Environmental Law – Page 31 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Learning (At Last) to Value Water

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:December 9, 2009
Post category:Environmental Law Speakers at Marquette

wel In 1774, Ben Franklin said, “When the well’s dry, we know the worth of the well.”

“He was wrong,” author Robert Glennon told an audience of about 100 Tuesday at the Alumni Memorial Union at Marquette University. Even as wells and water supplies move ominously closer to dry in parts of the United States, the public and many policy makers are not responding in ways that could avert major impacts, warned Glennon, whose books include Unquenchable: America’s Water Crisis and What to Do About It, published last spring.

“We don’t value water in the United States,” Glennon told the session, part of the “On the Issues” series hosted by Mike Gousha, Marquette Law School Distinguished Fellow in Law and Public Policy.

Wisconsin is not standing at the precipice of a water crisis to the same degree as metropolitan Atlanta and much of the western United States, but it would still be wise to undertake public education efforts here and to make more effective water use decisions, Glennon said.

Copenhagen Conundrum

Post author:David Strifling
Post published:November 30, 2009
Post category:Environmental Law International Law & Diplomacy

We are only a week away from the beginning of the highly anticipated global climate summit in Copenhagen. I recently took part in a mock negotiation session (I represented Mexico), and I can attest to just how difficult it will be to reach any agreement at the summit – even, as has been suggested lately, an agreement in principle without a formally binding treaty. World leaders recognized as much at the recent Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, and admitted that it was unrealistic to expect that a legally binding international treaty could be negotiated at Copenhagen. From the basics of climate science to poverty abatement, the issues that divide the parties are vast. Those issues have been discussed extensively, so I will instead point out three recent events that may affect the likelihood of a deal:

November 20, 2009: An electronic break-in at the University of East Anglia reveals documents and e-mails that appear to show intent to withhold or manipulate certain data; quickly dubbed “Climategate” by climate skeptics, the leaks are at best embarrassing for prominent climate scientists.

November 25, 2009: President Obama announces that the United States will commit to emissions cuts of 17 percent by 2020 and about 83 percent by 2050; Obama also announced that he will personally attend part of the summit. The pledges are expected to break a logjam of countries that had been waiting for a United States commitment.

November 29, 2009: India and China indicate that they may walk out of the negotiations if the developed countries do not agree to the sharing of “green” technology and massive economic transfers for a variety of climate change mitigation and abatement purposes, such as stopping deforestation and forest degradation.

No matter what your position is, the challenges are daunting and the stakes are high. Whatever happens, the Copenhagen summit will be a fascinating opportunity to observe international diplomacy in the environmental context.

Seventh Circuit Criminal Case of the Week: Yes, Eco-Terrorists Are Real Terrorists

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:November 15, 2009
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Environmental Law Federal Criminal Law & Process Federal Sentencing Seventh Circuit

seventh-circuit51 On the night of July 20, 2000, Katherine Christianson, Bryan Rivera, and two companions damaged or destroyed more than 500 trees at a United States Forest Service facility. Was it a prank? A dare? A harvest for the thneed industry? No, Christianson and Rivera were members of the eco-terrorist group Earth Liberation Front, and their target was the Forest Service’s genetic-engineering experiments on trees in Rhinelander, Wisconsin. ELF issued a press release the next day claiming responsibility for the attack and asserting that “the Forest Service, like industry, are [sic] capitalists driven by insane desire to make money and control life.”

Eight years later, Christianson and Rivera pled guilty to destroying government property and were sentenced to two and three years of prison, respectively. On appeal, Rivera challenged the district judge’s decision to apply the terrorism enhancement of the sentencing guidelines. He argued that he was not a terrorist because his motivation was “the hope of saving our earth from destruction.” The Seventh Circuit, however, rejected his argument and affirmed the sentence in United States v. Christianson (No. 09-1526) (Manion, J.).