Climate change

Hello! My Name Is…Erie? Personhood for the Great Lakes

October 15, 2023
Climate Change, Environment, Environmental Law

Eric Gross, MJLST Staffer

As the climate change crisis worsens and environmental protection laws continue to fall short of their stated goals, the movement to give natural entities such as lakes, rivers, and forests legal rights associated with personhood has expanded. Legislation driven by the “environmental personhood” movement has recently begun to appear around the world and in the United States as communities make efforts to protect their natural areas from harmful activity.[1] The idea of entities that aren’t people having personhood status is not without precedent. Consider corporations, which have been defined as persons for limited legal purposes.[2] Given the judicial rights already possessed by non-human entities like corporations, legal personhood has become a more attractive tool for those seeking to protect natural entities such as the Great Lakes. However, broad attempts to give natural entities personhood have run into legal challenges.

Lake Erie Bill of Rights Struck Down

In August 2014, the City of Toledo issued a drinking water warning to citizens not to drink the water; agricultural runoff and pollution into Lake Erie had caused a toxic algal bloom.[3] The water remained undrinkable and even unusable for three days.[4] Frustration with years of state government inaction on pollution boiled over, and in February 2019, the City of Toledo voted to establish a bill of rights for Lake Erie.[5] Known as the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (“LEBOR”), the bill was the product of a multi-year effort by Toledo citizens to protect Lake Erie from pollution.[6]

LEBOR essentially gave personhood status to Lake Erie, including legal standing. It established “irrevocable rights for the Lake Erie Ecosystem to exist, flourish and naturally evolve, a right to a healthy environment for the residents of Toledo, and which elevates the rights of the community and its natural environment over powers claimed by certain corporations.”[7] LEBOR declared that “Lake Erie, and the Lake Erie watershed, possess the right to exist, flourish, and naturally evolve” and granted the people of Toledo “the right to a clean and healthy environment.”[8] Under the statute, the City of Toledo, or any of its residents, held the right to sue on behalf of Lake Erie.[9] The law also made governments and corporations strictly liable for violating the rights of Lake Erie “from any jurisdiction” and declared invalid any state laws or rules that conflicted with LEBOR.[10]

Drewes Farms Partnership, an agricultural company that grows crops in four counties near Toledo, brought a lawsuit against the City of Toledo the day after the initiative passed, with the state of Ohio joining as an intervenor soon after.[11] Drewes Farms and Ohio sought to have LEBOR declared invalid. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio sided with the corporation and state, holding LEBOR to be unconstitutionally vague and exceeding the power of municipal authority in Ohio.[12] While recognizing the “well-intentioned goal” of the drafters, the court held that LEBOR was impermissibly vague in violation of the 14th Amendment.[13] “LEBOR’s authors failed to make hard choices regarding the appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic activity. Instead, they employed language that sounds powerful but has no practical meaning.”[14] This language, according to the court, could “trap the innocent [agricultural companies] by not providing fair warning” and invited arbitrary enforcement by prosecutors, judges and juries.[15]

Additionally, the court held that LEBOR preempted state law and exceeded municipal authority. “LEBOR’s attempt to invalidate Ohio law in the name of environmental protection is a textbook example of what municipal government cannot do. Lake Erie is not a pond in Toledo. It is one of the five Great Lakes and one of the largest lakes on Earth, bordering dozens of cities, four states, and two countries…Consequently, municipal laws enacted to protect Lake Erie are generally void if they conflict with Ohio law.”[16] The court did note that “with careful drafting, Toledo probably could enact valid legislation to reduce water pollution,” citing a Wisconsin ordinance restricting the use of phosphorus-containing fertilizers in Madison city limits.[17]

Other Options Exist to Protect the Great Lakes

The striking down of LEBOR indicates that while a municipality may enact ordinances to limit water pollution, such ordinances will likely have to remain limited in nature to survive a court’s scrutiny. Broader legislation to protect ecosystems like the Great Lakes will likely have to come through a state’s legislature, at the bare minimum. However, there are other options available to help protect the Great Lakes as a whole.

The public trust doctrine is a legally established method for individuals to protect natural resources that otherwise wouldn’t be able to protect themselves. Cited most frequently with bodies of water, the public trust doctrine establishes that the government maintains certain natural and cultural resources that are “owned” by the public.[18] Recently, the Michigan Attorney General’s 2019 lawsuit to shut down an oil pipeline crossing the Straits of Mackinac cited the public trust doctrine, claiming the lease allowing the pipeline to operate violates the state’s obligation to “protect and preserve the waters of the Great Lakes and the lands beneath them for the public.”[19] Additionally, a 2021 resolution passed by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago recognized that the water of the Great Lakes will remain in the public trust.[20] This resolution from the water district of the largest metropolitan area in the Great Lakes region is another example of a step in the right direction for protecting the Great Lakes and equal access to clean water.

