Environment


Today I delivered the Stegner Center Young Scholar Lecture at the University of Utah entitled “The Environment, Food, and Law.”  Turnout was good and everyone has been wonderful in planning my visit.  The talk was about the environmental harms of the modern industrial food system, and discusses the role of informational regulation and structural change (e.g.,  access to different food models) in achieving a more sustainable food system.  This builds upon my forthcoming article in the Stanford Law Environmental Law Journal and my forthcoming piece in the University of Utah’s Journal of Land, Resources & the Environment.

The talk when relatively well, mostly because the topic of food and the environment has grown sexy thanks to folks like Michael Pollan, but the topic also proves challenging given the diverse and complex set of concerns and interests.  What is clear is that on the labeling front, I need to make a better case as to what circumstances eco-labeling is most effective, and, on the structural front, I still need better data on successful initiatives to create a sustainable food systems from a planning and/or implementation perspective.  Finally, I need to think harder about how this all relates to food costs.

Given the complexity of food and ag systems I’m really excited about the new book contract I’ve just signed with co-authors Professor Mary Jane Angelo (University of Florida) and Bill Eubanks entitled “Food, Agriculture Policy, and the Environment: History, Law & Proposals for Reform” (Environmental Law Institute Press, forthcoming 2012).

Tomorrow is talk #2 in Salt Lake City entitled, “Climate Policy and US-China Relations.”  More details here.

Greenwire is reporting that “[t]he leading candidate to become chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee today boosted his conservative credentials, laying out a plan to cut federal government spending levels including freezing programs that support energy efficiency retrofits in homes and efficiency labeling for appliances.”  This is unfortunate given the continued democratization of carbon emissions and the need to make such sources more energy efficient (e.g., homes, cars), and the need to influence individual behavior that impacts the envirionments by providing consumers with better information (e.g., eco-labeling, Energy Star labeling).

I have been chosen as the 2010 Stegner Center Distinguished Young Scholar.  See here (page 8).  The announcement is here about my CLE presentation in Salt Lake City on ‘Climate Policy and U.S.-China Relations’ on Nov. 17.  I’ll also be presenting on ‘The Environment, Law, and Food’ on Nov. 16 at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law next week as well.  See schedules here.

A whole host of my students alerted me this an NPR story, All Hopped Up: Town Unites For Toad Revival.

A small environmental miracle has occurred in Beatty, Nev., a former mining town that sits on the eastern edge of Death Valley between Jackass Flats and Sober Up Gulch. The people of Beatty have helped revive the Amargosa toad, a warty, speckled, palm-sized creature that’s unique to the area and, just a few years ago, seemed headed for extinction.

But this is not your typical story of environmental action — the toad owes its comeback to an unlikely coalition that includes ranchers, miners, off-road racers, opponents of big government and the local brothel.

Two issues that make me nervous were blogged about on the NY Times Green Blog today.

(1) Fracking and its impact on groundwater, and exemption from the Clean Water Act.

(2) The energy demands of China.  The IEA is predicting that “that Chinese energy demand will soar 75 percent by 2035, accounting for more than a third of total global consumption growth. While China today accounts for 17 percent of the world demand for energy, it should account for 22 percent in 25 years, while India and other developing countries will also expand their energy use.”

Three days ago, I wrote:

For many years, no trains.  Then progress and trains.  I was happy.  Then they wanted to stop the trains.  I was annoyed.  Then no trains.    I was in disbelief.

Now trains AND no trains.  Now, I’m just confused.  The Governor-elect of Wisconsin is against high speed train service, but wants the train maker to keep making trains in Wisconsin for said train service.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Now this:  Canceling rail line will cost $100 million, cut 400 jobs.

This is all getting very silly.  The state will receive $810 in federal money to create high-speed rail, and the state only has to pay the $7.5 million a year operating costs.  And “federal aid could cover as much as 90% of that amount, as it does with Amtrak’s existing Milwaukee-to-Chicago Hiawatha line.”  Given the job creation, the cost to stop the rail line compared to the operating costs, and the need for alternatives to motor vehicles, this project should proceed.  That said, most of the $100 million is already sunk, and I’m unclear as to what the state has already paid for or might have to reimburse the federal government for.

UPDATE: Despite GOP hopes to keep the $ in WI if not used for rail, there is “little hope for using train money for roads.”

UPDATE 2: In this Greenwire article (subscription required), the Obama Administration makes clear the money will go to other states if not used for high speed rail, and NY has already requested the money.

Details here and here.  Other states are also struggling to determine how long aging nuclear facilities can safely and efficiently provide prower.  See here.

The Times Argus has an article about climate change impacts in Vermont entitled, “Climate change affects fall and winter transitions in Vermont” (subscription required).  An excerpt (note the last paragraph):

Data taken over the past four decades show significant changes in Vermont’s climate. The fall transition is coming later by about 2 days per decade. Over the past forty years, the growing season for frost-sensitive plants has increased by 2 weeks; and for frost-hardy plants the growing season may have increased by as much as three to four weeks.

This fall was very unusual. We had a remarkable 10 inches of rain in October, and so there were few frosts because the ground and air were so wet. This extended the fall foliage season. The first part of November has been marked by several hard frosts and most recently, the first snowfall of the season.

Autumn is considered by many the most beautiful season in Vermont. The leaves turn brilliant colors of red, orange and yellow — a seasonal burst that attracts many tourists to the Green Mountain State. Forests cover almost 80 percent of Vermont, and roughly one in every four trees is a maple. Almost half of the Northeast’s commercial woodlands consist of maple, beech and birch.

The USDA Forest Service projects that oaks and hickories, which predominate in warmer placers like Virginia and now account for less than 15 percent of Vermont woodlands, will overshadow the state’s maples by the end of the century. Leaf-peepers attracted by the red, yellow and orange foliage of maple, birch and beech may see those colors shifting to the blander browns characteristic of oaks and hickories.

A recent report “The Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment,” sponsored by the Union of Concerned Scientists, explains that Vermont’s climate is warming and is in for significant changes. Between 2040 and 2069, Vermont’s climate will shift to that of Pennsylvania’s now. And if we continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels, by late century Vermont’s climate will shift farther to the south, more similar to that currently experienced in the Mid-Atlantic states.

Legal Planet has an interesting post about how California’s cap-and-trade program will go forward.  See here.

Two interesting items from the past few days:

  1. Vermont Yankee is for sale.
  2. Vermont Yankee might shut down even sooner that we might think.  In the article, “An Uncertain Nuclear Countdown,” the Times reports:

If the clock is ticking on the lifetime of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, when will it actually close?  As I write in Friday’s Times, Entergy, which bought the plant in 2002, is looking for a buyer because the state Legislature has refused to give the company permission to run it after Vermont Yankee’s initial 40-year license expires in March 2012. (What is more, one of its top opponents in the Legislature was elected governor on Tuesday.)  But if the Legislature does not relent, it may not last even that long.  “No nuclear plant has ever operated to the end of its license,” said John Reed, an investment banker who specializes in nuclear plants and helped organize the auction under which Vermont Yankee was sold by its builders eight years ago.“You get to the point where you say, if all I’ve got is six months or a year to recover incremental capital, I’ll just shut now.’’

« Previous PageNext Page »