Feed on
Posts
Comments

Nothing is more priceless and more worthy of preservation than the rich array of animal life with which our country is blessed.  It is a many-faceted treasure, of value to scholars, scientists, and nature lovers alike, and it forms a vital part of the heritage we all share as Americans.”

            - President Richard Nixon’s Statement on Signing the Endangered Species Act

This blog is a preview of Reexamining What We Stand to Lose: A Look at Reinitiated Consultation Under the Endangered Species Act, one of the articles featured in PELR’s upcoming winter edition. As the title suggests, reinitiated consultation is a critical feature of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and one that has been highly contested in recent years. Authors Catherine E. Kanatas and Maxwell C. Smith provide an in-depth look at the history of the ESA and potential impacts ongoing litigation could have on the legal basis, power, limits, and consequences of reinitiated consultation.

Reinitiated consultation plays a fundamental role within Congress’s statutory scheme, as the glue that holds the ESA’s protective scheme together. While the ESA generally prohibits any injury to an endangered species, Congress has authorized the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Marine Fisheries Service (Service) to permit such injuries under certain circumstances. However, without reinitiated consultation, these preauthorized injuries or “takes” would create gaping leaks in Congress’s Ark, leaving little or no safety to endangered species. Despite its central role, Congress never provided for reinitiated consultation within the act itself. While the Service has acknowledged this silence, the courts generally do not raise this question of statutory authority.

In light of the ambiguities within the ESA and Congress’s clear intent for agencies to reinitiate consultation expressed within the legislative history of the act, this article concludes that the practice is legally supportable. Given the significance of reinitiated consultation, and the likelihood that it is here to stay, the article explores how courts have reviewed suits concerning reinitiated consultation. This discussion highlights potential challenges and best practices for Federal agencies and permitees.  With few exceptions, courts have taken a surprisingly deferential approach to reviewing agency decisions to reinitiate, or more commonly not reinitiate, consultation. Nonetheless, some courts have taken a much stricter approach when considering the triggers for reinitiated consultation and have frequently insisted that those triggers be as meaningful and as exact as possible.

To learn more about the Endangered Species Act and reinitiated consultation, be on the lookout for Catherine E. Kanatas and Maxwell C. Smith’s Reexamining What We Stand to Lose: A Look at Reinitiated Consultation Under the Endangered Species Act in PELR’s Winter Edition.

Pace Environmental Law Review published an article in its 2013 Online Companion Volume 3 Issue 3 titled The Missing Link: U.S. Regulation of Consumer Cosmetic Products to Protect Human Health and the Environment by Valerie J. Watnick.  This article gave light to the inadequate federal regulations regulating the toxic and potentially carcinogenic substances found in cosmetic products we use everyday.   This article made me double check my lotions and shampoos to make sure my products did not contain any of the chemical substances mentioned in the article.  One of the article’s observations was the public’s false sense of safety from buying a product that is federally regulated.  After finding one of the toxic substances in my lotion, that false sense of safety has definitely been recognized.

The main issues found within this article were the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) strong anti-precautionary approach policy and their lack of recall authority.  There are gaping loopholes under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to allow industries to hide toxic substances under proprietary interests. Currently, companies can hide certain ingredients under general terms of fragrances to protect trade secrets. Under U.S. regulations, products are assumed safe until data provides otherwise.  Other major concerns raised in this article were the lack of regulations of endocrine disrupting chemicals found in 80,000 chemicals used in cosmetic products and the lack of regulations of nanomaterials.  Nanomaterials have been found potentially hazardous to health because of the size of the particles, which brings the risk of inhalation or movement through the skin.  Furthermore, there is a need for different regulations for products used on children because children are more susceptible to environmental harms and toxins.  The article continued to compare the United States’ regulations of cosmetics with Europe, Canada, and California.

Europe, Canada, and California take the precautionary approach dealing with toxic substances in cosmetics.  European regulations require an assessment of the safety of the product prepared through a product safety report before marketing. Endocrine disrupting chemicals and nanomaterials can be added to a list of prohibited ingredients for products as they are identified. Furthermore, regulators can recall products that do not comply with safety regulations.  Canadian regulations allow regulators to request evidence of the product’s safety. Regulators can stop the sales of the product until the information is provided.  California requires products to have warnings on them if they contain an ingredient that is on the hazardous chemical list.  A list of chemicals known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm are available on a public database.

