Questions related to Environmental Law
What legal changes will businesses in energy and utlities face in the future? What other changes will they face in the near and far future?
Experience shows that polluting companies faced with strong environmental regulations will, when the economics dictate, move their base of operations to another country with lower (thus cheaper) standards. Can we do anything to stop this?
There are reports and complain on the non implementation of rulings of the courts and other dispute settlement bodies which are in favor of the local communities affected by these environmental pollution in the Niger Delta Nigeria. Does any one has any information on the above assertion. Whether in the form of book or Article, journal or caselaws.
I am working on my spring semester lesson plans for classes on Environmental Law and Policy.
I am looking for a good example of a concept that will be presented.
One of the objections that intelligent conservatives make to our current system of environmental laws (at least in the United States) is that it does not balance technical expertise and democratic accountability. They argue that only trained technocrats with specialized knowledge are qualified to write regulations but everyone in a democracy must have the right to participate in the process.
Of course when a new regulation is proposed, there is a comment period and the agency proposing the regulation makes every effort to engage stakeholders. The intelligent conservative often believes that these measures are not sufficient, hence the objections.
So, can anyone suggest a situation where technocratic expertise and democratic accountability have been in a legitimate conflict?
The conservatives will argue that there are plenty of examples of regulatory over reach.
Compact fluorescent light bulbs? They save 75% of the electricity used for lighting
Can't drive my car on the beach anymore? Nesting seabirds are an important part of the ecosystem
Can't build my new house within 300 feet of a creek? Ever hear of runoff pollution?
Every example I try to find for my lesson plans seems to suggest that There Is No Such Thing As Regulatory Over Reach.....or perhaps it would be politically neutral to say that the vast majority regulations are promulgated for very good reasons. And furthermore, the agency proposing the regulation has had its power conferred by the legislative branch.
There must be a good example where an environmental regulation has come into a legitimate conflict with the democratic process.
Full disclosure, I am of course a tree-hugging, Union Dues paying lifelong Democrat. (Maybe that is why I am struggling with this question)
Happy Thanksgiving to the members in the United States,
Why are the results of SWOT analysis different from the same paragraphs?
Suppose the employment law is the same in all countries, and when analyzing SWOTs, we will inevitably find a difference in their weights. The reason is not the average opinion of the research sample alone. definitely.
Rather, I think the main reason lies in the context of the environment that the law contains.
Professor Stone in 1972 published an essay in 1972, which is "Should trees have rights" . And nowdays many countries have given rights to nature. Let' s only focus on trees.
Let' s only focus on trees. I am working for the same topic .Our objective is to seek for persuasive reasons to explain whether the law should give the trees rights and the most important is to convince the legislator.
If we give trees legal personality and rights, there still some questions that are confusing me.
1. How to determine the scope of granting legal person status to trees?
2. Treat them as a whole or individual legal subject?
3. How to define the rights and obligtions ?
4. How to determing the rights of economic timber and endangered trees and common trees near my house and Fairness？
5. The relationship between trees and their owners?
6. Inheritance system ？
7. Guardship? an agency or their owner?
Does anyone know report or publication on marine spatial planning in North West Africa ?
marine environmental law. Does anyone know report or publication on marine spatial planning in North West Africa ?
In the United States, along roadsides and on Federal lands since the coming of the European peoples with their European exotic seeds, those exotic and invasive seeds have been sown in America's wild lands and along the roadsides, causing permanent "Spatial Extinction" of the local native plant populations across hundreds of millions of hectares.
For example in the USA, our Bureau of Land Management has annually sown an average of one million pounds (about 1/2 million kilos) of exotic seeds onto Western wild lands between 2000-2015, without ever doing an environmental analysis under our environmental laws (NEPA), to consider the permanent environmental damages being done to the native plant ecosystems, when BLM already has the least environmentally damaging alternative available, of using local native seeds instead?
Our State highway departments sow so many exotics along roadsides, that my 1997 Megatransect across the West showed massive Spatial Extinction of the native ecosystems, and in many cases the intentionally-sown exotics covered 20-30X more area than the exotic weeds covered, at http://www.ecoseeds.com/megatransect.html as follows--State highways, percentage of roads with intentionally sown exotics--Colorado, Idaho and Nevada 10%, Idaho 21%, South Dakota 28%, and Wyoming 35%.
SO, THE QUESTION IS--Do the government agencies need to immediately stop the use of exotic seeds along roadsides and on wild lands, and that includes the use of "cultivars" of natives, when they are sown outside of their original ecotype zone areas?
In 2016, Malta made a paradigm shift in its legislation by adopting the "public domain" doctrine in order to safeguard some coastal sites. The details are inserted by amendment as a 4th schedule of the civil code, cap. 16.
In addition, the same amendment defines the "coastal perimeter", as well as other landmarks of the coastal zone (art. 311 CC).
I found these changes ground-breaking for the Malta's legal order, but I did not find any literature about them.
Do you have any views or references?
Generally, to maintain ecological status, five factors are considered for a river ecosystem:
1. flowing water that is mostly unidirectional
2. a state of continuous physical change
3. many different (and changing) microhabitats
4. variability in the flow rates of water
5. plants and animals that have adapted to live within water flow conditions.
