Environmental

Derecho Ambiental / Environmental Law

Posted on

More than 20 states sue Trump administration over changes to environmental law

Source: Jurist

August 31, 2020

-United States-

 More than 20 states filed a lawsuit Friday against the US Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) over changes to a key environmental law.

The lawsuit seeks to vacate a final rule, promulgated in July, which made various changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since 1970, NEPA has served as the US’s “bedrock law for environmental protection by directing federal agencies to make well-informed decisions that protect public health and the environment,” according to the complaint

According to the CEQ and the Trump administration, the rule modernizes NEPA regulations to “streamline the development of infrastructure projects and promote better decision making by the Federal government.”

However, the plaintiffs allege that the rule derails NEPA by limiting which federal actions require compliance with NEPA, limiting federal agencies’ obligations to consider environmental impacts, rendering NEPA’s public participating process useless and unlawfully restricting “judicial review of agency actions that violate NEPA.”

Derecho Ambiental / Environmental Law

Posted on

Australia students launch suit against environment minister in opposition to proposed coal mine

Source: Jurist

September 10, 2020

Eight Australian students filed a class-action lawsuit Wednesday against the Australian Minister for the Environment Sussan Ley in an effort to “protect young people from the climate change impacts” of an Australian coal mine.

The lawsuit comes ahead of the minister’s expected decision on whether to approve the development of a proposed open-cut coal mine, the Vickery Extension Coal Project, in northern New South Wales. The mine first received government approval in 2014. Now, the mine’s parent company seeks to “substantially increase the amount and rate of coal extraction permitted over the life of the mine.”

The students, all under 18, come from all across Australia and are under litigation guardianship. They assert that human activity has contributed to “extraordinary rates of increase in CO2 concentration and [global] surface temperatures” and will “harm—with increasing regularity, scope and intensity—humans and non-human beings, species and ecosystems, and will eventually destroy the life-sustaining systems of the biosphere that support human life.”

The students argue that “unless the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, coal in particular, is constrained, [those] extraordinary rates of increase will continue to rise.” They allege that Minister Ley, in her official capacity, “has a duty to protect young people from the devastating impacts of climate change and that allowing [the project] to be built would breach that duty.” The students seek an injunction to prevent the minister from approving the mine.

release from Equity Generation Lawyers, the Melbourne-based climate change group representing the students, comments that “if approved, the coal burned from the Vickery Extension Project will result in 370 million tonnes of carbon emissions over the next 25 years, further fueling the climate crisis.” Emphasizing the effects of coal, the lawsuit states that, as a result of burning coal, “CO2 is emitted into Earth’s atmosphere, where a substantial portion of it persists for [over] 1,000 years. About 1/3 of present global CO2 emissions are caused by burning coal.”

Australia remains one of the world’s largest producers of coal. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, the country’s “total domestic production has more than doubled since the early 1990s, and export volumes have grown strongly.” This action comes less than two months after a 23-year-old Australian law student filed a lawsuit against the federal government for failing to disclose climate change-related risks to investors in government bonds.

Derecho Ambiental / Environmental Law

Posted on

Water Issues and Climate Change in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Source: Jurist

July 16, 2020

The conflict between Israel and Palestine and climate change are factors which have been feeding each other for many years, especially when there is no apparent comprehensive solution on the horizon. The political conflict and climate change have had a severe ongoing impact on Palestine, especially for water restrictions. Nevertheless, Israel and Palestine have international law obligations which include their commitments under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change 2016 (Paris Agreement) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which has been adopted by both parties.

In Palestine, there have recently been aggressive changes in weather patterns such as heatwaves, as well as an increased frequency and intensity of rainfall leading to floods and droughts. These occurrences, coupled with the political conflict, have been threatening Palestine’s agriculture, food security, and water.

Since the 1967 Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories (OPT), Israel has controlled shared water in the region, including both the surface and groundwater. Israel has been utilizing more than 85% of these resources, leaving only 15% for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Such control has deprived the Palestinian Authority of accessing an equitable and reasonable share of trans-boundary shared water and natural resources. The shortage of water and the Israeli restrictions on access to clean water are becoming more disastrous for the approximately four million Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.

Both Israel and Palestine ratified and became parties to the UNFCCC in 1996 and 2016, respectively. Building on the UNFCCC, in 2016 the Paris Agreement brought “all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so.” Both Israel and Palestine ratified the Paris Agreement in 2016.

