Showing posts with label Environmental Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environmental Law. Show all posts

17 July 2013

RAG RADIO / Thorne Dreyer : Texas Law Prof Gerald Torres on Voting Rights, Affirmative Action & More

University of Texas law professor Gerald Torres in the studios of KOOP-FM in Austin, Texas, Friday, July 12, 2013. Photos by Roger Baker / The Rag Blog.
Rag Radio podcast:
UT-Austin law prof Gerald Torres
joins us on Rag Radio

We discuss the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on voting rights and affirmative action, plus immigration reform, Atmospheric Trust litigation, Native American sovereignty, and much more.
By Rag Radio / The Rag Blog / July 17, 2013

University of Texas law professor Gerald Torres was Thorne Dreyer's guest on Rag Radio, Friday, July 12, 2013. Torres, who holds the Bryant Smith Chair in Law at the University of Texas, is an expert on environmental and agricultural law, critical race theory, and federal Indian law.

And he plays a mean harmonica!

Rag Radio is a syndicated radio program produced at the studios of KOOP 91.7-FM, a cooperatively-run all-volunteer community radio station in Austin, Texas.

Listen to or download this episode of Rag Radio here:


Among issues that Professor Torres discusses with us on the show are the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on voting rights and affirmative action, plus immigration reform, Atmospheric Trust litigation, and Native American sovereignty.

Gerald Torres, who was associate dean of the University of Minnesota Law School before coming to UT-Austin, has served as deputy assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and as counsel to then U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.

His book, The Miner’s Canary: Enlisting Race, Resisting Power, Transforming Democracy (Harvard University Press), written with Harvard Law Professor Lani Guinier, was described by Publisher’s Weekly as “one of the most provocative and challenging books on race produced in years.”

Gerald Torres in performance!
Professor Torres is a past president of the Association of American Law Schools. He has served on the board of the Environmental Law Institute, the National Petroleum Council, and on EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Law Institute.

Torres was honored with the 2004 Legal Service Award from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) for his work to advance the legal rights of Latinos. He currently is Board Chair of the Advancement Project, the nation’s leading social and racial justice organization. He is also on the board of the Natural Resources Defense Council and is Vice-Chairman of the Board of Earth Day Network.

He has been a visiting professor at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale law schools.


Rag Radio is hosted and produced by Rag Blog editor and long-time alternative journalist Thorne Dreyer, a pioneer of the Sixties underground press movement.

The show has aired since September 2009 on KOOP 91.7-FM, an all-volunteer cooperatively-run community radio station in Austin, Texas. Rag Radio is broadcast live every Friday from 2-3 p.m. (CDT) on KOOP and is rebroadcast on Sundays at 10 a.m. (EDT) on WFTE, 90.3-FM in Mt. Cobb, PA, and 105.7-FM in Scranton, PA.

The show is streamed live on the web by both stations and, after broadcast, all Rag Radio shows are posted as podcasts at the Internet Archive.

Rag Radio is produced in association with The Rag Blog, a progressive Internet newsmagazine, and the New Journalism Project, a Texas 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. Tracey Schulz is the show's engineer and co-producer.

Rag Radio can be contacted at ragradio@koop.org.

Coming up on Rag Radio:
THIS FRIDAY,
July 19, 2013: Sociologist, media critic, and author Todd Gitlin.
Friday, July 26, 2013: Sanford, FL-based political science prof Jay D. Jurie, on the consequences of the Trayvon Martin verdict.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

04 August 2012

David Morris : Texas Judge Rules Sky Belongs to the People

The sky! Image from Wikimedia Commons.

Texas judge rules:
'The sky belongs to everyone'
Is this a 'shot heard round the world' for fight against climate change?
By David Morris / On the Commons / August 4, 2012

“Texas judge rules atmosphere, air is a public trust," reads the headline in the Boston Globe. A tiny breakthrough but with big potential consequences.

And as we continue to suffer from one of the most extended heat waves in U.S. history, as major crops have withered and fires raged in a dozen states, we need all the tiny breakthroughs we can get.

The “public trust” doctrine is a legal principle derived from English Common Law. Traditionally it has applied to water resources. The waters of the state are deemed a public resource owned by and available to all citizens equally for the purposes of navigation, fishing, recreation, and other uses.

The owner cannot use that resource in a way that interferes with the public’s use and interest. The public trustee, usually the state, must act to maintain and enhance the trust’s resources for the benefit of future generations.