The article concludes with a discussion on the new legislation pending in the House of Representatives that will have stricter regulations for cosmetic products. The Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act of 2013 would abolish the loophole to hide toxic ingredients under trade secrets.  Higher safety standards would be implemented and the FDA would have authority to recall products.  However, there has been no progress or movement of the bill as of today.

This article was enlightening and informative of the lack of regulations in the U.S. for cosmetic and personal care products. Moving forward, I hope our Congress can move along the Safe Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Act to ensure the safety of the American people and to shift the paradigm to a precautionary approach when it comes to products that families and individuals use everyday.

Fraud and First Amendment Protections of False Speech: How United States v. Alvarez Impacts Constitutional Challenges to Ag-Gag Laws was published in April of 2014 by Larissa U. Liebmann. The article discusses the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of certain statutes that criminalize false speech on employee applications, specifically those in the animal agriculture business. This article was particularly intriguing because one would assume that such a statute is harmless in keeping the employer’s interests protected from potential employees who have alternative motives beyond working as the typical employee. What these statutes are in fact trying to prevent are people gaining access to the facility and secretly filming any animal cruelty or other illegal activities. This article analyzes the probable outcome of these statutes facing a constitutional challenge against the First Amendment.

Ag-Gag laws make it a crime for employees to intentionally misstate facts on their job application to gain employment with the intent to exploit unlawful or inhumane practices in agricultural production facilities.  While an employer would argue that these laws protect their privacy that they are entitled to, the Ag-Gag laws also pose a threat in suppressing false speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. This article analyzes whether the speech restricted by the Ag-Gag laws are either content-based subject to strict-scrutiny or fraudulent speech, which would be subject to a lower scrutiny standard.

I find the article’s argument categorizing the restricted speech as a content-based restriction to be very convincing. The Ag-Gag laws limit what a potential employee can write on an application, therefore constraining a person’s speech. The article compares these laws to the Stolen Valor Act[1] and how they both criminalize lying, or “false speech” on employment applications. Under both of these laws, a conviction can only be made if the statement made was actually false. Therefore, this contingent is established on content, rendering the Ag-Gag laws a content-based restriction. Having a law that restricts content-based speech should be subjected to a strict-scrutiny standard under the First Amendment so long as it is not fraudulent.

The article continues on to explain that in order for speech to be considered fraudulent, there must be a casual connection between the speech being restricted and the harm alleged to result from that speech. Normally, a misrepresentation must have been said in order to deceive someone, which did deceive someone and so caused injury to the deceived victim. However, false speech is only fraudulent if it holds the potential to cause a given harm; without the link connecting the speech restriction to the potential harm, there is no fraud.

The main statutes under analysis in this article are the Ag-Gag statutes from Utah and Iowa.[2] Both explain their intent but do not state any type of harm in which they are seeking to prevent. The lack of specificity leads to the lack of the required nexus between a speech restriction and a potential harm. This would allow for these laws to be considered one that punishes fraudulent speech, subject to lower scrutiny. The statutes’ intentions imply the protection of certain dangers of having unauthorized personnel on the premises however there still lacks any hard evidence or proof of these dangers posing a threat.

After determining that the Ag-Gag laws are content-based restrictions, the conclusion is drawn that they would not survive a strict-scrutiny analysis, which requires the statute to have a compelling government interest that was narrowly tailored to by the law.  It would be hard to disagree that these laws would not survive a strict or heightened scrutiny due to their lack of a compelling government interest that is neither expressed in the actual statutes nor evidenced with proof. Utah and Iowa’s state Ag-Gag laws would be rendered unconstitutional under this analysis.


[1] 18 U.S.C. § 704(b), (c) (2012).

[2] IOWA CODE ANN. § 717A.3A(1)(b) (West 2013); UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-6-112(2)(c) (West 2013).

Pace Law School had the privilege of hosting Dr. Michael Oppenheimer for an hour-long lecture on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report. Dr. Oppenheimer was the lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report, and is a coordinating lead author of SREX (a special IPCC report on managing the risks of extreme climate events). Dr. Oppenheimer is currently the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Geosciences. Before Princeton, Dr. Oppenheimer spent more than 20 years at the Environmental Defense Fund.

 

Dr. Oppenheimer began his lecture, as the Firth Assessment Report begins, with a description of the planet’s greenhouse effect and distinguishing the greenhouse gas problem caused by humans. Dr. Oppenheimer pointed to two now well-known lines of proof for global warming: (1) temperature measures by continent are all rising, and the climate models are reproducing the same increase (this gives them credibility); and (2) greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes track together historically. Dr. Oppenheimer likened the greenhouse gas problem to a bathtub, saying that human-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere behave like water in a bathtub with a blocked drain: we just keep pumping them into the atmosphere and eventually their concentration will “overflow.” We are already seeing a lot of consequences of increased greenhouse gas concentrations—for example, the Arctic ice is very cracked and fragmented, when it used to be a solid sheet of ice. This is the biggest problem of the 21st century.