Under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, Israel and Palestine have committed inter alia to the main principles and goals of these agreements, which aim to reduce human harm on the climate. Additionally, under these agreements, as part of the objective to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, both parties have committed to present a Nationally Determined Contributions and National Communications which present their adaptation and mitigation efforts to combat impact of climate change.

Despite the lack of full control over their territories and natural resources, the Palestinians have been engaged in several projects dealing with the harm of climate change. In 2010, the Palestinian Authority developed a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Program of Action. The strategy identified water as the priority focus of climate change impacts and recognized agriculture as the most sensitive sector of the Palestinian economy. The strategy further included several important findings and key facts on climate change in OPT, mainly lack of security in both water and food sectors, the Jordan Valley and Gaza Strip have the highest levels of climate vulnerability and the “need for climate modeling and research capacity-building in the OPT tailored to Palestinian adaptation priorities in the face of future climate risks”, despite the “significant uncertainties about the precise impacts of climate change in the region”.

As a non-Annex I Party to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, Israel has submitted Intended NDC and National Communications reports demonstrating the mitigation and adaptation efforts which have been adopted. Israel’s reports demonstrate key developments such as Israel’s strong economic growth, with an average annual growth of approximately 4% over 2010-2016, and a decrease of water consumption per capita by 20% from between 2000-2015. Additionally, in 2016 the Israeli government approved a National Plan to reduce GHG Emissions and Increase Energy Efficiency and re-activated a National Support Mechanism for Energy Efficiency and Emission Reduction projects.

As an occupying power in the OPT, Israel’s actions are subject to a binding legal framework, which consists of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law. The duties of the occupying power are set out mainly in the 1907 Hague Regulations (articles 42-56) and the Fourth Geneva Convention (articles 27-34 and 47-78), as well as in certain provisions of Additional Protocol I and customary international humanitarian law. While acting as a temporary occupant, Israel’s most crucial duty is to respect and protect the fundamental rights of the protected population. Israel has a number of specific legal responsibilities with regards to the natural wealth of the OPT, which include water, soil, land, environment, and infinite and renewable natural resources. First, Israel should be acting “only as administrator” of the public immovable property in the OPT and has no legal authority to exploit natural resources for the benefit of its own economy. Second, it is forbidden for Israel to transfer its civilian population into the OPT or to annex any part of the territories into its own. Third, and most importantly, it is Israel’s duty as an occupying power to act as a trustee towards the Palestinian protected population and commit to good governance.

During the past years, the occupation of the OPT by Israel has been expanding. In addition to annexing East Jerusalem, Israel has been continuing with illegal settlement projects in the West Bank. In addition to constituting grave violations to international law and Palestinians’ rights, the Israeli settlements further expand the environmental harm through the continuous construction of settlements, growth of settlers’ population, and settlers’ arson attacks on Palestinians’ green trees in the West Bank. Moreover, Israel’s restrictions on Palestinians’ freedom of movement and access to natural resources, land, and water not only violates Israel’s duty as a trustee but also hinders the Palestinians from economically developing their territories.

The water crisis caused by climate change and as Israeli restrictions, especially in Gaza, is creating a serious public health issue. The continuous armed conflict is severely deteriorating the living conditions in Gaza, and greatly contributing to the environmental harm within the territory. For example, Israeli military operation in Gaza Strip used certain high-tech weaponry which increased CO2 emissions. The Israeli military operations in Gaza Strip have resulted in a variety of environmental impacts on water, soil, and air. In its operations, Israel destroyed the Gaza power plant, which supplies one-third of energy needs in the Gaza Strip, as well as water pumps and wastewater treatment plants.

Customary international law evolved from historical norms to assist neighboring states to share their trans-boundary water resources equitably and to handle the inevitable changes in natural conditions, such changes in annual rainfall, without serious or violent conflict. These international norms were largely codified in the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, the Basel Convention and the Helsinki Rules. These norms conform to fundamental fairness considerations and have been cited already several times by the International Court of Justice as reflecting the current state of customary international law applicable to all states. The norms are governed by three main principles: (1) equitable and reasonable utilization of water; (2) no significant harm to other states; and (3) prompt notification to all others sharing the water resources of plans or actions that may have a material effect on them.