Back in 2001, Peter Barnes, a co-founder of Working Assets (now CREDO) and On the Commons as well as one of the most creative environmentalists around, proposed the atmosphere be treated as a public trust in his pathbreaking book, Who Owns the Sky: Our Common Assets and the Future of Capitalism (Island Press).

In 2007, in a law review article, University of Oregon Professor Mary Christina Wood elaborated on similar idea of a Nature’s Trust. “With every trust there is a core duty of protection,” she wrote. “The trustee must defend the trust against injury. Where it has been damaged, the trustee must restore the property in the trust.”

She noted that the idea itself is not new.

In 1892,
when private enterprise threatened the shoreline of Lake Michigan, the Supreme Court said, "It would not be listened to that the control and management of [Lake Michigan] -- a subject of concern to the whole people of the state -- should... be placed elsewhere than in the state itself." You can practically hear those same Justices saying today that "[i]t would not be listened to" that government would let our atmosphere be dangerously warmed in the name of individual, private property rights.
In 2010 Wood, along with Julia Olson, Executive Director of Our Children’s Trust, “had the vision to organize a coordinated international campaign of attorneys, youth, and media around the idea that the climate crisis could be addressed as a whole system,” Peter Barnes observes, replacing a situation in which “legal solutions were fragmented, focused on closing down a particular power plant or seeking justice for a particular endangered species, threatened neighborhood or body of water impacted by our fossil fuel abuse.”

On behalf of the youth of America, Our Children’s Trust, Kids Versus Global Warming, and others began filing suits around the country, arguing the atmosphere is a public trust. So far cases have been filed in 13 states.

In Texas, after a petition to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to institute proceedings to reduce greenhouse gases was dismissed, the Texas Environmental Law Center sued on behalf of a group of children and young adults. The Center asserted the State of Texas had a fiduciary duty to reduce emissions as the common law trustee of a “public trust” responsible for the air and atmosphere.

The lawsuit argued,
The atmosphere, including the air, is one of the most crucial assets of our public trust... Global climate change threatens to dry up most of these waters, turning them from gorgeous, life-giving springs into dangerous flash-flooding drainages when the rare, heavy rains do come. The outdoors will be inhospitable and the children will have few places to recreate in nature as the climate changes. They will be living in a world of drought, water shortages and restrictions, and desertification.
The TCEQ argued the public trust doctrine applies only to water. Judge Gisela Triana, of the Travis County District Court disagreed. Her letter decision, issued on July 12, 2012, stated, “[t]he doctrine includes all natural resources of the State.”

The court went further to argue that the public trust doctrine “is not simply a common law doctrine” but is incorporated into the Texas Constitution, which (1) protects “the conservation and development of all the resources of the State,” (2) declares conservation of those resources “public rights and duties,” and (3) directs the Legislature to pass appropriate laws to protect these resources.

The immediate impact of the case is limited. Noting that a number of climate change cases were wending their way up the judicial ladder, Judge Triana upheld the TCEQ decision not to exercise its authority.

But a few days after Judge Triana’s ruling, Judge Sarah Singleton of the New Mexico District Court denied the state’s motion to dismiss a similar case. That will now move forward.

The Texas court is the first to support the possibility that the “public trust” doctrine may justify the creation of an atmospheric trust. One Houston law firm advised its clients the decision “may represent a ‘shot heard ‘round the world’ in climate change litigation... Given the stakes involved in such cases, clients should monitor these suits carefully -- and perhaps participate as amicus curiae to support the state’s attorneys’ arguments.”

What a delicious irony if future generations could look back to Texas as the catalyst that ultimately afforded legal protection to the sky.

[David Morris is Vice President and Director of the New Rules Project at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which is based in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., focusing on local economic and social development. This article was first published at On the Commons under a Creative Commons license, and was distributed by Common Dreams.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

02 March 2011

Think Progress : The Koch Brothers' War on Mainstreet

Charles and David: The brothers Koch. Image from AlterNet.

The Kochs vs. Mainstreet:
The right-wing billionaires'
open war on everyday Americans


By Think Progress / AlterNet / March 2, 2011

Koch Industries, the private company of the billionaire Koch brothers Charles and David, is an oil and gas, chemicals, cattle, forestry, and synthetics giant -- and also a major force for punishing Main Street Americans. Charles and David Koch (pronounced "coke") have directed many millions of their shared $43 billion net worth into a vast propaganda machine that's corrupting American politics in order to reward their pollution-based enterprise.

