One of the reasons that I became an attorney is that I felt it was (is!) an honorable profession that helps make the world a better place. One of my law professors described my legal education as both a sword & a shield. The shield is so you can defend yourself, or your clients, from wrongs that may be committed against you or them. The sword is so you can go an actively smite wrong doers that may have harmed you (or them), or attempted to do so. I like that idea. While I am a live and let live person by nature, I cannot stomach people who try and take advantage of others. Someone needs to be willing to stand up to the wrong doer.
So, it always saddens me when I hear of lawyers behaving badly. As attorneys, we have ethical obligations to be honest, fair, etc. Because we are officers of the court, and due to the nature of our training, we must adhere to a higher standard. There's little that is very tricky--most of the ethical rules are pretty common sense. Nevertheless, every month there are new reports released of lawyers doing something fundamentally wrong.
The latest I saw (in The Daily Transcript this week) is a law firm that is being sued by Yelp for allegedly using its own employees posing as clients to write positive reviews on Yelp about their own firm. OK, back one step: you've heard of Yelp, right? It is a website that will give you the scoop on good restaurants, doctors, solar panel providers--you name it, Yelp may have a category for it. Moreover, Yelp reviewers (Yelpers?) are normal people who tell you about their experiences, and you get to take their opinion for whatever it is worth. Frankly, some of the reviews are pretty bizarre, but hey--give their opinion whatever weight you think it merits!
Now, if your a law firm, you might think that you'd know better than to write bogus reviews about your own firm, right? Right?
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Something Old
Some of you--my faithful readers!--may remember that almost exactly a year ago I was up to my ears helping defend a man accused of murder. I can't believe it has been a year--it went so quickly!
Oh, the case had all of the drama of a movie, or something you'd see on TV. You may remember from my earlier posts that although we did not get the defendant acquitted, the jury was hung 10-2 in favor of acquittal. I think a very telling thing about that trial was that post-trial, the judge presiding over the case dropped the bail from $750,000 to $30,000, and waived any travel restrictions against the defendant. He was literally free to travel to any state or country he chose.
Now, the defendant has gotten on with his life. Without getting into too many personal details, let's just say that he and his wife are reunited again after his long incarceration, and they are happier then ever. I feel GREAT having played a role in helping end his two-year incarceration over a crime the evidence shows he did not commit.
Nevertheless, the District Attorney has neither refused to drop the charges, nor has she or her office pursued a retrial. This was a cold-case to begin with (1992!), and the DA has a reputation for trying to clean up old cases. However, it is unconscionable to me that in light of the DNA evidence, in light of all the testimony, that the DA should even consider retrying this particular defendant.
Maybe it is time to let this case become history--or else the DA needs a new theory on who actually committed the murder.
Oh, the case had all of the drama of a movie, or something you'd see on TV. You may remember from my earlier posts that although we did not get the defendant acquitted, the jury was hung 10-2 in favor of acquittal. I think a very telling thing about that trial was that post-trial, the judge presiding over the case dropped the bail from $750,000 to $30,000, and waived any travel restrictions against the defendant. He was literally free to travel to any state or country he chose.
Now, the defendant has gotten on with his life. Without getting into too many personal details, let's just say that he and his wife are reunited again after his long incarceration, and they are happier then ever. I feel GREAT having played a role in helping end his two-year incarceration over a crime the evidence shows he did not commit.
Nevertheless, the District Attorney has neither refused to drop the charges, nor has she or her office pursued a retrial. This was a cold-case to begin with (1992!), and the DA has a reputation for trying to clean up old cases. However, it is unconscionable to me that in light of the DNA evidence, in light of all the testimony, that the DA should even consider retrying this particular defendant.
Maybe it is time to let this case become history--or else the DA needs a new theory on who actually committed the murder.
