Happy Friday, everyone! The first week of January has seen a lot of rants, and unfortunately for some music lovers, one of the best-known music festivals is a prime target. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Coachella: Do Politics Matter More Than Music This Year?

Wildly popular music festival Coachella just announced its 2017 lineup, and while it does have huge names such as Radiohead and Beyoncé, politics actually propelled it into the spotlight this time.

The festival’s CEO, Phil Anschutz, has donated big sums of money to organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom and the National Christian Foundation. The former is a group working against abortion access and same-sex marriage, and the latter has been classified as an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. This news did not sit well with most Coachella fans. Many took to Twitter to express their dismay:

PSA: Don’t go to Coachella because your money will be going to the owner of Coachella, who donates to several Anti-LGBT groups. pic.twitter.com/jWYNzow4hy

— madi (@irlmadi) January 5, 2017

People also started calling for artists (and attendees) to boycott the festival:

BOYCOTT. https://t.co/meMnpfckwI

— Bradley Whitford (@WhitfordBradley) January 6, 2017

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 RantCrush Top 5: January 6, 2017 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 U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a settlement with Harley-Davidson Thursday, after filing a lawsuit the same day accusing the motorcycle giant of violating the Clean Air Act.

Harley-Davidson to Stop Sales of Illegal Devices that Increased Air Pollution from the Company’s Motorcycles https://t.co/NFiGtwfJ87

— Justice Department (@TheJusticeDept) August 18, 2016

Harley-Davidson has been ordered to immediately stop selling illegal devices known as “super tuners,” that once installed, cause motorcycles to emit higher amounts of certain air pollutants than what the company certified to EPA. According to the complaint, Harley-Davidson manufactured and sold approximately 340,000 of these illegal devices.

Harley’s Screamin’ Eagle Super Tuner Kit looks like this:

Harley-Davidson Screamin Eagle Super Tuner Pro 321098 1098 2011 fxdwg https://t.co/c6wCMBesgP pic.twitter.com/WBK7wVmrcJ

— exclusive item (@isunzabertrand) August 14, 2016

It currently retails for $459.95 on the Harley-Davidson website and promises to make Electronic Fuel Injection (EFI) tuning faster and easier.

Aside from stopping the sales of the item, Harley-Davidson has been ordered buy back and destroy illegal devices, and “will also pay a $12 million civil penalty and spend $3 million to mitigate air pollution through a project to replace conventional wood stoves with cleaner-burning stoves in local communities,” according to the DOJ.

“Given Harley-Davidson’s prominence in the industry, this is a very significant step toward our goal of stopping the sale of illegal aftermarket defeat devices that cause harmful pollution on our roads and in our communities,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Cruden, head of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Anyone else who manufactures, sells, or installs these types of illegal products should take heed of Harley-Davidson’s corrective actions and immediately stop violating the law.”

The complaint also claims that Harley made and sold more than 12,000 motorcycles from model years 2006, 2007, and 2008 that did not comply with proper EPA certifications for clean air standards. Instead of recalling the vehicles, Harley-Davidson agreed to ensure that all of its future motorcycle models sold in the U.S. are fully certified by EPA.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Sues, Then Settles With Harley-Davidson Over EPA Violations 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.

The EPA has been given a second opportunity to defend the “Transportation Rule” and its attack on interstate air pollution. The Clean Air Act defines the EPA’s responsibility to regulate and maintain the nation’s air quality, and an important part of that is setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Each state is responsible for finding a way to meet these standards, however, natural wind patterns often transport air pollution across states, making compliance harder for some states than others.

The “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act makes upwind states responsible for air pollution that travels downwind and prevents these states from meeting NAAQS. Furthermore, the EPA has outlined the steps (Federal Implementation Plans) in which these 28 upwind states must follow in order to reduce air pollution so that the downwind states are able to meet standards.

The Supreme Court will address three main issues in relation to the Transportation Rule: Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction and properly struck down the Federal Implementation Plan’s rules, the reasonableness of EPA’s interpretation of the “good neighbor” provision of the Clean Air Act, and whether the Court of Appeals’ reasoning disrupts EPA’s approach to managing the Clean Air Act.

[See Full Article: JDSUPRA]

—

Featured image courtesy of [NGerda via Wikipedia]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Review Interstate Air Pollution Rules appeared first on Law Street.