 

A fundamental component to the problem is how government handles risk—frequently, it is a step too late. Risk also includes the human side (how smart are we? How will we adjust?), not just the threat to the environment. Through the IPCC, national governments have claimed the climatic danger zone is an increase in global temperature of more than 2o Celsius, which corresponds to 400-450 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have already reached 400 parts per million; maintaining business as usual has the planet seeing a rise of 3-6o C.

 

Dr. Oppenheimer highlighted three particular risks from the Fifth Assessment Report that the planet faces as the climate changes, and which will be particularly aggravated if greenhouse gas emissions are not aggressively curbed: the heat index, crop yield, and coastal flooding. Dr. Oppenheimer discussed the heat index by using the concept of a wet bulb temperature, which takes into account the humidity as well as heat. A wet bulb temperature of 92o Fahrenheit is when normal human activity outside is potentially deadly. Under business as usual, this heat index risk will become a huge threat beyond the year 2100, when a significant portion of the summer is projected to see wet bulb temperatures in the deadly zone. Dr. Oppenheimer stated that crop yield declines are outpacing crop yield increases. This is because the benefits of the green revolution are running dry and because of the effect of a changing climate. Crop yields and food supplies will become a serious threat if the planet warms 3-4o C. Coastal flooding is a big risk because of the combination of stronger storms and higher sea levels; we will be seeing water where it hasn’t been before. This combination also has a multiplier effect: the hundred-year storm and flooding levels will happen every 1-10 years instead.

 

Dr. Oppenheimer then discussed the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a global level; adaptation, while critical, is not enough on its own. Dr. Oppenheimer highlighted the recent agreement between the United States and China to each reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by three percent every year. While certainly a tall order, it is within the realm of doable. Any greater annual emissions reductions, Dr. Oppenheimer stated, is virtually impossible. Dr. Oppenheimer illustrated the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by noting that we have already used about 65 percent of the planet’s total carbon budget (and the US has consumed the majority of that used portion). With China, India, Brazil, and other countries rapidly developing, we risk using up the remainder of the total carbon budget at a much faster pace, therefore realizing catastrophic climate change more quickly. The need to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is quite acute.

 

Dr. Oppenheimer ended with a poignant point: in spite of the notable risks and danger, we forget. Always. And much too quickly. Dr. Oppenheimer used flooding in the Hoboken subway station as a local example. In 1992, the station flooded as a result of a powerful storm. Immediately after, there were discussions and plans to storm-harden the station; ultimately, nothing of substance wound up happening because time went on and the memory of danger faded. Ten years later, Superstorm Sandy hit, and the Hoboken station saw the same flooding. We forget, perhaps because we inherently do not want to focus on threats and dangers for so long, for the amount of time necessary to see an actual solution to bulk up our resiliency and lower future risks. However, as Dr. Oppenheimer’s lecture very clearly illustrated, the changing climate is a threat we should try our hardest to not forget.

 

 

The Pace Environmental Law Program had the pleasure of listening to Wang Xi’s presentation on amending the environmental law in the People’s Republic of China on November 3, 2014. Wang Xi is the Vice Dean of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (the MIT of China) and Director of its Energy and Resources Institute. He has been an instrumental partner in Pace’s work with China over the past dozen years and a leading figure in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Wang Xi began his presentation by explaining the relationship he has had with Pace University. He also explained the friendship he had created with Professor Nolon. Wang then broke down his presentation into four sections; 1) the history of his research 2) the reason for the amendment 3) the results 4) and then the amendment’s future.

Wang’s first section of the history of his research, which is cleverly titled the “Seeds” section, explained his extensive studies. He studied US environmental laws from 1985-1987 and then in 1992 and 2005. After his research, he wrote a few books focusing on our laws and how they differed from China’s. The largest difference, he noticed, was how China’s law only focused on controlling corporations and never view regulating local governments as an option.

After noticing this significant difference, Wang’s next section of research (the “Growing” stage) focused on case studies and research reports between 2007 and 2010. His research concentrated on the difference between Chinese environmental laws compared to the US and other countries. He noticed the differences were large and there were many international policies that could be adopted to improve China’s environmental law; for example, he noted how China could benefit from the NEPA.