The Koch brothers have played an integral role in provoking Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker's notorious attempt to crush Wisconsin's public sector unions. Koch Industries contributed $43,000 to Walker's gubernatorial campaign, and Koch political operatives encouraged the newly elected governor to take on the unions. Koch Industries is a major player in Wisconsin: Koch owns a coal company subsidiary with facilities in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland, and Sheboygan; six timber plants throughout the state; and a large network of pipelines.

Since the showdown began two weeks ago, Koch-funded front groups like Americans for Prosperity (AFP) -- which is chaired by David Koch -- and the American Legislative Exchange Council have organized counter-protests, prepped GOP lawmakers with anti-labor legislative talking points, and even announced an anti-union advertising campaign. For now, however, the AFP message doesn't appear to be resonating: Koch-backed pro-Walker demonstrations have had low attendance and were dwarfed by pro-union supporters in Madison this week.


Knee-capping unions

In a speech earlier this month at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Americans For Prosperity-Michigan Executive Director Scott Hagerstrom revealed the true goal of his group and allies like Walker.

Speaking at CPAC's "Panel for Labor Policy," Hagerstrom said that even more than cutting taxes and regulations, AFP really wants to "take the unions out at the knees ." Knee-capping free labor has long been a goal of the Koch brothers and their many front groups. In the run-up to the 2010 elections, the Kochs worked with other anti-labor billionaires, corporations, and activists to fund conservative candidates and groups across the country.

Now after viciously opposing pro-middle class policies for years, Koch Industries is trying to eliminate the only organizations which serve as a counterweight to its well-oiled corporate machine. Believing he was talking with David Koch, Walker told a prankste about his plans to crush the unions. Koch's AFP operatives are now working with "state officials in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to urge them to duplicate Walker's crusade in Wisconsin."


Pushing poison

According to EPA databases, Koch businesses are huge polluters, emitting thousands of pounds of toxic pollutants. As soon as he got into office, Walker started cutting environmental regulations and appointed a Republican known for her disregard for environmental regulations to lead the Department of Natural Resources. In addition, Walker has stated his opposition to clean energy jobs policies that might draw workers away from Koch-owned interests.

The Koch political poison has spread across the nation. Robocalls from Koch's Americans for Prosperity group flooded New Hampshire in support of a bill that would repeal participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which has cut greenhouse pollution and created 1,130 jobs as a result of energy efficiency benefits.

AFP climate deniers in New Jersey are trying to kill RGGI there as well. Koch's main man in Congress, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), inserted an amendment to slash EPA funding in the House GOP's already wildly anti-environment budget. Koch's many subsidiaries have filed challenges against health and environmental rules from toxic chemical disclosure to dumping in streams.


Rich Fink defends Kochs

Even while local business leaders have called for Walker to end his assault on Wisconsin unions, Koch executives have said that they "will not step back at all" and have pointed to the importance of their "grassroots" group, saying, "it is good to have them on the ground, in the battle, trying to help out." Rich Fink, the executive vice president of Koch Industries who oversees their ideological campaigns, defended the billionaire brothers in an interview with the National Review Online by blaming "the Left."
With the Left trying to intimidate the Koch brothers to back off of their support for freedom and signaling to others that this is what happens if you oppose the administration and its allies, we have no choice but to continue to fight.
The Koch brothers, who have been increasing their personal wealth by billions even as they have fired thousands of workers, are really just victims of a vast left-wing conspiracy, Fink claims.
This is part of an orchestrated campaign that has been going on for many months. It involves the Obama administration, the Center for American Progress, aligned left-wing groups, and their friends in the media. This is just the latest salvo in their attacks on the Koch brothers and Koch Industries. But it is an escalation -- they're now bringing in some labor groups, which they have not done before.
Somehow, Rich Fink seems unaware that his own operatives have declared open war on American workers.

[This story was originally published by Think Progress and was distributed by AlterNet.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

26 January 2009

The Conflicting Imperatives of Science and Law

Ed Abney, of Berea, Ky., has Parkinson’s disease after two decades of working with a solvent. He has had trouble proving a link. Photo: Carla Winn for The New York Times.

