JASON J. CZARNEZKI

The University of Colorado Law School seeks applicants for a clinical faculty position in its Natural Resources Clinic.  The Clinic was one of the first of its kind in the country, having been founded in 1978.  Originally housed at the National Wildlife Federation, the Clinic came in-house to Colorado Law in Spring 2010.  The incoming clinical faculty member will be responsible for developing a docket of projects dealing with natural resources issues.  The faculty member will also have primary responsibility for supervising students in their case or project work, and for organizing and teaching a companion clinical seminar.

Candidates must have a JD degree and a minimum of five years practical experience.  Prior teaching experience is strongly preferred.  Candidates must be licensed to practice law in at least one state and be eligible to sit either for the Colorado bar or waive admission into Colorado.

To apply, candidates should mail a letter describing their interest, their initial thoughts on the kinds of projects they would develop for the clinic, relevant practice experience, and any prior teaching experience, along with a resume and the names of three references to Deborah J. Cantrell, Associate Professor & Director of Clinical Programs, University of Colorado Law School, Wolf Law Building, 404 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309-0404.  The deadline for applications is October 24, 2010.  Teaching will begin August 2011.  Colorado Law is an equal opportunity employer.

When I was in China, my Chinese students and colleagues never wanted to recognize that their country would soon surpass Japan as the second-largest economy in the world.  This inevitability is now a reality, as reported today.  While culturally the Chinese are not ones to take credit, from an imternational relations and foreign policy standpoint, the country is somehwhat weary of this status.  With such economic prowess, it is much harder to limit international obligation and responsibility, especially when those arguments often rest on the the lack of economic prosperity for much of the country.  While the vast majority of Chinese are most certainly poor, the Chinese recognize their growing status in the world and the Chinese government will want to continue to be seen as a global power.  Thus, the time is now for the U.S. become a real global leader on environmental issues because the Chinese are perceived as economic superpowers, and the failure to join the U.S. in a leadership role could be seen as embarrassing.  Now is the time for the U.S. to lead and challenge the Chinese to be more than leader of the developing world, which is often the fall back description of their country.  China and the U.S. are the two largest emitters of greenhouse emissions, and both need to act.  Unfortunately, U.S. domestic and international policy has failed in terms of environmental and economic policies to help improve international carbon emissions and pollution due manufacturing in the developing world.  The constructive critism of U.S. policy can be spread around–the U.S. Senate, the President at Copenhagen, American consumption patterns, the interstate highway system, etc.

The Time Argus has posted this article about the candidates and their environmental views.

Dan Farber on Legal Planet posts about when an environmental impact statement is necessary for USDA approval of genetically-modified crops, and Friday’s federal court decision revoking the USDA approval of genetically modified sugar beets for violating the National Environmental Policy Act.  The concern is that, absent safeguards and due to cross-pollination, genetically-modified crops will over-run conventional crops, i.e., farmers won’t be able to produce non-GMO crops.  This issue has garnered attention of late with the Supreme Court’s decision in Monsanto v. Geerston Seed, and Vermonters should find this case of interest since both the sugar beet and Monsanto (about Roundup Ready alafalfa) cases included High Mowing Organic Seeds of Wolcott, Vermont as a plaintiff.  Their involvement should be of no surprise given that that area of Vermont has been home to, according an article to author Bill McKibben, “the most interesting agriculture experiment in the country,” where neighbors are eating solely from locally produced foods rather than industrial processed foods.

[Note: In writing this post, I learned of a book I will ask the Vermont Law Library to acquire, The Town That Food Saved: How One Community Found Vitality in Local Food by Ben Hewitt.]

…is the title of this article about the connection between extreme/unpredictable weather and global temperature increase.  Regardless of the science, even the perception that dramatic weather events are prompted by climate change may lead to increased policy initiatives.  Unfortunately, because the sources and impacts of climate change are so diffuse,  it may take catastrophic events to trigger action.

In case you haven’t been following, a federal court in California overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage as violating the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The court stated:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

“Rational basis” is a legal term of art.  Since marriage is a fundamental right, the government bears the burden of proving that Prop 8 is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest (i.e. strict scrutiny).  The lower court found that Prop 8 could not even survive rational basis review (a lower form of evaluation), let alone strict scrutiny.  The court opinion in full can be found here.

