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.

In the first part of Law Street’s look at the presidential candidates’ environmental policies, we evaluated Donald Trump’s plan to deregulate the energy industry and peel back many of the existing efforts to address climate change. His plans largely focus on undoing as many regulations as possible to allow greater operational freedom to American businesses and using his executive powers to undo previous president’s attempts to protect certain areas of land from fracking and mining.

In the second part, we will review Hillary Clinton’s environmental record and policy proposals. Since Donald Trump’s plans focus more toward energy production rather than protecting the environment and combating climate change, it is not surprising that Hillary Clinton’s positions do more from an environmental perspective. She has committed to some extremely ambitious goals with regards to renewable energy implementation. At the same time, she has chosen to forgo several of the traditionally recommended policy tools used to combat climate change, such as the carbon tax. Are her plans really attainable or are they just empty claims used to attract alienated far left voters to her side? Is she even likely to follow through on her promises based on her political track record? Read on to find out.

Read Part One: Where Does Donald Trump Stand on Environmental Policy?

Hillary Clinton the Environmentalist?

In stark contrast to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton believes in climate change, believes it’s man made, and believes it’s an urgent threat. She has publicly spoken on the importance of combating climate change since the early 2000s; however, her legislative track record on major issues doesn’t always indicate that she’s driven by environmental interests. When asked her position on current issues related to the environment, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline, she has often avoided taking a stance. Clinton chose not to take a final position on the Keystone XL Pipeline for over a year, even stating that she wished to declare a position after the election ended. But in September 2015, she announced her formal opposition to the pipeline.

Whether you interpret this as anti-environment is up for debate; Clinton has maintained that her lack of a stance on the issue stemmed largely from the fact that the analysis of whether the pipeline was beneficial to national interest was incomplete. If you see her lack of a choice as her withholding a stance until all the facts were clear, then her decision is understandable. However, many environmental activists, including her primary challenger Bernie Sanders, saw the issue as much more simple: the pipeline endangers U.S. waterways and sets the United States on a track toward dependence on oil instead of investing and committing to renewables. Your interpretation of her stance largely depends on how hard-line of an environmentalist you are.

“Secretary Clinton Speaks at a Press Conference” courtesy of United States Mission Geneva; License: (CC BY-ND 2.0)

As Secretary of State, she openly supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which critics claim would prevent individual countries from being able to establish environmental trade regulations. Critics also argue that the TPP openly supports anti-environmental practices such as over-fishing and deforestation. As the Trans-Pacific Partnership evolved it has been modified to include wildlife protection mechanisms to promote the sustainable management of forested zones and fisheries. However, most of these efforts are considered to be small in scale, without any monitoring system in place and the long lasting negative impacts of the TPP are projected to outweigh any potential benefits.

Read More: Growing Holes in Our Ocean’s Fisheries

As a presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has reversed her position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership as well–recently coming out against the final deal, while having supported the effort during her term as Secretary of State. It bears noting that Donald Trump has historically opposed the TPP on the grounds that it will damage American manufacturing. If Clinton hadn’t doubled back on her original stance, this would make the deal one of few issues where Trump is effectively taking a more  environmentally progressive position.

Voting Record

Clinton’s voting record also tells a confusing story. While serving as a Senator she voted for a variety of small-scale bills supported by environmental groups and co-sponsored a number of unsuccessful bills to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. But she’s also given her support to several policies that have had seriously detrimental effects on the environment. Possibly the most notable example of this is Clinton supporting the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the legendary bill that gave hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel companies and allocated only a fraction of this money to renewables. The bill also contained Dick Cheney’s infamous Halliburton Loophole, which gave fracking companies special permission to inject toxic chemicals underground and essentially opened the doors for hydrofracking within the United States.

