Combating Climate Change with the Clean Air Act’s International Air Pollution Provision

Posted on November 23, 2020 by Michael Burger

As the key staffing decisions and priority policy agendas for President-elect Joseph R. Biden begin to take shape, the questions of when and how the administration will act on his campaign’s climate plan are front and center. Deservedly so. The scale and scope of the climate crisis calls for immediate and comprehensive nationwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no question that new federal legislation would be the best option. But with Georgia’s two Senate seats still undecided and the political implications of the November election still being parsed out, the prospect for federal legislation remains highly uncertain. What’s more, even assuming Congress does enact new climate legislation, it may not go far enough in reducing GHGs to be consistent with science-based climate targets, or to meet the nation’s international climate commitments. From January 20 onward, the Biden administration will need to think through and set in motion regulations that rely on existing statutes to achieve the deep emission reductions required to avoid increasingly dangerous, highly unpredictable climate scenarios.

Combating Climate Change with Section 115 of the Clean Air Act: Law and Policy Rationales provides a roadmap for an essential component of such a plan:  the Environmental Protection Agency’s international air pollution authority. This new book, which I edited, is the culmination of a decade of collaboration by scholars and lawyers at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, the Emmett Institute at UCLA, and the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU, with major contributions from other outstanding legal scholars, experienced lawyers from the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department, leading state regulators, and veterans of congressional climate battles. Its chapters lay out how the Clean Air Act’s international air pollution provision -- Section 115 -- provides a logical, common-sense basis for a federal climate policy that (a) allows the executive branch to synchronize the nation’s domestic emission reduction efforts with its international climate commitments; (b) authorizes the use of a broad range of regulatory approaches, including market-based mechanisms; (c) respects cooperative federalism by giving EPA the responsibility to set emission reduction targets and states the authority to decide how to achieve them; and (d) is administratively simple. Whatever might come from Congress in the next year or two, and whatever else the Biden administration’s environmental, energy and natural resources agencies might do, EPA’s international authority can fill the gap between the emission reductions other federal, state and local programs can achieve and the level of cuts required to meet the nation’s climate goals. 

Though it has only been invoked once, and never implemented, the criteria for using the international air pollution provision are relatively straightforward. Section 115 is triggered when EPA both finds that emissions in the United States contribute to air pollution that endangers public health or welfare in another country (the “endangerment finding”) and determines that the other country provides “essentially the same rights with respect to the prevention or control of air pollution occurring in that country as is given that country” by Section 115 (the “reciprocity determination”). In the case of climate change, both of these prerequisites are readily met: GHGs in the U.S. contribute to climate change, which endangers public health and welfare in other countries just as much if not more than it does here in the U.S. And the UNFCCC, the Paris Agreement, and potentially new, additional agreements ensure both that the U.S. can participate in other countries’ planning and that there is a mutual, or “reciprocal,” substantive commitment to address the climate crisis.   

Once triggered, Section 115 operates through state implementation plans (SIPs), the state air pollution control programs that are the heart of the Clean Air Act’s cooperative federalism model for achieving the nation’s air pollution control goals. Under Section 115, EPA’s role is to require the states to revise their SIPs to the extent they are “inadequate to prevent or eliminate the endangerment.” As explored in detail in the book, EPA can use the provision to set GHG emission reduction targets for the states, and the states can work together with EPA and other states to build upon their existing initiatives to achieve these emission reductions in a cost-effective manner. If a state refuses to revise its SIP, EPA can promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) for the state, authority that EPA has exercised in other contexts.

Some of this may sound familiar to some of you. Combating Climate Change with Section 115 of the Clean Air Act: Law and Policy Rationales reflects a  significant enhancement of a 2016 article, which many of the book’s authors contributed to, and which received a good deal of attention, that examined how EPA’s international air pollution authority could help achieve the country’s climate change goals at that time. The book’s updated analysis makes important adjustments to the thinking in that article to reflect all that has happened in the intervening years – including developments in the UNFCCC, the U.S. Supreme Court, and U.S. politics. The book’s chapters dive deeper into the key implementation issues that would face EPA and the states, and they explore ways to address the various legal and policy issues that would arise – including critical questions of judicial review in an evolving doctrinal landscape marked by uncertainty around the future of Chevron deference and the shadow cast by the “major questions” doctrine. But the book’s chapters present solid answers to these questions, and demonstrate that the statutory language is robust enough to empower EPA and the states to reduce U.S. emissions in line with our international commitments, while providing sufficient guardrails to constrain and direct agency discretion.

The Clean Air Act’s international air pollution provision is not the only existing authority the Biden administration can, should, or will rely on to address climate change. But it is a powerful one. And while the idea of relying on the provision may seem novel to some, it is not new. Former EPA General Counsel Roger Martella wrote one of the first articles advocating the approach back in 2009. (Another former EPA GC, and ACOEL fellow, Jon Cannon, is one of the contributors to the book.) The provision provides EPA and the states with the authority, and the flexibility, to address GHG emissions in an efficient and equitable manner. It should be on the table when, early in 2021, the U.S. rejoins the Paris Agreement, and the federal government recommits to ambitious climate action.   

To read a summary of the book, go here.

To purchase the book, go here. You may use the discount code MBRG35 for a 35% discount on hard cover copies. The discount code does not apply to e-books, which are also available, and a lot less expensive.

For additional materials on the International Air Pollution provision, go to the Sabin Center’s Section 115 resources page, here.

HAS THE TIME COME FOR A GREENHOUSE GAS NAAQS? LAW STUDENTS WILL ARGUE THE ISSSUE AT THE 33RD ANNUAL NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Posted on November 19, 2020 by Karl Coplan

One thing that is clear from the 2020 election: the Senate will remain closely divided, with slim majority control to be determined by the two January Senate runoff races in Georgia. President Elect Biden has announced the most aggressive climate policies of any major party climate candidate ever, but the prospects of achieving these goals through climate legislation are slim as long as Republicans maintain majority control or a bare Democratic majority lacks the votes to eliminate the filibuster (or to vote in strong greenhouse gas emissions controls). The likely continued lack of legislative action on climate is refocusing attention on measures EPA can take under existing Clean Air Act (CAA) authorities.

One potent EPA option in the Clean Air Act toolkit is the authority to add greenhouse gases  (GHGs) to the CAA § 108 list of criteria pollutants. A pollutant is eligible for listing as a criteria pollutant once EPA has found that that the pollutant “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” EPA made that finding for GHGs back in December, 2009, when the Obama administration invoked CAA § 202 to regulate new motor vehicle GHG emissions based on the identical endangerment criteria of § 202. Environmental groups 350.org and Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition with EPA, also in December 2009, demanding that EPA list GHGs as a criteria pollutant. But the Obama administration chose not to invoke the NAAQS program for GHGs, fearing the severe regulatory repercussions. Once EPA lists a criteria pollutant, it must propose primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) within twelve months (§§108, 109), and establish final NAAQS within another ninety days (§ 109). Promulgation of final primary NAAQS triggers a three-year compliance deadline for states – after which States risk loss of all federal highway funding and EPA imposition of emissions control measures within the State. And since no State could realistically meet this three-year deadline for a climate protective GHG NAAQS, adoption of the primary NAAQS would be a recipe for draconian federal enforcement measures.

Fearing this regulatory morass, the Obama administration chose to put the U.S. on track to meet its Paris Agreement climate goals through a combination of motor vehicle mileage standards, new source standards, and invocation of CAA § 111(d) authority to require States to develop Best Systems of Emissions Reductions standards for existing power plants through a combination of emissions reductions, renewable energy development, and regional trading systems. EPA called this the “Clean Power Plan.” EPA’s § 111(d) authority for the Clean Power Plan was sufficiently uncertain that the Supreme Court took the unprecedented action of enjoining the implementation and enforcement of the Clean Power Plan before any judicial challenge actually reached the Court. The Trump administration withdrew the Clean Power Plan in favor of much weaker plant-by-plant GHG emissions controls.

Unlike § 111(d) authority, EPA’s authority to list GHGs as a criteria pollutant could not be more textually clear. Indeed, the phrasing of § 108 seems to make a pollutant’s listing mandatory upon a finding of endangerment, directing that EPA “shall” list, as a criteria pollutant, a pollutant that “cause[s] or contribute[s] to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 

A 1976 Second Circuit case, NRDC v Train, held that § 108 imposes a mandatory obligation on EPA to list a pollutant as a criteria pollutant for the CAA Title I NAAQS program once it has made a determination that pollutant may present an endangerment to public health or welfare under the Title II provisions governing motor vehicle emissions. The facts of Train are highly analogous -- EPA made the endangerment finding for lead additives in fuel but had not planned to list lead as a criteria pollutant. Until the court ordered it to do so.

Would a court apply Train to order EPA to list GHGs as a criteria pollutant subject to the NAAQS? What if a hypothetical 2009 petitioner for a GHG NAAQS tried to enforce that theory in court? That’s the question presented in the 33rd running of the 2021 Jeffrey G. Miller National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition, to be conducted by the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University in February and March, 2021. You can view the problem here. Due to COVID restrictions, all rounds up to the Final Round will be conducted virtually this year. This may be a climate blessing in disguise, as running the competition as a virtual event will vastly reduce the travel related carbon emissions associated with the competition. This year’s virtual event may provide a template for the more climate friendly moot court competitions of the future. Licensed attorneys can sign up to judge here (CLE credit is available).

An Uncommon Dialogue: All We are Saying, is Give Peace a Chance

Posted on October 22, 2020 by Richard Glick

Those of a certain age will remember this plaintive, kumbaya-seeking line from John Lennon’s Vietnam War protest song.  Naïve, perhaps, but an Uncommon Dialogue process initiated thorough Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment, expresses a similar hope for peaceful solutions among the warring parties in hydroelectric regulatory processes.  A two and a half year effort has resulted in execution of a Joint Statement of Collaboration on U.S. Hydropower: Climate Solution and Conservation Challenge.  Signatories include an extraordinary collection of national environmental and industry groups.

The impetus for the Joint Statement is the urgent need to address climate change by promoting non-greenhouse gas emitting, renewable energy resources.  Hydroelectric power meets these criteria, and has the added benefit of storing energy capacity that is readily dispatchable, as with a battery, making it an ideal companion to other renewable resources when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.  The central problem, of course, is that dam building across America has often resulted in decimation of native and anadromous fish runs.  Mitigating or reversing damage to rivers is a formidable challenge, impossible in some cases, but feasible in others.

The Joint Statement notes that there are about 90,000 dams in the U.S., but only 2,500 produce electricity.  About 30% of existing FERC-licensed hydropower facilities will be up for relicensing over the next decade.  These facts led the participants to focus on three main policy directions in the Joint Statement:

  • Rehabilitating both powered and non-powered dams to improve safety, increase climate resilience, and mitigate environmental impacts;  
  • Retrofitting powered dams and adding generation at non-powered dams to increase renewable generation; developing pumped storage capacity at existing dams; and enhancing dam and reservoir operations for water supply, fish passage, flood mitigation, and grid integration of solar and wind; and
  • Removing dams that no longer provide benefits to society, have safety issues that cannot be cost-effectively mitigated, or have adverse environmental impacts that cannot be effectively addressed.

A 60-day period now begins, during which signatories to the Joint Statement will reach out for comments from a broader range of stakeholders, including state and tribal governments.

