'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

'The Court was explicit in explaining what is required to ensure indigenous and tribal peoples’ right to consultation. The Court stated that the obligation to consult is the responsibility of the state; therefore, planning and conducting the consultation process cannot be delegated to a private company or a third party. The Court also considered that the consultation process should entail a “genuine dialogue as part of a participatory process in order to reach an agreement,” and it should be conceived as “a true instrument of participation,” done in “good faith,” with “mutual trust” and with the goal of reaching a consensus.'

–  Lisl Brunner, a human rights specialist with the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and Karla Quintana, a human rights specialist with the Commission's Litigation Group, in an ASIL Insight entitled "The Duty to Consult in the Inter-American System: Legal Standards after Sarayaku." The co-authors set forth the reasoning in Caso del Pueblo Indígena Kichwa de Sarayaku v. Ecuador (June 27, 2012), in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that the respondent state was liable for failing to discharge its duty to consult with the indigenous Sarayaku people in connection with an oil project, undertaken in 1996, that destroyed part of a rainforest in the people's traditional lands.
As Brunner (right) and Quintana (left) explain, although the decision arose within the inter-American human rights system, it is likely to have impact on actors brought before other regimes as well; for example, those that consider: the International Labour Organization Convention No. 169, titled the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Write On! GoJIL issue on indigenous peoples

(Write On! is an occasional item about notable calls for papers)

From IntLawGrrls reader Frederike Mielke, a member of the Editorial Board of GoJIL, the Goettingen Journal of International Law, a 5-year-old review edited by students at Germany's University of Goettingen, comes a call for papers.
Specifically, papers are being sought for a forthcoming number of the journal, which will focus on the law and politics of indigenous peoples in international law. Organizers write:

'Indigenous peoples received increasing public and scholarly attention over the last decades. It has been a unique journey from the colonial history to the beginning of their political presence in the United Nations since the 1970s to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. The UN’s International Year for the World’s Indigenous Peoples in 1993 as well as the following decades of the world’s indigenous peoples from 1995 to 2004 and 2006 to 2015 prove the ongoing need to attend to indigenous peoples’ interests. Today, discourses of indigenous peoples rights and their claim for self-determination are found beyond International Human Rights law: topics such as intellectual property rights, control over the exploitation of natural resources, the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions are on the agenda. Underlying all is the constant debate about a definition and the implementation of indigenous peoples’ rights beyond the Americas, particularly in Asia and Africa. In order to shine a light on the legal and political problems indigenous peoples are facing, we call for authors to submit papers on the topic.'

Deadline for submissions is 1 March 2013. For more information, contact GoJIL editors at info@gojil.eu.

On December 6

On this day in ...

... 1947 (65 years ago today), President Harry S. Truman dedicated Everglades National Park, thus setting aside for conservation 1.5 million acres of wetlands and subtropical wilderness in south Florida. His dedication speech lavished praise on the site:

'Here is land, tranquil in its quiet beauty, serving not as the source of water, but as the last receiver of it. To its natural abundance we owe the spectacular plant and animal life that distinguishes this place from all others in our country.'

To this day, the park is home to threatened species like the Florida panther and the American crocodile, to multiple fish and wading birds, and to a huge mangrove forest. (credit for photos here and here)

(Prior December 6 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On November 26

Dr. Ruth Patrick in the field

On this day in ...
... 1907 (105 years ago today), in Topeka, Kansas, Dr. Ruth Patrick was born into a family led by a banker-lawyer father whose training and passion were in the field of botany. The father and his young daughters frequently went on weekend nature expeditions. Patrick would be educated 1st in Kansas City, then in South Carolina, and ultimately in Virginia, earning her Ph.D. from UVA in 1934. She is known for her aquatic ecology research, centered on the algae group known as diatoms – through her research she made important discoveries respecting the history of areas such as the Virginia-North Carolina Great Dismal Swamp and the Utah Great Salt Lake. Patrick earned many awards, and was further honored by establishment of the Ruth Patrick Science Education Center in Aiken, South Carolina.

(Prior November 26 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

'Shark fins do not constitute a traditional ingredient of the European diet, but sharks do constitute a necessary element of the Union’s marine ecosystem; therefore, their management and conservation, as well as, in general, the promotion of a sustainably managed fishing sector for the benefit of the environment and of the people working in the sector, should be a priority.'

– One of several amendments aimed at stiffening the ban on removal of fins of sharks aboardship, which the European Parliament adopted Thursday. A 2003 ban on the practice had been riddled with loopholes, prompting Rapporteur Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (right), a European Parliament member from Portugal, to propose the amendments just adopted, the full text of which may be found at pp. 104-10 of the document available here. (photo credits here and here) As posted, efforts to restrict shark finning appear to be on the rise.