Notably, New York state assemblyman Patrick Burke has introduced legislation to create a more expansive Great Lakes Bill of Rights.[21] Burke’s proposal would create a Great Lakes bill of rights that declares the right of the Great Lakes to exist, flourish and naturally evolve, giving the state and affected localities to sue on the Lakes’ behalf.[22] The proposed legislation is remarkably similar to the struck-down Toledo law, and, if it becomes law, is likely to face similar legal challenges. While such a law would easily overcome the municipal overreach issue from Toledo, a proposed Great Lakes bill of rights statute is still likely to face the same vagueness issue that helped bring down LEBOR. However, in the face of continued pollution and disregard for our environment, laws like this represent the next logical step for protecting our lakes, rivers, and forests, and could finally give the Great Lakes the protection they deserve.

Notes

[1] Nicole Pallotta, Federal Judge Strikes Down ‘Lake Erie Bill of Rights,’ Animal Legal Defense Fund (May 4, 2020), https://aldf.org/article/federal-judge-strikes-down-lake-erie-bill-of-rights/#:~:text=The%20bill%20of%20rights%20established,powers%20claimed%20by%20certain%20corporations.

[2] Nina Totenberg, When Did Companies Become People? Excavating the Legal Evolution, NPR (July 28, 2014), https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution.

[3] Michael Wines, Behind Toledo’s Water Crisis, a Long-Troubled Lake Erie, N.Y. Times (Aug. 4, 2014), https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/04/us/toledo-faces-second-day-of-water-ban.html.

[4] Id.

[5] Claire Brown, How Ohio’s Chamber of Commerce Killed an Anti-Pollution Bill of Rights, The Intercept (Aug. 29, 2019), https://theintercept.com/2019/08/29/lake-erie-bill-of-rights-ohio/.

[6] Id.

[7] Lake Erie Bill of Rights, Beyond Pesticides (last visited Oct. 7, 2023), https://www.beyondpesticides.org/assets/media/documents/LakeErieBillofRights.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Drewes Farms P’ship v. City of Toledo, 441 F.Supp.3d 551 (N.D. Ohio 2020).

[12] Id. at 558.

[13] Id. at 557.

[14] Id. at 556.

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at 557.

[17] Id.

[18] Public trust doctrine, Cornell Law School (last visited Oct. 8, 2023), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_trust_doctrine#:~:text=Public%20trust%20doctrine%20is%20a,waters%2C%20wildlife%2C%20or%20land.

[19] Jim Malewitz, Michigan AG Dana Nessel files lawsuit to shut down Line 5 in Mackinac Straits, Bridge MI (June 27, 2019), https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/michigan-ag-dana-nessel-files-lawsuit-shut-down-line-5-mackinac-straits.

[20] Allison Fore, MWRD Board of Commissioners passes resolution that affirms water is a basic human right, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chi. (June 3, 2021), https://mwrd.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Water%20Equity.pdf.

[21] NYS Assemblyman Patrick Burke Introduces Great Lakes Bill of Rights, N.Y. State Assembly (Mar. 2, 2022), https://nyassembly.gov/mem/Patrick-Burke/story/100976#:~:text=The%20Great%20Lakes%20Bill%20of,and%20the%20Great%20Lakes%20ecosystem.%E2%80%9D.

[22] Id.

Victory in the Big Sky Country: The Ramifications of Held v. Montana

October 1, 2023
Climate Change, Constitutional Law, Environment, Environmental Law

Joshua Fuller, MJLST Staffer

Introduction

The battle about climate change rages on. But one group of young students has dealt a significant blow to the state of Montana, claiming that under the Montana Constitution they have a right to a clean environment. This victory, while small in its effect, has reverberated across the nation. This case, Held v. Montana, is the first of its kind. Never before has there been a ruling that a clean environment was a right of a state’s citizens. And while the case will certainly be taken up by the Montana Supreme Court, the door has been opened for climate change activists to consider potential litigation across the country.

