a video clip from the Weather Channel featuring scientist Kait Parker talking about how the phenomenon of La Nina will bring cold air to the U.S. this winter. That detail is true, but that doesn’t mean climate change is not real.

Seeing this, the Weather Channel tweeted a chart about global temperatures from the past 50 years and told Breitbart to stop using its video to mislead Americans.

Note to @BreitbartNews: Earth Is Not Cooling, Climate Change Is Real and Stop Using Our Video to Mislead Americans https://t.co/ipP0fD2BEg pic.twitter.com/ypSMJ4eML6

— The Weather Channel (@weatherchannel) December 6, 2016

Filmmaker Michael Moore cheered the move.

How is it that The Weather Channel has more balls than most of the mainstream media? https://t.co/PxYwsllwhG

— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) December 7, 2016

On its website, the Weather Channel called the Breitbart article ”a prime example of cherry picking, or pulling a single item out of context to build a misleading case.” Temperatures dropping globally for a short period of time doesn’t mean climate change isn’t happening. In fact, temperatures typically drop after a strong El Nino. Kait Parker pointed that out in a video clip specifically aimed at responding to all of Breitbart’s false claims in its article.

Parker also called out the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which tweeted a link to the Breitbart piece as if it was true, captioned, “Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists.”

The committee is a governmental body with jurisdiction over a bunch of scientific areas, such as environmental, marine, and astronautical research. But its chairman is a well-documented climate change denier, Congressman Lamar Smith. The tweet prompted a perfect response from Bernie Sanders.

Where’d you get your PhD? Trump University? https://t.co/P5Ez5fVEwD

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) December 1, 2016

Parker finished her message to Breitbart by saying, “finally, to our friends at Breitbart: The next time you write a climate change article and need fact checking help, please call. We’re here for you. I’m sure we both agree this topic is too important to get wrong.”

On Wednesday, Breitbart News hit back by calling the Weather Channel statement an “Argument from a Pretty Girl” that is “engaging in agenda-driven politics.” It seems like they missed the facts that Parker has a degree in Atmospheric Science and that climate science is not politics–it’s science.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Weather Channel Slams Breitbart Over Climate Change Article appeared first on Law Street.

A 6.9-magnitude earthquake struck the northeast shore of Japan’s central island on Tuesday, bringing back memories of the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that killed around 20,000 people, and reigniting the debate around the country’s capacity to safeguard against any future nuclear calamities. It may have also been worse than was thought, as the Japanese weather service is reporting that the earthquake was a magnitude 7.4. The scare did not result in any casualties, but a frozen nuclear campus just south of the Fukushima plant that was hit in 2011 did experience a brief malfunction.

Japan has 54 nuclear plants, most of which have been closed since the Fukushima Daiichi plant was inundated by water in 2011. The plant is still undergoing a clean-up effort, though it was briefly paused on Tuesday. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe would like to restart Japan’s reactors, but nearly 70 percent of the Japanese public is against that idea.

#Fukushima
Right now just prayers are needed! #PrayForJapan pic.twitter.com/XYhaa3NnMU

— شادا شرارتی (@shararti714) November 22, 2016

In the aftermath of the 2011 disaster–many Japanese refer to the event as 3/11–the public and advocacy groups have been critical of the Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, the company that operates three plants, including Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini, the plant that was hit Tuesday. Tepco was quick to assuage any fears after the quake struck this time around, issuing a series of tweets chronicling their progress in responding to the quake.

#Fukushima Daiichi and Daini Units – no abnormalities found, no radiation level changes detected, no injuries reported after the earthquake

— TEPCO (@TEPCO_English) November 22, 2016

Advocates who are against nuclear plants in general responded with cautious optimism in regards to Tepco’s response. The director of the Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition at Nagasaki University, Tatsujiro Suzuki, told The New York Times the response was “decent,” adding: “We should be informed fully whether this operation is reasonably done with cost effectiveness and safety and making sure that the best technology is being used.”

The bulk of Japan’s energy comes from imported natural gas, coal, and crude oil. The Fukushima incident forced Japan to reshuffle its energy portfolio, and today the country sources only one percent of its energy from nuclear power plants. In March, Abe expressed the need to reintegrate nuclear energy, saying Japan “cannot do without nuclear power to secure the stability of energy supply while considering what makes economic sense and the issue of climate change.”

All of that was an afterthought on Tuesday however, when #PrayForJapan was trending on Twitter, and an entire country was on edge, memories of five years ago rushing back like a tidal wave.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Earthquake Strikes Japan, Reigniting Nuclear Energy Debate appeared first on Law Street.

One California city, Santa Monica, is taking quite a dramatic step to make sure that new single-family homes built there don’t add any more stress to the environment–beginning in 2017, any house built in the city will have to be “net-zero” energy (ZNE). That means that it cannot use more energy than it produces, a hugely ambitious move in California’s quest to get greener.

There are a few different ways that a house could fit ZNE rules. Houses that produce their own energy, such as through solar power, are able to achieve that distinction. The new houses built in the town will also likely be seriously efficient, in an attempt to reduce the amount of energy needed.

ZNE technology is certainly not new. The EcoTerra House in Quebec, Canada, opened in 2007 and is a landmark ZNE building. Kentucky was the first state to build a ZNE-friendly public school, the Richardsville Elementary School in Warren County. The first retail store that is ZNE is a Walgreens in Evanston, Illinois. But Santa Monica is believed to be the first city worldwide to implement this kind of measure.

Mayor Tony Vazquez said in a press release after the ordinance was passed by the City Council:

Santa Monica is proud to take a global lead in zero net energy building standards that put the State’s environmental policy to action. Council’s adoption of this new ordinance reflects our city’s continued commitment to the environment. ZNE construction, considered the gold standard for green buildings, is a major component that will help us reach our ambitious goal of carbon neutrality by 2050.

And Dean Kubani, Santa Monica’s Chief Sustainability Officer, spoke about the benefit to the homeowners in the city, saying:

This ordinance makes environmental and economic sense. With the price of utility power continuing to rise, ZNE homeowners will avoid those escalating costs while benefitting from local renewable power for all of their energy need.

If Santa Monica’s idea works as plans, it could contribute to California’s attempts to cut emissions, and provide inspiration for cities both domestically and worldwide.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Building a New House in Santa Monica? It Will Need to be Very Green appeared first on Law Street.

In a curious role reversal, a top Chinese foreign diplomat promised President-elect Donald Trump that no, climate change is not a hoax cooked up by the Chinese, and yes, it is indeed a problem that will affect the entire world. In an hour-long briefing with reporters after a climate meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco on Wednesday, deputy foreign minister of China, Liu Zhenmin, discussed the history of climate negotiations as a Republican-backed initiative, and the continued commitment of China to combat rising temperatures, “whatever the circumstances.”

Days before the 2012 election, Trump sent a tweet that targeted the Chinese as being the inventors of climate change:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

Even though a vast majority of scientists agree that climate change is greatly accelerated by the actions of mankind, Trump has promised to “cancel” the Paris climate deal that was reached by the U.S. and 194 other countries last December. In another tweet from November 2012, Trump called global warming “nonexistent.”

And although China is the world’s foremost emitter of greenhouse gases–the U.S. ranks second–it is not the inventor of climate change, nor of the very real effects seen in coastal areas around the world. At the climate summit in Marrakesh, Liu reminded Trump that it was Republicans, some of whom continue to dismiss climate change, who first took carbon-cutting negotiations to the international stage.

“If you look at the history of climate change negotiations, actually it was initiated by the IPCC with the support of the Republicans during the Reagan and senior Bush administration during the late 1980s,” he said, referring to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Liu added that that was the moment China first acknowledged the very real threat that climate change posed to the world. He also said that Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated the importance of global cooperation in fighting the threat during his phone call with Trump on Monday.

Regardless of Trump’s plans, other countries have signaled that they are committed to the Paris deal, with or without the U.S. But as one of the leading emitters of greenhouse gases, and a global leader in technology and influence, the U.S. is a major player in the effort. The deal was ratified recently, however, making the U.S. commitment binding for at least three years.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China to Trump: We Didn’t Invent Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

The water crisis in southern California is far from over. The reservoir that provides Santa Barbara County with its drinking water reached its all-time low at 7 percent capacity this summer. The Lake Cachuma reservoir is supposed to hold drinking water for half a million people. But at this rate, it will be unable to provide water as soon as January.

Lake Cachuma is 3,000 acres and provides the surrounding valley with half the amount of water that it needs to refill an underground aquifer that everyone living there uses. Households, businesses, and farms use this water. If California doesn’t get the same amount of precipitation as it did last year, the wells will go dry. The only hope for inhabitants is a winter with a lot of snow and rain, which would also extend into the spring. But if that doesn’t happen, the state needs to step in. And the country has just elected a president who doesn’t believe in climate change. “There is no drought,” Trump claimed at a rally in Fresno in May.

You could solve the California water crisis using all the tears shed over Trump’s election.

— Mounir Lynch (@DoctorMounir) November 10, 2016

“There is very much a drought in California, and it’s been going on for approximately five years. It doesn’t look like there’s an end in sight,” said Emilio Huerta, a California attorney who was running for Congress, to CNBC, earlier this month. He also said there is a “fear of cancer clusters and people being exposed to dangerous toxins” in the water.

Some cities are investigating alternative water sources. In Santa Barbara there are ongoing discussions of whether to ban outdoor use of water, and plans to desalinate ocean water to make it drinkable. The area is known for its huge mansions owned by movie stars, golf courses in constant need of watering, and vineyards that attract tourists from all over the world, and none of this could exist without fresh water. A year ago, water suppliers ordered Californians to cut their water use by 35 percent, something that made many people feel unjustly treated as they let their gardens and trees die at the same time while major construction projects went on as usual.

The city of Santa Barbara released an aerial video to show how much the water level has gone down.

Santa Barbara will spend $61 million to get the desalination plant going, which could provide the city with a third of its water needs. Though it is an amazing invention that can turn seawater into drinking water at a rate of 3 million gallons per day, environmentalists say it’s harmful to the environment. It works by sucking in saltwater through tiny holes in the machine, which can harm ocean creatures, and the salty water that is later pumped back into the ocean pollutes it. The operation also demands a lot of electricity that will contribute further to the emission of carbon dioxide unless it’s generated via renewable energy.

Adam Scow from advocacy group Food & Water Watch believes that to solve the problem, California must change its whole mindset. There are a lot of things that are just not sustainable there–the golf courses, the nut trees, and the overuse of groundwater, to name just a few. “California cannot sustain this type of production with this mantra that we need to dominate all agricultural markets. We’re losing our water with that mindset,” he said to CNBC.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Drought Watch: Santa Barbara County’s Reservoir Almost Dry appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump never included anything about his stance on climate change and global warming in his campaign platform. While Hillary Clinton featured the issue prominently on her website, Trump has previously said that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese. Though he denied that odd stance in the first presidential debate, his tweet from 2012 was widely spread by the media.

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

He has also promised to go back to larger domestic coal, oil, and gas industries. And Trump has tweeted a whole lot about what he thinks of global warming…primarily that it doesn’t exist. You can find a list of all his tweets on the matter here. One example:

President Obama was terrible on @60Minutes tonight. He said CLIMATE CHANGE is the most important thing, not all of the current disasters!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2015

During a speech in May, Trump said that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement if elected, and said that it is “bad for U.S. business” and allows “foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use.” The U.S. has pledged to cut down greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. We are the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world after China, so it is a pretty big deal.

But on Friday, the Paris agreement was ratified into international law, after 96 countries signed the deal. This happened way faster than expected, which is a positive sign. And it means that Trump cannot technically renegotiate any parts of the deal until three years in, and after that one additional year must pass before he could officially withdraw from it.

However, he could technically get out of the deal by disassembling and undermining the ways in which America reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, and by simply not living up to the goals of the agreement. There is also a more aggressive way to get out of the deal, namely by withdrawing from a climate treaty from 1992, which would automatically pull us out from the Paris deal as well. Though this is legally possible, doing so would definitely undermine how trustworthy other countries perceive the U.S. to be and not favor our own interests in the long run. And according to environmental think tank Climate Interactive, this would have a significant impact on the climate. These are pretty alarming things going on.

The “lesser of two evils” argument was BULLSHIT– Trump will repeal Obamacare, pull out of Paris climate deal, stack SCOTUS #NotMyPresident

— Emma Vigeland (@EmmaVigeland) November 9, 2016

Climate Interactive said that since the U.S. pledge is so large—the percentage translates to 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide—a withdrawal from the deal would directly impact the rest of the world. “Pulling out of the Paris agreement matters not just in leadership, but also in a direct impact on the climate,” said Andrew Jones, co-director of the group, to the Washington Post.

Also, if the U.S. chooses to not partake, other countries like India are less likely to do it too. Trump has also said he wants to reduce the EPA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, by 70-80 percent. In September he picked Myron Ebell as head of environmental policy on his transition team—a climate skeptic who is a director of a conservative think tank and whose sponsors are some of the biggest polluters in the country.

Yet another depressing point is that the election on Tuesday resulted in a defeat of a Washington State initiative, Initiative 732, that would have been the country’s first revenue-neutral carbon tax. It would have imposed a $25-per-ton fee on carbon dioxide emitted in different sectors, money which then could be used to reduce the state sales tax. But looking at the bigger picture of what a Trump presidency will bring, this barely matters, according to Charles Komanoff, director of the Carbon Tax Center. “We’re in for many years of backsliding on climate at a time when we really had to ramp it up,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Trump Reject the Paris Climate Change Agreement? appeared first on Law Street.

A coalition of environmental groups from around the world sent a letter on Monday to banks that have loaned, collectively, $2.5 billion to help finance the polarizing Dakota Access pipeline. Johan Frijns, Director of the Netherlands-based group BankTrack, wrote the letter, which was signed by 25 other organizations spanning all corners of the globe, from China to Australia, and the U.S. to Germany.

“The world is closely watching how all actors involved will deal with the situation, including the banks that provide financial support to the project,” Frijns wrote. The letter was addressed to Nigel Beck, Chair of the Equator Principles Association, a consortium of investors that includes some of the biggest financiers of the pipeline: Citigroup, Wells Fargo, TD Bank, and Mizuho.

Included in the letter are requests for the banks to chew on during their annual meeting in London on Monday and Tuesday. “All further loan disbursements to the project are put on hold,” the letter says, adding the groups expect an “immediate halt to the construction of the pipeline and all associated structures, until all outstanding issues are resolved to the full satisfaction of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.”

The letter is the latest protest against the pipeline, which has been a lightning rod for activists and members of Native American communities (and social media) since August. If completed, the pipeline would run from the northwest tip of North Dakota to Illinois, sending nearly half a million barrels of crude oil every day through its 1,172-mile route. It snakes through sacred Sioux lands, and some argue it threatens local water sources and can pollute the air. Supporters of the pipeline say it will bring thousands of local jobs, and is a cleaner way of transporting petroleum than any alternatives.

Over 100 people have been arrested–including journalists–as police and state troopers from around the country have struggled to combat vast crowds, sometimes resorting to rubber bullets and pepper spray to kick people off the land, which is owned by Energy Transfer Partners, the beneficiary of the banks addressed in the environmental group’s letter.

Environmental groups have had some successes in past battles with banks. Over the last two years, several international banks–Barclays, Deutsche Bank, and ING–have pulled out of projects involving mountaintop removal mining, a practice that is potentially damaging to the environment, after facing pressure from environmental groups. Last week, amid the growing national and international outcry, President Obama said the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal body that approved the project, is considering an alternative route.

“We are going to let it play out for several more weeks and determine whether or not this can be resolved in a way that I think is properly attentive to the traditions of the first Americans,” Obama said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Global Environmental Groups Band Together to Oppose Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Law Street.

The Paris Climate Agreement, signed by 195 countries last December, was officially ratified into international law on Friday. “Today we make history in humankind’s efforts to combat climate change,” U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon said at the U.N.’s New York City headquarters. India, China, the U.S., the European Union and scores of other countries, totaling 96, have signed the agreement. Others, including Russia and Japan, signaled they will do so in the coming weeks and months.

“We are still in a race against time. We need to transition to a low-emissions and climate-resilient future,” said Ban, whose term ends in January. “Now is the time to strengthen global resolve, do what science demands and seize the opportunity to build a safer more sustainable world for all.”

For the agreement–which aims to limit the global temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100–to go from abstract idea to concrete law, it had to be signed by at least 55 participating nations (making up 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions), a goalpost that was met on October 5. Though the accord is not legally binding–meaning there is no legal ramification for not complying–there are abstract mechanisms in place to ensure each signing party meets its individual carbon-cutting vision.

Those abstract enforcement measures will be hammered out at the COP22 meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco next week, where scientists, engineers, and researchers will gather to discuss emission-reduction techniques and strategies. Each country that signs the Paris agreement shapes a carbon-cutting plan suited to their needs and realities, with the international coalition acting as a sort of watchdog.

Rising seas, warming temperatures, melting ice caps, and all of the other consequences of fossil fuel abuse led nearly all of the world’s countries to bind together to secure a safer planet for future generations. As the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the U.S. will play a vital role in shaping that future. But Donald Trump has pledged to withdraw the U.S. from the accord should he be elected to the White House next Tuesday.

It is an impossible promise however, because the U.S. is bound to the accord for three years. And even if Trump decides to renege on the U.S. commitment during his third year, another year must pass before an official withdrawal. Hillary Clinton supports the agreement.

Ratification of the Paris Climate Accord went much faster than most expected: 2020 was the initial target date. By comparison, the Kyoto Protocol, a similar international carbon-reduction measure, was adopted in December 1997 and ratified over seven years later. Friday’s achievement is an important step toward weaning the world off fossil fuels, which still provide much of the world’s power, and the flip to renewable energy sources–wind, solar, hydro–will be a slow, arduous process.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paris Climate Agreement Officially Becomes International Law appeared first on Law Street.

What can cause miscarriages, early delivery, diseases that account for 10 percent of deaths in children under five, and harm children’s brain development?

The answer: air pollution.

And it’s getting worse. According to a new report by UNICEF, 300 million children live in areas where the air they breathe is “extremely toxic.” And this causes almost 600,000 children to die from different diseases that are either caused or aggravated by the polluted air. On top of that, millions of kids suffer from respiratory illnesses that not only affect their breathing and physical conditions but also their mental health.

Through use of satellite images, UNICEF found how the air these 300 million children breathe exceeds international guidelines for acceptable outdoor air pollution by at least six times. Another two billion children live in areas where the levels exceed the guidelines by a lesser amount.

With 300million #children breathing toxic air; ‘No society can afford to ignore #airpollution‘ – @UNICEF chief. https://t.co/Zrx5isWid1

— UN News Centre (@UN_News_Centre) October 31, 2016

Indoor pollution is worse in rural areas, where the burning of solid fuels like coal, or the use of wood for cooking and heating is common. Mold, bacteria, cleaning chemicals, and hazardous building materials are also problematic in these areas, while outdoor pollution is more common in urban areas due to exhaust fumes, the use of fossil fuels, and big industries. Needless to say, both kinds of pollution are worse in developing countries and poor communities, where the means or knowledge to use environmentally friendly options are limited.

Children are generally more susceptible to air pollution since their lungs are still developing. They breathe faster than grown ups, and take in more air relative to body weight. Since they are developing and growing, their brains and overall immune systems are also more vulnerable. The worst conditions are in South Asia, with 620 million children exposed to toxic air, closely followed by Africa with 520 million.

UNICEF Executive Director Anthony Lake said in a statement:

Air pollution is a major contributing factor in the deaths of around 600,000 children under five every year – and it threatens the lives and futures of millions more every day. Pollutants don’t only harm children’s developing lungs – they can actually cross the blood-brain barrier and permanently damage their developing brains – and, thus, their futures. No society can afford to ignore air pollution.

UNICEF is now urging all countries and world leaders to make an effort to meet the World Health Organization’s guidelines for air quality by investing in renewable energy sources and cutting back on harmful fossil fuel. It is also important to make sure kids have access to healthcare and that they are not exposed to other sources of pollution such as factories. To enhance air is to protect children. And both are equally important to our future.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UNICEF: 300 Million Children Live In Areas With “Extremely Toxic” Air appeared first on Law Street.

The 2013 documentary “Blackfish” portrayed the chilling reality of orcas in captivity, including the tragic death of one orca trainer who was pulled underwater by a stressed and depressed whale. Now California has become the first state in the country to ban breeding and performances by captive orcas.

State Assemblyman Richard Bloom from Santa Monica first introduced the bill in 2014 and expressed his joy on Twitter on Tuesday.

Very pleased to announce that my law protecting #orca from captive breeding in California was signed by @JerryBrownGov today

— Richard Bloom (@RichardBloom) September 13, 2016

The “Blackflish” documentary opened many people’s eyes. SeaWorld faced massive protests after it aired. The company voluntarily announced in March 2016 that it would stop captive breeding and “repackage” orca entertainment into featuring only the “natural behavior of the whales.”

PETA had worked on behalf of the orcas for a long time and was delighted by the news:

Considering what we know now about orca intelligence and sensitivity, there’s no justification for letting businesses breed more of these animals to endure chronic deprivation in tiny concrete tanks.

BREAKING VICTORY: #California has just become the first state to ban captive orca breeding! https://t.co/LoBCdqPwgz pic.twitter.com/NpVaOrOddX

— PETA (@peta) September 14, 2016

The new bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday and will ensure that SeaWorld and other parks will never begin the captive breeding practices again. But a loophole in the bill allows parks to still use whales for “educational orca encounters,” which means they could technically keep doing what they’ve been doing until now.

Former orca trainer John Hargrove, who participated in the Blackfish documentary, celebrated the new law.

California Governor Signs Bill Banning SeaWorld Orca Shows- This feels WONDERFUL! https://t.co/WO1lEWEcvS

— John Hargrove (@johnjhargrove) September 14, 2016

The law will prohibit keeping genetic material for the purpose of breeding and selling orcas to other states or countries. Facilities that keep orcas captive can only keep them for scientific, educational, or rescue purposes. Breaking the new law could result in a fine of $100,000.

Dr. Toni Frohoff from In Defense of Animals told the Dodo:

This is a momentous decision that reflects established science on orca well-being, and also public opinion that increasingly demands that these majestic, highly intelligent beings should not be held captive.

Considering the massive criticism that SeaWorld has faced, and that the new bill is the first of its kind to protect orcas, it seems like it can only get better for the whales from here.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California First State to Ban Orca Breeding and Performances appeared first on Law Street.

Protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota turned violent over the weekend, with Native American protesters from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe facing off against security staff from the oil company building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners. Now, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says it does not oppose a temporary break in the construction.

When the protesters approached construction workers on Saturday, security guards unleashed dogs on them. Six people were bitten, including a young child, according to Standing Rock Sioux Tribe spokesman Steve Sitting Bear. He also said at least 30 people were pepper-sprayed. The spokeswoman for the Morton County Sheriff’s Office, Donnell Presky, said they didn’t have any records of protesters being injured, but that four security guards and two dogs received injuries. She also said the Energy Transfer Partner’s helicopter filmed the protests and handed the footage over to the police.

Pictures on social media do indicate injuries for the American Indian protesters.

Guard dogs & pepper spray were used on #NoDAPL activists resisting construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline. pic.twitter.com/siJSXL8AUr

— AJ+ (@ajplus) September 5, 2016

Democracy Now! documented some of the clashes.

The pipeline is estimated to cost $3.8 billion and run through four states. The tribe filed a complaint earlier this summer since it believed the Army Corps didn’t follow proper procedure when it approved Energy Transfer Partners to start building the pipeline. The tribe said the construction would destroy sacred places and burial grounds, and may affect the drinking water in the community.

After the construction started anyways and resulted in violence on Saturday, the tribe filed an emergency motion on Sunday, in which its representative Tim Mentz Sr., wrote that the construction team seemed to have targeted the burial grounds on purpose, starting the digging right where he had asked them not to. This happened even though the actual construction work was going on 20 miles away. He also described the guards with dogs and a helicopter accompanying the digging, as if they expected protests and controversy.

The Army Corps replied to the tribe’s motion by saying it does not oppose a halt in the construction, since the tribe is unlikely to succeed with its lawsuit. However, it did acknowledge that the protests during Labor Day weekend were violent and that it would be in the public interest to preserve peace. According to NPR, it said:

The Corps acknowledges that the public interest would be served by preserving peace near Lake Oahe until the Court can render its well-considered opinion on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Corps therefore does not oppose this short and discrete temporary restraining order.

On the energy company’s website it says it would listen to the opinions of locals to minimize disruptions of the land:

We will listen to and address questions from the community, landowners and other interested stakeholders about the project, proposed routes, landowner communications and more. It is our intent to live up to our promises of openness, honesty and responsiveness before, during and after construction and throughout operations.

The opposite seems to be true when it comes to the Sioux Tribe. But hopefully peace will be maintained during the interruption to construction.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Temporary Halt to Dakota Access Pipeline After Protests Turn Violent appeared first on Law Street.

Building on his legacy as Protector in Chief, President Obama will be expanding Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument–a pre-existing protected body of water, shoals, and atolls near Hawaii–by hundreds of thousands of miles. Friday’s Presidential Proclamation said the motivation behind expanding the monument is “to protect and preserve the marine area of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and the historic and scientific objects therein.”

Twice the size of Texas, at 582,578 total square miles, the expanded monument is now the largest marine protected area on the planet. Originally granted monument status under President George W. Bush in 2006, Obama’s executive order effectively quadruples the size of the protected waters. The move was heralded by Native Hawaiians–who use those waters for ancient cultural traditions and consider them as sacred in creation stories and myths–and conservationists. And while recreational fishing is allowed (with a permit), the longline, commercial fishing industry will take a hit. The Hawaii Longline Association said they haul two million pounds of fish from the designated area annually, the equivalent of $100 million.

What does the expanded @HawaiiReef look like? Check it out in our video: https://t.co/T6iI181j9v #EarthIsBlue

— Sanctuaries (NOAA) (@sanctuaries) August 26, 2016

“We’re obviously going up against environmental organizations that have billions of dollars,” said Sean Martin, the president of the Hawaii Longline Association. “For somebody to feel good, we’re going to force U.S. fishermen out of waters.”

While it seems the people who use the sea for its bounty of resources might take a hit from Obama’s expansion, the Native Hawaiian community and the species who call the area their home will certainly benefit. According to his Proclamation, the area “supports a dynamic reef ecosystem with more than 7,000 marine species, of which approximately one quarter are unique to the Hawaiian Islands.” In addition, it “has great cultural significance to the Native Hawaiian community and a connection to early Polynesian culture worthy of protection and understanding.”