Wang’s last section of his research history was the “Harvest” stage which lasted from 2011-2014. Wang combined his research and case studies in order to draft a legislative proposal for the Congress of Ministry of Environmental Protection in both 2011 and 2014. His first proposal in 2011 was rejected because this was the counsel’s last term and they did not plan on making any drastic changes to the law. The newly appointed counsel in 2012 asked to view the report once more in order to examine it. Finally in April of this year, the counsel accepted almost everyone of Wang’s proposal points; adding 33 new articles into their law. Pace Environmental Law Review has the honor of publishing Wang’s achievements in our upcoming edition.

The report’s main focus consisted of the cooperation of three different actors; the government, enterprises, and the Chinese population. Wang stated that the reason for the amendment was to alter the way the government viewed the environmental. He stated that the Chinese government was focused on having a prosperous economy and never view the environmental as a problem. The problem with China’s history was that the local government was never regulated. There were some laws which regulated corporate pollution but the local government was completely overlooked. Consequently, Wang included the local governments in his research formulas and created a balancing solution that could help China.

The future seems bright for China’s environmental laws. Wang stated these laws strengthen the Chinese Supreme Court and how they view environmental problems. The laws also help stop the corruption of the local governments. In the past, local courts would dismiss environmental cases in order to look like there was no problem, which Wang described as “Local Protectionism.”  Chinese courts follow a Continental Legal System which rarely publishes their rulings (Germany has a similar system). Although now, courts are beginning to publish their rulings and reasoning in order to have a consistent view on legal problems, which can have a positive impact on the environment. Lastly, Wang stated that in the past, farmers were only able to bring tort claims in court when company’s would pollute a river that they use. As this law begins to alter, there is a possibly that citizens will begin to bring suits against their local governments for not regulating corporate misconduct. This could revolutionize Chinese law as we see it today. We can thank Wang Xi for that.

By Kat Fiedler, Associate Pace Environmental Law Review. Class of 2017

This year’s Gilbert and Sarah Kerlin Lecture on Environmental Law was given by Antonio A. Oposa Jr., Pace Law School’s Distinguished International Environmental Scholar-in-Residence. Mr. Oposa is an environmental litigator, organizer, and activist, and arguably one of the most creative minds in the field today. One of Mr. Oposa’s many accomplishments was achieving a holding in the Philippine Supreme Court that children had standing to sue on their behalf and on behalf of future generations – or what is now known as the “Oposa Doctrine.” Mr. Oposa’s work has been widely recognized throughout the world. Mr. Oposa was recognized by the United Nations Environment Programme Global 500 Roll of Honour. He also received the Philippines’ “Outstanding Young Man Award” in 1995 and is the only Asian to receive the International Environmental Law Award from the Center for International Environmental Law.

Mr. Oposa’s lecture was framed around several stories, and this was done with purpose. The act of storytelling itself is part of Mr. Oposa’s message.  He said that “words are paintbrushes,” and in telling stories about how we have treated the environment, we have attempted to validate the destruction we have caused. For example, in “disemboweling the earth,” we claim that we are making “progress.” We have long told ourselves, or have ourselves been told, stories of progress as we watch our homes being destroyed. Mr. Oposa emphasized that in order to change the future, we must change these stories and the meanings of these words we have used, for “we can’t paint the future with the same old paintbrush which we used to paint the past.” Among those words which we need to redefine are “environment” and “development.” Mr. Oposa also explained as land, air, and water are the ingredients for life, a change in perspective on these essential resources can change our actions. If we consider the trees and the forests as the lungs of the Earth, the land and soil as skin or flesh, and the seas and waterways as blood, we can begin to see the connectivity of life. And, more importantly, “once we understand this, we will go crazy to protect it.” Thus, in telling stories throughout his lecture, Mr. Oposa reflected the role storytelling has and will continue to play an intimate role in how we exist on this earth.

To say that Mr. Oposa’s lecture was inspirational would be an understatement. Mr. Oposa exudes courage and positivity in such a way that you can only feel the same. His energy is even more admirable given that he is painfully aware of the severity of the climate crisis and other environmental atrocities. Mr. Oposa has lived through tragedy beyond which many of us can imagine. Yet, he has found a way to transform every conflict and setback into opportunity through his enormous creativity and genuine belief that nothing is impossible. One such example is in the work he has done to combat dynamite-fishing in the Philippines. His efforts led to the arrest of fishermen who were using these practices. But rather than have them jailed, he insisted that they be placed on probation under the condition that they protect the sea that they destroyed through a program that came to be known as “Adversaries to Allies/Advocates Program.”

