Environmental Law

The Environmental Costs of Amazon

February 25, 2019
Climate Change, Environmental Law, New Technology

Christina Petsoulis, MJLST Staffer 

Amazon. One of the 21st century’s most novel inventions. Amazon now dominates e-commerce, with 43% of money spent online coming from Amazon sales. The online retail giant has, without a doubt, changed the way society operates – in some ways, for the better, while in others, for the worse.

Amazon’s carbon footprint is nothing short of concerning, especially with its continued expansion of Prime services. Expedited shipping means more cars and trucks on the road for delivery services, and increased waste from packages that are not as consolidated as they could be. Amazon packaging demands billions of boxes each year, with over 5 billion Amazon Prime packages alone sent worldwide in 2017. In fact, 64% of American households have Amazon Prime, and traditional brick-and-mortar retailers are closing down in every market as a result of the shift toward online retail shopping.

Some experts argue that having individual consumers drive to, and shop at, traditional brick-and-mortar retailers is more inefficient than consolidating packages for delivery. I find this argument unpersuasive, as consumers tend to make small purchases each time they shop online, requiring multiple shipments per week per consumer. Moreover, while online retail continues to gain dominance, traditional retail still exists and has shipping and packaging demands of its own. This situation, in essence, doubles consumer ‘demands.’

But most of Amazon packaging is recyclable, so we’re good, right? Not exactly. First, just 34% of solid waste is recycled (attributable to both consumer behavior and access to municipal recycling services). 80% of solid waste is recyclable with just 28% of it actually being recycled. Second, the vast majority of U.S. recyclables are sent to China for processing, which is problematic because China has announced that it will no longer import foreign garbage. In fact, China has banned importation of particular paper and plastic products, leaving the U.S. to deal with its own trash. With increased waste management demand and decreased capacity to deal with it, big questions remain as to how federal, state and local government will fare the storm.

Is Amazon liable for the vast quantities of trash it introduces into the market? Will Amazon be asked to alter business behavior, such as cut down on its packaging materials or enforce package consolidation policies? These types of requirements counter Amazon’s business interests, as the dominant draw of Amazon is individualized, convenient, fast shipping. Amazon’s model facilitates individual gain (i.e. $7.99 water bottle shipped day-of-order for free) at the expense of our environment’s health (i.e. one over-sized cardboard box ending up in a landfill). The epitome of a negative externality. It seems unlikely that any sort of regulation on packaging, shipping, and handling would stand a chance in light of consumer gravitation toward online shopping.

Government has tried to regulate Amazon, but not necessarily for environmental reasons. For example, the Federal Trade Commission has probed Amazon’s pricing practices as it expands its markets beyond e-commerce, threatening companies such as Netflix and Apple with its video services.

Surely, Amazon is not the only actor in the issue of environmental costs associated with e-commerce. But with 43% of online purchases coming from Amazon, it’s hard not to point fingers at a company so heavily dominating the marketplace.

The International Whaling Commission Sans Japan: What It Means for the Whales

February 10, 2019
Animal Law, Economics, International Law

Allie Jo Mitchell, MJLST Staffer

On December 25, 2018 Japan announced that it would withdraw from the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (“ICRW”) and leave the international whaling commission (“IWC”) in order to resume commercial whaling.  A statement by Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary explained that the decision to withdraw was based on the failure of the IWC to take into account all stated objectives of the ICRW, including the “orderly development of the whaling industry” and the creation of sustainable commercial whaling. Citing the cultural and economic significance commercial fishing has played in Japan, the country rested its decision on its determination that commercial whaling could resume without negatively impacting cetacean resources.

International condemnation over Japan’s decision was swift, with Greenpeace Japan questioning the health of Japan’s whaling stock and calling the decision “out of step with the international community, let alone the protection needed to safeguard the future of our oceans and these majestic creatures.” The UK’s environment secretary tweeted that “[t]he UK is strongly opposed to commercial whaling and will continue to fight for the protection and welfare of these majestic mammals” and a diplomat of Norway called the decision to break away from the global agreement “dangerous.” On January 14, 2019 the IWC issued a statement that it had received notification from Japan that it would withdraw from the ICRW in 2019.  Recognizing the role Japan had played, the chair of the IWC specifically mentioned the controversy surrounding commercial whaling within its member group, offering hope that the IWC would continue to work on a variety of issues in which there was common ground.  