Given the fact that climate change is becoming a major key player in the resolution of the Palestinian Israeli conflict, the international community should adjust their expectations from Israel and Palestine in accordance to the reality on ground. Palestine’s obligations to meet its international environmental commitments should be considered in the eye of being an occupied territory which lacks control on most of is natural resources. Similarly, Israel’s obligations to meet its international environmental commitments should be seen in the eye of being an occupying state, which has de facto control over most of Palestine’s natural resources. Hence, the assessment of Israel’s mitigation efforts, and whether or not it satisfies international environmental obligations, should not only be limited to efforts taken within its internationally recognized borders (excluding the occupied territories), but also on the occupied territories as long as these territories are still subject to Israeli control and restrictions.

Derecho Ambiental / Environmental Law

Posted on

Supreme Court declines to consider border wall waiver case

Source: Jurist

June 29, 2020

The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal by the Center for Biological Diversity, Animal Defense Legal Defense Fund and others challenging the constitutionality of the Department of Homeland Security’s waiver of federal, state and local laws in construction of a southern border wall. The Center for Biological Diversity challenged six waiver decisions, which waived more than 40 federal laws, in order to expedite the construction of 145 miles of border wall in Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas. The petition claimed the waivers violate the separation of powers, the non-delegation doctrine and the Presentment Clause of the Constitution.

The Department of Homeland Security waived numerous regulatory requirements, including those required by the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. “Construction of a wall that cuts through the heart of vitally protected wildlife refuges, forests, and conservation areas will have devastating effects on wildlife, such as jaguars, Mexican gray wolves, and ocelots, who call the border their home,” according to Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director Stephen Well.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled last week that the Trump administration lacked the constitutional authority to transfer Department of Defense Funds to pay for the border wall.

Derecho Ambiental / Environmental Law

Posted on

Federal judge rules government failed to protect endangered whales in favor of lobster fishing industry

Source: Jurist

April 10, 2020

-United States-

 A judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Thursday that the federal government has failed to protect the North Atlantic right whale in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.

The North Atlantic right whale was one of the first animals to be protected under the act, and the current population is around 400, fewer than 100 of which are breeding females. The Center for Biological Diversity filed the suit against National Marine Fisheries Service for policies that allowed the lucrative lobster fishing industry to carry on in a way that threatens the North Atlantic right whale, as the largest modern threats to the species are ship strikes and fishing-gear entanglement.

According to the ruling, “In 2014, National Marine Fisheries Service produced a Biological Opinion finding that, despite its potential to harm the species in unsustainable numbers, the American lobster fishery would not jeopardize the continued existence of the North Atlantic right whale.”

The court found that the Service failed to adhere to the requirements set forth by the Endangered Species Act, and so declared the Biological Opinion to be illegal. The court ordered a briefing as to further remedies.

This is not the first suit the Center for Biological Diversity has filed against National Marine Fisheries Service to protect an endangered whale species.

General

Posted on

Write On! Environmental Crimes Conference

Source: Jurist

February 9, 2020

The Common Good Foundation in partnership with Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, The Center for World Indigenous Studies, The Jersey Law Commission, and The Resolution Journal, is hosting the 2nd Environmental Crimes Conference on October 1st and 2nd 2020 in St. Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands, United Kingdom.

The purpose of the conference is to bring together professionals from diverse disciplines around the world to discuss emerging trends and responses to environmental crimes.

The deadline for abstract submission is Friday, March 6, 2020 at midnightNotifications of acceptance will be delivered by the end of March 2020. Publication opportunities will be available for accepted presenters. Additional information and the form for abstract submission can be found here.

Derecho Ambiental / Environmental Law

Posted on

US files complaint against California for international cap-and-trade agreement

Source: Jurist

October 24, 2019

-United Nations-

The US government filed a civil complaint against the state of California Wednesday for entering into a cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec. According to the federal government, California overstepped its state powers by entering into an international climate change agreement in 2013 with a foreign nation. Cap-and-trade agreements are a major component of California’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to the state of California, also listed on the complaint are: Gavin Newsom, the governor of California; the leadership of and the organization California Air Resources BoardJared Blumenfield, the Secretary of Environmental Protection; and board members of the Western Climate Initiative.

The complaint condemns California’s behavior stating that: “Allowing individual states in the Union to conduct their own foreign policy to advance their own narrow interests is thus anathema to our system of government and, if tolerated, would unlawfully enhance state power at the expense of the United States and undermine the United States’ ability to negotiate competitive international agreements. ”

Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bossert Clark of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division said: “California’s unlawful cap-and-trade agreement with Quebec undermines the President’s ability to negotiate competitive agreements with other nations, as the President sees fit.”