Many of us practicing environmental, natural resources and energy law chose those fields because we cared about the environment and believed that economic growth and conservation values could, and indeed must, coexist.  While only 7% of the nation’s electricity output now comes from hydropower, this old technology could play a much bigger role if we maximize the benefits and minimize the harms through collaboration based on trust, rather than endless litigation.  The climate change crisis demands that we try, and this Joint Statement is a big step in the right direction.

“Purple Haze … Is It Tomorrow, Or Just the End of Time?”

Posted on September 14, 2020 by Samuel I. Gutter

We are in Yosemite, midway through our month-long RV trip out west.  We planned this trip long before the world heard of Covid-19, but decided it was the lowest risk vacation we might take in 2020, so off we went.  After two weeks of hot sun and blue skies in the stunningly beautiful national and state parks of Southern Utah, we headed toward our planned stops in California and Oregon.  And then we hit the wall – the fire wall.

Coming into California through Death Valley and driving north, the normally majestic Sierra Nevada range on our left was barely visible.  At our next stop in June Lake, air quality was determined by the direction of the wind.  When the wind blew from the west, the mountains disappeared and the smell of smoke was everywhere.  There was no hiking – all National Forests in California are closed, with stringent fines for violators, out of concern that even the stray cigarette butt could add to the conflagration.  Further north, huge areas of Oregon that have never experienced wide-scale fires are burning, with devastating consequences.

Driving west into Yosemite on State highway 120, we had to be escorted by Park Service vehicles through areas where local fires are burning trees right up to the edge of the road.  Now at midday, the sky is Martian-orange with heavy smoke from the Creek Fire.  The scene is eerie and apocalyptic.

So instead of heading north to California and Oregon as we had planned, we’re backtracking to Utah and Arizona, before returning home to the East Coast.  For us, it’s a route change and an inconvenience.  For many others, it’s a human and economic tragedy on top of the unprecedent crush of the pandemic.

And it’s an environmental disaster.  The embedded map is from the U.S. government’s AirNow site, www.airnow.gov, and shows unhealthy and dangerous air quality blanketing California and Oregon.  Make no mistake; the fires are the direct consequence of climate change.  Standing among the embers in Oroville, California Governor Newsom said, “This is a climate damn emergency.  This is real and it’s happening.”  www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-11/california-wildfires-climate-change-gavin-newsom-trump

To those of us who have spent decades involved in clean air regulations, what is happening now on the West Coast viscerally dwarfs the impacts from controlled stationary and mobile sources.  While hopefully transient in time, this seems worse than any day in the history of Southern California’s smog alerts in the latter half of the last century.  I don’t mean to belittle the long-term importance of emission regulations – they are essential to public health and welfare – but this tragedy is a stark reminder that unless we vigorously deal with global climate change, we will continue to experience very real and immediate consequences, including public health and safety emergencies, on an immense scale.

Implementing the CLCPA: New York is Amping up the Electrification of its Transportation Sector

Posted on August 26, 2020 by Gail Port

In September 2019, I wrote about the banner year it had been for the environment and environmental legislation in New York, particularly with the passage of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) which was signed into law in July 2019.  The CLCPA sets a bold, aggressive, statewide framework to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050—a very high bar for state-led action to address climate change.

To keep the state on track to achieve its goals, the CLCPA called for the creation of two significant decision-making bodies. The first, the Climate Action Council, is in charge of developing the scoping plan for New York’s economy to achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda. The second is the Climate Justice Working Group, which will guide the state in carrying out its ambitious climate targets by ensuring that the environmental justice provisions of the CLCPA—such as clean energy spending, green jobs, and affordable resources—are enforced and distributed equitably to low-income communities of color. Appointees to both of these bodies have been made and meetings have been held. The Advisory Panels called for in the CLCPA, which consist of representatives from public, private, academic, environmental and community groups covering six economic sectors areas—transportation, energy efficiency and housing, agriculture and forestry, land use and local government, energy intensive and trade-exposed industries, and power generation—were filled on August 24th.  Members of the Just Transition Working Group, which is charged with helping to ensure NY’s workforce is prepared for and will benefit from the transition to renewable energy, were also appointed on that date. 

Governor Cuomo has taken other steps to meet the CLCPA’s ambitious goals, including,

While guiding New York through the difficult and challenging process to flattening the enormous curve of COVID-19 cases, Governor Cuomo continued to work on advancing the CLCPA’s ambitious goals and in mid-July announced a nation-leading initiative to expand electric vehicle use to help combat climate change.  Our Governor prudently recognizes that well after the Coronavirus is no longer a threat, the existential threat of climate change will still be with us. 

The program to accelerate New York’s transition to cleaner mobility is expected to stimulate $1.5 billion in new investments and to provide more than $2.6 billion in consumer benefits and economic opportunities (translation: lots of green jobs).   The package of initiatives to electrify New York’s transportation sector includes: (i) an “EV Make Ready” initiative to accelerate the deployment of more than 50,000 charging stations by 2025 and (ii) $206 million set aside to benefit low-income and disadvantaged communities, which includes $85 million to fund three innovative clean transportation prize competitions.

Back in January 2020, the New York Department of Public Service (“DPS”) released a white paper proposing a bold statewide electric vehicle charging program. That program, which was alluded to in the Governor’s State of the State, is intended to spur the installation of infrastructure to support widespread electric vehicle deployment throughout the state. It is estimated that New York needs about 850,000 electric vehicles on the road to cut pollution from transportation to meet the clean car Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) standards. The state will need over 100,000 public and workplace charging stations and over 4,000 Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) stations to support that number of electric vehicles.

EV Make Ready Program

The EV Make-Ready Program will be funded by investor-owned utilities in New York State and creates a cost-sharing program that incentivizes utilities and charging station developers to site electric vehicle charging infrastructure in places that will provide a maximal benefit to consumers. Specifically, this program will provide funding to create more than 50,000 level 2 charging plugs, which are capable of charging a vehicle at least twice as fast as a standard wall outlet. Providing drivers with assessable charging stations is the key to encouraging the wide-spread adoption of electric vehicles. Given that the transportation sector is responsible for the largest contribution to greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S., with those emissions increasing more than any other sector over the last 30 years, coupled with the fear of many New Yorkers of using crowded mass transit options during the Coronavirus pandemic, this is clearly a step in the right direction. 

Competitions

Solving onerous problems requires innovative thinking and the creation of incentives to foster that creative thinking often can be a winning strategy. This program includes $85 million to fund three competitions to support clean transportation options to benefit lower socio-economic communities. The three competitions are:

  1. the Environmental Justice Community Clean Vehicles Transformation Prize, a $40 million program focused on reducing harmful air pollution in frontline communities and creating transportation “green zones” across New York State;
  2. the Clean Personal Mobility Prize, a $25 million program soliciting innovative and high impact approaches that enable access to clean transportation services for disadvantaged and underserved communities; and
  3. the Clean Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Innovation Prize, a $20 million program designed to achieve direct benefits; allow concrete investigation of opportunities, costs, and benefits; and prove out innovative and high-impact approaches to medium- and heavy-duty electrification that can be replicated at scale, including for “last-mile” solutions, one of the fastest growing emissions sources in this class of vehicles. 

2019 was off to a good start in New York with much promise on how we planned to confront the threat of climate change. Then came 2020, the year we stayed home, changed the way we live (perhaps forever), lost over 172,000 US citizens to COVID-19, wore masks, and saw large-scale protests and long overdue calls for racial and social justice.  I for one hope that 2020 will also be remembered as a defining time in the fight against climate change—at least in New York.

BLM Rescission of the Methane Waste Prevention Rule Has Been Vacated; Two Thoughts About the Implications

Posted on August 12, 2020 by Seth Jaffe

Last month, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers vacated BLM’s rescission of the 2016 methane “Waste Prevention Rule.”  Although Judge Rogers found many flaws in the rescission rule, I think that two are key. 

The first is the Court’s rejection, under Chevron, of BLM’s limitation of the definition of “waste” to economic waste.  I think that the Court’s holding is correct, but I don’t think it’s necessarily even a Chevron issue.

After Justice Gorsuch shocked many readers by holding that the plain language of the Civil Rights Act required protection of transgender people, environmental lawyers speculated whether Justice Gorsuch’s passion for plain language readings might benefit the environmental side in any pending environmental disputes.  I have questioned such hopes, but I think that the Waste Prevention Rule case may not be a bad candidate.  “Waste” may not be defined in the statute and there may be uncertainty in precisely what it does mean, but I don’t that there is any plausible understanding of the word that limits its meaning to “economic waste.”  Venting or flaring gas into the air, damaging the air without creating any benefits, has to fit within the definition of waste.

Justice Gorsuch, are you listening?

The second important issue is the Court’s rejection of BLM’s redefinition of the “social cost of methane.”  This is just one of many occasions in which the Trump administration has attempted to change Obama administration positions.  To date – and including this case – the Trump administration has had a difficult time enacting its policy preferences when those policies are interwoven with scientific questions.  Here, President Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which disbanded the Interagency Working Group and withdrew all of the documents created by the IWG, including its social cost of methane metric, which included global costs.  That metric had been intensively vetted and was subject to peer review.  In response to EO 13783, BLM withdrew the global social cost of carbon approach and replaced it within one that looked only at the domestic cost, an approach that was not subject to peer review and has been roundly criticized by economists.

Judge Rogers was not amused.

While Executive Order 13783 may have withdrawn the relevant technical support documents for political reasons, it did not and could not erase the scientific and economic facts that formed the foundation for that estimate—facts that BLM now ignores.  [T]he President did not alter by fiat what constitutes the best available science.  (My emphasis, because this may be the single best sentence written to date summarizing this administration’s approach to environmental regulation.)

Notwithstanding my views of this administration, I’m not so confident about this part of the opinion.  I can certainly imagine conservative judges concluding that whether the U.S. government should care about the global, as opposed to domestic, cost of methane is more of a policy choice than a scientific question.

There’s little doubt though, that this is not the last case in which courts are going to have to wrestle with this thorny problem.

Hats Off to the Green New Dealers

Posted on August 10, 2020 by Leslie Carothers

Watching the U.S. government botch the response to the pandemic may deepen pessimism about our prospects for meaningful action to prevent catastrophic climate change. But multiple failures in foresight and management of a simpler crisis may well help make the case for serious national climate protection policies. In fact, strategies for climate action are gaining momentum. And environmental lawyers are stepping up to help.

Two developments in late 2018 created new pressure for action. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 degrees C (October 2018) warned that avoiding increasingly severe impacts requires achieving net zero emissions by 2050 and reductions of 45% by 2030. Soon after, young activists led by the Sunrise Movement announced the Green New Deal. Proposed House Resolution 109 (Feb. 7, 2019) calls for a 10 year “national mobilization” to meet 100% of the U.S. power demand through “clean, renewable, and zero emission sources,” and to establish a host of programs to address economic weakness and inequality through investments in priorities like infrastructure, universal health insurance, and even a jobs guarantee. Speaker Nancy Pelosi was cool to the “Green Dream,“ and Republicans dismissed the Green New Deal as a socialist takeover. But despite its many critics and its daunting ambition, the Green New Deal has spurred an emerging climate policy consensus on the left and beyond.