Now that Japan has left the IWC, it will begin the commercial hunting of whales in July of 2019 within its territorial seas and exclusive economic zone that exists within 200 miles of Japan’s coasts. Japan will also remain an observer of the IWC and “continue to contribute to the science-based sustainable management of resources.” Importantly, without it’s permit to kill whales for research under the ICW, Japan will now cease the taking of whales in the high sea, including the Antarctic Ocean and the Southern Hemisphere, as required by international law. Japan had previously killed whales in the Antarctic Ocean under the auspicious guise of research. In fact, in 2014 the International Court of Justice found that Japan’s whale research program was violating the IWC’s moratorium on commercial whaling because Japan was using lethal methods where none were required. Despite this holding, in 2016 a Japanese “research” expedition in the Antarctic killed 333 whales (207 of which were pregnant) with the meat from the whales sold on the commercial market.

But what does all this really mean for the whales of the world? There are some positives that may come from Japan withdrawing from the IWC, but these could easily be outweighed by the negatives. Because Japan will have to limit its commercial whaling to 200 miles within Japanese coasts, whales outside of this region, particularly whales in the Antarctic and southern hemisphere, will be in luck. However, whales within Japan’s territorial sea and economic zone, where studies suggest stock levels are low, won’t fare so well.

Furthermore, Japan may not only shift its catch to Japanese waters but could actually increase the number of whales it kills each year with little to no oversight from the international community. This could severely impact whale species, both endangered and non-threatened, and deplete whale stocks within Japan’s territorial sea. As Astrid Fuchs, program lead of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation explained, “[t]he oversight that the IWC was having over Japan’s whaling will now be lost. We won’t know how many whales they are catching, we won’t know how they will report it. It might spell doom for some populations.”

Perhaps the greater danger lies in what Japan’s withdrawal from the IWC may signal to other countries. As Japan stated in its public announcement, “Japan hopes that more countries will share the same position to promote sustainable use of aquatic living resources based on scientific evidence, which will thereby be handed down to future generations.” Fuchs is worried about the precedent this might set, particularly in countries with an interest in commercial whaling and whale meat including South Korea and other Pacific and Caribbean island nation states.

On the bright side, decreasing interest and consumption of whale meat may play a bigger role in protecting whales from commercial hunting than Japan’s involvement with the IWC. Demand for whale meat is the lowest in Japan since WWII, with the average consumption of whale just one ounce per person a year. A recent poll also showed that only 11% of Japanese people strongly support the whaling industry. If the economics of commercial whaling are not as strong as imagined, commercial whaling my peter out on its own in Japan.

The world will likely have to wait and see what the real effect of Japan’s withdrawal from the IWC is on the health and vitality of whale species and whale stocks. In the meantime, there are a myriad of other human caused dangers to whales from bycatch, plastic pollution, noise pollution, oil & chemical pollution, marine traffic, and climate change. Humans have a history of driving whale species to extinction, wreaking havoc on whaling stocks, and threatening the very survival of whales for their personal use and consumption. Despite Japan’s withdrawal from the IWC, it will be necessary for all nations to look beyond commercial whaling and address the continual threats humans pose to whales and other marine life.

Renewable Energy vs. National Parks

February 6, 2019
Energy Law, Environmental Law, Property Law

By: Bethany Anderson

That’s what happened in Animal Welfare Institute v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC, where a wind energy facility was curtailed because it stood in the migration pathway of an endangered species—Indiana bats. The court allowed the facility to operate, but with significant constraints. For instance, though construction on those turbines already under construction could continue, Beech Ridge could operate only after it applied for and obtained an Incidental Take Permit (“ITP”), which would immunize Beech Ridge from certain ESA penalties for killing and injuring bats. Moreover, construction of additional turbines was conditioned on obtaining an ITP. Additionally, the Court ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) to determine when Beech Ridge could actually operate after Beech Ridge obtained an ITP, taking into account the migration and hibernation patterns of the bats (see this report for a brief discussion on the aftermath of the Beech Ridge case).