Background About the Case:

The Montana Constitution includes the following provision: “All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life’s basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways.”[1] The phrase “right to a clean and healthful environment” is the basis on which the sixteen Montana youth (“the plaintiffs”) filed suit. They sued the state of Montana arguing that the passage of the State Energy Policy Act (the “Act”), which prohibited the state from considering the impacts of greenhouse gas emission when performing an environmental review, violates the clean environment provision in the Montana Constitution.[2] Judge Kathy Seeley, the District Court Judge for the 1st District, agreed with the plaintiffs. In her order, Judge Seeley found that the Act was unconstitutional under the ruling of Park Cnty: “Pursuant to the Court’s decision in Park Cnty., Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii) is facially unconstitutional because it eliminates MEPA litigants’ remedies that prevent irreversible degradation of the environment, and it fails to further a compelling state interest.”[3] Shortly after the decision was rendered, a spokesperson for Montana Attorney General, Austen Knudsen, stated, “This ruling is absurd, but not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial”[4] and stated that the Attorney General would be seeking an appeal with the Montana Supreme Court. 

While the future of the case is less than certain, there is light at the end of the tunnel for the plaintiffs. The Montana Supreme Court has often taken the position that the text of the Montana Constitution governs. In their recent decision in Board of Regents of Higher Education v. State, the Court struck down House Bill 102, a firearms bill that would have allowed carrying on Montana public college campuses. A unanimous Court found that under the Montana Constitution,[5] the Board of Regents had controlling power when deciding gun regulations on college campuses.[6] Given the heavy firearms culture that exists in Montana, this decision was of great surprise to many. But the case gave important context to the priorities of the Court. Given the decision to faithfully follow the Montana Constitution, this does give a glimmer of where the Court may lean when the decision goes up for appeal, if the Court takes it up. Additionally, Montana has traditionally been a bulwark of conservation of the land. Two well known National Parks, Glacier and Yellowstone, exist within the boundaries of the state. Protecting the environment, despite the misgivings of the current state administration, has been an important part of the culture. In Montana, Fish, Wildlife & Parks offers conservation easements with landowners, where the landowners are paid by the department to conserve certain parts of their land and limit the use.[7] With several parts of the government for protecting the environment, and a long standing tradition of conservation, there is reason to believe that the Montana Supreme Court would rule in favor of the plaintiffs. 

Implications of the Case

Despite the spokeperson’s statements, the reaction to the decision nationally has been overwhelmingly supportive. Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Litigation at Columbia University, stated, “Emissions contribute to climate change, climate harms are real, people can experience climate harms individually, and every ton of greenhouse gas emissions matters. These are important factual findings, and other courts in the U.S. and around the world will look to this decision.”[8] Similar litigation has already begun to occur. In Oregon, a county sued major oil companies for exacerbating the current climate change crisis.[9] But Held is the first time that a state has been held accountable for actions that the state attempted to create to get around climate change measures. As of the writing of this article, only six states have provisions in their constitutions that citizens have the right to a clean environment: Hawai’i, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, and Pennsylvania.[10] While this may seem insignificant, the holding in Held is a first step for citizens to fight climate change. The court’s decision gives groundwork to other prospective plaintiffs on how to formulate litigation surrounding issues that deal with climate change. 

A New Type of Law?

Perhaps the most important impact of Held is the potential for a new body of law. Environmental law has existed for decades, harkening back to the era of Theodore Roosevelt and his decision to create the National Parks. However, its intersection with constitutional law has only been more recent, and it is far less defined. Despite agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Parks Service, litigation surrounding climate change has only emerged in the past couple of decades. This vacuum of law is ripe for the filling. This new law springs forward from the enjoinment of environmental law and constitutional law. This new “Green Constitutional Law” surfaces from the idea that state constitutions have provisions in place that protect the environment and establish the right to a clean climate.[11] Held provides an outline for what green constitutional law may look like. The litigation emanating in other states, and the call for more action to curb global warming, speak to the necessity of such a new form of law. At its core, green constitutional law addresses the idea that all people have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”[12] Because the rise of climate change threatens the existence of countless species, including humans, it can be reasonably asked whether the United States Constitution, so quoted above, gives the right to an environment in which its citizens can survive and flourish. A new form of law is arising to help answer this question, to which Held is the foot in the door to begin this change. The battle may be won, but the war has just begun. 

Notes

[1] Mont. Const. Art. II, § 4.

[2] Id.

[3] Held v. Montana, No. CDV-2020-307 (Mont. Dist. Ct., 2023).

[4] David Gelles and Mike Baker, Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in a Landmark Climate Case, The New York Times (Aug. 14, 2023) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-youth-climate-ruling.html.

[5] Mont. Const. art. X, § 9(2)(a).

