May 24 2012

Video presentation posted: Patricial Salkin “Beyond Environmental Review: Integrating Health impact Assessment into Local Land Use Decision “

You can view THE VIDEO PRESENTATION  here 

Speaker: Patricia E. Salkin
Raymond & Ella Smith Distinguished Professor of Law
Associate Dean and Director
Government Law Center of Albany Law School
Title of Presentation: Beyond Environmental Review: Integrating Health impact Assessment into Local Land Use Decision

You can view it here 

Comments Off on Video presentation posted: Patricial Salkin “Beyond Environmental Review: Integrating Health impact Assessment into Local Land Use Decision “

Feb 22 2012

Widener to Host Workshop on Constitutional Environmental Rights

Published by under Environmental Policy

Constitutional Environmental Rights Workshop
Thursday, May 31, 2012

Environmental Law Center

Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, DE

On Thursday, May 31, 2012, the Widener Environmental Law Center (WELC) in Wilmington, Delaware, will host a one-day scholar workshop on recent developments in the growing field of global and domestic constitutional environmental rights. Workshop organizers Professors Erin Daly and Jim May invite you to attend to present a work in progress, to comment, or to observe. Space is limited. RSVPs by 3/31/12 to: dedantinne@widener.edu

[ Workshop Papers & Speaker Bios ]

Environmental values and rights are featured in constitutions around the globe, addressing such issues as preservation, re-development, sustainability, pollution abatement, human rights, climate change, energy reform, water resources, or environmental rights. Constitutional provisions from almost six dozen countries embed individual rights to some form of healthy, adequate or quality environment, recognize basic human rights to clean water, air, and land, and environmental opportunity, or provide a right not just to, but of, nature. And more than one-third of states in the United States explicitly purport to provide a basic civil right to a quality environment or recognize environmental concerns as a policy consideration.

The workshop will serve as a forum for works/projects in progress. The objective is to share ideas in a relaxed setting, review and provide peer level comments about each other’s work, and assess current developments. Lunch and light refreshments are included. The program is free.

The program is open to (1) scholars who are interested in sharing significant works-in-progress, such as books, articles, advocacy and constitutional amendments, and (2) scholars who would be interested in providing comments to a work in progress, (3) observers. Confirmed participants so far include Mark Tushnet, Bob Percival, John Dernbach, Randy Abate, and Daniel Bonilla.

Space is limited to 50 participants. If you would like to participate, we ask that you please respond soon, and no later than March 31, 2012, to: dedantinne@widener.edu. Please note whether you would like to participate to share scholarship (one-page abstract, please), as a commentator, or as an observer. If your paper/project is chosen, then we ask to receive it by April 30, 2012.

Widener University School of Law’s Delaware campus is located roughly 10 minutes from Amtrak’s Wilmington station stop, and about 30 minutes from the Philadelphia International Airport. If you have any questions, please contact Professors Jim May (jrmay@widener.edu), or Erin Daly (edaly@widener.edu). We hope you can join us!

Comments Off on Widener to Host Workshop on Constitutional Environmental Rights

Nov 25 2011

ABA and ELI Publish May’s “Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law”

Published by under Environmental Policy

The ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources and the Environmental Law Institute have recently co-published Jim May’s new book, Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law. This first of its kind book explains how the nexus between environmental and constitutional law has evolved from nearly nothing to nearly everything, and what this means for professors, policymakers, and practitioners. These days, it is hard to imagine an environmental issue that does not embed important constitutional components, including climate change, species protection, pollution control, conservation, energy policy, and beyond.

Principles of Constitutional Environmental has an outstanding array of chapter authors. A description appears below, and the table of contents and other materials are linked at

 http://apps.americanbar.org/abastore/index.cfm?section=main&fm=Product.AddToCart&pid=5350220

The list price is $89.95, but half-price where the book is assigned reading for courses. Instructors considering adoption of the book may request review copies from Amelia.Stone@americanbar.org.
New! Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law

ABA, Co-published with the Environmental Law Institute

Contents and Chapter Authors

Foreword: The Missing Constitution – Oliver A. Houck
Chapter 1. Introduction: The Intersection of Constitutional and Environmental Law – James R. May

