In 2002, I had the honor of attending the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, South Africa. This UN Conference brought the world together 10 years later to follow up on the historic 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Without getting into too many details here, many considered the WSSD a disappointment--a missed opportunity to make meaningful progress on a host of important environmental issues. The global community kicked the can down the road.
Twelve years later, the world has gathered again--this time in New York City. Yes, there are still some people making excuses, claiming that Climate Change is not real, that humans cannot possibly be responsible for changing the temperature, weather, climate of the entire planet. These Climate Deniers are a small but very vocal group that still have tremendous political influence in the United States. Fortunately, the rest of the world is not listening. Countries from Germany to China have realized: 1) the science speaks for itself, 2) this is happening now, and 3) we've already missed the chance to mitigate some harm. We'd better act NOW or else the harm will be a whole lot worse. Some clever people have also realized there's money to be made in new technology, and this doesn't need to be a "jobs vs. the environment" debate.
So, what are some news organizations most worried about? Whether or not a football player committed a crime (pick one), whether President Obama was disrespectful with his latte-salute, or whether one of the Kardashians or Jenners or whomever they are did X (pick anything).
Dear readers, this is all just one big distraction from things that really matter. We are facing real problems, and we're (humans) the cause of these problems. Today in Oklahoma, some guy cut off a woman's head apparently due to misguided religious beliefs. Wildfires burning near Lake Tahoe were started by an arsonist. ISIS and the Taliban are committing genocide and creating havoc in the Middle East while Putin is still making a mess in Ukraine. Perhaps most alarming is that ebola could actually turn into a global pandemic--in large part due to misinformation, lack of education, superstitions...and the fact that the global community is pretty much failing to fund any sort of meaningful response.
Really? Really?!? I look at my little boy sleeping peacefully as I write this. I wonder what world we're going to leave him? I am afraid it won't be nearly as nice as the world I was born into, and I hate that we as a country, as a species, can't figure out that we're wasting precious time on nonsense.
So, if you've taken the time to read this far, I ask you please--do this one thing. Make the world slightly better with your time here. I don't care what it is. Add beauty through art or music. Waste less. Be kinder. Invent something that makes things better. Learn something new, and share it. Help underprivileged kids. Just. Do. Something. Good.
And me? I'm about to start really educating myself much more thoroughly on Green House Gas emissions, renewable energy, and some related topics so I can take a more active role in this area. I will also be sharing these new insights in my blog. (Of course, if I happen to get involved in a dog-bite case, I may still talk about that too...) Twelve years ago I flew all the way to South Africa to try and make things a little bit better. I think now it is time to finally make good on that promise.
Showing posts with label "Environmental Law". Show all posts
Showing posts with label "Environmental Law". Show all posts
Friday, September 26, 2014
Friday, September 20, 2013
Something New
Six months--how they go by in a flash! Well, I may have taken a break from blogging, but the world is still moving. Happily, today's news indicates we're moving a step forward into the 21st century. The EPA just released NEW proposed rules for carbon limits for NEW power plants. This is good news. These rules would make it extremely difficult to get a new coal-fired plant approved, due to the amount of CO2 released from the burning of coal. Natural gas facilities, and of course renewables (wind, solar, etc) would have a much easier time passing the standards. The new rule caps CO2 emissions at 1100 lbs of CO2 emitted for each megawatt hour of electricity produced.
Why pick on coal? Simply put: coal is responsible for more CO2 emissions than other sources. In 2012, coal fired plants accounted for 18% of the energy consumed nationwide, but were responsible for 31% of energy related carbon emissions.
Anyone who watches television has seen ads for "clean coal technology." (Also known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or CCS). Unfortunately, CCS is an idea that hasn't really left the drawing board--yet. The problem with capturing and storing CO2 on a large scale is that it is currently unfeasible for two major reasons. First, from a logistical standpoint we lack the infrastructure to capture, transport, and store, significant amounts of CO2. Further, the energy required to do so negates most of the energy generated in the first place. It makes little economic sense.
Could that change in the future? Certainly. A few new coal-fired plants are being built in the U.S. and Canada that may be able to capitalize on technological advances. Interestingly the coal industry that promotes clean coal technology is fighting the new EPA rules--because even the coal industry cannot say if these new plants will actually be successful.
The EPA is doing what it can to limit the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and it is going after one of the biggest sources of CO2 with these new regulations. The next step will be tightening the regulations on existing power plants, especially the handful of oldest, dirtiest plants that are responsible for such a disproportionate amount of the CO2 emitted in the US.
Why pick on coal? Simply put: coal is responsible for more CO2 emissions than other sources. In 2012, coal fired plants accounted for 18% of the energy consumed nationwide, but were responsible for 31% of energy related carbon emissions.