Hillary Clinton has also taken flack over the years for taking donations from fossil fuel interests. According to the most recent analysis by Open Secrets, Clinton has raised a total of $2,203,018 from energy employees, with $2,167,333 of this going to the campaign and the remaining $35,685 going to associated Super PACs. While there’s no way to connect the money she’s taken directly with particular policy decisions, some have claimed that this represents a conflict of interest in terms of her claims of being an environmentalist. Given her confusing voting record, recent shifts on controversial issues and her willingness to take fossil fuel funds, many accuse Clinton of green-washing her public persona for the election, especially in order to compete with Bernie Sanders’ pull with the environmentally-minded millennial generation. Objectively speaking, Hillary Clinton has supported environmentalism out loud but has generally done little to help the movement and on several occasions has directly supported policies that will hurt the environment.

Hillary Clinton’s Plan

Of the two front-runners, Hillary Clinton is the only one with an environmental policy at all, unless you call dismantling E.P.A. regulations an environmental policy. She has publicly committed to supporting and building upon President Obama’s Clean Power Plan as well as ensuring that the United States lives up to its COP 21 Paris Agreement commitments. Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta have both stated that while she would like to see a carbon tax imposed, given the current makeup of Congress such a law would be highly unlikely to pass. In its place, Clinton is committing to more achievable goals, which include increasing funding for renewables, research and development, and energy efficiency, all in the context of increasing American jobs. Even though she has voted for large subsidies for fossil fuel companies in the past, she currently advocates for cutting back funding for oil and gas interests and she has proposed getting rid of tax expenditures for the fossil fuel industry.

With regard to renewable energy, Hillary Clinton has an incredibly aggressive plan to increase proliferation of renewables throughout the country. The plan has two main parts, the first being the goal of installing half of a billion solar panels across the nation during Clinton’s first term. The second is to generate enough renewable energy to power every U.S. home within a decade. To do this she wants to expand upon the Clean Power Plan with a Clean Power Challenge, which would utilize competitive grants, tax incentives, and other market-based incentives to encourage and enable states to independently work toward renewable proliferation. The challenge also places a huge emphasis on updating the grid, improving its infrastructure, and thus also the reliability and efficiency with which it transmits energy. The challenge would include the creation of a fund or a prize that would help enable low-income families and communities to install rooftop solar panels. In addition to increasing renewable energy implementation in American communities, Clinton has championed utilizing public land in the West for solar arrays and wind farms as well as opening up offshore wind farming.

If these goals sound incredibly lofty and ambitious it’s because they are. In fact, they are more ambitious than really anything proposed by anyone before, with the possible exception of Clinton’s primary challenger Bernie Sanders. Many critics have projected that it would be literally impossible to make such a policy work without a carbon tax to make renewables competitive with America’s incredibly cheap natural gas supply. The fact that Clinton has chosen to not pursue a carbon tax and instead attempt to pass smaller scale measures through Congress have made many skeptical that she’s not going to be able to actually do enough to turn her plan into reality.

Realistically, she’s almost certainly right that a carbon tax wouldn’t make it through Congress, but it’s pretty unclear if her alternative plan would be any more welcome. The Clean Power Challenge would cost $60 billion, and its main selling point to Republicans would be that it is designed to create new job opportunities. However, this doesn’t change the fact that the challenge’s commitment to renewable energy flies against what the majority of Republicans are interested in supporting. To bypass Congressional gridlock, Clinton’s plan places a strong focus on using executive power to make these things happen. While it’s not Clinton’s fault, there’s only so much she’ll be able to accomplish solely through executive action; large chunks of her plan will certainly require Congressional approval.

So What Can Actually be Accomplished?

There have been numerous claims over the years that if X or Y region was properly utilized, it could provide enough energy to power the entire United States. While it is technically possible to power this country completely with renewable energy, these claims are often touted by people who don’t understand the engineering behind energy systems or by people with a zealous and innocent belief in what policymakers are capable of or willing to do. Currently, one of the most comprehensive plans for how the United States could run on 100 percent renewable energy has been created by renewable research heavyweight Mark Z. Jacobson and the Standford Precourt Center for Energy. Even this highly ambitious plan projects that if the necessary massive social and economic change were to happen in order to make such policies possible, and it was followed to the letter, the United States still wouldn’t be able to convert fully until 2050. One of the biggest impediments to such a nationwide conversion to renewable energy is that it would require every fuel source to be changed, including the liquid fuel we use to power our cars, trucks, boats, and planes. To completely transform the American transportation sector is a borderline impossible goal because while a solar panel or a wind turbine can feasibly connect to and power any home, most of our cars still run on gas. Electric cars just don’t have the mass circulation that would make such a change possible and to completely eliminate gas-powered cars would go against fair business laws.