Part One: Federal and State Authority
Chapter 2. The Commerce Clause: Foundation for U.S. Environmental Law – Bruce Myers and Jay Austin
Chapter 3. The Nondelegation Doctrine – Patricia Ross McCubbin and George B. Wyeth
Chapter 4. Executive Power, the Constitution, and the Environment: The Take Care Clause and the Unitary Executive – Robert L. Glicksman
Chapter 5. Environmental Federalism – Jim Wedeking
Chapter 6. The Dormant Commerce Clause and the Environment – Sam Kalen
Chapter 7. Federal Preemption of State and Local Environmental Laws – Norman A. Dupont

Part Two: Judicial Review
Chapter 8. Standing and Environmental Law – Robin Kundis Craig
Chapter 9. The Political Question Doctrine – James R. May

Part Three: Individual Rights
Chapter 10. The Takings Clause and Environmental Law – Karl S. Coplan
Chapter 11: Due Process Challenges – Robin Kundis Craig

Part Four: Emerging Constitutional Issues in Environmental Law
Chapter 12. Environmental Rights in State Constitutions – James R. May and William Romanowicz
Chapter 13. Constitutional Environmental Rights Worldwide – James R. May and Erin Daly
Chapter 14. Using Environmental Property Rights to Shape Constitutional Law – Daniel A. Farber
Chapter 15. Constitutional Influences on Climate Litigation – Lee A. DeHihns, III
Table of Cases
Index

Comments Off on ABA and ELI Publish May’s “Principles of Constitutional Environmental Law”

Sep 22 2011

Widener to Celebrate 40th Anniversary of Delaware Coastal Zone Act on September 30

Published by under Environmental Policy

Widener Law will mark the 40th anniversary of one of Delaware’s most controversial – and some would say important – environmental laws with a daylong event that is open to the public. The Delaware Coastal Zone Act represented the first comprehensive coastal land-use law in the world aimed at curbing industrial development within a coastal area. The law forbids new heavy industry and bulk transfer facilities along the state’s fragile coastline.

The Widener Law Environmental Law Center will present the program on Friday, Sept. 30, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in the Ruby R. Vale Moot Courtroom at 4601 Concord Pike. The event is co-sponsored by the Delaware Humanities Forum, the Delaware State Bar Association Section on Environmental Law, and the student-run Widener Environmental Law Society.

Former U.S. Rep. Mike Castle is the keynote speaker. The morning will include presentations about the law’s history, how it works, and emerging challenges. The afternoon will feature breakout sessions and a screening of the documentary film, “An Evolving Legacy: Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act,” facilitated by the film’s writer and director, Michael Oates of 302 Stories Inc. The day will include a “town hall meeting” moderated by retired Delaware Superior Court Judge Susan Del Pesco, an alumna of the law school. Click here for a full event schedule.

“The program will provide a neutral forum for conversations about this historic law, as well as the opportunities it provides and challenges it faces over the next 40 years,” said Professor Jim May, the Center’s Co-Director.

Attorneys who attend will be eligible for 5.5 continuing legal education credits in Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The registration fee for those who attend for credit is $150, or $125 for Widener Law alumni. The fee for the general public is $20. Event fee includes lunch and snacks. Seating is limited. To register, contact Debbie E. Dantinne at dedantinne@widener.edu, or call 302.477.2182, or register online at http://widener-cle.com/registration.html

Comments Off on Widener to Celebrate 40th Anniversary of Delaware Coastal Zone Act on September 30

Jul 12 2011

Ecuadorian Court Recognizes Constitutional Right to Nature

Published by under Environmental Policy

[By Professor Erin Daly, H. Albert Young Fellow in Constitutional Law]
Download the opinion in PDF (6 separate pages):

A provincial court in Ecuador became the first court ever to interpret – and vindicate – the newly constitutionalized right of Nature. The Ecuadorian Constitution was amended in 2010 to recognize that Nature has enforceable rights. In four extensive paragraphs, the Constitution spells out that “Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and created, has the right to integral respect for her existence, her maintenance, and for the regeneration of her vital cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes.” (Art. 71: “La naturaleza o Pacha Mama, donde se reproduce y realiza la vida, tiene derecho a que se respete integralmente su existencia y el mantenimiento y regeneración de sus ciclos vitales, estructura, funciones y procesos evolutivos.”). The section further confirms that this right is not merely hortatory by empowering each “person, community, people, or nationality” to exercise public authority to enforce the right, according to normal constitutional processes. (Art. 71: “Toda persona, comunidad, pueblo o nacionalidad podrá exigir a la autoridad pública el cumplimiento de los derechos de la naturaleza. Para aplicar e interpretar estos derechos se observaran los principios establecidos en la Constitución, en lo que proceda.”).

