Largest Environmental Protest in History

On February 17, 2013, thousands of protesters marched on Washington in opposition to the Keystone Pipeline addition, in what many are describing as the biggest environmental protest in our nation’s history. The Keystone Pipeline transports crude oil from Canada to refineries located in the United States through an underground pipe system. The proposed addition would take the pipeline farther, all the way down into Texas along the Gulf Coast. The project is in limbo until the President decides to approve or deny the necessary permits. As of January 2012, President Obama wanted more time for an environmental assessment before coming to a final decision, which is expected soon. Proponents of the addition say that the pipeline will help promote energy security, create jobs, stimulate the economy, and reduce reliance on foreign oil. Others are worried that the pipeline will undermine Obama’s new clean energy policy and present more serious and immediate threats to the environment. People are worried about the potentially disastrous effects of an oil spill on the environment, especially where the pipeline crosses ecologically precious and sensitive areas. One of the proposed routes for the pipeline addition crosses directly over one of the country’s largest fresh water aquifers, which provides drinking water to over two million people. An additional proposed route places the pipeline directly over an active seismic zone which had a major earthquake as recently as 2002. Another major environmental concern is the increase of carbon emissions or greenhouse gases which are the major contributor to global warming. Landowners are also concerned that they may have to live with the pipeline buried on their land or even worse, lose their homes under eminent domain to make room for the pipeline. The environmental risks with disastrous consequences seem to far outweigh the benefits of the pipeline. Despite the impressive size of the demonstration, the President was not in Washington to see it. -Rachel Goldstein, Legal Intern

Survival of the Smartest

Normally you hear the phrase, “Survival of the Fittest,” and you think of savage beast or tough men, all trying to carve out their place here on Earth with either brute strength or by sheer force. I have come to realize that this old way of life has no place in modern society and that if anything on the planet wants to survive, it must become smarter. For eons the evolution of an organism hugely depended on that particular organism’s environment. This is still true today; only thing, the environment has changed in ways that nature may not have intended. This may range from large scale construction projects to the millions of miles of highway stretched across the country. As stated earlier, evolution is highly depended on an organism’s environment, which can influence nearly every aspect of that organism. Such as, weight, color, habits, food sources, reproduction, etc. Moreover, these physical changes may be necessary for that organism’s survival as it adapts to a particular environment. As noted, these are all physical changes that are usually taken note of by researchers and scientist alike. However, there is a more subtle change taking place within the animal kingdom and it has less to do with nature and more to do with mankind’s relentless ambition. I started noticing this subtle change in behavior a couple of years ago, not to say that this kind of thing has not been going on before I took notice, but it is definitely happening all around the country. I have noticed and I am sure that some of you have as well, that hawks have begun nesting in trees along the interstate highways. The curious observer will ask themselves why? Well, this is because they too have adapted to their environment, just not so much the biological environment, but their technological environment. They are not alone in this endeavor; I have also noticed that coyotes routinely wait around in the median area of the highways at night as well. Hawks patrol the highways during the day and wait for cars to run-over other animals, which then become fast food for them, coyotes take the night shift and basically do the same thing. On one hand, this has made hunting a lot easier for them, but on another hand, it may spell disaster. The real question is: “Are we destroying so much of their natural habitat that they are forced to feed off the dead, or have they simply adapted?” Here are two different animals faced with similar issues, but both of which chose to adapt, but I am not sure if their survival depended on this chosen adaptation or was it simple convenience. The reason I say that is that I have also noticed that spiders have begun to build webs around lights, which happens to be a great place to find insects, thus making their job of hunting easier as well. These subtle changes in their (hawks, coyotes, spiders) behavior can be viewed as mere coincidence but I like to give them more credit than that. I believe these are signs of intelligent adaptation to survive in an ever changing environment. Reiterating what I said earlier, it is now “Survival of the Smartest.” Brute strength and sheer force alone will no longer guarantee an organism’s survival. This holds true among all organisms. The barbaric age is over and intelligence is on the rise. So next time you’re driving down the highway, take a look around you, evolution is taking place right before your eyes. -Andre’ Fletcher, Legal Intern

