2024-03-29T05:38:50Zhttps://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/oai/requestoai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/110882015-06-18T01:58:20Zcom_1794_3787com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_11080
Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation : Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 559-582 : NEPA and Climate Change: Beneficial Applications and Practical Tensions
NEPA and Climate Change: Beneficial Applications and Practical Tensions
Kraft, Aaron J.
Climate change
Climatic changes -- Law and legislation -- United States
United States. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NEPA
Environmental law
24 p.
This Comment explores the benefits and problems of requiring
agencies to consider climate change in their NEPA analyses. Part I
presents an overview of NEPA, including statutory language, agency
duties, and regulations that detail specific agency requirements. It
then addresses the prospect of challenging federal action when
agencies fail to consider climate change. Finally, it discusses the role
of NEPA in agency decision making, relevant case law, and the issue
of standing in NEPA-based climate change litigation.
Part II discusses the impact of probable congressional action on
climate change and how that may affect agencies’ NEPA
responsibilities. It discusses how courts should construe NEPA in the
event Congress enacts climate legislation, and considers the role of
agency discretion in the face of carbon regulation.
Part III considers the increased demand for renewable energy in a
carbon-regulated world and whether federal agencies may use climate
change to justify development on wild public lands through their
required NEPA analysis. This part addresses agency discretion to allow
public land development and highlights the need for comprehensive
policies that recognize the value of unaltered ecosystems. Specifically,
it considers agency action in the context of National Wildlife Refuges
and unprotected, wilderness-quality BLM-managed lands.
Finally, Part IV concludes that federal agencies must consider
climate change in their decisions. It argues that citizens should
challenge agencies for failing to address climate considerations. But
citizens must not allow the tremendous threat of climate change to
justify irresponsible energy development, which itself would destroy
natural places and invaluable ecosystem services.
2011-04-15T00:54:20Z
2011-04-15T00:54:20Z
2010
Article
25 J. ENVTL. L. & LITIG. 559 (2010)
1049-0280
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11088
en_US
application/pdf
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/110852015-06-17T20:25:31Zcom_1794_3787com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_11080
Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation : Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 511-558 : Polluters as Perpetrators of Person Crimes: Charging Homicide, Assault, and Reckless Endangerment in the Face of Environmental Crime
Polluters as Perpetrators of Person Crimes: Charging Homicide, Assault, and Reckless Endangerment in the Face of Environmental Crime
Gibson, Sarah
Pollution -- Law and legislation -- United States
48 p.
This Article presents the theory that when victims of environmental
crimes sustain serious bodily injury or death, state-level prosecutors
may often charge the perpetrator with a traditional person crime
alongside, or instead of, violations of environmental statutes. In order
to show the efficacy of such a course of action, it is necessary to look
at fact patterns of pollution that may cause serious bodily injury or
death, and determine how state environmental and person crime
statutes can deal with defendants in such situations. Assuming
prosecutors are able to charge polluters with person crimes under their
state laws, there are also some practical and jurisprudential issues to
consider when deciding how to charge the crime. Part I of the Article
suggests that certain serious bodily injuries or death can be caused by
chronic, catastrophic, or unregulated polluting actions. Part II
discusses the act and mental state elements of the various
environmental crimes in New York, Oregon, and Florida that can deal
with these serious cases of pollution, and Part III does the same for
traditional person crimes. Part IV presents the issues of statutory analysis and discretion involved when a prosecutor determines
whether to charge a polluter whose actions cause serious bodily injury
or death with an environmental crime, a person crime, or both.
2011-04-13T21:40:56Z
2011-04-13T21:40:56Z
2010
Article
25 J. ENVTL. L. & LITIG. 511 (2010)
1049-0280
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11085
en_US
application/pdf
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/110832015-06-17T20:09:47Zcom_1794_3787com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_11080
Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation : Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 385-458 : A Litigious Proposal: A Citizen’s Duty to Challenge Climate Change, Lessons from Recent Federal Standing Analysis, and Possible State-Level Remedies Private Citizens Can Pursue
A Litigious Proposal: A Citizen’s Duty to Challenge Climate Change, Lessons from Recent Federal Standing Analysis, and Possible State-Level Remedies Private Citizens Can Pursue
Brown, Christopher
Climate change
Climatic changes -- Law and legislation -- United States
74 p.
This Article examines climate change as an ethical and moral issue
from the perspective of an American citizen, and considers concrete
legal remedies she might pursue.
2011-04-13T21:27:05Z
2011-04-13T21:27:05Z
2010
Article
25 J. ENVTL. L. & LITIG. 385 (2010)
1049-0280
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11083
en_US
application/pdf
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/110812015-06-17T19:51:20Zcom_1794_3787com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_11080
Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation : Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 249-302 : How Judicial Hostility Toward Environmental Claims and Intimidation Tactics by Lawyers Have Formed the Perfect Storm Against Environmental Clinics: What’s the Big Deal About Students and Chickens Anyway?
How Judicial Hostility Toward Environmental Claims and Intimidation Tactics by Lawyers Have Formed the Perfect Storm Against Environmental Clinics: What’s the Big Deal About Students and Chickens Anyway?