What’s truly interesting about Clinton’s renewable plan is that she’s one of the first major politicians to call for opening up the use of offshore wind farming. There’s a good reason why the coastal regions of the United States have been called the “Saudi Arabia of Wind.” There is a massive amount of unused energy lying along our coasts that has been incredibly difficult to tap into thus far due to the extremely high cost of launching such projects, combined with the many public interests that bitterly oppose the industry. It is nearly impossible for Hillary Clinton to live up to her goal of powering the United States on 100 percent renewable energy. However, if she aggressively pursues spreading renewable energy throughout American communities, on public lands and offshore, she could still have a gigantic impact on our renewable energy makeup. The real question is whether she’d actually be able to make any of that happen or if her efforts will be completely blocked off by Congress. Unfortunately, we will simply have to wait and see what happens if she’s elected.

One of the more original and intriguing elements of Clinton’s plan is her proposal to create a Western Water Partnership with the goal of coordinating water use between the West Coast states and the different agencies that control water use within the region. Furthermore, she has proposed creating a Water Innovation Lab dedicated to utilizing and recycling water more efficiently. This proposal is one of the first of its kind in terms of addressing water scarcity in the West on a large scale and could be part of a much-needed solution to help alleviate the burden of the California drought. Clinton has also called for significant revisions to water infrastructure in the United States, including dams, sewage, and waste water systems. This is actually one of few ideas that she and Trump might actually agree on; Trump has stated that he believes water to be a vital issue and that it’s crucial that we update our water infrastructure. However, unlike Clinton, he has given no details on how to do this and has stated that he wants to remove restrictions on drilling near waterways, which would ultimately worsen the American water crisis. Clinton has also promised to protect public lands and prioritize wildlife conservation, in stark contrast to Trump’s announcement that he would open up all federally protected land to oil and gas companies.

Conclusion

Neither candidate has a sterling history of environmentalism, but only one candidate has actually made a commitment to combat climate change. If Trump were to become president, it would be possible for him to hinder progressive environmental policy by replacing the EPA leadership with climate deniers while fighting to remove environmental regulations. If his preferred candidates to lead the EPA were to get approval from Congress, then it would be feasible for him to undo a lot of the progress that has been made thus far with American environmentalism.

Clinton has a spotty record when it comes to the environment and has made dubious choices about many important issues in the past, such as the Energy Policy Act, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Keystone XL Pipeline. However, her current environmental platform has made her commitment to the environment clear and she has doubled back on all of her previous controversial positions (at least with regard to the environment). Whether her current stance is due to green-washing for the 2016 election, or due to Obama’s legacy of the Clean Power Plan influencing her opinions, or due to Bernie Sanders forcing her to move further to the left in the primaries, the end result is that she’s pursuing an aggressively progressive environmental policy. Whether her methods to make that policy a reality will be effective remains to be seen, but when it comes to environmental policy, Hillary Clinton is the superior candidate.

Resources

The Atlantic: How Green is Hillary Clinton?

Business Insider: Where Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Stand on Climate Change

Democracy Now: How Much Money has Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Taken from Fossil Fuel Companies?

Environmental Protection Agency: Summary of the Energy Policy Act of 2005

Fact Check: Clinton’s Fossil Fuel Money Revisited

Grist: Who’s Really in Charge on E.P.A. Rules? A Chat With Legal Scholar Lisa Heinzerling

High Country News: Are Hillary Clinton’s Clean Energy Goals Achievable?

