Iisd. (2019, January). Environmental Law Review Explores Need for Global Pact | News | SDG Knowledge Hub | IISD. Retrieved from https://sdg.iisd.org/news/environmental-law-review-explores-need-for-global-pact/

This paper discusses the need for universalizing environmental pacts basically to ensure that everyone involved is on the same “wavelength.” Citing language barriers, a difference in technical terms in different locations etc. the author calls for ensuring greater understanding for all parties.

I agree with the author of this paper. While I am not totally sure of how accurate or relevant her claims are of there being rampant confusion in environmental pacts, I de believe that the best case would just to be sure that there is no confusion at all. Weighing based on a risk/reward sort of mechanism, to me it makes perfect sense to put in whatever extra work required to ensure more robust pacts that are respected by those involved.

Itzhak, Zahi, & Viehs, B. K. (2019, February 04). Harvard Business Review Research: When Environmental Regulations Are Tighter at Home, Companies Emit More Abroad. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2019/02/research-when-environmental-regulations-are-tighter-at-home-companies-emit-more-abroad

This research paper discusses a study done by Harvard University investigating the rate of greenhouse emissions per country based on their imports, exports, and manufacturing locations. The study found that when a country such as the United States tightens their environmental regulations and begins to emit less, a country they have (usually manufacturing) relations with will increase their emissions at a similar rate. The underlying evidence indicates that the emissions were effectively just transferred overseas to a location with less strict regulation, sometimes called a pollution haven.

This is an issue which we have been trying to tackle in other industries for  a while and has proven very difficult to enforce. For example, US citizens may hold assets overseas in tax haven countries where they can get away with paying lower taxes. It is imperative however that we solve this problem as it offsets any positive changes that happens in a country. I think a great way to approach this dilemma is from a point of global treaties such as the Paris accord, but making sure that less developed or wealthy countries are still included, as these often have large manufacturing industries or other energy-intensive/environmentally destructive practices.

Commentary: CEOs Need to Lead on Climate Change Policy. (2019, February). Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2019/02/21/climate-change-policy-corporate-sustainability/

This article discusses the importance of businesses implementing their own measures to comply with environmental laws and regulation. It is a simple idea overall, basically stating that if businesses do not change their ways to fit within new regulation, there will be no forward progress in fighting climate change.

I am in strong agreement with the opinion written into this article. Another article I did earlier talked about how despite environmental law and regulation, most nations are not able to improve their impact on the natural ecosystem at the rate they should be able to. It is pointless and even counterproductive to enact policy without following it. One, there is clearly no progress if nothing changes and then things can actually be made worse due to consequences of a masking effect outlined by Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker. The masking effect constitutes that there is an illusion of something good, progress being made, when there is actually none. This causes people to relax even more because they are captured by the illusion that things are better than they actually are.  

190204124200. (2019, February 04). Environmental regulations may have unintended consequences in energy production. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190204124200.htm

This article discuss results from a study done by Carnegie Mellon University on unintended consequences of alternative energy production. The results of the study were concerning as it was discovered that while most countries have passed laws and regulations to protect natural ecosystems, this often resulted in energy production consequences such as emitting more greenhouse gasses than before.

This study was conducted over 110 countries and 33 states within the US, concluding that the preservation of natural ecosystems often serves as an opportunity cost regarding greenhouse emissions. Carnegie Mellon found that “on average, each megawatt of fossil fuel power-generating capacity added to the grid because of environmental constraints on hydropower development led to an increase in annual carbon dioxide emissions of about 1,400 tons.” We have to decide how we as a society want to balance our efforts between preservation of ecosystems and considering greenhouse emissions. I think that prioritizing renewable energy could help to mitigate both of these issues simultaneously.

Brown, K. (2019, January 29). Most Countries Have Environmental Regulations. Very Few Actually Abide by Them. Retrieved from https://psmag.com/environment/the-key-to-climate-change-is-getting-countries-to-follow-the-law

This article illustrates a study done by the United Nations which illuminates a near-ubiquitous disregard for environmental law and regulation globally. It found that there are 176 countries with environmental regulations, but 172 countries seem to be very relaxed around enforcement and the like. The remainder of the article discusses the dangers of not protecting the planet, which all of us are very familiar with by now.

This article sparked worry for me and makes me feel uncomfortable on the grounds of helplessness. It upsets me because we can see people who understand the dire implications of not respecting the environment are able to cause policy change but that often has next to zero tangible effects. It seems to be a common theme throughout the planet that environmental laws are not taken as seriously as other regulations and policy which is a dangerous precedent to set as it normalizes the low value placed on the environment.