The US is calling for relief through a declaration that the agreement is in violation of the Constitution, a permanent injunction against the agreement, the cost of the suit and additional relief that court deems just and proper.

Derecho Ambiental / Environmental Law

Posted on

India environment court orders measures against airport noise pollution         

Source: Jurist

May 24, 2019

 India’s environment tribunal, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), on Tuesday directed the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and the Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) to implement measures authorized by it in a 2017 decision. The order aims to curb noise pollution in India’s capital New Delhi.

NGT Chairperson Adarsh Kumar Goel and two other judicial members, Judge SP Wangdi, and Judge K Ramakrishnan, pronounced the decision in a bid to reduce noise pollution in the vicinity of New Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International (IGI) airport.

The bench ordered the government to “take all mitigating measures for reducing noise pollution…expeditiously.” According to the order, the measures include “construction of sound barriers” around the airport “at the earliest.” The government has also been directed to provide for “a green belt around the boundary wall of the airport while keeping the safety and security both in mind. The plantations shall be of the species that would only grow to the permissible height or would be maintained at the permissible height only.”

Relevant authorities such as the AAI are to issue instructions to airlines “whose aircraft land at the runway of the IGI airport to ensure judgment-based use of reverse thrust keeping in view weather, length of the runway, wind, and other attendant circumstances to reduce the noise level particularly at the time of landing of aircraft.” The measures are not limited to structures around the airport or the aircraft. Public transport used at the airport is also expected to adhere to environmental norms. “All the coaches/buses and other vehicles plying at the airport should be Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and must comply with the prescribed emission standards. Non-CNG buses/coaches or other vehicles plying at the airport should be converted to CNG,” the order reads.

Derecho Ambiental / Environmental Law

Posted on

India environment court suspends plan to expand coal-based power plant

Source: Jurist

March 18, 2019

 India’s environment tribunal, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), has suspended an environmental clearance issued by the government of the state of Karnataka for the expansion of an existing coal-based power plant in Udupi district. The state government had issued its environmental clearance for the proposed expansion in 2017.

Friday’s decision saw the NGT take cognizance of the adverse findings of a group of experts on the environmental situation in the region. It was observed that the mismanagement of the environment had contaminated the soil, air and both the surface water and groundwater reserves in the power plant’s vicinity.

The New Delhi-based principal bench of the tribunal ordered the operator of the power plant to pay a fine of 50 million Indian rupees to the Central Pollution Control Board as an “interim environmental compensation” within a month. In doing so, the tribunal exercised powers vested in it by Section 20 of the National Green Tribunal Act, which mandates that the tribunal apply the “polluter pays” principle, among other environmental law doctrines.

The bench also ordered a committee comprising senior scientists to assess the environmental damage caused due to the operation of the power plant.

Derecho Ambiental / Environmental Law

Posted on

India environment tribunal penalizes state government for damage to lakes

Source: Jurist

December 07, 2018

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), a judicial body that adjudicates environmental matters in India, on Friday imposed a penalty of 500 million Indian Rupees (approximately USD $7 million) on the state government of Karnataka for failing to protect lakes in its capital city of Bangalore.

The tribunal also directed the government to deposit 5 billion Indian Rupees (approximately USD $70 million) in an escrow account to facilitate environmental regeneration in the city’s lakes, as per the “polluter pays” principle.

Finding that the government has been negligent in protecting the city’s lakes and in keeping storm-water drains free from encroachment by unauthorized commercial and residential buildings, the NGT directed it to come up with an “action plan” to mitigate the damage to the lakes and tackle the situation within a month.

A retired Supreme Court judge, Santosh Hegde, has been appointed to lead a committee tasked with ensuring governmental adherence to the timelines of this action plan. It will also set up a website and garner complaints and suggestions from citizens. The state government is to issue a 1 billion Indian Rupee (approximately USD $14 million) performance guarantee, in case it fails to implement the action plan.

Polluted lakes frothing with toxic foam have been a concern in Bangalore. Bellandur lake, one of the city’s most polluted, has caught fire twice in two years and is a health hazard for residents. A report published by a committee of Karnataka legislators has found that of the 1,547 lakes in the city, only 158 lakes have not been encroached upon by government agencies and private builders.