In a similar energy against nature context, significant outcry (see this article) over oil and gas drilling in and around national parks arose in the last year. The Trump Administration opened up more public lands for mineral leasing, and directed agencies to revise or rescind rules that burden domestic energy development. Environmental groups lamented the endangerment of pristine public lands, darkness of wilderness night skies, quiet of natural soundscapes, and tech- and industry-free experiences many visitors crave. These are all legitimate concerns because the experiences, sounds, and sights preserved in our national parklands are preserved relatively unspoiled only in these limited corners of the country. The groups’ sentiment seems to be “let’s just drill somewhere else, okay? It’s a big country. Preservation uses claim few acres in the scheme of things.”

The recent outcry misses, however, concern over greener energy projects that also threaten wilderness and nature values. Like in Beech Ridge, there are two sometimes competing goals here. Renewables serve climate change goals, displacing carbon-emitting energy sources like coal, natural gas, and oil. National parklands preserve land and culture in their natural and historical state. What happens when green energy development requires a huge expanse of flat land exposed to sun year round? A solar facility one mile from Mojave National Preserve presents an example. Is such a land use plan any less invasive than drilling? Maybe it’s quieter and lower to the ground, and maybe it serves a goal that those in the nature fight can get behind better than oil and gas drilling. In this instance, the solar facility still a mile away and does not in any way reach into the park through something comparable to directional drilling. But the facility uses land that was previously untouched and is still potentially visible from parks. As another example, what happens when the only way to get offshore wind online is to construct a high-voltage transmission line across a historic park? Developers say alternative energy sources that replace closing coal plants require a transmission line crossing a historic trail. Opponents say the line undermines the historic atmosphere of the trail and surrounding park area, and may open the floodgates to more industrialization in historic and pristine areas. In the same way as oil and gas drilling, these developments undermine some of the wilderness and historic values park advocates fight for.

So how do we balance these seemingly competing values? National parks are to be preserved unimpaired for the enjoyment of present and future generations. That mandate may conflict with climate change-combatting green energy tech seeking the most effective locations for new facilities.

The 9B regulations (“regulations”) that govern nonfederal oil and gas rights in and around national parks are a framework from which to balance renewables with the preservation mandate. The regulations require a plan of operations, plans in case of spills or other emergencies, a security bond in case of harm to park resources, and eventual restoration of the land, returning it as close to its original status as possible after operations conclude. Renewables are likely more permanent than an oil or gas well, so space and distance restrictions will need to be stricter. But a similar plan of operations, with mitigation strategies and emergency contingencies, is a good start, especially since the regulations are already in place in one piece of the energy sector. As energy technology develops, it constantly brings novel challenges into the existing legal context. The 9B regulations provide a starting point for the ever-growing green energy versus preservation debate.

Animal-Product Substitutes – Does It Really Matter What We Call Them?

February 4, 2019
Agriculture, Animal Law, Climate Change, Food and Drug Law

Nick Hankins, MJLST Staffer 

Fake meat is getting good, really good. The ImpossibleTM Burger 2.0, developed by Impossible Foods Inc., is a big upgrade from its 1.0 counterpart. The 1.0 has been referred to as a “good replacement for a bad burger” and compared to an “OK Sizzler steak” –not the type of reviews to make turncoats out of meateaters.  The 2.0, on the other hand, was hailed as “a triumph of food engineering,” “a burger that could truly wean people off their meat lust,” and (probably most flatteringly) “a well-massaged Kobe ribeye.” Importantly, the latest Impossible Burger has real meat qualities, it can be juicy and red in the middle along with a texture containing small chunks like real beef.

Aside from being an obviously capable meat substitute, the Impossible Burger has the potential to get people to eat less beef and that’s good news because beef isn’t exactly environmentally friendly. In fact, beef is responsible for 41% of livestock greenhouse gas emissions, which account for 14.5% of total global emissions. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report found that changing our diets (including eating less meat) could contribute 20% of the effort necessary to keep global temperatures from risings 2°C above pre-industrial levels. So switching out regular burgers for ImpossibleTM  ones might be one step in the right direction toward fighting global warming.

It turns out that not everyone is on board with meat substitution products, like the Impossible Burger. In February of last year, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture calling for official definitions for the terms “beef” and “meat.” USCA argued, in its petition, that “[c]urrent labeling practices may cause consumer confusion in the market place.” However, it doesn’t look like this petition has gone very far. Unlike the U.S., France actually passed legislation that banned foods based largely on non-animal ingredients from being labeled as if they were. Recently, in response to lab grown meat (meat that is synthetically grown and not a vegetable substitution like the Impossible Burger) Terry Goodin, Indiana General Assembly representative, has put together a bill that aims to ensure that lab grown meat makers do not try to sell synthetic meat as the animal-grown original.

