JASON J. CZARNEZKI

Story in the NYTimes with Vermont Law Professor Pat Parenteau about SCOTUS’s ruling in AEP v. CT.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/06/21/21greenwire-impact-of-supreme-courts-greenhouse-gas-ruling-41463.html?ref=energy-environment

Friend and colleague Doug Kysar (Yale) has a nice op-ed laying out the implications of the Supreme Court’s most recent global warming decision.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110621/full/474421a.html

I’ll continue to repeat what I have been saying for 4 years now…the best chance we have to deal with greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is through the action of the EPA under the Clean Air Act. While others prefer Congressional action and despite the imperfect nature of the Act, I view that option as not politically viable and potentially weaker than EPA actions. Whatever your view of AEP v. CT, it’s clear that the ball is clearly in the EPA’s court with President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson calling the plays.

The opinion is at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf. The Court held that the federal common law of nuisance has been displaced by EPA’s regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.

Commentary/News about the Opinion:

· http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-american-electric-power-case/

· http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/06/20/business/AP-US-Supreme-Court-Climate-Change.html?_r=1&hp

· http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/06/summary-of-todays-supreme-court-opinions.html

· http://legalplanet.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/supreme-court-rejects-states-climate-change-nuisance-lawsuit/

· http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2011/06/american-electric-power-wal-mart-decided-no-nuisance-claims-no-class-certification.html

· http://greenlaw.blogs.law.pace.edu/2011/06/20/scotus-rejects-federal-common-law-global-warming-claim/

· http://intlawgrrls.blogspot.com/2011/06/implications-of-todays-us-supreme-court.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/chinese-workers-protest-lead-poisoning/2011/06/14/AGSDS7UH_story.html

Vermont Law School Professor Jack Tuholske co-authored an op-ed in today’s Missoulian on a climate change lawsuit recently filed at the Montana Supreme Court.

http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_2606c06e-9690-11e0-bad3-001cc4c002e0.html

I recently viewed the film “No Impact Man” about a NYC family that tries to live environmentally friendly and off the grid.  A number of things struck me about the documentary film.

First, many of the projects taken on by the family are commonplace in the lives of many Vermonters: buying in the raw and bulk section of the grocery store, going to the farmers market, having no TV, using washable diapers, eating vegetarian and local, limiting the purchase of new items and reusing old items, visiting farms, having no paper towels, using refillable cleaning bottles, using natural cleaning supplies, and cooking.

Second, some things would be very difficult to give up: heat (even though we keep our house at 58 degrees in the winter), washing machine, electricity, car, tea, toliet paper (!).

Third, the film provoked a number of interesting thoughts:

• What is the future if mass transit in the U.S.?  Or any types of non-car transit in rural states like Vermont?
• Can we regulate junk mail?
• How can we make our employers and business more environmentally friendly?
• Is a regulatory model that focuses on changing individual behavior possible or desirable in the U.S.?
• How do we need to deal with the negative costs of American consumption?

Finally, if you watch the film, you’ll notice that the family receives a lot of backlash for their choices, yet their choices in the end, if anything, make them healthier, happier, and more family oriented.  Do the trappings of modernity make us live at such a pace that will miss the simple pleasures in life?  For an answer, watch the scene where the family “washes” their laundry in the bathtub by rolling up their pant legs and stomp the laundry like grapes.

While most not watching the debate, I have it in the background. However, after the loyalty oaths/Muslims/would you allow Muslims in your cabinet?/red scare line of questioning, I’m not sure how to write about it.

I will make this prediction: Do not underestimate Michelle Bachmann, as she’s from a border state to Iowa. Her personal story (e.g., 21 foster kids) and conservatives credentials can win Iowa. Given the current field, I believe she’ll win the GOP Iowa Caucuses. In environmental news, Bachmann said she wanted to kill the EPA which she calls the “job killing agency of America”

Since I’m interested in food and ag issues, and since we’re covering the regulation of toxic substances in my environmental law course, my student sent me a link to the Times article, “Is Sugar Toxic?”. See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html. From the article:

“It’s one thing to suggest, as most nutritionists will, that a healthful diet includes more fruits and vegetables, and maybe less fat, red meat and salt, or less of everything. It’s entirely different to claim that one particularly cherished aspect of our diet might not just be an unhealthful indulgence but actually be toxic, that when you bake your children a birthday cake or give them lemonade on a hot summer day, you may be doing them more harm than good, despite all the love that goes with it. Suggesting that sugar might kill us is what zealots do. But Lustig, who has genuine expertise, has accumulated and synthesized a mass of evidence, which he finds compelling enough to convict sugar.”

There’s a heated discussion going on right now about whether the economy needs to grow in the traditional context (as Tim Geitner argued on Meet the Press a few weeks ago), or whether a zero growth economy and through what means is desirable and achievable to ensure a healthier environment. The means could potentially include mass wealth distribution, investing and improving existing infrastructure and/or moving away from fossil fuels. I think modern American consumption and capitalism will be the likely path of the developing world, but yields diminishing returns for the developed world especially the U.S. and especially given increased economic disparity between the rich and poor. My colleague Gus Speth has written extensively on this issue.

I just finished presenting a paper on sustainable food and the role of Eco-labeling. First off, thanks to McGill… Old, prestigious, urban universities are wonderful and Montreal is fantastic. Listening to our paper presentations has been interesting. The McGill faculty have presented more abstract papers on governance and economic structure, and my Vermont Law School colleagues have focused on implementation of law and environmental impacts. Another thing I’ve noticed in my own work and presentation, as well as others, is the emergence of ‘global environmental law’ as the dominant paradigm given the nature and causes of modern environmental harm (e.g., consumption patterns and climate change). Finally, there’s been a more general discussion on the role of government and law, if any, in channeling consumer choices, innovation and social media to improve the environment (I think Paul Krugman asked similar question in the Times last week as it related to.China’s governance).