The BP oil spill has left many businessmen in coastal areas out of work for an extended period of time. These businessmen are seeking compensation for the loss in business they have incurred as a result of this disaster. However, federal maritime law presents them with a big problem. A rule known as the Robins Dry Dock Rule, named after the legal case that established it, may prevent some of these people from recovering.
Under this rule, a party cannot seek recovery for pure economic losses, which as an example, would be the loss in revenue of a fisherman for his or her inability to fish off the coast. The Robins Dry Dock Rule requires that this economic loss be accompanied by a physical damage to a person or his property. This would mean that the fisherman was not only unable to fish during the spill, but that the oil itself damaged property such as a dock or a ship. Because the BP oil rig was offshore, many of the businessmen affected by the disaster have not incurred any physical damage to their property in that manner. Under the Robins Dry Dock Rule, they would not be able to recover their damages.
However, the promise of recovery for these unfortunate businessmen might not be that bleak. Another law, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, has established much broader criteria under which parties may recover. This act provides for recovery for purely economic loss to real or personal property that is owned or leased, or to natural resources. These means that fisherman with an interest in the natural resources of the ocean, namely fish, may be able to recover for their loss in revenue.
Although this seems like good news, the Oil Pollution Act has set up a great deal of red tape that might make these businessmen’s hopes of recovery slightly less feasible. In this instance, the party seeking to recover must present their claims directly to BP, and if the claim is denied or it is not settled within 90 days, then the party must seek recovery from a trust fund that was set up as a result of the spill. Time will tell whether BP will be cooperative on these suits, and whether this trust fund will be easily accessible.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Friday, October 8, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Crisis of Faith
Every year in India, and particularly in the city of Mumbai, Hindus participate in a festival, known as Ganesh Caturthi, to celebrate the god Lord Ganesh. This festival takes place in September and lasts eleven days. It is highly elaborate and consists of dancing, painting, singing folk songs, and most noticeably, constructing large statues of the god Ganesh.
These statues, strangely enough, present a particular problem to the environment of India. At the end of the eleven-day celebration, the statues are placed in the river to symbolize the farewell to Ganesh. Historically, these statues were made of mud, soil, clay, and sandalwood paste. These substances were easily biodegradable. However, in recent times, as this festival has been more elaborate, the statues began to be constructed from plaster of paris. This is not a naturally occurring substance and takes years to dissolve in a river. In addition, the statues are now painted using paints heavy in lead and mercury, which are also far from naturally occurring.
This wouldn’t seem to be such a problem until one understands how many of these statues are placed into the river during this festival. In Mumbai alone, 190,000 were placed in the river, and some of these statues were ten feet tall. Studies of water quality in Mumbai and surrounding areas have revealed that the statues have increased the iron, mercury, and acid levels significantly. Because there are also many fishing communities in this area, this pollution has ramifications beyond the water itself.
In response, the environmental secretary of Mumbai has considered a ban on plaster of paris, but because the festival is so enormous, the law has been deemed impossible to implement. Efforts have been made to promote the buying and selling of “green” statues, which would be easily biodegradable in the river, but sales of these statues do not seem to be competitive with the environmentally disastrous models. One concern among the people is that the statues made of weaker materials will not hold up as they are dragged from the crowded streets to the river. The desire to celebrate decadently may defeat common sense in this case. Will there be a solution in sight?
-Evan Aronson, Legal Extern
These statues, strangely enough, present a particular problem to the environment of India. At the end of the eleven-day celebration, the statues are placed in the river to symbolize the farewell to Ganesh. Historically, these statues were made of mud, soil, clay, and sandalwood paste. These substances were easily biodegradable. However, in recent times, as this festival has been more elaborate, the statues began to be constructed from plaster of paris. This is not a naturally occurring substance and takes years to dissolve in a river. In addition, the statues are now painted using paints heavy in lead and mercury, which are also far from naturally occurring.
This wouldn’t seem to be such a problem until one understands how many of these statues are placed into the river during this festival. In Mumbai alone, 190,000 were placed in the river, and some of these statues were ten feet tall. Studies of water quality in Mumbai and surrounding areas have revealed that the statues have increased the iron, mercury, and acid levels significantly. Because there are also many fishing communities in this area, this pollution has ramifications beyond the water itself.