Exposed to Solvent, Worker Faces Hurdles
By Felicity Barringer / January 24, 2009

BEREA, Ky. — When the University of Kentucky published new research in 2008 suggesting that exposure to a common industrial solvent might increase the risk for Parkinson’s disease, the moment was a source of satisfaction to Ed Abney, a 53-year-old former tool-and-die worker.

Mr. Abney, now sidelined by Parkinson’s, had spent more than two decades up to his elbows in a drum of the solvent, trichloroethylene, while he cleaned metal piping at a now-shuttered Dresser Industries plant here.

The university study had focused on him and his factory co-workers who worked near the same 55-gallon drum of the vaguely sweet-smelling chemical. It found that 27 workers had either the anxiety, tremors, rigidity or other symptoms associated with Parkinson’s, or had motor skills that were significantly impaired, compared with a healthy peer group. The study, Mr. Abney thought, was the scientific evidence he needed to claim worker’s compensation benefits.

He was wrong. The medical researchers would not sign the form attesting that Mr. Abney’s disease was linked to his work.

Individuals like Mr. Abney are caught between the conflicting imperatives of science and law — and there is a huge gap between what researchers are discovering about environmental contaminants and what they can prove about their impact on disease. The gap has ensured that only a tiny fraction of worker’s compensation payments are received by those who were exposed to harmful substances at work.

“It’s awfully difficult for any doctor or researcher to say to an individual: ‘You have this disease because you were exposed at this time,’ ” said J. Paul Leigh, a professor of public health sciences at the University of California, Davis.

How many people are caught in the same bind as Mr. Abney, “nobody really knows,” said Rafael Metzger, a California lawyer who specializes in cases involving diseases contracted in the workplace.

“Most workers who have an occupational disease don’t think they have an occupational disease,” Mr. Metzger said, adding that “the few who might think it are mostly not successful” in getting compensation “because there isn’t a robust body of literature to support the claim.”

Mr. Abney’s wife, Anita Susan Abney, is frustrated by the high standard of proof required. “If you’re saying in your study, ‘Yes, the dots have been connected,’ you should be able to say it in a court of law,” Ms. Abney said. “You should be able to say it at all levels.” She added, “I don’t blame it on the doctors, but on the strictness of the research.”

Anita Susan Abney watched her husband go through articles and pictures of his medical history. Dr. Don M. Gash, top, one of the researchers figuring in the case, and Dr. John T. Slevin, another. Photo: Carla Winn for The New York Times.


Trichloroethylene was nearly ubiquitous in American industry in the latter part of the 20th century. Production grew from to 321 million pounds in 1991 from 260,000 pounds in 1981, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The National Toxicology Program has declared that the solvent, also known as TCE, can “reasonably be anticipated” to be a carcinogen. It is a contaminant in drinking water in some areas of the country and is found in more than half the 1,430 priority Superfund sites listed by the E.P.A.

There was no question in Mr. Abney’s mind what he was working with.

“It was a good cleaner,” he said in an interview, his cane at his side. His wife recalled, “When he came home at night, he would say, ‘The smell is killing me.’ ”

Mrs. Abney sat next to her husband, with the fat files she has accumulated documenting aspects of his case — communications with doctors and with lawyers (all of whom left after the doctors refused to sign the forms).

Some of the paperwork documents the progression of Mr. Abney’s ailment: the day in 1996 when “on my left hand, a finger was twitching” or the day he could not enunciate the lesson to the Sunday school class he was teaching; and then, the day neither his hands nor his voice would perform his morning devotional rituals.

For five years, he received a series of diagnoses, including Lou Gehrig’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or A.L.S. Doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., correctly diagnosed his condition in 2001.

He left work and now receives federal disability payments of $1,200 a month. He was referred to Drs. Don M. Gash and John T. Slevin and joined a group of Parkinson’s patients involved in the testing of an experimental drug.

Mr. Abney mentioned that some of his co-workers also had neurological problems. Researchers mailed a questionnaire to 134 former Dresser workers; 65 responded.

Three, including Mr. Abney, had full-fledged Parkinson’s. The researchers found that of 27 others, 14 reported they had symptoms of the kind associated with the disease, and 13 others had significant slowing of motor responses or other symptoms of Parkinson’s.

A parallel study showed that feeding the solvent to rats resulted in injured neurons in the same area of the brain whose degeneration causes Parkinson’s in humans.