BP Guilty Plea: Vindication or Drop in the Ocean?

Four billion dollars.
That is the total of the criminal fines the Department of Justice has assessed against BP for its criminal actions associated with the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, the worst environmental disaster in US history. As described in posts available here, the 2010 explosion (left) and oil spill killed 11 people, and sent millions of gallons of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. (photo credit)
BP will plead guilty to 14 criminal charges related to the disaster, including twelve felonies and two misdemeanors:
► Eleven of the felony guilty pleas are for BP’s criminal violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1115 (Misconduct or Neglect of Ship Officers), for negligence that resulted in the 11 worker deaths. The twelfth felony guilty plea is for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (Obstruction of Congress), by misrepresenting the flow rates from the wells – the company reported flow rates of 5000 barrels a day, despite internal BP data showing flow rates at least an order of magnitude greater.
► The misdemeanor guilty pleas are for violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(c)(1)(A) &1321(b)(3), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 and 707(a).
Under the plea deal, BP will pay $1.256 billion in criminal fines, $2.394 billion for remediation efforts, and $350 million to the National Academy of Sciences.
In a parallel proceeding resolved along with the criminal charges, BP also agreed to $525 million to settle civil charges, brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, for misleading regulators and investors about the flow rate of oil from the well. With the SEC settlement, the aggregate amount of the deal announced Friday is approximately $4.5 billion, with payments scheduled over a period of five years.
Four and a half billion dollars, by many measures, is a lot of money.
It is more than the nominal gross domestic product of 44 nations, including Belize and Montenegro, and roughly on par with that of Kyrgyztan.
It is well over half of 2011 budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is $8.7 billion.
However, $4.5 billion is significantly less than the $7.7 billion profits BP reported in the fourth quarter of 2011.
The criminal penalty assessed for the worst environmental disaster in the United States' history did not even amount to one quarter’s profit for the main perpetrator!
Context is everything.
Whether one views the goal of criminal punishment as retribution or deterrence, it is difficult so see how the proposed plea deal and penalty accomplish the goal. Eleven people are dead because of BP’s criminal actions. Untold numbers of fish, endangered turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds perished because of BP’s criminal actions.

Aerial view of spill a month after explosion, with inset locator map

During the 87 days it took BP to finally stop the leak, over 4.9 million barrels of crude oil (170 million gallons) gushed into the Gulf of Mexico. For perspective, that makes the BP spill about fifteen times the size of the Exxon-Valdez disaster of 1989.
Vulnerable marine and coastal ecosystems were contaminated, perhaps beyond repair, because of BP’s criminal actions.
Had the company lost at trial, BP could have faced up to $40 billion in fines for its criminal actions. Instead, BP has agreed, with great fanfare, to pay less than one quarter’s profit as a penalty. When measured against the devastation BP wrought, as well as BP’s profit margin, this settlement for one-tenth the potential criminal liability looks like a pretty sweet deal for the company.
Moreover, under the terms of the settlement, BP will have five years to pay the assessed penalties, with nearly half the penalty not due until 2017. At standard present value calculations, the fine will actually cost BP somewhere around $3.74 billion.
There is another context that matters as well.
BP is a criminal recidivist – a repeat offender.

Rhino horn trading & resilience of criminal networks

(Many thanks to IntLawGrrls for inviting me to contribute this introductory post)