Manufacturers of meat alternatives argue that the ability to name their product after its meat analogue is important for branding their products to provide appropriate expectations to consumers. Names for animal product replacements like Soylent and “aquafaba” (a vegetable based egg replacement) simply don’t have the branding power to be super marketable. Considering that last year United States residents were projected to eat a record amount of meat, we might not want to bar meat alternatives from potential branding strategies just yet. In any case, it might not be worth a 20-year naming-rights battle, like the one currently being waged against dairy replacement products.

In Space We Trust: Regulate the Race

October 28, 2018
Business Law, Environmental Law, Ethics, International Law, Social Welfare, Space Law

By: Hannah Payne, MJLST Staffer

In 1999, the UN General Assembly launched “World Space Week,” an annual celebration observed from October 4th (the date of Sputnik’s launch in 1957) to October 10th (the day The Outer Space Treaty entered into force in 1967). This year’s theme was “Space Unites the World.” The UN said the theme “celebrates the role of space in bringing the world closer together.” Unfortunately, the words ring hollow in light of the U.S.’s Space Force plans, as well as the recent escalation of inter-planetary militarization by China, Russia and the EU. Additionally, activities of SpaceX and others raise concerns about privatization, space pollution and the plans of the uber-wealthy to leave the world behind. These forces threaten to marginalize the awe-inspiring exploration of space into a scheme concerned only with war, profit, and advancing inequality. The dominance of such interests calls for a coherent system of global space regulation.

Some have observed that many recent activities violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which declared: “The exploration and use of outer space . . . shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.” The treaty also states that space and all celestial bodies are unowned and open to exploration by all. The U.S. and over 100 countries signed and ratified it, and America did not reserve the right to alter its obligations, as it often does in agreements. However, with no real international enforcement mechanism and our ceaseless profit-seeking, countries have—and will continue to—disregard the goals of the 1967 agreement. Last year, Ted Cruz expressed excitement that “the first trillionaire will be made in space.” He proposed amending the treaty to foster commercialization – and correct its erroneous assumption that worthy goals exist besides wealth and power. His motive seems to be formalistic, as was Congress’ in 2015 when it declared in the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act that “the United States does not, by enactment of this Act, assert sovereignty . . . exclusive rights . . . or ownership of, any celestial body[,]” but in the same act granted U.S. citizens the right to own and sell any “space resource.” Though the U.S. track record of treaty violations makes their disregard of the agreement perhaps unsurprising, the serious consequences of space militarization and privatization call for critical advancement in space regulation.

From an environmental law perspective, the language of the 1967 treaty evokes the seldom-used Public Trust Doctrine (PTD). Traced back to the Roman era, the Public Trust Doctrine is described as “requir[ing] government stewardship of the natural resources upon which society . . . depends for continued existence.” The PTD places the government/sovereign as the trustee, obligated to protect the rights of the public/beneficiary in the trust, which is comprised of things like navigable waterways. It has mostly been applied to water rights, and successfully reclaimed property for the “public good” in Illinois and California. However, in 2012 the Supreme Court suggested that the PTD is no stronger than state common law. Even so, the doctrine should be remembered by those who think the privileged cannot, by right, hoard or destroy resources – including those in space. In the 1970s, Joseph Sax argued for the PTD’s use as sweeping environmental common law. Some have since theorized about the extension of the PTD to space. These scholars identify issues such as the lack of a sovereign to act as trustee. That problem would not likely be solved by allowing every country to exert self-interested sovereignty in space. At least no one has been so bold as to outright claim the moon – yet.

The PTD is just one tool that may be useful in designing a peaceful move forward. The Expanse, a near-future science fiction series in which humanity has colonized the solar system, offers a thought-provoking look ahead. Earth and the moon are governed by the UN. Mars is a sovereign as well, and the asteroid belt a colonial structure with fractured governance. Space is highly commercialized and militarized, and personal opportunity is hard to come by – but humanity has avoided self-destruction. Their global governance allows for some cooperation between Earth and Mars in space. Depending on one’s dreams of the future, the situation represents an overpopulated, inefficiently run hellscape – or a less-bad option out of the possibilities that now seem likely. It begs the question – how do we expand while avoiding astronomical inequality and self-destruction?

