Fukushima and the Law of the Sea (Part I)

Two days ago, Japan’s nuclear regulatory agency disclosed estimates of the volume of radioactive material that has escaped from the Fukushima reactor complex since the March earthquake and tsunami. The agency estimates that the emitted volume of radioactive cesium is approximately 168 times higher than that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of WWII, and that the volumes of radioactive iodine and strontium are approximately 2.5 times higher. All are linked to cancer, and the cesium and strontium isotopes can persist in the environment for decades.

The estimates are truly alarming. Some have argued that the impact on humans will be limited because the vast majority of the material has fallen or leaked into the ocean, where it will disperse and substantially dilute. But dilution is not a great reassurance. Given the extended half-lives of some of these materials, there is reasonable concern that radiation from Fukushima will damage marine habitats for years and, in turn, harm the citizens of Japan and other proximate countries.

Continue ReadingFukushima and the Law of the Sea (Part I)

Whose Right Is It, Anyway?

Although the Supreme Court has yet to release an opinion in American Electric Power v. Connecticut (previously discussed here), many commentators approaching the case from divergent points of view believe that the Court will likely reject the common law public nuisance cause of action, which is based on the power companies’ creation and release of substantial amounts of greenhouse gases that have contributed to global warming.  Aside from the jurisdictional and substantive issues that the AEP case raises directly, the issue lurking under the surface in that case, and made explicit in at least two other international cases, is the extent to which claims alleging environmental damage should be adjudicated on the basis of rights entirely separate from those which humans may assert for the benefit of individual human interests.  Stated differently, the problem of redressing harms caused by our overconsumption of fossil fuels and various other environmental harms raises what I believe to be two extremely provocative questions, neither of which will be answered here, but which provide a starting point for more effectively and honestly addressing issues of environmental harms.  First, how does a society decide to whom/what rights will be granted, and second, can a system of human laws accurately and effectively provide rights to nonhuman natural systems?

As an initial matter, perhaps notions of “granting” or “providing” rights already obfuscate a fundamental question; that is, is it honest to say that any human can actually grant rights, or are humans solely in a position to deny fulfillment of rights that exist inherently for the benefit of all beings? 

Continue ReadingWhose Right Is It, Anyway?

Greenhouse Gases, and Other Hot Air

In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court is faced with the next, inevitable step in a line of climate change litigation including, most notably, Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007.  The case includes, as did Massachusetts, a jurisdictional question of whether the plaintiff states and land trusts have standing, either under Article III or under the “prudential” principles of standing.  Perhaps of broader interest, however, is the substantive question facing the Court, which is whether, in light of the powers vested in the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act, a federal common law public nuisance claim is the proper course by which to seek redress for the rise in global temperatures to which the defendants are alleged to be substantial contributors.

The power companies’ and the government’s positions in this case are mostly aligned, in that both seek to have the complaint dismissed, although on slightly different jurisdictional grounds. 

Continue ReadingGreenhouse Gases, and Other Hot Air
Newer Posts
Older Posts