Preventing Ink Stains on our Environment

Did you know it can take up to 450 years for an ink cartridge to decompose in a landfill? Ever wonder what to do with your old printer ink cartridges? Recycle them so they do not end up in a landfill! There are a number of online companies and local retailers that will recycle your old printer ink cartridges for you, along with other unwanted household electronics. Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection website lists twenty different resources for information on recycling old ink cartridges. On this website you will find companies that will conveniently send you paid postage to mail your cartridges back to them for recycling, free of charge. Others pay you for your empty cartridges and some use the proceeds for donations to charitable organizations. In addition to mail programs, many ink manufacturers have drop-off locations in town where you can drop off your empty cartridges for recycling. Dell uses local Goodwill locations for their Reconnect drop-off sites for both cartridges and old computer equipment. Check your ink cartridge manufacturer’s website for specific details. Also, check with your local office supply retailer. Most Best Buy stores maintain an in-store kiosk where you can drop off your empty cartridges. Staples also has a recycling program and will reward your eco-conscious efforts with two bucks back in Staples Rewards for each cartridge recycled (limit ten cartridges per customer, per month). No matter which route you choose for recycling your empty printer ink cartridges, do your part to keep them out of the local landfills! -Rachel Goldstein, Legal Intern

Kill the Sharks, Destroy the Ocean

Over seventy-three million sharks are killed around the world to meet the demand for a product that is less than five percent of its body weight – their fins. The fins are used for “shark fin soup,” a delicacy so tasteless that chicken broth must be added to it in order to make it palatable. The soup has a lavish past as it was once reserved for Chinese emperors and noblemen who believed that shark fins increased vitality and possessed attributes capable of curing many diseases. It was later banned in China until the mid-1980’s because it was reminiscent of bourgeoisie imperialism. By the time the ban was removed, China’s middle class had exploded. The middle class embraced the soup for its symbolism of power and wealth, serving it at banquets and weddings to impress guests. The insatiable demand for the soup is met through the process of ‘shark finning.’ Fishermen catch the sharks, slice off their fins, and dump the shark back into the ocean. The shark itself has no value, so the fishermen do not want to waste their limited space storing the carcasses. This allows the fisherman to kill exponentially more sharks than they could if they were required to keep the rest of the shark. When thrown back into the ocean the sharks are almost always still alive. But without their fins, the sharks are unable to swim, a required activity to replenish the necessary oxygen to continue to live. Sharks that do not die in this manner are slowly eaten alive by other animals. But the cruelty involved in shark finning is not the only reason to regulate the practice. Sharks are apex predators, also known as the top of their food chain. When shark populations decrease, the balance of the ecosystem is thrown off as the uneaten prey vastly increase in numbers. For example, a large staple of the diet of some species of sharks are rays. In many waters were shark populations have decreased, ray populations have greatly increased. The rays then gorge on ‘bivalves,’ such as oysters and clams. This in turn has led to the closing of several clam and oyster fisheries. In addition, bivalves feed themselves by filtering through the ocean water and thus are imperative to the cleanliness and health of the ocean. Decreasing populations of bivalves in the ocean has been compared to removing the filter of a swimming pool. This causes algae to bloom, resulting in an oxygen-deprived dead zone and the end of most ocean life in the area. Recognizing the significant importance of sharks to the ocean’s health; laws and regulations both internationally and domestically have attempted to curve shark finning numbers. Recent international and federal laws aim at the shark finning process, requiring fishermen to carry the shark carcass as well as the fin to decrease the numbers of sharks harvested. Very recent state legislation in California, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, and Washington prohibit the possession and trade of shark fins altogether. Removing shark fins from the market of a state means less harvested sharks and a healthier ocean. But these efforts may be too late. The biology of most sharks prevents them from sexually maturing until they reach several years of age and even when they can reproduce, they give birth to only a few young. Therefore, it will take decades for shark populations to improve. Until then, the adoption of state laws parallel to those discussed above as well as uniform international agreements is of the utmost importance to the health of the ocean. -Corey Mishler, Legal Intern

