“We’re a long way off, to tell you the honest truth.” A candid statement from New Zealand Climate Change Minister James Shaw, made days out from the 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference—COP24 Katowice—on the possibility of New Zealand meeting its emission reduction commitment under the Paris Agreement.
In the international system, there are over 3,500 environmental agreements governing thousands of distinct ecosystems across hundreds of different nations. This complex spider-web of treaties, protocols, and commitments often lacks coherence, obscuring the role of environmental law in the international community. Despite efforts to consolidate international environmental governance with the inception of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972 and the Paris Climate Accords in 2015, barriers to a consolidated system of environmental law still remain. While UNEP has certainly filled an important role in moving toward such a system, it has historically been unable to act as a unifying central authority in the way that U.N. bodies like WHO, FAO and UNESCO have.
Nanotechnology (nanotech) has been described by some as the next Industrial Revolution. After more than 20 years of focused research and development, its application is growing and providing benefits and challenges. It already has footing in diverse commercial industries that span from cosmetics to aerospace with expectations of exponential growth. Its extraordinary properties make the unimaginable possible, but in that magic come concerns around environment, health, safety, and ethics that sometimes make nanotech seem more like the Wild West. Here are some takeaways from my years of wrestling with the nanotech genie.
In 2017, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined a series of environmental priorities in his “Back-to-Basics Agenda.” Among them was delegating more responsibility to state governments—a call that evoked over 40 years of “tug of war” between state and federal authority over environmental regulation. This question of the proper distribution of power in environmental policy—referred to as federalism—first became salient in the early 1970s with the creation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the crystallization of the federal government’s role in environmental issues.
My long professional experience as an environmental enforcer and corporate compliance officer persuades me that strong enforcement of environmental laws, including sanctions for noncompliance, is essential to deliver their benefits to the public. To borrow from ELI’s slogan, enforcement “makes environmental law work” by reinforcing the accountability of both government agencies and the organizations they regulate for achieving compliance.
On February 14, 2019, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a proposed rule revising the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) to redefine “federal authority under the Clean Water Act.” The proposed rule is the second part of the Trump Administration’s two-step process to repeal and revise the Clean Water Rule adopted in June 2015. The 2015 rule is currently in effect in 22 states as the courts sort out numerous challenges.
In litigation involving public lands, the first response from today's U.S. Department of Justice is almost always to contest plaintiffs’ standing.
U.S. Supreme Court decisions and numerous federal court decisions over the last several decades have effectively resulted in two evidentiary phases in most of these cases—first, proof of standing as a constitutional threshold, and second, only if standing is maintained, consideration of the evidence supporting the case on the merits. The standing phase is particularly relevant for public interest plaintiffs in public lands cases; it can require a more exacting showing from those seeking to vindicate public interests than from those asserting private economic interests.
In the late 1970s, revelations about the hazardous waste contaminating sites like Love Canal and Valley of the Drums captured the American public’s attention. In response to concerns about the risk these hazardous dumps posed to both public and environmental health, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980. Commonly referred to as Superfund, CERCLA gives EPA the authority and resources to clean up and remediate sites contaminated by hazardous substances and pollutants.
The global community of agencies and NGOs working in the field of environmental compliance and enforcement has grown substantially in recent years, yet many practitioners remain isolated from others working in the field.
As our understanding of the underlying drivers of environmental compliance and non-compliance deepens, a need arises for creative and unconventional collaboration tools. The recently released UN First Global Report on the Environmental Rule of Law examining the current status of environmental laws highlights...
“Corporate social responsibility” (CSR) has had a mixed reputation on its efforts to achieve environmental protection. Some view the rise of interest in CSR positively, especially as traditional methods of government regulation are hampered by political gridlock and not always up to date with the fast-paced development of current technologies. Others view CSR as “greenwashing,” allowing businesses to reap the benefits of being “green” without actually delivering positive impact for the environment.