Many civil society organizations representing environmental groups, the labor movement, and front-line environmental justice communities harmed by pollution have produced new reports and platforms influenced by the Green New Deal. For example, the U.S. Climate Action Network, a coalition of environmental organizations, issued a Vision for Equitable Climate Action that presents a concise statement of climate policy solutions from a consensus building initiative involving 100 groups. An analysis of this agenda and others by David Roberts in Vox stresses their common focus on achieving the goal of net zero emissions by 2050 by similar means: stringent sector-based energy standards; large scale public investments in efficiency, technology, and infrastructure to reduce emissions and create good jobs; and environmental justice, a commitment not only to protect disadvantaged communities from excess pollution but also to support a just transition for fossil fuel industry workers displaced by the transition to a clean energy economy.

The Democratic members of the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis established by the Speaker issued a 540-page report in June with comprehensive recommendations for legislative committees. That report sets the same major priorities of setting sector standards, public investment, and environmental justice, with much more elaboration of the details. Neither the Climate Action Network report nor the House Committee Democrats reject the use of market mechanisms to set a price on carbon, but market tools are not central to their agendas. What is clear is that climate strategies combining energy use standards with big public investment to rebuild our infrastructure, generate good jobs, and protect vulnerable communities have won wide acceptance by environmental organizations and the broader Democratic Party, now including the Biden campaign.

The Biden plan announced in July would set technology neutral clean energy standards for the power sector that could allow trading of credits among sources, while pledging major infrastructure investments and greater monitoring of pollution sources to protect disadvantaged communities. His plan calls for a transition to 100% green energy in the power sector by 2035, a national net zero emissions goal by 2050, and $2 trillion in federal investments in clean energy infrastructure, procurement, and research over 4 years. The Democrats’ call for massive federal spending on decarbonization of the economy akin to the original New Deal looks less extreme following a Democratic primary campaign spotlighting decades of wage stagnation amid exploding health and housing costs for the majority of Americans. Today’s pandemic and the resulting economic damage and unemployment have only strengthened the case for more federal spending to revive a long underperforming economy.

In another important policy development, the Climate Leadership Council, the leading proponent of a revenue neutral carbon tax with revenue returned to citizens to offset higher energy costs, issued a Bipartisan Climate Roadmap in February, 2020. The updated plan, narrowed from earlier versions to focus on stationary sources of carbon dioxide and stripped of non-starters like liability protection for fossil fuel companies, estimated that it would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 57% by 2035, “unlock” $1.4 trillion in capital investment, presumably private, and create 1.6 million jobs. Initially developed by respected Republican elders James Baker and George Shultz, the plan has many high-powered endorsers from diverse sectors and retired public officials from both political parties. Thorny issues like how this plan can intersect with existing state emission trading and renewable energy portfolio standards remain. But the bigger question is whether this ambitious market-oriented plan would finally bring many congressional Republicans to the table to work on a national law. It is noteworthy that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, mirabile dictu, issued a new statement of climate policy priorities last year, concluding in bold type that “inaction is not an option.” Can the Republican Party be far behind? We shall see.

It’s great to see lawyers advancing concrete climate response actions, too. The report on Legal Pathways for Deep Decarbonization in the United States (2018) edited by ACOEL members and climate experts John Dernbach and Michael Gerrard offers 25 chapters by lawyers who donated their time. (The report and a short summary document are available from the publisher, the Environmental Law Institute). The editors have now recruited 24 law firms and legal clinics to draft model laws implementing the ideas or serve as peer reviewers. More volunteers are still needed. Here is the link to the recently launched website on the project where the work will be published. If readers have interest and time to contribute your skills to this fine project, check it out.

Nearly 30 years ago, the U.S. Senate ratified the 1992 United Nations Framework Climate Convention calling for national efforts to work toward stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels. Those of us dismayed by our national failures since then should applaud young activists for transforming the debate with the Green New Deal’s call for urgency, equity, and economic revival to meet the challenge of the climate crisis. It’s about time.

The “Next” Pandemic : How States Can Avert It.

Posted on July 10, 2020 by Nicholas Robinson

The “next” pandemic in the USA is not a question of “if” but of “when.” Just as States scramble to win or shore up their victories against  COVID-19, a second front appears. Can the USA win a two-front war with microbes?

Two parallel infections now afflict separately humans and pigs. A new strain of the H1N1 swine flu virus, which killed 285,000 people when it merged in 2009, is now spreading among humans working on pig farms in China. The National Academy of Science reported this new threat in June  ( https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/06/23/1921186117). How can the risks to humans from this new virus, G4 EA H1N1, be contained? This human infection is emerging at the same time that  the world experiences the raging animal pandemic of African swine fever virus (AFS). AFS is forcing Asians to kill their domestic pig herds. AFS is now in 17 European nations and threatens to spread across all continents. No one knows now how to contain the AFS Pandemic among animals.

Once early surveillance detects such threats, what  precautions are essential to avert the “next” pandemic? Much is at stake. Since February 18, 2020, when ACOEL published its first Blog on COVID-19, (at http://www.acoel.org/post/2020/02/18/CORONAVIRUS-We-Thought-We-Knew-Ye!-The-Wuhan-Potential-Pandemic.aspx ), the virus SARS-CoV-2  has stolen lives and livelihoods. Its impact has vastly exceeded that of the costly HIV-1/AIDs pandemic, or the 2009 H1N1 epidemic. 

Like the plague, these diseases, along with SARS, EBOLA or West Nile virus, are the result of infections  that spill over from the wild animal kingdom, transmitting disease to  humans. This is known as zoonosis. HIV-1/AIDS came from primates in Africa, and since 1983 has killed 38 million humans, and currently sickens 36.9 million persons.  When COVID-19 first appeared, it was thought to have come via Pangolins, but now is linked to bats (Rhinolophus), which live in habitats across SE Asia and China. Earth holds perhaps 700,000 different viruses, most not yet discovered.  Of the 335 human diseases identified between 1960 and 2004, 61% are of zoonotic origin, and 72 % of all recent diseases are zoonotic.

The frequency of human infections from zoonotic diseases is increasing. Illnesses like Denge, chikungunya, or Zika have shown up in the Americas, and will be joined by others in the future. In 1999, West Nile virus, transmitted to humans by mosquitoes, made its first appearance in the Western Hemisphere in New York, after a drought followed by heavy rains. Since then, over 1,600 people have died of the disease.

Simultaneously while coping with COVID-19, it is evident that governments need to organize to avert a new zoonotic infections. Some are already here, others are coming. For example, Lyme Disease is a continuing threat. Other novel microbes can arrive quickly. Locally infected people travel, and airplanes bring the diseases to distant lands. It took months for rats to bring Bubonic Plague, the medieval “Black Death,” to Europe on sailing ships. Today a virus jumps continents in a few hours. As the economy restarts after COVID-19, governments will need new regimes of phyto-sanitary measures for trade, transportation, and tourism. 

Zoonotic diseases are on the rise for several reasons. Escalating declines in  biodiversity are the root cause. Biodiversity loss is a health risk multiplier.  As populations of species thin, many to the point of extinction, the viruses and bacteria that they host spread out looking for new hosts. Deforestation, and other unsustainable developments, disrupt habitats for many species, which in turn shed their viruses. A zoonotic disease, whether bacteria like Lyme Disease, or a novel coronavirus like SARS, then finds new animal hosts, including eventually human beings. Building new roads or suburban subdivisions fragment the landscape,  severs  migration corridors, and disrupt ecosystems, thereby exposing more humans to zoonotic microbes. Since humans interface with these disturbed natural  habitats,  their likelihood of being infected increases. 

Climate Change impacts are exacerbating biodiversity loss and augment humanity’s interface with zoonotic infections. Extreme weather events cause a cascade of other effects that influence disease. Heat and droughts create dry conditions, providing fuel for forest fires that end up fragmenting forests and driving wildlife closer to humans. Increased rainfall and humidity provide favorable conditions for mosquitoes to breed and for adult mosquitoes to survive.

If society waits for hospitals and health departments to cope with a zoonotic disease, it is too late. The most effective way to prevent or minimize zoonotic spillovers from animals to humans is to keep all animals healthy. Doing so requires greater attention to veterinary science and the health of domesticated animals and agriculture.  For environmental law, it means enhancing nature conservation programs that sustain ecosystem health, everywhere. We reduce the likelihood of zoonotic spillovers by sustaining resilient ecosystems in wetlands, in suburbs, in rural countryside, as well as in parks and wilderness. 

An inter-agency, or “whole of government” collaboration, is required. Such collaboration runs against the grain. We promote agriculture as commerce, with insufficient attention to veterinary health of farmed  animals. The pandemic of AFS has destroyed the pork industry in China and impacts food supplies worldwide. Animal health is treated apart from human health. Humans and animals exchange TB, zoonotic tuberculosis. Developed economies tend to forget that the well-being of all plants, animals and humans is intrinsically connected, and profoundly affect by human activity. The reality is that there is only “One Health.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) and Food & Agricultural Organization (FAO) endorse a “One Health” approach. The US Centers for Disease Control does too. Consensus favoring a “One Heath” approach has grown, but has been too marginal to make much of a difference. The  Wildlife Conservation Society and German government’s  2019 “Berlin Principles,”  or the 2017 UN Environment Assembly recommendations, and proposals from the EcoHealth Alliance, have all proposed  the “One Health” approach as essential to successfully manage risks of zoonosis.

To date, however, none of the “One Health” advocates  translate this policy construct  into meaningful action. At most they urge that veterinarians and public health  agencies should cooperate. In truth, cooperation between veterinarians, public health agencies, and nature conservation authorities, whether locally or globally through the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), today does not exist. All these entities largely ignore the tools that environmental law offers to effectuate the “One Health” approach.

To avert the spillover of viruses or bacteria from wild animals, it is essential to keep natural habitats healthy.  At the outset, “One Health” should formally recognize the conservation of wild nature as its foundation. Conservation is too often discounted or deemed merely an amenity. Yet if governments at all levels fail to maintain healthy wild habitats, they invite spillovers of virus and bacteria seeking human hosts. Human incursions are increasing disrupting habitat in the forests of Africa, Southeast Asia the Amazon, or the woods of suburban North America. Disease spillovers increase in turn.

Sustaining biodiversity requires maintaining intact and functional ecosystems. These are the fundamental infrastructure for all of life, our health and our socio-economic well-being. Stemming current losses in biodiversity is the front line for protecting human health. Governments need to mainline biodiversity conservation to manage zoonotic disease risks.  

Virtually all governments neglect these tasks. Government budgets reflect an ignorance about the measures that prevent zoonotic spillovers. Budgets invariably assign to Departments of Health more than twice the resources provided for nature conservation and they allocate exponentially more when funding  military or police security.  COVID-19 reveals the folly of this imbalance.  Zoonotic diseases are non-traditional security threats, causing incalculable human and economic loss. The upshot: “Pay me now or pay me later.”

To avert the “next” pandemic, governments can deploy  a number of environmental laws to implement  a “One Health” approach. Environmental laws provide a suite of policies and best practices exists to avert the “next” pandemic. Given what COVID-19 has taught us, there is some urgency in deploying these tools. Would it not be irresponsible to fail to do so?” Will we? The war on COVID-19 has so far precluded debate about preparing to avert the “next” pandemic.  We face  the risk of “business as usual,” and choosing not to learn, as happened after the experience of SARS in 2003-2004. 

