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.

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.

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.

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) has crossed party lines before, and she says she will do it again–the politician announced that she would not support President Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt.

Collins will not vote for Pruitt, the current Oklahoma Attorney General, at his confirmation hearing because of concerns over his numerous lawsuits against the EPA and potential impact on clean air in Maine. She is the only Republican to voice her opposition to Pruitt so far. 

In a statement, Collins said that she supports EPA regulation of fossil fuel-powered plants to reduce air pollution:

The state of Maine, located at the end of our nation’s ‘air pollution tailpipe,’ is on the receiving end of pollution generated by coal-fired power plants in other states. Reducing harmful air pollutants is critical for public health, particularly for Maine which has among the highest rates of asthma in the country. Controls for mercury, one of the most persistent and dangerous pollutants, are especially important for children and pregnant women. Moreover, there is no doubt that the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change pose a significant threat to our state’s economy and our natural resources, from our working forests, fishing, and agricultural industries, to tourism and recreation.

Pruitt, meanwhile has questioned the extent to which human activity has affected climate change. During his statewide campaigns, he also received money from donors with strong ties to fossil fuel industries.

This isn’t the first time Collins has opposed one of Trump’s cabinet picks before. Earlier this month, she and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) were the only two Republican senators to vote against Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.

Collins has a history of taking a more centrist approach to politics, particularly when it comes to social issues–her voting record has shown that she is mostly pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage.

During the election, she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that she would not vote for Trump, and condemned his attacks on a disabled reporter, Mexican-American judge, and the parents of a soldier killed in Iraq.

When Trump announced an executive order at the end of January that would restrict immigration to the United States from seven Muslim-majority countries, Collins was one of a handful of Republican lawmakers to speak out against the ban.

She told the Maine Sun Journal at the time that the ban could hurt Iraqi citizens working with the U.S. military and that “religious tests serve no useful purpose in the immigration process.”

Because there is a 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate, more Republicans would need to cross the aisle to join Collins (assuming that the Democrats vote unanimously against Pruitt, which may not happen) and defeat his nomination. The Betsy DeVos vote last week came down to a 50-50 tie, with Vice President Mike Pence casting the final vote in her favor.

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 Senator Susan Collins Says She’ll Oppose Trump’s EPA Pick 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.

News of the Volkswagen diesel scandal broke last week when the Environmental Protection Agency issued a notice of violation to the company alleging that it installed software that allowed certain diesel cars to cheat U.S. emissions tests. On Tuesday, VW announced that as many as 11 million cars are affected worldwide, including nearly 500,000 in the United States. VW could face fines of over $18 billion for the deception, which caused cars to emit 10 to 40 times more than established standards. VW has already apologized and said that it will be doing everything possible to rebuild the trust of its customers and to cooperate with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) investigation.

Here are the five things you should know about the scandal so far:

1. What Happened?

The issue here involves the use of what the EPA calls a “defeat device,” which VW installed in its 2.0-liter diesel engine cars (see the list of affected cars below). The device allowed certain diesel cars to determine when they were undergoing an emissions test, at which point it would use full emissions control systems. However, when the car is not in testing mode, its emissions controls are turned off, causing it to emit Nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times higher than the law permits. This scandal also reveals some of the issues with the current system for emissions tests. Because the tests are done in a lab, under very specific conditions, VW was able to program its cars to determine when a test was being conducted.

Ironically, the violation was discovered by the International Council for Clean Transportation, which was trying to prove to European regulators that diesel cars could be clean. Researchers found that when the cars were tested indoors using the established protocol for emissions tests, the cars met the regulation standards. But when measured in normal conditions there was a notable increase in emissions. The council alerted the EPA and after a series of exchanges, the agency notified Volkswagen that its cars were in violation of Clean Air Act standards.

2. It Was Deliberate

After the International Council for Clean Transportation alerted the EPA and the California Air Resource Board (CARB) of the test discrepancies, the CARB ran its own tests and then approached the company. According to CARB’s letter to Volkswagen, the company conducted its own testing then recommended a re-calibration to fix the emissions issues. VW then issued a voluntary recall to re-calibrate the cars, which it claimed had fixed the issue. It was only until CARB ran tests to confirm VW’s claims that VW admitted to installing a “defeat device” to circumvent emissions requirements.