Obama to quadruple size of Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument against wishes of Hawaii’s fishing industryhttps://t.co/ZWPQIaAvEn

— Pacific Biz News (@pacificbiznews) August 26, 2016

The following is a partial list of what is allowed and what is notallowed  within the new protected zone:

• Commercial fishing is not allowed.
• It is illegal to mine for oil, gas, and minerals in the protected area.
• With a permit, recreational fishing is allowed.
• Scientific research is allowed.
• Native Hawaiians are allowed to remove fish for use in cultural practices.

Even before Friday’s announcement, Obama cemented his legacy as the U.S. president who has designated the most land as government protected areas. He has created 26 national monuments covering about 548 million acres of land (or sea), twice as much as any of his predecessors. U.S. presidents were granted the executive authority to designation land as protected regions under the 1906 Antiques Act, which states: “the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest.”

Obama’s decision to expand the protected area of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument followed a proposal by Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Native Hawaiian leaders. On Thursday, Obama will travel to the Midway Atoll–a sandy dot within the new protected area, and an important military staging ground in World War II–to give the official announcement regarding the expanded monument.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Announces the Largest Protected Marine Monument on Earth appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, ten more people were confirmed by Florida Governor Rick Scott to have been infected by a Zika carrying mosquito in the Miami area. That brings the total number of local Zika cases–that is, those where transmission took place on American soil as opposed to an infected traveler from Latin America–to 14. All the cases, the first of which was reported a few weeks ago, are believed to have emerged in a one square mile area just north of downtown Miami, in the Wynwood arts district. The latest cases were found among more than 200 people who were tested for Zika within the affected area of Miami.

Governor Scott said in a statement that he will issue a travel notice to pregnant women or women who are thinking about conceiving a child in the near future. Zika is especially dangerous to pregnant women, because a child born to a Zika-infected mother has a high chance of developing microcephaly. Scott also said he will be calling on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to assist in investigating the Wynwood cases, as well as in preventing further transmission.

Dr. Antonio Crespo, an infectious disease specialist with Orlando Health, said it’s no shock that Florida is the site of the first local Zika transmissions in the U.S. Aedes aegypti, the mosquito that carries Zika and thrives in tropical climates, is common in Florida, Crespo said. That, combined with the fact that travelers from parts of Latin America where Zika is rampant often land in Florida, is why local cases were inevitable. “When you put the two together it’s not a surprise that at some point there was going to be a local transmission,” he told Law Street in a phone interview.

Dr. Crespo is optimistic that the disease will be contained, however. “I’m optimistic with Zika–maybe cautiously optimistic–because of what we have seen in the past,” he said, referring to the state’s successful campaigns to thwart dengue fever and chikungunya, two mosquito-borne diseases also carried by Aedes aegypti. Those diseases saw sporadic outbreaks in Florida over the past decade, but were contained by a process called vector control–a similar process is now being employed to deal with Zika.

Vector control is a two-pronged strategy, both to prevent further transmission and the spread of existing cases. First, people in an affected area–in this case, Miami-Dade and Broward counties–must take pains to avoid getting bitten. The best way to do that, according to Dr. Crespo, is to follow the precautions prescribed by the CDC: apply repellent and erect mosquito nets inside and around their homes. The mosquito’s population is then contained by draining standing water–a favorable breeding ground–and spraying the affected area with larvicide. Eventually, Dr. Crespo said, the disease will be contained and choked at the source.

Crespo is confident that Zika will be contained, but considering the connectedness of the world today, he said, the threat should not be taken lightly. “We live in a world where people travel, so it’s very easy for one disease to be transferred from one country to another in a matter of hours,” he said. “We need to continue to be on high alert.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Zika Cases in Miami Rise to 14; Governor Calls on CDC to Help appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands are homeless in West Virginia this week after torrential flooding that left at least 23 dead. Clay, Fayette, Greenbrier, Jackson, Kanawha, Monroe, Nicholas, Pocahontas, Roane, Summers and Webster counties were all damaged in the floods. Bodies were found days after the rains began, having been dragged miles from their homes by the rushing water. But for West Virginia, the reconstruction won’t just be physical, it will be emotional too.

Let’s start with the massive need for rebuilding–FEMA has already approved over $18 million in individual assistance for medical and housing support, but this is just the beginning of the disaster relief process. FEMA began by coordinating disaster centers and donation centers for those who lost their homes to the flooding but it will now need to provide temporary housing and unemployment benefits, assist with home repair, and provide low-cost loans to cover uninsured property losses. With over 4,000 flood victims registered to date, FEMA is looking at years worth of construction and economic assistance. If a similar natural disaster strikes other communities this summer, FEMA’s budget will be stretched thin. In the 2016 financial year, FEMA was granted $7.37 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, a sum that seems somewhat less significant once we factor in that the Disaster Relief Fund is used not only for disasters that occur in 2016 but for the costs of past disasters as well, including Hurricane Sandy. West Virginia’s reconstruction has only just begun and there is no way to fix a deadline for when it will end.

But beyond the physical reconstruction, there is also a need for emotional support. In the wake of natural disasters, communities are more vulnerable to a rise in mental health issues. Consider that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a survey of 392 low income parents affected by the storm found that the prevalence of serious probable mental illness doubled and that nearly half the participants studied exhibited probable PTSD. The American Psychological Association operates the Disaster Resource Network, a group of approximately 2,500 licensed psychologists who work with the Red Cross to integrate mental health into disaster preparedness training, but with so many communities at risk, it is difficult to reach every town that is vulnerable.

FEMA’S Crisis Counseling Program (CCP) provides funding for a variety of counseling services, including both individual and group counseling, but there is no guarantee that the counselors provided will be able to work with victims of disaster indefinitely. Building trust and making progress with a counselor can take months or years, and with so few qualified counselors available to work in disaster areas, those who cannot seek counseling on their own dime may never return to counseling once the CCP grant runs out. In West Virginia, an economically disadvantaged state with one of the highest rates of unemployment in the nation, the likelihood of most flood victims being able to attend counseling without a CCP grant is almost nonexistent.

In a nation where communities are constantly grappling with floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires, FEMA’s work is never done. The agency has worked to transform itself, in a post-Katrina world, into an effective disaster relief agency that can anticipate every need of a community in its darkest hour. Yet FEMA is not beholden to stay in the community forever–it will rebuild and aid as much as it can, a process that may take years, but that does not undercut the fact that FEMA relief is only temporary.

The deeper effects on the community, particularly the scars left by grief and PTSD, last long after the aid money has run out. Organizations like Counselors without Borders are doing critical work in disaster scenarios but they do not have the resources or staff to reach every victim of every crisis. Individuals will play the greatest role in creating positive mental health in disaster communities. Trained counselors and psychologists can donate their time, volunteers can work on emergency and suicide hotlines, school administrators can strive to create safe spaces for students–this type of holistic, community-based dedication to protecting mental health can truly rebuild a town after it has been destroyed. However, when flood victims are focused on rebuilding their homes and businesses, these efforts can fall by the wayside—why focus on mental health when poor physical health is the greater threat to a flood victim’s immediate well-being? How can a community choose to spend money on group counseling for a family instead of spending that grant on rebuilding that family’s home? This is our next great challenge when dealing with natural disasters: making mental health as important as bricks and mortar.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Needed: Mental Healthcare in the Aftermath of a Disaster appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a scuffle that pits a global non-governmental body against a formidable foe: the signatures of 110 Nobel Prize winners. The subject of debate? Genetically modified organisms (GMOs); specifically, a vitamin A enhanced grain known as Golden Rice. Last week, a cohort of past Nobel laureates–including physicists, chemists, economists, and doctors–signed a letter implicating Greenpeace International as carrying out a “global campaign to mislead consumers” about GMOs and Golden Rice.

Greenpeace is against GMOs in general, and has a section on its website dedicated to the modified grain. The group says Golden Rice is “environmentally irresponsible, poses risks to human health, and could compromise food, nutrition, and financial security.” Instead, the group favors solutions that already exist in communities with high levels of malnourishment or nutrient deficiencies, namely more varied diets and community gardens.

But GMO advocates say nutrient enhanced crop varieties–along with animals that have been modified to grow faster or eradicate viruses–can help millions of people around the globe. The letter, sent by laureates from 1962 to 2015, offers a scathing diagnosis of what they see as Greenpeace’s intentional sabotaging of efforts to send GMOs, like Golden Rice, to market. They wrote:

Greenpeace International has been at the forefront of these campaigns, spreading false information and fomenting unfounded fears that have led to individual and organizational [behavior] that have resulted in excessive regulatory burdens and delays.

Golden Rice was developed by German scientists 24 years ago. It has been heralded as a potentially life-saving strain, due to its high beta carotene count. Many rice varieties in Africa and Southeast Asia lack vitamin A, which leads to vitamin A deficiency (VAD). VAD can cause blindness and lead to an increased risk for infection and disease. Golden Rice has yet to hit the market, and some local anti-GMO groups in the Philippines–where the primary testing plots for the crop are located–destroyed testing sites a few years ago.

“Corporations are overhyping Golden Rice to pave the way for global approval of other more profitable genetically engineered crops,” Greenpeace issued in a press release.

For all the back-and-forth, a recent study conducted by researchers at Washington University-St. Louis found that Golden Rice’s issues go beyond barriers set up by anti-GMO groups such as Greenpeace. “The rice simply has not been successful in test plots of the rice breeding institutes in the Philippines,” explained Glenn Stone, lead author of the study, to Washington University’s student newspaper. “The simple fact is that after 24 years of research and breeding, Golden Rice is still years away from being ready for release.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Battle: Nobel Laureates vs. Greenpeace International appeared first on Law Street.

I never thought I would have anything in common with a Kenyan who was born and raised in a small African village, has two master’s degrees from the University of Nairobi in Kenya and University of Pretoria in South Africa, worked on environment and development policy in East Africa, and now is a technical leader working in the elevation and advancement of the links between population and environment. But on June 23 we had something in common–we were both sipping ginger ale and conversing over the intersectionality of women’s empowerment and climate change. 

Hours before, Clive Mutunga was one of a dozen expert panelists present for “At The Eye of the Storm: Women and Climate Change,” an event geared towards fostering conversations about how women are most affected by climate change and the role they play as victims. According to his fellow panelist Jacqueline Patterson, director of the NAACP’s Environmental and Climate Justice Program, “Climate change exposes gender vulnerabilities.”

“Women are resilience personified.” Roger-Mark De Souza opens Wilson Center #EyeOfTheStorm event pic.twitter.com/QAjWDypkfm

— UniversalAccessProj (@UnivAccessProj) June 23, 2016

The experts in attendance consisted of both men and women who held distinguished positions at the Department of Defense, Congress, Project Concern International (PCI), University of Hawaii Law School, Tetra Tech, and Solar Sister. Most of them appeared to be young and in their thirties, yet they had already accumulated impressive resumes consisting of environmental and humanitarian jobs aimed at helping women effected by climate change. Sono Aibe, a senior advisor at Pathfinder International perfectly encapsulated the ideology of the event saying, “There is no justice in climate change. Nature does not choose its victims, we do.”

Elhers: Women aren’t invisible. We just aren’t listening. @NewSecurityBeat #EyeOfTheStorm

— Maria Prebble (@maria_prebble) June 23, 2016

In developing countries, most women must rely on collecting natural resources (water, food, and energy for cooking and heating) to sustain their livelihood and the livelihood of their families. Uncertain rainfall, drought, and deforestation–all common symptoms of climate change–make it harder for women to maintain their livelihood. Compared to men in these poor countries, women are disadvantaged because of their limited access to education, economic assets, and a place at the table to make decisions on how to combat the problem.

At the event, there were three different panels that looked at the different angles in which climate change disproportionally impacts women.

Women in Crises: Conflict, Disasters, and Complex Emergencies

Most of the panelists on this panel had traveled to remote parts of the world, and experienced first-hand how women were at the center of the effects of climate change in some of the poorest areas. They also shared stories of how violence against women during times of environmental crisis are happening right in our backyards. Patterson elaborated on this by sharing a startling stat from Hurricane Katrina–nearly 300 women were raped during and after the lawless days of the storm.

Similar violence happened to women in Sub-Saharan Africa. Kelly Fish, a gender technical advisor for PCI, recounted one story about an African woman she worked with who had to walk for miles to collect firewood in order to cook for her family. Sadly, the same wood that she had walked miles to retrieve, was used as a tool for violence–her husband beat her with it every night.

Walks to collect water from miles away can also be dangerous for women, Fish explained. Women in the area were encouraged to wear female condoms when walking to collect water because the risk of rape was so high.

Our Bodies, Our Planet: Climate, Gender, and Health

With the U.S. Agency for International Development, Mutunga works in areas where contraception isn’t easily accessible, or there is a lot of ignorance surrounding it–many women end up raising eight or nine children in poverty-stricken areas. It’s not unusual for the daughters who grow up in these families to be sold off as child brides, because as he described during this panel, “Marriage means one less mouth to feed in a poverty-stricken family.”

He added that when women have children young, and have lots of them, it decreases their chances of staying in school and in the workforce–perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

Prez @SuzannePAI discussing the importance of #familyplanning in mitigating effects of climate change #eyeofthestorm pic.twitter.com/PV9zaKjRE8

— PAI (@popact) June 23, 2016

Climate Champions: Women Entrepreneurs & Climate Solutions

The stories of women who had been victimized by the effects of climate change were important to the context of the event, however, the point was not to dwell on the tragedies, but to offer solutions.

“It’s important that we be climate victors and not climate victims,” said Sherri Goodman, former deputy under Secretary of Defense, at the event’s final panel.

Neha Misra, Co-Founder and Chief Collaboration Officer of Solar Sister, a company that provides clean energy technology to remote areas of Africa to help empower women, emphasized that the response to fighting climate change “has to include women.”

“I believe in a world where women, girls, and their communities have access to the sustainable energy they need to create a prosperous life,” she added.

Another panelist, Swathi Veeravalli, a research scientist for the Army Corps of Engineers found in her research that sometimes simple solutions can make a big difference. “If you provide access to lighting, just lightbulbs the incidents of rape go down immediately.”

Roger-Mark De Souza, Director of Population, Environmental Security, and Resilience at the Wilson Center went as far as saying, “every problem we have is linked to climate change.”

The debate over whether or not climate change is real is essentially over, but it is just the beginning when it comes to grasping what the consequences are. Jane Harman, Director, President, and CEO of the Wilson Center, said women should be at the forefront of creating climate change policy. Harman stated,

Climate change is coming to all of us, but women are the ones who are disproportionally hurt— we bare the burden of sick relatives and personal issues. Women as parents and sisters and caregivers, we are qualified to make security policy and to sit at any security policy table in the world. Who should be the leaders in the climate change policy debate? I would say women.

Following the three panels there was a Happy Hour for the panelists to mingle with the audience. I showed up to the event that day wearing a t-shirt, blue jeans, and dirty converse. To say I didn’t fit in with all of the expert panelists and well-dressed young professionals there is an understatement. However, I felt almost a little guilty for worrying about what I showed up in after learning about the women all over the world who have much bigger problems that affect their well-being.

That’s how I started my conversation with Mutunga, and he responded in a thick Kenyan accent, “Think how lucky those women would be to worry about what they were wearing.” After an inspiring chat with him and learning what I did at the panels, I left the event feeling grateful and motivated to make sure I do my part in helping women impacted by climate change.

Editor’s Note: This post has been edited to reflect that one of the featured quotes was said by Sono Aibe, a senior advisor at Pathfinder International. 

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Victimization of Women From Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Scandinavian countries are already among the best in the world when it comes to boasting low levels of carbon emissions, garbage recycling, and sustainable living. Sweden recycles 99 percent of its garbage, and now Norway has pledged to become climate neutral by 2030–20 years earlier than previously planned. Norway currently emits around 53 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.

On Tuesday night the Norwegian parliament agreed to accelerate its CO2 cutting program to try and meet the carbon emission goals that were set for 2050 two decades sooner. But this might be hard to accomplish considering Norway’s major export products are oil and gas. The leader of the Norwegian Green Party Rasmus Hansson said: “This is a direct response to the commitments Norway took on by ratifying the Paris agreement and means that we will have to step up our climate action dramatically.”

The climate talks in Paris took place in December 2015 and resulted in the world’s first legally binding agreement concerning the global climate. In total, 196 countries agreed to keep global warming down and reduce emissions.

#Norway says it will be climate-neutral by 2030, accelerating goal by 20 years https://t.co/QFPSHGr2FT pic.twitter.com/sXpkBSbFYv

— The Local Norway (@TheLocalNorway) June 7, 2016

The ruling Progress and Conservative parties voted no to the proposal on Tuesday, with the argument that overly ambitious reductions today could result in interference with future climate negotiations.

However, the next step is for the government to go back to Parliament to discuss how to implement the change. Some ways to achieve the ambitious goal are to work for the reduction of gas-fueled cars (24 percent of the country’s cars are already electric), increase the use of wind power, and emissions trading.

At the end of May, Norway voted to commit to zero deforestation, making it the first country in the world to do so. This means that no product that has contributed to deforestation will be used or sold in Norway. The country has also donated money to other countries’ rainforest preservation efforts, such as Guyana and Brazil.

Norway’s commitment to zero deforestation led Alec Baldwin to tweet this video greeting:

Watch this clip of my greeting to my friends in Oslo. Thank you, @VidarHelgesen https://t.co/aDL65niVom

— AlecBaldwin (@AlecBaldwin) June 14, 2016

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was also in Oslo on Wednesday signing a deal for a closer cooperation between the nations on protecting the world’s forests.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Norway Vows to Be Carbon Neutral by 2030: 20 Years Earlier Than Planned appeared first on Law Street.

On a nine acre cay between Queensland and Papua New Guinea, human-influenced climate change is thought to have claimed its first mammalian casualty. Melomys rubicola, or the Bramble Cay melomys–coined after the tiny speck of land it once inhabited–was a small rodent with long whiskers and a thin, scaly tail. Last week, in a survey conducted on behalf of the the Australian state of Queensland over six days in August and September 2014, researchers finally revealed their findings. The 59-page report concluded “human-induced climate change being the root cause of the loss of the Bramble Cay melomys.”

Meet the first mammal to go extinct due to human-induced climate change–the Bramble Cay Melomys. LIVE SUSTAINABLY pic.twitter.com/uS3qKx0amH

— Jake Marconi (@jake_marconi) June 15, 2016

Native to Bramble Cay, its only known habitat in the world, the creature had been in steady decline since the 1970s, when researchers found hundreds of them living on the heavily vegetated, pinprick-sized hamlet atop the Great Barrier Reef. Only ten were found in a 2002 study, 12 in 2004. And as of 2016, at least as far as researchers know (they will not rule out the possibility that the animals exist in other, not yet discovered habitats), the Bramble Cay melomys is extinct.

The team of three researchers–two University of Queensland scientists and a Queensland government official–used 150 total traps made from a mixture of rolled oats, peanut butter, peanut oil, and golden syrup, as well as camera traps and daytime searches. There was no sign of the nocturnal creature. The team concluded:

The key factor responsible for the extirpation of this population was almost certainly ocean inundation of the low-lying cay, very likely on multiple occasions, during the last decade, causing dramatic habitat loss and perhaps also direct mortality of individuals.

Between 1901 and 2010, global sea levels rose by 20 centimeters, a figure much higher than similar periods over the past 6,000 years. And in the waters of the Torres Strait, the ocean alleyway which Bramble Cay is situated in, sea levels rose at twice the average rate between 1993 and 2014. But shrinking living space and diminishing food stores were not the only forces at work behind the animal’s extinction. Stiff competition for a narrow, dwindling cache of grasses–a diet staple for the melomys, seabirds, and turtles–led to the rodent’s erasure as well.

The permanent loss might be an ominous portent of things to come for a vast chunk of the animal kingdom in the coming decades. A 2015 study published in Science warned that one in six of the planet’s species could face extinction if current trends continue. A meeting between most of the world’s governments, including its highest carbon emitters, in Paris last year sought to mitigate the effect of climate change on rising sea levels, glacial erosion and other potentially devastating environmental shifts that would upend the existence of human beings and other creatures alike. The Paris climate accord has yet to go into effect, and whether its tenets will help save any species from extinction remains to be seen.

John White, an ecologist from Deakin University in Australia who was not involved in the Bramble Cay survey, told the Guardian he has “no doubt” more species will be lost to climate change, especially those animals that live in niche, isolated environments like the melomys. “Certainly, extinction and climatic change has gone hand in hand throughout the history of the world,” he said. “So, if this is one of the first, it is more than likely not going to be the last.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Extinct: Tiny Rodent Is First Mammal Claimed By Human-Induced Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Wolves are one of North America’s most fascinating indigenous species but they also pose a major threat to cattle populations. While poaching wolves is illegal, culling of wolves by government officials and trophy hunting have historically been used to keep wolf populations in check. However, Guillaume Chapron of the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Adrian Treves of the University of Wisconsin-Madison recently conducted a study on wolf populations in Wisconsin and Michigan and found that state laws that opened up legal culling actually slowed population growth–a notable problem for America’s wolf population.

The logic for legal culling is simple: it was assumed that these outlets for hunting would limit illegal poaching and would encourage Americans to coexist with the wolf population. The wolf population would continue to grow without hovering to the point of extinction, as locals will not feel the need to illegally hunt the animals. Including legal culling is a cornerstone of “carnivore management,” which deals with carnivorous populations in the wild that can pose a threat to human life but can also coexist with humans when handled correctly.

Wolves are not the only predators that conservationists have difficulty handling–African lions, grizzly bears and other large carnivores present a massive challenge. Consider that a set of brown bears released into the wild in Italy last year had to be hunted down after they attacked several humans. Whereas conservationists can hope to release animals like pandas and elephants back into the wild, large carnivores that are held for some time may never be able to return to the wild because they are so dependent on a stable ecosystem that consistently supplies them with their daily meat intake. Wolves historically could have eaten bison but now the bison is a protected animal, a population which the United States has a vested interest in preserving. When one species in the food chain becomes off limit, it is difficult to deal with its predators. Farmers across the nation are eager to receive the “right to kill” wolves who threaten their cattle but a survey conducted by Washington State University found that killing wolves who attack livestock can actually backfire. Researchers hypothesized that:

Killing an adult wolf can disrupt the entire (complicated) social system of the grey wolf pack…killing adult wolves may end up locking their offspring to the place where they were killed: without parents to keep them sexually distinct and roaming, the way they normally would, pups may settle down prematurely, having their own pups earlier than normal, and sticking to the place where they became independent — the place where their parents were killed.

These pups then go on to eat local livestock, just as their parents did, rather than roaming to different areas where they might be able to feast on rabbits and other small mammals that have no financial value for ranchers. Wolves are imperfect creatures, that simultaneously threaten human livelihood (ranching) while also desperately dependent on humans for their survival (conservation), but they are part of the American landscape and we are responsible for their future. Containing a large carnivorous species is not an easy task, but with new evidence suggesting that legal culling and “right to kill” laws are not having the desired effect, conservationists and government officials may need to rethink how best to preserve the wolf population.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Hunting American Wolves: Conservation or Extinction? appeared first on Law Street.

An oil leak was discovered close to Shell’s Brutus platform on Friday, releasing nearly 90,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico before it was closed, according to officials. The leak reportedly issued from a subsea infrastructure, but an exact cause has not yet been determined. Spokesperson Curtis Smith said that the leak is under control and no drilling activity is going on at the Brutus for now. The platform is connected to four subsea wells in what is called the Glider Field, about 97 miles off the coast of Louisiana. A sheen was reported by a company helicopter observing the area, which led to an immediate shut off of operations.

Oil spills have so far been an inevitable part of the industry, which is one of the biggest and most important industries in America. Oil operations in the Gulf produce about 17 percent of the oil in America and account for a quarter of a million jobs, but sometimes at the cost of environment and animal life.

During the Deepwater incident in 2010, an explosion of a BP well caused the death of 11 workers, sank the Deepwater Horizon drill rig, and released 134 million gallons of oil into the sea. This led to an uproar from anti oil activists, who now get support for their argument from recent events. Earlier this year during a federal auction of oil and gas leases in the Gulf, a massive group of protesters from different environmental groups interrupted the event, fighting to stop the sale. The sale still happened, but it was a big step forward for the clean energy movement, and according to Anne Rolfes, founder of the group Louisiana Bucket Brigade: “People have woken up. We’ve always known this was hurting us, but now we’re also willing to act.”

By Friday night cleaning operations of the Shell oil spill had started, as well as an investigation of what caused the leak by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shell Oil Spill Releases Nearly 90,000 Gallons Outside Louisiana appeared first on Law Street.

As climate change continues to wreak havoc on the world’s weather patterns, individuals around the globe are taking their respective countries to task for their roles in contributing to the problem. The New York Times reports that several attempts to take governments to court have taken place in countries such as Pakistan, New Zealand, Peru, and even the United States.

Whether or not these lawsuits could have any effect on actually holding these countries accountable is debatable, but it is giving clout to people who traditionally would have little power in such a fight. Children, farmers, and students  have brought cases in various countries, all citing a need for countries to take action to protect current and future generations from a host of devastating effects.

In the U.S., a group of kids in the state of Washington won a lawsuit last month to force the state to be held to a deadline for taking action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The kids were represented by Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit that works to help young people fight for their right to a healthy atmosphere. While this particular case was fought at a state level, the organization has been fighting another case at the federal level–it has also filed a suit against the Obama administration on behalf of a group of kids from various states across the country. The suit claims that the Obama administration has “continued their policies and practices of allowing the exploitation of fossil fuels,” targeting in particular the approval of a CO2-emitting export terminal in Oregon.

Pakistan, a country particularly vulnerable to climate change, has recently seen two such cases come to its courts. Last month, a seven-year-old girl filed a lawsuit against the government, saying that the promotion of fossil fuels violates “the Public Trust Doctrine and the youngest generation’s fundamental constitutional rights.” Last year, farmer and law student Asghar Leghari took his case to the Lahore High Court after his crops were threatened by the unpredictable weather. Leghari’s case prompted a judge to order the formation of a “Climate Change Commission” to ensure that the government is implementing policies to combat the problem.

The Times piece highlights other cases that are popping up worldwide. Regardless of whether or not these suits will actually be successful in forcing governments to change their policies, they are bringing attention to the media and the public of the role that governments have played in the climate crisis.

In the end, these lawsuits might be the most effective way that individuals can truly make their voice heard to the entities that truly have the power to create change. While these methods will still be difficult for those without legal resources at their disposal, it may be the best way to force governments to take action.

