ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

I'M SORRY, I JUST DON'T GET IT

     Today's The Independent (U.K.) has one of the classic stories on "global warming" that simultaneously shows the tide of Western guilt and fantasy solutions for the alleged problem:

The cost of curbing the soaring emissions of harmful gases that are blamed for causing global warming has been estimated at $1 trillion by a major study of the cost of climate change.

The volume of emissions of the gases that cause global warming will double by 2050 unless rich countries agree to take significant policy steps to cut energy use, it shows.

The report, byPricewaterhouseCoopers, lays bare the potential damage to the environment of the industrial revolution in China and India. ...

Turbo-charged growth in emerging economies is helping to drag billions of people out of poverty across Asia, Latin America and eastern Europe.

But according to PwC, the price will be paid by sharp rises in global energy consumption and carbon emissions. They say it means the rich nations that have done most to cause the problem must take more drastic action to reduce their environmental impact.

***

China and India have ratified the Kyoto protocol but do not have to meet the targets to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases.

(EMPHASES ADDED).

     So, let's recap the marvelous logic and realistic approach advocated by this article (in the guise of news, but in reality an editorial). China and India are the greenhouse-gas drivers, are exempt from Kyoto reduction targets--and the cause of the problem is-- you guessed it: us (the "rich" nations).  Let's all lower our standard of living; I'll be sure to stop by the local car dealerships to see the rush of Westerners returning their Mercedes and Land Rovers.

    

AB 2449-PLASTIC BAG RECYCLING

     Assemblyman Loyd Levine (D) has shepherded AB 2449 through the California Legislature to the Governor's desk.  I've checked the California Legislature Website and the press and do not yet see a report as to whether or not the Governor signed the bill.

     The bill, if enacted, would require California supermarkets with over 10,000 square feet of retail space to provide an in-store recycling bin designed to promote interest in the recycling of plastic carryout bags.  Consumers would be able to return their used bags to the bin.

     The bill goes farther, requiring the plastic carryout bags offered by the supermarket to bear the wording 'PLEASE RETURN TO A PARTICIPATING STORE FOR RECYCLING".  The bill requiresthe bag manufacturers to offer the market educational materials to promote bag recycling.

     Don't want to comply?  Under the legislation, government agencies may impose civil penalties of $2,000 (for third and subsequent offenses) on the market or manufacturer.  The legislation provides no funds for the markets and/or manufacturers to carry out this mandated program and so is, in fact, imposing an unfunded State mandate.

     Just another little bit of the nanny State making it such a joy to do business in California.

   

 

CALIF. GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER VETOES PERCHLORATE BILL

     Riverside Press-Enterprise this a.m.:

Schwarzenegger vetoed two Inland lawmakers' bills dealing with drinking-water contamination and advertising for Riverside Plaza.

The drinking-water legislation, by state Sen. Nell Soto, D-Pomona, is tied to state efforts to identify safe levels of perchlorate in Inland and other areas water supplies.

The bill would have required require the state Department of Health Services to consider the effects on human health when weighing whether to adopt a drinking-water standard that is higher than a public-health goal.

     The bill in question is SB 187, which actually would have applied to constituents going beyond perchlorate.  See bull text and analysis here.  In any event, as noted the bill was vetoed.

YET MORE CALIFORNIA REGULATION-INDOOR VAPOR INTRUSION

     The California Legislature has passed and sent to the Governor AB 2092, regarding indoor hazardous-substance "vapor intrusion".  The introduction to the bill states:

This bill would require the [California Environmental Protection] [A]gency, by January 1, 2008, in coordination with [among others] the [D]epartment [of Toxic Substances Control], the state water board, the regional boards, the California Integrated Waste Management Board, and specified local agencies, to compile, using existing data sources, a summary of sites with known or potential vapor intrusion, as defined, from a hazardous substance release on the site or migrating onto the site. The bill would require the
agency to post the summary and related information collected on the agency's Internet Web site and to update the information by January 1, 2009, and annually thereafter.

     "Vapor intrusion" is defined as "the accumulation of vapor from soil or groundwater, or both, that may enter indoor air and impact human health."

     The bill provides only for information gathering and does not provide for remedial action. However, the introductory language to the bill suggests that the State EPA, DTSC and Regional Water Quality Control Boards already have authority to require remediation of "vapor intrusion" once it is identified.

     The most intriguing language in the bill is the provision that information be gathered as to vapor intrusion (or even "potential" vapor intrusion) "from a hazardous substance release on the site or migrating onto the site."  So, for example, a building or home being affected by some other property will now be spotlighted in the public records.  This may be a good thing insofar as providing information is concerned; but this may also have a dramatic effect on the value of that building or home.