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.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Something Blue
Hi Everyone--
Different people have different priorities. Thank God! Wouldn't the world be a boring place if we all wanted or liked exactly the same things? I don't think anyone wants a world with all the same clothes, music, food, etc. Well, I realize that fatherhood (or motherhood) isn't for everyone--and I respect that! I think the world would be better off with fewer parents, but that also if the people who chose to become parents were totally committed to raising good people.
Recently my wife gave birth to our first child--a boy. I can't say if he'll grow up to be smart, kind, healthy, athletic, artistic? I do know that he will grow up better if I take the time to be there for him, and for my wife, too. I am committed to being the best Dad I can be for this little man. So, I am taking a break from the blog for awhile. I don't think my vast readership will mind too much if I am not providing pearls of wisdom on trial strategy or environmental issues? Please understand: I've got diapers to change.
See you in six months or so?
Different people have different priorities. Thank God! Wouldn't the world be a boring place if we all wanted or liked exactly the same things? I don't think anyone wants a world with all the same clothes, music, food, etc. Well, I realize that fatherhood (or motherhood) isn't for everyone--and I respect that! I think the world would be better off with fewer parents, but that also if the people who chose to become parents were totally committed to raising good people.
Recently my wife gave birth to our first child--a boy. I can't say if he'll grow up to be smart, kind, healthy, athletic, artistic? I do know that he will grow up better if I take the time to be there for him, and for my wife, too. I am committed to being the best Dad I can be for this little man. So, I am taking a break from the blog for awhile. I don't think my vast readership will mind too much if I am not providing pearls of wisdom on trial strategy or environmental issues? Please understand: I've got diapers to change.
See you in six months or so?
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Roll Mercury?
Living in Alabama for several years, I discovered just how much college football means to the population. With Alabama and Auburn sharing an incredible run of overall success and National Championships, there is no doubt that college football is king right now in "The Heart of Dixie." Even as I write this #2 Alabama is preparing to face #1 Notre Dame in the Orange Bowl for the right to be #1 again.
However, there's another #2 ranking that Alabama should not be so proud of: Shelby, AL, is home to the #2 largest source of mercury pollution in the United States, the Gaston Steam Plant. This power plant dumped 1244 lbs of mercury into Alabama's water and air in 2011, second only to the Martin Lake Steam Electric Station & Lignite Mine in Rusk County, TX, at 1501 lbs of mercury emitted.
Mercury is a heavy metal that can be toxic in high doses, and typically causes damage to the brain, kidneys, or lungs. Frequently you may hear that mercury is prevalent in fish, which is true. However, mercury is also present in grasses, insects, and livestock. It bioaccumulates, meaning that is becomes concentrated at ever-higher amounts as you move up the food chain. Fishing is off-limits in many rivers and lakes in the U.S., including Alabama, due to mercury contamination.
Humans are the source of approximately 50% of mercury releases worldwide, primarily from the burning of coal. The 10 "dirtiest" coal-fired plants in the United States account for approximately 18% of all U.S. based mercury emissions. Note: the other 4 of the top 5 dirtiest mercury-emitting plants in the U.S. are all located in Texas, and operated by Luminant Generation.
The technology exists to eliminate mercury emissions from coal fired plants by over 90%, yet often nothing is done because of the incremental increase in the cost of energy to consumers. I wonder though--what is the cost of illness and lost productivity? What is the off-set gain in the creation of jobs to retrofit the plants with cleaner technologies? Don't these costs and benefits also factor into the overall picture when deciding whether or not to clean up a "dirty" plant? If not, shouldn't they? Essentially the energy companies are externalizing their operating costs on the public at large, maximizing their own profitability.
It is common knowledge that Alabama consistently ranks near the bottom of all U.S. states whether considering education, health, poverty, income, or many other indicators of overall well-being. (As the saying in Alabama goes, "Thank God for Mississippi!)" It's great to have a college football team challenging for the National Title, and it gives many people something to cheer for. However, whether or not the Crimson Tide ends its season #1 or #2, I'm more concerned about the long-term consequences of that other #2: emitting mercury that we all may end up breathing or ingesting.