Put simply, VW ended up admitting to installing the defeat device, but only after a series of back-and-forth with the EPA and CARB. According to the EPA’s letter to letter to VW:

It became clear that CARB and the EPA would not approve certificates of conformity for VW’s 2016 model year diesel vehicles… Only then did VW admit it had designed and installed a defeat device in these vehicles in the form of a sophisticated algorithm that detected when a vehicle was undergoing emissions testing.

From the beginning, Volkswagen knew what it was doing when it programmed its cars to switch between a testing mode and a driving mode. This is compounded by the fact that the company didn’t readily admit what it had done until it became a business imperative–it acknowledged that it installed a defeat device only when it realized its 2016 models were not going to get EPA approval.

3. More Evidence Could Come

As it currently stands, the EPA is investigating VW for violations. The agency currently has some pretty strong evidence and the company has already admitted to installing a defeat device. But based on the EPA’s tone, it intends to take a very close look at the company’s practices. The EPA’s investigation is just starting now and the Wall Street Journal reported that the Department of Justice is looking to get involved as well. This comes after the Department of Justice revised its guidelines for prosecuting corporate crimes. The Justice Department could use the VW scandal as an opportunity to show off its newfound desire to prosecute responsible individuals in cases of corporate crime.

Volkswagen could face additional punishment if European regulators decide to take a closer look at the company as well. Although the United States has some of the strictest emission standards and notably strong enforcement, the company may still have programmed its cars to circumvent other countries’ emissions standards.

4. This will Hurt Volkswagen

The defeat device was installed in approximately 11 million cars around the world including 482,000 cars in the United States. According to the EPA’s notice, VW can be fined up to $32,500 per car, meaning that fines could exceed $18 billion if regulators seek maximum penalties–and that’s just for violations in the United States.

It is important to note that while an $18 million penalty is possible, it is unlikely that VW will get the maximum. As Business Insider notes, maximum fines are rarely sought, and the largest fine from Clean Air Act violations was the $300 million penalty given to Hyundai and Kia last year. Hyundai and Kia’s offense involved overstating the gas mileage of 1.2 million American cars, which was more than twice as many vehicles in the VW scandal. However, Hyundai and Kia maintain that their mislabeling was a result of procedural failures and was not intentional. While the Volkswagen scandal appears to have affected fewer cars, the available evidence indicates that VW’s deception was both intentional and sophisticated. The company will likely face a sizable fine that may even break the previous record, but it remains unlikely that it will be anywhere near $18 billion. Since the initial announcement, Volkswagen stopped selling all affected 2015 and 2016 models.

On Monday, the first day of trading since the EPA’s notice, Volkswagen’s stock fell by nearly 20 percent–erasing close to $15 billion in market value in one day. So far, the company has not issued a recall, but that will certainly come. In a company announcement released on Tuesday, VW said that it plans to set aside close to $7.5 billion to deal with the 11 million affected cars.

5. What’s Next?

As of right now, owners of affected cars don’t need to do anything–although these cars do not comply with Clean Air Act regulations, they are still safe to drive. But a recall will be coming, which means that owners can expect VW to contact them about servicing their car to make it compliant with emissions standards.

What exactly will need to be done to get the cars in compliance remains unclear. It is possible that because the defeat device is software related, a programming change may suffice. While that would cost significantly less for Volkswagen and likely mean less time-consuming repairs for owners, doing so will likely result in reduced fuel economy and performance. If a software fix is not enough, the cars may require much more costly fix that could involve adding new emissions control systems to the vehicle. Again, these costs will not affect car owners, but if the latter is required it may take a lot longer for the recall to be implemented.

Here are the models affected by the recall:

• Jetta (model years 2009 – 2015)
• Beetle (model years 2009 – 2015)
• Audi A3 (model years 2009 – 2015)
• Golf (model years 2009 – 2015)
• Passat (model years 2014 – 2015)

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 Five Things You Should Know About Volkswagen’s Diesel Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine the military visiting your hometown for special training exercises. Their activities wipe out your cell signal and keep your car from starting. Their exercises make so much dust and noise, you can’t hear, see, or think straight for days.