In response, the environmental secretary of Mumbai has considered a ban on plaster of paris, but because the festival is so enormous, the law has been deemed impossible to implement. Efforts have been made to promote the buying and selling of “green” statues, which would be easily biodegradable in the river, but sales of these statues do not seem to be competitive with the environmentally disastrous models. One concern among the people is that the statues made of weaker materials will not hold up as they are dragged from the crowded streets to the river. The desire to celebrate decadently may defeat common sense in this case. Will there be a solution in sight?
-Evan Aronson, Legal Extern
Ash and Burn
Recently, the explosion of a natural gas pipeline in San Bruno, California created a fire that killed four people and injured more than fifty. In addition to this tragedy, the fire may have some unforeseeable hazardous effects on both the air and water in the surrounding area.
Everyone knows that large fires have the potential to burn all in their path, such as trees, homes, and cars. When these things burn, however, they may also leave behind chemicals that are hazardous to the environment. Previous similar fires, in the cities of San Diego and San Bernadino, left behind metals from melted batteries and car parts, asbestos from roofing and insulation in homes, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous chemicals from burned tires, plastics, and light bulbs. After the San Diego fire, EPA officials failed to remove some of the ash containing these hazardous chemicals. During the rainy season, this ash found its way into the public water supply and was deemed harmful to human health.
In San Bruno, officials are learning from this mistake. They are trying to remove the harmful ash as quickly as possible, but they are sacrificing chemical testing in the process. The county staff has not ruled out the possibility of gases such as benzene, acetone, and butane, which are flammable and corrosive, finding their way into the air. In addition to the air, there is also the possibility that the metals, and the chemicals formed from the burning of items such as rubber and light bulbs, have found their way into the soil. These chemicals may then find their way into the regional aquifer, which is the source of water for not only San Bruno, but for surrounding cities as well.
With both the direct and indirect effects of this natural gas explosion being as great as they are, one cannot help but wonder if this industry will be subject to the same sort of scrutiny that the offshore oil drilling industry has received. The only silver lining to such disasters may be the reevaluation of the safety procedures of these industries, and a change for the better in the future.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Everyone knows that large fires have the potential to burn all in their path, such as trees, homes, and cars. When these things burn, however, they may also leave behind chemicals that are hazardous to the environment. Previous similar fires, in the cities of San Diego and San Bernadino, left behind metals from melted batteries and car parts, asbestos from roofing and insulation in homes, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous chemicals from burned tires, plastics, and light bulbs. After the San Diego fire, EPA officials failed to remove some of the ash containing these hazardous chemicals. During the rainy season, this ash found its way into the public water supply and was deemed harmful to human health.
In San Bruno, officials are learning from this mistake. They are trying to remove the harmful ash as quickly as possible, but they are sacrificing chemical testing in the process. The county staff has not ruled out the possibility of gases such as benzene, acetone, and butane, which are flammable and corrosive, finding their way into the air. In addition to the air, there is also the possibility that the metals, and the chemicals formed from the burning of items such as rubber and light bulbs, have found their way into the soil. These chemicals may then find their way into the regional aquifer, which is the source of water for not only San Bruno, but for surrounding cities as well.
With both the direct and indirect effects of this natural gas explosion being as great as they are, one cannot help but wonder if this industry will be subject to the same sort of scrutiny that the offshore oil drilling industry has received. The only silver lining to such disasters may be the reevaluation of the safety procedures of these industries, and a change for the better in the future.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Monday, September 20, 2010
Keeping an Eye on Fracking
Recently, the EPA sent out letters to nine drilling companies asking for detailed information about the chemicals used in the process known as fracking. Fracking is the fracturing of underground rock in order to extract natural gas. The request for information is in response to a growing concern that the chemicals used in this process could be contaminating the water supply. In 2004, the EPA concluded that the fracking process was safe, but some believe this analysis was rushed and politically motivated.
For example, in Cannonsburg, Pennsylvania, people have been coming to public meetings with large samples of yellow, foul smelling water. The same is true for public meetings in Texas and Colorado. The public in these cases believed that natural gas fracking was the culprit of this yellow water, but is this the case? The natural gas companies are hoping that it is not. Industry spokesmen contend that none of the chemicals used in the fracking process actually reach the water table, which consists of the water we drink. Regulation of this industry, the spokesmen claim, could not come at a worse time. These spokesmen believe that the nation needs to develop sound alternatives to oil and coal, and that jobs in the industry will be destroyed by additional burdens.