Hillary Clinton Fact Sheets: Renewable Energy Vision

National Geographic: 4 Ways Green Groups say Trans-Pacific Partnership will Hurt the Environment

New York Times: Clinton’s Ambitious Clean Power Plan Would Avoid Carbon Tax

NPR: Fact Check: More on Hillary Clinton and Fossil Fuel Industry Contributions

Open Secrets: Hillary Clinton

Politico: Clinton Says her Keystone XL Position Isn’t a Flip Flop

Politico: Hacked emails from John Podesta: Clinton Disses Environmentalists in Private Meetings with Unions

Politico: The Politico Wrong-o-Meter: Fact Checking the 2016 Presidential Debate

Think Progress: Environmentalists: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a Disaster for Climate Change

Scientific American: Hillary Clinton’s Plan to Combat Climate Change

Sierra Club: Trans Pacific Partnership

The Washington Post: Campaign Finance 2016

The Washington Post: Bernie Sanders Thumps Hillary Clinton for Keeping Mum on the Keystone XL Pipeline

The Washington Post: Energy Bill Raises Fear about Pollution, Fraud

The Washington Post: Fact Checking the Campaigns for and against the TPP Trade Deal

The White House: What Environmental and Conservation Advocates are Saying about the TPP’s Environmental Chapter

Vote Smart: Hillary Clinton’s Voting Records

Vox: Here’s What it Would take for the U.S. to Run on 100% Renewable Energy

Time: Lobbyists Celebrate Democratic Party’s New Embrace at Convention

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Hillary Clinton Stand on Environmental Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

The Grid is the great bane of renewable energy aspirations in the United States. An all pervasive electrical infrastructure links together power plants, homes, and anything else that contains a switch or button. Regardless of the company with whom one is registered, everybody gets a share of everybody else’s energy. That is to say, all power companies inject their energy into the grid; a customer simply pays premiums to a particular producer.

The same principle applies with green energy. Supposing a customer gets his bills from Company Green, this does not mean that his home has a minimal carbon footprint; the building is getting energy from the grid, which also includes energy produced by Company Brown. There is still merit in this, though, as the more money a green energy company accrues, the more effective it will be at diluting the grid with green energy. Hopefully in time, the entire grid will be green. In the meantime, the grid poses additional challenges.

Solar power has been gaining ground as of late, but it continues to meet opposition from the large utility companies it threatens. The genius of solar power, aside from the fact that it is clean energy with massive potential (the Sun produces so much energy that an hour’s worth could power the entire Earth for a year), is that it decentralizes the grid.

Solar used to be an unreliable and erratic form of energy to inject into the grid and share among customers. Now, however, private homes can draw nearer to energy self sufficiency. Furthermore, solar-powered homes are able to contribute energy to the grid themselves. Utility companies balk at this, declaring that the grid is designed for one-way flow. They go further, writer Edward Humes explains, in attempting to label solar customers “as mooching ‘free riders’ who avoid paying their fair share for the grid.” This is a misrepresentation of the dynamic; utility companies are simply losing customers. If a more favorable alternative provides one with a chance to opt out of complete dependence on the previously established grid, why not do so?

The crowning cause of opposition by utility companies to solar power is the concept of net metering. This policy enables solar homeowners, upon producing surplus energy, to receive credits from power companies as they distribute it back into the grid. In this sense, customers can easily overcome the initial costs of retrofitting their homes with solar panels, as they will not only save money on their energy, but can actually make money selling it back. In what Al Gore calls the Utility Death Spiral, their losses exponentially increase as they lose customers to this process, then consequently must raise prices on those who remain, who subsequently leave the grid as well.

Another factor influencing the appeal of solar power and its grid decentralization is that the barriers posed by storage are less and less significant. Aside from playing a substantial role in the possibility of net metering and generating surplus energy to sell back, increased and more efficient storage capacity enables solar users to fill in the gaps in cloudy stretches or during the night and provides for a more fluid energy-consuming experience.Furthermore, it decentralizes the grid; the individual and the community are more able to place their energy and their fates in their own hands. As Humes points out, it can “allow homeowners to form small, super-efficient neighborhood micro grids that huge, costly utilities could never outcompete.” It would be efficient because the generation and use of energy would be based on the specific neighborhood’s needs, as opposed to a more generalized, business- and profi- motivated number.