Amidst this creative and effective work, came great tragedy. Mr. Oposa’s work in limiting these fishing practices was seen as a significant threat to the commercial fishing, a threat that some thought was too great, despite the resulting protection of one of the richest marine ecosystems of the world. A bounty was placed on Mr. Oposa’s head. Under this same bounty, Elipidio “Jojo” de la Victoria, a friend and colleague of Mr. Oposa, was murdered. A second tragedy struck when his home was “erased” in Typhoon Haiyan, reaffirming the immediacy of the climate crisis. Yet, even in the face of these insensible losses, the strength of Mr. Oposa’s soul shines and he continues to view the world with hope and opportunity.

One of the reasons Mr. Oposa must be able to retain this positivity is that his creativity allows him to see solutions that have a sort of poetic beauty. For example, he says that since “extraction-consumption economics” got us into the crises we face today, only the opposite – preservation, will serve as the solution. This requires a transformation into “restorative economics,” which restores the goal of life: happiness. Mr. Oposa spoke of the success of his self-created “fish condominiums” which have helped restore fish habitat. One can now see fish “dancing” in the moonlight. Mr. Oposa said, “if we take care of the seas, they will not only feed us, they will dance for us.” Mr. Oposa also spoke of his “Share-the-Roads Movement,” in which he urged local governments to divide the roads in half, so that half can be used for human-powered transportation (i.e. bicycles and pedestrians). This is a logical action given that only 2% of people in the Philippines own cars. Again, thinking well outside the box, Mr. Oposa is in the brainstorming stages of an upcoming effort to push for intergenerational climate justice in the International Court of Justice.

This short summary only begins to exemplify the lecture of Tony Oposa. I have heard him described as an infectious speaker, but he is an infectious thinker and dreamer. While many say that we shouldn’t believe that anything is impossible, Mr. Oposa walks the walk.

Finally, Mr. Oposa graciously thanked countless colleagues and those who inspired him in such a way that I believe he would be disappointed with my attribution of the aforementioned efforts to his name, without the acknowledgment of others. Therefore, consider this as an acknowledgement of all who have worked and inspired Mr. Oposa. As he stated at the end of his lecture, “there is no limit to what we can achieve when we do not care who gets the credit.”

 

By Ryan Sharp, Associate Pace Environmental Law Review. Class of 2016

Last Friday September 12th, marked an amazing day for climate change awareness in Westchester, New York. In the second half of the day, two Pace law professors made two extraordinary speeches. Professor John Nolon gave the first speech. His speech highlighted the fact that for the first time sustainable development is favored by market and economic forces. Land Use plans in New York have become increasingly important post-Super Storm Sandy. Land Use plans, and specifically “no build zones,” can help ward against the climate change impacts that will eventually affect us. Professor Nolon seemed to be very optimistic about the role of local governments in handling the impending climate change impacts through land use law and plans.

Professor Karl Rabago gave the next speech. The highlight of his speech was about the Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) proceeding, which is happening throughout New York. The REV proceeding is a great way to get involved with the future climate impacts caused by energy production. Everyone should get involved with the REV proceeding. The utilities are charting the future of the NY energy market and it is a statewide concern. Smart grids are another great way to tackle climate change through the energy grid. The smart grid promotes energy efficiency and take advantage of advancements in technology to limit environmental damage.

Dean Richard Ottinger made the closing remarks at the summit. He stressed the fact that everyone needs to take the time and effort to influence our communities, because it will make a difference. “If what we do is small in the national scheme of things, it is still worth doing, because if we don’t act we will suffer the consequences.”

Overall it was a great and informative day. PELR was so very lucky to have a presence at this event.

By Drew Gamils, Associate Pace Environmental Law Review. Class of 2016 

On Friday September 12, 2014, Pace Law School’s Global Center for Environmental Legal Studies and Federated Conservationists of Westchester County hosted a daylong conference to discuss the impacts of climate change in Westchester County, New York State, and the surrounding New York metropolitan region.

The morning keynote speaker, Dr. Cynthia Rosenzweig, presented on “Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change in the New York Metropolitan Region.” Dr. Rosenzweig is a Senior Research Scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. She is in charge of the Climate Impact Group at the Institute. Her presentation highlighted the threats that climate change will impose on the New York region. Such threats include rising sea levels, fluctuating temperatures, and changing precipitation patterns.  The New York region has experienced an increase in mean average temperature by 4.4°F, an increase in temperature variability, sea level rise of over 1 foot since 1900, and a 75% increase in the heaviest rain events in the Northeast in the last 50 years. Dr. Rosenzweig proposed solutions and strategies available to municipalities and individuals to address these threats, but what can the legal community do to develop solutions to combat climate change?

