Guiyang has created an eco-court, an eco-procuratorial bureau and an eco-public security branch that is included in all three arms of the judicial structure in order to promote ecological progress.

Guiyang, the capital of an underdeveloped inland province, is leading the way in ecologically protective judicial systems. The court was initially established in 2007 and was the first of its kind. Now there are over 130 environmental courts nationwide as pollution and other environmental issues are becoming more prominent.

“Setting up specialized ecological courts could break the limitations of administrative areas and reduce interference from various parties,” said Luo Guangqian, the environmental court’s presiding judge.

In the past five years, the court had decided 619 environmental cases involving water, land and air pollution, punishing 477 polluters. Among them were 13 major public interest environmental litigation cases, which account for half of such cases nationwide.

“For a long time, China has mainly relied on administrative measures to manage and supervise environmental affairs and curb pollution,” said national legislator Wang Qingxi, noting that judicial forces have been playing a relatively minor role in environmental protection.

[inhuanet.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [radiowood via Flickr]

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 China creates judicial protection in a green push 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.