The conclusion, published in the Annals of Neurology in February 2008: “These results demonstrate a strong potential link between chronic TCE exposure and Parkinsonism.” But when it came to the specifics of Mr. Abney’s case, Dr. Gash said in an interview, “He started working at Dresser over 25 years ago, maybe 28 years ago. Trying to reconstruct what was going on then is just impossible.”

He added, “Certainly, we focused on one aspect of the toxins he was exposed to, but he was exposed to other toxins,” including agricultural pesticides or fumigants used to kill vermin at the plant.

“Was it the trichloroethylene?” Dr. Gash asked. “It could have been. But it could have been other things, too,” including a genetic predisposition to the disease.

Implicating TCE requires ruling out other potential causes, he said — something that could take years.

Which leaves few options for compensation. Dwight Lovan, Kentucky’s commissioner of worker’s compensation, said, “We are dependent on the scientific and medical communities for the element of causality.”

In other circumstances, proof of causality has been eased or waived. For instance, the Veterans Affairs Department in 2001 added Lou Gehrig’s disease to the list of service-related disabilities for Persian Gulf war veterans; in September 2008 it agreed to consider any service member who served for at least 90 days eligible for disability benefits if they later contracted A.L.S.

A crucial element of this decision, according to a veterans affairs official, was that the agency made no link between the onset of A.L.S. and a service member’s experience — whether exposure to the anthrax vaccine or the fires Saddam Hussein set in the oil wells under his control.

Kentucky officials do not have that option. In the workplace, as John Burton, an emeritus professor at the School of Management and Labor Relations at Rutgers University, said, “You still have the underlying requirement to establish that the workplace was the cause.” Because the burden of proof is so high and the relative benefits are so low, lawyers have little financial incentive to take on a case like Mr. Abney’s.

And scientists like Dr. Gash have little enthusiasm for working with lawyers.

E. Donald Elliott, a Yale Law School professor specializing in these cases, said that simply being exposed to a risk in the workplace “should in itself be a compensable injury.”

“You don’t have to prove you got the Parkinson’s because of the exposure,” Professor Elliott said. “From a policy standpoint, does it make sense for the entire burden of uncertainty or unknown science to fall on the injured parties rather than falling on the business or industry involved?”

For Mr. Abney and his wife, the disappointment still rankles. “You read this study and you hear about it and it builds you up,” he said. “And then you get let down. You get to where you just don’t care.”

Source / New York Times

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

12 November 2008

Supremes: Military Beats Nature, Once Again

Environmental groups contend that the use of sonar harms marine mammals, like this blue whale. The Supreme Court, however, ruled the Navy should be able to use sonar without restrictions in exercises off the California coast. Photo: NOAA / AP.

Supreme Court Says Navy Trumps Whales
By Pete Yost / November 12, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that military training trumps protecting whales in a dispute over the Navy's use of sonar in submarine-hunting exercises off the coast of southern California.

Writing for the majority in the court's first decision of the term, Chief Justice John Roberts said the most serious possible injury to environmental groups would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals the groups study.

"In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet," the chief justice wrote. He said the overall public interest tips strongly in favor of the Navy.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental organizations had sued the Navy, winning restrictions in lower federal courts on sonar use.

Dolphins, whales and sea lions are among the 37 species of marine mammals in the area.

The Bush administration argued that there is little evidence of harm to marine life in more than 40 years of exercises.

Joining Roberts' opinion were Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. It said, rather, that federal courts abused their discretion by ordering the Navy to limit sonar use in some cases and to turn it off altogether in others.

Justice John Paul Stevens did not join the majority opinion, but said the lower courts had failed to adequately explain the basis for siding with the environmental groups. Justice Stephen Breyer would have allowed some restrictions to remain.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, saying the prospect of harm to the whales was sufficient to justify limits on sonar use.

In complicated sonar exercises, ships, subs and aircraft must train together in order to track modern diesel-electric submarines which can operate almost silently.

The Navy says the area off southern California is the only location on the West Coast that is relatively close to land, air and sea bases as well as amphibious landing areas.

NRDC said the ruling is a narrow one.

"I don't think it establishes a bright line rule," said Joel Reynolds, director of NRDC's marine mammal protection program. "The court acknowledged that environmental interests are important, but in this case that the interest in training was greater, was more significant than interest in the environment."

The Navy challenged restrictions that included shutting down sonar when a marine mammal is spotted within 2,200 yards of a vessel.

The case is Winter v. NRDC, 07-1239.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Source / America On Line

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.