A Solar Neighborhood, courtesy of Lauren Wellicome via Flickr

Micro grids are flexible, adaptable, and have geographic advantages. An insightful article from David J. Hayes at The New York Times showcases the merits of renewable energy in remote places where the grid thins out or is non existent. In small Alaskan villages, residents are compelled to utilize dirty and expensive diesel generators to meet their energy needs. Setting up a renewable energy system there on a micro grid would alleviate such a burden, while providing eco-friendly and more affordable power to the people. For residents in northern climes, Hayes details, wind power will probably be more common, while solar systems are likely to appear in more tropical settings. This furthers the argument, demonstrating that other forms of renewable energy can also operate on micro grids and provide all the advantages therein.

Solar power has also met opposition from the political and governmental arenas. Perhaps because the centralized nature of the current electrical system is conducive to the control and oversight preferred by ruling bodies, or perhaps because of initial economic barriers or higher perceived priority of other objectives, the necessary funding for solar installations is difficult to come by. While Arizona maintains the top spot in the country for its solar program, New Jersey often surprised people with the number two position. Now it has dropped to number five. Governor Christie and his cabinet have removed the rebate incentives for solar installations, and, in addition to diverting funding for solar and offshore wind projects to balancing their budget, have been providing subsidies for natural gas power plants.

While solar power and energy democratization may be slowly winning the battle against utility companies, there clearly are additional barriers to solidifying its foothold and future. Solar power is unique among current renewable energy options, though, as the economic incentives for it are in place; the transitions that must be made in order to come on board are very doable. That being the case, convincing the nay sayers of its viability will hopefully be more and more common. The future of solar power seems sunny indeed.

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 Solar Power Could Change Everything You Know About Energy appeared first on Law Street.

We tend to envision our oceans as blue and our lands as green; the residents of Toledo, Ohio, however, had a bit difference experience recently when they were faced with green water.

When municipal officials declared they found toxins in the city’s drinking water supply, residents refrained from using it entirely. Naturally they did not drink or cook with it, but the contamination was deemed so severe that even boiling the water beforehand would not be sufficient. Emma G Fitzsimmons of The New York Times relates that children and people with weak immune systems were urged not to bathe in such water either. As local bottled supplies ran dry, the National Guard arrived to disperse fresh water.

Eventually, investigators determined that a large Lake Erie algae bloom, the source of water for the city of Toledo and 11 million residents in the lake’s vicinity, was the source of the contamination. Algae refers to a very broad spectrum of aquatic organisms ranging from the microscopic and single celled to the giant kelp of the Eastern Pacific. A bloom results in the production of a large amount of peptides, compounds consisting of multiple linked amino acids, in this case called microcystin. This particular peptide is toxic to humans, inducing vomiting, diarrhea, and liver damage, Fitzsimmons relates.

A 2012 algal bloom in Lake , courtesy of Olga Nohra via Flickr

Algal blooms resulting from human activity are often caused by massive introduction of phosphorous into an aquatic system. Lake Erie has been plagued by blooms in the past, particularly in the 1960s and 1980s. These occasions tended to be the result of poor septic infrastructure and consequent excessive discharge of waste into the lake. Since then, those threats have been somewhat ameliorated; however, agricultural runoff continues to provide undesired phosphorous discharge into water bodies such as Erie.

It is difficult to impose barriers on the leakage of phosphorous into Lake Erie. Journalist Michael Wines clarified that,

“The federal Clean Water Act is intended to limit pollution from fixed points like industrial outfalls and sewer pipes, but most of the troublesome phosphorous carried into waterways like Lake Erie is spread over thousands of square miles.”