The New York regional area local climate record shows that there has been an increase in extreme events with increases in higher temperatures, heat waves, heavy rains, and huge snow storms. These extreme events no longer appear at random and have been occurring on a more regular basis. Scientists are working hard to make projections to facilitate risk-based decision making in the metropolitan area. These projects incorporate a range of possible outcomes based on climate model results and different predictions for future greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, it is critical to community resilience to develop flexible approaches to deal with climate change impacts. These flexible adaption pathways must use both adaptation and mitigation methods at the same time to respond to climate change. These flexible adaptation pathways refer to adaptation approaches that focus on the uncertain and long-term nature of climate change using risk-based decision making. Furthermore, regional responses must incorporate legal and policy solutions that are also flexible to appropriately adapt and respond to a changing future.

These flexible adaptation pathways involve several steps of assessment and implementation to prioritize, plan, monitor, and reassess strategies and solutions. In New York City the flexible adaptation pathway approaches focus on minimizing the risks to critical infrastructure that will result from sea level rise, high temperatures, and changing precipitation patterns. There are lots of players involved in creating resilient communities in the metropolitan area. Successful approaches to resilience action requires consideration of policy, engineering, ecosystem, and social approaches. The legal community needs to also consider adaptation and mitigation solutions to adequately develop appropriate laws and regulations to address the issue of climate change. It is important to consider the scientific literature and model based outcome projections. Decision makers make decisions on uncertainties every day, what is key is to be clear about what the uncertainties are and seriously consider the future projections to take on a probabilistic approach to legal and policy solutions. Overall, it is important to consider these solutions on a regional scale.

Scholars from across the globe have been making inspiring, informative presentation over the course of the conference, but Pace Law School was fortunate to send three of our own incredible scholars to present!

Dean Emeritus Richard Ottinger and John Bowie (recent alum, and–well–you all know him!) presented their recent collaboration, a paper that provides a survey of private financing mechanisms for renewable energy, entitled “Innovative Financing for Renewable Energy.”  Dean Ottinger framed the topic and then allowed John to take the reins! He so eloquently discussed six of the numerous case studies presented in the paper, and the presentation elicited many positive questions and comments from the audience.

In the afternoon, Professor David Cassuto gave a vibrant presentation on the interstate water dispute between Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, specifically the three states’ competing claims for the water of the Chatahoochee River. Florida petitioned the Supreme Court to decide the issue, and we will see what happens!

The afternoon concluded with a presentation by Dr. Ludwig Kramer, University of Bremen, Germany, who delivered a lecture on The Integration of Energy Requirements into Environmental Policy. His presentation united many of the themes thrown around throughout the competition and ultimately demanded that we each “take action!”

PELR definitely heard the call! What an inspiration!

Tarragona Updates!

The IUCN Colloquium officially kicked off Wednesday morning with a keynote speeches from Michael Gerrard and Zen Baruch.  Professor Gerrard, Director of the Columbia Center for Climate Change Law, discussed climate change adaptation in the urban energy utility sector, using the 2013 Consolidated Edison Rate Case as a case study.  Having participated in the proceeding through his work at the Pace Energy and Climate Center, John was very excited to see climate change law discussed with the international academic environmental law community.  Energy and environmental law have truly reached a nexus.

We later attended break out sessions throughout the day.  First, we attended a unique  presentation describing a alternative ideologies and world-views that have the potential to inform the discussion and regulation of energy law.  The workshop included discussion of ancient cosmologies, religious theory, and indigenous ethical regimes.

Our afternoon breakout group discussed energy law and environmental justice, specifically constitutional principles creating stronger environmental rights.  Professor Cassuto argued with presenter and Widener Law Professor, Jimmy Mays, about whether Batman or Superman would win in direct conflict. More importantly, Professor Cassuto’s argument also questioned the enforcement mechanisms and practical and effective application of constitutional rights to the preservation of the natural environment.

The day concluded with an IUCNAEL tradition: wine tasting!  Universitat Roviera i Virgila has a school of oenology and vineyard, and they were quite generous in sharing their craft.    We ended the first full day of the Colloquium watching the International Fireworks Competition over the Mediterranean.  More to come!

Older Posts »