That’s okay right?

Probably not. Yet marine mammals have suffered equivalent disruptions to their daily lives during naval exercises for decades. The active sonar used in training exercises interferes with their primary guiding sense of hearing and causes them to flounder during simple tasks like feeding or navigation. As the exercises grow in size and sophistication, so does the extent of the damage they cause. Since marine mammals can’t defend themselves, several environmental organizations stood up to the government agency that’s supposed to defend them. Here’s what happened when environmentalists took on the government to save the whales, dolphins, sea turtles, and other marine animals.

Naval War Games Aren’t Games For Marine Mammals

The Navy strives to “maintain, train, and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas.” The Navy makes sure it is capable of winning wars through training exercises, often called “war games.” Last year, the Navy planned a series of trainings classified as “military readiness activities” to occur over the next five years in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing (HSTT) study area. A major downside of the trainings? They use active sonar that could potentially kill and injure the marine mammals living in the HSTT region.

Using active sonar just means you’re shooting sounds, called pings, into the water to listen for echoes. Sonar stands for “sound navigation and ranging” because the echoes returned from the pings help people and animals find and navigate around objects in their path. You can’t control the path of a ping; under water they spread out in ripples, touching everything in a given radius. This can get really noisy, really fast, as illustrated by this abstract rendition of sonar below.

If the ping hits a pile of rocks, no harm done. If the ping hits a marine mammal with ultra-sensitive hearing, it can interfere with their basic survival functions.

Marine mammals have evolved with an attuned sense of hearing that enables them to navigate through the murky undersea world, communicate with other animals, and even find food. Hearing is a marine mammal’s primary survival tool. So when military sonar pings rocket through the waves every few seconds, marine mammals can’t perform the most basic functions of life. Ships with sonar cause whales to stop eating and migrating like they should. If the animals get too close, sudden sounds can damage their life-giving hearing permanently and they could be perpetually disoriented forever. For humans, this would be like trying to walk, talk, and drive with continuously fogged-up glasses.

Even the vibrations from the sounds can cause damage under water. You know how the sound of many live drums can make it seem like your whole body is vibrating? Now imagine that times ten. When you hear on land, only your eardrums vibrate. Under water, sound waves rattle and penetrate your entire body. Intense noises–like those used in the naval trainings–can cause deadly hemorrhaging in marine mammals as powerful sounds penetrate their bodies.

This video shows how whales react to the screeching sounds of Navy sonar. They cluster closer to shore, stop diving for food, and change their swimming directions erratically. Some whales even beach themselves in an effort to escape the piercing sounds.

The Navy has been using active sonar in its trainings for years and environmental groups have fought it for almost as long. Past court rulings weighed the need to protect the public over the life of marine mammals. However, the Navy’s latest planned trainings in the HSTT area pushed the marine mammal death toll past levels evaluated in the past. The new exercise plan would include 500,000 hours of sonar, in other words, 500,000 hours of possible damage to marine mammals. According to this Washington Post article, the Navy’s own damage estimate stated 155 animals would die, 2,000 would be permanently injured, and 10 million would have their lives disrupted by the exercises. The Natural Resources Defense Council says this marks an 1,100 perecent increase when compared to other trainings from the past five years.

Armed with new facts and figures, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Cetacean Society International, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the Pacific Environment and Resources Center* brought forward a new lawsuit they hoped would succeed where similar efforts had failed in the past. Their case was named Conservation Council for Hawai‘i et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service et al.

The Case

The plaintiffs didn’t go after the Navy itself, but the regulatory agency that approved the Navy’s training plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Here’s a snippet from their mission page:

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, NOAA Fisheries works to recover protected marine species while allowing economic and recreational opportunities.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibits the “take” (defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill) of marine mammals. When the Navy planned its new training exercises, it had to apply for an exception to this rule through NMFS. Their application outlined the potential death and injury counts, but the NMFS deemed those losses negligible. The attorneys on the case countered that the NMFS evaluation of the marine life damage neglected to grasp and acknowledge the full extent of potential damage caused by the Navy trainings.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) calls for the government to protect endangered and threatened species. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the “ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out, will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species, or destroy or adversely modify any critical habitat for those species.” Attorneys said the NMFS clearly neglected their duties under the ESA as many of the marine mammals found in the Navy’s massive HSTT study area are endangered.