MervisNov, J. (2018, November 13). With Democrats in control of U.S. House, science panel gets fresh start. Retrieved from https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/democrats-control-us-house-science-panel-gets-fresh-start

As the Democrats gained a majority in the house of representatives after the midterm elections, there is solid speculation that Democrats will be able to have a positive impact on United States environmental policy. With an added check and balance of the House, Democrats can now approve or disapprove initiatives related to the environment before they are passed. The policy examined here would include things like the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency, which has routinely been cut in past years.

Even as a nonpartisan citizen, I am encouraged by the fact that Democrats now have control of the house of representatives on the basis of climate and environmental policy. In recent years, the democratic party has been much more active in the role of progressive climate initiatives. I think that this will have an overall positive effect on the environment because not only can there now be higher quality and quantity of initiatives proposed,  but there is also another level of verification for things like environmental policy rollbacks and other movements of that nature.

Appleby, J. (2018, November 12). High stakes, entrenched interests and the Trump rollback of environmental regulations. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/Health/high-stakes-entrenched-interests-trump-rollback-environmental-regulations/story?id=59142295

Since his presidential campaign, President Donald Trump has promised to roll back environmental regulations and make other similar changes such as pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, and he has been moving towards these things. Due to this, there are a number of lawsuits coming from states and private organizations alike. Much of this regulation loss is based off the rationale that it will create lots of jobs.

I am in support of most of those posing lawsuits against the Trump administration here because I think that there is a poor allocation of priorities coming from where it is most important, the federal government. On the topic of creating more jobs, I think the jobs could still be created but they would be different. Instead of revamping jobs in coal and oil industries, we could instead place those workers in more efficient industries such as solar or wind power. The longer that we lay low on regulation and the like, the worse the climate gets and the more harmful chemicals are released into the atmosphere. Rather than spending money on these lawsuits, the money could be better spend moving forward and progressing towards a better future.

Withers, R. (2018, November 10). Trump responds to the worst fires in California’s history by threatening to withhold federal aid. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/11/10/18082282/trump-blames-california-wildfires-forest-management-climate-change

President Donald Trump released statements about recent California wildfires blaming poor forest management as the reason. His rationale was that there was “Billions and Billions” given by the Federal Government and it is being allocated poorly within the state. The article states that this is a common pattern of the president placing blame on the state for its fires.

For the comments released by the President, I am somewhat unsure how I should feel. At some level, I think that the fires are due in part to the management strategies of the state. The placement of homes, lack of defensible space, extreme density of forests, and more all played a part in the intensity and how devastating the fires have been. That being said, there are a number of very important factors that played significant parts that are not the fault of the state, such as California’s lack of water, recent El Nino rainfall levels followed by very dry periods, and of course, a hotter than ever climate. Wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem, so the goal is to allow these fires to burn without threatening lives and property.

Kavanaugh’s track record on environmental law favors business over climate change protections. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-10-23/kavanaugh-s-track-record-environmental-law-favors-business-over-climate-change

Recently appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has a track record over his thirty years of law of favoring businesses and corporations’ interests over those of the environment. The article indicates that during the process of bringing Kavanaugh into the court, there was too much focus on his sexual assault allegations and not enough on his actual legal history. He has a track record of strict interpretations overall.

With the ever-growing problems relating to climate change, someone with this track record in the Supreme Court could prove problematic moving forward as the issue gets worse and worse. One example of this is when “Kavanaugh looked at the language of the Clean Air Act and said, ‘No, EPA’s authority is limited to substituting one ozone deplete for another, but it can’t take climate change into account when it looks at alternatives.’” Being on the SCOTUS gives Kavanaugh tons of influence over the culture of business practices towards environmental factors, and when there is less focus on saving the environment, it could prove detrimental to environmental health longer term.

EPA, Justice Department and State of Mississippi Reach Settlement with Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Requiring Nationwide Safety and Chemical Accident Prevention Measures. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-justice-department-and-state-mississippi-reach-settlement-chevron-usa-inc

In 2012, a Richmond, California Chevron oil refinery released high-temperature hydrocarbons into the air which resulted in many employee lives being put at risk as well as 15,000 local residents being forced to seek medical attention. As a result, Chevron was sued and settled with the EPA for over 160 million dollars in total costs as they will have to compensate workers, fix and inspect pipes and refineries all over, as well as add routine checks to prevent this from happening again.

I think that it was the right move for the EPA to prosecute Chevron on this matter, and if anything, the settlement was too low. That being said, I was impressed with the fact that so many new regulation type restrictions were imposed upon Chevron with preventative measures to ensure that this does not happen again. The $160 million+ that Chevron will have to shell out is the largest settlement of its kind in history. EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Assistant Administrator Susan Bodine says “This case demonstrates the importance of performing equipment inspections and maintenance in accordance with environmental regulations” which I agree with. So many people were negatively affected by this and it could have been much worse.