Search results

Foreword /Hon. Henry Waxman --Introduction /Michael Burger --The legislative history of Section 115 /Philip S. Barnett --Section 115 in practice /Justin Gundlach --The environmental case for action under Section 115 /Michael B. Gerrard --The economic case for action under Section 115 /Jason A. Schwartz and Jayni Foley Hein --Judicial review in the new age of deference /Jonathan Z. Cannon --The substantive elements of Section 115 /Michael Burger and Daniel P. Selmi --Procedural reciprocity /Keith J. Benes --Substantive reciprocity /Ann E. Carlson --EPA's nondiscretionary duties to act under Section 115 /Cale Jaffe and Michael A. Livermore --The Section 115 SIP call /Philip S. Barnett and Alexandra E. Teitz --Implementing Section 115 through the SIP revision process /Jared Snyder and Jessica Wentz --Transportation fuels and consumer natural gas /Jayni Foley Hein --Offsets /Jason A. Schwartz --Addressing carbon leakage in a Section 115 world /Greg Dotson.

The Shaping of Western Civilization: From Antiquity to the Mid-Eighteenth Century begins with the ancient Near East and ends with the mid-eighteenth century. Unlike other textbooks that pile on dates and facts, Shaping is a more coherent and interpretive presentation

Der von Hannes Brühwiler herausgegebene Sammelband The Sound of Fury beleuchtet schlaglichtartig die Schwarze Liste Hollywoods und punktet vor allem mit einer gendersensiblen Perspektive. ; The anthology The Sound of Fury, edited by Hannes Brühwiler, sheds light on Hollywood's blacklist and scores points above all with a gender-sensitive perspective.

Au cours des dernières années, il y a eu une augmentation remarquable du nombre d'actions judiciaires visant à demander aux Gouvernements et aux acteurs privés de rendre des comptes de leur inaction face aux changements climatiques. La « science de l'attribution » du changement climatique – c'est-à-dire la capacité de détecter les changements environnementaux et de les attribuer à l'augmentation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre – joue un rôle central dans bon nombre de ces actions : elle permet en effet de fonder à la fois l'attribution d'événements extrêmes au changement climatique et d'émissions de gaz à effet de serre à des acteurs particuliers. Armés d'un nombre croissant de preuves reliant les augmentations des concentrations atmosphériques de gaz à effet de serre à des impacts nocifs spécifiques, les plaignants poursuivent des revendications plus ambitieuses contre les Gouvernements et les émetteurs pour leur contribution ou leur incapacité à agir sur le changement climatique. Cette contribution offre une perspective générale sur l'utilisation de cette science de l'attribution dans le cadre des affaires contentieuses ainsi que dans l'élaboration des politiques climatiques.

This paper describes the legal and policy rationale for imposing a fee on federal coal that reflects the costs of the climate change impacts generated by that coal. It notes that the federal government has a duty to mitigate climate impacts from the federal coal leasing program, and that the Department of Interior ("Interior") and the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") have ample authority to impose a climate change impacts fee on coal leases as a form of compensatory mitigation for those coal leases. The paper also discusses technical issues that should be considered when assessing the effectiveness of this mitigation option, such as what metrics should be used to establish an appropriate fee and how a fee might work with carbon sequestration efforts and other emissions offsets. The paper was intended to inform the scope of the mitigation measures that Interior and BLM will consider in their programmatic environmental review of the federal coal leasing program, and was submitted directly to these federal agencies.

This Symposium Essay examines and elucidates the ways in which the narrative constructions that constitute the "imaginary Arctic" factor into litigation surrounding Shell Oil's highly controversial attempts to drill for oil and gas in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off Alaska's North Slope. Judges, lawyers and litigants involved in the Shell litigation have deployed a number of well-established storylines against each other: the Arctic as Classical Frontier, the Arctic as Spiritualized Frontier, the Arctic as Ancestral Homeland, the Arctic as Developing World, and the Arctic as Neutral Space. The litigation literature produced by this "battle for the Arctic" offers an opportunity to observe how conflicting narratives about nature figure into the rhetorical strategies of lawyers and judges -- and thus how they factor into the law. In addition, the role of Inupiat narratives in the litigation and underlying administrative proceedings illustrates that -- accepting the bargain struck in the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as a given -- the layered United States system of administrative permitting and judicial review does not violate indigenous peoples' rights under relevant provisions of international law.