The litigation in this case resulted from the construction and expansion of a road in the mountains of southern Ecuador. About three years ago, when the provincial government began work on the road, it had neither environmental impact statements, nor environmental permits, nor, apparently, any plan as to how to dispose of the debris that would be produced by the construction. The rocks, sand, gravel, trees, and other debris from the excavation and construction were eventually dumped by the side of the road, along the river, narrowing the river channel to about half its previous width, thereby doubling its flow. This caused significant erosion and flooding to the lands downriver when the spring rains came. When the government began dumping anew last December, the landowners sued. Although the first petition was denied for failure to name the appropriate parties, the court that heard the case this spring was ready to interpret the new constitutional provisions in a sympathetic and expansive way, setting out several important principles that, one hopes, will become polestars for subsequent cases on the right of nature.

The heart of the six-page opinion lies in its wholehearted embrace of the right of nature. Recognizing that the constitutional provision (and this action) was unprecedented “in the history of humanity,” the Court unhesitatingly took responsibility for enforcing it: “Given the indisputable, elemental, and irremediable importance of Nature,” the court said, “and taking into account how notorious and evident is its process of degradation, the accion de proteccion is the only suitable and effective way to end and remedy in an immediate way a specific harm to the environment.” The need for judges to vindicate the right of nature is warranted by the “evident and indisputable” importance of the right: “[W]e can not forget that injuries to Nature are “generational damages” which are such that, in their magnitude have repercussions not only in the present generation but whose effects will also impact future generations,” the court said. The court then at length quoted Alberto Acosta, President of the Constituent Assembly: “Man can not survive at the margins of nature… The human being is a part of nature, and can not treat nature as if it were a ceremony to which he is a spectator. Whatever legal system tied to popular sentiment, sensitive to natural disasters that we, in our day, are familiar with, applying modern scientific knowledge — or the ancient knowledge of original cultures — about how the universe works, must prohibit human beings from bringing about the extinction of other species or destroying the functioning of natural ecosystems.”

The significance of the right of Nature has certain jurisprudential implications that will surely be noted by other courts. First, the court seemed to be sympathetic to the difficulties of pleading in the unusual context where plaintiffs are vindicating not their own rights but the right of nature; as a result, the court was not as rigid as the previous tribunal with regard to formalities but adopted instead a common sense approach. Second, the court held that the environmental damage is based not on certitude but on possibilities and probabilities and therefore the type and quantum of proof necessary in a case based on the right of Nature is probabilistic. The court then invoked the precautionary principle, putting the responsibility, however, on the court itself: “until it can be shown that there is no probability or danger to the environment of the kind of work that is being done in a specific place, it is the duty of constitutional judges to immediately guard and to give effect to the constitutional right of nature, doing what is necessary to avoid contamination or to remedy it.” Third, the court announced that in cases involving the rights of nature, the burden of proof to show no damage is on the defendants. This, the court said, was in accord with the practice in other Latin American countries as well as in Europe and is justified not only because the defendant is usually in the best position to have information about the likelihood of damage but also because it is the defendant who is asserting the inexistence of harm to the environment. This is also consistent with the explicit language of the Constitution, which states that “the burden of proof on the inexistence of potential or actual damage rests with the person responsible for the activity (manager) or the defendant.” (Art. 397(1): “ La carga de la prueba sobre la inexistencia de daño potencial o real recaerá sobre el gestor de la actividad o el demandado.”) Thus, it was up to the government to prove that the road construction was not causing environmental damage. And finally, the court said that even if there were a conflict between constitutional rights (which there was not in this case), the rights of Nature would prevail because a healthy environment is more important and affects more people.