This process is called “non-point pollution.” There have been some initiatives to try and reduce the pollution output in the first place, by providing farmers with methods of reducing fertilizer use, for example. But enacting laws that set limits on pollution is a daunting task. They must go hand in hand with voluntary efforts by those involved with the sources of pollution, to more accurately calculate how much fertilizer and materials are necessary, rather than carelessly applying an estimated amount.

An issue that must be addressed throughout the course of the dialogue on this event is the fact that algal blooms choke off other aquatic life. They absorb a massive amount of oxygen from the water, and other biodiversity are hard pressed to survive. This should be sufficient motivation in and of itself to mitigate the causes of blooms. Furthermore, substantial damage to the ecosystems of a place like Lake Erie causes fish catches to plummet, causing threats to our food supplies and commercial endeavors. The health of the lake’s biodiversity is also tied into lay fishing and other forms of recreation, which in turn brings to mind the importance of tourism and the state of the regional economy.

Simultaneously, another city farther east is also concerned with the state of its drinking water. New York City is famous for its pure and high quality drinking water. This is in large due to the vigorous efforts of organizations such as Riverkeeper, that maintain a presence in the Hudson River estuary in attempt to protect it from polluters, dumpers, and violators of other environmental and water protection laws. The source of water for more than nine million urban residents has come under threat recently from a rise in oil shipment by rail right along river’s edge in the so labeled “bomb trains,” or cars that are prone to spillage and explosion. On top of this, one of the primary aqueducts in the water infrastructure is leaking, journalists Aaron Ernst & Christof Putzel reveal. If it bursts, over half the city could be left without drinking water. In the meantime, plans are for it to be diverted through a bypass tunnel while repairs take place, which could take several years.

One of New York City’s reservoirs in the Catskills, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

This case is the inverse of from Toledo; the problem is not the quality of the water, but the ability to deliver it. However, in the New York area there are many dangers to the quality of the water, and similarly the mediums by which Toledo’s water arrives in the city are an important factor when addressing phosphorous discharge and the quality of water resources. The cities face multiple and similar challenges: urban drinking water, water infrastructure, and reservoir protection. These concerns will only grow as cities expand and pressure on natural resources requires new approaches. If only two to three percent of the Earth’s water is freshwater, and the United States agricultural industry accounts for more than 75% of the nation’s water consumption, then civilian residents and policy makers face many challenges in ensuring that enough water remains drinkable and accessible to the people.

It is evident, then, that we humans are deeply entrenched in our environments. An ecosystem is very delicate, complex, and interconnected; a series of events in a remote corner may multiply and have unforeseen consequences elsewhere. It is vital for us to be more responsible in how we treat our water. We need it, the rest of the environment needs it, and we need the environment.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) 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 Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory 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 Lake Erie Algae Bloom Raises Questions on Water Policy appeared first on Law Street.

Environmental policy is a hollow shell if it lacks the crucial component that is the interest and engagement of the people. An Ossining, New York-based conservation organization called Riverkeeper seeks to merge these arenas by sparking communal engagement and care for their surrounding ecosystems, in particular the Hudson River, so as to more effectively pursue regulations and values that are conducive to a healthy environment and lifestyle. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in Riverkeeper’s eponymously titled biography, “…environment is not something distant and inaccessible to most Americans. It is not an issue that can be separated out and dealt with on its own. The environment is our neighborhood, our community. It is our quality of life.”

In the 1960s, a group of fishermen banded together to patrol the Hudson in search of environmental law violators. As the strength and breadth of the coalition that would become Riverkeeper grew, they became increasingly effective at pinpointing and prosecuting individuals and corporations who polluted the waters of the Hudson. After a half century, Riverkeeper is now a respected organization with various departments and manifestations throughout the country. Its founding principle of a “neighborhood watch,” which sparked its initial coalescence, remains a treasured and vital practice.