Editors Note: A previous version of this story stated that the kids represented in the federal case against the Obama administration were from Oregon. This story has been corrected to clarify that many of the youth plaintiffs in this case live in other states apart from Oregon. 

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post People Are Suing Their Governments for Contributing to Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Twenty-one young people are suing the federal government over climate change–and according to a recent ruling from a federal judge, they’re allowed to continue with the suit.

The 21 plaintiffs range in age from 8-19 from across the United States, and the lawsuit is being supported by an advocacy group called “Our Children’s Trust,” based in Oregon. The ideal endgame of the kids’ lawsuit would be for the federal government to come up with a concrete plan to fight climate change. They’ve filed petitions in every state, but it was the one in Oregon that a federal judge is allowing to move forward. Federal District Court Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin, wrote:

The nascent nature of these proceedings dictate further development of the record before the court can adjudicate whether any claims or parties should not survive for trial. Accordingly, the court should deny the motions to dismiss.

Cotton also called the lawsuit unprecedented and wrote:

If the allegations in the complaint are to be believed, the failure to regulate the emissions has resulted in a danger of constitutional proportions to the public health.

The next step for the lawsuit is for another judge to review it, but Our Children’s Trust appears to be optimistic that it will be able to move forward.

The plaintiffs rely heavily on the concept of the public trust doctrine in their lawsuit. Essentially, the public trust doctrine is what allows the government to own certain resources for public use–for example the Great Lakes. The plaintiffs are arguing that the climate and atmosphere should be treated the same way. Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that their constitutional rights were being infringed upon. A press release from Our Children’s Trust reads:

These plaintiffs sued the federal government for violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property, and their right to essential public trust resources, by permitting, encouraging, and otherwise enabling continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels.

So while there’s no guarantee this lawsuit will move forward, it will be one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Young People Are Suing the Federal Government Over Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, landmarks around the world shut off their lights for an hour to draw attention to climate change. The event was started in 2007 by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), and has been held every March since.

This year, 366 landmarks participated in over 175 nations, including Big Ben, the Colosseum, and the Empire State Building. Each landmark turned off its lights between 8:30 and 9:30 PM in its respective timezone. Here are some pictures of the world’s most famous landmarks gone dark:

Great photos of the @EmpireStateBldg participating in #EarthHour. pic.twitter.com/MYcniHgBUl

— World Wildlife Fund (@World_Wildlife) March 20, 2016

#ChangeClimateChange! UN Headquarters in NYC went dark for #Earthhour on Saturday! Message: https://t.co/L34HPKY8hY pic.twitter.com/2nbVESfQ9r

— United Nations (@UN) March 20, 2016

Time for lights out! We’re proud to take part in this year’s #EarthHour
Pic: Simon Hewson/@wwf_australia @earthhour pic.twitter.com/uFCvtl2JIy

— City of Sydney (@cityofsydney) March 19, 2016

We’ve switched off the lights at Emirates Stadium from 8.30-9.30pm for #EarthHour pic.twitter.com/aLGbPTJEuk

— TheArsenalFoundation (@AFC_Foundation) March 19, 2016

The Eiffel Tower is switching off its lights to celebrate #EarthHour in @Paris. @WWF@RoyalSegolene@Anne_Hidalgopic.twitter.com/iYB8Kyn0mH

— Pierre Cannet (@pierrecannet) March 19, 2016

The CEO of the WWF, David Miller, explained the uniqueness of this year’s event:

This year, because the nations came together in Paris in December for the first time and agreed on a plan of action, I think the goal is not only to draw attention but also to celebrate the fact we’ve seen really important action on this critical challenge.

However, while the world may have seen increased action against climate change, we have also seen mounting reason to be concerned about the state of the world climate. According to the Independent’s Geoffrey Lean:

Last month, it was revealed on 14 March, was not merely the warmest February ever, but witnessed the biggest month-on-month jump in temperatures ever recorded – and by a big margin. Normally cautious climate scientists called it ‘jawdropping’ ‘terrifying,’ and ‘a true shocker.’

Worse, the previous record rise occurred just the month before, in January. This has been the warmest winter ever worldwide, and February was the tenth successive record-breaking month.

The photos of the Earth Hour are always striking, but it’s important that the event be paired with action that is more than just symbolic. Miller is certainly correct that we’re making progress, and a blacked out Eiffel Tower (and other landmarks) are great reminders that it’s paramount that we continue moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Earth Hour 2016: A Coordinated Protest Against Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

For the eco-conscious among us, there may be a new way to be environmentally friendly even after death. A company called Coeio has created a unique burial bodysuit from a special strand of mushrooms that decomposes dead bodies. Coeio brings together innovative minds from the design, art, finance, fashion, and funeral industries to rethink the way we approach funerals, and death in general.

What began as co-founder Jae Rhim Lee’s MIT graduate work has become the Infinity Burial Shroud. In a 2011 Ted Talk, Lee explained how she has trained edible mushrooms to eat her own dead fingernails, strands of hair, and skin. She selects all the mushrooms most advanced in eating the excess of her own body to create the infinity mushrooms. She then integrates these infinity mushrooms into a variety of objects, hence the body burial suit.

With America’s population aging at its highest rates, it’s certainly time for us to start thinking about new ways to deal with death. According to the U.S, Census the population aged 65 and older will be at 83.7 million by 2050, mainly due to the large population of baby boomers aging now. However, funerals may not be the most cost efficient option for everyone, nor the most environmentally friendly.

On average burial funerals cost about $6,600; cremations are about half that price on average around $3,200. Cost aside though, people are also weighing the need of the environment into their end-of-life plans. Traditional burial involves the use of formaldehyde-embalming, metal or wood caskets, and concrete vaults all strenuous to the environment in some way shape, or form. Additionally, caskets take up land space. Cremation is considered much more environmentally friendly, but still runs the risk of releasing mercury into the atmosphere as a byproduct of the cremation. With the infinity burial shroud people could still be put to rest in the ground, without the environmental cost or space issue.

At one point or another, we must all come to terms with our immortality. At least for Lee this project has been “…a step toward accepting the fact that someday [she] will die and decay,” and “a step toward taking responsibility for [her] own burden on the planet.”

These suits are as much about conserving the earth as they are about confronting our own end. Dennis White is the company’s first customer. He is 63 and lives in Massachusetts, and until he was diagnosed with a terminal illness, he did not think about his own death. In his wish to be buried in the mushroom suit he expressed satisfaction with the end of his body, as “flora and fauna can dine upon it, just as I have dined upon flora and fauna during my lifetime.” The infinity burial suit can be yours too for $999, and meanwhile, you can rest easy knowing that people are taking steps to help the environment, even after they’ve passed away.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There’s a New Environmentally Conscious Way to be Buried appeared first on Law Street.

Since the launch of Chobani in 2005, Greek yogurt sales have boomed and a multitude of Greek yogurt products have filled the shelves of grocery stores across the country. But there may be a dark side to everyone’s favorite yogurt product–debates over the disposal of one of Greek yogurt’s by-products may soon reach a head in New York state.

Greek yogurt’s claim to fame is that the liquid is strained out of it, making it thicker and more protein-rich. This straining process creates a byproduct called acid whey, comprised of lactic acid produced during the fermentation process. Like any other byproduct created in the food production process, acid whey must be disposed of in a responsible way that has minimal effects on the environment. Acid whey cannot be dumped near any bodies of water because it depletes water of oxygen, destroying the marine environment, and it also cannot be disposed of in a typical landfill because it would leach into the soil.  At the moment, yogurt producers have not discovered a way to recycle or reform the acid they so they can monetize it. Researchers have used filters to attempt to salvage reusable elements of the acid whey but so far, the thousands of gallons of acid whey produced in the production of Greek yogurt are the albatross around the neck of the yogurt industry.

In 2013, ModernFarmer published a piece on Greek yogurt that claimed that producers were not disposing of acid whey responsibly. Instead, they sold the acid whey to farmers who mixed it into their fertilizer or cow feed, even though adding too much acid whey to cow’s diets could have damaging effects for the animals. In response to the ModernFarmer article, John Lucey of the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research defended the Greek yogurt straining process, calling it a “non-issue.” A research team at the University of Wisconsin-Madison has developed lactose-isolating technology that lets yogurt makers separate and resell the lactose in acid whey (although there is still waste left over that must be disposed of) and plans to continue its research on acid whey in the future.

Yet the red flag raised by the ModernFarmer article should not be completely ignored. Greek yogurt may not be a significant threat to the greater American public but it may still have negative impacts for New York farmers. Both Fage and Chobani, major Greek yogurt producers, have major factories in the state of New York–and it is farms within a comfortable driving distance of these factories that are most likely to receive acid whey to use for agricultural purposes. Acid whey is not a threat to national environmental standards but in the coming years, it may impact the farming community of New York, as it is concentrated within their properties.

The disposal of acid whey in New York farming communities is a relatively new practice, and in a decade’s time, both the soil and the livestock may witness minimal effects after the addition of acid whey to fertilizer and feed.  However, if acid whey does have a wide-spread impact on these farms, the yogurt producers could be responsible for placing an entire state at a disadvantage in the agricultural sector. Research on reusing acid whey is a step in the right direction but it should be paired with long-term research on the farms that have incorporated acid whey into their daily operations. If it does in fact have toxic effects on the environment and animals, it may be the farms of New York who will be the victims of that pollution, not the nation as a whole.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Big Fat Greek Yogurt: Acid Whey Disposal in New York appeared first on Law Street.

On the eve of the blizzard this past Friday, residents in Upper Manhattan’s Washington Heights and Inwood neighborhoods turned on their faucets only to discover brown to dark brown water flushing from their taps. What’s even more outrageous is that residents experiencing this problem had to turn to Twitter for answers and solutions. While it is a good example of how helpful social media can be during a small scale disaster, it did not make up for the fact that the NYC Department of Environmental Protection left many people with unreliable solutions during a time of emergency.

@NY1 brown water affecting many in Washington Heights/Inwood area.

— Britt Mitchell (@brittmitchell) January 22, 2016

What's wrong with the water in Washington Heights? This is happening all over the neighborhood. @NY1 pic.twitter.com/oGDf09pO7e

— David Corris (@DavidCorris) January 22, 2016

This is in the whole Washington Heights sections. No one gives us info. @NY1 @NYDailyNews @nycgov #NYC pic.twitter.com/pYZ8XbfgTq

— Carlos J. (@CJ10040) January 22, 2016

Local Councilman Mark Levine reported to local news station NY1 that Port Authority Bus Terminal in Washington Heights experienced a water leak causing an emergency shutdown and back flow in pipes. On Facebook he shared a message at 5 PM stating, “I have been in contact with the NYC Department of Environmental Protection…They have tested tap water, found it to be safe, and are currently flushing hydrant lines to remove discoloration.” The water was more than discolored, however, it contained sediment as well. The Department of Environmental Protection instructed people with brown water to run their cold water for a few minutes before using the water, and to report it to 311. However, local residents still found issues with their water after these statements, and continued to tweet about the water into the evening.

@NY1 Yeah we do…they keep telling us it's okay to drink…really?!?! pic.twitter.com/ibwJy4DAC5

— Alexandra Lifshin (@alexlifshin) January 23, 2016

nice cup of tea, you say? no. that's my tap water. @nyc311 @ny1 @nycwater @Gothamist pic.twitter.com/54xs7HUvyW

— Chelsea (@ChelseaAdewunmi) January 23, 2016

Even Levine expressed that the water in his own apartment still resembled a light brown after DEP’s solution stating, “I don’t think anyone would want to drink this.” So, it is concerning that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) would suggest the water safe with these issues still happening, especially with a record breaking storm approaching the area.

@ny1 #nycwater stocking up on bottled water in Washington Heights Rite-Aid due to brown water on tap and snow. pic.twitter.com/MhnAPr01uz

— Dante Nicolello (@dantenicolello) January 22, 2016

It is still unclear what exactly caused the water leak at Port Authority although DEP spokeswoman Mercedes Padilla reported that it was not unusual. But the recent water crisis in Flint, Michigan makes this situation all the more alarming–trust for public officials remains low. On Monday, January 25, Amsterdam News reported the water supply safe. To ensure the public of its safety, Levine stated,

What is also undeniable is that New York City has one of the safest water supply systems of any big city in the country. Our city’s stringent testing protocols are known for their rigor and transparency. And anyone who is concerned about the safety of their tap water can request a free lead testing kit.

As seen in Flint, it is hard to regain the trust of citizens once they have been lied to, so it is important that officials offered these assuring words. But residents could have benefited from a premature warning from DEP or Port Authority of the initial disturbance in the water, especially with the news of the blizzard soon to hit that next morning. If anything, people should not be concerned about the safety of their water when the evidence clearly shows otherwise–whether the incident is taking place in NYC, Flint, or anywhere else.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wary Water Before the Storm: A Failure to Communicate in NYC appeared first on Law Street.

How far can government agencies go when trying to implement new regulations? According to a review from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the EPA broke the law in its push to gain public support for its new water regulation rule, using what the GAO calls “covert propaganda.” As social media becomes an increasingly important platform for government agencies to share information with the public, it’s also becoming clear that a line exists in terms of how far their outreach can go.

The EPA rule that prompted the campaign sought to better define and expand the agency’s authority to regulate the “navigable waters” of the United States under the Clean Water Act. A series of Supreme Court decisions made it particularly difficult to determine the waters under EPA authority, so the agency proposed a new rule to create clarity while also expanding its jurisdiction. The rule immediately became controversial. In fact, Republicans and a range of business interests, from farmers to the oil industry, came out against the rule before it took effect. Critics argued that the rule was a sweeping example of government overreach with the EPA seeking to expand its authority to regulate and dictate the use of land near water sources. The interest groups opposing the new legislation created a particularly powerful coalition, lobbying members of Congress and creating public relations campaigns to communicate their opposition.

In response to the strong opposition from the business lobby, the EPA went on its own social media campaign to spread information about the new rule during the public comment period. A New York Times article noticed the unconventional methods employed by the EPA, citing observers concerns that the agency was overstepping its bounds.

After a review of the EPA’s practices, the GAO report identified four social media campaigns initiated by the EPA, concluding that two of them violated anti-lobbying restrictions and laws that prohibit publicity or propaganda for agencies that receive Congressional appropriations. While government officials and the heads of certain agencies are allowed to explicitly advocate for certain policies, federal agencies themselves are not allowed to lobby the public.

The EPA’s position, which is reflected in the GAO report, maintains that the agency acted properly in its use of social media. In a statement given to the New York Times, an EPA Spokesperson said:

We use social media tools just like all organizations to stay connected and inform people across the country about our activities… At no point did the E.P.A. encourage the public to contact Congress or any state legislature.

The GAO took issue with the agency’s use of a platform called Thunderclap, which allows a message to be posted across supporters’ Facebook and Twitter accounts all at once. The problem identified by the GAO was that when the message was shared across social media, which may have reached as many as 1.8 million people, the EPA was not was not easily identifiable as the source. Because government information is supposed to be closely tied to its source, the use of Thunderclap constituted “covert propaganda.”

The EPA also used a #DitchtheMyth campaign on social media, which allowed people to share the agency’s campaign with their networks. The GAO argued that this was acceptable because the prescribed message referenced the EPA’s official Twitter accounts and the graphics used the EPA logo. The #CleanWaterRules campaign was also considered lawful by the GAO. This campaign did not violate the publicity restrictions placed on the agency because the GAO found that the communications did not qualify as self-aggrandizement, but rather were intended to promote discussion and associate the proposed rule with the agency.

Finally, the GAO found that an EPA’s blog post violated anti-lobbying restrictions because of how hyperlinks connected people with advocacy groups while knowing that members of Congress explicitly opposed the rule. A blog post by an EPA communications director illustrated some of the ways the rule would help people in everyday activities like surfing and drinking beer. The blog post linked to a National Resource Defense Council page, which talked about the effects of clean water on beer brewing, and a Surfrider Foundation article about how pollution affects surfers. Both websites also featured some sort of action section that encourages visitors to contact their legislators about the EPA rule. The GAO concludes:

EPA violated the anti-lobbying provisions contained in appropriations acts for FY 2015 when it obligated and expended funds in connection with establishing the hyperlinks to the webpages of environmental action groups

By hyperlinking to these advocacy organizations’ websites, the EPA associated itself with their message–including appeals to contact Congress about open legislation–which violate the anti-lobbying restrictions placed on the agency.

While these efforts don’t necessarily constitute flagrant abuse, they do seem to violate the restrictions placed on the EPA as the GAO review found. In its report, the GAO recommended that the agency determines how much it spent on unlawful practices and notify Congress and the President that the violated the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal employees and agencies from spending unauthorized or unappropriated funds.

This finding illustrates the particularly difficult position many government agencies can find themselves in while trying to establish new rules and regulations. The EPA is arguably one of the best examples, as a highly polarized Congress has made its efforts particularly controversial. As more and more regulation is created through executive action, efforts like the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Waters of the United States rule have come under more and more criticism from opponents. Much of this ends up being manifested in lawsuits and political disagreement–the new water rule is currently facing challenges from 18 different states. But as the debate rages on, agencies are tasked with informing the public about of their policies and potential effects. Using social media to do so can be particularly effective, but as the GAO ruling shows, limitations certainly exist.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did the EPA Illegally Lobby the American People? appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday, 195 countries managed to reach an unprecedented climate change agreement that intends to unite the international community around the goal of reducing emissions and preventing the most severe consequences of global warming. But despite the agreement, much work remains to be done to meet previously established targets. So was this agreement a success and will it solve climate change?

The short answer to that questions is yes and no–the agreement was in some ways a success, but it won’t solve climate change by itself. Evaluating climate change progress is particularly difficult because there are multiple ways to measure success. Committing all countries to the goal of limiting climate change is a massive step forward that should not be understated, but if you ask climate scientists, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that the world will be able to meet its intent to limit global temperatures to 2°C (3.6°F), above pre-industrial levels.

Let’s first look at what the agreement will require and where some gray areas remain. The legally-binding portion of the agreement mandates that all countries must submit plans to reduce their emissions, consistently monitor their progress, and then regularly report reductions to the international community. The agreement outlines a plan for regular international meetings at which additional measures will be discussed. While that step, by itself, is significant, the agreement has no binding mechanism to compel countries to meet their own standards. Moreover, based on the 185 plans that were submitted before the Paris conference, global warming will most likely continue past the agreed upon goal of 2°C.

If we proceed according to each country’s emissions plans, formally referred to as the intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), temperatures will rise an estimated 3.5°C, but due to uncertainty in predictions, it could be as much as 4.6°C (Take a look at this graphic from the Climate Interactive for a visual representation). Because counties must track and update their emissions progress, countries could conceivably change their targets to become much more ambitious, making the 2°C goal attainable. But doing so would take a massive amount of political will and would need to happen sooner rather than later. The Climate Interactive refers to that as the “Ratchet Success” scenario. Check out this explanation to see what that would actually entail.

It is appropriate to question whether 2°C is a reasonable goal, as it was created somewhat arbitrarily. But the available evidence suggests that once the earth warms to that point significant changes will occur. Vox’s Brad Plumer has a pretty succinct breakdown:

Critics grumbled that the 2°C limit seemed arbitrary or overly simplistic. But scientists were soon compiling evidence that the risks of global warming became fairly daunting somewhere above the 2°C threshold: rapid sea-level rise, the risk of crop failure, the collapse of coral reefs. And policymakers loved the idea of a simple, easily digestible target. So it stuck.

While the 2°C threshold marks a certain point of no return for some climate-related consequences, scientists argue that significant effects will likely come before the earth warms that much. Generally, predicting the exact temperature at which changes will occur is difficult because rising temperatures could actually accelerate warming even further. Some manifestations of climate change, like permafrost melting, could actually speed up warming, which can be difficult for models to account for. Most models give a range for the potential consequences of warming, but even those may be revised upwards.

While it’s clear that in order to meet the U.N.’s target of 2°C much more needs to be done, that does not render the recent Paris agreement useless. The mere fact that nearly every major country has committed to reducing global warming is a significant achievement. This is particularly true when you look at the history of these talks and how they have failed in the past.

There have been several monumental steps that made the recent Paris deal possible in the first place. An agreement between the two largest CO2 emitters, the United States and China, bridged some of the disagreement between developed and developing countries. China recently announced a plan to let its emissions peak by 2030 and began working on a cap and trade system to do so. The Obama administration created a stringent Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce electricity sector emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2030, as well as a 26 percent reduction in all emissions before 2025. Moreover, the fact that 185 countries managed to commit concrete plans to reduce their emissions is a remarkable a show of international commitment.

Despite recent progress, there are several key obstacles that remain in the way of a meaningful solution, arguably the most notable of which is the U.S. Congress. While negotiators were working in Paris to hash out a deal, the Republican-led Congress sought to dispel any optimism that might come from the deal. Earlier this month, the Republican party held a, notably symbolic, vote to block President Obama’s clean energy plan. Afer the Paris agreement was reached, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said,

Before his international partners pop the champagne, they should remember that this is an unattainable deal based on a domestic energy plan that is likely illegal, that half the states have sued to halt, and that Congress has already voted to reject.

While the stark disagreement between Republicans and the rest of the world on climate change hasn’t stopped all U.S. attempts to reduce emissions, a comprehensive strategy will need support from Congress. President Obama has largely managed to pursue his clean energy agenda through executive action, but when he leaves office the next president could easily reverse his progress. Another key part of the Paris agreement is the goal to provide $100 billion in climate-related aid to developing countries, yet U.S. funding for that must be approved by Congress. It’s true that the most important parts of the Paris agreement are not legally binding–there is no way to punish a country that does not meet its emissions plan–but that is largely a result of political reality.

So yes, the Paris agreement was a success in the sense that it marks a historic commitment to fight global climate change. The United Nations received climate reductions plans from 185 countries, which will continue to be revised and monitored in an effort to mitigate the negative effects of global warming. But at the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that we will not meet our established goal to limit warming to 2°C. More to the point, there are several significant barriers to enacting the legislation needed to reduce emissions and transition to clean energy. Perhaps the Paris agreement is accurately a starting point, and if the international community is able to build momentum going forward, pressure could help force necessary change.

Read more: The Paris Climate Change Conference: What Should We Expect?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was the Paris Climate Agreement a Success? appeared first on Law Street.

A large international study conducted by the British think tank and policy institute Chatham House has determined that taxing meat wouldn’t cause as much of an uproar as previously believed. The motivations of such a tax would be that it would promote healthier eating, as well as serve as an attempt to combat climate change.

Chatham House’s study surveyed 12 different nations and also conducted focus groups in the U.S., U.K., Brazil, and China. They were attempting to determine how people would react to government policies like higher taxes on meat, as well as cutting subsidies to livestock farmers and introducing more vegetarian meals in public institutions like schools. While they discovered there would be a backlash to these policies in many scenarios–people love their meat–it will most likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for the policies was strong.

This is an important finding, as steps to reduce global consumption of meat may need to be taken soon. The production of livestock is responsible for 15 percent of global emissions–more than the world’s cars, trains, planes, and ships combined. It’s going to get worse, too, as global meat consumption is expected to rise roughly 76 percent over the next 35 years. When countries become richer, they’re more likely to consume more meat. And countries that already consume a lot of meat aren’t really doing so safely. Developed countries eat on average, twice as much meat than what’s considered healthy. Americans are also big offenders–we on average eat roughly three times as much meat as what’s considered healthy. But because of that love of meat, it has traditionally been viewed as a bad move politically to create meat taxes or make it more expensive in any way.

But Chatham House’s research stands in contrast to that hypothesis. Chatham House lead author Laura Wellesley said:

The idea that interventions like this are too politically sensitive and too difficult to implement is unjustified. Our focus groups show people expect governments to lead action on issues that are for the global good. Our research indicates any backlash to unpopular policies would likely be short-lived as long as the rationale for action was strong.

When discussing the possibility of a meat tax, a consistent comparison that’s being made is the evolution of taxation on cigarettes. Once commonplace higher taxes on cigarettes as well as public service campaigns helped decrease the amount of smokers.

While it’s doubtful that we’ll all be taxed on our meat anytime soon, it may be something that’s brought up at the UN Climate Change conference in Paris next week. So, if you’re big meat fan, this may be something to keep an eye on.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Next Turkey Day, Will We Have a Meat Tax? appeared first on Law Street.

No one has ever stopped their friend in a parking lot and said, “Quick, take a photo of me with that Prius.” But on the stage of the Fremont warehouse where Elon Musk revealed the Tesla Model X two weeks ago, every smartphone camera in the room was flashing as invitees to the event jostled each other in attempts to take the best Instagram. Tesla Motors is a brand committed to making electric energy exciting, creative and even sexy. Yet Tesla is frequently categorized as a niche product reserved for Silicon Valley that will never create significant change outside of a designated tax bracket.

This perception of Tesla is a key part of green energy’s clique mentality–only a narrow percentage of green activists are considered to be truly making impactful change and other innovators and policymakers get written off as merely jumping on the bandwagon. The stereotype of the aging hippie with a handmade sign and a tie dye shirt is not a comical caricature–it’s a key part of why green energy movements freeze out certain voices and interests. The idea of “selling out” or “going corporate” is so antithetical to the roots of the green energy movement that activists fear even being associated with luxury products. Here lies the paradox of the Tesla Model X: it is an innovative and high performing electric vehicle yet because it is priced as a luxury product, the green energy movement feels uncomfortable endorsing it. Silicon Valley, for all of its flaws, is one of the world’s greatest incubators of alternative energy and technology but in recent years, it has been labeled too elitist and narrowly-focused. Green energy leaders tend to laud the advances of American technology but then proceed to write Silicon Valley off as disconnected from the economic and political realities of energy implementation. Yet this criticism comes without any proposed reforms–Silicon Valley gets dismissed without advice on how to improve.

Take the Model X as an example. After the initial slew of articles describing the features of the Model X, newspapers picked up a second story: the potential $25,000 tax loophole for small business owners who purchase a Model X. The Model X was immediately transformed from a feather in the cap of electric energy into a symbol of corrupt capitalism. The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” is almost a curse word in the green energy world and may create significant backlash against the Model X. Why? Because being “part of the establishment” is the cardinal sin of the green energy movement (even in the case of the Model X, where Tesla is merely following the rules of the IRS tax code). However, opponents of this tax break present no other viable solution to get more drivers behind the wheel of electric vehicles. In fact, tax breaks for electric vehicles are a key part of green energy reforms across the country–so why attack one electric energy tax break while lauding another?