In the particular case, the court indicated a willingness to assertively protect environmental interests with a multi-pronged remedial order that included a public apology of one-quarter page in a local daily; the presentation within 30 days of a Plan for Remediation and Rehabilitation for the affected areas in the Rio Vilcabamba and the properties of the affected settlers; and immediate action to present appropriate environmental permits, to protect against oil spills or leakage into the river and the surrounding soils caused by machinery, to clean up the damage already caused by spills, to implement a warning system to prevent future damage to the environment caused by the combustibility of the machinery, and to find appropriate sites for the dumping of debris as the construction continues. The court also ordered the government to comply with the recommendations of the Subsecretary of Environmental Quality of the Ministry of Environment and ordered the establishment of a committee composed of government officials to oversee the enforcement of the court’s order. (However, as is typical of environmental rights cases, a press release from some environmental groups involved in the litigation — The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, CEDENMA, and Fundación Pachamama – indicates that, as of June 2011, “ [t]he damage to the river has not been remedied nor has the material been removed.”)

One aspect of the case that is perhaps most interesting is that, in the facts of the case, the complaint could have been made on more traditional grounds: the government’s action did, after all, cause erosion and flooding that affected one-and-a-half hectares of valuable land, and that cost thousands of dollars to repair and resulted in a diminution in the value of the plaintiffs’ property. And yet, rather than rely on their own property rights, the plaintiffs challenged the court to take seriously the newly recognized rights of Nature, and the court willingly accepted the challenge.

A provincial court in Ecuador became the first court ever to interpret – and vindicate – the newly constitutionalized right of Nature. The Ecuadorian Constitution was amended in 2010 to recognize that Nature has enforceable rights. In four extensive paragraphs, the Constitution spells out that “Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and created, has the right to integral respect for her existence, her maintenance, and for the regeneration of her vital cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes.” (Art. 71: “La naturaleza o Pacha Mama, donde se reproduce y realiza la vida, tiene derecho a que se respete integralmente su existencia y el mantenimiento y regeneración de sus ciclos vitales, estructura, funciones y procesos evolutivos.”). The section further confirms that this right is not merely hortatory by empowering each “person, community, people, or nationality” to exercise public authority to enforce the right, according to normal constitutional processes. (Art. 71: “Toda persona, comunidad, pueblo o nacionalidad podrá exigir a la autoridad pública el cumplimiento de los derechos de la naturaleza. Para aplicar e interpretar estos derechos se observaran los principios establecidos en la Constitución, en lo que proceda.”).

The litigation in this case resulted from the construction and expansion of a road in the mountains of southern Ecuador. About three years ago, when the provincial government began work on the road, it had neither environmental impact statements, nor environmental permits, nor, apparently, any plan as to how to dispose of the debris that would be produced by the construction. The rocks, sand, gravel, trees, and other debris from the excavation and construction were eventually dumped by the side of the road, along the river, narrowing the river channel to about half its previous width, thereby doubling its flow. This caused significant erosion and flooding to the lands downriver when the spring rains came. When the government began dumping anew last December, the landowners sued. Although the first petition was denied for failure to name the appropriate parties, the court that heard the case this spring was ready to interpret the new constitutional provisions in a sympathetic and expansive way, setting out several important principles that, one hopes, will become polestars for subsequent cases on the right of nature.

The heart of the six-page opinion lies in its wholehearted embrace of the right of nature. Recognizing that the constitutional provision (and this action) was unprecedented “in the history of humanity,” the Court unhesitatingly took responsibility for enforcing it: “Given the indisputable, elemental, and irremediable importance of Nature,” the court said, “and taking into account how notorious and evident is its process of degradation, the accion de proteccion is the only suitable and effective way to end and remedy in an immediate way a specific harm to the environment.” The need for judges to vindicate the right of nature is warranted by the “evident and indisputable” importance of the right: “[W]e can not forget that injuries to Nature are “generational damages” which are such that, in their magnitude have repercussions not only in the present generation but whose effects will also impact future generations,” the court said. The court then at length quoted Alberto Acosta, President of the Constituent Assembly: “Man can not survive at the margins of nature… The human being is a part of nature, and can not treat nature as if it were a ceremony to which he is a spectator. Whatever legal system tied to popular sentiment, sensitive to natural disasters that we, in our day, are familiar with, applying modern scientific knowledge — or the ancient knowledge of original cultures — about how the universe works, must prohibit human beings from bringing about the extinction of other species or destroying the functioning of natural ecosystems.”