[6] Bd. of Regents of Higher Educ. of Mont. v. State, 1, 12 (2022 MT 128).

[7] FWP, Habitat Montana, (Last visited Sept. 29, 2023) https://fwp.mt.gov/conservation/landowner-programs/habitat-montana.

[8] Id.

[9] Clark Mindock, US Climate Change Lawsuit Seeks $50 Billion, Citing 2021 Heat Wave, Reuters (June 22, 2023 8:08 PM CDT) https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-climate-change-lawsuit-seeks-50-billion-citing-2021-heat-wave-2023-06-22/.

[10] John C. Dernbach, The Environmental Rights Provisions of U.S. State Constitutions: A Comparative Analysis, 1 Widener University – Commonwealth Law School (2023).

[11] Kate Burgess, Green Amendments in 2023: States Continue Efforts to Make a Healthy Environment a Legal Right,  National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, (Mar. 27, 2023) https://www.ncelenviro.org/articles/green-amendments-in-2023-states-continue-efforts-to-make-a-healthy-environment-a-legal-right/.

[12] The Declaration of Independence para.2 (U.S. 1776).

A Tax on the EPA’s Power: The Supreme Court and the Future of Carbon Pricing

April 27, 2023
Climate Change, Energy Law, Environment, EPA, Tax

Quinn Milligan, MJLST Staffer

As climate change becomes a topic of increasing popularity worldwide, policy makers and the legal community alike have turned their attention to fashioning appropriate mechanisms to address carbon emissions. Of the myriad proposals made in recent years, carbon pricing has come to the forefront of climate policy regimes worldwide. Although carbon pricing has been implemented in various parts of the world, the legal system of the United States presents various legal challenges.

Carbon pricing, at a simple level, is an economic tool designed to reduce carbon emissions by forcing individuals and companies to internalize the externality price of the carbon they emit.[1] Caron pricing is implemented predominantly in one of two methods: cap-and-trade systems or a carbon taxation system. A cap-and-trade system is the process of placing a “cap” on the amount of carbon (measured in tons) that can be emitted by those under the regulatory purview of the given cap-and-trade; typically companies are the target of these systems. Once the emissions cap has been set, the regulators allocate “allowances” for all or part of the total cap. Companies that emit less than their allocated cap can sell or trade their remaining allowances to other companies under the cap-and-trade regulation. In essence, the cap-and-trade system creates a monetary incentive for companies to reduce their carbon emissions.[2] In contrast, a carbon tax is much more straightforward. Carbon taxes are imposed on the emission of carbon dioxide that arises through production or consumption of fossil fuels based on the amount of carbon dioxide those activities produce.[3] The tax will be assessed per unit of emissions, typically per ton of carbon dioxide.

Both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems are designed to create an economic incentive for companies to reduce their carbon emissions in order to combat climate change at a large scale. While there are various economic arguments for and against the efficiency of both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems, there is evidence that both can be effective when well designed and administrated. Importantly, the goal of both main forms of carbon pricing is to take advantage of the financial rationality of actors in the economy and incentivize them to reduce their carbon emissions. Ultimately the policy goal behind incentivizing reduction in carbon emissions is to combat climate change by shifting the burden onto the polluters.[4]

While carbon pricing systems have proven to be an effective method of reducing carbon emissions, the legal system presents important challenges to their implementation. The most recent challenge to the ability of regulators and policy makers came from the Supreme Court’s recent decision to curtail the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to limit carbon emissions in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency.[5] The Supreme Court’s decision in late June of 2022 dictated that the EPA cannot put state-level caps on carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act of 1970. The Supreme Court went on to clarify that the power to decide how the U.S. would power itself lies with Congress, and decisions on emissions must come from Congress.[6] The decision represents a signal from the Supreme Court to regulatory agencies generally, not just the EPA, that regulations must arise from the powers specifically delegated by Congress to those agencies.

Previously, the EPA had been using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change in various manners, particularly through regulation of carbon emissions. In specific, the Court found that the Clean Power Plan established under the Obama administration exceeded the regulatory power granted to the EPA by Congress under the Clean Air Act.[7] The Supreme Court further decided that the power to promulgate rules which would have transformational impacts on the economy must be specifically granted by Congress to regulatory agencies.[8] In this specific context, the Court ruled that the regulation of carbon emissions sought by the EPA would have such transformational impacts on the economy. The Court specified that any time a regulatory agency in the U.S. attempts to promulgate any rule which may have a transformational impact on the economy – which was to regulate carbon emissions and address climate change in this instance – the rule would be presumptively invalid unless Congress had already specifically authorized the agency to promulgate rules and regulations in the area.