Green energy no longer lives on the periphery–the fact that multiple candidates in the 2016 presidential race have outlined detailed alternative energy plans that reach as far as 2050 is proof that activists have done incredible work in educating policymakers. However, green energy will never match the lobbying power of traditional energy companies if it continues to subscribe to the outdated idea that green energy can’t exist across a broad range of commercial interest–including the luxury market. Environmental activism was born out of populist desire to protect the environment, for both current and future populations, regardless of class, creed, or color. Green energy can’t fully commit to this goal unless it lets go of its own prejudices and accepts that you don’t have to rock a peace sign and long hair to care about alternative energy.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Fear and Loathing in Green Energy: Prejudice Against the Tesla Model X appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, a New Hampshire voter asked Hillary Clinton if she would sign a bill in favor of building the Keystone XL Pipeline. Clinton sidestepped the question. stating: “this is President Obama’s decision…if it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question,” she said.

The Keystone XL Pipeline has been on the forefront of American politics for quite some time now, and Clinton’s reply to the issue has been typical of her response to climate-related questions in general: avoidance. But one oil-related issue, the U.S. ban on crude oil and natural gas exports, is one that can’t be avoided any longer, although it’s certainly not something you really hear the presidential contenders talking about either.

Under American law, energy companies are not allowed to export crude oil, and companies can only export natural gas to countries with which the United States has a free-trade agreement. The Energy Department can approve natural gas exports to other countries if it deems such sales to be in the public interest; currently, 46 out of 52 such applications have been approved. These policies have their roots in the 1970s energy crisis, a period in which interruptions in petroleum imports from the Middle East caused wild price fluctuations and supply shortages.

For 40 years, these policies made sense. With domestic production declining and the U.S. importing 60 percent of its oil as recently as 2005, the export ban served its function to protect the market from fluctuations and shortages.

The situation is not quite the same today. The increasing prevalence of fracking–a new more efficient method of extracting crude oil–has saturated the domestic market. There is an important distinction to be made between the “light oil” that we are producing in growing quantities and the heavier crude oil that we typically import. Many of our refineries are designed to process heavy oil, and running light oil through these refineries decreases output capacity and revenue due to the incompatibility of light oil with equipment. Consequently, refiners demand significantly lower prices for domestic light oil and the export ban forces suppliers to accept these low prices.

Interestingly, the export ban does not include gasoline and other refined products, rendering the laws of supply and demand that dictate the value of goods in a capitalistic society irrelevant to domestic refiners. Instead, the ban creates an unfair system in which refiners purchase cheap oil in a domestic crude oil market saturated with supply, while their prices reflect the global refined oil market saturated with demand.

Lifting the export ban on crude oil and natural gas would force domestic refiners to compete with foreign refiners, raising the price of light oil and incentivizing suppliers to produce more. Increased production would require new jobs, and subsequent revenues would bolster the economy. Refiners would no longer be the main beneficiaries of cheap light oil. According to energy experts Daniel Yurgin and Kurt Barrow, lifting the export ban, combined with continuing progress in production technology, would lead to as much as 2.3 million barrels of additional production a day. Yurgin and Barrow estimate that this increased production would reduce gas prices by as much as 12 cents a gallon, saving US motorists $420 billion over 15 years.

There are diplomatic advantages to lifting the ban as well. Russia supplied 30 percent of Europe’s gas in 2014, regularly using gas as a diplomatic tool to threaten foreign economies. Last year, Russia declared that it would no longer sell gas at a discounted price to Ukraine, which gets 60 percent of its natural gas supply from Russia. In the Middle East, ISIS’s operations are funded heavily through pirated oil. According to Andy Karsner, former assistant energy secretary in the Bush administration, “We have one bullet that hits both of them: bring down the price of oil.”

At the very least, U.S. oil exports would stabilize the market and provide our allies with viable alternatives to OPEC or Russian energy–perhaps the Western response to Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine last year would have been stronger had there been a U.S. presence in the global oil market. Pioneer Natural Resources CEO Scott Sheffield notes, “It’s hard to believe we’re asking the Japanese to stop taking Iranian crude, but we won’t ship them any crude ourselves.”

It is impossible to predict all the implications of lifting the export ban, of course. Foreign suppliers may reduce their oil exports to maintain the high global price of oil, or Russia could engage in predatory pricing to drive U.S. suppliers out of the market. Perhaps increased fracking regulations will reduce the supply of domestic oil, minimizing our influence in the market. Regardless, lifting the export ban gives our government another front to exert diplomatic influence, engage our enemies, and improve our economy. It’s economics and diplomacy 101. Let’s just hope members of Congress paid attention in class, and that our presidential candidates make an effort to address this essential issue.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lifting the Ban on Crude Oil and Natural Gas Exports: It’s Time to Make a Change appeared first on Law Street.

Life in plastic isn’t always fantastic. So why do we continue to cover our world in it? In the United States alone, we generate about 33 million tons of plastic waste per year. But in 2013, only nine percent of that total plastic waste was recovered for recycling. So where does the remaining 91 percent of plastic waste end up? While a significant portion of our trash is piled high in landfills, eight million tons of plastic trash ended up in the ocean from coastal countries in 2010. At this rate, the ocean trash tonnage is on track to increase tenfold in the next decade unless we take substantial steps to decrease our waste and improve the ways that garbage is collected and managed. One company is taking that challenge head on–Adidas has figured out one unique way to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Fairly soon, you may be able to look down at your feet to see the company’s new earth-friendly sneakers.

It makes sense to try to monetize our ocean pollution, particularly for the most industry-heavy countries. While China claims the top spot on the list of countries generating the greatest amounts of ocean-bound trash, the United States is 20^th on the list. If the recyclable materials in the United States waste stream were recycled, we would generate over 7 billion dollars—that’s equivalent to Donald Trump’s purported net worth. More important than the monetary implications, non-recycled plastic waste in particular is responsible for the deaths of over a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals, including sea turtles, sea lions, and seals each year. The plastic that doesn’t end up in a sea turtle’s stomach pollutes our oceans, poisons our water, and stays there. The average time for a plastic bottle to degrade completely is at least 450 years but some take as long as 1000 years to biodegrade.

There is an obvious need to find ways to harmonize nature and the consumptive, wasteful system we now maintain. That’s one goal of the new partnership between Adidas and Parley for the Oceans, a New York-based ocean conservation organization. At the end of June, Adidas announced a prototype for a running shoe made completely of plastic trash, gillnet fishing, and deep sea trawling found in the ocean.

Today we showcased a shoe that six days ago was ocean plastic waste. Bring on tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/mjkxwOUih1

— adidas (@adidas) June 29, 2015

One of Parley’s goals is to “make environmental protection fiscally lucrative for pacesetting major companies,” and that’s exactly what this shoe will do. Adidas has plans to roll out more recycled, plastic-based products later this year, all in a larger effort to highlight ocean-based environmental issues and promote efforts to counteract marine pollution.

Collaboration and innovation creates progress. We present a concept shoe born from ocean plastic waste. pic.twitter.com/5gv4y5imNH

— adidas (@adidas) June 29, 2015

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a non-profit, marine conservation organization that uses direct action tactics to protect marine life, was responsible for retrieving the materials that make up the outer design of the Adidas shoe. Sea Shepherd conservationists went on a 110-day expedition where they collected plastic from the ocean floor and even confiscated gillnets after they tracked down an illegal fishing boat off the west coast of Africa. The plastic that was collected went into the upper shoe structure and the green gillnets were knitted into the top of the sneaker to create its colorful design.

Adidas should be applauded for taking the lead in environmentally-aware sportswear. The company is the world’s third most valuable brand in the sports industry, just after Nike and ESPN, with a net worth of $6.8 billion dollars. This new sneaker and the upcoming line of shoes made from recycled plastics prove that even the big companies can go green, and do it in style. After all, trash looks much better when it’s being recycled on a shoe than it does when it’s polluting the ocean.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post One Man’s Trash is Another Man’s Shoes: Adidas’s Plan to Tackle Ocean Trash appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, oil and gas giant BP agreed to a $18.7 billion settlement with the U.S. government for damages to the Gulf Coast caused by its 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Since 2010, BP has made concerted efforts to repair the damage caused by the disaster. This agreement, if accepted by a federal judge, will settle the remaining state and federal claims against the company. This settlement will help facilitate the continued Gulf recovery efforts and sends a strong messages to other oil companies: if you cause damage, you will pay to fix it. But while $18.7 billion does seem like a large amount–it’s the largest settlement ever reached for environmental damage–the question remains: is it enough?

In April 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and sank, causing a sea-floor oil leak that took 87 days to control. During that period, an estimated 200 million gallons of crude oil leaked into the Gulf of Mexico, damaging approximately 68,000 square miles of water and almost 500 miles of U.S. coastline. To put these numbers in context, the Deepwater Horizon spill leaked 19 times more oil than the Exxon Valdez incident in 1989. Some of the environmental impacts may not be fully understood for decades, and while the Gulf economy has experienced a revival, there are still lingering effects from the disaster.

Within weeks of the disaster, BP announced that it pledged billions of dollars to aid the cleanup and recovery effort. While these efforts marked a show of good faith, it is also important to note that the company faced intense public outrage, not to mention potential backlash from the Justice Department to penalize BP. This move ensured that investors did not flee the company and helped keep the Justice Department at bay. In 2012, BP agreed to a class action settlement with attorneys representing thousands of individuals and organizations affected by the spill. In the wake of this agreement, many Gulf Coast residents came forward to claim damages, including some whose claims were dubious at best. This was controversial–a deal once celebrated by BP became an agreement which from the company’s perspective took advantage of its good intentions. In November 2012, BP pleaded guilty to 12 felonies, settling another component of its liability, and paid the government $4.5 billion in fines.

It would appear that BP is being heavily penalized for the 2010 spill–spending $25 billion directly afterwards, $4.5 billion in government penalties, and agreeing to this $18.7 billion settlement–but these repercussions are not as severe as they seem. While BP made considerable efforts to clean up the Gulf and pay for damages, the company has also kept its own interests in mind. BP spent $500 million on a campaign to rebrand its image after the spill, and in 2013 it launched a PR push to complain about fraudulent damage claims. Although the company protested fraudulent claims, the federal government also cracked down harshly on those who made false claims, making these concerns largely invalid.

The incident hasn’t really damaged BP’s financial situation. The company reported profits of $5.3 billion just a year after the Gulf spill, and until the recent decline in oil prices, continued to thrive. Instead of the $54 billion that BP will likely end up spending overall, Louisiana’s top aide for coastal affairs, Garret Graves, argues that its true liability should be much larger. Graves extrapolated from settlements of other large oil spills to estimate what the company’s true liability is. According to his calculations it ought to exceed $125 billion.

While some celebrate this settlement, BP likely received a less severe penalty than it deserved. Since this settlement will resolve all of the government’s remaining claims, it is unlikely that BP will be held legally responsible for any long term damage that may be discovered in the future. Despite its issues with the claims process, BP agreed to the terms and must accept the consequences. Any extra payouts that BP claims are almost certainly outweighed by the potential negative effects if BP were to put up a stronger fight. Public outrage would have remained fierce and this would likely have led to a federal campaign to give BP a harsher punishment.

Interestingly, BP’s stock rose sharply after the settlement was announced, likely due to investor confidence that this will end the company’s issues. All that is left now is for the courts to approve of the deal and it will officially become the largest settlement with a single entity in American history. Despite this, BP should thank its lucky stars that it managed to avoid more severe consequences for this spill.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was the BP Settlement Enough? appeared first on Law Street.

“And then one day…an eruption of liquid rock occurred…It threw forth the same kind of rock, with the same violence, and through the same vents in the earth’s core. But this time what was thrown forth reached the surface of the sea. There was a tremendous explosion as the liquid rock struck water and air together. Clouds of steam rose miles into the air. Ash fell hissing upon the heaving waves. Detonations shattered the air for a moment and then echoed away in the immensity of the empty wastes.”

Legendary author James Michener’s eloquent words describe the formation of the islands of Hawaii–the powerful volcanic activity that over the course of millions of years sent a column of rock from the seabed to the open air. Now, off the coast of Japan, it occurs once more.

In November 2013 a small speck of material breached the surface of the Western Pacific Ocean. In the last year and a half, it has widened to nearly 0.95 square miles and the volcanic cone stands several hundred feet tall. The size of the island is expected to slow and be limited, not by the amount of lava that spews forth, but by sea activity; there are already signs of erosion and formation of beaches at the edges of the island. As it stands, this is impressive enough: a modern, visible manifestation of the geological cycle, as some islands and sections of continents erode and disappear, and other brand new ones form right before our eyes.

But there are many more impressive processes that are about to occur on this island–Nishinoshima–that are of major scientific value. As it stands, the island is barren rock. Much of it is still steaming, as the volcano continues to erupt. But once it settles down and begins to cool, it will serve as a good spot for birds to rest. When they do, they will inevitably deposit feces, feathers, vomit, and material that they have unconsciously carried from elsewhere. This can include seeds and fertile soils. Some seeds are specifically designed to float on the wind or surface of the water and may arrive there on their own as well. Therefore, scientists intend to closely monitor the island as it hosts and begins to produce life of its own. The initial sparks and subsequent development of an ecosystem is something rarely observed and studied.

It is important to scientists that anyone who goes to the island is cautious not to accidentally carry with them any kind of outside material or life that could influence the early evolutionary process. Evolutionary biologists have raised this concern, as the first people to set foot on the island are likely to be geologists and vulcanologists, who do not have the same foci and concerns. Obviously at this point and for the foreseeable future the island is off limits to civilians and tourists.

Birds are vital to the development of island life. Courtesy of Ville Miettinen via Flickr.

The island chain of which Nishinoshima is a part is already known for a variegated and fascinating ecosystem. The Ogasawara Islands are a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural) World Heritage Site. Nishinoshima is therefore on track to be protected and preserved for the sake of humanity’s heritage. This in and of itself, in addition to the fact that it may be absolutely beautiful there in due time, could result in a vibrant tourism industry. Economic interests aside, in the meantime it will be fascinating and moving simply to watch the island develop and flourish, a tangible indication that the Earth around us is active and alive.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A New, Beautiful Island Has Formed in the Pacific appeared first on Law Street.

The entire environmental movement can be partly attributed to Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring.” Her revelatory research shocked the world in its vivid and ominous accounts of the agriculture industry and the use of pesticides–DDT in particular. The damage to the environment and human health that these things may induce terrified readers and rallied a series of organized movements to raise awareness, address these concerns, and campaign for improvements in these sectors. But toxins and threats to our health endure, and in many other forms.

While DDT itself is now rare in 2015, there is a plethora of pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, and other chemicals that are sprayed on crops in abundance. This series of practices has contributed in part to recent movements in favor of more organic foods, grass-fed beef, locally raised products, composting and rooftop gardens, and other methods that speak to a decentralized, localized, and more natural approach to food production. Another potential means of addressing the need to grow crops while pressed to not use so many chemicals is by making changes to the DNA of the plant. For example, a strain of corn might have a gene introduced that makes it immune to a particular disease or attack by certain insects. Yet even in this arena, there is debate as to the healthfulness and safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Food itself is not necessarily the primary source of toxins in the food industry or elsewhere in our day-to-day lives. Recent questions have been raised about poly- and perfluoralkyl substances, or PFASs. These things do manifest themselves in the food industry, mainly as non-stick coatings as can be found in pizza boxes and teflon cookware. Fortunately, the latter product is on the decline. Yet PFASs are also used in carpeting, electronics, sleeping bags, footwear, and a massive assortment of very common products. You can see a more thorough list here.

This line of chemicals is important to making these products durable and useful over a long span of time. But it begs the question: must it necessarily be these chemicals in order to make these products viable? On the other hand, the health concerns are very recent and require much more research in order to determine the degree of their toxicity. Many questions are still up in the air. In the meantime though, some people question their continued use while the thorough answers are sought, considering that doubt has now been cast on them.

Some Studies suggest that these chemicals may linger in the bloodstream and contribute to the development of thyroid disease and kidney cancer. A doctor involved in this study explained that, considering some of these chemicals are related to others that are known to be carcinogenic, one must prove that they are safe before using them. Rather, we have already made the error of implementing them before we had enough information. In this sense, “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply; the product should be absolutely safe before it is used. While studies continue, experts suggest people try to avoid PFASs when possible. But considering how prevalent they are in the market, this is an immense challenge.

The food and consumer sector is not the only source of widespread and unavoidable contaminants. During the course of the several thousand nuclear bomb tests on the planet, particularly in the early stages of the Cold War, a heavily radioactive isotope called Strontium 90 was released in massive quantities. It seeped into the water, soil, and plants, and subsequently found its way into the bodies of human beings. There was so much of it released, it is widely argued that now there is a degree of Strontium 90 embedded in the bones of every human being on Earth, even the ones born long after the spike in nuclear testing ceased. Strontium 90 has been linked to various forms of cancer and leukemia. It is as if to say we have permanently poisoned ourselves and there is nothing we can do to remedy it.

While some of these issues are quite ominous because we are relatively helpless, hopefully some of the other toxic and unhealthy products and chemicals can be swapped for safer alternatives.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Think DDT Was Bad? Toxins Are Everywhere Today appeared first on Law Street.

New York state Governor Andrew Cuomo recently announced the New York State Lights Out Initiative, which is a program that couples with the Audubon Society’s efforts to reduce the light pollution that disorients birds during peak migration seasons. From April 15–May 31 and August 15–November 15 state owned buildings will turn off non-essential outdoor lighting from 11 PM to dawn. This small measure will make a big difference directly for the birds, but will also have many indirect implications in favor of conservation efforts.

A phenomenon called Fatal Light Attraction causes migratory birds, who often navigate with the stars, to become disoriented due to all the specks of light on the ground. Estimates suggests that between 500 million and one billion birds die annually as a result, mainly through flying into windows, walls, or the ground. These are direct deaths; considering that these birds are on their way to breeding grounds at the time, one can argue that the damage to their populations reverberates in the form of a lesser amount of breeding and eggs produced.

Image courtesy joiseyshowaa via Flickr

In addition to the mandatory outdoor light cutbacks, many buildings are being encouraged to draw their blinds and reduce indoor lighting when possible as well. Furthermore, private citizens are welcome to participate in any or all of these measures. It is also worth noting, from a non-bird but a general conservation standpoint, that these actions will reduce the consumption of electricity for a substantial amount of hours over the course of many months. This in and of itself is a gain as well.

As a supplement to the Lights Out measure, Governor Cuomo launched an I Love New York Birding website; a site with a plethora of information regarding bird watching techniques, ideal locations, and other information of a relevant nature. This way, people can become more educated on the importance and beauty of our birds and become more engaged with nature.

Direct engagement with nature by the populace is one of the most important measures that can be taken in the name of conservation. In addition to the increases in pollution, consumption, and other ailments of modern society that directly damage the environment, when people tend to feel more detached from the natural world it indirectly suffers from that attitude. The more people feel that nature is all around them, interact with the ecosystem, or spend time immersed in nature, the more likely they are to value and protect it. This is not an abstract theory. A study by Cornell University demonstrated that bird watchers are among the largest demographics to support conservation. While factors such as age, education, and political ideology played roles as well, they were dwarfed by influences that involve direct interaction with nature.

Image courtesy of the U.S. National Archives via Flickr

Thus the Lights Out initiative targets one of the key draws to conservation. Yet one does not have to be a bird watcher in order to care about the environment and take measures in its defense. While other outdoor activities such as hiking, biking, and water sports may also lend themselves in a similar fashion to a conservation ethos as bird watching does, any sympathetic sentiment is productive to these objectives. In the meantime, the actual act of turning off these lights will certainly benefit the local bird populations. This is a great program, and hopefully it becomes a tradition.

Feature image courtesy of [Chris Goldberg via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lights Out: These Small Steps Help Conservation Efforts appeared first on Law Street.

The death toll from the recent 7.8 magnitude earthquake in Nepal has surpassed 7,000, with at least 14,000. Recovery efforts have been underway for the last week. As people attempt to repair the damage and their lives, we should reflect on the implications of this disaster.

The bulk of the damage, casualties, and relief efforts are centered around the capital city of Kathmandu. Thousands of people have been left homeless and are forced to sleep and wait outdoors, as open spaces seem to be the only places that are safe from aftershocks. Because relief organizations are short on tents by the hundreds of thousands, they are exposed to the rain, cold air, and other elements. Furthermore, hospitals are not designed to accommodate for the scale of injuries. A 120-year-old hospital building was forced to relocate its patients elsewhere for operations.

Another long-term concern is Nepal’s economy. Many temples and historic sites have collapsed from the quake, which not only is spiritually disheartening for the nation’s religious population, but those sites have served as attractions for tourists in the city. In addition, the 2015 climbing season at Mount Everest is over, as climbers died in earthquake-induced deadly avalanches. At least 17 people died there, with dozens more injured and missing. While some climbers have been rescued by helicopter, others were trapped too high on the mountain, beyond the reach of air rescue. Yet they were hard pressed to descend on their own because the avalanches and quakes restricted access to their normal climb and descent routes.

Ongoing aftershocks continue to jar rocks and snow from the mountain, making rescue efforts difficult and dangerous. This disaster has already surpassed last year’s avalanche that killed 16 people as the single deadliest event on Everest, and it is expected to continue to worsen. Furthermore, it is unclear at what point climbing will resume and what form it will take; the damage from the quake and avalanches may have altered the topography of the mountain, which would force a readdressing of climbing routes, number of climbers that can be accommodated, and other details of this nature. Climbing Everest is one of the primary sources of tourism and income for the nation.

Most of the modern structures in the city of Kathmandu, while damaged, remained intact; on the other hand, most of the damage inflicted was on the old, poorly constructed brick buildings in the urban area. The city, region, and nation are generally hampered by poverty and have undergone substantial increases in population, experience poor coordination in building, and often do not adhere to building codes. These things make the region much more vulnerable when disasters of this caliber occur. It is quite similar to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. That one was also quite large in strength, registering at a 7.0 on the Richter Scale, but the death toll is estimated as high as 220,000. This catastrophic figure is due to the extreme poverty, poor building, and insufficient infrastructure that is rampant in Port-au-Prince. Conversely, the strongest earthquake on record, the 1960 9.5 tremor in Chile, resulted in approximately 2,000-3,000 deaths. The difference, journalist Jerry Thompson argues, resulted largely from more sophisticated building techniques, more preparedness on the part of the populace, and better organized rescue services in this more economically developed nation.

Poor quality building in Kathmandu. Courtesy of Oliphant via Flickr.

Thompson has also written about a massive subduction zone fault line near the North American Pacific Northwest coast. He suggests it is overdue for a massive quake, which would induce an enormous tsunami that could cause untold devastation in the area. We might say that Nepal is fortunate to be landlocked; in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, most of the deaths occurred as a result of the latter disaster rather than the former. The Fukushima nuclear meltdown was also spurred by the tsunami and not the quake itself. Understanding the functions of the natural world and that these two events may go hand in hand may lead to more foresighted planning.

There may be additional non-human damages that result from such problems. For example, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake did not cause as much damage as the fire that followed, which nearly gutted the entire city. The fire sprung up in many areas at once, largely due to a combination of broken and leaking gas pipes interacting with sparking downed power lines, and proceeded to devour the largely wooden buildings. It became clear even to the people at the time that the damage and deaths were due to poor planning on their part; nature was not to blame. Yet nature suffered nonetheless. The poorly built water supply system failed, and a beautiful valley in Yosemite National Park drowned as dams were built to meet the city’s water needs.

We must come to understand that we are a part of the Earth, not occupiers of it. Natural disasters will occur, and there will be fatalities. But they do not need to be as horrific as they are. The massive inequalities in wealth, technology, and living standards throughout the world have reared their ugly heads during disasters like this. It is encouraging to see so many other nations and organizations rallying to assist and support, but addressing the underlying problems that are ever present would be productive for societies’ lived experiences year round as well as in times of crisis. The tragedy in Nepal reminds us of the lesson that we have failed to grasp: since these forces are too powerful for us to control, and to an extent–since tectonic activity is vital to all life and the planet itself–should not be controlled, we must learn to live with them safely and intelligently.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Some Cities Survive Natural Disasters Better Than Others For This Reason appeared first on Law Street.

We all know that BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April, 2010 was one of the worst spills to date. But the accident continues to have ramifications and inflict damage on the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems there. In light of these findings, advocates are hoping to address cleanup and drilling policies and procedures and hope to make improvements or change the practices entirely.

A place called Cat Island in Louisiana used to be a major nesting ground for multiple species of birds. The oil spill poisoned the vegetation there, which has continued to die off. In so doing, the root system disappeared, leaving the soil vulnerable to erosion. In fact, over the past five years the island in its entirety has all but disappeared. The birds that nest there have it imprinted in their DNA to do so; it is instinctual to go there and nest. If the island disappears, they will not seek out a new site, they simply will not breed. Although the species may have survived the initial spill, they still face severe threats to their survival. As it stands, the reduced surface area of the island has increased competition and lessened available real estate for nests; essentially, they reproduce in fewer numbers already.

The extent of the Deepwater Horizon spill. Image courtesy of SkyTruth via Flickr

While birds and their black oil slick-covered feathers may be one of the most visible manifestations of a spill, additional long term studies have demonstrated that many types of fish are threatened in more indirect ways as well. Oil damage can cause birth defects and irregularly shaped or mis-beating hearts in baby fish. This means that they can die younger, or can suffer due to a lessened ability to catch prey or escape from becoming prey themselves. Some of these conclusions have come from long term studies following up on the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. Pacific herring, for example, collapsed in the Prince William Sound in 1993 and have not returned. As always, this is problematic not just for the sake of saving fish and bird lives, but because these species play intricate roles in the health of very complicated ecosystems. The Pacific salmon run is vital to bear populations and the quality of the dense Northwestern forests themselves. In addition, fishing and economic interests are at stake for people who work in those industries.

The process of marine snow involves organic matter such as phytoplankton drifting down from the upper layers of the sea into the depths. This is an aspect of transferring energy and photosynthesized material from the sunlight rich surface to the darker waters, and serves as an important link in the food chain. But when oil is introduced, it fuses to these particles and finds its way to the deep water in what is called a dirty blizzard. This means that an oil spill does not just glide across the surface of the water and endanger creatures near the top, but more deeply affects ocean life. More living things are endangered as they are coated in a layer of oil. In addition, limited human access to these regions means that this aspect of a spill is much more difficult to clean up.

Damage extends far beyond what is visible at the surface. Image courtesy of Green Fire Productions via Flickr

These three studies are among many that catalogue the long term damage inflicted by the Deepwater Horizon spill. Because the results may influence what BP will be required to continue to pay in damages, the company has disputed the validity of them all.