The significance of the right of Nature has certain jurisprudential implications that will surely be noted by other courts. First, the court seemed to be sympathetic to the difficulties of pleading in the unusual context where plaintiffs are vindicating not their own rights but the right of nature; as a result, the court was not as rigid as the previous tribunal with regard to formalities but adopted instead a common sense approach. Second, the court held that the environmental damage is based not on certitude but on possibilities and probabilities and therefore the type and quantum of proof necessary in a case based on the right of Nature is probabilistic. The court then invoked the precautionary principle, putting the responsibility, however, on the court itself: “until it can be shown that there is no probability or danger to the environment of the kind of work that is being done in a specific place, it is the duty of constitutional judges to immediately guard and to give effect to the constitutional right of nature, doing what is necessary to avoid contamination or to remedy it.” Third, the court announced that in cases involving the rights of nature, the burden of proof to show no damage is on the defendants. This, the court said, was in accord with the practice in other Latin American countries as well as in Europe and is justified not only because the defendant is usually in the best position to have information about the likelihood of damage but also because it is the defendant who is asserting the inexistence of harm to the environment. This is also consistent with the explicit language of the Constitution, which states that “the burden of proof on the inexistence of potential or actual damage rests with the person responsible for the activity (manager) or the defendant.” (Art. 397(1): “ La carga de la prueba sobre la inexistencia de daño potencial o real recaerá sobre el gestor de la actividad o el demandado.”) Thus, it was up to the government to prove that the road construction was not causing environmental damage. And finally, the court said that even if there were a conflict between constitutional rights (which there was not in this case), the rights of Nature would prevail because a healthy environment is more important and affects more people.

In the particular case, the court indicated a willingness to assertively protect environmental interests with a multi-pronged remedial order that included a public apology of one-quarter page in a local daily; the presentation within 30 days of a Plan for Remediation and Rehabilitation for the affected areas in the Rio Vilcabamba and the properties of the affected settlers; and immediate action to present appropriate environmental permits, to protect against oil spills or leakage into the river and the surrounding soils caused by machinery, to clean up the damage already caused by spills, to implement a warning system to prevent future damage to the environment caused by the combustibility of the machinery, and to find appropriate sites for the dumping of debris as the construction continues. The court also ordered the government to comply with the recommendations of the Subsecretary of Environmental Quality of the Ministry of Environment and ordered the establishment of a committee composed of government officials to oversee the enforcement of the court’s order. (However, as is typical of environmental rights cases, a press release from some environmental groups involved in the litigation — The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, CEDENMA, and Fundación Pachamama – indicates that, as of June 2011, “ [t]he damage to the river has not been remedied nor has the material been removed.”)

One aspect of the case that is perhaps most interesting is that, in the facts of the case, the complaint could have been made on more traditional grounds: the government’s action did, after all, cause erosion and flooding that affected one-and-a-half hectares of valuable land, and that cost thousands of dollars to repair and resulted in a diminution in the value of the plaintiffs’ property. And yet, rather than rely on their own property rights, the plaintiffs challenged the court to take seriously the newly recognized rights of Nature, and the court willingly accepted the challenge.

Comments Off on Ecuadorian Court Recognizes Constitutional Right to Nature

Jun 20 2011

Supreme Court Sides With Widener Law Professors’ Amicus Br. in American Electric Power v. Connecticut

Published by under Environmental Policy

Today in American Electric Power v. Connecticut, the United States Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act, when coupled with EPA’s discretionary authority that the Court recognized in Massachusetts v. EPA, as well as the actions EPA has taken in the last two years to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, displaces federal common law causes of action for remedial action addressing climate change.

Professor May was Counsel of Record and co-author (with Prof. Stuart Banner of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at UCLA) of the Law Professor’s Amicus Brief on Behalf of Respondents (Plaintiffs) in the case.

In brief, the Court was unwilling to vest federal judges with the task of performing what it viewed to be primarily regulatory roles subject to democratic processes. Writing for an 8-0 majority of the Court (Justice Sotomayor, recused), Justice Ginsburg reasoned:

“The judgments the plaintiffs would commit to federal judges, in suits that could be filed in any federal district, cannot be reconciled with the decisionmaking scheme Congress enacted. The Second Circuit erred, we hold, in ruling that federal judges may set limits on greenhouse gas emissions in face of a law empowering EPA to set the same limits, subject to judicial review only to ensure against action “arbitrary, capricious, . . . or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Thus, the Court concluded that “[a]ny such claim would be displaced by the federal legislation authorizing EPA to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions.”