This ruling significantly reduces the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions and climate change.[9] The importance of this decision is not so much that the EPA will never be able to regulate carbon emissions or attempt to address climate change, but instead that the accomplishment of the policy goals underlying EPA regulation will certainly be delayed. Because the majority decision emphasized that regulatory decisions of economic and political significance must be supported by clear Congressional authorization, the EPA has been thrown into a sort of stalemate. The direct finding in West Virginia v. EPA that the Clean Power Plan was not adequately supported by Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act set the EPA’s timetable for accomplishing its policy goals back years.

As many have noticed in recent years, extreme weather events have become more frequent and more severe; our climate is changing before our very eyes. One of the most ironic features of this Supreme Court decision is that the growth of the administrative state maligned by the majority opinion has directly accompanied extreme increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels the Clean Power Plan aimed to combat.

Although carbon pricing systems have shown promise in incentivizing participants in the global economy to decrease their carbon emissions, the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. EPA certainly made it difficult for the EPA to enact any sort of carbon pricing scheme in the near future.[10] At a time when climate change is only becoming a more important issue, the Court’s decision has made the primary environmental agency in the U.S. less able to achieve policy goals that would combat it. While other countries have found success implementing carbon pricing systems, at least for the time being, that option appears unavailable in the U.S.

Notes

[1]https://seors.unfccc.int/applications/seors/attachments/get_attachment?code=TJQGYTI096K3J33ANM1HDWYEU51VRXNC

[2] https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works

[3] https://www.c2es.org/content/carbon-tax-basics/

[4] https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon

[5] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

[6] https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/supreme-court-epa-west-virginia-ruling-delay-us-climate-change-action

[7]https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/30/-supreme-court-says-epa-lacks-authority-on-climate-standards-for-power-plants.html

[8] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

[9] https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1103595898/supreme-court-epa-climate-change

[10]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court-curbed-epas-power-to-regulate-carbon-emissions-from-power-plants-what-comes-next/

 

Electric Vehicles: The Path of the Future or a Jetson-Like Fantasy?

November 6, 2022
Administrative Law, Climate Change, Energy Law, Industry, Infrastructure, Social Welfare, Supply Chain, Transportation

James Challou, MJLST Staffer

Last week President Biden contributed to the already growing hype behind electric vehicles when he heralded them as the future of transportation. Biden touted that $7.5 billion from last year’s infrastructure law, Public Law 117-58, would be put toward installing electric vehicle charging stations across the United States. This mass rollout of electric vehicle chargers, broadly aimed to help the US meet its goal of being carbon neutral by 2050, constitutes an immediate effort by the Biden administration to tackle pollution in the sector responsible for the largest share of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions: transportation. The administration’s short-term goal is to install half a million chargers by 2030. However, not all are as confident as President Biden that this movement will be efficacious.

The “Buy America” Obstacle

Despite President Biden’s enthusiasm for this commitment to funding widespread electric vehicle charging stations, many experts remain skeptical that supply can keep up with demand. Crucially, Public Law 117-58 contains a key constraint, dubbed the “Buy America” rule, that mandates federal infrastructure projects obtain at least 55% of construction materials, including iron and steel, from domestic sources and requires all manufacturing to be done in the U.S.

Although labor groups and steel manufacturers continue to push for these domestic sourcing rules to be enforced, other groups like automakers and state officials argue that a combination of inflation increasing the cost of domestic materials and limited domestic production may hamstring the push towards electric vehicle charging accessibility altogether. One state official stated, “A rushed transition to the new requirements will exacerbate delays and increase costs if EV charging equipment providers are forced to abruptly shift component sourcing to domestic suppliers, who in turn may struggle with availability due to limited quantities and high demand.”

Proponents of a slower implementation offer a slew of different solutions ranging from a temporary waiver of the Buy America rules until domestic production can sustain the current demand, to a waiver of the requirements for EV chargers altogether. The Federal Highway Administration, charged with oversight of the EV charger program, proposed an indeterminate transitional period waiver of the Buy America rules until the charger industry and states are prepared to comply with requirements.

Domestic Manufacturer Complications

Domestic manufacturers are similarly conflicted about the waiver of the Buy America rules, with some thinking they may not be able to meet growing demand. While many companies predict they can meet Buy America production requirements in the future, the Federal Highway Administration specified in its waiver proposal that a mere three manufacturers, all based in California, presently believe they have existing fast charger systems that comply with Buy America requirements.