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin recently released a series of papers detailing studies that produced an oil repellant material. In one test, they coated wire with the material and then poured on a mixture of water and motor oil. The water ran off and the oil clumped together, easily removed. The presumed application of this discovery is that it will make clean ups of oil spills easier. Yet there are two ways in which this breakthrough falls short. The first is that while cleaning up a spill may be easier and faster, that does not detract from the damage that it may inflict when it occurs. Secondly, it would be best not to think of it as a get out of jail free card, in the same manner that some seem to think that recent proposals regarding climate engineering mean that we can continue with our ways and inflict as much damage as we please because we can presumably go back and repair it later. Rather, we need to address the problem at its source.

Are we supposed to coat all manners of wildlife with oil repellant material? Image courtesy of Louisiana GOHSEP via Flickr

The Obama administration is about to establish new safety regulations for offshore drilling. Over the course of the previous five years, other responses to the BP spill have included new standards for the casings of wells. This, being the third safety proposal since the incident, would deal with measures to prevent blowouts. These moves are intended to prevent an accident like Deepwater Horizon from occurring again, especially since the administration has been reviewing proposals to begin further offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Chukchi Sea off the coast of Alaska. But an investigative panel determined that the chief cause of the Deepwater spill was not the blowout but a wide ranging occurrence of oversights and improper adherence to regulations. Thus the very process by which offshore drilling is pursued is flawed and in need of revamping. But is this the true source of the problem either? As a spokesman for the Natural Resource Defense Council stated, “Industry and government have taken measures over the past five years to reduce some of the risk in what is an inherently dangerous operation at sea. that’s a far cry from saying it’s safe…”

A 2013 spill burns near New Orleans. Image courtesy DVIDSHUB via Flickr

Thus the very nature of offshore drilling is a problem, and going back further still, our continuing reliance on fossil fuels is a problem. As oil pipelines continue to burst and fracking continues to contaminate water, offshore drilling and the environmental risks therein are yet another manifestation of some of the things in need of complete change, not just tweaking or improvement.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Long Term Damage from Oil Spills Shows Need for Changes appeared first on Law Street.

Images of deforestation are among the most striking when it comes to addressing human impact on the environment and all the problems that follow. Similarly, endangered animals are constantly in the conversation and the need to enact more protections and conservation measures remains pressing.

Read More: Endangered Species Protections: Are We Doing Enough?

Yet what tends to be overlooked is that from both an ecological and human policy-related standpoint these things are deeply interrelated. When we consider how to protect and improve our forests and our biodiversity, we should think about them in tandem.

Among the innumerable reasons why maintaining forests is important, one is that they store carbon. Having it naturally contained in the biomass means that there is less in the atmosphere; forests help keep greenhouse gases and climate change in check. But, as has been a topic of conversation for decades now, some of the most substantial ones, such as the Amazon Rainforest, are in danger. A 30-year study by the University of Leeds concluded that the unnaturally large amount of carbon in the atmosphere has accelerated the lifespans of trees there. This means that they die younger; high tree mortality is an unexpected contributor to the shrinking of the rainforest. It is not just a matter of logging and increased building. With a higher tree mortality and a decreasing range of the forest, the amount of carbon the rainforest can store has been overtaken by the amount of fossil fuel emissions in Latin America.

Courtesy of CIFOR via Flickr.

Another consequence of deforestation is the loss of biodiversity that resides therein. It has been determined that there exists a “threshold” for forest cover, and if it is surpassed then the loss of species accelerates in quantity and geographic spread. Most surveys tracking deforesting activity indicate that thresholds are drawing quite near or have recently been surpassed. The problem with the way this issue is approached is that Brazilian law applies activity to individual farms and their property. Rather, due to the more complex nature of animal geographies and forest topography, policies need to take into account particular regions in the rainforest.

This concept is further complicated by the interrelatedness of forests and animals. It is not just a matter of aesthetically preserving animals, but they play an integral role in the health of the forest itself. Similar to how bees have a key function in floral reproduction because they distribute pollen from plant to plant, large animals spread around tree seeds as they go about their business. Big mammals in particular tend to have a wide range, traveling far in search of food and marking their territory. As forests and animals affect each other reciprocally, damaging one invariably damages the other, which in turn degenerates the other further and onward in the vicious cycle. This is another series of reasons why the New Jersey bear hunt ought to be rethought.

Courtesy of laurence_baulch via Flickr.

These problems are not restricted to the Amazon and Latin America. The national park system in the United States is primarily designed to preserve scenic natural wonders. Yet a new study demonstrates that the locations of these parks do not line up with the general locations of biodiversity in the country that are in need of protection. The bulk of parks is concentrated in the American West, where the lands are relatively sparsely inhabited compared to the East, South, and Appalachians, which contain many “unique or rare species” whose interests are not properly addressed. It is in these geographic regions, researchers explain, that the majority of the continent’s endemic species are located. Meaning that they are not found elsewhere in the world or in other habitats, endemic species play an vital role in the health and operations of their ecosystems. Once more, if they become too severely threatened and begin to die out then the surrounding forests and general environments themselves, and subsequently human health, are likely to degrade substantially.

In addition to striving to protect the correct and most vulnerable areas, there are generally speaking two measures we can take in order to avert crises. The first is to pursue development in a more conservation-oriented fashion. Laying down specific ground rules when pursuing building projects, especially roadways and infrastructure, can help decrease the amount of destruction that follows. This way, as representatives of the plan have put it, “We’re not anti-development, we’re anti-environmentally destructive development.” The second course of action is to actively attempt to restore forest cover. Leading the way in this endeavor is China, whose Three-North Shelter Forest Program is creating a corridor of trees intended to diminish expansion of the Gobi Desert. Reducing desertification will also ensure there is more farmable land, which is obviously in human interest as well.

We have been talking for a very long time about saving the trees and preserving the rainforest. But there is a lot more at stake than symbolic environmentalism or ensuring there is enough oxygen to breathe. Carbon storage, wildlife habitats, anti-erosion, anti-desertification, and many other things on a long list are at stake. Addressing these concerns, while also thinking about the status of many animals, will help to improve the condition of both as well as the many interrelated factors on the Earth.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Protecting Forests and Animals Should Be the Same Mission appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most hazardous locations for one’s lungs is Texas. A site of many refineries and factories, the state already presents itself as a major emitter; but its activity exceeds the second ranking states by a wide margin. For example, nitrogen oxide emissions from smoke stacks and vents surpass number two ranking Pennsylvania by more than 60 percent, and tonnage of volatile organic compounds eclipse number two Colorado by more than 44 percent. If this is not enough, many state officials are siding with the industries themselves in an attempt to combat the implementation of tighter emissions regulations. Their testimonies argue that toughening up the standards will be too expensive and not necessarily beneficial to public health.

This conflict extends far beyond the Lone Star State. The Supreme Court itself is locked in a debate as to what measures are necessary and how much they will cost. Dissenters argue that the Obama Administration’s latest initiatives via the Environmental Protection Agency do not contain a cost-benefit analysis. The argument leans on wording in the Clean Air Act, which stipulates that regulations be “appropriate and necessary.” But who has the right to unilaterally determine what is appropriate and necessary? A rough estimate at a “quantifiable” benefit estimates that 11,000 unnecessary deaths can be prevented each year. Calculations diverge as to the monetary expenses and savings; one concludes that $9.6 billion in expenses will result in $6 billion in savings, while another maintains that those same costs can result in up to $30-90 billion in savings. These numbers should not be the focus of the decision, though. If thousands of people might live on who would otherwise die, this should be justification enough to implement the necessary measures.

Henan Province, China. Courtesy of V.T. Polywoda via Flickr.

Ozone and air contamination are a widely pervasive problem; the lives that potentially could be saved are not just in urban areas. Gases and ozone emissions are not stagnant; many studies and measurements have found excessively high air contaminants in rural and wide-open areas such as the Colorado mountains and the Native American reservations in Utah. In addition to the problem of poor restrictions on emission, the standards as to what technically constitutes contamination or poor air quality are too lax. For this reason, non-emitting areas are facing health risks that are not legally deemed as such.

Air pollution is a perfectly remediable problem. In the early 1900s, the great steel city of Pittsburgh rivaled Victorian London for poor air quality. But a series of laws and regulations and more efficient use of fuel led the city to be declared one of the most livable by the 1980s; the characteristic smoke and pollution cleared away almost entirely. A more poignant example is Japan. A system of local governments responding to local concerns but acting seamlessly with national and international-level reform efforts enabled the country to curb pollution without derailing economic growth. In fact, considering the incentives to invest in research and new technologies, the formulation of new overseeing agencies and subsequent job creation, by 1980 air pollution control became a profitable industry itself!

This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the debates in the Supreme Court right now; all the concerns about cost effectiveness and damage to industry and the economy are based on perceptions of the status quo. People seem to be under the impression that the objective is simply to cap emissions while maintaining all the other aspects of day-to-day life and commercial activity. Rather, as demonstrated by the multi-layered action of Japan, it is a complicated process that requires commitment by many parties, but ultimately a worthwhile one because it is clearly doable and benefits not just the health of the people but can be financially desirable, as well.

This past November, an interesting thing occurred in Beijing. In anticipation of the arrival of many world leaders for an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, the government mandated a six-day vacation for urban residents, which included traffic restrictions and the closure of factories in an attempt to clear the smog. It was a monumental success; in less than a week, what came to be labeled as “APEC Blue” dominated the skies. The striking effects of this action has galvanized progressive voices and demonstrated to the nation and world that there is a plethora of options from which we can draw that quite effectively address the problem.

Courtesy of Nicolo Lazzati via Flickr.

Air pollution is one of the most visible and widespread consequences of industrialization, rampant consumption, and natural resource use. It may not have as immediate or drastic consequences as some other environmentally related challenges, but it certainly is dangerous. Most importantly, there are so many things that we can do to address it, which may be surprisingly effective and rapid in doing so, while at the same time improving our own habits and ways of life.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beijing Knows How to Curb Its Air Pollution, So Why Doesn’t Texas? appeared first on Law Street.

On a chilly morning in early 1848, a member of a surveying team stands ankle deep in a small stream in Upper California. Noticing some shiny specks at his feet, he picks one up and stares as it glitters yellow in the sunlight. In the world famous gold rush that followed, prospectors early to arrive were able to literally pick up handfuls of gold from the riverbanks. As 49ers swarmed the West Coast, they eventually had to resort to sifting, and by the end of the rush the only gold that remained had to be mined and blasted out of the mountains using heavy machinery and corporate funding. Now some projections suggest that a global scale version of this phenomenon is drawing near, as the Earth is running out of gold and other metals and minerals so highly prized by our society.

Goldman Sachs suggests that there are only twenty more years worth of mineable gold, diamonds, and zinc, and forty years of platinum, copper, and nickel. The quality of the metals and the yields per ore discovery have also declined significantly in the last half century. So what might some consequences be? The gold mining industry will be hard pressed to maintain its profit margins if there is less and less to find, and there may be increased competition to find what does remain. Naturally, the prices of gold could rise exorbitantly.

The United States economy has been off the gold standard for quite some time. Gold crowns in our teeth can be substituted with other materials. There are many other uses for gold, including medicine, aeronautics, and electronics. But it is not the only material that can serve these purposes; it is replaceable for almost any desire except for aesthetics. The aesthetic value is really the only reason that we keep it around.

Gold is only valuable because we say so. Whether it regards the gift (or curse) of King Midas, huge piles of gold bars stashed in a hidden cave in the desert, or a pirate’s chest overflowing with coins, we have been producing imagery glorifying gold and telling ourselves stories about it for millennia. A perceptive episode of The Twilight Zone, “The Rip Van Winkle Caper,” tells the story of a group of bandits who put themselves in suspended animation for one hundred years under the assumption that upon reawakening, the value of their recently stolen mounds of gold will have increased by a tremendous amount, allowing them to live like kings. As characteristic of the show, twists ensue that demonstrate how the value we place on gold is a cultural construct rooted in time and place.

The striking death mask of the legendary King Tut. Courtesy of Bjorn Christian Torrissen via Wikipedia

Diamonds are also among the most highly coveted objects on Earth. In this case, the global cache is actually quite far from drying up. Rather, this industry is dominated by corporate control and its imposition of artificial scarcity. Several particularly large and powerful diamond companies have corked the bottleneck where diamonds enter the distribution channels. By opening and closing the gates as they see fit, they control the amount of diamonds that enter the market, enabling them to drastically increase the going rates for the stone; the rarity that consumers perceive is fabricated. Because of this concept, arguments that diamonds are running low are relative.

Though it has been an ever improving process for over two decades now, the man-made manufacture of diamonds is a growing industry and controversy. They are literally grown in ovenlike contraptions. This is not comparable to costume jewelry, which is fake. These are real diamonds produced under artificial circumstances. This is the second reason why diamonds are not necessarily running out. Yet the process has met much criticism, suggesting they are still not real diamonds because they did not come out of the Earth itself. They are not the “stuff of stars”; the remnants of the dense cores that blew out into the Universe in a fantastic supernova. They lack the mystique that makes a diamond truly valuable and beautiful.

A man-made diamond. Image courtesy of Steve Jurvetson via Flickr. 

On the other hand, we have heard a lot about “blood diamonds” and the extreme violence and poverty in Africa and elsewhere that results from the diamond mining process. Horrific slave-like conditions exist where people are forced at gunpoint to spent a prodigious amount of time, after being poorly fed and sleeping in insufficient facilities, to dig and sift through the muck. They are beaten and harassed, and have no way out or future to look forward to. If they are lucky enough to find a piece of the rock, they receive a pathetically small payment, especially when compared to what it will eventually sell for. This industry often purchases weapons and fuels gruesome civil wars in turbulent African nations. Even when restrictions on blood diamonds are made clear, smuggling of the product from unregulated countries across the border into the more heavily monitored ones occurs relatively openly. Presumably the industry is simply too profitable to effectively curtail in the name of human rights. Flooding the market with those synthetically produced, or, “cultured” diamonds, could in part serve as a means of addressing this series of problems.

Once more, as with gold, our interest in diamonds is largely a cultural construction. A pair of striking tales from recent history highlight how entire societies can be sucked in. The mammoth diamond corporation De Beers went on a media and marketing frenzy in the United States in the 1930s, introducing the diamond ring as the central element of an engagement and a symbol of the relationship, sexuality, and commitment. Now most people would agree that a proposal is incomplete without one. The diamond trend even caught on in Japan, where there had previously been very little cultural significance given to diamonds.

Image courtesy Jonathan Khoo via Flickr

Gold, diamonds, and other shiny things that we like may or may not become more difficult to come by in the near future. Purchasing these items are based on the ways we think about ourselves, our societies, and our environments. For better or worse we ascribe aesthetic or monetary value to things that might not deserve it, and then we must pay the price.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the World Running Out of Precious Metals and Gems? appeared first on Law Street.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that a large swath of the Pacific Ocean in British territory will be delineated for protection. Focusing around the Pitcairn Islands in the center of the South Pacific, this reserve will be larger than California and represents a very momentous step forward in conservation.

Beneath the unassuming Pitcairn Island lies an aquatic wonderland. Courtesy of Fotorus via Flickr.

The marine habitat in this region is a thriving and delicate ecosystem. Due to its remoteness, human impact has been minimal; scientists are under the impression that there exist here a substantial number of species yet to be discovered. Furthermore, there are coral reefs, submerged mountains, and water quality of a cleanliness difficult to match elsewhere on Earth.

Prior to the designation as a reserve, threats to the health of the place loomed as illegal fishing activity has been drawing near in recent years. Seafloor mining is also now out of the equation. Old fashioned, low-scale fishing by the 60 or so residents of Pitcairn Island itself, most widely known as the settlement site of the mutineers in Mutiny on the Bounty, will be permitted.

So why is protecting this region such a big deal? First of all, for the sake of the locals and for the British government, the pristine, beautiful region is now guaranteed to remain so, and tourism is expected to increase. The Pitcairn Island is so remote that it is not often that people venture down there. In fact, National Geographic Explorer Enric Sala pointed out that between boats and planes it takes most people longer to arrive there than at the Moon. But applying this protective title increases its appeal. Furthermore, the loss of about $30,000 per year in fishing licenses would be easily recovered by tourist revenue and the benefits of being designated an Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Palmyra Atoll in the Central Pacific. Courtesy of USFWS-Pacific Region/Jim Maragos via Flickr.

Anything that can be done to preserve the health of an ecosystem is desirable. Just because the region around the Pitcairn Island is remote does not mean that any damage it might suffer would not affect other areas on the planet. We have already seen how human beings themselves, in addition to both aquatic and land-bound biodiversity, face threats from accumulating plastic in the oceans. A complex chain of relationships means that even a slight disturbance can cover large geographic and biological distances.

It is more difficult to think of a distant and highly inaccessible portion of the ocean as needing protection from humans, or as being vulnerable to human activity, as it is to regard portions of the land such as rainforests or mountain ranges as such. While we more easily and often see the consequences of our actions on land, we are more detached from the oceans and conditions in the water, both geographically and mentally. For this former reason, the last century has seen the creation of a wealth of national parks, UNESCO biosphere reserves, and vocal conservation organizations. These policies have done many great things to advocate for the health of the land, but only just recently have these motivations extended to the seas.

Marine reserves are oceanic equivalents of national parks. They are protected areas, encourage people to come see their beauty, and make statements as to the importance of our environments. The new Pitcairn reserve represents one of the largest manifestations of that sentiment, spreading environmental awareness and conservation to the farthest corners, yet equally interconnected, portions of the globe.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Part of the Pacific is Being Legally Protected; Here’s Why It’s Important appeared first on Law Street.

Lower Manhattan is a landfill. Composed largely from earth excavated during the subway construction process, it is an unnatural geographic feature and prone to flooding, as Superstorm Sandy demonstrated. In the ominous projections regarding melting ice caps and rising sea levels, it is one of the first places predicted to be inundated. In the 21st century, new plans to expand New York City continue to raise concerns and are questioned by environmental groups, as exemplified by the proposal for the offshore Hudson River Park, dubbed Pier 55.

Former head of Paramount Pictures and Fox, billionaire Barry Diller, is the primary promotor of this project and has pledged over $130 million to its construction. The 2.4 acre park would include concert venues, restaurants, walking and bicycling paths, and lawns. It would sit on a series of pillars standing between 15 and 70 feet above the surface of the water.

Many people are concerned, however, with the opaque manner in which the project is being pursued. Many details have yet to be disclosed to the public and to organizations that have raised concerns, raising questions as to the motivations for the park and the nature of its accessibility. That is to say, private control of public space is a contradictory concept and inhibits the true nature of an area that is apparently intended to be for the enjoyment of the people.

Furthermore, environmental groups are highly concerned as to the ramifications of the park, which would be built in a part of the Hudson River that is a marine sanctuary and spawning ground for striped bass. The Hudson River conservation organization Riverkeeper is worried that driving down pylons could disturb sediment and that the shade cast by the park would affect the behavior of fish and ecosystem dynamics. Yet the trust claims that the height of the park, facilitated by the use of the pillars, would allow for sunlight to reach the water. Furthermore, this park would not entirely be a brand new piece of construction dropped down in the middle of the water. Rather it is to be placed in large on the site of the previous Pier 54, which was once a dock for ocean liners including the Lusitania but has since fallen into disrepair and is collapsing into the river.

The Cunard Line’s arch at Pier 54. Courtesy of jim.henderson via Wikipedia.

Pier 55 requires approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation before construction can begin as scheduled in 2016. Yet these reassurances fall somewhat flat considering the knowledge that the trust submitted an environmental assessment form as opposed to a full environmental impact statement. While it points out that its report contained over 200 pages, it nonetheless had fewer requirements to answer. This ties into the opacity of the project, raising suspicions.

Diller was the primary benefactor of the High Line as well, another project that converted decaying urban space into productive real estate for the enjoyment of the public. Plans to build a Low Line park underground at the previous site of a trolly terminal on the Lower East Side have so far been met with much excitement. On the surface, Pier 55 seems like an altruistic and productive idea. But the fact that it is indeed on the surface raises a new set of concerns. Building in the water is far more complicated that revamping an old site on the land. The dialogue needs to be more productive before this project gets started; hopefully in the months to come questions will be answered and all parties involved will be reassured that this plan will work. The pier seems like a good idea and looks like it will be a fun place to visit once it is completed; as long as it does not inflict environmental damage, hopefully it will come to fruition.

You can check out more information and see a photo gallery of the proposed Pier 55 plans by clicking here.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hudson River Park Development in NYC Raises Questions appeared first on Law Street.

Dogs may be our best friends, but some people take interest in far more unusual choices for pets. Whether it be driven by a desire for a display of status, a sense of adventure, or simply an interest in doing something different, keeping exotic pets presents a series of problems.

Exotic pets by definition come from a different ecosystem, and they pose the threat of carrying with them invasive species. An East Asian fungus threatens to wipe out American salamanders. This fungus arrives in part on Chinese fire belly newts, which are particularly popular and are imported into the United States by the hundreds of thousands annually. Salamanders play an underappreciated and barely visible yet vital role in the environment. Keeping specific insect populations in check, they subsequently serve as food for certain rodents and small predators that in turn operate in important manners. Each animal is an important link in a chain, the removal of which could induce a fracturing of the delicate structure.

Snakes are another common type of exotic pet, relatively popular in Florida. It is unfortunate how frequently one hears a story on the news about a pet snake escaping. Something like a python is huge and powerful, and can turn on its owner or on people whom it may come across as it flees. Small children and other pets, like small dogs, are susceptible. I know someone whose friend had a pet python that escaped. She said that one day they flipped open the toilet lid and found it in there. This must surely have been quite a shock, and is a very unsettling place to find a dangerous wild animal! Furthermore, because snakes of this kind are predatory and already at the top of the food chain, introducing them into an environment of which they were not previously a part can be just as damaging as the salamander situation. In this case, though, the snake itself is the invasive species, multiplying out of control as there is nothing to keep it in check, while feeding unchallenged on the prey of its choice, potentially endangering the populations of those animals.

Courtesy of Katy Warner via Flickr.

The reason that animals like pythons have a tendency to escape and are quite capable of subsequently surviving is that they are wild. Ancient humans were only able to domesticate fourteen species of large herbivorous animals: sheep, goats, cows, pigs, horses, Arabian (one humped) camels, Bactrian (two humped) camels, llamas, donkeys, reindeer, water buffalo, yaks, Bali cattle, and the mithan, which is also something of a relative to cattle. The primary means by which humans did this was to tap into their social structure. Horses, for example, live hierarchically. Therefore a human must replace the alpha male at the top of the pyramid and the rest of the group will follow. It is worth noting that wolves also have a hierarchical social structure. Thus one will notice that dogs are more naturally submissive to humans than cats, whose relatives and ancestors do not adhere to these same patterns.

It is more complicated than that, though. Some relatives of domesticated animals cannot be domesticated for other reasons. For example, zebras simply cannot be saddled, ridden, and trained the way horses can. Although they have the same hierarchal social structure as horses, other factors including diet, complications over captive breeding, or genetic traits tied into disposition or a propensity to panic will render an animal non-domesticable. Any individual trait, much less a combination of them, will yield this result, making an animal unsuitable to be a pet.

Ethical questions also present themselves with regard to keeping wild animals as pets. Aside from farm foul, no other type of bird is domesticable. Yet these are not uncommon sights in people’s homes. Having the ability to fly, birds possess a supreme gift of nature, one that mankind himself has dreamed about and aspired to throughout his existence. Nonetheless we selfishly deprive pet birds of it so that we can look at them while they sit perched in a small cage, denying them the ability to do what they are built to do.

Courtesy of elwarren via Flickr.

On a similar note, no types of predators should serve as pets either. In a somewhat Hollywood-esque conceptualization, we think of keeping something like a tiger as a pet as a demonstration of machismo and power. High-ranking antagonists in movies threaten to throw their adversaries to their vicious tigers like slabs of meat. But just the same as birds and their desire to fly, an apex predator is driven by its genes to hunt. We can poetically describe the action of handing a hunter its food instead of letting it pursue the hunt itself as killing its soul, but in a sense this is what is occurring. Whatever concepts of status we might procure are not worth the price of the damage consequently inflicted on such an animal. In addition, animals like this hold an appeal because of their wildness. If we take that away we negate its very mystique.

Once again we are attempting to tame aspects of nature that are beyond our control, with damaging consequences. We do not need to imprison wild animals in our homes in order to appreciate them. It would be much more productive to environmental consciousness to instead journey out into the wilderness ourselves and see them in their own element, where they belong.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Owning Exotic Pets is Dangerous and Unethical appeared first on Law Street.

Rising populations and increasingly heavy use of technology is causing a global food crisis. But starvation isn’t the issue at hand; it is waste. The amount of food that is wasted worldwide costs a huge amount of money, fills landfills, and emits methane gas. The process of producing and delivering food in the first place induces environmental damage and displaces people and animals. This complex and interconnected system requires attention on multiple levels if we intend to avert a slew of catastrophes.

Similar to the problems with water, the primary problem with managing and consuming food is not scarcity but distribution imbalances. People starve in many places around the world, while others gorge themselves on conspicuously lavish meals that they do not intend to finish. In fact, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimated that the food discarded by retailers and consumers in the most developed counties would be more than enough to feed all of the world’s 870 million hungry people. Some suggest that the economic ramifications of wasted food reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. An additional scientific conclusion includes the fact that the amount of methane gas emitted by decomposing food in landfills is only surpassed by national emissions of the United States and China.

Courtesy of Bill McChesney via Flickr.

Considering these ominous statistics, some say a solution is to refrain from eating meat. The meat industry requires large swaths of land to raise animals, huge amounts of food to feed to them, and enormous quantities of water to grow those crops in the first place. This resource and energy intensive process thus draws in many sectors in order to be possible. While this decision may help reduce demand for such environmentally threatening foods, there are many other products that we eat whose production is costly. For example, one of the most common ingredients in many foods, especially packaged and frozen ones, is palm oil. The price for the acquisition of the substance includes heavy deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia, which displaces indigenous people, releases stored carbon into the atmosphere, and threatens already critically endangered animals such as Sumatran rhinos and orangutans, Asian elephants, and leopards.

Courtesy of David Ellis via Flickr.

The overall production and distribution processes of the industry is one of the primary concerns at play. Thanks in part to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, one of the sparks of the environmental movement in the 60s, we are quite familiar with all the problems associated with spraying chemicals, pesticides, and DDT. It has already been established that pesticides and deforestation are endangering butterflies; however, they are still widely used in the agricultural sector. A relatively recent possible solution involved genetically modified crop seeds, which provide the subsequent plants with an incorporated pesticide that attacks the nervous system of pests such as root worms and flea beetles. It is becoming evident that these plants are dangerous to other types of insects as well, particularly bees. This could be catastrophic. All mosquitoes do is spread diseases; the world could do quite well without them. Bees are another story. They are pollinating insects; they provide a crucial component to their ecosystems, allowing plants to reproduce, flourish, and anchor the food chains built above them. Furthermore, even farmers often rely on bees to help pollinate their own crops.