I recently joined my fellow Riverkeeper interns aboard the patrol boat, Fletcher, for an abridged estuary survey. Now in his fourteenth year at the post, Captain John Lipscomb detailed that a full patrol requires thirteen days, from New York City up to the mouth of the Mohawk River, the largest tributary of the Hudson. The key to a successful patrol, he explained, is to “…look, but also be seen looking.” Having people on the shores see the vessel and “Riverkeeper” emblazoned on the side of the hull is a deterrent; this is a powerful and often more preferable means of keeping the Hudson clean than catching violators red handed. Furthermore, it is advertising as well as policing. The boat’s presence and visibility raises environmental awareness; it gets the concepts into people’s heads and hopefully influences their behavior.

The Fletcher on patrol

Riverkeeper’s patrol has many other functions that tie into this philosophy of engaging the community. The organization seeks to empower the community with data, primarily with water quality sampling and subsequent output of its findings in reports. The EPA’s recommendations for testing in recreational waterways occasionally meets opposition on the basis that it is unnecessary because nobody swims at particular points on the river; however, designated beaches are not the only points at which people partake in river activities. During our patrol, as it was a hot and sunny day, we encountered a group of kids jumping from a low rocky precipice into the water and swimming about. The captain drew the boat near, and acquired their permission to snap a few photos. He intends to present this evidence of countless examples that clearly the people are partaking in recreational activity all along the water. This raises several points. First is that water sampling is undoubtedly warranted. Second, it speaks to the role of community members in environmental policy formulation, as well as the fact that such responsible policies are in the best interest not just of nature but the people as well.

Scenic Surprises on the Hudson

Riverkeeper has been passionately engaging the problems raised by the Tappan Zee Bridge construction project. In addition to outrage over the discovery that Albany was using clean water funds to finance the endeavor, the actual work is being done in a somewhat careless and haphazard fashion with regard to the delicate ecosystem by which it is surrounded. Captain Lipscomb has been documenting the number of dead fish discoveries, particularly the species as some teeter on the endangered list, in an effort to raise public awareness and induce a more responsible approach to the project with regard to the Hudson River’s biodiversity.

It goes without saying that an additional responsibility of the Hudson patrol involves active, first-hand clean up. Unfortunately, I was not surprised to see a substantial amount of trash choking the waterway. In fact, at one point we slowed the boat so as to draw out a fully intact television bobbing at the surface. Hopefully in time, through the work of Riverkeeper and other like-minded organizations and citizens, the amount of garbage that finds its way into the water will diminish to a negligible amount.

Captain Lipscomb wants to extend the range of the patrol into the Mohawk. If this is to be accomplished, Riverkeeper will need to cultivate relationships with other organizations in that area so as to effectively take on a mission of such large scope. This is already a philosophy of the organization. “We promote positive sustainable relationships; it is not in our best interest to sue everybody” clarified Dana Gulley, manager of the Community Outreach & Volunteer Programs at Riverkeeper. Rather, she added, it is important to communicate. Riverkeeper seeks to open dialogue and educate; if they encounter a violator, they approach them and ask if they knew they were polluting.

Beneath the Bear Mountain Bridge

These activities are not just for aesthetic conservation. More than nine million people in New York City and the surrounding area drink from the Hudson watershed. Human health and human culture are at stake in environment-society relationships. As Robert Kennedy Jr. and the first Hudson Riverkeeper John Cronin put it: “As Riverkeepers we protect nature, not so much for nature’s sake, but for the sake of humanity. Nature enriches us economically, but we have other appetites besides money. These hungers — spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic — must be fed if we want to grow as we are meant to — if we are to fulfill ourselves.”

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) 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 Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

All images courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

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 Riverkeeper: Patrolling the Hudson to Keep NYC’s Water Clean appeared first on Law Street.

Growing concerns about climate change and recognition of environmental hazards has lead to the development of many new markets. Environmental consulting is becoming a lucrative, expanding business. Firms in the industry assist other companies to reduce the damage done to surrounding environments while operating.

These services include environmental assessments, audits, natural resource and waste management, environmental policy development and licensing and permitting assistance. Environmental consulting firms help their customers understand regulatory processes and help to ensure that these regulations are met at low cost to companies.