However, there's another #2 ranking that Alabama should not be so proud of: Shelby, AL, is home to the #2 largest source of mercury pollution in the United States, the Gaston Steam Plant. This power plant dumped 1244 lbs of mercury into Alabama's water and air in 2011, second only to the Martin Lake Steam Electric Station & Lignite Mine in Rusk County, TX, at 1501 lbs of mercury emitted.
Mercury is a heavy metal that can be toxic in high doses, and typically causes damage to the brain, kidneys, or lungs. Frequently you may hear that mercury is prevalent in fish, which is true. However, mercury is also present in grasses, insects, and livestock. It bioaccumulates, meaning that is becomes concentrated at ever-higher amounts as you move up the food chain. Fishing is off-limits in many rivers and lakes in the U.S., including Alabama, due to mercury contamination.
Humans are the source of approximately 50% of mercury releases worldwide, primarily from the burning of coal. The 10 "dirtiest" coal-fired plants in the United States account for approximately 18% of all U.S. based mercury emissions. Note: the other 4 of the top 5 dirtiest mercury-emitting plants in the U.S. are all located in Texas, and operated by Luminant Generation.
The technology exists to eliminate mercury emissions from coal fired plants by over 90%, yet often nothing is done because of the incremental increase in the cost of energy to consumers. I wonder though--what is the cost of illness and lost productivity? What is the off-set gain in the creation of jobs to retrofit the plants with cleaner technologies? Don't these costs and benefits also factor into the overall picture when deciding whether or not to clean up a "dirty" plant? If not, shouldn't they? Essentially the energy companies are externalizing their operating costs on the public at large, maximizing their own profitability.
It is common knowledge that Alabama consistently ranks near the bottom of all U.S. states whether considering education, health, poverty, income, or many other indicators of overall well-being. (As the saying in Alabama goes, "Thank God for Mississippi!)" It's great to have a college football team challenging for the National Title, and it gives many people something to cheer for. However, whether or not the Crimson Tide ends its season #1 or #2, I'm more concerned about the long-term consequences of that other #2: emitting mercury that we all may end up breathing or ingesting.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
SMART Use of Transportation Dollars
Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990. One of the goals of these amendments was to attain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by reducing vehicle tailpipe emissions. It was determined that one of the best ways to reduce these emissions was to link air quality and transportation planning. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) was implemented to support projects that simultaneously relieved transportation congestion and improved air quality.
CMAQ is a potential source of funding not only for light-rail projects, but also other alternative transportation projects, such as bicycle lanes, pedestrian walking, hiking, or running trails, etc. Often CMAQ funds are one of the only sources that proponents of these pedestrian or bicycle based projects have available to them.
Recently, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) awarded the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit (SMART) $6.6M in CMAQ funds to purchase additional rail cars. While this is consistent with the type of projects usually funded by CMAQ, there has been some minor controversy. The heart of the issue appears to be how quickly the funding request was railroaded through the approval process. Other regional groups (such as the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition) also dependent upon CMAQ funds for their projects were not given much warning or opportunity to prepare their objections, suggestions, or alternatives.
Proponents of the deal say that the rush was necessary because there were $10M in overall funds that would have been lost if SMART had not acted before the end of the year. The rail cars needed to be ordered, and if they had not acted quickly the window of opportunity would have been pushed back several years.
No one benefits if potential funding is lost because of a failure to act. Overall, light rail projects and other pedestrian or cycling projects work best when developed together. While it is a shame that this had to be pushed through at the last minute, to me it still seems smarter to act than to miss the opportunity entirely. Hopefully both groups will learn from this, and will plan ahead better to develop their mutual interests. With ever-tightening budgets and limited money available, groups like this need to maximize every dollar.
CMAQ is a potential source of funding not only for light-rail projects, but also other alternative transportation projects, such as bicycle lanes, pedestrian walking, hiking, or running trails, etc. Often CMAQ funds are one of the only sources that proponents of these pedestrian or bicycle based projects have available to them.