Courtesy of Brian via Flickr.

In addition to addressing these large-scale global patterns of production, there are many things that vendors and consumers can do to alleviate the situation, particularly with regard to food waste. Composting is becoming more and more common, which helps insofar as reducing the amount of food thrown away; rather it puts it to productive purposes in fertilizing soil in which new plants can be grown. As this occurs on a local level, it also reduces pollution that results from transportation challenges. In an effort to reduce waste, KFC restaurants in Britain will begin making their coffee cups out of an edible sugar paper and white chocolate. While this reduction in waste is not specifically with regard to food, it is a nice idea and a good starting point.

Ultimately neither of these things will resolve the wide ranging set of challenges we face with regard to the food sector. Yet they help us think about our consumption habits and the environment around us. The decisions we make as consumers are vital to addressing wasted food. Our habits, lifestyles, values, and expectations play a substantial role in the patterns of the industry. Therefore we have plenty of opportunities to act productively and affect change. The first step? Don’t bite off more than you can chew.

For more information on how you can make meaningful changes in your own life, here are some helpful tools:

• The Waste Free Kitchen Handbook, written by a project scientist at the Natural Resource Defense Council and coming out in May 2015.
• End Food Waste: Website with relevant information and activist campaigns.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Challenges of Food Production and Consumption appeared first on Law Street.

Hammers swinging and chisels carving, the great arched stone structure rises from the ground. It is 54 AD, and the Aqua Claudia is nearing completion. One of many aqueducts in central Italy, this structure would provide clean and running water to the city of Rome. In the centuries to follow, Rome’s health, trade, and population would boom, propelling it to the pinnacle of greatness in the ancient world. Water has always been vital to the prosperity of human civilizations. As the world globalizes and markets become integrated, we continue to face challenges with regard to water in 2015. Scarcity, abundance, economic forces, and technology all play concerning roles in our need to more effectively manage our water, vital to not only our prosperity but our survival.

An ancient Roman aqueduct. Courtesy of Wolfgang Staudt via Flickr.

Some arguments suggest that scarcity of a resource is paradoxically beneficial, as it pushes people to band together and cooperate in an attempt to secure their needs, ration what they have, and communicate. However, this is overly optimistic; scarcity is tied to violence. While in the modern era this does not necessarily involve resource wars–as in countries fighting each other over access–it often involves internal struggles and alienation of groups. For example, powerful people gain more power by governing access to a scarce resource. In this sense, the issue is largely one of distribution. This is one of the primary concerns with any resource in global politics; whether regarding countries in the developed world in relation to those in the underdeveloped world, or rich and powerful people in relation to the poor and marginalized ones within the same country, some groups enjoy lavish abundance while others go wanting. There remains plenty of water to go around, it is just a matter of who gets it and how.

Another reason why distribution is a challenge is because of poor infrastructure and economic vectors. Already facing energy shortages and blackouts, officials in Pakistan predict a water crisis on top of what will arrive soon. A significant cause of these concerns is mismanagement; thus poor distribution methods and insufficient economic structures disallow the huge population from receiving the water it needs. Of course there are also climate change-related factors involved, but a properly organized system would be able to account for these dynamics to some degree, as well.

Pakistan’s Water and Energy Minister, Khawaja Muhammed Asif, is of the opinion that the country’s resource challenges are largely due to internal behaviors, stating, “There is a national habit of extravagance.” This means that some people are using a huge amount of water unnecessarily, while others are thirsty. Furthermore, New York Times writer Salman Masood points out that water politics have been tied into jihadist activities; Islamist militants regularly accuse India of denying Pakistan its rightful water, and the leader of the 2008 train attacks in Mumbai often cites these perceived dynamics as one of his primary grievances. However, Masood continues, India’s water storage infrastructure is leaps and bounds superior to that of Pakistan, containing over three times the capacity to save it for a not-rainy day.

The Indus River, lifeblood of villages and civilizations. Courtesy of indiawaterportal.org via Flickr.

There exist many proposals regarding what to do about water shortages and accessibility. One such idea involves towing icebergs to locations in need, but this is highly impractical. In addition to the high costs of such an operation, large amounts of the iceberg would melt in transit, and this delivery system does not address the endemic structural deficiencies.

Another idea involves desalinization plants. These draw on the enormous quantities from the oceans, as otherwise only three percent of the Earth’s water is fresh. This process has some benefits, drawing from the seemingly endless supply, but it is also very expensive to put into play and operate. Furthermore, it is often not wisely appropriated. There has recently been a debate over whether to build a desalinization plant in New York’s Rockland County. The primary motive for resistance is that there is simply no need. In addition to the fact that the region receives a high amount of rainfall, water consumption has actually been dropping as water-using technologies such as washing machines and toilets have become more efficient. Constructing the plant would cost $150 million unnecessarily. Furthermore, it would desalinize the briny water from the lower Hudson River, where it meets the ocean, which could be potentially damaging to the estuary life. Most desalinization plants draw directly from the sea.

A desalinization plant in Spain. Courtesy of James Grellier via Wikipedia.

This debate is a product not of scarcity but of abundance; there is plenty of water to go around so the desalinization plant is unnecessary. But economic structures and finances abound, so additional challenges arise. In most parts of the United States, water is so abundant and the physical infrastructure and economic style for delivering it is so effective that water is often wasted. It is so inexpensive that there is little incentive to conserve. But the problem goes far beyond household consumption. Over three quarters of all water use in the United States occurs in the agricultural industry. Flooding fields, using enormous sprinklers for hours at a time, and other inefficient means of irrigation and watering abound because there is so much water and no consequences for using it all.

It is somewhat ironic, then, that on a national scale we care so little about using our water but are very aware of its purity, content, and condition. Several weeks ago, some oil from a spill was found in the Yellowstone River. This serves as drinking water for many people, as well as plays a vital role in the delicate ecosystem of the region. The spill came from a burst pipeline, fueling further concerns about the safety of this delivery system. Just recently, President Obama exercised his veto power for the first time in five years by striking down the necessary legislation to make the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline a reality.

Whether there is not enough water and methods of procuring it must be hammered out, or there is an abundance and measures to regulate and protect it must be put into place, effectively handling water is the key not only to prosperity, but to survival.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Challenges of Water Management and Consumption appeared first on Law Street.

A relatively new concept regarding how to address large-scale environmental concerns has been popping up in the debate lately. It’s called “geoengineering” and it involves deliberate human actions intended to remedy global warming. There are many potential problems with this concept, and hopefully it never comes to full fruition.

Geoengineering leans on technological intervention intended to stabilize the climate and reduce the effects of human-induced global warming. For example, there have been several proposals as to how to remove carbon dioxide from the oceans, such as introducing large amounts of lime, as well as enveloping the planet in a layer of sulfate in order to reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.

Problem #1

Assuming people are finally coming around to the idea that human society has been playing a negative role in climate change, geoengineering stands as a human role in seeking to fix it. Much environmental damage resulting from human activity over the centuries has partly been a consequence of mankind’s hubris, or idea of superiority over nature and ability to tame, control, and manipulate it to his advantage. Geoengineering is no different; while it may be a concept with good intentions, it is born of a line of thinking that has already proven itself to be problematic and damaging; there are many reasons to be concerned that these steps would cause more and unforeseen problems.

Intentionally enveloping the planet in anything sounds like a bad idea. If part of the reason why we continue to damage the Earth is that we still do not fully understand its environments and ecosystems, meaning that we are not yet able to live harmoniously with it, then directly intervening could cause immediate problems because we simply do not know what we are doing.

Earth’s thin atmosphere. Courtesy NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center via Flickr.

Problem #2

There is no substitute for reducing emissions and pursuing more sustainable lifestyles and societies. Geoengineering might be thought of as a get-out-of-jail-free card; we enter into a vicious cycle of causing damage and attempting to fix it without addressing the real causes of the problems in the first place. Some people counter that it could spark investments and more attention to innovative scientific research, but those things can also be accomplished with a more wholehearted pursuit of sustainability and conservation.

A severe drought in Australia. Courtesy of Vicki via Flickr.

Problem #3

Geoengineering is being described as an attempt to remedy “global warming.” In this sense, its purpose is to try to stop rising temperatures. It should be noted that “global warming” is a less and less common phrase, because this is not the only issue at hand. “Climate change” is a more appropriate term, because the issues we face have more to do with radicalization of climate and weather; it is a matter of more extremes, not just rising temperatures. Hotter summers, yes, but also colder winters, stronger hurricanes, more frequent earthquakes, more floods, more droughts, and so on. If we attempt to geoengineer the Earth with the objective of reducing warming temperatures but not stabilizing the climate in general, disaster may follow.

Hurricane Katrina. Courtesy of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center via Flickr.

An ongoing trial project in Iceland has been injecting carbon dioxide mixed with water into volcanic rock. While previous attempts at carbon storage have not borne fruit because the element tends to bubble back up to the surface, this approach relies on the reactive nature of basalt; in a relatively short amount of time, the mixture crystalizes into minerals. Yet this process is enormously expensive and requires a titanic amount of water. Again, it does not serve as a solution to our polluting ways. There are also many other causes of pollution and environmental damage that are not addressed with this process. Finally, there is still plenty of doubt as to how safe it really is. If injecting chemicals into shale rock for fracking purposes has proven to induce earthquakes, who knows what consequences tampering with volcanism, which is by nature volatile and unpredictable, might have.

There is no shame in letting go of our pride and admitting that we are not masters of the Earth. She is her own master. Yes, we have caused many problems of late. But rather than continuing to assert control and attempting to fix it, and in so doing only furthering those ailments and further endangering ourselves, we should cut our losses. It would be best to continue attempting to change our ways, and have faith that the Earth can repair itself in time. After four billion years it is still here and relatively healthy; ten thousand years of human civilization will not do it in.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Climate Engineering is Not a Solution to Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

Laying eyes upon it for the first time, I was ashamed of myself for the image I had conjured up previously. Learning about the Grand Canyon, I envisioned a very large crack in the Earth with a river at the bottom. That sounds impressive, and I was happy to have the opportunity to come visit in person. But when I finally arrived, I was blown away by how, well, grand the Grand Canyon really is. It’s not just a crevice, but a complex. The snaking Colorado River has carved an unprecedented masterpiece into the Southwestern landscape, a transcendental experience for one’s eyes. From the top of the Canyon, the faint whisper of the wind provides joy to one’s ears as well, and from the bottom of the Canyon, riding the Colorado River, the soaring red and orange towers instill in one’s heart a sense of timelessness. But all these emotional evocations may be under threat by the poisonous sight of commercialism and the droning sounds of machines, as a proposal to build a tramway down the Canyon, complete with shops and restaurants, is gaining strength.

The Grand Canyon Escalade is a proposal for a slew of hotels, restaurants, and shops, the epicenter of which is a gondola that would take visitors to the bottom of the Canyon where they can patronize a restaurant, Indian cultural center, and a riverwalk. Especially considering that the base of the tram would not technically be in the Grand Canyon Park, but on Navajo land, some members of that tribe are excited for the proposal and its potential to generate jobs and revenue for the Nation. It would be a productive collaboration between the Navajo people, developers, and the government, all of which may profit from the project.

Yet the proposed site for the base of the tram is at a place called the Confluence, where the Colorado River is met by a smaller tributary, aptly named the Little Colorado. For many Navajo, this place is sacred. They come here to pray, seek spiritual peace, and connect with their ancestors. Building a noisy, gaudy eyesore here would literally be sacrilege; desecration of a temple. Furthermore one must not forget that there are other Native tribes who have been living in the area for millennia, such as the Hopi, who also have religious connections to the site. Their voices are stifled in this debate, as the Navajo are the ones who control the area.

The debate teeters back and forth. Some say that it would ruin the aesthetics, others that it would not be visible from the nearest lookout point. Some say that it would damage the ecosystem, others that the area is already popular among hikers and rafters. Most of all, as previously mentioned, some say that it would economically benefit the Navajo, others that it infringes on existing Navajo practice.

The Colorado continues to carve the Canyon to this day. Courtesy of Hut Slut via Flickr.

How might this tram affect the ways that we think about and experience the Grand Canyon? Defenders have argued that it would enable tourists to experience the Canyon in new ways, and open up opportunities for people for whom the Canyon might otherwise be inaccessible. But there are already ways for people who are not hikers or rafters in peak physical condition to experience the Canyon. If you can stomach the smell, you can ride a mule to the bottom. If you are not phased by the surprisingly high rate of crashes, you can take a helicopter ride through. And of course, the Rim trails are paved and wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs.

A mule train on the Canyon trails. Courtesy of Al_HikesAZ via Flickr.

Casually riding a tram would detract from the experience of the Canyon, not add to it. I would love to see what the world looks like at the summit of Mount Everest. But nobody specifically dreams of simply standing at the top, right? In fact, most climbers only spend a few minutes there. The whole point is to climb the mountain. That is the real challenge and experience of Mount Everest, and that is what makes standing at the top so rewarding, valuable, and coveted. Imagine if there was a tram on which you could ride to the summit? Or a specially designed helicopter or plane that could drop you down on the top? It would certainly be a pretty view, but the experience would be hollow. You would not have earned your right to stand there. As it is, there has been much debate and criticism over the last 20 years regarding the commercialization of climbing Mount Everest. As long as you have the money to spare–about $65,000–any hack can hire a guide and crew who will attempt to get him to the summit. It is this respect and reverence for nature that continues to dwindle in the face of technology and modernization that we must endeavor to preserve.

Throughout modern human history, and particularly since the Industrial Revolution, we have sought to “tame nature,” to regulate, control, master, and rise above it. This has proven to have severe environmental and social consequences.Of late, there have been attempts to reemphasize aesthetics and naturally occurring phenomena. The Grand Canyon fits squarely into this issue. It is a complicated structure that should not necessarily be accessible from all vantage points. We can see and experience it to a very substantial degree but, like Mount Everest, the very inaccessibility, danger, and mystery is what provides it with its mystique and appeal. It is these things that allow it to be a Grand Canyon, and not a tourist-laden crack in the Earth with a river at the bottom.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tramway and Restaurants in the Grand Canyon? Stop the Escalade appeared first on Law Street.

Their tiny, delicate wings make their migration from Central Mexico to Southern Canada equitable to a trip from the Earth to the Moon and back. But due to climate change and habitat loss, the great Monarch Butterfly is growing endangered and few people are likely to act in their defense.

Butterflies are one of the first things we learn about in school, and one of the last that we come to appreciate. Many of us have fond elementary school memories of collecting caterpillars in jars for the classroom. It was an exciting project, but we rarely truly thought about the wonder of what was happening. During its time in the chrysalis, a caterpillar literally dissolves into a bag of liquid, to reassemble as a new creature. One that can take flight, and has an ingrained knowledge of its mission. A butterfly is a symbol of transformation; a reminder that patience and hard work can yield fantastic results.

Numbering in the half billions, Monarch Butterflies cluster in the Oyamel Fir Forests of Mexico, covering nearly ever square inch of tree trunk and branch. As spring appears and warms the air, they emerge from their sleepy lull and prepare for a fantastic journey. This group of insects can make it only so far, mating and subsequently dying somewhere in the Southern United States; however, their offspring appear shortly thereafter, and resume the flight northward. It takes three generations to make the trip, each one understanding its current location and distance it must travel. Then, one “super generation” makes the entire trip back to Mexico.

Courtesy of Agunther via Wikipedia.

The Oyamel Fir Forests are a product of older geological patterns, when the Earth was cooler and wetter. Monarch Butterflies are adapted to the same conditions; if it gets too hot or dry they are very susceptible to death. As the climate changes, the forest coverage recedes, leaving them vulnerable. In addition, the trees retain heat, which keeps the butterflies warm throughout the night and in general provides a suitable temperature zone for the delicate creatures. As illegal logging takes place in this region, poorly regulated by the Mexican government, the butterflies face threats on multiple fronts.

The brilliant orange shading of a Monarch’s wings is actually a defensive signal to predators, warning them of toxicity; few creatures are willing to eat a Monarch. This characteristic comes from a very particular diet, namely the milkweed leaf. It is on this plant that the caterpillar is born and, though a handful of flower types can provide food for the butterfly, is the only thing the caterpillar is capable of eating before making its transformation. Extensive use of certain herbicides and pesticides is killing milkweed in large swathes; caterpillars now face starvation before ever turning into butterflies.

A Monarch caterpillar. Courtesy of vladeb via Flickr.

In the last 20 years Monarch’s populations have declined by 90 percent, while they have lost over 160 million acres of habitat. So what is being done about this? This past August, scientists filed for protection of Monarch Butterflies under the Endangered Species Act. This would enable authorities to take more action with regard to the logging and pesticide use, as international regulations could help curb hazardous human activities.

In a recent meeting of the New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club, panelists discussed the implementation of butterfly habitats on public property. This would basically be an extension of home gardening, insofar as planting milkweed nurseries outside on which butterflies can lay their eggs. We already enjoy hanging bird feeders in our yards and installing bird baths in parks, right? Birds are pleasant company. Butterflies are too; milkweed gardens in our yards, parks, and schools would draw beautiful creatures to our sides, enhancing our appreciation and outdoor experiences. Furthermore, as Conservation Chair of the Sierra Club’s Central Jersey Chapter Kip Cherry pointed out, it would bring greater visibility to the crisis.

Most recently, this endeavor has received a major boost from the Fish & Wildlife Service as well as the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation, who together will contribute over $3 million to assist in the development of butterfly oases in communities across the country. While some people are concerned that this action is not enough, as it does not address the use of pesticides that are killing milkweed plants in the first place, it is nonetheless a major effort to provide for the butterflies and may lead to further productive measures in the future.

A milkweed field. Courtesy of mwms1916 via Flickr.

The Butterfly Effect is a scientific model that suggests a minuscule action at the outset of an event can have titanic ramifications down the line. This is often metaphorically exemplified by images of the flapping of a butterfly’s wings setting in motion a chain of events that will alter the behavior of a hurricane. Similarly, this is a common literary tool, as when a time traveler in the past steps on a butterfly and in so doing induces drastic changes to the future. These constructions are poignant because they rely on our perceptions of a butterfly’s insignificance and lack of importance.

Some people might be hesitant to act in defense of butterflies. They conjure up images of effeminateness; a delicate creature is suitable for a delicate person, such as a Victorian gentleman traipsing about with a net. I myself have been laughed at after arguing that butterflies are awesome. In addition to this cultural stereotype, the bottom line is that butterflies are insects. They have antennae and lots of legs and people find these things gross. We flinch and shoo them if they get too close. We imagine insects in general as being infinitely numerous; it is hard to accept that some of them could disappear. As far as endangered species go, they are not comparable to the great Bengal tiger, or sweet and gentle manatee, or majestic humpback whale. In fact, though, they are all of these things. Our prejudices do not entitle us to judge which species deserve to survive or die off, especially if it is our actions that are putting them in that precarious position in the first place.

Courtesy of docentjoyce via Flickr.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Member of Royalty is in Trouble appeared first on Law Street.

Now that winter is in full swing, we go to extensive measures to make sure that our roadways and sidewalks are passable and safe. As we plow and shovel, we also use salts to serve as ice melt. While they come in numerous forms, many of them are strong salts that pose problems for the roadways themselves, the environment, and our pets.

As it is, I work hard to clean snow and ice out of my dog’s paws when she comes inside on a winter day. If those things become lodged they can irritate the sensitive pads or cause an infection. But if she steps on salt-based ice melt during the course of our walk, potentially serious problems can occur. First of all, it burns. I’ve seen my dog limp and try walking on three feet with the other raised up in the air because it is painful to step down. She’s whimpered and cried, and licked obsessively in an attempt to remedy it. This can cause further problems; ingesting these salts can cause gastrointestinal ailments such as vomiting and internal burns in the mouth and digestive tract. Extreme cases might even lead to liver failure or pancreatitis. I clean and disinfect her paws, apply soothing sprays, but can only do so much to prevent her from eating snow and ice outside that may contain some of the salt.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

There is no reason to use these types of salts. Sometimes salts are not necessary at all; laying down sand can provide traction enough. In many areas a homeowner is directly responsible for the portion of the sidewalk that is in front of his house. While some people are quite neglectful of this duty, others take it to the extreme. I have encountered stretches of sidewalk that are so choked with strong salts that my dog and I are better off walking in the middle of the street. There are plenty of ice melts that are labeled “pet safe.” These are not nearly as problematic, though they are not necessarily perfect as they may still contain some similar ingredients. It is best to ask your vet or an employee at the store for more information.

Little boots are an option, as well. They are cute and fashionable and will protect the paws; however, I know my dog would not tolerate them. She would feel restricted and would spend the walk trying to tear them off. While they could help some dogs, this is avoiding the problem rather than eliminating it.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

It is also worth noting that we track these salts into our homes on our shoes, as well. This can cause damage to wood floors and rugs. In addition, stronger salts crack the roadways. This is one of the reasons, in addition to the expansions and contractions induced by temperature changes, that roads are riddled with deep potholes by the time spring arrives. This gets expensive for taxpayers to fund repaving year after year, as well as poses dangers to drivers and can damage car suspensions, axles, and tires. Recently there were even several accidents on New Jersey’s Palisades Parkway largely due to incredibly rough roadways.

Remember how when Rome sacked Carthage they sowed the soil with salt so that nothing would ever grow again? We too are doing damage to the environment by sprinkling salt everywhere. It can burn grasses and plants, poison birds, and wash into waterways. From there it can harm aquatic life. This is a major issue; there is a sharp contrast in biological characteristics between fresh water creatures and salt water ones. Salt in fresh water is incredibly deadly.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

We are therefore dealing with an environmentally irresponsible set of practices. Ideally an alternative to salting in its entirety would be a nice development, but in the meantime reducing or eliminating one of the problems that it causes would be a good step forward. So that our best friends can safely take steps outside, let it be with concern to pet friendly salts.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Say No to Ice-Melting Salt This Winter appeared first on Law Street.

The popular image of an asteroid field–a chaotic clutter of rocks so dense that the odds of successfully navigating one in a spacecraft are immensely slim–is something of a misnomer. In reality, most known fields are spread over such a vast distance that there are titanic spaces between each body; it would be more like driving on a gently winding road through the mountains; however, there is a dense and dangerous field much closer to home. It orbits tightly around the Earth, and is composed of man-made objects and debris and poses many dangers and problems to those on space missions as well as those of us at home.

Space missions, particularly the earlier ones at the dawn of the space age, have left many things behind. Sometimes it has been accidental from equipment or crafts breaking, other times it has been a discharge of unnecessary material. In this sense, missions are inefficient. Further, there have been reckless and irresponsible actions that produced enormous quantities of space debris. For example, in 2007 China demonstrated its missile defense program by shooting down a satellite orbiting in space. “Shoot down” is a misleading term, because in did not come back down to Earth. Instead, it blew into countless pieces that now orbit us.

Imaging of space debris in a tight cloud and an outer ring. Courtesy of NASA Orbital Debris Program Office, photo gallery via Wikipedia.

Estimates suggest that there are at least 500,000 pieces of debris. In addition to the fact that NASA can only know of and track so many pieces, they all travel at velocities of around 17,500 miles per hour. This is a phenomenal speed, and can inflict massive damage. Debris has collided with satellites and spacecraft, damaging or destroying them, thus adding more debris to the field. The International Space Station is particularly vulnerable. The impact from a larger object can tear away an entire section of a spacecraft, dooming it. Even the smallest pieces traveling at such speeds can tear the airtight suits of astronauts, shatter their face shields, or conjure up other horrifying images we only thought existed in science fiction.

Courtesy Fragile Oasis via Flickr.

Back on solid ground, human society’s ever-growing network of communications deeply depends on orbiting satellites and space relays. This is more than just getting a signal on our cell phones; our entire way of life is tied into outer space relays. Man-made objects in space often face decaying orbits in time. This means that they come back down to Earth. The smaller ones are likely to burn up in the atmosphere, and the ones that make it through face large odds of crashing in the ocean. Hopefully they are subsequently retrieved, as garbage and man-made objects in the oceans is a problem in and of itself; however, there is a chance that these things will hit land. In 2001, the upper stage of a rocket that launched a satellite in 1993, which had been orbiting the Earth as space debris, crashed down in the Arabian desert. Although there have yet to be any deaths or injuries reported in conjunction with space debris, it is an ever more likely scenario.

The crashed rocket module. Courtesy of NASA via Wikipedia.

NASA has protocol for tracking space debris and maneuvering spacecraft in evasive manners if necessary. But what do we do about trying to reduce the problem? We can’t exactly send people up in orange vests to pick up the pieces one by one. There exist some proposals regarding specific trips to the larger objects with the intention of dragging them down, as well as lasers for destroying and redirecting some of the smaller ones. These ideas would be incredibly expensive and highly inefficient. Ultimately, the problem seems irreversible.

The best course of action is to reduce further debris from becoming part of the field. This comes in the form of making parts of rockets and ships that are reusable. As we continue to face questions of sustainability on Earth, our presence in space demands the same standards. Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, or SpaceX, one of the companies that NASA has hired to bring supplies to and from the International Space Station, is working on multi-use rockets. The CEO of SpaceX, Elon Musk, stated that using a one-time rocket is equivalent to flying a 747 on a transcontinental flight once and then throwing it away. In this sense, SpaceX’s endeavors are largely motivated by financial concerns. Musk projected that reusing all the stages of a rocket could cut operational costs to a hundredth of what they are now. Nonetheless, a couple of weeks ago the company launched a rocket intended for a cargo run to the International Space Station, a stage of which they subsequently intended to land on a barge in the Atlantic Ocean; however, the piece landed in a rough manner and exploded. Nonetheless it was a good attempt and has positive implications for the future.

After several hundred years of living high environmental impact lives, we only recently have begun to ask serious questions about the damage we have been doing, how to fix it, and how to change for the future. After half a century of venturing into space, we have already left an ugly mark on that environment too. The fact that we are now seeing attempts to address that is optimistic. As we contemplate how to live sustainably on Earth, we attempt to venture sustainably into space.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Near Space is Choked With Debris That We Put There appeared first on Law Street.

On January 8, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration finished the work started by previous Mayor Michael Bloomberg by announcing that styrofoam containers will go by the wayside. This includes to-go boxes from the city’s many food trucks as well as coffee cups and packing peanuts. This is a purely environmental move, which might end up costing consumers more money and inconveniencing vendors. Though it has been met with some controversy, most people agree that ultimately it is a good decision.