The EPA is giving each of the companies that it is investigating seven days to respond to the request for information, and thirty days to actually provide the information. The EPA is considering legal action for non-compliance with these requests. The agency plans on publishing a new study on the fracking chemical issue by 2012.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
For example, in Cannonsburg, Pennsylvania, people have been coming to public meetings with large samples of yellow, foul smelling water. The same is true for public meetings in Texas and Colorado. The public in these cases believed that natural gas fracking was the culprit of this yellow water, but is this the case? The natural gas companies are hoping that it is not. Industry spokesmen contend that none of the chemicals used in the fracking process actually reach the water table, which consists of the water we drink. Regulation of this industry, the spokesmen claim, could not come at a worse time. These spokesmen believe that the nation needs to develop sound alternatives to oil and coal, and that jobs in the industry will be destroyed by additional burdens.
The EPA is giving each of the companies that it is investigating seven days to respond to the request for information, and thirty days to actually provide the information. The EPA is considering legal action for non-compliance with these requests. The agency plans on publishing a new study on the fracking chemical issue by 2012.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Friday, September 3, 2010
A Toast to the Champagne Industry
For those who believe in the phenomenon of global climate change, the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is a major concern. Across the globe, lowering emissions of carbon dioxide has become a mission. While it might seem to some to be a mission meant only for radical environmentalists on the fringe of society, lowering carbon dioxide emissions has some practical benefits as well.
A good example can be found in the champagne industry. The bubbles one finds in one’s champagne are created by carbon, and the industry is responsible for releasing 200,000 metric tons of the gas into the environment every year by producing and shipping its product. Upon realization of this enormous output, a champagne company in France, Pommery, has decided to shrink the size of its bottle.
The new champagne bottle will lose only 2.3 ounces of material, but Pommery projects that this will cut the company’s carbon emissions by 25 percent by the year 2020. And for those not interested in cutting their carbon emissions, this smaller bottle is also simply good for business. Industry wide sales of champagne have been down by about 5 billion euros since 2007. Economists project that the savings in production costs generated by these smaller bottles will help the industry’s profits rise again after this three-year fall.
This example demonstrates that the aims of environmentalists and the aims of businesses are not always mutually exclusive. Many believe that environmentalists are out to harm business with oppressive restrictions on issues such as carbon emissions. But if reducing these emissions can save companies money and help them to become profitable again, then perhaps environmentalists are not so oppressive after all. Perhaps the two seemingly opposing sides can work together.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
A good example can be found in the champagne industry. The bubbles one finds in one’s champagne are created by carbon, and the industry is responsible for releasing 200,000 metric tons of the gas into the environment every year by producing and shipping its product. Upon realization of this enormous output, a champagne company in France, Pommery, has decided to shrink the size of its bottle.
The new champagne bottle will lose only 2.3 ounces of material, but Pommery projects that this will cut the company’s carbon emissions by 25 percent by the year 2020. And for those not interested in cutting their carbon emissions, this smaller bottle is also simply good for business. Industry wide sales of champagne have been down by about 5 billion euros since 2007. Economists project that the savings in production costs generated by these smaller bottles will help the industry’s profits rise again after this three-year fall.
This example demonstrates that the aims of environmentalists and the aims of businesses are not always mutually exclusive. Many believe that environmentalists are out to harm business with oppressive restrictions on issues such as carbon emissions. But if reducing these emissions can save companies money and help them to become profitable again, then perhaps environmentalists are not so oppressive after all. Perhaps the two seemingly opposing sides can work together.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Friday, August 27, 2010
Genetically Engineered Salmon
Many individuals that consider themselves to be environmentalists become enraged when they see the letters GM, which for those not familiar with the lexicon, stand for genetically modified. The US Federal Drug Administration is currently in the process of approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption. If the approval goes through, this salmon would be the first genetically modified animal to be produced for human consumption in United States history. There are an array of other GM animals that have been developed, and approval of this salmon may open the floodgates for these animals as well.
Despite the harsh critics of this salmon, who have called it a “frankenfish” and believe that it may be disastrous to human health and the environment, the debate about genetically modifying food is much more nuanced. For example, scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada have developed what they call an Enviropig. Normal pigs excrete a great deal of phosphorus from the plants they eat, and this phosphorus finds its way into rivers and seas. The phosphorus is hazardous to the life within these waters and the quality of the water itself. The Enviropig, however, has been developed with a special enzyme that gives it the power to digest more phosphorus and thus excrete less.
This Enviropig, contrary to the conception held by some environmentalists, actually helps the environment in some ways rather than harming it. Similarly, the salmon that is awaiting approval can grow to market size in half the time of a natural salmon. This may mean that the production of these GM salmon is more efficient and would use up fewer resources. However, animal breeders have been breeding animals to produce more meat in this manner for many decades before talks of genetic modification have been on the table. This breeding has caused numerous health problems in these animals, and genetic modification may not be exempt from these repercussions.
