|
By Myles Osborne Myles Osborne is a first-year law student and a General Member on the Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law. He hopes to practice in California. Reach him at mylespar@umich.edu. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. Click here to see the original post and leave a comment. In late October 2015, the Southern California Gas Company’s Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility began spewing natural gas into the air over the San Fernando Valley at a rate of 110,000 pounds per hour.[1] Composed primarily of methane, a “short-lived” climate pollutant[2] with twenty-five times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide,[3] the leak effectively doubled the methane emissions rate for the Los Angeles Basin.[4] With substantial environmental costs and several botched attempts at containment, the leak did not escape comparisons to 2010’s disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil spill[5] as stinking clouds of methane entered the atmosphere, displacing families and businesses in the nearby community of Porter Ranch
0 Comments
By Stacy Shelton Stacy Shelton is a student at Vermont Law School where she serves as a Staff Editor on the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. Click here to see the original post and leave a comment. “If climate change continues unabated and as rapidly as a few models predict, saving at least some species will require solutions more radical than creating parks and shielding endangered species from bullets, bulldozers, and oil spills: It will require moving them.”[1]
By Ben Harris Ben Harris is a 3L at the UCLA School of Law where he serves as Executive Editor for the UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. Click here to see the original post and leave a comment. The Clean Power Plan (“CPP”), announced and promulgated in late 2015 by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and backed by President Barack Obama, seeks to develop a comprehensive regulatory scheme over the nation’s power plants in an effort to promote cleaner energy development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On February 10, 2016, the Supreme Court granted a petition to stay the Clean Power Plan until a legal challenge against it can proceed on the merits. This post 1) provides a short overview of the CPP, 2) explores the history of CPP litigation and the Supreme Court’s recent decision to stay, 3) predicts the future outlook of the CPP, and 4) provides an alternate arrangement by which the EPA could conceivably seek to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the event that the CPP is struck down.
By Jennifer Golinsky Jennifer Golinsky is a student at Georgetown University Law Center, where she is staff contributor to the Georgetown Environmental Law Review. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. Click here to see the original post and leave a comment. When the EPA released its draft of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) in June 2014,[1] commentators were quick to draw comparisons[2] to Obamacare (i.e., the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, hereinafter the ACA).[3] One journalist even dubbed the CPP “Obamacare for the Air” because the Clean Power Plan and the healthcare reform law are both “intensely polarizing” and “numbingly complex in an effort to ensure flexibility and fairness, based on a market system . . . likely to transform a key sector of the economy for decades to come.”[4]
|
About the ELRS:The Environmental Law Review Syndicate (ELRS) is a collaborative effort of the nation’s leading environmental law journals that provides an outlet for student scholarship and fosters academic. ELRS operates as a cooperative syndicate: each week a different student submission is selected for publication on the websites of all member law reviews. Archives
April 2019
Categories |
RSS Feed