Expanded Polystyrene Foam, or styrofoam, is one of mankind’s worst inventions. While it’s buoyant properties are desirable for flotation devices and its insulating properties are handy in construction projects, it is non-biodegradable. Thus it sits in landfills forever, never decomposing into the soil. Furthermore, the Department of Sanitation recently determined that it is not recyclable, which played a substantial part in deciding to ban the product. Finally, since most people’s exposure to styrofoam comes in the form of food or beverage containers, it is worth noting that some studies by the EPA suggest a possible mild carcinogenicity.

Courtesy of Jon Hayes via Flickr.

The New York City ban goes into effect on July 1, 2015; however, there will be a six-month grace period before the city begins enforcement so that vendors can seek alternatives. Furthermore, nonprofits and businesses with less than $500,000 in annual income may qualify for an exemption. Finally, while packing peanuts will no longer be sold within the city, packages containing them can still be shipped in. Nonetheless, this determination represents a great step forward in eradicating the material.

Those who support styrofoam do so because it is cheap to acquire and convenient to use; however, there are plenty of alternatives. For example, the city’s Department of Education plans to serve children their food on compostable plates instead. Starbucks and some other coffee companies hand out their products in paper cups with a cardboard ring around them; these are recyclable products that also do a sufficient job of keeping the customer’s hands from being burned. This is a poignant example, because styrofoam is a part of the fashion employed by Dunkin Donuts. In New York, they will have to find a slightly new appearance to compliment the regulations. Customers might worry that their coffee will not stay as hot for as long or will be inconvenienced in other ways.

Courtesy of Erik Sagen via Flickr.

Smaller businesses and vendors are most concerned about the ban because they will likely have to buy more expensive containers. Assuming they can find effective replacements for styrofoam, they will probably have to charge more for what is famously cheap food in order to make up their losses. Up until now it has cost $86 per ton to landfill foam, and $160 to reuse it in some form. These expenses come out of taxpayers’ pockets. Therefore consumers should be okay with paying a slightly higher price for environmentally friendly containers, because it would likely be to their financial benefit in the long run.

Just as with attempting to live off of alternative energy sources, making the transition to environmentally sustainable items and lifestyles is a difficult one. There are likely to be some monetary losses at the outset, but in the long run these things tend to prove to be more financially viable. Environmental sustainability often goes hand in hand with economic sustainability. We should not be afraid to venture outside of our comfort zones and established ways of life in quest of something new and better. Styrofoam is something we take for granted; our morning cup of coffee seems an insignificant thing, but it ends up having a massive impact as it is on a scale of hundreds of millions and of a daily occurrence.

Courtesy of Jonno Witts via Flickr.

These measures will not simply open up space in landfills; an unfortunately large amount of garbage ends up in the water. Especially considering New York City’s geographic orientation, many feel that the styrofoam ban will benefit the local aquatic biodiversity as well as the urban water supply itself. Styrofoam will not yet disappear altogether, but this is a substantial step in the right direction.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wave Goodbye to Your Takeout Containers: NYC Bans Styrofoam appeared first on Law Street.

One of the arguments in favor of hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is that it has largely enabled the recent oil boom in the United States. Vast stores of shale oil and natural gas are now accessible in large quantities and in short spans of time. Prices at the pump and dependence on the Middle East and OPEC are both down, and domestic industries are up. Yet the key concept in the term “boom” is that it is temporary; the United States must realize that, as with any nonrenewable resource, reservoirs will eventually deplete and we will be back to square one. In the meantime, a vast web of pipelines is being constructed to accommodate for the surge and the necessity to transport the product. This raises an additional set of concerns, namely for the health of the environment.

The wells from which all this liquid gold now flows are a fraction in size to most of the ones in the Middle East. Projections suggest that domestic oil production may plateau as soon as in the next few years, and begin to decline by 2020. Thus the boom is more like a flash in the pan. Being that the oil reserves of just a handful of Middle Eastern nations total more than forty times that of the United States, the latter nation would be wise to retain productive dialogues and relationships with the former, as it is likely that the previous course of trade will resume in due time. It would be unfortunate if the United States burned some bridges in the excitement of its boom, only to find quickly that it is once more dependent on imports. Policy and national behavior are tightly tied into these environmental realities.

In the meantime, it has become necessary to bolster the infrastructure for delivering domestic oil throughout the country. Among the environmentally motivated criticisms of fracking are heavy truck traffic and volatile oil trains. North Dakota, the site of the Bakken Oil Fields fueling the boom, has endured a spike in spills, explosions, and other dangerous missteps over the last few years as production and transportation of the product has increased. It has done so in a haphazard and unregulated fashion, focused more on economic expansion than safety. A primary source of these accidents is a complicated and growing network of pipelines that have sidestepped federal inspection.

In addition to the ongoing controversy regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, many smaller ones are being approved and constructed throughout the country. New Jersey has recently been faced with proposals to construct a slew of pipelines throughout the state. As with many states in the path of Keystone XL, New Jersey would not directly benefit from the lines, as it serves simply as a crossroads that bears all the burdens and risks. These pipes will not create new jobs or bolster the local economy.

A resolution to oppose the proposed Pilgrim Pipeline in the Northern Valley was recently voted down. If constructed, it would likely run through ecologically sensitive areas and near local water supplies. In the event of a leak or spill, which despite claims that these pipes meet safety standards is more likely than one might expect due to the explosive nature of the particular oil that they will transport, water would be contaminated and difficult to purify.

Courtesy of Mark Klotz via Flickr.

A North Jersey politician who is a proponent of the Pilgrim Pipeline indicated that arguments of the nature that the line will not directly benefit New Jersey are not sufficient because lines that run through other states help bring oil here. While this may be true, it is not persuasive for several reasons. The first is that it throws others under the bus; we enjoy that there are pipes bringing oil here and benefitting us and our economy, while those states bear heavy social and ecological risks to do so and this is presumably all acceptable. Next, complex routes of ecological motion are endangered and still threaten us. For example, another pipe will soon be constructed to bring fracked natural gas from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. Many are concerned with the possible threats this line will pose for the Delaware River, whose water is vital for the variegated regional biodiversity as well as residents over a wide geography. Thus whether a pipe runs through New Jersey to elsewhere, or in from somewhere else, threatens more complications than a localized leak. Finally, the enthusiasm for oil pipelines simply encourages too much economic investment in and social reliance on oil. The domestic boom will die out sooner than later; all these new pipelines will become useless, while in the meantime they present a surge of dangers.

A pipeline running through ecologically sensitive Alaska. Courtesy of US Geological Survey via Flickr.

Once more, investment in renewable energies is a more desirable option, as their production, delivery, and use is far less hazardous and much cleaner, and more realistically intertwined with the United States’ energy and economic future.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fracking is Shortsighted in Light of Temporary U.S. Oil Boom appeared first on Law Street.

In most cultures and throughout history, under the ground has been a place to which few have been interested to venture. It is a place of darkness and isolation, with morbid undertones. Underground is thought of as a place of burial; having crypts and tombs, it is thought of as a place of death. But New York City’s proposed Lowline could change all that, bringing life and light to the deep places of the Earth.

Set to open in 2018, the Lowline is a planned underground park set to be built at an abandoned trolley station on Delancey Street on Manhattan’s Lower East Side. The space, built in 1908, was abandoned 40 years later when trolley services ended in the city; however, there is still some aesthetic appeal with regard to high ceilings and cobblestones. It is located right next to the JMZ subway station, so travelers passing through can stop by. It will have trees, grass, benches, and natural sunlight. This last point is the great appeal; a system of mirrors and refractors will channel sunlight through an irrigation system–specialized pipes–to distribution panels underground. This will allow for real plants to grow under real conditions.

Courtesy of mike via Flickr.

Abandoned urban spaces are eyesores and breeding grounds for dangerous social and health conditions. This program will transform this particular space into something productive and for the public’s benefit. It will provide green space for an otherwise highly built up and concrete sector of the city. Of course, green space and benches will not be enough to draw sufficient crowds regularly enough to maintain the financial viability of the park. Especially considering that the main draw is the natural sunlight, on a cloudy or rainy day when people would not be interested in spending time in an outdoor park, the Lowline might be gloomy and unappealing as well. Therefore engineers intend to include retail space, youth activities, and culturally motivated programs. In this sense, the Lowline is not just a park but a center of activity and events.

Underground cities are not new conceptions. One of the most notable manifestations is in science fiction master Isaac Asimov’s planet-wide city of Trantor in the Foundation Trilogy. In these novels, the massive city is mostly constructed of domes and underground systems; residents do not have much access to open air. People often suffer severe emotional and mental strains as a result, feeling claustrophobic, depressed, and paranoid. Further, the layout is in some ways a tool of control by a tyrannical political regime. At any rate, the philosophical lessons of these books are poignant warnings with regard to planned cities and livelihoods of citizens. If the Lowline is successful it could set a precedent for people spending more time and possibly even living underground like rodents. Human beings are physiologically surface dwellers; it could be a sociological step down to emphasize the underground in this way.

Courtesy of Kris Arnold via Flickr.

Yet this might be taking it too far, and we should focus on all the practical benefits that can be derived from this system of thought and technology. As designer James Ramsey points out, the solar technology can be adapted to places such as hospitals, schools, basements, and office interiors as well. This could enable for much improved mental conditions as well as aesthetic appearances of otherwise bland built environments. Sunlight and green plants have been linked to increased mental health and productivity. Furthermore, if real trees will be able to grow underground due to the real sunlight, imagine the implications for the agricultural industry. Perhaps large swaths of plants can be grown underground in regions whose environments are otherwise unsuitable. This would allow for more effective production and distribution of food, overcoming restrictions of climate, insects, and the like.

In an era of limited access to space and aesthetics, concerns over energy and food, and questions about public welfare, the Lowline represents creative thinking and technological innovation with wide implications and exciting opportunities.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Underground Cities, Brought to You by New York’s Lowline appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, Governor Andrew Cuomo officially announced that New York State will ban fracking. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a process of extracting natural gas that involves injecting water, sand, and a combination of chemicals underground on site in order to fracture the shale rock and release the gas. A highly controversial topic, Cuomo’s decision was controversial as well–he was met with both praise and criticism from a highly divided demographic. However, the move to ban fracking is a strongly defensible choice, and the arguments against the ban do not hold up well under scrutiny.

For example, natural gas has been lauded as a solution to American foreign oil dependence. In the wake of ongoing turbulent relationships with the Middle East and oil rich nations therein, many suggest that the large deposits of natural gas within the borders of the United States is a possible means of alleviating the country’s need to import oil from them. But is such a complex plan of developing an elaborate and brand new energy industry the most logical solution to problems in international relations? Rather than go about this process in order to avoid dealing with these tense situations, why not attempt more diplomacy in hopes of alleviating them? Oil and natural gas aside, it would not be such a bad thing to genuinely pursue better relationships with Middle East countries. Hiding behind the energy industry as an excuse is not a sustainable argument.

Others argue that natural gas is cleaner than oil. Natural gas emissions byproducts are lower and less damaging than those of oil, and it is of a substantial energy density so as to sufficiently provide power to our machines and devices. However we should not be tempted by the quick, convenient, and immediate solution. It will still cause problems and will run out eventually. This argument comes back to renewable energy. There is plenty of potential and increased economic accessibility to renewable energy, which is cleaner than natural gas and will not run out. Thinking purely in terms of energy requirements, we do not need natural gas.

Aside from geopolitics and national scale energy needs, some tie natural gas and fracking directly to the benefit of people on the ground. There is an American cultural identity tied into coal and mining towns. It is a widely applicable occupation, providing employment to individuals and income for families. Coal mining is a means of asserting ones identity, and has often been passed down through generations. Fracking is a technology intensive process demanding expertise and consequently cannot be undertaken by anybody. Arguments that fracking provides economic opportunities for towns in which shale is located are shaky. Unlike coal, where the industry arrives on site and hires locals to pursue the mining, fracking companies often bring in outside workers to extract the gas; the residents of the town rarely benefit from the boom.

A fracking site. Courtesy of Casey Hugelfink via Flickr.

Some people of a financially minded nature have suggested that the moratorium represents a transfer of economic resources from farmers to environmentalists. Residents of southern New York State are now unable to receive royalties from resource development and gas mining. Tim Worstall, the author of a fiscally conservative Forbes Magazine article on the topic, suggests that the environmentalists are being granted their desires and benefits at a cost which is the loss of acquisition of desires and benefits for the people who could receive money for fracking on their land. He proposes a hypothetical situation that in order to maintain a balanced public policy, environmentalists should literally pay homeowners their losses for not fracking. He is of strong opinion that this would be met with high resistance, in demonstration of his point that this process is unfair.

No doubt this scenario represents a substantial portion of the controversy over fracking. However the author is thinking of benefits and losses purely from an economic standpoint. On the one occasion that he might be considering the state of the environment, he refers to environmentalists’ interest in preventing fracking in “the fair state of New York”. In this sense it is an aesthetic issue. Interestingly enough, there is little in the way of aesthetic damage when it comes to fracking, although it does turn small farm towns into industrial sties. Then there is the catastrophic side effect of increased likelihood of earthquakes. However, environmentalists’ resistance to fracking is very much motivated by human health concerns. The primary problem with fracking is that the myriad of chemicals injected into the rock seeps into the groundwater. This can be damaging to the human body when consumed, potentially causing neurological disorders, birth defects and cancers, and is most visibly linked to flaming faucets. The volume of chemicals is so high that water can literally catch fire. The documentary Gasland delves further into these issues and additional dangers of the industry and refineries. Here is a trailer:

Flaming faucets and contaminated drinking water are most common for homeowners in close proximity to the fracking site. Namely, those on whose land the fracking will take place. Here is a major cost for which the author of the Forbes article does not account.

Produced water is the mix of chemicals, metals, and carcinogens that comes up during the fracking process. In some New York counties, produced water has been used as a de-icer, sprinkled across roadways throughout the winter. Then it runs off into streams and waterways. This is dangerous for fish and local wildlife that live nearby, as well as for humans who drink that water. This increases the range of contamination from near to the fracking site to across the entire state. It is a misuse of a substance that should not exist in the first place.

Considering the long list of potential alternatives for meeting our energy needs, we do not need natural gas. Furthermore, considering all the problems associated with the current method of extracting it, we certainly do not need fracking.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the New York Fracking Moratorium a Good Thing? appeared first on Law Street.

While climate change, habitat loss, and strains on food resources are all putting pressure on many forms of wildlife to survive, another human induced threat is direct action by way of poachers. Especially in parts of Africa and Southeast Asia, poaching is pushing already endangered animals such as the black rhino, elephant, and some big cats to the brink. Turbulent political situations and market demands further escalate the determination of those involved and the degree of their activity. Attempting to protect said animals will require more than raising awareness and implementing additional rules, rather, we need widespread alterations to value systems. However since there are so many factors involved that need to be addressed, any progress is desirable–during his notable recent visit to the United States, Prince William spent time advocating for wildlife conservation.

A city in Myanmar named Mong La, called by some a mini Las Vegas, is a haven for black market outlets and red light activities. In addition to gambling and prostitution, many endangered animals are desired in one form or another. Rhino horns are thought to have healing qualities, tiger parts are thought to be aphrodisiacs and increase virility, and bear claws, leopard pelts, and live monkeys are also common sights. These things have been the practice in the region for a long time, but recently it has worsened due to China’s economic expansion. A vast increase in members of China’s middle and upper middle classes has provided an enormous demand for these already extremely rare animals. Such people have cash to burn, and desire to spend it conspicuously on trophies, prestige, and lavish leisure.

Poachers cut up a kill. Courtesy of Rod Waddington via Flickr.

One does not need to be ethnocentric, insofar as declaring one’s own culture, values, and belief systems to be correct or superior to those of another. However there is no scientific evidence to support the theories that these animals provide the medicinal benefits that are claimed.

Yet this should not be the only factor in the issue. Individuals and societies should be allowed to exercise their cultures regardless of scientific validity. The Faroe Islanders, located between Scandinavia and Iceland, got into a scrape with Greenpeace over their Grindadrap, or Pilot Whale Hunt. Greenpeace made assumptions about the Islanders–that they were killing simply for the sake of it and in attempts to assert masculinity. This seemed pointless to them and Greenpeace advocated for an end to the hunting practices. However upon further investigation, many minute details regarding the Faroe culture and its relationship to the hunt were discovered. An aesthetic interest in whales was not sufficient to deny the Faroes the right to pursue these values. This conclusion became all the more prevalent when it was discerned that the Islanders were in fact going about the hunt in a sustainable fashion, and the pilot whale itself is not an endangered species. However neither of these two details are the case with regard to the poaching discussion at hand.

Ivory jewelry. Courtesy of USFWS Mountain-Prairie via Flickr.

Currently the primary solution to the poaching problem is armed defense. Many African national parks employ heavily weaponized rangers to patrol and defend the borders. Often times firefights break out; there are often reports of poachers, and occasionally rangers too, getting killed in these conflicts. While this might help on a case by case basis, it does not stop poaching at the source. That is, it does not address the root motivations for poaching in the first place.

Rangers confiscate ivory. Courtesy of Enough Project via Flickr.

Poachers and Rangers are not the only ones engaging in armed conflict in the African national parks. In 2013, the two-year-old country of South Sudan erupted in civil war. Sudan is already known for hosting Africa’s longest civil war, lasting from 1983-2005. During that time, it is estimated that all but 5,000 of the country’s 80,000 elephants died. After the first war, elephants, giraffes, antelope, buffalo, and others were in a position to begin a recovery. Paul Elkan of the Wildlife Conservation Society’s South Sudan program explains that formal protection, ecotourism, and other programs were being established which could have aided these animals in returning to a healthy population. However with the onset of another war these systems collapsed. As a power vacuum has opened up in much of the region, there is little to stop poachers from running rampant. Furthermore, as combat spreads into the parks themselves, poachers are not the only threat to the animals. Commercial bush meat hunting to feed soldiers is a common occurrence during hostility.

The Duke of Cambridge is a longstanding advocate for wildlife conservation. While in Washington D.C. at the beginning of December, Prince William vocalized his intention to address the trafficking aspect of poaching, in an effort to work with transportation companies and international regulations on trade. Trying to cut the actual trade of the animals could reduce the level of poaching on site. This is just one of the many means by which Prince William hopes to improve the situation and spread more environmentally conscious sentiment across the globe. Being in an authoritative and high profile position, he continues to put his influence and altruistic intentions to productive use.

Prince William speaks about wildlife conservation. Courtesy of World Bank Photo Collection via Flickr

If the increased demand for these animals is in part a consequence of modernization, interconnected markets, higher income, and more leisure time for the societies in question, the interest in sustainability and environmental conservation should not be long to follow. If they could heed the Prince’s warnings and follow his example, we may be able to find effective and long lasting solutions to these problems.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prince William Speaks Out Against Animal Poaching appeared first on Law Street.

They used to be hailed as engineering marvels, as the triumph of mankind’s will and ingenuity over the forces of nature. They were symbols of national pride and strength, and epitomized the age of science and technology. Now they are valued as providers of renewable and clean energy. But dams actually cause environmental problems, and ultimately are not a necessary evil with which we must contend, as there exist alternative and preferable options.

The imposing Hoover Dam was a masterpiece when it opened in 1936. Nothing made a louder statement about the ability of Americans to band together and create something great in the midst of the Great Depression. The dam provided jobs and revenue, as well as power for the energy ravenous cities of Las Vegas and Los Angeles. All around the world a frenzy of dam construction ensued, as the answer to civilization’s rapidly rising energy demands. Yet time and again they coupled their energy yields with environmental damage, loss of aesthetics, and raised questions as to their overall necessity and usefulness.

A poignant example is the O’Shaughnessy Dam, completed in 1923 within the borders of the already established and protected Yosemite National Park. After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the urban water system was severely damaged and residents found themselves hard pressed to procure fresh water. In 1908 the Department of the Interior allowed the city to construct a dam in the Hetch Hetchy Valley, a picturesque portion of the park no doubt home to many forms of wildlife. The battle that ensued, spearheaded by the Sierra Club, ultimately failed and the dam was built. In no time at all, the reservoir that accumulates behind a dam came together, flooding the valley. It is widely believed that the burden of this fight and the pain of its failure sapped John Muir of his energy and will, passing away shortly thereafter.

The Hetch Hetchy Valley before. Courtesy of Isaiah West Taber via Wikipedia.

The O’Shaughnessy Dam exemplified a choice between the needs of the people and the aesthetics of the environment. However dams often threaten the actual health and condition of the environment, as well as people themselves. Dams and resulting reservoirs in India displaced 20 million people between 1947 and 1992. Environmental historian J.R. McNeil explains that many residents, especially more tribal ones who lacked the political power to make their voices heard, had to flee and became refugees as their homes flooded. Lands became waterlogged, areas suitable for cultivation were lost, and malaria spread. A series of Soviet dams literally dried up the Aral Sea. As a result, the temperatures during summer and winter became extreme as local climate deregulated. Less moisture and more salt on the wind and in the air meant that crops died, buildings began to corrode, and people experienced eye infections.

Dams are noted for blocking silt. The Aswan Dam brought to a halt the annual and predictable flooding of the Nile. The deposits of silt and nutrients on the nearby shorelines made the soil fertile and suitable for growing crops. The river, which gave rise to the great ancient civilization of Egypt over 5,000 years ago, died in 1970. The British had plans to build the dam in Ethiopia or Uganda, where the higher elevations and cooler temperatures would have made it more effective. But President Nasser, in an effort to create distance from the prior British rulers and seeking nationalist pride and recognition, demanded that it be constructed in his own country. The location of the dam, McNeil explains, is too far downstream; higher evaporation levels reduce its usefulness. Furthermore, directly impeding the Nile from flooding means that Egyptians must use chemical fertilizers, the desirability and consequences of which are problematic as well.

In addition to blocking silt and nutrients, dams block biodiversity as well. A call for the tearing down of a series of dams on the Susquehanna River, a tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, points out that the large migration of a species of herring has been largely impeded. As the author relates, “ladders” and “elevators” intended for the fish to bypass the dams have proven relatively unsuccessful. In the Pacific Northwest, this concept has taken its most ludicrous form yet in the manifestation of the “salmon cannon.”

Salmon are literally picked up by hand and loaded a few at a time into a tube that propels them over the dam so that they can continue on their migration driven by spawning. This process is not as desirable or realistic as some seem to think. Salmon migrate through these rivers by the millions; at the peak of the migrating season, there is little chance that cannon loaders will be able to send them all on their way. It is vital that they do so, as they contribute to a delicate ecological balance in the Pacific Northwest. Not only do they provide a vital source of food for bears and scavengers that pick at the leftovers, but fish dragged into the woods decompose and release nutrients into the soil; salmon feed the trees and contribute to the growth of the great dense forests themselves in the region. One should also consider how the salmon experience the cannon. While powering upstream and leaping waterfalls is an impressive and presumably trying feat, it is driven by instinct and part of the natural process of salmon life. Being handled by a human and barreling through a tube are not; it could be an extremely traumatic and shocking experience for the fish.

Although they provide renewable energy without emissions, dams are an unnatural construction. They are not comparable to the ones made by beavers; on such large scales, they literally block the natural course of environmental processes to a highly disruptive level. Low Head Hydro is a hydroelectric energy system that does not block the flow of a waterway in order to produce power. Solar and Wind continue to rise in desirability, effectiveness, and financial accessibility. Peaking in the early 1900s, dams are an obsolete power source that we can do without.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Despite Some Benefits, Dams are an Obsolete Energy Source appeared first on Law Street.

Due to the incredibly loud and incessant drone of the machines, I angrily slam my window shut and stomp back to my desk where I’m finally able to hear myself think and the gasoline-induced headache starts to dissipate. Throughout the autumn and early winter, leaf blowers are constantly running. In fact, as I write this I can hear some in the distance. (My window is closed right now.) In addition to the noise pollution and annoyance, there may be substantial health hazards to using them.

Due to the fact that most leaf blowers run on gas-powered engines, they emit harmful byproducts into the air such as ozone and carbon monoxide. In fact, one report suggested that a single leaf blower in continuous use for an hour produces the same amount of pollution as seventeen cars. In light of the recent study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and subsequent dialogues regarding the need to reduce emissions, this practice can certainly be placed on the chopping block.

This is not to say that seasonal use of leaf blowers accounts for such a substantial portion of national emissions so as to induce climate change, but if setting standards for corporations and industries is so difficult then here is an unnecessary practice that can easily be eliminated or replaced with alternatives. Attacking the broad aspects of climate change and emissions has proven difficult; why not chip away piecemeal at the smaller problems in the meantime? The head of the New Jersey Landscape Contractors Association, Jody Shilan, pointed out that manufacturers are looking into less toxic machines. Presumably these would be electric motors or something of that nature. This would help, but there are other problems that leaf blowers cause.

Courtesy of Anthony Appleyard via Wikipedia.

Using leaf blowers stirs up dirt, allergens, molds and spores. Therefore in addition to the fossil fuel pollution, they contaminate the air in these additional manners. Perhaps this is the cause of some headaches and dizziness? Often the users of leaf blowers, particularly landscapers, can be seen wearing masks over their noses and mouths. This speaks to the localized air contamination that they induce. Further, what about the people who pass by and do not have a mask in their pocket to put on? I have found that my lungs and eyes can get irritated while passing through an area in which leaf blowers are being used while walking my dog or waiting for the bus.

There is nothing wrong with a good old fashioned rake. Raking leaves provides some physical activity, and often is surprisingly pleasant in the crisp autumn air. When I was little, my family and I would rake up the leaves in the backyard together. It was a fun family activity, and we would stuff them all into large orange & black plastic bags that, when full, looked like giant Jack-O-Lanterns for the Halloween and Thanksgiving season. Granted, some people such as the elderly or those with physical impediments would be hard pressed to clear their yard of leaves themselves.

Most of the time the leaves end up in large piles on the roadside, which are hazardous in their own right. There are supposed to be town regulations as to how wide the piles can be, but these are never enforced. When I walk my dog I often find that we have to venture out into the middle of the road in order to pass around an oversized pile. Even drivers themselves might find this dangerous, as a large pile of leaves prevents cars traveling in opposite directions on some of the smaller roads, such as the one on which I live, to pass each other simultaneously.