Since the “next” zoonotic spillover is underway, it is essential to actively manage the interface between humans and animals. Surveillance of emerging diseases requires collecting data constantly, as a priority. To ensure that warnings from this surveillance are  acted upon,  each level of government needs to provide a strategic, high level coordinating council or executive body to oversee these efforts. Many governments do so now (See the 2019 Trilateral Guidance by WHO, FAO, OiE, at http://www.fao.org/3/ca2942en/ca2942en.pdf).  The USA briefly had such a strategic unit, begun after the Ebola crisis by the Obama Administration. The White House Directorate for Global Heath and Security in the National Security Council addressed these non-traditional security issues.  President Trump discontinued this unit. While the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) could be tasked with these coordinating roles, CEQ’s weakened capacity means that Congress and future Presidents will need to do even more in order to coordinate all federal agencies to protect domestic health. 

Every State government should have a gubernatorial body to prepare for and coordinate zoonotic risk management. Such bodies exist already in some cases. For example, New York State can and should activate the Governor’s Council of Environmental Advisors, as is authorized under Article 7 of the Environmental Conservation Law. A statutory body is needed to prevent a future executive from neglecting this strategic cockpit for “One Health.” Where no such authority exists, the legislature should provide for one.  

A top priority for any executive coordinating body will be to address how to manage zoonotic risks while addressing the impacts climate change. For example, New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act of June 2019 provides tools that could be used to provide “One Heath” safeguards. In §75-0109 of the Environmental Conservation Law, this Act provides for off-setting carbon emissions through extending forests and other ecosystems to enhance the photosynthesis that removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The same healthy habitats serve to avert zoonosis spillover. 

The same Act amended New York State’s Community Risk And Resilience Act in ways that directly also could be deployed to protect against zoonotic diseases.  § 17-A mandates that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)  address impacts on public health and species and to identify the most ”significant climate-related risks,” along with measures to mitigate those risks. § 17-B requires applicants for all permits to identify physical climate-risks and how to handle them and authorizes DEC to mandate mitigation measures. Increased disease spillovers are climate risks. 

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is another readily available tool. The data from environmental assessments can be harvested to identify zoonotic risks. Although President Trump is currently seeking to limit the role of the National Environmental Policy Act, the NEPA Regulations can and should address potential environmental impacts from zoonotic risks. Half the States also have their “little NEPAs” and assess zoonotic risks. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) are prime examples. They require all state and local governmental agencies to make a holistic evaluation of potential environmental impacts and risks. EIA effectively enables a “One Health” approach. Beyond collecting data on ecological zoonotic risks, EIA can identify options for sustaining health of ecosystems to contain spillovers of bacteria and viruses, identify the cumulative impacts exacerbating biodiversity loss, and identify how to fragmentation of intact ecosystems and restore migration corridors for species.

State building codes also serve a role to contain the spread of viruses within buildings.  Codes can be revised to mandate “healthy buildings.” For example, ventilation and filtration systems should be retrofitted to reduce risk of airborne exposures to communicable diseases. See Joseph G. Allen and Joseph D. Macomber, Healthy Buildings: How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity (Harvard University Press, 2020).  

Ultimately, “One Health” is all about sustaining biodiversity. The federal systems of National Parks, Wildlife Refuges and National Forests provide opportunities to enhance stewardship of natural areas. State park systems, and state wetlands laws, do the same. Zoning and land use laws at the state and local level also can provide for care of natural systems to manage zoonotic risks. Municipal land use laws can provide, for example, for migration corridors through overlay zones, or obliging property owners to control mosquito breeding, all to minimize infection risks. When ecological habitats remain undisturbed, the bacteria and viruses in wild nature tend to remain relatively stable in their natural hosts, which dilutes the chances of spillovers to humans.

Finally, the federal government and the states can establish and enhance phyto-sanitary safeguards for their agricultural sectors, and control animal products  imported into or through the states. Since 1947, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) has respected the rights of countries to impose such safeguards. California has done so for many years to protect its agricultural sector. Theses phyto-sanitary norms need to be expanded robustly to address zoonotic risks. Precautions to prevent microbes entering in our airports and at State borders can be established.   

Once a “One Health” approach is made operational, many state agencies will discover how they help  avert the “next” pandemic. There are key roles for agencies regulating agriculture, produce markets, public health, environmental protection, forestry, wildlife conservation, transportation, and other State agencies are key parts of the “One Health” approach. States have substantial expertise in their universities, organizations like the Wildlife Conservation Society, as well as across their public health sectors. Each state and local agency needs to undertake continuous biodiversity-related heath surveillance in order to detect and manage emerging zoonotic disease spillovers to avert health emergencies. Each can be alert to end habitat fragmentation, and can provide buffer zones that manage disease-risk from human interfaces with animals in shared ecosystems.

Even in the middle of this COVID-19 Pandemic, governments need to be building back better, to be anticipating and preparing for the “next” pandemic. As Ben Franklin said in 1736, “An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth A Pound of Cure.” States cannot wait for Washington, D.C. They each must build their own resilience. Leadership from the States can pilot the nation toward the security of “One Health.”

A New Map of Climate Resilient Landscapes

Posted on July 1, 2020 by Philip Tabas

After 12 years of work by more than 150 Nature Conservancy scientists we now have an interactive map of resilient lands that can withstand climate impacts AND protect biodiversity. Using ground-breaking science, conservationists identified a network of special places across the U.S. that have unique topographies, geologies, soils, temperatures and other characteristics that, if properly protected, could provide safe havens for species migrating away from growing climate threats.

We know that plant and animal species are disappearing at an alarming rate as their habitats are altered or destroyed by warmer temperatures, increased flooding and other impacts from the changing climate. One-third of animal and plant species could face extinction in the next 50 years due to climate change, according to a study from scientists at the University of Arizona. We know too that nature is on the move to escape these climate impacts. For example, in North America, studies show that species are shifting their ranges an average of 11 miles north and 36 feet in elevation each decade. Many species are approaching – or have already reached – the limit of where they can go to find hospitable climates. Research has also shown that more than half – nearly 60% – of US lands and waters are fragmented by human development, blocking species movement and preventing species from finding new and more hospitable habitat. 

The Resilient and Connected Network Map (see: http://maps.tnc.org/resilientland/) for the contiguous U.S. provides a new way to prioritize lands for land conservation action. This model offers a roadmap for preserving a network of resilient sites and connecting corridors that could sustain North America's natural diversity by allowing species to adapt to and thrive in the face of climate impacts. By protecting the most resilient landscapes, conservationists hope to double their environmental impact by 2050.

By providing safe havens for diverse species, this network of lands could also protect important sources of fertile soils, clean drinking water, economic resources and other vital services people rely on for survival. Conserving such a resilient network has large benefits for both people as well as nature. For example, resilient areas identified in Eastern North America not only serve as home to more than 30,000 species of plants and animals but also support a $25 billion outdoor recreation industry.  Additionally, protecting these resilient areas would secure over 66 million acres of high-value source water supply land, provide 1.8 billion tons of oxygen annually, and mitigate over 1.3 million tons of air pollution avoiding $913 million in human health costs. Resilient lands could also capture and store higher amounts of carbon than other areas and thus help offset greenhouse gas emissions; in the Eastern US, these lands could store an estimated 3.9 billion tons of carbon.

Of the total acreage represented in the network, approximately 301 million acres are already in some form of protected status. To protect the remainder, we will have to protect as much land as we have protected in the last 100 years of previous land conservation action. Although challenging, if government agencies, land trusts, the private sector and others can be persuaded to use this new science to direct conservation action and resources to these most important lands, it can maximize the impact of conservation funding and actions. Recent Senate passage of the Great American Outdoors Act or "GAOA” which would fully and permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund with $900 million annually for the first time since the program's creation in 1964, gives some hope that we will be able to meet this challenge.

By conserving these environmental strongholds, we can protect the lands best-equipped to sustain threatened species -- and mitigate the adverse effects of climate change in the process. Saving nature from the effects of climate change might seem to be a daunting task. But, by focusing on conserving naturally resilient lands, we can keep the planet habitable for a vast array of species, including our own.

Schrödinger’s Climate

Posted on May 18, 2020 by JB Ruhl

Question: Will we meet the goal of holding the rise of mean global temperature to below 2°C?

Answer: Yes and no, simultaneously.

Welcome to Schrödinger’s climate, a paradox in which commentary on climate change policy assumes we will meet the 2°C goal, for that is the motivation behind aggressive emission controls and other mitigation measures, but at the same time assumes we will not meet the 2°C goal, for that is the motivation behind aggressive measures to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger famously described a paradox that follows from quantum physics theory, which posits that particles in a quantum system exist in multiple states at the same time, assuming a final position only when observed from the external world. In his scenario, a cat is placed in a sealed box with a quantum particle and, through a contraption that reacts to the state of the particle, will either live or die depending on the state of the particle. Under quantum theory, Schrödinger argued, the cat would be simultaneously alive and dead until the lid of the box was unsealed and lifted off, at which point the observer would see the cat as either alive or dead.

It is important for climate change mitigation policy to have a goal. Whether expressed as parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide or average global temperature rise, the goal is used by mitigation policy commenters to rally support for emission controls. The goals used to be 350ppm and 1.5°C. Those are history now. The Paris accord moved the upper limit to 2°C. “We will hold the rise to below 2.0°C!”

At the same time, climate change adaptation policy commenters use scenarios built around different temperature rises to motivate action. While it is not as if no adaptation will be necessary in a 1.5°C or 2.0°C scenario, things start looking really messy above 2.0°C. If we are honest, 2.0°C may be a best-case scenario, so adaptation policy needs to get rolling. “We will not hold the rise to below 2.0°C!”

The Schrödinger’s climate paradox arises from the necessity of pursuing both mitigation policy and adaptation policy at the same time. There was a time when talk of adaptation was frowned upon, lest it lead to complacency on mitigation policy. Even modest sea level rise, however, threatens island nations and developing nations with large coastal populations, pushing adaptation into the international climate policy discourse. As it became clearer and clearer that climate change will have a wide range of nasty effects in many parts of the world—developed and developing—the need for adaptation policy became increasingly apparent. The urgency of mitigation policy depends on meeting the 2°C goal. The urgency of adaptation policy becomes more salient above the 2°C goal. To engage in the broad climate policy discourse these days—to advocate action across the board—one must enter the box of Schrödinger’s climate. 

Yet this leads to awkward conversations between those focused on mitigation and those focused on adaptation. “We need to prepare for massive human migration,” says the adaptationist. “Oh my,” says the mitigationist, “But we’re going to hold it to below 2.0°C, right?”  “Uh, sure,” says the adaptationist, “But we really need to prepare for bad stuff happening.” “Um, right,” says the mitigationist, then changes the topic. Tension between mitigationists and adaptationists remains in the air inside the Schrödinger climate box.

We do not have the luxury of lifting the lid off the box to observe whether the future is above or below 2°C. We are a world in dire and present need of aggressive mitigation and adaptation policies. Adaptation cannot be portrayed as a contingent policy for mitigation failure. Acting as if adaptation policy need only prepare us for the worst if we don’t meet the 2°C goal means we won’t be prepared for the worst. We need to shape mitigation policy around the idea that we will attain 2°C, and we need to shape adaptation policy around the idea that we will not. Ironically, this means climate policy must behave as if 2°C is both alive and dead.  This conundrum should no longer be cause for uncomfortable conversations.  “Embrace the paradox of Schrödinger’s climate!”