Wildlife crime is a growing global problem, with major implications for biodiversity conservation.
The trafficking of rhinoceros horn provides a clear illustration of the difficulties that are encountered in attempting to combat the illegal transnational wildlife trade. All five species of rhinoceros are under threat; three of the five ((Black, Sumatran and Javan rhinos) have ‘critically endangered’ status on the Red List of Threatened Species produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, a Switzerland-based nongovernmental organisation. (prior IntLawGrrls posts here, here, here, here, and here)
While habitat destruction is contributing to a massive decline in numbers of rhinos worldwide, poaching for horn is the main culprit.
Recently I wrote a paper about the illegal trade in rhino horn, as part of the Transnational Environmental Crime Project being undertaken at the Australian National University. The project is funded by the Australian Research Council, and conducted in partnership with the Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
About 80% of the remaining world rhinoceros population is in South Africa. In the last five years, the numbers of rhinoceros poached in that country alone has increased exponentially, rising from 13 in 2007 to 448 in 2011. The 2012 number is well on the way to surpassing 500.
The population growth rate for South Africa’s estimated 20,700 rhino is 6% per year, but rhino poaching escalated by 35% between 2010 and 2011 alone.
These figures have given rise to concern that extinction of the species is a real possibility, despite the limits on trade imposed by the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, known as CITES.
The main black market for rhino horn lies in Southeast Asia, particularly Vietnam and China, where demand is driven by a belief that horn has curative properties for a range of ailments (recently expanded to include cancer), and by its use as a status symbol amongst elites. Organized crime networks are taking advantage of opportunities, presented by cultural norms and by the wealth of the growing middle class in the region, to traffic rhino horn to these markets.
Greed is a powerful driver of the trade, with enormous profits to be made. But this alone does not alone determine the trade’s sustainability.
As my paper notes, the illegal trade in wildlife is increasingly meeting with resistance from states and the international community, in the form of law enforcement and regulatory initiatives. Both money and effort are going into training and deployment of personnel to patrol poaching hotspots. New technologies for monitoring rhinos and tracking and catching poachers and smugglers are being deployed. More international agreements, designed to strengthen political will and law enforcement responses, are being signed. Campaigns are under way to inform consumers that rhino horn has no medicinal qualities and make them aware of the horrendous consequences of the trade for the animals themselves.
So why does the illegal trade persist?

On August 12

On this day in ...
... 1992 (20 years ago today), at the so-called Earth Summit, the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development was adopted. The nonbinding declaration's 27 principles include notable provisions on sustainability and precaution; specifically, Principle 1:

'Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.'

And Principle 15:

'In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.'

(Prior August 12 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On August 11

On this day in ...
... 1983, the Convention concerning Occupational Safety and Health Convention and the Working Environment, which had been adopted 2 years earlier, entered into force. Article 4 of the treaty sets forth the following principles:

'1. Each Member shall, in the light of national conditions and practice, and in consultation with the most representative organisations of employers and workers, formulate, implement and periodically review a coherent national policy on occupational safety, occupational health and the working environment.
'2. The aim of the policy shall be to prevent accidents and injury to health arising out of, linked with or occurring in the course of work, by minimising, so far as is reasonably practicable, the causes of hazards inherent in the working environment.'

The treaty is No. 155 on the list of conventions under the auspices of the International Labour Organization. To date 59 states have ratified, the United States not among them.

(Prior August 11 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On July 28

(credit)

On this day in ...
... 1866, Helen Beatrix Potter (right) was born in London. She grew up in that city, though she and her family spent long vacations in Scotland and in England's Lake District. These holidays instilled a love of country life, and that, coupled with the classical education she received from the governesses who tutored her, inspired her to draw and write about flora and fauna alike.

(credit)

In 1901, she produced The Tale of Peter Rabbit -- since published in 3 dozen languages -- and that led to a host of other stories that children and their parents still love today. Upon her death in 1943, Beatrix Potter Heelis, who'd married a local solicitor at age 47, bequeathed more than 4,000 acres of Lake District countryside, much of which she'd purchased to protect from development, to Britain's National Trust.

(Prior July 28 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

How America was shaped

(credit)

Just in time for today's 236th anniversary of American independence, the Library of Congress has opened an exhibition that explores the forging of the culture of the nation.
"Books That Shaped America" will run through September 29 at the library's Thomas Jefferson Building, 10 First Street S.E. For those who can't make it to Washington, the exhibit's list is available online here. The library welcomes comments, and nominations for books to add, here.
The inaugural list, which contains books published as early as 1751 and as recently as 2002, has much merit.
Authors honored include women as well as men, and are not limited to writers of fiction. On the list as well as the novel are the schoolbook and the cookbook, the epic poem and the expedition log, the autobiography and the adventure story.  Even a road atlas.
As a list of what shaped America, though, it has a glaring omission:
Books by non-Americans.

(credit)

Seems unlikely that this is the library's subliminal comment on the American strain of isolationism. It is equally unlikely, though, that the listmakers meant to say that nothing published outside the United States affected the United States. The latter group of books helped Americans, as the Scottish poet Robert Burns put it, "To see oursels as ithers see us!"
A few examples:
► Works by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels erected an ideological framework that existed in opposition to, and so helped to etch the identity of, American political economy.
► Not only did litigation over James Joyce's Ulysses (1922) create a legal opening for freer expression within the United States, but the work itself helped American authors to free their own creativity.

(credit)

► For many Americans, The Diary of a Young Girl, as the 1952 U.S. edition was titled, is the touchstone account of the horrors of the Holocaust. It first was published in Dutch, as Het Achterhuis, 2 years after the 1945 death of its author, Anne Frank, at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in Germany.
Thus even as we celebrate Library of Congress recognition of our favorite books -- including ones by IntLawGrrls foremothers Betty Friedan (Feminine Mystique, 1963) and Rachel Carson (Silent Spring, 1962) -- we look forward to a richer, more global list of books that shaped America.