Predictably, the waiver proposal is divisive amongst domestic manufacturers. Some companies are onboard with the waiver and requested even more flexibility. This includes automakers like Ford and General Motors, who say that a process of moving all supply chains to the US demands more time, particularly at the scale necessary to match the surge in federal funding. This is largely seen as the most stakeholder friendly move as it offers companies the opportunity to use the duration of the waiver to see if a clear competitive market materializes which in turn benefits stakeholders.

Contrarily, others have asked for the waiver period to be shortened to allow them to quickly recoup their investments into Buy America compliant manufacturing upgrades. Some companies are even more aggressive; they oppose the waiver altogether and argue that the waiver would disadvantage manufacturers that intentionally put money into meeting the Buy America requirements. These companies posit that domestic manufacturing provides immediate benefits like augmenting supply chain security and electric-vehicle cybersecurity and warn against dependency on foreign governments for electrical steel needs. They further add that the Buy America rule will fuel growth in the US market and create manufacturing jobs. Labor groups and some lawmakers have adopted this stance as one lawmaker from Ohio commented, “[f]ederal agencies should implement the new Buy America provisions as quickly as possible to give American companies the certainty they need to move forward with investments.”

Other Implementation Difficulties

 The inclusion of the Buy America rule in this legislation is not the only aspect of the EV charging project that has generated considerable debate. Regional challenges pose more of an issue than originally anticipated. Although many states reported common potential hurdles like vandalism, range anxiety, supply chain, and electricity challenges, unique geographic problems have also arisen. For example, Nebraska reported in its plan that a shift to electric vehicles could decrease revenue collection from gas tax. Iowa aired out concerns about stations being hit by and damaged by snow plows. Michigan cited rodent damage as a potential concern. Finally, Oklahoma flagged political opposition to the chargers as a problem that could be both pervasive and fatal to the overall electric charging process.

Moreover, the law caught a substantial amount of flak for a curious decision to skip interstate rest stops when installing the EV charging stations. Although at first glance this would appear to be a pivotal oversight, it stems from a 1956 law that restricts commercial activity, in this case including electric car charging, at rest stops. The Federal Highway Administration, to alleviate these concerns, issued guidance that says electric vehicle chargers should be “as close to Interstate Highway Systems and highway corridors as possible” and generally no more than one mile from the exit. Furthermore, some of the older rest stops are excluded from the 1956 guidance. However, this is not enough to sate critics as many continue to fight for the 1956 law to be changed. They claim that the existence of the restriction drastically inconveniences drivers, planners, and vehicles while potentially creating a wealth disparity by forcing low-income families, who traditionally rely more on public rest areas, to avoid purchasing electric vehicles.

Conclusion

President Biden deserves to be lauded for his ambitious plan for electric vehicles which attempts to square combating the effects of climate change with preserving American manufacturing while simultaneously improving infrastructure. It is worth questioning whether the law would be more effective if it simply focused its efforts on one of these areas. As a commentator at the Cato Institute noted, “The goal of infrastructure spending should be better infrastructure — and if you’re trying to pursue policies to mitigate climate change, well that should be the overall goal … Anything that hinders that should be avoided.”  Only time will reveal the answer to this question.

Localized Climate Change: A Glance at the Minneapolis Climate Action Plan

April 22, 2014
Environment

Matt Mason, MJLST Staff

Historically, the climate change mitigation arena has centered almost exclusively on traditional national and supra-national actors. However, persistent failures in seeking widespread agreement among many nations with diverging interests have recently given rise to experiments in climate change mitigation by nontraditional actors at the sub-national and sub-state level.

Myanna Dellinger recently wrote an excellent and informative article advocating for the need to implement local climate change initiatives. Dellinger examined a number of recently adopted local climate change initiatives, arguing that bottom-up methods can indeed be an effective alternative to the more traditional top-down approaches. With nontraditional local government and non-government actors becoming more involved in climate change mitigation due to lack of effective action of the traditional climate change actors, Dellinger concluded that “local initiatives currently present the most promising course of action for effective climate change solutions.” Effective local climate change solutions should focus on a number of factors, according to Dellinger, including carbon reduction, public participation, improved energy infrastructure, and the mobilization of private entities. Additionally, Dellinger found that city programs with some degree of enforcement, such as exclusion for non-compliance and public disclosure of progress, tend to be more effective.

The City of Minneapolis has a history of implementing climate change initiatives at the local level, starting with the Minneapolis – St. Paul CO2 Reduction Projection in 1993. In 2004, then Mayor R.T. Rybak signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement pledging to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most recently, the City of Minneapolis adopted the Minneapolis Climate Action Plan this past June.