Perhaps it is nearly impossible, but Earth needs real, global regulation of outer space. A weak U.N. cannot do it; private companies and wealthy countries should not be given free reign to try. Last month, the U.N. held the First United Nations Conference on Space Law and Policy.  It’s good to see the international community ramping up these discussions. Hopefully, the PTD’s underlying philosophy of equitable preservation will be central to the conversation. Done right, the exploration of space could be the most inspiring, community-building, and even profitable experience for humanity. If approached thoughtfully, inclusively, carefully –  we could have much more than just a Space Force.

The Atlantic Mackerel Plight: Roadblocks to Prevent Overfishing

October 22, 2018
Agriculture, Animal Law, Food and Drug Law

Yvie Yao, MJLST Staffer

Atlantic mackerel, like sardines and herring, are small forage fish. Not only are they vital prey for seabirds and larger fish like bluefin tuna and cod, but also essential for the survival of ocean wildlife.

Although Atlantic mackerel are resilient to fishing pressure and bycatch risk, scientists announced this year that fishing activities along the coast have added too much pressure to the population of mackerel. That being said, Atlantic mackerel is overfished. On February 28, 2018, the federal government, unsurprisingly, declared that the catching cap for mackerel had been reached and the mackerel fishing season was officially closed for the rest of this year.

To prevent overfishing of a species, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires that local fish councils create a rebuilding plan as soon as possible, not to exceed 10 years. Conservative practices endorse setting a shorter rebuilding timeline with lower catch levels so that the species can recover as quickly as possible. Setting longer timelines with higher catch levels is risky. The species might be commercially inviable sooner than the projection and the council is less likely to reach its goal of rebuilding the under-stocked population. Moreover, low stock of the species is likely to negatively impact healthy and sustainable living of its predators in the ocean system.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act has been effective since it was first passed in 1976. Two amendments in 1996 and 2006 furthered the interest of fishery conservation, requiring local councils to place all overfished stocks on strict rebuilding timelines and mandate hard limits on total catches. These science-based provisions have recovered 44 fish stocks around the country and have generated $208 billion in sales in 2015 for fishermen.

However, this effective ocean fishery conservation law is facing challenges. On July 11, 2018, the House passed H.R. 200: Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. The bill, if it becomes law, would change rules about requirements to rebuild overfished stocks and allow councils to consider changes in an ecosystem and the economic needs of the fishing communities when establishing annual catch limits.

Recreational fishing and boating industry groups vehemently support this bill. They argue that the proposed changes would give alternatives to local councils to manage fish stocks, save taxpayers money, and modernize the management of recreational fishing.

Environmentalists and commercial fishermen oppose this bill. They argue that the proposed bill would let local councils rehabilitate them as fast as practicable, rather than rebuilding stocks as fast as possible, leading to looser regulation. The bill would also remove annual catch limits for short-lived species and ecosystem-component species, where forage fish including Atlantic Mackerel fall into the category. This backtrack from science-based policy would further delay restocking of forage fish and might even drive some species to commercial extinction.

It is unknown whether H.R. 200 will be passed in the Senate. Another companion bill S.1520, Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017, envisions the same goal as H.R. 200. Will we be able to eat Atlantic Mackerel in the next ten years? The answer is uncertain. Regardless, the vote against such bill is a chance to “affirm that science, sustainability, and conservation guide the management of our ocean fisheries.”

The Great Minnesota Divide: Can a Solution to Address the Urban/Rural Split Over Copper-Nickel Mining Come From Conservation Efforts Abroad?

October 22, 2018
Environmental Law, International Law

Allie Jo Mitchell, MJLST Staffer

Two different companies are attempting to undertake copper-nickel mining projects in the Superior National Forest on watersheds that feed Lake Superior and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (the nation’s most popular national wilderness area). Copper-nickel mining would be new to the Iron Range, a region in Northeastern Minnesota that has long been mined for taconite, or iron ore. Support or opposition over copper-nickel sulfide mining in Minnesota tends to trend along the urban-rural divide.