Blogging on development from rural India

Delighted to announce that my cousin, Dr. Radha Gopalan (pictured below right), has started a blog, Rayalseema Diaries, on development in rural India.  Radha received her PhD in Environmental Science and Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology in Mumbai.  She then spent several years as an environmental consultant in India, the U.S. and the Middle East.  In that capacity, Radha worked on projects ranging from environmental impact assessments to rural water supply improvement to hazardous waste management to groundwater cleanup in California (at Hinkley - the Erin Brockovich site) to managing the master planning for Masdar, the emerging sustainable city in Abu Dhabi. Moving away from consulting, in her current avatar, Radha teaches environmental science to high school students at the Rishi Valley School in Andhra Pradesh, and is the Coordinator of the Rishi Valley Special Area Development Programme.  The school was established by the philosopher J. Krishnamurthi about eighty years ago. Radha is using her long abiding interest in food security as the basis of her work with the community of small and marginal farmers who form the rural community in which the school is located.  From that perch, she offers this:

The Indian growth story (6%, 8% - pick a number of your choice) has been splashed across print and visual media and everybody's talking about how this growth engine is going to pull the country out of poverty, malnutrition, gender inequity, etc., and how this is development. In all this din the "real development" story on the ground is nowhere to be seen except the occasional report where the reporter is surprised that in spite of this growth, poverty and malnutrition do not seem to be abating. In an effort to share some realities on the ground, I decided to blog my version of the story on the ground from one corner of South India - the Rayalseema region of Andhra Pradesh where I teach environmental science to high school students (from urban homes) in a residential school. Teaching is "part time" since my "day job" and very often "night job" is engaging with pastoralists and small and marginal farmers to sustain livelihoods and enable them to be sustainable. Read the blog and let me know what you think!

Peek at Proposed Pan-Pacific Protection Pact

A draft of a groundbreaking trade and investment treaty under negotiation was leaked last week, revealing a text with significantly greater express affirmation of states’ discretion to regulate to address public welfare and environmental concerns than previous generations of investment treaties. If concluded, the agreement will create the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the largest free trade area in the world, linking 11 nations on four continents flanking the planet’s vastest ocean.
The leak of the investment protection chapter of the draft agreement inevitably sparked protests from anti-globalization groups. Those groups, and other critics of the investment protection regime, overstate (to varying degrees) the scope and rigidity of traditional investment treaty standards, construing them as incompatible with environmental law, human rights protection, and public welfare regulation. In reality, even without express acknowledgements such as those in the draft and recent investment treaties, traditional foreign investor protections give states ample regulatory leeway. Even so, the draft treaty takes the further step of expressly confirming that investment should be protected and encouraged with due regard to other public interest considerations. It also addresses concerns that have been raised about the transparency and openness of investor-state dispute resolution. A few examples:
► The prohibition on requiring foreign investors to meet performance requirements does not preclude a state from imposing measures to secure compliance with domestic environmental laws, to protect life or health of people or animals, or to conserve exhaustible natural resources.
► The treaty’s regulation (not prohibition) of expropriation may not be construed to prevent a state from taking measures to ensure investments conform to environmental, health, safety, and labor concerns. In addition, “[t]he Parties recognize that it is inappropriate to encourage investment by relaxing health safety or environmental measures.”
► To enhance the openness of investor-state arbitrations, extensive provision is made for amicus curiae submissions.
► To improve transparency, the treaty imposes detailed requirements on the parties and the tribunal in investment arbitrations to publicize all aspects of the proceedings, including not only awards (which already are almost universally published), but also the parties’ written submissions and hearings.


(Photo credit: Office of the United States Trade Representative)

On June 20

On this day in ...
... 2012 (today), is marked International Surfing Day, a holiday timed to fall at or near the summer solstice. (Some sites, perhaps looking for weekend fun, say it's this coming Sunday.) 1st order of business: Surf. 2d: "In addition to catching some waves, surfers around the globe are encouraged take some time to give back to our oceans, waves and beaches," by helping with local cleanup and restoration projects. (credit for 1963 photo)

(Prior June 20 posts are here, here, and here, here, and here.)

On June 16

On this day in ...
... 1972 (40 years ago today), delegates concluded a nearly 2-week international meeting in Sweden by proclaiming the Stockholm Declaration of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. (credit for logo of the U.N. Environmental Programme, founded at this same conference) It is the 1st instrument to discuss "man's environment, the natural and the man-made," within the context of rights -- specifically, Article 1 of the Declaration states that these "are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights the right to life itself."