The overall goals of the Climate Action Plan are to reduce emissions by 15% in 2015, and 30% by 2025. The Plan seeks to achieve collaboration between local government, businesses, civic organizations, and residents alike to not only reduce emissions, but also improve public health, shift to a more energy efficient economy, generate more electricity from local and renewable sources, and to promote cleaner fuel use throughout the public transit system. To achieve these goals, the Plan itself focuses on three key sectors: buildings and energy (with commercial and residential buildings being the largest source of emissions in 2010 totaling 65% of all emissions), transportation and land use (with transportation representing the second largest emitter at 29% of total emissions in 2010), and waste and recycling (including the goal of increasing the recycling rate to 50% by 2025).

While we often do not think about the impacts of climate change at the local level, the Climate Action Plan highlights a number of localized effects of recent climate change. For example, since 1970 the average annual precipitation in the Minneapolis area has increased by 20%. Additionally, average air temperatures are increasing, with the greatest warming trend at night and in the winter months, which is consistent with higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. If the current climate trends continue, the Plan projects difficult summers ahead with increasingly common heat waves and “extreme heat events.” Not to mention to projected increase in days with low air quality and a general increase in the level of ozone pollution.

While it remains to be seen just how effective the Minneapolis Climate Action Plan will be, it appears to be relatively in line with the localized climate change policies advocated for by Dellinger. The Plan requires progress to be reported annually, and provides that climate reduction goals and strategies must be revisited at a minimum of every three years. In addition, the Plan seeks to improve the energy infrastructure by making environmental and infrastructural benefits more equitable between low-income communities and elsewhere in Minneapolis. Furthermore, the Plan seeks the involvement of private entities and the public at-large. On a broad policy level, the Plan prioritizes “high impact, short timeframe,” and cost effective strategies, while attempting to implement strategies with multiple benefits to the climate change problem. Time will tell whether Minneapolis’s own localized climate action plan will see effective results such as those analyzed by Dellinger, but hey, you have to start somewhere.

Guest Commentary – Climate Change: Is Anyone Ever Going to Do Anything About It?

February 3, 2014
Environment, Public Health

by Myanna Dellinger, JD, MA – Associate Professor at Western State College of Law and Director of the Institute for Global Law and Policy

Extremely cold weather conditions still haunt the American North and Northeast. Meanwhile, California is suffering through July temperatures in January and the worst drought since 1895. No doubt about it, we are witnessing ever more frequent extreme weather events. Since nations still can’t agree on what to do about this urgent problem, it may be up to local actors such as cities, states, companies, and NGOs to take the required action now.

Nations have agreed to “try” to limit global warming to 2° C and to agree on a new climate treaty by 2015 to take effect by 2020, but in reality, we are headed towards a 5.3° C increase. Even if the 2° degree target were to be met, vast ecological and economic damage would still occur in the form of, for instance, severe economic disruptions to our food and water supply.

Disregarding climate change is technologically risky too: to meet the target of keeping concentrations of CO2 below the most recently agreed-upon threshold of 500 ppm, future generations would have to literally pull CO2 out of the air with either machinery that does not yet exist and may never become technically or economically feasible, or with bioenergy crops that absorb CO2, which would compete with food production.

My article “Localizing Climate Change” argues that effective and urgent action is likely to come from the local and not the national or international levels.

In fact, the parties to the climate treaty framework UNFCCC similarly recently agreed that cities, other subnational authorities, and the private sector must play a role in future treaty-making contexts. This makes sense. Local actors may be the ones best situated to find out what can be done technically and politically in each location. Meanwhile, nations are almost unbelievably playing two fiddles at the same time, subsidizing fossil fuel development much more than cleaner energies. That’s right: although renewable energy policies are becoming more prevalent, they are financially and politically outcompeted by the rapid growth of fossil fuels in the USA and elsewhere. Perhaps indicative of the true state of affairs is the fact that climate adaptation talks are intensifying as mitigation agreements seem to be stalling. It doesn’t help that a secretive network of conservative billionaires is pouring billions of dollars into a vast political effort attempting to deny climate change and that–perhaps as a consequence–the coverage of climate change by American media is down significantly from 2009, when media was happy to report a climate change “scandal” that eventually proved to be incorrectly reported. Little wonder that the most recent IPCC report concluded that it is “extremely likely” (i.e. with 95-100% certainty) that human activity is the principal cause of climate change.