Earth Day 50: Have We Made any Real Progress?

Posted on April 22, 2020 by Christopher Davis

April 22, 2020 marks the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day. The coronavirus pandemic has consumed the world’s attention, and thus it seems likely that Earth Day and environmental issues will unfortunately get less attention than otherwise might have occurred.

The first Earth Day in 1970 changed my life. In particular, Garrett Hardin’s essay, The Tragedy of the Commons, and a little book called The Environmental Handbook, had a powerful influence on my thinking and career path.  I decided my calling was in solving environmental problems, stopping pollution and protecting nature. Over the last 50 years, this has taken me through a brief career in environmental engineering, a rewarding 30 years in environmental law, and most recently economic advocacy to leverage private sector solutions to climate change.

So where are we now, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Earth Day? There has certainly been progress in building environmental consciousness, institutionalizing environmental protection, developing environmental laws, building a global cadre of environmental professionals, reducing at least the most obvious forms of air and water pollution and cleaning up hazardous waste sites. In most places, at least in the developed world, the air and water are cleaner.

Yet on a macro scale, many indicators of environmental quality have declined significantly since 1970. Global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the physical impacts of climate change are accelerating, and we are making little progress in implementing the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting average global warming to well under 2 degrees Celsius. Deforestation continues to shrink the world’s tropical forests, biodiversity is being lost, species extinction is accelerating, wetlands are disappearing, and our oceans are becoming degraded. Groundwater and surface water resources are being depleted and nonpoint sources threaten water quality. Toxic pollutants are ubiquitous. By most accounts, the world’s ecosystems are in worse shape than they were in 1970. Our expanding human population has exceeded the carrying capacity of the world’s natural systems on which we all depend.

So, while we have won many battles in environmental protection and the implementation of environmental laws, we are losing the war. The imperatives of economic growth and resource consumption have overwhelmed the forces of environmental protection and conservation. Our generation has been responsible for many great technological and social advances. Yet as we mark the 50th Earth Day, our environmental legacy is troubling.

Perhaps the lessons of the coronavirus crisis—and the need for prevention, global collaboration, and commitment of resources necessary to anticipate and combat such crises-- will enable the kind of concerted action needed to successfully confront the systemic risks of climate change and global ecological degradation. We have the tools and knowledge to solve these problems; we lack only the moral imperative and collective political will to do so--and the sense of urgency that inspired me and so many others on that first Earth Day.

Nothing But Blue Skies?

Posted on March 31, 2020 by Robert Uram

As a result of the measures put in place to flatten the curve for the coronavirus pandemic, California is experiencing an unprecedented improvement in air quality. The combination of work from home, layoffs and reduced automobile travel by people sheltering in place has reduced vehicle miles traveled by as much as 70 percent.  Nearly everyone in California is now experiencing good air quality. Nearly everyone in California will wake up to bluer skies and cleaner air so long as the pandemic restrictions remain in place.

Californians have not seen this high level of air quality since before World War II. Even this brief improvement in air quality will help those who suffer from asthma, bronchitis, lung irritation and heart disease. As an added benefit, congestion has been reduced and there will likely be a significant decline in deaths and injuries from accidents. The reduced emissions are also a down payment on emission reductions desperately needed to address climate change.

In medicine, randomized studies are the gold standard for determining the efficacy of a new drug or device. In the air pollution arena, the California Air Resources Board can’t do randomized studies. It can’t order people not to drive so the Board can measure the effects of reduced vehicles miles traveled or substituting electric vehicles for fossil fuel vehicles. Instead, it does computer modeling to estimate these effects. But computer models are meaningless to most people. They can’t read a computer model and see how their lives will be better if they have bluer skies and healthier air. It’s too abstract. The crisis is not only giving the Board valuable information on the actual effects of less vehicle pollution, it is giving millions of people first hand experience of seeing and understanding how much better of their lives will be with less pollution clouding their sky.

What to do? How do we assure that Californians will see blue skies sooner rather than later once the crisis has abated? How do we assure that Californians will step up in the battle against climate change? And, how do we assure California will leap ahead and create jobs to ameliorate the devastating economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic.

California has roughly 24 million cars. California’s current goal is to have 1.5 million electric vehicles on the road by 2025. My hope is that the millions of Californians who are now experiencing better air quality will push the state to far exceed the current goal. California should place a moratorium on new fossil fuel powered vehicles as soon as possible and provide the regulatory climate and financial support conditions to build millions of electric vehicles here in California without delay. We all should enjoy blue skies and a better economy as soon as possible.

Think Globally, Act Locally?

Posted on March 10, 2020 by Mark W. Schneider

In Washington State, some legislators and regulators have been acting locally.  But are they thinking globally?

Our two-term governor sought for years, unsuccessfully, to persuade our legislature to authorize a statewide program to reduce carbon emissions.  After several unsuccessful attempts, his Department of Ecology passed the Clean Air Rule (Chapter 173-442 WAC), which attempted to accomplish by regulation what he couldn’t accomplish by legislation.  The Clean Air Rule imposed requirements on direct and indirect emitters, with the goal of reducing carbon emissions in the state.  Predictably, it was challenged.  The trial court invalidated the Clean Air Rule in its entirety, and the Washington Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled in January that the Washington Clean Air Act (Chapter 70.94 RCW) authorized Ecology to regulate direct emitters, but not indirect emitters. Ass’n of Washington Business et al. v. Washington State Dep’t of Ecology, 455 P.3d 1126 (Wash. 2020).  Our legislature, with a different makeup of senators and representatives than in the past, is now considering several bills expressly authorizing Ecology to regulate indirect emitters.  And in next year’s legislative session, the Governor, who is likely to be elected for a third term, may ask the legislature to pass a comprehensive cap and invest bill to govern emissions from Washington State sources.

Is this thinking globally?  Does imposing carbon emission limits in Washington State lower or raise global emissions?  Many observers, including Energy Intensive Trade Exposed entities (“EITEs”), have demonstrated that the state-only limits on carbon will lead to “leakage” - a reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases within the state that is exceeded by an increase in emissions of greenhouse gas emissions outside the state.  Some of the EITEs engage in operations with far less “carbon intensity” (tons of carbon emitted per unit of product produced) than their competitors in other states and countries.  With carbon emission limits, and resulting costs, imposed only on entities operating in Washington State, the EITEs may lose business to out-of-state competitors, many of which emit more carbon per unit of product.  More carbon pollution.  That’s local action that, along with other things, may contribute to global harm.            

Or will this local action lead to global benefits?  In the face of federal government inactivity on carbon, some states have already taken action on a statewide level.  Will Washington State legislative or regulatory action induce more states to follow suit, and will that result in lower emissions of carbon in the country?  And, if that happens, will other countries take action to lower global emissions? Or will it incentivize US companies to operate elsewhere in countries with less stringent emissions?

As this state/national/global tension continues to build, we need to think globally and act locally in a way that will result in reductions of global carbon emissions. In Washington State, one thoughtful step would be to regulate EITEs in a way that allows them to grow but doesn’t contribute to leakage.  That could include measuring compliance for them based on output of emissions per unit of production, rather than mass of emissions. It could also mean recognizing past beneficial conduct and crediting EITEs for prior efficiency improvements that reduced the carbon intensity of their operations.  And it could mean providing a variety of compliance pathways for EITEs, rather than simply requiring an inflexible linear reduction in emissions.

That’s one step.  We need many others.

Get Off of My Cloud – Online Storage is Not as Environmentally Sustainable as I Thought

Posted on February 5, 2020 by Jonathan Ettinger

I read an article last week in Fortune magazine (free registration required) about the large amount of energy actually consumed by cloud storage and thought that must only apply if you are actively uploading, changing, or downloading documents and pictures.  But I was wrong.  With a little digging, I was able to determine that all of those family photos and videos of your cats (not to mention huge folders of environmental analyses) automatically uploaded to iCloud, Google Drive, Box.com, DropBox, and Amazon actually consume lots of electricity even when they are just sitting idle.  Apparently the servers, which are energy hogs because they require lots of cooling, are actively managed on a regular basis to prevent loss or degradation of data, regardless of whether we are accessing the information or not.

According to one source, uploading data and storing it in the cloud consumes 3-7 kWh per gigabyte, roughly a million times more than storing it on your hard drive.  So storing 100 gigabytes of data in the cloud for one year (maybe a few thousand photos or a few hours of video) would result in the emission of roughly 0.2 tons of CO2

I am not suggesting we all stop using the cloud for storage.  After all, it is convenient, largely safe, and probably more environmentally sustainable than paper file storage.  It’s just that it isn’t carbon neutral.  Everything has trade-offs.  For me, I will keep uploading videos of my dogs playing (turn on the sound) – primarily because I am not sure how to stop it – and sending links to classic rock songs.

Children’s Climate Case Coming to a Close

Posted on January 23, 2020 by Rick Glick

In an extraordinary opinion issued January 17, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that the redress sought by the Juliana v. United States plaintiffs is beyond the power of federal courts.  It is not the conclusion that is extraordinary, which was widely expected, but rather the court’s extended expression of dismay in having to reach it. 

Plaintiffs in this case are a group of young people alleging that through policies promoting or acquiescing to fossil fuels use, the federal government has violated their constitutional rights to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.”  The court never reaches the merits of the case.

The basis for the court’s conclusion is that the plaintiffs lack standing, meaning the right to prosecute their case in federal courts.  There is a three-part test for standing.  First, the plaintiffs must show “concrete and particularized injury.”  Second, plaintiffs must show that their injury is caused by defendant.  Third, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the alleged injury can be redressed by court order.  The court found that plaintiffs satisfied the first two prongs, but not the third.

The court noted that the “plaintiffs have compiled an extensive record” that the government “affirmatively promotes fossil fuel use in a host of ways,” from tax credits to extraction leases on public lands.  These policies “will wreak havoc on the Earth’s climate if unchecked.”  The court had no trouble finding particularized injury to specific plaintiffs and that there is a genuine issue as to whether these government policies are a “substantial factor” in plaintiffs’ injuries.  The harder question is what a court could or should do to remedy the problem.

The court found that the scope of the desired remedy—an injunction to end pro-fossil fuel policies and to direct the government to prepare a plan to reduce emissions—is better left to the political branches to resolve.  The court recognized the harm from government policies, which the government does not refute.  However, such an order is problematic because:

  • Plaintiffs own experts acknowledge that the injunction would not “suffice to stop catastrophic climate change or even ameliorate their injuries. . . . Rather, these experts opine that such a result calls for no less than a fundamental transformation of this country’s energy system, if not that of the industrialized world.”
  • “As the opinions of their experts make plain, any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches.”
  • “Although the plaintiffs’ invitation to get the ball rolling by simply ordering the promulgation of a plan is beguiling, it ignores that an Article III court will thereafter be required to determine whether the plan is sufficient to remediate the claimed constitutional violation of the plaintiffs’ right to a ‘climate system capable of sustaining human life.’ We doubt that any such plan can be supervised or enforced by an Article III court. And, in the end, any plan is only as good as the court’s power to enforce it.”

The plaintiffs have indicated the case is not over, that they will seek reconsideration of the three-judge panel’s decision before the entire Ninth Circuit en banc, and possibly the Supreme Court.  Reconsideration rarely overturns decisions and bringing the case to the Supreme Court is risky.  If the Court accepts the case, the result may be an even more adverse standing ruling for such cases.  There are cases pending in which the relief sought is not so broad as in Juliana, cases in which states are asking for money damages for harm caused by government fossil fuel policies.  The Ninth Circuit’s denial of standing based on redressability may not be as limiting in those cases, as courts are accustomed to cases seeking damages.