The Verdict

U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway ruled the NMFS had fallen short of its legal obligations to marine mammals by approving the Navy’s proposed training plan. She called the NMFS decision to refer to marine mammal damages from the naval exercises negligible, “arbitrary and capricious” and in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. She also confirmed NMFS’s violation of the ESA, as eight of the thirty-nine marine mammal species living in the HSTT study area are endangered.

While the ruling affirmed the charges brought against the NMFS, specific remedies won’t be decided for the next few months. The decision marks a battle won, but it’s not quite the end of the war.

A Compromise?

The Natural Resources Defense Council released a statement from case attorney Zak Smith, summarizing what it hopes to get from the case:

The Navy has solutions at its disposal to ensure it limits the harm to these animals during its exercises.  It’s time to stop making excuses and embrace those safety measures.

Environmental groups aren’t asking for a complete cease and desist of all naval trainings involving active sonar. They’re just demanding the military use some of its extensive resources to develop safety measures to mitigate marine mammal damage. One option would be decreasing the test area size. Right now, the HSTT test area covers about 2.7 million square nautical miles, an area about the size of the entire United States. Another option is taking particular care to avoid areas where animals might be mating, giving birth, or feeding.

In the video above, Ken Balcomb from the Center for Whale Research says the Navy just needs to learn when and where to practice. He says just as the government would not test nuclear weapons in a crowded downtown area, they should not test active sonar in oceans teeming with delicate and endangered wildlife. For now, environmental groups remain optimistic that trainings and marine mammals can coexist safely.

Resources

Primary

Federal Register: Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Hawaii-Southern California Training and Testing Study Area

Environmental Protection Agency: Endangered Species Protection Program

Additional

Washington Post: Navy War Games Face Suit Cver Impact on Whales, Dolphins

One Earth: A Silent Victory

Smithsonian Ocean Portal: Keeping An Ear Out For Whale Evolution

Los Angeles Times: Judge Rules Navy Underestimated Threat to Marine Mammals from Sonar

Natural Resources Defense Council: Court Rules Navy War Games Violate Law Protecting Whales and Dolphins

Natural Resources Defense Council: Groups Sue Feds for Putting Whales and Dolphins in Crosshairs throughout Southern California and Hawaiian Waters

Natural Resources Defense Council: Lethal Sounds

Law 360: Navy Loses Training Authorization Over Animal Concerns

Earthjustice: Sonar Complaint

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Government vs. Environmentalists: Who is Protecting Marine Wildlife? appeared first on Law Street.

Wood is the oldest and most reliable source of heat known to man. Twelve million Americans still use wood stoves to heat their homes. Wood is less expensive than natural gas or electric, and is readily available in rural areas that may not have reliable gas or electric lines. However, there have been some concerns about the environmental inefficiency of wood burning as well as its health effects. Read on to learn about the arguments for and against regulating woodburning stoves.

What are the concerns about wood burning stoves?

The pollution caused by burning wood has been linked to asthma, damaged lungs, and early deaths in areas where woodburning is common. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its desire to institute regulations that would ban all woodburning stoves that release more than 12 micrograms of particular matter per cubic meter, a requirement that 80 percent of stoves currently in use would not meet. This regulation would cause all new wood stoves to burn 80 percent cleaner than stoves manufactured under the existing 1988 regulations. While the EPA regulation promises to cut down on air pollutants and would not affect wood stoves already in use, the proposed ban has been met with opposition by those who believe it will have adverse effects on the wood-stove industry and prohibit many buyers from purchasing. Opponents also dispute the actual impact this ban would have, arguing that the areas with the most air pollution are the areas that contain the least amount of wood stoves in use.

What are the arguments in favor of regulating wood burning stoves?