Babcock, Hope M.
Environmental clinics
54 p.
What is it about law students working for credits and grades
that powerful interests find so threatening that they spend their
resources on eliminating clinics instead of confronting them in court?
Is the attack on clinics part of a broader attack on public access to the
courts for righting environmental wrongs? Do these attacks reflect
something about the nature of the attacker and her victim?
This Article seeks to answer those questions, and concludes that
clinics, like environmental organizations, function in an environment
that is exceptionally hostile to the types of clients they represent and
the cases they bring. This means that the claims environmental clinics
file, like those filed by the national groups, will be met with a barrage
of opposing filings based on a number of jurisdictional and other
challenges enabled by the U.S. Supreme Court’s anti-public interest
jurisprudence. Unlike the well-funded, publicly visible, and widely
supported national organizations, environmental clinics are more
vulnerable to less conspicuous attacks brought directly by the
economic interests they challenge and their political supporters.
Perhaps clinics unwittingly invite these attacks that in turn weaken
their ability to function in this already hostile environment. The
combination of the two can create a perfect storm for environmental
clinics.
2011-04-13T21:13:03Z
2011-04-13T21:13:03Z
2010
Article
25 J. ENVTL. L. & LITIG. 249 (2010)
1049-0280
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11081
en_US
application/pdf
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/110842015-06-17T20:15:45Zcom_1794_3787com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_11080
Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation : Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 459-510 : Wildlife Jurisprudence
Wildlife Jurisprudence
Favre, David
Wildlife
Animals -- Law and legislation
52 p.
Historically, wildlife have not had independent standing in the
legal system. Rather, the legal system has presumed that wildlife are
available for use and consumption by humans, thus their lower legal
status as “things.” But as this Article explores, human views toward
wildlife have recently been evolving. It is time to take full measure of
where wildlife presently stand within the realm of jurisprudence, as
well as what is possible for the future. As humanity comes to accept
that we share this earth with other species as part of a global
community, and that an ethical duty exists toward wildlife, the
necessity of change within jurisprudence becomes stronger.
The historical human attitude of unlimited consumption of wildlife,
or even the more benign attitude of live and let live—do no harm—is
unsupportable in a world of seven billion human beings who possess
an ever-increasing appetite for the consumption of material goods.
The ecosystems of the Earth are being destroyed at a historically
alarming rate. Assuming a level of ethical duty toward wildlife, it is
clear that to fulfill our obligations toward wildlife, humans must
adopt an agenda that goes beyond a passive attempt to save existing
ecosystems. This duty supports an obligation to both protect and
actively restore the ecosystems where wildlife live.
The realization of these goals should be accomplished by allowing
wildlife an enhanced presence in the legal system and by making their
interests more visible when humans make decisions impacting
wildlife and their habitat. The enhanced presence of wildlife on the
stage of jurisprudence will give greater weight to their interests in the
everyday balancing of interests that is the bread and butter of the legal
process.
2011-04-13T21:34:18Z
2011-04-13T21:34:18Z
2010
Article
25 J. ENVTL. L. & LITIG. 459 (2010)
1049-0280
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11084
en_US
application/pdf
University of Oregon School of Law
oai:scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:1794/110822015-06-17T19:53:28Zcom_1794_3787com_1794_7561com_1794_7550col_1794_11080
Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation : Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 303-384 : The Right of Nonuse
The Right of Nonuse
Laitos, Jan G.
Keske, Catherine M. H.
Right of nonuse
Nonuse
Environmental law
82 p.
Humankind is on a path of inefficient and unsustainable resource
use and exploitation. As a result, the earth and its resources are now
facing irreversible disruptions that have the potential to affect
multiple generations. These disastrous global effects are not only
caused by excessive resource use. Rather, accelerated human use of
resources also has the devastating consequence of impairing the
purely ecocentric benefits that follow when humans do not use
resources. When resources are left alone by humans, when they are
not exploited or developed, their nonuse is beneficial for the entire
biosphere, of which humans are only a part.
In this Article, we show how the destruction of this critical nonuse
component of natural resources is creating many of the alarming
environmental changes that are so disturbing to the planet. Then,
through a series of analytical arguments founded in economic game
theory, we illustrate that sustainable resource use can only be
achieved if legal rights are bestowed upon not just human resource
users, or humans who benefit themselves from resource nonuse, but
also upon the resource itself. We define this legal right as the
resource’s “right of nonuse.” Establishing a “right of nonuse”
effectively privatizes a resource, facilitating a cooperative game that
is between three kinds of players: human resource users, humans who
selfishly prefer resource nonuse, and the resource itself. An analysis
under this three-player game, which at last includes the natural
resource itself as a critical actor, provides a framework for moving
toward an efficient, sustainable path of resource conservation.
2011-04-13T21:20:00Z
2011-04-13T21:20:00Z
2010
Article
25 J. ENVTL. L. & LITIG. 303 (2010)
1049-0280
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/11082
en_US
application/pdf
University of Oregon School of Law