The plaintiffs’ case was argued by David Boies and Ted Olson, ideological opposites who were the attorneys  in the 2000 Supreme Court battle Bush v. Gore which decided the Presidency.  And, of note, Ted Olson was the Solicitor General under President George W. Bush.  What makes this fact so fascinating is that this case could ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now the question seems to be whether same-sex couples can begin getting married immediately or whether the decision of the district court should be stayed until the Ninth Citucit can rule.  It is both an interesting case in terms of substantive constitutional law, and now civil procedure.  My University of Chicago law school classmate, Dan Powell, former clerk to Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and now Deputy Attorney General of California, just filed with the Ninth Circuit the CA AG’s Opposition to the Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal.  In terms of the stay, the California Attorney General’s Office is arguing that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry immediately since while there may be administrative burdens if the marriages are later declared invalid, these burdens are outweighed by the district court’s conclusion that a constitutional violation is occuring.

The 2^nd Annual Growing Local Fest, a celebration of local food and culture, will be on Saturday, September 11, from 2-7pm at the Vermont College of Fine Arts Green in Montpelier.  The event is being organized by the Central Vermont Food Systems Council (an outcome of enVision Montpelier).

In addition to live music, food- and ag-related workshops, local food vendors, and a beer tent, there will also be a HOME BREW CONTEST, a PESTO CONTEST, and a YOUTH FARMERS’ MARKET!

For the most up-to-date details and schedule of the event, go to www.cvfsc.wordpress.com.

Vermont has just signed a 26-year deal for energy with Hyrdo-Quebec.  See here.  But, as I have previosuly noted, should hydro-electric power be considered renewable energy?

To what extent should environmentalists and businesses compromise their goals?  The NY Times Green Blog argues that their are great benefits to environmental compromise, and it can be especially effective at the local level, providing some examples.  According to the blog, “The common threads: all the outcomes had clear environmental benefits and all were achieved by finding enough common ground to satisfy everyone’s basic aims.  Sort of what Congress used to do.”  Whatever the overall merits of individual compromises, in teaching law students, I think we should remember to convey some basic points.

(1) Non-federal, local and regional solutions to environmental problems exist.

(2) Non-litigation solutions exist.

(3) Trade-offs exists, especially if transaction costs can be kept low (Coase would be proud) or where solutions both help industry or save money, and protect the environment.

(4) Understanding the reality of American energy demands and development, and when one should be willing to except second-best solutions.  If one views oil demand or some development as inevitable, decide when compromise is necessary so total ecological losses do not occur.

(5) Avoiding animosity and winner-take-all scenarios.  See above.  And friendly engagement and discussion can be productive, especially when people come from the same community.

(6) View point sharing.  Compromise can be better reached when there is greater understanding environmental values, business interests and how technology is used.

So far most of my blog posts have been about environmental policy or politics or something academic, but now a little about my life — After being away from China for almost two months, I really need some good Chinese food.  Not some greasy Chinese-American restaurant that has no real Chinese food and serves lo mein and egg foo young, and not some upscale Chinese restaurant where they have to explain to patrons what eating family style is, no one speaks Chinese, and where steamed broccoli is $10, but an authentic Chinese restaurant that gives me a rice bowl and chopsticks, uses fresh ingrediants, cooks with chili oil, and has Chinese eggplant in the kitchen.  I’ve tried both of these options and then some, eating at various local Chinese spots and even befriending the owners and cooks.  Even when I order off the menu (in Chinese), these restaurants just lack the proper ingredients or the cooks no longer know how to cook authentic dishes as well as their parents/grandparents.

We will be embarking on an adventure to a Chinatown in Boston, NYC, or Montreal as soon as possible to fill this desperate need.  If you know of an awesome and authentic Chinese in Boston, NYC, or Montreal, please comment with the name and address.

(Note: I did have an actual Chinese grandmother cook at the Chinese restaurant I went to today.   She was very nice and spoke Chinese to my kids.  The food was better, but she said they didn’t have the ingredients for what I wanted in the way it should be cooked, even though it was on the menu to be cooked in the way for Americans–think tofu in a thikc BBQ sauce rather than a light chili oil and bean sauce.)