Anyone who watches television has seen ads for "clean coal technology." (Also known as Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or CCS). Unfortunately, CCS is an idea that hasn't really left the drawing board--yet. The problem with capturing and storing CO2 on a large scale is that it is currently unfeasible for two major reasons. First, from a logistical standpoint we lack the infrastructure to capture, transport, and store, significant amounts of CO2. Further, the energy required to do so negates most of the energy generated in the first place. It makes little economic sense.
Could that change in the future? Certainly. A few new coal-fired plants are being built in the U.S. and Canada that may be able to capitalize on technological advances. Interestingly the coal industry that promotes clean coal technology is fighting the new EPA rules--because even the coal industry cannot say if these new plants will actually be successful.
The EPA is doing what it can to limit the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, and it is going after one of the biggest sources of CO2 with these new regulations. The next step will be tightening the regulations on existing power plants, especially the handful of oldest, dirtiest plants that are responsible for such a disproportionate amount of the CO2 emitted in the US.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Supreme Court Grants Cert on Exactions
Hi Everyone--
I know I've been writing about all things criminal here, but now I am getting back to my first love: environmental law. I don't always have the luxury of following cases purely because they interest me, but at least now there's a headline grabber in the environmental law field.
Most of you are probably familiar with the general idea of a governmental "taking." The idea is that if the government deprives you of your property directly, you are entitled to compensation. Well, the same is also true in situations where the government does not take your property from you, but denies that you can use your property in a certain way. In such circumstances, you may be entitled to compensation as well.
So, what if you own land that is protected by state or federal law, because of the presence of an endangered specie, or because it is critical habitat for a wetland, etc? Perhaps you would like to develop this land, but the state or federal government has told you either that you can't, or that you have to meet certain criteria before you can act? This is the realm of takings, mitigation, and exactions.
An exaction is essentially a condition that is placed on the property, requiring the property owner to mitigate the expected harm caused by the development of their property. In two landmark cases (Nollan & Dolan), the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that their had to be a logical connection between the restriction on the land, and the environmental harm the agency is seeking to avoid--this is the "essential nexus" test. Also, there must be a "rough proportionality" between the development's public benefit, and the burden being imposed. These criteria have been the basis for many takings cases in environmental law.
However, real property is unique, so any environmental impact, and each proposed restriction necessarily varies. This area of the law is not entirely settled, and new cases present new legal challenges. This past Friday, October 5, the Court agreed to hear the Koontz v St. John's River Water Management District case. The Supreme Court does not agree to hear many takings cases, so this is something somewhat special in environmental law. Here, the Court will decide two important issues: 1) whether or not an exaction occurs when the governmental agency has proposed the exaction; and 2) whether the Court's Nollan/Dolan test applies in cases beyond those that involve the public occupation of private lands.
I have not yet seen a date for when this case will be presented to the Court. However, it is likely that this will be a "hot topic" in environmental law circles. Perhaps this won't be met with quite the same excitement and press coverage as Health Care reform, but some of us will be watching to see what the Robert's Court decides.
I know I've been writing about all things criminal here, but now I am getting back to my first love: environmental law. I don't always have the luxury of following cases purely because they interest me, but at least now there's a headline grabber in the environmental law field.
Most of you are probably familiar with the general idea of a governmental "taking." The idea is that if the government deprives you of your property directly, you are entitled to compensation. Well, the same is also true in situations where the government does not take your property from you, but denies that you can use your property in a certain way. In such circumstances, you may be entitled to compensation as well.
So, what if you own land that is protected by state or federal law, because of the presence of an endangered specie, or because it is critical habitat for a wetland, etc? Perhaps you would like to develop this land, but the state or federal government has told you either that you can't, or that you have to meet certain criteria before you can act? This is the realm of takings, mitigation, and exactions.
An exaction is essentially a condition that is placed on the property, requiring the property owner to mitigate the expected harm caused by the development of their property. In two landmark cases (Nollan & Dolan), the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that their had to be a logical connection between the restriction on the land, and the environmental harm the agency is seeking to avoid--this is the "essential nexus" test. Also, there must be a "rough proportionality" between the development's public benefit, and the burden being imposed. These criteria have been the basis for many takings cases in environmental law.
However, real property is unique, so any environmental impact, and each proposed restriction necessarily varies. This area of the law is not entirely settled, and new cases present new legal challenges. This past Friday, October 5, the Court agreed to hear the Koontz v St. John's River Water Management District case. The Supreme Court does not agree to hear many takings cases, so this is something somewhat special in environmental law. Here, the Court will decide two important issues: 1) whether or not an exaction occurs when the governmental agency has proposed the exaction; and 2) whether the Court's Nollan/Dolan test applies in cases beyond those that involve the public occupation of private lands.
I have not yet seen a date for when this case will be presented to the Court. However, it is likely that this will be a "hot topic" in environmental law circles. Perhaps this won't be met with quite the same excitement and press coverage as Health Care reform, but some of us will be watching to see what the Robert's Court decides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)