Rising environmental concerns and the large mining sector in Canada have helped the Environmental Consulting industry over the past five years.

[PR Web]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mohamed Malik 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 Environmental Consulting Industry Booming appeared first on Law Street.

As congressional gridlock persists, companies have started targeting sympathetic Republican leaders in the house to fight California’s notoriously strict workplace, consumer protection, and environmental laws.  Officials are worried that many of these landmark laws may be in danger. New legislation to strengthen federal environmental laws on toxic chemicals would come at the price of invalidating an extremely strong California law that protects people against the most dangerous toxins.

The new law would give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to screen chemicals for safety rather than only being able to regulate chemicals that have already been proven dangerous; however, it could also prevent states from implementing their own regulations.  This is not the only instance in which strong state laws have been threatened by federal ones.  Just last year, a law that would have prevented California from enforcing its state water protections for endangered species made it through the house but failed in the senate.

[Latimes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes 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 Landmark California Regulations Under Attack appeared first on Law Street.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has issued a $40,000 penalty to South/Win Ltd. of North Carolina to settle environmental violations discovered following a 12,000-gallon methanol release in Leominster.

The spill occurred at the South/Win’s Nashua Street location where windshield cleaner and other automotive consumer products are produced.

Company employees discovered an apparent leak from a hose line used to transfer methanol from railcars to the building on March 7, 2011. A backflow valve apparently failed, discharging 12,000 gallons of methanol to the rail bed.

For a spill of this magnitude, notification to MassDEP is required within two hours of discovery; assessment and cleanup should begin immediately. The company did not notify MassDEP until March 10, and also did not hire an environmental contractor to conduct the cleanup until that date.

[Banker & Tradesman]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Paul-W 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 MassDEP Fines N.C. Company $40K for Environmental Violations in Leominster appeared first on Law Street.

A new measure passed by Oregon’s state legislature seeks to reduce by two-thirds the number of suction-dredging permits issued in salmon-producing areas. Senate Bill 838 is on Gov. John Kitzhaber’s desk and he plans to sign it, said Tim Raphael, his communications director. Kitzhaber has until Aug. 19 to sign legislatively-approved measures into law.

The bill, widely supported by environmentalists and harshly criticized by the mining industry, was approved by the senate on July 3, followed by the house on July 7.

Suction dredge mining employs a vacuum to suck up gravel from a stream bottom. Materials from the river bottom then go through a sluice to allow miners to strain out gold and other heavy metals.

Beginning in 2014, the law would set a limit of 850 permits for suction dredge mining on Oregon’s salmon-bearing rivers, matching the level allowed in 2009. There are roughly 2,400 permits allowed this year. In addition, the law implements new restrictions on where, when and how dredging can occur.

[Daily Tidings]

—

Featured image courtesy of [William Cho 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 New Dredging Law to Reduce Permits appeared first on Law Street.

Activists are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take a drastic regulatory step that could have significant repercussions for the U.S. economy. At issue is the Pebble Mine — a natural resource project in Alaska that could yield more copper than has ever been found in one place anywhere in the world.

With more than 80 billion pounds of copper, Pebble Mine also holds other strategic metals like molybdenum and rhenium, which are essential to countless American manufacturing, high-tech and national-security applications. However, before plans have even started to be developed, the EPA seems to have responded to activist groups, such as the National Resources Defense Council. The EPA has carried out initial assessments of the site and has already taken a position to veto the project before Pebble Partnership even applied for permits.

The goal is to kill the proposal before it starts. The NRDC and other activist groups worry that once in progress the project will continue unless stopped early on, saying that, “EPA’s study (and intervention) is critically important. If left to its own devices, the state of Alaska has never said no to a large mine.”

However, some groups are speaking out against this preemptive EPA vetoing power. The Center for American Progress, for example, has come out in favor of letting the permitting review take place, even though the group has criticized the Pebble Mine project.

[See Full Article: Alaska Dispatch]

—

Featured image courtesy of [emydidae 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 EPA Trying to Stop Pebble Mine appeared first on Law Street.