legal

The battle over wolves

January 10, 2025 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Thirty years ago, wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park. Grey wolves had almost disappeared entirely throughout the northern Rockies. They were listed as endangered by the federal government since 1974. The reintroduction was hailed as a wildly successful effort yielding significant benefits to Yellowstone’s ecosystems.

Since then, wolf populations have increased greatly across the West. There are at least 7,000 or 8,000 wolves living in Western States. But this conservation triumph is considered a plague by some residents of those states. Wolves kill livestock, game animals, and sometimes pets.

Because of this backlash, federal protections have been lifted in some states, leaving wolf management up to state agencies. Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, and parts of Utah have no federal protections and hunting wolves is legal. Initial, careful hunting quotas in some states have given way to widespread killing driven by anti-wolf sentiment.

Emotions run high with regard to wolves, and unlike that of other protected species, the fate of wolves is a matter of politics rather than science or law. State legislatures have gotten involved, often trying to prove that they hate wolves more than the next guy.

Wolves are resilient animals and are likely to survive unless there is an organized government strategy like what took place in the 1900s with unlimited poisoning and shooting. But experts note that wolf populations must persist at a high enough level in order to play important ecological roles.

**********

Web Links

As Wolf Populations Rebound, an Angry Backlash Intensifies

Photo, posted March 7, 2023, courtesy of Eric Kilby via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

The end of the Chevron deference

August 6, 2024 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

At the end of June, the US Supreme Court upended 40 years of legal precedent in a ruling that sharply limited the regulatory authority of federal agencies. The so-called Chevron Deference doctrine stated that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question was not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statue for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency.

Under the new ruling, courts will have more power to interpret these statutes. Environmentalists fear that this decision could lead to hundreds of rules being weakened or even eliminated, particularly Environmental Protection Agency limits on air and water pollution, regulations on toxic chemicals, and policies to tackle climate change.

Conservative political organizations have been pushing for decades to roll back the government’s regulatory powers. The new ruling creates a massive opportunity for environmental regulations to be challenged, considering the proliferation of increasingly activist, right-leaning courts. In particular, climate regulations under the Clean Air Act are more susceptible to judicial reversal. The ruling shifts the power from the agencies to the courts.

The danger of this decision is that more Americans will suffer from the worse effects of climate change, air pollution, and other environmental harms that current government regulation protect against. Any time that the Court makes it harder for the government to regulate and easier for businesses to challenge regulations, it makes it more likely that industries will injure the public and the planet in search of profits. This is basic economics in action.

**********

Web Links

A Seismic Supreme Court Decision

Photo, posted September 17, 2020, courtesy of Thomas Hawk via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Climate change lawsuits

May 7, 2024 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

For the better part of a decade, there have been lawsuits against fossil fuel companies for their actions related to climate change. The Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit that provides legal support to communities suing oil companies, has tracked 32 cases filed by state attorneys general, cities, counties, and tribal nations against companies including Exxon Mobil, BP, and Shell.

There has been extensive news reporting about oil companies’ efforts to undermine the scientific consensus about the climate as well as revelations about oil companies hiding their own research over decades projecting the dangers of climate change.

Oil companies have long sought to shut down the lawsuits or move them from the state courts where they were filed to federal courts where they believe national regulations could override local governments’ claims against them. But a string of circuit court and U.S. Supreme Court decisions have ruled that the cases alleging violations of state laws do belong in state courts.

The first case to reach trial will likely be a Massachusetts case against Exxon Mobil and that could happen as soon as next year.

What do these lawsuits seek? Some seek to force oil companies to pay for the past and future damages caused by climate change that are costing states and communities billions of dollars. Others seek to stop defendants from making false and misleading statements about the effects of burning fossil fuels, from greenwashing their own activities, and to fund corrective education campaigns.

The first trials could lead to a tidal wave of new cases, similar to what happened in the 1990s when tobacco companies were forced to pay billions of dollars under legal settlements.

**********

Web Links

After a long slog, climate change lawsuits will finally put Big Oil on trial

Photo, posted August 18, 2021, courtesy of Chad Davis via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

The right to not buy fossil fuels

November 6, 2023 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Minnesota has been one of the most aggressive states in setting and realizing clean energy goals. As of this year, Minnesota gets 55% of its energy from net zero carbon emission sources. The state has goals of reaching 80% green energy by 2030, 90% by 2035, and 100% by 2040. Recent legislation in Minnesota aims at further reducing carbon emissions and job creation in the clean energy sector.

All of this is very good news, but not for the neighboring state of North Dakota. Minnesota getting all of its energy from clean energy sources means that it would no longer be a customer for the fossil fuel products of North Dakota.

North Dakota is known for its vast reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas and, apart from agriculture, the energy industry is the biggest moneymaker in the state. Faced with the aggressive clean energy initiatives of its next-door neighbor, North Dakota has threatened to sue Minnesota.

What would be the basis of such a lawsuit? The argument would be that Minnesota’s clean energy goals would be in violation of interstate commerce laws and infringe upon North Dakota’s economic sovereignty. The claim would be that the energy regulations in Minnesota unfairly discriminate against North Dakota’s energy products.

Minnesota, on the other hand, would defend its energy goals as a legitimate exercise of its own state sovereignty and a necessary response to the climate crisis.

The outcome of any legal battle that may take place will have far-reaching implications for Minnesota and North Dakota as well as for other states across the country that have clean energy initiatives.

**********

Web Links

North Dakota plans to sue Minnesota over its clean energy goals. What comes next?

Photo, posted June 8, 2019, courtesy of Tony Webster via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Lab-Grown Meat Is Legal | Earth Wise

December 19, 2022 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

We’ve heard more and more about laboratory meat. Other names for it are cultured meat, cultivated meat, or test tube meat. Whatever name ends up sticking, the idea is to take living cells from animals and grow them in a controlled laboratory environment to produce a meat product that doesn’t involve the slaughter of any animals. Supporters say cultured meat is more efficient and environmentally friendly than traditional livestock. Livestock agriculture is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, uses vast amounts of land, and consumes much of the world’s fresh water.

Years ago, we reported on a company called Memphis Meats, which was one of a number of companies developing techniques for harvesting cells from animal tissues and using them to grow edible flesh in bioreactors.

Recently, that company – now called Upside Foods – has become the first company to receive FDA approval declaring their meat product to be safe for human consumption. The USDA still needs to give its approval and it may be a little while longer before Upside’s first chicken products will end up in supermarkets. There are more than 150 cultivated meat companies around the world backed by billions of dollars in investments. The FDA is in ongoing discussions with multiple firms in the business.

Upside Foods, based in the San Francisco Bay area, is planning to market chicken, beef meatballs, and duck in the near future. Other companies are working on seafood products. Up until now, Singapore has been the only country in which lab-grown meat products are legally sold to consumers. With this landmark FDA ruling, that is all about to change.

**********