For instance, a survey conducted by a pro-mining group found that 57% of voters in the Iron Range, support copper-nickel mining. Compare this with a poll paid for by Save the Boundary Waters that showed statewide 70% of Minnesota voters opposed this new type of mining in the state. This urban-rural divide is not an unheard of phenomenon. The New York Times published an in depth article in 2017 exploring the rift between the “working class” and “progressive activists” as played out in the fight over these new mining proposals in Northern Minnesota.

Both sides of the argument tend to paint in broad brush strokes. Advocates of the mines want the freedom to earn a steady income in a region where their family has– often– been living for generations. They see new mining projects as a way to provide economic development and stability to a region reeling from decades of job losses and a shrinking population. They also believe copper-nickel mining can be done without jeopardizing the environment. However, Minnesota’s regulations have not been updated since the 1990s and are not adequately adapted for this new type of mining. Furthermore, copper-nickel sulfide mines have been the cause of devastating environmental disasters in British Columbia and Chile.

Opponents, on the other hand, believe that the BWCA watershed, Lake Superior, and Superior National Forest contain some of Minnesota’s most pristine waters and wild areas. They fear that the destructive impacts of copper-nickel mining could destroy some of Minnesota’s greatest treasures. Opponents also contend that ecotourism and a growing market for outdoor recreation can revitalize the slumped region and replace an economy centered around mining. Despite these claims, ecotourism jobs tend to be seasonal and are unlikely to replace the high-wage jobs mining offers. As pointed out in the NYT article, there’s also a hypocrisy to “elitists” living in urban centers dictating what rural Northern Minnesotan’s can and cannot do with the land while benefiting from metals produced from mining.

Perhaps this harsh dichotomy doesn’t have to exist. Minnesota’s BWCA and Lake Superior offer some of the world’s most abundant and pristine fresh water resources. In an era rife with water shortages/crises, extreme heat, and rampaging wildfires, the immense value of these resources shouldn’t be taken for granted. The BWCA also provides an escape for many from a loud, noisy, and interconnected world.

One possible solution is to look outside the United State’s borders at successful programs centered around payments for environmental services (“PES”). These programs can “encourage projects that enhance restoration, production, and rural development.” An example is the UN REDD+ program which creates financial value for carbon stored in forests by offering incentives for developing countries to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation/degradation. The Guardian has compared PES programs to a public utility that generates electricity, “[j]ust as we pay for electricity services, and thus ensure their continuing provision, so . . . should [we] pay for the climate service that tropical forests provide.” In fact, carbon offset credit markets now exist where individuals can pay for carbon reduction/eliminating services to  offset their carbon footprint.

While the resources the BWCA, Lake Superior, and the Superior National Forest offer are distinct from carbon sequestration services of forests in tropical regions, the fundamental principles behind PES can still be applied. Because the proposed mines would sit on public lands, payments for land preservation would need to be returned to communities with a focus on economic stimulation of the region. While direct payments have worked in other contexts (e.g. giving money directly to residents of neighboring communities that would be harmed by a moratorium on mining), this would not negate the social/cultural need many have to work a steady job. Furthermore, if the state attempted to transfer payments to Iron Range residents through the tax system, it could face equal protection challenges. See Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982) (holding that a taxation scheme wherein residents were paid a graduated rebate based on how many years they had lived in-state violated the equal protection clause).

Ultimately, a PES program in Minnesota would raise significant legal and cultural implications. But if 70% of Minnesotan’s oppose copper-nickel mining in Northern Minnesota, maybe they’d be willing to pay to keep that wilderness wild.

Sulfur-Ore Mining in Minnesota: Are Near-Term Economic Gains Worth Long-Term Losses?

October 15, 2018
Economics, Environmental Law

Sam Duggan, MJLST Staffer 

Mining copper and nickel from sulfur-ore in Northern Minnesota is different than mining iron from taconite, and the environmental consequences are orders of magnitude greater. Unfortunately, the public discourse around developing copper and nickel reserves largely fails to consider this. As a result, the public is not armed with information needed to rationally debate whether sulfur-ore mining is a good choice for Minnesota.   

Taconite is a relatively unreactive iron-containing mineral. Although miners exposed to asbestos-like compounds from taconite dust are likely at increased risk of mesothelioma, proper dust mitigation practices and sound environmental planning/reclamation can limit long-term consequences to a scarred landscape. However, as with other types of mining, there are consequences associated with boom-or-bust economics.   