If you think all this is driving you crazy, you may be right. Shifts in climate have been strongly linked to human violence around the world, such as spikes in domestic violence in Australia, increased assaults and murders in the United States, land invasions in Brazil, police violence in Holland, and civil conflicts throughout the tropics.

What are we, as a nation, doing about this? In the summer of 2013, President Obama announced the first-ever United States Climate Action Plan. This relies on a number of Executive Orders, as the Senate is still unlikely to ratify a climate treaty. As with other recent Congressional gridlock, this highlights the importance of local action. If the United States was willing to ratify a new climate change treaty, this could spur much-needed action by the relatively low number of nations needed to make a big impact on the problem. After all, the world’s top ten emitters account for 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

This leads to my questions: Where is the most likely and substantively effective action going to come from: local or national/supranational entities? If you think climate change must be countered at the national and international levels, who is then responsible? For instance, should it be the historically largest emitters (among them, the USA and China), the most capable (the industrialized world), the most progressive (arguably the EU), or . . . ? Is anything even going to happen at all, or are we as human beings simply incapable of worrying about the future as a recent study indicated?

Making It Personal: The Key to Climate Change Action

December 22, 2013
Environment

by Brandon Palmen, UMN Law Student, MJLST Executive Editor

Climate change is the ultimate global governance challenge, right? It’s an intractable problem, demanding a masterfully coordinated international response and a delicate political solution, balancing entrenched economic interests against deeply-discounted, diffuse future harms that are still highly uncertain. But what if that approach to the problem were turned on its head? We often hear that the earth will likely warm 3-5 degrees centigrade (+/- 2 degrees), on average, over the next hundred years, and we may wonder whether that’s as painful as higher utility bills and the fear of losing business and jobs to free-riding overseas competitors. What if, instead, Americans asking “what’s in it for me?” could just go online and look up their home towns, the lakes where they vacation, the mountains where they ski, and fields where their crops are grown, and obtain predictions of how climate change is likely to impact the places they actually live and work?

A new climate change viewing tool from the U.S. Geological Survey is a first step toward changing that paradigm. The tool consolidates and averages temperature change predictions based on numerous climate change models and displays them on a map. The result is beautiful in its simplicity; like a weather map, it allows everyday information consumers to begin to understand how climate change will affect their lives on a daily basis, making what had been an abstract concept of “harm” more tangible and actionable. So far, the tool appears to use pre-calculated, regional values and static images (to support high-volume delivery over the internet, no doubt), and switching between models reveals fascinatingly wide predictive discrepancies. But it effectively communicates the central trend of climate change research, and suggests the possibility of developing a similar tool that could provide more granular data, either by incorporating the models and crunching numbers in real time, or by extrapolating missing values from neighboring data points. Google Earth also allows users to view climate change predictions geographically, but the accessibility of the USGS tool may give it greater impact with the general public.

There are still challenging bridges to be crossed — translation of what “N-degree” temperature changes will likely have on particular species, and “tagging,” “fencing,” or “painting” of specific tracts of land with those species — but it is plausible that within a few years, we will be able to obtain tailored predictions of climate change’s impact on the environments that actually matter to us — the ones in which we live. Of course those predictions will be imprecise or even wholly incorrect, but if they’re based on the best-available climate models, coupled with discoverable information about local geographic features, they’ll be no worse than many other prognostications that grip everyday experience, like stock market analysis and diet/nutrition advice. Maybe the problem with public climate change debate is that it’s too scientific, in the sense that scientists know the limitations of their knowledge and models, and are wary of “defrauding” the public by drawing inductive conclusions that aren’t directly confirmed by evidence. Or maybe there’s just no good way to integrate the best climate models with local environmental and economic knowledge … yet.

Well, so what? Isn’t tackling climate change still an intractable global political problem? Maybe not. The more that people understand about the impacts climate change will have on them personally, the more likely they are to personally take action to ameliorate climate change, even absent meaningful top-down climate change policy. And while global governance may be beyond the reach of most individuals, local and state programs are not so far removed from private participation. In her recent article, Localizing Climate Change Action, Myanna Dellinger examines several such “home-grown” programs, and concludes that they may be an important component of climate change mitigation. Minnesotans are probably most worried about climate change’s impact on snow storms, lake health, and crop yields, while Arizonans might worry more about drought and fragile desert ecosystems, and Floridians might worry about hurricanes and beach tourism. If all of these local groups are motivated by the same fundamental problem, their actions may be self-coordinating in effect, even if they are not coordinated by design.

Home | Contact Publishing Services | Report Web Accessibility Issues