It’s fun to hang out in the leaves. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

So why is it so important that we clear the leaves away at all? They’re not hurting anybody by remaining as they lie on the grass. In fact, they are beneficial; leaves eventually decompose and provide nutrients for the soil. Ultimately what it comes down to is aesthetics. I have previously addressed the socially motivated environmental problems of green lawn aesthetics. Similar forces are at play here. A yard full of randomly fallen leaves looks messy and unattractive to many people; it is important to keep one’s lawn clean and organized. There may even be financial ramifications, such as falling home prices for attempted autumn sales. For these reasons, arguments in defense of leaf blowers that point out that lawn mowers also cause air pollution are nil; it is just a different season’s manifestation of the same problem.

Clark University, MA. The leaves in fact give the scene a little something extra. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

We love the autumn because the leaves change colors and become pretty. So why is it so bad when they fall to the ground? Then the ground is pretty too. We have obsessively established certain aesthetic rules, which force us to choose between ourselves and our environment. We need to think of the two together; instead of imagining that things must be a certain way and we must intervene in order to reestablish the standard, we should be more flexible in adapting to the changes that occur naturally.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Leave the Leaves: Why Leaf Blowers are a Harmful and Pointless Practice appeared first on Law Street.

Next Monday begins the week-long tradition of the New Jersey black bear hunt. During this process, between 250-300 bears of a population that tends to dance around a total of 3,400 north of Interstate 80 are “harvested” so as to keep their numbers in check. The reasons for this hunt and the manners in which it is pursued are controversial, and there may exist more progressive and responsible alternatives.

The general argument is that black bear populations can get out of control; they encroach upon our territory and into our backyards, and the likelihood of people experiencing dangerous encounters with them increases. We do not pause to consider that human populations might be the ones getting out of control. Rampant development and overbuilding in the North Jersey area means habitat damage for all manners of local wildlife. As forests are bulldozed, bears’ homes are destroyed. Furthermore, the homes of the animals on which they prey are destroyed as well, meaning that they all must relocate. This concentrates bears into smaller areas, which might produce the illusion that there are more of them while in actuality we simply see them more frequently.

The extensive building does not effectively take into account animal geographies; that is to say, the routes and manners in which they travel, hunt, court and mate, and go about their business. As we build out of control, bears are channeled into ever narrowing corridors or their paths are completely blocked, forcing them to pass through our backyards. We should also keep in mind that leveling wooded areas might put a strain on their food supply; the common image of a black bear sifting through people’s trash might not be a result of overly aggressive and bold bears seeking out human habitat in order to feed, but a last resort to which we have reduced them.

A site of deforestation and habitat destruction. Courtesy of crustmania via Flickr.

The very concept that a large and occasionally predatory animal such as a bear is constantly undergoing a population explosion seems to run contrary to the laws of nature. The food chain is a pyramid; the things on the bottom are the most numerous and as one ascends there are fewer and fewer of those creatures that prey on them. For example, as plants are at the bottom of every food chain, their numbers are astronomical. Then, the small rodents that eat them are naturally less numerous than the plants on which they feed, and the foxes that eat those rodents are fewer still. Bears are very large and, while they feed on roots, berries, and things of that nature as well, there would first have to be population explosions at every level of the food chain below them if their own numbers were to get out of control.

The New Jersey Fish and Game Council’s black bear management policy declares that it intends to consider

The cultural carrying capacity, which is the number of bears that can co-exist compatibly with the local human population in a given area in concert with the biological carrying capacity of the land to support bears.

There are two things wrong with this statement. The first, in conjunction with the previous discussion, is that it presumes to take into our own hands the bear population for the sake of the biological carrying capacity of the local environment. It assumes that the exploding bear population will overwhelm the local ecosystem and it is our responsibility to keep it in check. Again, if the population is growing rampantly it is because the ecosystem is flourishing in a manner so as to support it; the bears will not simply increase on their own. Therefore the ecosystem would maintain its balance. If for some reason at a particular point in time the bear population was unusually large, competition for food, shelter, and reproduction would increase and some bears would lose out and die off. Thus the ecosystem would self regulate. That’s the point; these things occur naturally all the time. Humans do not need to step in and play God.

The second problem with the management policy’s statement is that it assumes bear populations are the only factor in measuring the quality of the cultural carrying capacity. It declares that only a certain number of bears is suitable for a healthy carrying capacity; then if their populations get too high things go wrong. Why must this be the determining factor? Instead, if the unlikely situation arises that their populations do rise substantially, why can’t we readdress our own behavior, building policies, and attitudes and interactions with the environments of which we are a part? Why do we absolve ourselves of any responsibility? On the local level, humans aren’t exactly putting checks on their own populations; it is always others who are in the wrong and must get out of the way.

Let’s assume the bear populations are in fact rising. How is this determined? A team uses a DNA sampling technique in order to estimate the number of actively breeding bears in the region. Based on this, the total number is subsequently calculated. This method is supposedly more accurate than the more traditional catch, tag, and release systems. Be that as it may, does the hunt account for this delicate dynamic or do we shoot indiscriminately? What if, say, 80 percent of the bears killed during a particular hunt are active breeders? This could potentially devastate the bear population. It is not simply a matter of how many bears should or should not be killed, but which ones and where.

Courtesy of Tim Lumley via Flickr.

Rather than turn to black bears as scape goats, we should admit that we are causing habitat destruction and environmental damage. The validity of the black bear management policy has been questioned in the past, but to no avail. On the basis of not just science and policy but inward social reflection and questions of human behavior and value systems, it is time to challenge it again.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Change the Problematic New Jersey Black Bear Hunt appeared first on Law Street.

Plastic is an absolutely amazing material. It is durable, light, portable, and malleable. It can be made into virtually any product we can imagine. It can be recast, recycled, and reused. It plays a role in every material aspect of our modern lives. But it is usually non-biodegradable, leeches toxins, and if not handled properly can be dangerous to land and ocean environments, animals, and ourselves.

One of the factors that complicated the search for Malaysia Flight 370 last spring was the Indian Ocean Gyre. A gyre is a system of cyclically moving ocean currents, tied into trade winds and the Coriolis Effect. There are five major ones on Earth: in the North and South Atlantic, in the North and South Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. The inexorable motion of the water constantly cast question marks as to where to search for the crashed plane. As the weeks dragged on, the likelihood of locating it in the predetermined locations dwindled; it could have been anywhere by then. Furthermore, search & rescue operators were deceived time and again by what they thought was plane debris. In actuality, it was plastic. The gyres are choked with floating garbage and plastic, earning them the nickname “garbage patches.”

The Earth’s major gyres, courtesy of NOAA via Wikipedia.

Among other things, the 2008 documentary “Addicted to Plastic” details an excursion to the Eastern Garbage Patch in a section of the North Pacific Gyre. Watch the trailer below.

Director Ian Connacher related that the patch is not so much a floating landfill whose contents can be systematically scooped out, but is spread out over an area the size of Western Europe requiring constant painstaking and ultimately minimally effective sifting.

Furthermore, this is not just an aesthetic problem. All new plastic begins life as a “nurdle:” a small pellet that can subsequently be made into whatever product desired. Nurdles account for a large percentage of ocean gyre garbage. In addition, plastic accumulates pollutants such as oils, toxins, and other things that we have also dumped or let run off into our oceans. To the eyes of many fish and birds, nurdles resemble fish eggs and are subsequently eaten. They can choke the animals because they are indigestible, or they can poison the animals because they are riddled with toxins. Then in a process of bioaccumulation, larger fish who eat many of the smaller fish that have ingested nurdles subsequently carry the toxins (and the plastic). Many of these fish are ones that people eat as well; the plastic and toxins work their way back to us and endanger our health, too.

Most of the plastic in the garbage patches arrived there not because it was dumped over the side of ships, but because it was carelessly tossed into the water systems or left on the shores; ocean plastic has worked its way there from the land. Therefore trying to pick all the trash out of the gyres does not stop the problem at the source. The plastic industry is highly flawed and needs to be more properly operated. Greenpeace and others have suggested that governments facilitate more recycling infrastructure and consumers be more conscientious about their use of plastic bags and purchasing products with a lot of plastic packaging. They add that a lot of potential lies with corporations, in regulating and intelligently choosing their plastics. For example, those micro beads in exfoliating products are disastrous and should be eliminated.

These things are only part of the problem, though. Connacher is of the opinion that the regulation of the recycling process and the decisions of corporations in the production process need to be more seamlessly intertwined and cooperative. That is to say, there are problems that make the recyclability of plastic less effective. The cap and ring on a soda bottle is a different type of plastic than is the container. One might be recyclable while the other is not. If they both can be recycled, that may not necessarily be at the same location or by the same means. Inevitably, things get lost in translation. There is nothing that we the consumers can do about this except put our plastics in the bins and hope that everything gets recycled–and properly. Yet these are not unsolvable problems. Scientists in parts of Europe are proposing a “circular economy” with regard to plastics, the idea of which is that “…products must be designed with end of life recovery in mind.” This process has more to do with providing incentives for people to recycle, but theoretically can be applied to the design and production process as well.

“Addicted to Plastic” also provides hope, recounting stories of people who took creative initiative in order to get some of the otherwise wasted plastic out of the environment and put it to productive use. People reduce their plastic consumption on community levels, and researchers and scientists find new types of plastic that are more biodegradable or less toxic. There are things we can do to make the production process better as well as things we can do to address the problematic plastic that is already out there. It requires more than picking it up off the ground or out of the water. It requires major changes, many of which will be difficult. A set of issues like this tends to be overlooked because it does not appear as pressing as climate change or energy regimes; however, it is operating on a global scale, and pervades every aspect of human geography and life. We can emerge victoriously out of our throwaway culture.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just How Bad is Our Culture of Plastic Obsession? appeared first on Law Street.

Stepping away from the Bedouin camp, I gingerly ventured into Israel’s Negev Desert. A sufficient number of yards out, the few lights emanating from the settlement had been reduced to a glow in the distance. Having grown up outside of New York City, the bright lights often projected a yellow-orange hue onto the night sky. Every now and then under ideal conditions, the nearest and brightest stars would puncture the cloak, enabling a view of the Big Dipper, Orion, and some others. But out in the Negev, the sky was unencumbered by such drapes and positively glittered. A pale band of light unfolded across the view, dividing the sky in half. This was the Milky Way itself; I was looking from the inside out with a horizontal view of one of the spiral arms of our galaxy. I stood there frozen in time, awestruck and amazed. Ever since human beings emerged from their caves we have stared at the sky and wondered. We have pondered what it is like out there, where we came from, and how to find out. In this amazing age of technology and intellect, we are finally in a position to start answering those questions.

The latest giant leap in the exploration of the final frontier occurred on November 12 when the Philae landing probe of the Rosetta spacecraft touched down on the surface of Comet 67P, 310 million miles away. After a ten-year journey, Rosetta and its components represent the first occasion of a man-made object rendezvousing with a comet. Launched by the European Space Agency, its mission is to answer questions such as, “What were conditions like at [the solar system’s] infancy and how did it evolve? What role did comets play in this evolution? How do comets work?”

Comets tend to be very old celestial bodies. Studying their composition and internal dynamics may shed light on what the composition of the solar system was during the early periods of its formation. Furthermore, some theories suggest that life on Earth arose as a consequence of comets, rich in carbon, passing by overhead and depositing the crucial element on the planet. Delving into the comet’s nature might help to understand if and which aspects of this assertion are reliable.

Comet 67P, Courtesy of ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM via WIkipedia.

Some people criticize space missions in their entirety, questioning their purpose. General intellectual curiosity is one of the greatest attributes of human civilization; the ability to ask questions and seek answers is what makes us successful. In addition, the quest for intelligent life beyond our own atmosphere remains a productive cause. Regardless of whether one believes that there exist such entities or not, the only way to answer the questions is to try to find them. Some people are intimidated by the vast distances between points A and B in the galaxy and the immense amounts of time it takes to get there. The ten years required to make the Rosetta mission happen is a poignant example; however, we must remember that we are still at the early stages of space exploration.

As the renowned astronomer Carl Sagan pointed out, the amount of time required to travel from the Earth to another location in the solar system is comparable to the months or more necessary for European explorers in sailing ships to travel the local seas to the far reaches of the New World. In modernity, we hop these distances in no time at all. We stand at an early and exciting stage of space exploration, due to advance our civilization and guaranteed to become more seamless with time. We are, as Sagan eloquently put it, “on the shores of the cosmic ocean.”

Furthermore, as we continue to threaten the health of our planet and our own existence therein, it might be wise to seek contingency plans. While it is a valid criticism that the search for “earth-like” planets is a narrow-minded quest for intelligent life, as there might exist other forms of life which do not require air to breathe or water to drink or are not based on carbon. We know what humans need to survive and so seeking out celestial bodies of this nature can still be to our benefit. While the idea of needing to abandon Earth because we pushed it into an inhospitable state is deplorable, it is a harsh reality for which we should not be unprepared.

On the other hand, this sounds like a get out of jail free card; we can do as we like with the Earth because we will have other places to go once we wreck it. This does not teach us to change our ways and be more responsible, as does the urgency of a one planet, one chance concept. It undercuts the entire concept of sustainability; no longer would we think of the Earth as a closed system in which it is necessary to run as close to 100 percent efficiency as possible. What’s to stop us from taking our civilization to a new planet and inflicting the same havoc there? Society is not in a position to expand its reach beyond the planet if we cannot first live healthfully, responsibly, and productively here. Who knows what kinds of consequences an industry like deep space mineral mining and importing back to Earth could have.

Yet if we are careful and insightful we can still learn and improve. Just as different types of natural and human environments are not closed systems but rather are interrelated and inextricably intertwined, the Earth in and of itself is not in fact a closed system but very much entrenched in its surrounding solar system and cosmic environment. The more we probe and explore, the better we can understand those dynamics and interactions just as we seek to understand the ones here at home. Ideally we will be a sustainable civilization by the time we officially establish our presence elsewhere, but in the meantime it is exciting and promising to look around and dream about going where no one has gone before.

The Voyager II space probe: epitome of mankind’s ambition, Courtesy of NASA/JPL via Wikipedia.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comet 67P: Small in Size, Massive in its Implications appeared first on Law Street.

Recently the United Nations made a series of declarations regarding the validity of climate change, its causes, and necessary measures to mitigate it. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a very large “synthesis report,” a product of analyzing tens of thousands of scientific papers. The report covers all aspects, addressing atmosphere and emissions, oceans and sea level, air temperature, water cycle, and many other components of environmental systems. It goes over the changes to each over the last 150 years or so, and produces conclusions as to what induced those changes. Being that the report ultimately concludes that many of these concerns are products of human activity, it goes beyond being a summary of information and warnings, and provides many recommendations as to what needs to change and what measures ought to be taken to answer these warnings. These thoughts are more succinctly presented in the shorter summary for policymakers.

Among the conclusions therein, the most prevalent is probably the projections for changes in global temperature. If we continue on this course, by the end of the century the temperature could rise from 3.7-4.8 degrees Celsius from what it was before the Industrial Revolution. Since variation in global temperature of one or two degrees can result in radical and violent weather patterns, these numbers could presumably result in catastrophic changes to the climate and Earth. Deniers propose that these projections, and the evidence of rising temperatures in the past several centuries, might not necessarily be the result of human activity but rather an indication of general shifts in the Earth’s climatological patterns. For example, starting in the 1300s AD, many parts of the world–particularly in the Northern Hemisphere–experienced a Little Ice Age. Definite conclusions as to the causes of this phenomenon are still incomplete, but proposals range from general rises and falls within the Earth’s patterns to changes in solar or oceanic behavior.

During the Little Ice Age, temperatures dropped by about 1.5 degrees Celsius. The most notable consequence that resulted was major damage to agriculture and resulting famines. What kinds of consequences could there be for a temperature change of double that in the opposite direction as the IPCC proposes? The lesson that the Little Ice Age teaches us is that regardless of whether climate change is a result of human activity or not, it is clearly real and has dire consequences for human civilization if we are not prepared for it.

Supposing that it is in part due to human activity, the discussion on rising temperatures inevitably leads back to emissions and energy. The point of no return is a 2 degree Celsius increase, according to the report. After this point, damage to the climate and Earth could be irreversible. Governments and industries ought to set emissions standards so as to keep the rise in temperature from passing this marker; however, in order to do so we have less than forty years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent, and even further by the end of the century. These are very imposing numbers, and many fear that the existing financial structures cannot accommodate these objectives and the necessary changes to be made. On the other hand some feel that we should be more motivated to pursue these goals, not just because of the impending disasters but because energy-efficient systems are financially advisable.

There are many arguments that the economic infrastructure for renewable energy is already in place, and pursuing those courses is not only environmentally friendly but financially advisable because it would pay for itself in a short amount of time. This report should provide the impetus for making a more wholehearted attempt at transitioning to a substantial degree to these other options.

Carbon emissions go hand in hand with rising temperatures. Courtesy of Kim Seng via Flickr.

It is generally accepted that the Dust Bowl was largely a result of environmentally unfriendly agricultural practices. Did we require over half a century to reach this consensus? This framework can be applied elsewhere, as we consider unnatural elements of “natural disasters.” Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy have often been named in this debate. A heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 claimed 70,000 lives. As the report suggests, time to act is running out. These concerns are not ones to be dealt with solely by governments and world leaders; the threats of climate change pervade the globe and affect all people. We can all improve the decisions we make and the ways we live our lives, and advocate more vocally for positive change.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The UN Validates Climate Change in New Report, Now It’s Up to Us appeared first on Law Street.

The sky darkened as scalding ash and pumice rained down on the city. In some places, people were trapped in a mixture lacking air and moisture, preserved in time. On the other hand, superheated gases rolled down the mountainside incinerating all organic material in their path. Thousands perished in a matter of a few terrifying hours. Fortunately the scene at the Roman towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum in 79 A.D. does not resemble the situation that residents on the Big Island of Hawaii currently face. Nonetheless, the river of lava emanating from the volcanic Mount Kilauea now threatens nearby homes, particularly in the town of Pahoa.

Kilauea has been erupting nonstop since 1983. While there are a number of active volcanoes across the globe, this is one of the few that is constantly busy. “Active” is a vague term loosely applied to volcanoes that have erupted in the last 10,000 years, or have recently shown signs of life in some form such as seismic activity or emission of gases. A handful of volcanoes have “ongoing” eruptions spanning over a century, being on and off but relatively consistent during that time, but Kilauea is one of only several that falls into the classification of “continuous” eruption.

Residents of the Big Island have lived in the shadow of Kilauea for a long time. In most cases substantial lava flows have meandered south toward the Pacific Ocean and posed no real threat. However over the last two years eruption flows have headed northeast, toward communities. The latest flow, posing problems since June, is moving at 10-15 yards per hour, which is relatively fast. Despite the sense of urgency, there is little panic. Authorities have been making their way through the nearby villages to inform people of the lava’s status. Most residents have places to which they can temporarily relocate, and the need to seek shelter is slim to none. Fortunately, the flow seems to have come to a halt; however residents are still prepared to evacuate because the lava is smoldering and remains dangerous. Furthermore, Kilauea’s active status means that this can resume or occur again at any point in time.

Given the nature of their geography, locals are used to these kinds of situations. The Big Island is not so much an island with a volcano on it, but the whole thing is essentially a series of volcanoes. The Hawaiian Hotspot is a massive breach in the Earth’s crust through which magma has poured for millions of years. The smaller Westernmost islands of Hawaii were once situated directly over this point, forming the islands from cooled lava that eventually sprung vegetation. As the Pacific Plate shifts, they have moved off and slowly eroded while the hotspot composed newer islands such as Molokai, Maui, and the Big Island.

This literally flowing process suggests a smooth gracefulness, prompting much tourism as this calm reaction to the current situation. It is as if to say this is a standard, predictable way of life. However, geologists at the U.S. Geological Survey points out that Kilauea is an explosive volcano. In the past several hundred years it has produced large eruptions including spewing ash columns high into the sky and hurling multi-ton rocks. While there would be tell tale signs that an eruption of this nature is coming, and it seems less and less likely, there is no reason to assume that Kilauea is 100 percent predictable.

Science is not the only factor at play for native Hawaiians when it comes to Kilauea. Many believe that the volcano is the embodiment of Tutu Pele, a Polynesian goddess who is short tempered and possessive of her lands. The ongoing eruptions are her way of trying to reclaim the territory from residents. According to a local, “If she [Pele] feels she needs to clean her house, then let her clean her house.” This statement has been filtered through multiple sources and hence much context has been lost. It is unlikely that the man plans to devoutly stay put and volunteer himself as a sacrifice to the goddess and her wrath of lava, but this sentiment speaks to the interconnectedness of the local culture and the radical environmental situation at play.

Courtesy of Lindley Ashline via Flickr.

The wrath of Pele reminds us that the forces of nature are much more powerful than ourselves; we ought to be careful as to where we build our homes and how we live our lives. Sometimes we must yield as nature runs its own course.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post As Hawaii’s Kilauea Erupts, Residents Prepare to Flee appeared first on Law Street.

Mankind’s greatest enemy is not war or hunger but infectious disease. Throughout history it has cost countless deaths, and even in the twenty-first century our defenses against it remain limited. Above all, it is the threat of outbreak that unsettles us so; it is not just suffering and death, but fear. Whether it’s the Black Plague, Cholera, Spanish Influenza, H1N1, or Ebola, disease is a dark cloud looming over our lives.

Most of the microscopic killers with which we contend have been transmitted to us through animals. In the early ages of settled agriculture, close contact with domesticated chickens, pigs, cows, and others exposed humans to pathogens to which their immune systems had no previous exposure and consequently minimal means by which to combat them. There are two primary behavioral patterns of diseases. Some ascribe to the category of “chronic.” In this case, as geographer and ornithologist Jared Diamond explains, “…the disease may take a very long time to kill its victim; the victim remains alive as a reservoir of microbes to infect other[s]…” The other category is “epidemic.” In this case, Diamond continues, there might be no cases for a while, followed by a large number in an affected area, and then none for a while more. Such behavior is a consequence of the intensity of the disease’s manifestation; it strikes with such force that it basically burns itself out because the potential hosts all either die or become immune.

“Epidemic” is a widely feared term. Rather than consider the fact that they can and have been occurring on very small scales throughout human history, many people associate epidemic with things like the Black Plague in Europe, Smallpox in the New World, or a global zombie apocalypse. Since people naturally fear most what they do not understand, insufficient knowledge of disease vectors and behavior results in widespread fear and panic.

Ebola is a relatively late arrival on the scene. Originally suspected to be yellow fever, it was discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Samples extracted from an ill nun who had been working in the region came to doctors and scientists in an Antwerp, Belgium laboratory. They eventually discerned that the infection behaved differently from what would be expected of the original diagnosis. After sending samples to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, their conclusions were confirmed and a new disease had been discovered. Shortly thereafter, another outbreak occurred relatively far away in Sudan. While knowledge of the initial source and starting location of the disease is still vague, it was determined that it had spread via unsterilized syringes and contact with bodies during funerals. Therefore a lack of knowledge of the nature of the disease lent itself to its spread.

Ebola in large dropped off the radar screen until the recent epidemic began in West Africa. Going hand in hand with lack of knowledge of the disease are incomprehensive and underdeveloped means of addressing it. On a recent edition of Global Public Square, the insightful international news show hosted by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, international relations PhD Chelsea Clinton declared that the disease is spreading exponentially, necessitating exponential containment measures. This is very difficult to achieve, due to the poor technological and economic infrastructures of the region. As Dr. Paul Farmer — another guest on Zakaria’s show — expanded, the Liberian healthcare system is also very weak. Liberian Foreign Minister Augustine Ngafuan detailed how Liberians have deeply ingrained burial practices that involve close contact with bodies; this is an important aspect of cultural values in the region and not easily relinquished in the face of something that foreign experts, much less locals, barely understand.

A Liberian village, courtesy of jbdodane via Flickr.

Globalization and increased interconnectedness between individuals, societies, and locations has exacerbated the rate at which diseases spread. Many Americans cried out when infected aid workers were brought home to be treated. Appropriate measures were taken in this instance, with sanitary transportation vehicles bringing the patients to the Emory hospital in Georgia. Due to its affiliation with the CDC, this is one of the few facilities truly equipped to accommodate infectious diseases of this nature. Both those patients recovered, though they would likely have died if they were forced to remain in Africa. The situation was handled intelligently and effectively, without resounding negative consequences. Yet the outcry and fear demonstrates people’s lack of knowledge and tolerance of the unknown and perceived dangers. This was in fact the first occasion in which Ebola was present on American soil.

The situation changed with the death of Thomas Duncan. Having arrived from Liberia in late September, Duncan provided a new first by being the first patient diagnosed with Ebola in the United States. His illness was unknown during his transit, and so new fears arose as to the likelihood of Ebola crossing the ocean with traveler hosts. Now in a complete state of fear, Americans want more and more action taken in defense of the nation’s health, yet do not know what those measures ought to be because we do not know enough about the disease. Many airports have begun taking travelers’ temperatures. The CDC initially cited 101.4 degrees as the point at which one must be quarantined, but lowered it after some supposedly ill people were cleared. This demonstrates the uncertainty of the disease’s nature; in what ways does Ebola affect a person’s body temperature? At what point in their illness are they contagious? Is a body temperature an effective indicator of this? These questions have yet to be answered for the disease of whose existence we have known for less than 40 years.

Specialists clean up a Hazmat area, courtesy of sandcastlematt via Flickr.

The second set of problems that are causing fear are the alleged breaches of protocol that have enabled several other people to catch the disease in the United States. The Dallas hospital in which Duncan died was not equipped to handle this disease and consequently could not treat him effectively. Furthermore, the staff did not have the proper training insofar as interacting with Ebola, and this has been cited as the reason why nurse Nina Pham, who was treating him, became ill as well. A recent video surfaced wherein a patient is being transferred from one vehicle to another by four workers in “hazmat,” or hazardous material, uniforms. A fifth person, dubbed “clipboard man,” stands with them completely unprotected. Finally, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden has come under fire for making statements and then retracting them. Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Tom Marino has even called for him to step down. We have quickly forgotten, though, that in the early 1990s Frieden was instrumental in developing awareness and programs to combat a rising Tuberculosis epidemic in New York City. In addition to other stellar career highlights, Frieden is a highly capable leader experienced in engaging these concerns.

We are too wrapped up in fear of the unknown to do anything but demand immediate results. Ebola is a newcomer on the scene and will take some time to understand effectively. As we continue to discern our relationships with our surrounding environments, we do know that ebola is not nearly as contagious as other diseases. It requires direct contact with bodily fluids of infected patients. As we continue to learn how it works, and how our actions, societies, and cultures interact with it, we will become more effective at addressing it. In the meantime, we annually face airborne foes which are far more dangerous and contagious; do not forget to get your flu shot in the coming weeks.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ebola and America’s Fears appeared first on Law Street.