The Court’s ruling in Massachusetts that the CAA provides EPA with discretionary authority to regulate greenhouse gases as “air pollutants” loomed large: “We hold that the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants. Massachusetts made plain that emissions of carbon dioxide qualify as air pollution subject to regulation under the Act. And we think it equally plain that the Act “speaks directly” to emissions of carbon dioxide from the defendants’ plants.”

The Court was unconvinced that federal courts should play a role in competing with EPA’s regulatory authority: “It is altogether fitting that Congress designated an expert agency, here, EPA, as best suited to serve as primary regulator of greenhouse gas emissions. The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions. Federal judges lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order.” Federal law does not permit both “tracks,” Ginsburg wrote.

The Court explained that its ruling does not affect state common law causes of action, which would be subject to a more exacting demonstration of congressional intent: “In light of our holding that the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law, the availability vel non of a state lawsuit depends, inter alia, on the preemptive effect of the federal Act.” “None of the parties have briefed preemption or otherwise addressed the availability of a claim under state nuisance law. We therefore leave the matter open for consideration on remand,” it wrote.

The Court did not engage the political question or prudential standing arguments. Four Justices – including Justice Kennedy – accepted that the states possess constitutional standing under Massachusetts v. EPA, suggesting that five members of the Court (including Justice Sotomayor) accept that position.

One curious aspect of the decision is that notwithstanding the extent to which the Court seemed to rely on Massachusetts v. EPA, Justice Ginsburg noted: “The Court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change.” (n2)

Justice Alito (joined by Justice Thomas) issued a brief concurrence, it appears for no other reason than to question the outcome in Massachusetts v. EPA (“I agree with the Court’s displacement analysis on the assumption (which I make for the sake of argument because no party contends otherwise) that the interpretation of the Clean Air Act, adopted by the majority in Massachusetts v. EPA, is correct.”

So seven years on the case returns to the district court, and possibly to state court, to consider the plaintiffs’ state common law claims, and with them, preemption and a host of other constitutional and common law issues.

[End]

Jim May

Comments Off on Supreme Court Sides With Widener Law Professors’ Amicus Br. in American Electric Power v. Connecticut

Sep 08 2010

Environmental Law Center Looks at Sustainability Record of Pennsylvania Candidates for Governor and U.S. Senate

GreenElectionsPromo235“The motto for the Environmental Law Center is Law for Sustainability,” says Distinguished Professor John C. Dernbach, adding, “Governors and Senators make a lot of decisions that create and implement law.” With that in mind, Professor Dernbach has worked closely with some of his students to provide information on the Environmental Law Center’s blog about the positions that the candidates for Governor and U.S. Senator in Pennsylvania hold on sustainability issues.

“We’ve framed the issue in terms of sustainability, which is a broader term than environmental regulation,” says Professor Dernbach. Calling the effort a public service, he noted, “Sustainable development would make Pennsylvania more livable, healthy, secure, and prosperous. Policies that promote sustainability would help grow our economy, create jobs, improve quality of life in our communities, make us healthier, reduce risks to our national security, and improve the lives of the poorest among us.” The Sustainable Pennsylvania – Election 2010 pages will provide a detailed side-by-side comparison of the sustainability positions of gubernatorial candidates Tom Corbett (R) and Dan Onorato (D). The positions of Senate candidates Joe Sestak (D) and Pat Toomey (R) are similarly compared. Categories include Green Jobs & Green Business, Investment in Environmental Infrastructure, Clean Energy, and Sustainable Communities.

Despite the importance of addressing sustainability, the Environmental Law Center’s Sustainable Pennsylvania – Election 2010 page appears to be one of the only efforts of its kind in the nation to focus on sustainability issues.

“Green business and jobs cannot be created by regulation alone. You need regulation to protect the environment and public health, but you also need tax incentives, infrastructure, and supportive laws to create green businesses and jobs,” Professor Dernbach said.

The students working on the project are all in their second year of law school–Daniel Minium (of Camp Hill, Pa.), Bret Wiest (of Fredericksburg, Pa.), and Matthew McDonnell (of Hatboro, Pa.). “They’re learning a lot and doing very good work,” Dernbach said.

Comments Off on Environmental Law Center Looks at Sustainability Record of Pennsylvania Candidates for Governor and U.S. Senate

Sep 01 2010

How Green are our 2010 PA Candidates for Senator and Governor?