Even if the Juliana case ends here, it will have served an important public service.  The plaintiffs’ tenacity—and the extraordinary advocacy by their attorney Julia A. Olson—have shone a spotlight on the abject failure of the government to address climate change.  The court expressed its sympathy to that effort and its regret at the limited ability of the judiciary to correct the government’s failure:

The plaintiffs have made a compelling case that action is needed; it will be increasingly difficult in light of that record for the political branches to deny that climate change is occurring, that the government has had a role in causing it, and that our elected officials have a moral responsibility to seek solutions. We do not dispute that the broad judicial relief the plaintiffs seek could well goad the political branches into action. We reluctantly conclude, however, that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large, the latter of which can change the composition of the political branches through the ballot box. That the other branches may have abdicated their responsibility to remediate the problem does not confer on Article III courts, no matter how well-intentioned, the ability to step into their shoes.

It was always unlikely that U.S. courts would feel empowered to issue orders to address so complex and global a problem.  The Trump Administration’s open hostility to aggressive action to restrain fossil fuels use—reaffirmed by the President at the Davos conference just this week—coupled with congressional inaction, suggests leaving the matter to the legislative and executive branches is a slim reed indeed.  But as the court concludes, Juliana and other climate cases make it harder for politicians to ignore the catastrophic consequences and get reelected.  The question is, how much more time do we have to take meaningful action?

Being On the Eve of Destruction Does Not Provide a Basis for Judicial Relief

Posted on January 23, 2020 by Seth Jaffe

Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States do not have standing.  Given where we are, this is about as momentous a decision as I can imagine.  I get the majority opinion.  Under traditional standing doctrine, it may even be right, though I think it’s a close call.

However, this is not a time for timidly falling back on the easy jurisprudential path.  Extraordinary times demand something extraordinary, from our judges as well as our elected leaders.  If our government is even around in a hundred years, I think that this decision will likely be seen as of a piece with Dred ScottPlessy v. Ferguson, and Korematsu

The cruel irony underlying the opinion is that it is the very scope of the climate problem and the comprehensive government response that it demands that is the basis of the court’s decision that courts are not in a position to oversee the response.  Is this the first case ever brought before our nation’s courts in which the court ruled that it could not grant relief, precisely because relief is so necessary?

I’ll note one other issue.  The majority opinion was clearly sympathetic to the plaintiffs, but ultimately concluded that:

the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large.

What if, however, our legislative and executive branches are literally incapable of addressing climate change?  That’s pretty much the view of my intellectual hero, Daniel Kahneman.  If we are truly on the eve of destruction and Congress can’t do anything about it, must the courts remain powerless to step in?  And so I’ll leave you with the conclusion of the dissent:

Were we addressing a matter of social injustice, one might sincerely lament any delay, but take solace that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” The denial of an individual, constitutional right—though grievous and harmful—can be corrected in the future, even if it takes 91 years. And that possibility provides hope for future generations.

Where is the hope in today’s decision? Plaintiffs’ claims are based on science, specifically, an impending point of no return. If plaintiffs’ fears, backed by the government’s own studies, prove true, history will not judge us kindly. When the seas envelop our coastal cities, fires and droughts haunt our interiors, and storms ravage everything between, those remaining will ask: Why did so many do so little?

COURT-ORDERED REDUCTIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES? THE URGENDA AND JULIANA DECISIONS

Posted on January 22, 2020 by John C. Dernbach

Two major climate change cases were decided in the last month—State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda (Dec. 20, 2019) and Juliana v. United States (Jan. 17, 2020).  They illustrate sharply contrasting views about the role of courts in forcing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Urgenda decision, issued by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, upheld lower court decisions in 2015 and 2018 requiring the national government to “reduce greenhouse gases by the end of 2020 by at least 25% compared to 1990.”  The government’s current goal of a 20% reduction by 2020, the Court held, violates Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a human rights treaty to which 47 nations are parties, including the Netherlands.  As our colleague Michael Gerrard has pointed out, this is the first judicial decision anywhere in the world to explicitly require a government to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.  

Article 2 of the EHCR ‘protects the right to life,” and means that a nation has a “positive obligation to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction.”  Article 8 “protects the right to respect for private and family life,” which includes a nation’s “positive obligation to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect individuals against serious damage to their environment.”  Finally, and significantly, Article 13 “provides that if the rights and freedoms under the ECHR are violated, there exists the right to an effective remedy before a national authority.” 

Climate change science, the Court said, compels the conclusion that there is a “genuine threat of dangerous climate change,” and that the “lives and welfare of Dutch residents could be seriously jeopardized.”  In addition, “there is a high degree of international consensus” on the need to achieve at least a 25% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to prevent dangerous climate change.  The government violated its duties under the ECHR with a less ambitious short-term goal, the court held.  (The 2019 Dutch Climate Act sets a 49% reduction goal for 2030 and a 95% reduction goal for 2050, and there was no dispute about long-term goals.) 

The Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument that “it is not for the courts” to make political decisions “on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”  ”The protection of human rights…is an essential component of a democratic state under the rule of law,” the Court said.  “This case involves an exceptional situation. After all, there is the threat of dangerous climate change.”  The government, not the courts, will decide which measures to employ to achieve the required reduction, the court explained.  

In the Juliana case, 21 young people are the principal plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the United States, claiming, among other things, a right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.”  They developed a “substantial record” establishing the severity of existing and projected climate change impacts, and showing that the government had not only failed to act but that it “affirmatively promotes fossil fuel use in a host of ways.”  They sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the “government to implement a plan to ‘phase down fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric [carbon dioxide].’”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, “reluctantly” held that youth plaintiffs did not have standing.  All three judges agreed that climate change caused by human activity presents grave, even existential, risks.  For the majority, Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote that the plaintiffs met the first two requirements for standing—some had suffered concrete and particularized injuries, and their injuries were “fairly traceable to” carbon emissions.  But even assuming that there is a constitutional right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life,” the court said, they do not meet the third requirement because “it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan.”

The plaintiffs had argued that the legislative and executive branches of government can figure out which particular measures to employ to “phase down fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric [carbon dioxide].”  But even then, the court said, a court would have to decide whether the government’s response is sufficient.  There is no “limited and precise” standard, the majority wrote, by which a court could determine the adequacy of the government’s response.

Judge Josephine Staton’s lengthy dissenting opinion states that the plaintiffs are seeking to “enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.”  The discernible standard, she wrote, is “the amount of fossil-fuel emissions that will irreparably devastate our nation.”  This is a scientific question, she said, not a political one.  

Julia Olson, co-counsel for plaintiffs in the case, issued a statement saying the next step would be a petition for en banc review in the Ninth Circuit. 

As both cases indicate, there is no universal answer on the authority of courts to order reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and this issue is not going away.

MAKING MIRACLES HAPPEN

Posted on January 21, 2020 by Charles F. Becker

I’ve known Drew Tierney since I was 10. I’d call him a friend, but he’d find a way to argue about it.  You know the type, they live to disagree – you desperately want to prove them wrong, but it never happens.

DT (as his friends call him) and I met for lunch last week. He was in fine form and clearly ready for a fight.  We ordered a beer and food and started watching a game.

DT: “So, it’s a good thing we finally got that Soleimani dude, right?”

DT is one of those people that put “right” at the end of every sentence so that you have to agree or become bait. I wasn’t in the mood.

Me: “I suppose, but we’ll just have to see where it goes.”

That seemed to satisfy him as he took a bite out of his chicken sandwich, then said:

“Does it really count as an impeachment if nothing is sent over to the Senate? That wouldn’t be fair, right?”

I chomped down hard on a piece of celery causing a neighboring table to stop talking for a moment. But I bit my tongue at the same time.

Me: “I’ll leave that one to the scholars.”

I could see DT process my comment and he apparently decided that yet another impeachment debate wasn’t worth the effort. He took another bite and said:

“It’s a real shame that the Dems can’t get their act together on that climate change thingy.”

He kind of spit out the word “thingy.” He knew that would do it  . . . and it did.

Me: “Climate change thingy? Are you kidding me? Climate change is a disaster, and everyone knows it!”

DT: “Really? Everyone?”

Finally!  One I could win.  I knew this stuff.

Me: “Do you know that 69% of all Americans believe that we need to take aggressive action to fight climate change?  And that includes 56% of Republicans and 71% of independents.  That’s pretty impressive.”

DT: “Yeah, but 43% say they wouldn’t pay a dime to deal with climate change.  And only 28% overall would be willing to pay even an extra $10 a month to help.  That’s $120 a year!  That means about two-thirds of your support will talk the talk but won’t walk the walk.

Me: “Well, OK, but from 2014 to 2019, the people who saw climate change as an actual crisis went from 23% to 38%. That means more than one-third of the country see it as critical.”

DT: “But for Republicans, it started out at 12% and stayed at 12%. Not what I’d call a burning issue, is it? In fact, the polls of all the voters in 2012, 2016, and 2019 show that of the top issues for voters, climate change has always ranked right near the bottom.”

Me: “That’s because Republicans skew the results!”

I had him. 

Surprisingly, DT seemed unpersuaded.

DT: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means. I think you mean to say Republicans participated in the results. There are as many Republicans as Democrats. The problem is you keep forgetting that. “

Me: “I can’t help it if 88% of them can’t read.”

DT:  “Let me suggest that telling Republicans they’re illiterate doesn’t seem to be a particularly persuasive argument, right?”

This wasn’t going exactly as I planned.

DT: “Whether you like it or not, the difference in the parties’ view on climate change has the biggest gap of any of the priority issues -- there’s a 46% difference between the parties in how important climate change is to the country. Heck, Trump shut down the government over a border wall and the difference between the parties on immigration is a measly 28%.  You’re not going to close the gap by pounding your fist and saying ‘you just don’t get it’ to the people whose vote you need.”

Me: “But DT, it doesn’t matter what the difference is . . . what about our children?”

DT stopped eating, looked at me, and sighed.

DT: “Well, there it is. The ‘you’re-killing-our-children’ argument. The last bastion of the self-righteous. But you know what, I’ll give you that argument. You’re right, we might be killing our children, but all you’ve succeeded in doing is to make both parties dig in deeper. The problem is you believe that climate change is a moral issue.  Maybe it was at one time, but not anymore. You know that whatever the solution is going to be, it will have to be instigated by the federal government. You keep telling me it’s going to cost billions of dollars and will go on for decades.  It seems to me that makes it, by definition, a problem for Congress.  Like it or not, you’ve made it political, right?  And once you make it a political problem, in this day, good luck.”

That really was a show stopper.  DT was right about it being a money issue.  And at this scale, it was going to have to be done by Congress, so clearly it was political. In years past, maybe some sort of middle ground was possible, but not today – or tomorrow.   So does DT win again?

But then I saw it.  I realized DT wasn’t really a bad person, he was just a good arguer.  And he was a good arguer because he always forced you to argue in his ballpark.  The real problem was we were just in the wrong stadium.

Me: “OK DT, you’re right.  The costs are really big.  I doubt that we’ll ever agree on a solution, so it’s not worth arguing about.”