     The bill provides that, by January 1, 2009, the State EPA is to submit to the Legislature a report on a strategy for remediation and engineering and use controls regarding affected properties.  Thus, yet more regulation awaits.

     The bill does not provide any additional staffing or funding to the State EPA for implementing the bill's provisions.  We may find that, as has been the case with other past environmental legislation, as a practical matter, the State agencies charged with carrying out the bill's mandates cannot meet the 2008 and 2009 deadlines the bill would impose.

     The full text of the bill can be found here.  For arguments in opposition to and in support of the bill see, respectively, www.cclr.org/pdfs/AB2092_Coalition_Opposition_Letter.pdf or go here.

SIERRA CLUB ELECTS NOT TO OPPOSE CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 1

    Environmental groups in California appear generally to be unhappy with Proposition 1, which would put $14 billion into auto-related road infrastructure and another $4 billion into public transportation.  Presumably the unhappiness stems from the fact that the majority of funding would be tilted toward the automobile (i.e, "polluting") user.  Nonetheless, Capitol Weekly reports today:

Environmental groups, lured by the prospect of more than $4 billion for
public-transit projects, are backing away from opposing the massive
transportation bond on the November ballot. The environmentalists also are
daunted by the nearly $7 million in campaign funds amassed by the bond's
supporters.

Over the weekend, the 75-delegate board of the Sierra Club of California
decided against opposing the $19.95 billion bond package, which includes the
money for public transit and $14 billion for road construction, plus other
projects.

Bill Allayaud, the group's legislative director, said Northern California
members pushed to fight the bond, while many Southern California members
wanted to stay neutral.

"There wasn't even a breath of talk about supporting the bond," Allayaud
said.

MISSISSIPPI FEDERAL COURT SAYS NO TO EXPANSIVE READING OF INSURANCE POLICY RE KATRINA DAMAGE

          The Associated Press reported last month on a potentially far-reaching decision by a Mississippi federal court hearing Gulf Coast Hurricane Katrina-related insurance lawsuits:

GULFPORT, Miss. (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Tuesday that an insurance company's policies do not cover damage from flood waters or storm surge in a decision that could affect hundreds of upcoming cases related to property damage from Hurricane Katrina.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter said Paul and Julie Leonard of Pascagoula could be compensated for damage that they could prove was caused by high winds....

[But] "[a]lmost all the damage to the Leonard residence is attributable to the incursion of water," Senter wrote in the 13-page decision.

Senter's ruling could set a precedent for hundreds of other court challenges to the insurance industry for denying billions of dollars in claims after the Aug. 29 hurricane ravaged the coasts of Louisiana and Mississippi.

CIVIL LIBERTIES FOR THE FASHIONABLE

    I came across this posting today at Nomination Watch, a website hosted by the National Women's Law Center whose web slogan is "Support judges who support women's rights."

     I'm not too sure what Clean Water Act issue have to do with the women's rights movement (last I recall, men liked clean water,too); nonetheless, this website somehow sees the two issues as linked:

Federal power to protect the environment, and other national concerns, at risk.  A case involving the scope of the Clean Water Act is another example of how extreme the four-vote block of conservatives can be.  In Rapanos v. United States, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts went too far even for Justice Kennedy, when they took a shockingly narrow view of the application of the Clean Water Act to the nation’s wetlands and waterways.  Justice Kennedy broke ranks with them – although he did not join the more expansive reading of the law offered by Justice Stevens and the other three dissenters, either.

     Hmmm-poor Mr. Rapanos.  If he were a war protester, advocated socialized medicine, or routinely marched with Jesse Jackson, his civil liberties against federal power might have counted for something with the National Women's Law Center.  The problem is he's just, well, so unfashionable.

    I am, however, intersted to observe that the Law Center supports the expansion of federal power.  I am on the lookout for the Law Center's amicus brief in support of the government's appeal defending the NSA's wiretapping program.  If you come across that brief first, let me know.

AN0THER CLIMATE CHANGE WARNING-WITH A TWIST

Now, here is a "counter-conventional wisdom" article from Mosnews.com:

Starting from 2012, the process of global cooling will start on the Earth and by the middle of 21st century the whole planet will be captured by low temperatures, an expert from the Russian Sciences Academy Observatory was quoted by NewsRu.com as saying Monday.

The cause of the expected global cooling is a decrease in the flow of the Sun’s radiation, Khabibulo Absudamatov says.

***

According to Absudamatov, the global cooling will start in 2012 or 2013. By 2035 the Sun’s radiation will reach its minimum, and 15 years later a deep cooling of the Earth’s climate should be expected.

     Go figure.  Maybe all those scientists in the '70's were right.  See Posts of April 8 and February 13, 2006 under "CATEGORIES" "GLOBAL WARMING" right-hand side of this page.