During water distribution of trans border water resources, only water is considered irrespective of water ecology. If we want to consider river ecology, especially for maintaining fish population, and want to estimate minimum water flow, what procedure may be adopted to identify minimum required flow?
A judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal - SA Predator Breeders Association (SAPBA) v Minister of Environmental Affairs found that the Minister of Environmental Affairs, inter alia, did not have the legislative mandate to regulate ethical or animal welfare matters, or issues not related to conservation.
However the Minister is legally mandated in terms of NEMBA to ensure, the “protection of species that are threatened or in need of protection to ensure their survival in the wild”, and “that the utilisation of biodiversity is managed in an ecologically sustainable way”.
I am taking an Environmental Law course and I am wondering if there are any current events that may lead to litigation or hearings in Ontario Canada?
Hi, All! I am looking for papers related to the methodological framework to compare policy architecture at the country level, preferably in environment and biodiversity conservation, but examples in other fields also can be useful. I am new on this topic, so any information will be useful. Thanks in advance!
Water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource. Oil-field frac water has now been used to grow Bermuda grass. Recycled wastewater, as a broad class, is being converted to drinking water as well as water for irrigating crops consumed raw. Some crop plants can bioaccumulate toxins and pathogens. The water quality standards, if they exist, vary. The lab tests may or may not reflect reality. This variation in the background would seem to raise questions as to the prudence of its use in certain instances. Is the water safe or is it just technically legal? If the former-----well and good, but if the latter?
At the 2006 at the Environmental Law Conference in Yosemite, various papers were delivered. Session # 27 was to contain some interesting insight into an area known as "non-action by regulators". One of the session's papers was on pharmaceuticals in groundwater. Of particular interest was a paper undertaking the analysis of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Its author, one of the US/EPA drinking water toxicologists finished his delivered paper with the following: “Bottom line on almost all of the “emerging” contaminants that have attracted attention: It will be a long time, if ever, before they are regulated under the SDWA.” But, that was an issue raised about the SDWA. What about other standards?
Are the standards failing to keep up with the input of emerging contaminants? EPA, per TSCA, estimated an addition of somewhere between 500 and 600 new chemicals per year. What might be the range of potential impacts to the human metabolic processes? What percentage enter the aquatic resource base? Who is following this and are those impacts growing or are we just better able to measure them? Does the regulatory community really know? What are the costs to know, and conversely, to not know? Are these questions warranting an answer? These are some questions that come to mind.
To look at this general policy area, I'd like to single out just one of the many metabolic systems that might be affected by uncontrolled emerging contaminants. Of interest because of its critical metabolic functions I will want to briefly look at the mitochondria as a point of discussion.
I tried to print your large paper, but that failed. Can you send a printable form?
Dr Edo McGowam
In Belgium, a citizen can sue on behalf of the municipality he lives in and the municipal government (mayor and aldermen, those who normally decide over starting a suit or not) cannot prevent the individual of suing on behalf of the municpality.
It resembles the qui tam procedure known in the U.S.A. When the suit is lost, the suing individual must pay, when he wins, the gains from the suit flow to the municipality.
In Belgium it's mostly used in environmental lawsuits (non-pecuniary injunctions) because those suits can only be started by the municipality and not an individual.
Similar procedures existed until 1966 in the Netherlands and still exist in France and Luxembourg, apparently all three modeled after the Belgian example (law of 1836).
In France and Luxembourg however, the indivudual needs the approval of his action by the administrative court (France) or the national government (Luxembourg).
Does such a procedure also exist in other countries?
Primary legal sources:
- Belgium: Loi communale / Gemeentewet, art. 271 (1988 version, still valid in the Brussels region, originally art. 150 of the 1836 law)
- Flanders: Gemeentedecreet, art. 194
- Wallonia: Code de la démocratie locale et de la décentralisation, art. L1242-2
- France: Code général des Collectivités Territoriales, art. L 2132-5 (originally art. 49.3 of the 1837 law)
- Luxembourg: Loi communale, art. 85 (originally art. 107 of the 1843 law)
- Netherlands: Gemeentewet, art. 143.3 in original 1851 version, art. 177.3 in 1966 when abolished
I am on a learning curve to understand the details of Hydrogen Embrittlement mitigation for fasteners. I am doing a, "deep deep dive," on the subject for my personal knowledge since more than one my clients has had this issue come up.
I like to separate the wheat from the chaff, as the saying goes, by understanding the problem from a chemical, material, environmental and physics root knowledge based building process.
There are a lot of expert opinions, current and historical, that do not agree. There are a lot of material options available for fasteners, not to mention coatings, finishes and post treatments.
Since the Oakland-Bay Bridge bolt failure was a result of HE, there has been a new wave of research, investigation, testing, analysis and evaluations from government, universities and private industry. The literature is mountainous.
I need a material sciences person who can direct me to the chemical processes going on with HE base materials, treatments, coatings and finishes. I have a structural expert with some experience but not necessary recent knowledge who can assist with loads and stresses as they factor into the issue, for instance, time versus loading. I found a good paper or two but not exactly what I'm looking for.