The purpose of this Article is to defend environmental law's federalism choices from the insinuation that they do not match fracking's environmental impacts and to demonstrate that fracking does indeed belong under the umbrella of federal law. The Article proceeds in four Parts. Part I establishes the federalism-choice analysis framework and applies it to both state and federal regulation of fracking. Part II buttresses the conclusion that federal regulation of potential impacts on underground drinking-water supplies is appropriate through a fresh and extensive examination of the statutory scheme and legislative history of SDWA. Part III offers further support for federal law's applicability to fracking through a more abbreviated look at RCRA and EPCRA. Part V details the ongoing trend toward federalization of fracking regulation under environmental law, offers a new federalism analysis of several possible regulatory measures, and proposes that, in the absence of direct federal regulation, either the federal government or the states should ramp up efforts to promote policy diffusion and the spread of best practices. A brief conclusion follows.

In response to David B. Spence's "Federalism, Regulatory Lags, and the Political Economy of Energy Production," I offer a set of constructive challenges to his article. In Part I, I argue that fracking's federalism-choice question has already been answered, and that but for the outdated and underjustified exemptions mentioned above, fracking is already under the jurisdiction of federal regulators. In Part II, I conduct an alternative federalism-choice analysis that adds to Professor Spence's analysis in three ways. First, I balance his analysis by examining rationales commonly used to justify decentralization, rather than federalization, of environmental law. Second, I argue that given the fast-paced growth in drilling activity across the country, fracking's environmental impacts should be analyzed with regard to their cumulative effects. When so viewed, it is clear that fracking gives rise to interstate, and even national, problems that must be addressed accordingly. Third, I argue that widespread impacts on rural America weigh in favor of federal regulation.

In response to David B. Spence's "Federalism, Regulatory Lags, and the Political Economy of Energy Production," I offer a set of constructive challenges to his article. In Part I, I argue that fracking's federalism-choice question has already been answered, and that but for the outdated and underjustified exemptions mentioned above, fracking is already under the jurisdiction of federal regulators. In Part II, I conduct an alternative federalism-choice analysis that adds to Professor Spence's analysis in three ways. First, I balance his analysis by examining rationales commonly used to justify decentralization, rather than federalization, of environmental law. Second, I argue that given the fast-paced growth in drilling activity across the country, fracking's environmental impacts should be analyzed with regard to their cumulative effects. When so viewed, it is clear that fracking gives rise to interstate, and even national, problems that must be addressed accordingly. Third, I argue that widespread impacts on rural America weigh in favor of federal regulation.

The purpose of this Article is to defend environmental law's federalism choices from the insinuation that they do not match fracking's environmental impacts and to demonstrate that fracking does indeed belong under the umbrella of federal law. The Article proceeds in four Parts. Part I establishes the federalism-choice analysis framework and applies it to both state and federal regulation of fracking. Part II buttresses the conclusion that federal regulation of potential impacts on underground drinking-water supplies is appropriate through a fresh and extensive examination of the statutory scheme and legislative history of SDWA. Part III offers further support for federal law's applicability to fracking through a more abbreviated look at RCRA and EPCRA. Part V details the ongoing trend toward federalization of fracking regulation under environmental law, offers a new federalism analysis of several possible regulatory measures, and proposes that, in the absence of direct federal regulation, either the federal government or the states should ramp up efforts to promote policy diffusion and the spread of best practices. A brief conclusion follows.

What, is truly "environmental" about environmental law? This Article is the first attempt to answer this question by integrating Law & Literature scholarship with the study of environmental law. I argue that competing narratives of nature and culture common to the American environmental imagination play a more significant role in environmental law and litigation than previously acknowledged. These competing narratives, communicated through a known set of environmental stories and tropes, are used by attorneys to establish, frame, narrate and argue their cases, and they are absorbed, reimagined, reframed and retold by judges in their written opinions, making environmental law a kind of expressive, literary event. To illustrate this process, the Article examines two important and highly visible case studies: the reintroduction of gray wolves into the Northern Rocky Mountains and the public nuisance climate change lawsuit that culminated in the Supreme Court's decision in Connecticut v. American Electric Power. A close reading of the pleadings, legal briefs and judicial opinions in these case studies demonstrates that courts respond to and reinforce traditional environmental stories, such as wilderness tales and the environmental apocalyptic, but evince a strong preference for a less well-known story, which I call the Progressive Management Machine. The Progressive Management Machine promises reconciliation of competing environmental narratives through administrative process and science-driven decision making, but, in so doing, masks its own contravention of those same narratives. The approach developed here launchesa larger project exploring the dynamic relationship between environmental law, literature and narrative. This Article, like the larger project, seeks to elucidate not only various litigators' and judges' rhetorical strategies but also the purposes, content and significance of environmental law.