Recently, the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) awarded the Sonoma Marin Rail Transit (SMART) $6.6M in CMAQ funds to purchase additional rail cars. While this is consistent with the type of projects usually funded by CMAQ, there has been some minor controversy. The heart of the issue appears to be how quickly the funding request was railroaded through the approval process. Other regional groups (such as the Sonoma County Bicycle Coalition) also dependent upon CMAQ funds for their projects were not given much warning or opportunity to prepare their objections, suggestions, or alternatives.
Proponents of the deal say that the rush was necessary because there were $10M in overall funds that would have been lost if SMART had not acted before the end of the year. The rail cars needed to be ordered, and if they had not acted quickly the window of opportunity would have been pushed back several years.
No one benefits if potential funding is lost because of a failure to act. Overall, light rail projects and other pedestrian or cycling projects work best when developed together. While it is a shame that this had to be pushed through at the last minute, to me it still seems smarter to act than to miss the opportunity entirely. Hopefully both groups will learn from this, and will plan ahead better to develop their mutual interests. With ever-tightening budgets and limited money available, groups like this need to maximize every dollar.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Sandy's Surge Sloshes Superfund Sites
So called "Superstorm Sandy" has made all kinds of news of late. The images of devastation along the Eastern seaboard, particularly in New York and New Jersey captured worldwide attention, and even got President Barack Obama and the (Republican) governor of New Jersey working together for common cause, setting aside politics while they focused on the needs of the people harmed by this storm.
As flood waters recede, the problems are many: people displaced by the storm, homes ruined, other homes inhabitable because of lack of power, possible gas leaks, flood damage, etc. However, one insidious little side-effect has largely escaped the public's notice: raw sewage, and hazardous and toxic chemicals "freed" by the storm.
The eastern seaboard does not lack for Superfund sites, such as the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, or Staten Island's North Shore. Just as homes, businesses, and subways were being filled with seawater, so were these sites. As the flood waters receded, they took pollutants with them--although these pollutants were not necessarily washed out to sea. They were deposited wherever the water went--into homes, businesses, etc.
Now, as people look to return home, they have multiple issues facing them--not the least of which is, "when the seawater retreated, what got left behind?" Cleaning out rotted drywall and basements full of sand is bad enough, but what if the debris also contains raw sewage, neurotoxins such as lead and mercury, radioactive materials, or other carcinogens?
Suffice to say that clean up is going to be expensive, hazardous, and very uncertain for these property owners who literally may have no idea what they're returning to. When people discuss the "costs" associated with environmental protection, where are these costs accounted for? Who will have to pay for this bill, especially when the responsible party will be unknown, and the specific harm caused may be outside the property owner's insurance coverage?
As flood waters recede, the problems are many: people displaced by the storm, homes ruined, other homes inhabitable because of lack of power, possible gas leaks, flood damage, etc. However, one insidious little side-effect has largely escaped the public's notice: raw sewage, and hazardous and toxic chemicals "freed" by the storm.
The eastern seaboard does not lack for Superfund sites, such as the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, or Staten Island's North Shore. Just as homes, businesses, and subways were being filled with seawater, so were these sites. As the flood waters receded, they took pollutants with them--although these pollutants were not necessarily washed out to sea. They were deposited wherever the water went--into homes, businesses, etc.
Now, as people look to return home, they have multiple issues facing them--not the least of which is, "when the seawater retreated, what got left behind?" Cleaning out rotted drywall and basements full of sand is bad enough, but what if the debris also contains raw sewage, neurotoxins such as lead and mercury, radioactive materials, or other carcinogens?
Suffice to say that clean up is going to be expensive, hazardous, and very uncertain for these property owners who literally may have no idea what they're returning to. When people discuss the "costs" associated with environmental protection, where are these costs accounted for? Who will have to pay for this bill, especially when the responsible party will be unknown, and the specific harm caused may be outside the property owner's insurance coverage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)