Fracking 101

A recent article released by The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/fracking-pollution-pennsylvania_n_1982320.html#slide=1126240) discusses fracking in the state of Pennsylvania and some of the adverse impacts it is having on people and the environment. For those of you who have not yet heard of fracking, the term is shorthand for hydraulic fracturing. This is a process of drilling down to shale rock which contains natural gas and injecting water, sand, and chemicals in order to force the gas out of the shale and into the head of the well for extraction. The article tells the account of the McIntyre Family in Butler County, Pennsylvania who no longer drink the water piped into their home. Mrs. McIntyre stated that her family currently uses the water strictly for flushing the toilet and nothing more. She also alleges the water has caused her family to suffer health problems including vomiting and skin rashes. A group of 100 people, including the McIntyre family, was recently surveyed by the Oil and Gas Accountability Project at Earthworks, an environmental and public advocacy group based in Washington. A report was released by Earthworks suggesting that fracking has caused widespread water and air pollution and has led to many health problems including sinus, respiratory, and mood problems. One of the major concerns is that fracking activities have expanded quite rapidly, and there has been little time to study the impacts of its long term effects on the environment and people. These concerns are exacerbated by the growing demand for natural gas in the United States which has helped to drive down energy costs. Researcher’s biggest concerns regarding health effects are that there is so little information about how the chemicals and presence of natural gas in water supplies due to fracking adversely affect humans and the environment. Analysts of the science and surveys pertaining to fracking claim that there seems to be a heavy bias on both sides of the battle. While environmental groups urge to back the information that whatever is happening to the environment and people due to fracking is most likely harmful, the supporters of fracking argue that its track record is safe and the process is heavily regulated by applicable law. Earthworks stated that the lackluster government inspection of natural gas well operations, and the lack of imposition of fines for violations, is a loophole in enforcement that is necessary to change the behavior of the drilling companies. The McIntyre family has claimed that drinking bottled water and using a friend’s shower has reduced many of the symptoms affecting their family. They claim that there are still effects coming from the air by the drilling operations including breathing problems and headaches. The McIntyre family is among the 80 percent of survey participants who reported smelling foul odors from the drilling operations. Only time, scientific study, and objective analysis will be able to tell us what impacts fracking will have on the environment and people. Fracking is yet another example of the problems society must confront when engaging in energy, economic and human health policy. -Nick Porta, Legal Intern

Alaskan Village Denied Standing to Sue

The Alaskan village of Kivalina is a small town at the tip of a barrier reef about seventy miles north of the Arctic Circle. The Village is feeling the devastating effects of climate change which is shrinking the sea ice that once protected the Village against seasonal coastal storms. In recent years, waves that used to be blocked by the sea ice have caused devastating erosion and the land beneath the Village is literally disappearing. The Village, faced with imminent relocation or destruction sued several oil, coal, and power companies claiming that their greenhouse gas emissions at least in part led to the warming of the planet and thus their injury. The Village also used a federal public nuisance law to claim that the companies had together violated the law by “[C]ontributing to global warming and misleading the public about its consequences.” The Village sought damages to assist in their relocation efforts which are estimated to cost $400,000,000. U.S. District Judge Saundra Armstrong dismissed the case ruling that the Village did not have standing. Generally, standing is a legal concept in which a party must demonstrate to the court that it has suffered an injury from the other party and a favorable court decision will redress that injury. Armstrong’s ruling meant that the Village did not adequately demonstrate that their injury was a direct result of the energy companies’ emission of greenhouse gases. Since greenhouse gases are released by a variety of companies and individuals, the Village could not hold these particular parties accountable. The Village appealed and on September 21, 2012 the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the ruling, stating that the Village did not have standing to sue the companies. In addition, Judge Sidney Thomas stated that a fairly recent Supreme Court decision holding that “[F]ederal common law addressing domestic greenhouse gas emissions has been displaced by Congressional action” defeated the Village’s federal public nuisance claim. Judge Thomas remarked that "Our conclusion obviously does not aid Kivalina, which itself is being displaced by the rising sea . . . . But the solution to Kivalina's dire circumstance must rest in the hands of the legislative and executive branches of our government, not the federal common law." -Corey Mishler, Legal Intern

New Zealand Grants Personhood to a River

With corporations having been granted legal personhood in the United States a few years ago, you may be asking yourself whether or not non-human animals or parts of the environment could be granted such a vast array of rights and protection. Although not in the United States, a designation of a river as a legal person was recently requested and granted in New Zealand. The Whanganui River is the third largest river in the nation of New Zealand. The River is of mass significance to the local iwi, indigenousness people, who have not only relied on the River as a resource for generations but have also enjoyed the River’s natural beauty and use for recreation. The iwi have been fighting to have the River protected by the government from relentless pollution and unauthorized exploitation since 1837. Recently, New Zealand’s longest-running legal case celebrated a huge victory. In late August the iwi and New Zealand’s Parliament reached a preliminary settlement agreement which recognized the River as a legal entity enabling it to have legal standing and its own independent voice. The River will be recognized as “Te Awa Tupua,” the name given to it by the iwi and will be recognized in the same way a company is, which will give it protectable rights. The agreement also appointed two guardians – one from Parliament and one from the iwi – to represent the interests of the River. The New Zealand Minister of Treaty for Waitangi Negotiations, Christopher Finlayson, said the agreement recognizes the “inextricable relationship of iwi with the River.” He notes that the “iwi have not sought to have their relationship with the river defined in these settlement negotiations in terms of ownership of the riverbed or water, but have focused on recognizing the mana of the River from which the iwi’s mana flows, and on its future health and wellbeing.” This appears to be the first time in history a single river has ever been granted legal personhood anywhere in the world.