DT was puzzled for a moment, but he seemed satisfied.  We ordered another beer and continued to watch the game.

Me: “By the way, how’s your daughter doing at Southeastern?”

DT: “Don’t get me started.  The cost of that place is killing me.”

Me: “I hear ya.  I’ve got the same problem.  I’m just happy the investments are working out.”

Next to politics, DT’s favorite topic is money and he’s nothing if not a creature of habit – thankfully.

DT: “Really?  What’s working for you?”

Me: “I put a lot into Sunkist Dynamics a few years ago. They’ve been going nuts!”

DT: “What do they do?”

Me: “Solar panels, and they’re American made.  It’s sort of like buying Exxon at $5 a share.”

DT: “So, there’s really money there?”

Me: “Ohhh, yeah.”  And I added an eye roll that implied that you were an idiot if you weren’t already on this gravy train.  DT looked around, leaned over and sort of whispered to me:

“You think I can I get in?”

Me: “Oh, no.  Sorry DT, it was a private placement deal.”  I took a sip of beer and let that sink in for a moment.  “But I do know about a group of investors that are going to fund a wind farm.  The possibilities are huge.  Think about it – you make money whenever the wind blows.”

I saw DT stop for a moment and sort of gaze into the distance.  He was calculating how much money he might make when the primary input was free. 

DT: “That sounds like a pretty good buy . . . right?”

Me: “Well, it’s up to you.  Just don’t tell a lot of people – I want to keep this between us.”

DT: “Not a problem – I get it – too many cooks kind of thing.”  He ran his two fingers across his lips and added: “Zipped tight.” 

Then a minor miracle happened:

DT: “By the way, lunch is on me today.”

I ordered dessert.

It’s Not Going to Be Easy to Be Green

Posted on January 8, 2020 by Seth Jaffe

The New York Citizens Budget Commission has released a report regarding the state’s ability to meet its ambitious GHG reduction targets.  It’s sobering reading.  The CBC states that it is “uncertain” whether New York can meet those goals.  It identifies four reasons:

Immense scaling up of renewable generation capacity is necessary and is likely infeasible by 2030.

The focus on building renewable resources, particularly offshore wind, and entering into long-term power contracts limits flexibility and diminishes consideration of other cost-effective approaches.

State policies on nuclear, natural gas, and hydropower are counterproductive.

The focus on other sectors—particularly transportation—is insufficient.

I understand that some people think that natural gas’s time has passed.  I understand that some people don’t like nuclear power.  I understand that some people don’t like hydropower.

However, I also understand, as the report points out, that some people also don’t like the transmission lines necessary to bring large-scale wind to consumers.  And, indeed, some people don’t even like wind power.  At the same time, people do like their iPhones and their cars, and fresh fruit from foreign places.  In short, even if you don’t like some of the conclusions of this report, it’s a valuable reminder of just how difficult this is going to be.

It’s not easy being green.

Jersey Girl ‘Cause down the shore everything’s all right, You and your baby on a Saturday night….

Posted on December 23, 2019 by Virginia C. Robbins

These lyrics from the Jersey Girl tune on Bruce Springsteen’s 1984 single echo the summers of his youth spent at the New Jersey shore.  I was reminded of Springsteen while reading the book “The Geography of Risk, Epic Storms, Rising Seas, and the Cost of America’s Coasts” written by the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Gilbert M. Gaul, that was published earlier this year.  Gaul’s book makes clear that today everything is definitely not all right at the shore.

Gaul’s well-researched and engaging book presents, among others, the cautionary tale of development and post-storm restoration on Long Beach Island, a barrier island located midway along the 141-mile-long New Jersey coast. Gaul introduces us to an industrious New Jersey character, Morris Shapiro, a Lithuanian immigrant who arrived in the U.S. in 1899. In 1926 Shapiro bought 53 acres on Long Beach Island between the ocean and the bay. Over time, Shapiro, his sons, and others built thousands of small summer homes on Long Beach Island and along the bay coast behind the barrier island. These modest homes were not built for the wealthy, but for teachers, postal employees, and auto assembly workers in a nearby Ford plant. If a storm knocked one of the tiny houses down, it would be replaced with another small cottage.

By 1962 there were 5,361 homes on Long Beach Island. The tax base from this development allowed the local communities to flourish. On March 6, 1962, a mega-storm known as the Ash Wednesday Nor’easter obliterated much of the island. One thousand homes were severely impaired and 600 were destroyed. The storm caused $2 billion in damage in today’s dollars. In the immediate aftermath of the storm, rather than giving serious consideration to whether reconstruction in such a vulnerable location would be prudent and sustainable, town leaders wanted to know how quickly the homes could be rebuilt in time for Memorial Day weekend.

At the time, New Jersey’s Governor Hughes tried to slow down the redevelopment by proposing a 6-month moratorium on new building while a plan for protecting the coast was prepared. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers agreed with the governor and suggested a 50-foot wide buffer along the barrier island to protect its sand dunes. But the beach-town mayors and other politicians would have none of this. They were focused on the economic disaster that would occur if the shore were not up and operating by the summer season.

Gaul says his book, in part, is a meditation on the question of risk: How much should be private; how much public? He states that the cost of storm damage that was once borne by beach towns and homeowners is now largely paid for by federal taxpayers. In the 1950s, the federal government paid for 5 percent of the cost of rebuilding after hurricanes. Today it covers 70 percent, or in some cases 100 percent. Federal government subsidies created a moral hazard by encouraging development and reconstruction in fragile coastal ecosystems not only in New Jersey, but also in North and South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Texas. Gaul’s narrative includes insights on the political and business leaders in these states whose economic and political interests encourage reconstruction after storm events. In contrast, Gaul speaks with Duke’s Emeritus Professor of coastal geology, Orrin Pilkey, who describes the relentless development along our shores as “madness and hubris of unbelievable proportions.”

The author describes the hurricanes that have recently devastated the U.S. coast and how U.S. taxpayers living far from the coastline pay for federal programs that grant disaster relief, issue flood insurance and pay claims, and recreate beaches. Gaul explains that by law federal flood insurance premiums are not based on an assessment of the risks associated with the location of a particular insured property, but rather on national blended averages that overstate the risk for some inland homes and understate it for coastal homes. This makes little sense given that, since 2000, the federal program has paid more than $45 billion in claims for coastal floods, and many of these for second homes, but only $5 billion for all other types of floods. The federal flood insurance program is underfunded and owes the U.S. Treasury about $24 billion.

Gaul calls the failure to slow unrestricted coastal building one of the most costly and damaging planning failures in our history with about $3 trillion worth of property now at risk. To create resiliency to protect this property, there are funding demands being made now for extraordinarily expensive infrastructure projects: $20 billion to protect New York Harbor and lower Manhattan; and $61 billion for the coast of Texas, including Galveston and the Houston Ship Channel. But can we ever build enough surge gates, barriers and levees to protect our cities and industries in coastal areas or will the water win in the end? This book suggests that we have no choice but to attempt to protect the heavily developed and valuable properties in coastal areas. At the same time, we should consider a more equitable way of charging for the resiliency projects, rather than simply passing all the costs on to taxpayers.

What impact will this book have? It should prompt serious public debate and action at the local, state and federal levels to restore natural resiliency along our coasts, but I doubt it will. The history of government funding of reconstruction in fragile coastal ecosystems over the past 60 years leads me to believe that the forces profiting from the current policy are far stronger than wrecking-ball rain and wind. To avoid economic disaster, I believe coastal communities will continue their infrastructure resiliency efforts using local, state and federal funds (raising roads, elevating homes, constructing better bridges). That might be acceptable if we devise an equitable way of allocating the costs of these projects in large measure to those who benefit most from them. But sadly, this approach ignores any land ethic, as in the words of Aldo Leopold from his A Sand County Almanac: The land-relation is still strictly economic, entailing privileges but not obligations.

There are communities that appear to be reaching a sustainability breaking point because of rising sea levels. One example is the barrier island of Ocracoke, NC, at three feet above sea level. Hit hard by Hurricane Dorian, some residents retreated after being traumatized by rising flood waters. In a November 9, 2019 article about Dorian’s impact to Ocracoke, The Washington Post reported that local and state officials are committed to rebuilding the island even though they recognize that long-term recovery does not appear sustainable. Orrin Pilkey is right – madness and hubris.

Cutting Carbon While Feeding People: The Role of Food Rescue in Slowing Climate Change

Posted on December 11, 2019 by Adam Kahn

The Natural Resources Defense Council reports that up to 40% of all food in the United States is wasted, even as 40 million Americans lack consistent access to adequate and nutritious food. Donation of useable food has palpable and obvious social benefits.  Recovering (or rescuing) edible food from restaurants, groceries and institutions that would otherwise go to waste can help “bridg[e] the gap between abundance and need.”  Reduction in food waste (through food rescue or otherwise) will also yield big reductions in carbon emissions.

From an environmental regulatory perspective, managing food that has been deemed unsalable has traditionally been considered a solid waste problem.  Four northeastern states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont) and California limit the disposal of “food waste” or other organics in conventional waste streams that go to landfills or waste to energy facilities.  Getting usable food out of the waste stream, for the most part, satisfies most existing regulatory schemes, regardless of how it is done.  However, these rules do not create a clear preference or incentive for “rescuing” food so that it can be eaten by people. 

This is not to suggest that regulators are ignoring benefits of food waste reduction in setting solid waste policy.  The USDA and US EPA have presented inverse pyramids of priorities for preventing or diverting wasted food; food rescue is number two, right after prevention of food waste at the production level.   These efforts and similar efforts may be having some effect:  In my home state of Massachusetts, the current draft Solid Waste Master Plan appropriately highlights the 60% increase in rescue of fresh and perishable food between 2010 and 2018.  The non-profit ReFED has developed an impressive Food Waste Policy Finder that compiles ways in which food wastage can be reduced, and an equally impressive Roadmap to identify cost-effective regulatory, policy, and business solutions to reduce food waste.  Outside of solid waste rules, food waste can be reduced by improving “sell by” or “use by” date labeling requirements, food handling practices and regulations, usage and waste tracking information, packaging and portion sizes, consumer and business education, and donation-related tax incentives.  

Food rescue and other forms of food waste reduction can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that 8-10% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions result from food loss and waste.  In 2011, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) similarly found that food wastage accounted for 3.6 billion tons of CO2e, or as FAO put it “if food wastage was a country, it would be the third largest emitting country in the world” (right after China and the US and right before India and Russia).  Of that figure, about 35% comes in the distribution and consumption phases of the food supply chain, which are the stages where food rescue comes into play.  Similar statistics abound in other reputable publications.

So, what role can environmental law serve to help realize the climate benefits of food rescue, apart from continued improvements in solid waste policy?

Jurisdictions that regulate carbon emissions, or have carbon emission caps or reduction targets, should consider providing tradable credits for rescue of food or other beneficial reuse.  This will be complicated, particularly in the absence of economy-wide regulation of carbon emissions.  Nonetheless, an administrable system would create a new avenue to enable would-be producers of food waste to monetize their good deeds through tradable carbon-avoidance credits.  As a first step to any of this, we should agree on a transparent and understandable standard for measuring the carbon impact from food rescue.  The Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting Standard is one potential example.  Once a methodology is accepted, the carbon benefits of food waste reduction can be quantified and then rewarded. 

