The proposed US-Mexico border wall may stop the migration of people, but what happens when it does stop the migration of animals?
How does the Endangered Species Act’s “Distinct Population Segment” policy apply to the iconic grizzly bear? Read more in this analysis posted via the Environmental Law Review Syndicate.
By Max Chaffetz, Managing Editor, Virginia Environmental Law Journal
The Trump administration issued oil and gas drilling permits during the most recent shutdown without approval or appropriations by Congress and without following procedures for public participation. Can the administration really do this? If not, how do environmentalists prevent this from happening in future shutdowns?
Environmental groups and the State of California are up in arms over an EPA memo scrapping a decades-old Clean Air Act policy. Will the DC Circuit weigh in on the EPA’s use of “guidance” to drastically shift US regulatory policy?
While some companies celebrate the EPA’s deregulation efforts, other companies are starting to understand that economic and environmental efficiencies can run hand-in-hand. The Carbon Disclosure Project helps companies see the connection.
The physical impacts of climate change affect companies and their profitability drastically. The SEC released guidance in 2010 urging companies to disclose the risks from climate change but has not further urged companies in recent years. Instead, the SEC has shifted towards regulating other issues the current administration has prioritized, leaving investors in the dark about the financial impacts climate change has on businesses.
The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, was intended to “provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened…
This federal district court’s decision [to reverse the de-listing of the grizzly] has angered state officials and sparked a new debate about federalism and institutional competence
It has now been just over 3 years since the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) first informed the public that Volkswagen, at the time the world's largest automaker, had installed ‘cheat devices’ designed to evade U.S. regulators in hundreds of thousands of their cars. Ultimately, the automaker paid a $2.8 billion criminal fine, and 9 executives and employees were charged with violating the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and Title 18 of the United States code (the main criminal code of the federal government). Interestingly, though, no one was actually held criminally liable for the pollution itself.
Over the summer, a big firm lawyer and a coke company’s senior executive were both convicted of bribing a former state legislator in order to prevent the EPA from listing the 35th Avenue Superfund Site located in north Birmingham, Alabama on the National Priorities List. How did this corruption happen, and what were the underlying causes?