Whatever one’s beliefs about genetic modification may be, this salmon has the potential to drastically change the face of food production in the future.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Despite the harsh critics of this salmon, who have called it a “frankenfish” and believe that it may be disastrous to human health and the environment, the debate about genetically modifying food is much more nuanced. For example, scientists at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada have developed what they call an Enviropig. Normal pigs excrete a great deal of phosphorus from the plants they eat, and this phosphorus finds its way into rivers and seas. The phosphorus is hazardous to the life within these waters and the quality of the water itself. The Enviropig, however, has been developed with a special enzyme that gives it the power to digest more phosphorus and thus excrete less.
This Enviropig, contrary to the conception held by some environmentalists, actually helps the environment in some ways rather than harming it. Similarly, the salmon that is awaiting approval can grow to market size in half the time of a natural salmon. This may mean that the production of these GM salmon is more efficient and would use up fewer resources. However, animal breeders have been breeding animals to produce more meat in this manner for many decades before talks of genetic modification have been on the table. This breeding has caused numerous health problems in these animals, and genetic modification may not be exempt from these repercussions.
Whatever one’s beliefs about genetic modification may be, this salmon has the potential to drastically change the face of food production in the future.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Intern
Friday, August 20, 2010
Nuclear Power, a New Age?
Nuclear power has a checkered history. The Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine and the Three Mile Island incident in the United States have created a deep public mistrust of this form of power. In the United States, that public mistrust is responsible for a standstill in the building of nuclear reactors that has spanned three decades. Now the Obama administration has announced a guarantee of a loan of $8.3 billion dollars to build the first nuclear reactors since the beginning of this standstill.
This development begs the question of whether the United States’ longstanding apprehension regarding nuclear power has ended. Many believe that the dangers presented in Chernobyl or Three Mile Island are still present. These people see nuclear reactors as possessing the ability to cause cancer in individuals within the reactor’s radius, contaminate drinking water, and destroy the surrounding environment. Others believe that technology has come a long way since 1976, the date of the Three Mile Island incident, and that the country should give nuclear power another chance.
Without a doubt there are many benefits to this form of energy. Climate change has become a much more prevalent issue than it was three decades ago, and nuclear power has the potential to do a lot for this issue. Unlike power plants that use oil or coal, nuclear power plants release no carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon dioxide is generally accepted as a gas that contributes to the phenomenon of climate change. And considering that the carbon dioxide released from power plants make up the majority of the carbon dioxide released around the world, an astronomically greater percentage than that released by transportation, nuclear power has much about which to boast.
Just as clearly there are downsides to nuclear power. Just one downside is the waste that is produced from these plants. This waste must be stored underground, in caverns across the United States. Obviously, there is not an infinite amount of space with which to store this waste, and storage will be a problem if the number of reactors increases. Nuclear power may not be a permanent solution, but it might help to reduce our dependence on oil and coal. This may make the transition to even better forms of power much easier, and this effect alone may be benefit enough.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Extern
This development begs the question of whether the United States’ longstanding apprehension regarding nuclear power has ended. Many believe that the dangers presented in Chernobyl or Three Mile Island are still present. These people see nuclear reactors as possessing the ability to cause cancer in individuals within the reactor’s radius, contaminate drinking water, and destroy the surrounding environment. Others believe that technology has come a long way since 1976, the date of the Three Mile Island incident, and that the country should give nuclear power another chance.
Without a doubt there are many benefits to this form of energy. Climate change has become a much more prevalent issue than it was three decades ago, and nuclear power has the potential to do a lot for this issue. Unlike power plants that use oil or coal, nuclear power plants release no carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon dioxide is generally accepted as a gas that contributes to the phenomenon of climate change. And considering that the carbon dioxide released from power plants make up the majority of the carbon dioxide released around the world, an astronomically greater percentage than that released by transportation, nuclear power has much about which to boast.
Just as clearly there are downsides to nuclear power. Just one downside is the waste that is produced from these plants. This waste must be stored underground, in caverns across the United States. Obviously, there is not an infinite amount of space with which to store this waste, and storage will be a problem if the number of reactors increases. Nuclear power may not be a permanent solution, but it might help to reduce our dependence on oil and coal. This may make the transition to even better forms of power much easier, and this effect alone may be benefit enough.
-Evan Aronson, Legal Extern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)