Even in the absence of tradable credits, requiring carbon offsets in the form of food waste reduction could form part of a jurisdiction’s larger carbon reduction plan.  For example, state and local regulatory authorities with mandates to minimize environmental impacts could require development projects (particularly those involving the food industry) to offset incremental greenhouse gas emissions through food waste reduction.  Similarly, environmental regulators that retain the ability to consider supplemental environmental projects could consider food waste reduction as part of resolution of environmental enforcement actions.

These ideas will take time and collective will to put in place.  But individual action does not need to wait: reducing food waste today will have carbon benefits today even if no one is measuring, regulating, or rewarding it. 

12 Legal Tools to Push Climate Preparedness

Posted on December 4, 2019 by Michael Gerrard

We know that, mostly as a result of climate change, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe.  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions should be the highest priority, but that won’t be enough to prevent severe impacts, some of which are already occurring. Here are twelve ways the law can help society cope with these impacts.

1. Flood maps – The Federal Emergency Management Agency should update its flood maps and make them reflect anticipated future climate conditions, not just past experience.

2. Disclose flood risks – Prospective buyers of property should be given information about any flood risks faced by the property.

3. Environmental impact assessments – Environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and its state counterparts should consider the climate conditions expected at the end of a project’s useful life, not just at the start, to help ensure the project can withstand those conditions.

4. Public utility regulation – Other states should follow the lead of the New York Public Service Commission in requiring major utilities (in this case, Con Edison) to study expected future climate conditions going out decades, and prepare plans to cope with those conditions in order to maintain reliability.

5. Permit conditions – Several statutes require permit holders to have and implement plans to prepare for extreme events – e.g., Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act; Oil Pollution Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Conservation Law Foundation is pushing these requirements in lawsuits in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

6. Securities disclosure – As required (but not enforced) by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and as advanced by the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, public companies should disclose the physical risk to their facilities and operations from climate change.

7. Heat – To cope with the dangerous heat conditions to come, cities should require landlords, including of public housing, to provide air conditioning or otherwise keep apartments cool enough to not endanger health.  They should also require suitably-shaped roofs to be white, green, or topped with solar panels; and they should require large-scale tree planting.

8. Building codes – Codes should require buildings to be designed and built so as to withstand anticipated flooding, wildfires, and other risks.

9. Inspections – Flooding-vulnerable infrastructure such as levees and dams should be inspected frequently and repaired when needed.

10. Toxic sites – The remediation of contaminated sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act and other programs should reflect future flood risk.

11. Architects’ training – The states’ architects licensing boards should require architects to take continuing education courses on climate risks.

12. Managed retreat – Though politically toxic almost everyone, cities that are vulnerable to future extreme flooding should begin planning to retreat from shorelines and riverbanks that will become uninhabitable, and to relocate uses to safe areas.

IMO 2020 – A Strikeout for Sulfur, but Black Carbon Is Still on Base

Posted on November 7, 2019 by Susan Cooke

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from international shipping supposedly represent 2% to 3% of the world total, about on par with those emitted by Germany.  However, there are no GHG emission restrictions covering ships on the high seas.  Moreover, even the current limits on sulfur and NOx are far less stringent than those imposed in many developed countries, although things are about to change on the SO2 front.

That is about to change.  The International Maritime Organization (IMO), which is part of the United Nations, recently announced a new and more stringent standard, set forth in Annex VI  of the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL).  On January 1, 2020, marine vessels must meet a 0.5% (by weight) sulfur-in-fuel standard or install scrubbers to meet that standard.  In addition, starting March 1, 2020, such vessels without scrubbers may no longer carry heavy fuel oil on board.  Even more stringent standards are already in place within so-called Emission Control Areas.  For example, there is a 0.1% sulfur-in-fuel limit for vessels operating within the territorial waters of Canada, the continental U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Annex VI also contains provisions for lowering NOx emissions.  Marine diesel engines above 130 kW installed on a ship constructed on or after January 1, 2011 must meet so-called Tier II standards, and such diesel engines installed on vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2016 and operating in the U.S. and Canadian waters described above must meet the more stringent Tier III standards. 

It is expected that most vessels will utilize lower sulfur fuel rather than employ scrubbers.  This move away from residual fuel oil (known as heavy fuel oil or HFO) toward low sulfur blended intermediate fuels and lighter, more refined grades will have another salutary effect – a reduction in the emission of black carbon, the sooty material resulting from incomplete combustion of fossil fuel, which comprises a significant portion of particulate matter, an air pollutant.  And while black carbon has a lifetime of only days to weeks after its release into the atmosphere, its warming impact on climate, per unit of mass, is 460-1,500 times stronger than CO2.

In 2018 the IMO adopted an initial climate strategy targeting a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050 from 2008 levels through a mix of proposed measures ranging from efficiency improvements to existing vessels, speed reductions, use of lower carbon fuels, methane and VOC emission controls, national action plans, and GHG reduction initiatives implemented at ports.  While black carbon is estimated to account for 7%-21% of the overall climate impact of international shipping, this initial strategy does not include any specific measures for reducing black carbon emissions.  However, an IMO subcommittee is now considering what action might be undertaken to address this pollutant beyond the ancillary effect of the new sulfur standard. 

One particular concern is the increased shipping anticipated in Arctic waters as ice recedes, and the deleterious impact of black carbon emissions from an increased number of vessels plying those waters.  Indeed, the impact of black carbon emissions is specifically noted in Par. 70, ANNEX 2, of the IMO Note regarding adoption of its Initial Strategy.   

A new ball game – or at least the warm-up for that game – is about to commence where various measures to control black carbon emissions will be tossed out for consideration.  While the winning strategy is expected to be several years in the making, one proposal garnering interest is the mandated use of distillate fuel in lieu of HFO, which can be paired with mandated use of diesel particulate filters to remove most of the black carbon.  But this strategy will be costly and may not make it to first base.  Consequently, in the inimitable words of Yogi Berra: “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future”.

COAL

Posted on October 8, 2019 by Donald Stever

My blog posts have, in the past, largely focused on this or that regulation or some legal development or other dealing with chemical regulation or environmental statutes or rules in general. This one is different.

I grew up in Pennsylvania coal country. Well, actually on the border between the coal mines on the Piedmont Plateau (CO2 precursors) and the big dairy farm (methane emitters) region in the wide valleys that stretched along the Allegheny Mountains. My father was a veterinarian. As a kid I was his unpaid assistant. One vivid childhood memory I have is of going down into a deep shaft coal mine with my father; I lay on my back in an electric rail car, traveling nearly a mile into the earth where my father was called to treat an injured mule. You see, mules pulled the coal cars from the active extraction shafts to the main mine shaft. Oh, and the mules were blind. They were blinded intentionally because (a) there was no light anyway and (b) they learned to know the labyrinth by senses other than sight. Then there was the coughing. The mules coughed. The miners coughed. All were covered with coal dust. My father returned to the mine from time to time. I demurred.

Which brings me to my point. When I retired from my full-time litigation-heavy law practice I started to read books, a pastime that I had largely been denied for lack of time during the fifty-odd years of environmental law practice. Not pulp novels. Mostly not “best sellers.” Nope. I read science-based books, many of which address the environment. Two of these dealt in part with the subject of coal.  Peter Brannen, in The Ends of the World: Volcanic Apocalypses, Lethal Oceans, and Our Quest to Understand Earth's Past Mass Extinctions, neatly explains the primary cause of the last five extinctions of nearly all life on Earth, discernable from analyses of geologic strata. The culprit? Carbon dioxide emitted by the combustion of coal (fossil vegetable matter accumulated over eons of time) caused by massive flows of volcanic magma which ignited enormous coal deposits, which in turn heated up the atmosphere, which in turn heated up and acidified the oceans. So, burning coal pushes carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps solar heat, heats up the earth and oceans and every complex living thing (or almost every living thing) dies.

Sound familiar? In his most recent book, Falter, Bill McKibben points to irrefutable scientific analyses concluding that human combustion of coal and its cousin oil, abetted by human agricultural emissions of methane, is on track to raise carbon dioxide levels in the  atmosphere to a concentration that is higher than the carbon dioxide levels that triggered all of the prior mass extinctions.

I have to ask: are the Trumps and the Wheelers and the McConnells and their counterparts in Asia and South America who simply deny the obvious consequences of their refusal to deal with the issue of runaway combustion of fossil carbon unable to read? Obviously, they can read, but I dare say that inability to read would at least give them an excuse for denying my three-year-old granddaughter a habitable planet on which to live.

Singer-songwriter and distinguished member of the New Hampshire Bar John Perrault perhaps says it best in his song, Carbon the Garden:

There is the Capitol floatin’ away

Congressmen wailing “it’s a mighty fine day”

Tell me, how long does it take to investigate

Oh, the oceans in the kitchen and the desert’s at the garden gate.

Song lyrics by John Perrault © 2013 John Perrault

CARB Continues Global Leadership Role on Climate with Adoption of Tropical Forest Standard

Posted on October 2, 2019 by Kevin Poloncarz

After nearly a decade of work, on September 19, 2019, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) endorsed its much anticipated Tropical Forest Standard (TFS). The TFS is a first-of-its-kind framework for assessing jurisdiction-scale offset credit programs that reduce emissions from tropical deforestation and degradation. It is widely expected to serve as a replicable model for adoption by other international greenhouse gas mitigation programs that utilize tropical forest reductions as offsets, including the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).

The TFS framework ensures that reductions produced by a subnational jurisdiction’s systemic efforts to conserve its tropical forests are real, quantifiable, permanent, additional and enforceable – the hallmark criteria to ensure the environmental integrity of offset credits within emissions trading schemes, such as California’s Cap-and-Trade Program. It requires rigorous, independent third-party verification of both the emissions avoided by the jurisdictional plan and the jurisdiction’s adherence to social and environmental safeguards designed to protect indigenous communities.

Under the TFS, subnational jurisdictions wanting to issue offset credits for their overall forest conservation efforts must adhere to guiding principles endorsed by indigenous community leaders and state and regional governments whose territories include more than one-third of the world’s tropical forests. These principles mandate that indigenous communities are involved in plan development and implementation and share in the resulting economic benefits.

CARB’s endorsement of the TFS does not authorize emitters to use tropical forest offsets for compliance with its Cap-and-Trade Program at this time; CARB would need to amend its regulation to authorize such use and has no immediate plan to do so. Advocates for indigenous communities and environmental justice nevertheless opposed CARB’s action, arguing that it made it all but inevitable that CARB would soon adopt such an amendment and that doing so would allow emitters to continue emitting and consuming fossil fuels in California.

Against such opposition, leading scientists and environmental groups strongly supported CARB’s endorsement of the TFS as a critical near-term step to slow the loss of tropical forests and limit global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius. According to recent estimates, tropical deforestation now amounts to more emissions each year than 85 million cars over their entire lifetime, dwarfing California’s own anthropogenic emissions and those of all nations but the U.S. and China. As a consequence, no serious effort to mitigate climate change can exclude measures to avoid continued deforestation and degradation of tropical forests.

CARB’s action comes at a timely moment, as the impacts of climate change and slash-and-burn agriculture are resulting in an unprecedented surge in uncontrolled fires throughout the Amazon rainforest. Although the political situation in Brazil may make it difficult to crack down on illegal burning and deforestation, CARB’s adoption of the TFS may amount to one small step towards counterbalancing the incentives that promote deforestation.