Coming soon in September 2010,  we will be adding a new  section to the Environmental Law Center Blog. The new section  is based on a simple but powerful premise: Sustainable development would make Pennsylvania more livable, healthy, secure, and prosperous. Policies that promote sustainability would help grow our economy, create jobs, improve quality of life in our communities, make us healthier, reduce risks to our national security, and improve the lives of the poorest among us. They would achieve these things while protecting and restoring the environment for our generation and those that follow.

Because our elected officials make and implement laws, the views of the  candidates for  Governor and the views of the candidates for U.S.Senate on a range of sustainability issues are thus essential information on Election Day, Nov. 2.

Working under its motto “Law for Sustainability,” Widener University’s Environmental Law Center will provide a wealth of   information on the candidates’ sustainability positions in the spirit of public service, to help voters make informed decisions.

Stay tuned!

Comments Off on How Green are our 2010 PA Candidates for Senator and Governor?

Mar 30 2010

Widener – Wilmington Launches New Environmental Law Certificate

Published by under Environmental Policy

The Widener University School of Law (Wilmington Campus) has a new environmental law certificate, available immediately. Here are the details:

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CERTIFICATE

Widener University School of Law
Wilmington Delaware (Effective 2010)

1. Certificate Courses:

Students may pursue one of two tracks to satisfy requirements for Certificate:

Classroom Track: Student must take:

A. 6 credit hours from the following Core Courses:

Climate Change Law
Environmental Law
International Environmental Law
Natural Resources Law

B. and 6 credit hours of additional Core Course or the following Elective Courses:

Animal Law
Energy and Public Utility Law
International Law
International Trade
International Trade & the Environmental
Land Use Planning
Ocean and Coastal Law
Regulation of Toxic and Hazardous Substances
Science and the Law
Toxic Torts

Seminar: Climate Change
Current Topics in Environmental Law and Policy
Energy and the Environment
Environmental Justice
Environmental Law and the Constitution
Food and Drug Law
Life Science Law
National Resources Law
Public Health Law
Sustainable Development Law

Moot Court: National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition

Or, any other environmental course or seminar approved by Environmental Law Center Director or Associate Director

Clinic Track: Student must take:

A. Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic for 8 credit hours (or 8 hours of environmental externships approved by Environmental Law Center Director or Associate Director or a combination of the two that totals in at least 8 credit hours); and

B. At least 4 credit hours of courses on the Core or Elective Course listed above for the classroom track.

2. Research Paper:

All Certificate students must submit a scholarly research paper on a subject, approved by the Environmental Law Center Director or Associate Director, related to environmental law and policy in 1) an environmental law seminar 2) a directed research with a faculty member of the Environmental Law Center or 3) paper satisfying the writing requirement of the WIDENER LAW REVIEW or the DELAWARE JOURNAL OF CORPORATE LAW.

3. Admissions Requirement

A cumulative grade point average of 2.8 is required for admission to the Certificate Program.

4. Graduating GPA Requirement

A Juris Doctor candidate must earn a cumulative grade point average of at least 2.8 in the courses required by the concentration in order to earn a Certificate in Environmental Law.

5. Certificate with honors:

A student earning a cumulative grade point average of 3.15 or more in certificate courses will receive a Certificate in Environmental Law and Policy with honors.

6. Effective Date

Students graduating in May 2010 and thereafter shall be eligible for a Certificate.

If interested, please contact Professor Jim May at jrmay@widener.edu

Comments Off on Widener – Wilmington Launches New Environmental Law Certificate

Mar 26 2010

What Role Does and Should Economics Play in Setting Environmental Policies?

Published by under Environmental Policy

What role should economics play in environmental law? Tomorrow I give a talk at the Society for Environmental Law and Economics Annual Meeting at Emory Law School about the role of cost considerations before the U.S. Supreme Court. At its core, this meeting explores competing dynamics among the dominant paradigms of at the intersection of regulatory and economic theory: cost-benefit analysis, feasibility, cap and trade, taxes, and game theory. It’s a fascinating glimpse into the economic policies and politics behind some of the leading issues of the day, including climate change.

Comments Off on What Role Does and Should Economics Play in Setting Environmental Policies?

« Prev - Next »