Ultimately, I am trying to set a minimum standard relative to HE that can be used as a baseline to fastener providers and customers alike.
Can anyone out there point me to a good chemical engineer familiar with coatings and finishing processes for metals. Is there a metallurgical engineer that can provide some guidance. I am more than willing to help co-author a technical paper on the subject based on everyone's contributions. However, I need the right team of consultants and experts first.
I work in San Jose, CA and live in the Sacramento Valley area of CA. I am well connected 24x7 and can web-ex and conference call as needed. Any volunteers?
Can someone refer to a leading case law from common law jurisdictions regarding (compulsory) land acquisition process (by the state for the public purpose)? What are the constitutional/legal requirements for this purpose? Whether State is free to acquire any private and from anywhere from anyone without justification?
My doctoral research is in the area of environmental law, focusing on good regulations for reverse logistics of electronic waste. In addition to analyzing the development of European directives on the matter, I also observe the same process in Brazil, and will possibly suggest some instruments based on the European experience to enhance that process.
Therefore, a contact with officials at the federal level on this topic is essential, particularly in order to obtain access to specific documentation. It is also urgent, given that none of the previous contact attempts by the means made public have been effective.
I am researching the topic of implementation of European directives on workers' information and consultation (specifically European Works Councils) where I am looking at enforcement frameworks and their implementation. The EWC directive 2009/38 stipulates that Member States need to ensure that there are sanctions in place which are 'effective, dissuasive and proportionate'. I have gathered some material on the concrete meaning of these terms, but am looking for more tips on how to concretise these abstract notions. I have been looking at general legal literature, environmental law (where some specific sanctions are applied, like restitutio ad integrum, immediate stopage of a breach), but so far less into the EUCJ jurisprudence (I intend to do that later).
Any ideas on the line of argument, tips, interesting sources or official EU documents would be very helpful.
I’m writing a study about the impact of the law requiring the destruction of thistles on populations of bumblebees in Europe. To do this, I’m looking for information about this law in each country of the European Union. I would be very pleased if you could provide these few information:
- Is there (or was there) a law on the destruction of thistles (e.g. Carduus spp. and Cirsium spp.) in your country?
- If so, since when?
- Does it apply to the whole country or just to a region?
- Which species are involved?
- Would you know any studies that have already dealt with the consequences of such a law on biodiversity?
Many thanks in advance for your help !
Challenges including the legal and regulatory requirements businesses in the energy and utilities sector will have to meet in the future, near or far, any ideas on this will be greatly appreciated.
Most of the literature talks about "small" EfW plants being those which handle less than 100,000tpa of waste. Would it be cost-effective to build a very small one, say 500 tpa capacity?
Recently EPA revoked the PM10 annual standard. California has not done so and actually they have a very strict standard. Many studies show long term effects of PM10 (usually when PM2.5 measurements) are not available. Chile wants has revoked it but I feel is not a wise decision. Any comments?
Does phytoremediation treatment save the 4/5 of the cost of more conventional technology in cleaning up the contaminated soil on a post-industrial site and how?
In the wake of human rights promotions all over, its scope is supposed to be extended to the sustainable development process and this question has the sole agenda of it.
Environmental jurisprudence is currently a rather unclear and evolving area of law. It is my view that clarity and thorough understanding of its scope can compliment the widely used environmental activism mechanism... It would be nice to have your views on this.
It is almost implied that the environmental law must be uniformly applied cross-border in order to be effective. I attach below a new case from the CJEU C-258/11, only the AG Opinion has been delivered. Except the reinforcement of the importance of the precautionary principle and the specification that an effect which is permanent or long lasting must be regarded as an adverse one in the light of the named principle, the issue of admissibility is also interesting.
It is obvious that nature can not be divided in different jurisdictions, but the reality is that we all live on a political map. A very formalistic interpretation of the admissibility issue would lead to the conclusion that the question was inadmissible.
Economic Freedoms by analogy
According to settled case-law, the provisions of the Treaty do not apply to purely internal situations in a Member State (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑54/88, C‑91/88 an C‑14/89 Nino and Others  ECR I‑3537, paragraph 11; Case C‑134/94 Esso Española  ECR I‑4223, paragraph 17; and Case C‑389/05 Commission v France  ECR I‑5397, paragraph 49).
However, even in a purely internal situation the Court’s answer may nevertheless be useful to the referring court, in particular if its national law required it to grant the same rights to an own national as those which a national of another Member State in the same situation would derive from European Union law. see, Joined Cases C‑570/07 and C‑571/07 Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez  ECR I‑4629, paragraph 39; Case C‑393/08 Sbarigia  ECR I‑6333, paragraph 23; and Case C‑245/09 Omalet  ECR I‑0000, paragraph 15
Where domestic legislation adopts for purely internal situations the same solutions as those adopted in Union law, it is for the national court alone, in the context of the division of judicial functions between national courts and the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU, to assess the precise scope of that reference to Union law, the consideration of the limits which the national legislature may have placed on the application of Union law to purely internal situations being a matter for the law of the Member State concerned and, consequently, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State. Joined cases C-439/07 and C-499/07, paragraphs 58-59