In stark contrast to taconite, sulfur-ore is highly reactive and has a particularly insidious property. A decommissioned mine slowly fills with rain, snowmelt and ground water. Sulfur reacts with water and oxygen to produce sulfuric acid, which dissolves metals contained in the sulfur-ore. Like a liquid miner, this acid liberates geologically sequestered metals into a dissolved, bioavailable and toxic form. As metals dissolve from the mine walls, more sulfur is exposed to oxygen and water. This produces more sulfuric acid which dissolves more metals. Through this chain reaction, the mine “mines” itself for centuries or more after its decommission. Importantly, mining target metals (i.e., copper, nickel) never occur alone. They co-occur with non-targets (i.e., lead, cadmium, manganese, arsenic, sulfate) that also dissolve from mine walls. Over time, concentrations of toxic compounds grow higher. Once the mine fills, acidic and metal-rich water (acid mine drainage) leach down-gradient and poison the watershed. Similar processes also occur in tailings piles stored outside the mine.

Sulfur-ore mines are responsible for numerous Superfund sites, including the infamous Berkley Pit copper mine. In 2016, thousands of snow geese landed in Berkley Pit’s toxic water and died en masse. Consider also the 2015 Gold King mine spill. At Gold King, a mine entrance cap was accidentally ruptured during routine monitoring and 3 million gallons of acidic, metal-rich water poured into the Animas River in Southwest Colorado. Related lawsuits seek many millions in damages. The history of mining in the Western U.S. is replete with other examples of sulfur-ore mines contaminating watersheds.

Methods exist for mitigating sulfur-ore mine pollution including capping, chemical neutralization, and constructing water treatment facilities specifically dedicated to the mine. However, these options cost millions and must be perpetually maintained, as it is nearly impossible to prevent water and oxygen from entering a mine. The chain reaction can linger for millennia, continually dissolving metals from rock and leaching toxins into the watershed.

Notably, the mining corporations who reap the lion’s share of a mine’s economic benefit escape long-term environmental liability because bankruptcy law and parent-subsidiary corporate structure often shield parent corporations from their mining subsidiaries’ environmental liabilities. For precisely this reason, the mine permitting process often requires corporations to offer financial assurances for potential environmental damages. However, financial assurances underestimate damages, and taxpayers are left with the bulk of sulfur-ore mine cleanup costs for generations.

The long-term consequences of sulfur-ore mines were recognized by the Obama Administration, particularly regarding mining in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters watershed. In 2016, the Obama Administration instituted a 2-year moratorium on mining permits near the Boundary Waters to study effects of sulfur-ore mining. That study could have led to a 20-year permitting moratorium. However, in 2018, after only 15 months, the Trump Administration decided that the study did not reveal new information and lifted the moratorium. Now, parent companies such as Chile’s Antofagasta can apply for mining permits within the Boundary Waters watershed via their subsidiary company Twin Metals. The permitting process is already underway for Polymet — an open pit, sulfur-ore copper mine just outside the Boundary Waters watershed. Importantly, Minnesota’s sulfur-ore resources could support dozens of mines.  

Given that sulfur-ore mines are economically viable for a few decades and an environmental scourge for centuries or more, decision makers should consider whether near-term economic gains are worth long-term losses.

California’s Sport Venue Boom: A Weakening of CEQA?

October 6, 2018
Environmental Law, Sports Law

By: Gabe Branco, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Vol. 20 Staffer

The Los Angeles Rams, Sacramento Kings, Golden State Warriors, Los Angeles Clippers, and Oakland A’s are all seeking to build new stadiums in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). CEQA subjects public and private agencies to a process focused on determining any significant environmental impact the proposed project may have and whether any suitable alternatives exist that may mitigate those significant impacts. The process takes some time, as the agency must complete several environmental impact reports (“EIR”), allow for adequate public notice and comment, and provide a period of time for environmental based claims to be litigated.