Supporters of the EPA’s proposal argue that while current wood stove owners will not be affected, future wood stoves will reduce harmful emissions by 80 percent, cutting down on air pollution and saving Americans money on health care. The particles released by burning wood have been linked to lung damage, asthma, shorter life expectancy, and climate change. The EPA estimates that these regulations will provide Americans with $1.8-$2.4 billion in annual health savings, and will reduce carbon dioxide, methane, and black carbon emissions as well.

While eco-friendly wood stoves are more costly to make and purchase, the EPA and its supporters argue that individuals will see returns in the long run in reduced healthcare costs and improved overall health. Some states have already needed to decree woodburning bans for short periods of time. In December 2013, Utah banned wood burning in five counties when weather conditions and increased wood burning led to dangerous levels of particular matter in the air around these areas. Similar actions have been taken in parts of Alaska. Advocates of the EPA’s ban see these events as signals that stronger federal action needs to be taken to ensure wood-stove pollution does not produce lasting damage. Supporters also emphasize that the proposed regulations would only come into effect in 2015, and that they would not affect wood stoves already in use.

What are the arguments against regulating woodburning stoves?

Opponents argue that these regulations will destroy the wood-stove industry, costing many Americans jobs and financial stability. The regulations will make the production of wood stoves more expensive, and with the majority of wood-stove buyers being rural, low-income families, this ban on cheaper, less-environmentally friendly stoves could cause a reduction in stove sales and cause many wood-stove manufacturers to go out of business.

Although the ban will only affect newly manufactured stoves, citizens will be prevented from selling their old, inefficient stoves, making them incapable of trading their old stoves for a new one. Many opponents also see these regulations as an example of what they call the EPA’s “Sue and Settle” policy. Opponents accuse the EPA of working in tandem with large environmental groups and state agencies in a process whereby the group will sue the EPA for not going far enough in its restrictions and regulations, and instead of going to court the EPA will settle out of court by offering to impose what some believe are pre-determined regulations on manufacturing, allowing both the EPA and environmental groups to get what they want through the façade of a lawsuit. Shortly after the wood-stove ban was proposed, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Oregon, and Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against the EPA claiming it did not do enough to reduce air pollution and demanded that the EPA add woodburning water heaters to the list of regulated woodburning appliances. Opponents of the regulations have cried foul and accuse the EPA of using a corrupt scheme to impose regulations that will force wood stove manufacturers out of business and will make it more difficult for rural families to heat their homes.

Conclusion

Woodburning stoves are a simple way that people can provide energy — particularly heat — for their homes. But they’re not always the most efficient or environmentally friendly way to do so. The potential health concerns have also led to worries. As a result, the EPA has taken action to try to change the ways in which woodburning stoves are regulated. There are many proponents of the stoves, as well as those who want to see them done away with, but change and regulation will be slow to develop.

Resources

Primary 

Environmental Protection Agency: Source Performance Standards for Residential Wood Heaters

Additional

Climate Progress: No, President Obama is Not Trying to Make Your Wood-Burning Stove Illegal

Fox News: EPA Proposes Restrictions for New Wood Stoves

Washington Post: EPA Moves to Regulate New Wood Stoves

NewsMiner.com: Feds Announce Plans for Stricter Wood Stove Regulations

Climate Progress: EPA Unveils Long-Awaited Regulations to Make New Wood Heaters Burn 80 Percent Cleaner

Clovis News Journal: People Justified to Get Heated on Stove Rules

Forbes: EPA’s Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People

New American: EPA Wants to Snuff Out Wood and Pellet Stoves

Inquisitr: EPA Wood Stove Bans Include 80 Percent of Burners Now on the Market

Independent Sentinel: EPA Bans Most Wood Burning Stoves in a Corrupt Scheme, Fireplaces Next

Troy Record: EPA Wood Stove Ban is Heating Debate

Newsmax: EPA Wood-Stove Proposal Prompts Rural Backlash

Rural Blog: EPA Proposes Regulations Limiting Particle Pollution From New Wood-Fired Stoves and Furnaces

National Conference of State Legislatures: Regulating Fireplaces and Wood-Burning Stoves

Gazettenet.com: U.S. EPA Issues Tougher Regulations For Residential Wood-Burning Devices

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Heat is On: The Debate Over Woodburning Stoves appeared first on Law Street.