VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL
  • Home
  • In Print
    • Forthcoming
    • Current and Past Volumes
  • Events
    • Symposium
    • Former Symposia
  • Submissions
  • Staff & Alumni
    • Masthead
    • Alumni
    • Senior Managing Board
    • Advisory Board
  • ELRS
  • About Us
  • Subscriptions
  • Membership
  • Contact
  • Notes Pool
  • Blog
  • Home
  • In Print
    • Forthcoming
    • Current and Past Volumes
  • Events
    • Symposium
    • Former Symposia
  • Submissions
  • Staff & Alumni
    • Masthead
    • Alumni
    • Senior Managing Board
    • Advisory Board
  • ELRS
  • About Us
  • Subscriptions
  • Membership
  • Contact
  • Notes Pool
  • Blog

The Legislative History of the National Park Service’s Conservation and Nonimpairment Mandate

12/17/2016

0 Comments

 
 By Caitlin Brown
Caitlin Brown is a 3L at Berkeley Law and Co-Editor in Chief of Ecology Law Quarterly. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate (ELRS). Please post all comments on the original post, which may be found on Ecology Law Quarterly's Website.

​The National Park Service manages over 84 million acres of land divided between 413 different sites, and in 2015 alone, served 307.2 million visitors.[1] Their management goals are based on the 1916 National Park Service Organic Act (“the Act”). Section 1 of the Act defines the Park Service’s purpose as “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”[2] How are conservation and impairment from section 1 of the Act defined in the legislative history? How did these concepts originally enter the legislation, and what did Congress think the implications of the standards were? Professor Eric Biber of Berkeley Law posed these questions to me to assist with his research for an article he wrote with Elisabeth Long Esposito, The National Park Service Organic Act and Climate Change.[3] Given that 2016 is the centennial of the National Park Service’s founding by the Organic Act, a deep dive into the legislative history of the National Park Service seemed timely.

Read More
0 Comments

Our Money is Safe, but the Planet Is Not: How the Carbon Bubble Will Cause Havoc for the Environment, but Not the Stock Market

12/11/2016

0 Comments

 
By Breanna Hayes, Managing Editor, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. Please post all comments on the original post, which may be found on Vermont Journal of Environmental Law's Website.
​
This article focuses on the window of time that companies have to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The article provides a quick overview of public companies and the use of stock.  Then, the article discusses the “Carbon Bubble” and how it compares and contrasts to both the dotcom and housing market bubbles. Finally, the article discusses the environmental impact of the energy industry’s financial choices.
​

Read More
0 Comments

    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
    March 2019
    November 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.