The Golden State Warriors have been successful in their CEQA process, but have been subjected to high costs in preparing the EIRs and combating lawsuits from environmental groups. The Los Angeles Rams have taken a different approach. CEQA allows for agencies to file for project “statutory exemptions” in order to cut down on the lengthy procedural process. One exemption of CEQA is the voter-sponsored ballot initiatives. In California, it is the right of the people to make changes to the law through these initiatives, which have the same effect as legislation. Land use decisions are subject to these initiatives, and thus projects that are approved through the initiative are not subject to CEQA. The Los Angeles Rams collected signatures from 15% of the population in Inglewood to qualify the development project for special election. The development project was then supposed to be placed on the ballot initiative, but the Inglewood City Council unanimously approved the project. The Los Angeles Rams do not need to complete an EIR, provide time for notice and comment, and are shielded from litigation. The Los Angeles Clippers, Sacramento Kings, and Oakland A’s have received or are in the process of receiving legislative exemptions with varying CEQA procedures somewhere in between the Golden State Warriors’ and the Los Angeles Rams’ processes. While the afore-mentioned franchises must still complete an EIR, they have considerably reduced (or eliminated) litigation and notice and comment periods.

The question becomes whether these exemptions given so willingly to sports teams weaken CEQA’s ability to force agencies to be more considerate of a project’s environmental impacts and alternatives. Sport stadiums do have a significant impact on the environment. Shortening or doing away with judicial review and notice and comment limits the number of alternatives an agency could be made aware of and limits public recourse for legitimate claims, leading to a less than efficient plan for limiting significant environmental impacts.

So far, the courts have held that past projects with CEQA exemptions do not conflict with CEQA’s purpose. Saltonstall v. City of Sacramento, 234 Cal.App.4th 449 (2015). The rationale may well be rooted in the desire for the Courts to limit the amount of environmental litigation on the Court’s docket, and push through stadium projects that may vitalize a California city’s economy. While state legislators have introduced a bill that would prevent future sports teams from gaining the exemption the Los Angeles Rams received, teams may still limit the procedures enforced by CEQA through legislative exemptions. Clearly, that as long as sports have a strong economic foothold in American culture, sports stadiums will continue to be built at the expense of the environment.

Big Houses With Big Energy Demands

October 1, 2018
Energy Law, Environmental Law

Bethany Anderson, MJLST Staffer 

A recent Aspen Times article says Pitkin County, home of the popular Aspen ski resort and numerous mountain mansions, will target larger homes as it heightens energy efficiency requirements and raises energy prices. The proposed change would increase a per-square-foot energy consumption fee from $1 to $45 for homes over 5,750 square feet and to $60 for homes over 8,250 square feet. While some argue changing these requirements is the best way to reduce energy demand on strained resources, others say the consumption fees don’t address key aspects of large home construction: the resources used in construction, the waste of resources in demolition, and the energy demand from pools, hot tubs, and snow-melting driveways

The U.S. isn’t alone in balancing growing (in various senses) housing demands and energy consumption constraints. Similar home size concerns arise in Australia, where housing units have increased in size while the number of residents per unit has decreased. That means energy usage per unit increases.

On the other hand, in an era of innovation and new technologies, smaller doesn’t necessarily mean more efficient. One Virginia man doubled the size of the house on his lot but cut energy bills. He says it’s not about being “eco-friendly” or about building a smaller home; rather, it’s about taking the time and effort – and shouldering the cost – needed to construct a sound, well-insulated home.

All of this poses legal and technological challenges. Technologically, how can (some) people get what they want – a big, “American-dream” house – without overconsuming energy? More investigation into construction techniques and materials – as professed by that Virginia man – could prove fruitful. Legally, can residences be regulated in the manner Pitkin County wants to regulate? Homes have not historically been regulated as products under the EPCA, a 1975 statute concerned primarily with energy supply, demand, and efficiency. Perhaps more comprehensive regulation, or including homes under the EPCA, would solve the energy demand and efficiency problems Pitkin County faces in a more equitable way than slapping on fees for large homes. New Jersey offers a rebate for homes that meet energy efficiency standards – maybe rewards are better than penalties. Australia proposes adding embodied energy, or the energy used in each step of production of a certain thing, to the cost calculus. And, though Pitkin County is considering increased fees, it has thus far not supported square footage limits for snow-melt driveways, pools, hot tubs, or patios. These might be good starting points for striking a balance between big demand for big things against limited energy resources.

 

Home | Contact Publishing Services | Report Web Accessibility Issues