Environmental Science
In the Cross Hairs
The Right has taken umbrage at some of the important work of environmental law professors and centers.
The fossil fuel industry and its conservative allies seem to have taken notice of the important work done by environmental law centers. Their response is to try to repress this valuable work. This is a backhanded acknowledgement that law schools are making a difference.This campaign has targeted some of the law schools with the most prominent environmental law programs. Climate scientists have long been the target of harassment and public attack. It appears that people who work on climate policy are now also in the crosshairs. What we’re seeing lacks the drama of other attacks on free speech and academic freedom. But it is capable of being no less harmful. McCarthyism writ small is still McCarthyism.
CONTINUE READINGPesticides, Cancer, and Failure-to-Warn at the Supreme Court
The pro-business Roberts Court considers whether to preempt state law failure-to-warn claims. Will corporate and agency malfeasance on glyphosate matter?
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court granted cert in an important case involving a preemption question under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (aka FIFRA). The question presented: “Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning?” The case involves glyphosate, which is …
Continue reading “Pesticides, Cancer, and Failure-to-Warn at the Supreme Court”
CONTINUE READINGWant to Fight for Science? Look to South Dakota. No, Really.
We need a permanent grassroots strategy for science before we are buried in Idiocracy.
Nature this week offers a series of terrifying, interactive graphs detailing the Trump Administration’s Idiocratic War on Science. Not only has it butchered federal scientific research grants, but as you can see in this graphic, it has hollowed out the federal scientific workforce – the dedicated professionals who develop data to allow for science-informed policy …
Continue reading “Want to Fight for Science? Look to South Dakota. No, Really.”
CONTINUE READINGIs This the End of Cost-Benefit Analysis?
Trump’s EPA is effectively abandoning economic analysis
Maybe the Administration means to keep cost-benefit analysis in place for some other kinds of regulations at EPA or elsewhere. But if the courts uphold the EPA’s refusal to quantify the enormous harms caused by air pollution, it’s hard to see an argument for quantifying many other regulatory benefits. In other settings, environmentalists might applaud the repeal of cost-benefit analysis. In the current setting, however, the purpose is all too plain: to make it easier for the Administration to ignore the ways it is endangering human life and health.
CONTINUE READINGThe U.S. Has Now Become a Rogue Nation
By pulling out of the UNFCCC and dozens of international organizations, Trump has isolated the United States and ceded influence to China and the EU.
In the past few days, Trump has kidnapped the head of state of Venezuela, threatened to invade Greenland, and withdrawn from a 1992 climate treaty negotiated by George H.W. Bush. The treaty, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, has been the basis for international climate cooperation for the past thirty years, including the Paris Agreement. In addition, Trump is withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which will make it harder for American scientists to contribute to the periodic reports on the state of climate science. Trump’s action is basically a big middle finger toward the rest of the world. If anyone wins from this, it’s China, which can now claim to be the responsible adult in the room.
CONTINUE READINGScience and Democracy
The scientific process is crucial for a well-functioning democracy.
Beyond its utility, science also models some important features of democracy. It aspires to a marketplace of ideas in which everyone with the needed background knowledge can participate, and in which conclusions are based on debate and data rather than power. As a recent D.C. Circuit case illustrates, the law calls on government agencies to make decisions in the same, considering all the scientific evidence and arguments, then providing a reasoned explanation for its decision.
CONTINUE READINGAmerica’s Dirty Pictures: The Forgotten ‘Documerica’ Reminds Us How Far We’ve Come
The Documerica project, housed at the National Archives, provides a vivid window into environmental destruction circa the 1970s.
In recent decades, environmental laws have not only been challenged in courts and Congress; they’ve also taken a verbal beating. They’ve been denounced as “job killers”, “government overreach,” “radical environmentalism,” a “war on coal,” and, lately, just “woke.” It’s become all too easy to focus on the costs of regulation and forget why we adopted …
CONTINUE READINGThe Compact for Censorship
The so-called compact is a thin front for massive incursion into free speech and academic freedom.
A key First Amendment principle prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. This Compact contains a string of viewpoint-based rules. That’s a threat to any view the government doesn’t like, which definitely includes a belief in climate change or the benefits of renewable energy. Because violation of the agreement triggers draconian sanctions, and the Administration is the judge of what constitutes a violation, the chilling effect will be tremendous.
CONTINUE READINGAt a Loss for Words? Resist Climate Silence
The Drain is a weekly roundup of environmental and climate news from Legal Planet.
A few years ago, I was writing about how President Joe Biden was flying around the country to promote his landmark climate law without uttering the word “climate.” Seems so quaint. Now, we find ourselves in a place where “climate change” is on a list of banned words maintained by the U.S. Energy Department, along …
Continue reading “At a Loss for Words? Resist Climate Silence”
CONTINUE READINGWebinar: Climate Policy without the Endangerment Finding
UCLA Law’s “Up in the Air” webinar explores the future of federal and state climate policy if the endangerment finding is repealed.
As Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin rushes to rescind the endangerment finding — which some have called “the Holy Grail of U.S. climate policy” — the UCLA Emmett Institute hosted an expert panel discussion on the reasoning and ramifications of such a move. The effort underlines “an extraordinarily dark time in U.S. environmental politics,” …
Continue reading “Webinar: Climate Policy without the Endangerment Finding”
CONTINUE READINGJoin Our Mailing List
Climate policy is changing rapidly. Stay in the loop with expert analysis via email Monday - Friday.