(Prior June 16 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

On June 4

On this day in ...
... 1892 (120 years ago today), in California, the Sierra Club was incorporated by a group of persons who aimed to preserve wilderness areas. Scotland-born naturalist John Muir was named its 1st President; he held the position until his death in 1914. The Sierra Club played key roles in the establishment of the United States' park and forest services, and has taken stands against environmentally harmful activities. Headquartered in San Francisco, it claims 1.4 million members across the country. (logo credit)

(Prior June 4 posts are here, here, here, here, and here.)

In Tuna II, WTO grapples with how to balance economic growth & sustainable development

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for the opportunity to contribute this introductory post)

Finding common ground between the need for sustainable development and economic development is no easy task. What is the connection between tuna, dolphin, and climate change mitigation? Connecting the dots in the context of environmental labeling schemes is a World Trade Organization panel report, US—Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products (US-Tuna II) (September 2011), now on WTO appeal.
As described here, this WTO case, brought by Mexico against the United States, concerns the safety of dolphins that suffer from purse-seine fishing of tuna in the Eastern Tropical Pacific region, off the western coast of Mexico and Latin American countries. This is a form of fishing, used in the Eastern Tropical Pacific region, that consists of placing nets over the areas where tuna swim. Dolphins tend to swim near the school of tuna and get caught in the nets. Dolphins suffer as a result, and the mortality rate is high.
The U.S. government, in response to consumer outrage with these methods, has tried to deal with this problem since the late 1980s. The United States and Mexico attempted to resolve their differences, after an earlier WTO dispute concerning tuna fishing and dolphin safety, through the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program,initiated by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. The U.S. government also implemented a dolphin-safe label to be placed on tuna products sold in the United States.
The Dolphin Agreement, which entered into force in 1999, has its own labeling scheme. It is considered less stringent than the U.S. scheme (right), since it does not focus on the setting on dolphins method but rather on the injury impact to dolphins. (image credit) After much litigation and the 2007 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth, vacating the Department of Commerce finding that the Dolphin Agreement standard would meet U.S. objectives, the U.S. government retained its more stringent labeling scheme.
The U.S. label is not a required label in order to sell tuna products, including imports, in the United States. However, the majority of the large U.S. distributors of tuna products do require the use of the label in order to sell their own tuna products. According to Mexico, this practice has affected the ability of Mexican tuna producers to sell their products in the United States and is in turn, trade restrictive and in violation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the Agreement on Technical Barriers for Trade. The latter agreement specifically deals with domestic regulations intended to protect human health, animal or plant life, as well as the environment.
In its 2011 Tuna II report, the WTO panel, while recognizing the U.S. legitimate objectives of dolphin protection and providing consumer information in this regard, decided for Mexico. It found that the U.S. dolphin-safe label was more trade restrictive than necessary to pursue the U.S. objectives.
Several interesting legal issues are raised by this case:

Development Decisions

On March 18, 2012, Brazil announced that it would formally charge a number of executives from Chevron based on an oil spill that occurred in November 2011 as a result of Chevron’s oil drilling activities off the Brazilian coast. (map credit)
The decision to formally bring these charges was made after new leaks were recently found. Further, the decision to charge those involved in the oil leak did not end with the Chevron executives. Rather, Brazilian prosecutors will formally charge several executives from Transocean, the drilling contractor used by Chevron on the project.
On the surface, the facts scenario surrounding the Chevron oil leak might sound eerily familiar to the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in 2010 off the Gulf Coast of the United States. (Prior IntLawGrrls posts available here.)
Fortunately, the Chevron oil leak off the Brazilian coast was not as significant as the Deepwater Horizon incident, the effects of which are still being felt along the Gulf Coast. In the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon incident, the United States government initially imposed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf Coast and the issue has been quite controversial ever since. Further, the United States government pursued large economic penalties against BP – the oil company involved – and still has not ruled out the potential for criminal charges for BP executives linked to the oil spill.
In the US context, the Deepwater Horizon project was part of an established pattern of drilling and oil exploration, albeit with dramatically unintended consequences. By contrast, in the Brazilian context the Chevron drilling project was part of a coordinated undertaking by the Brazilian government to create an industry having the potential to further Brazil’s economic standing in the world community. As such, oil exploration and drilling operations by both foreign corporations and the state oil corporation are essential elements of Brazil’s development strategy.
In order to further this development strategy, Brazil stands at a crossroads.

President Obama's State of the Union Address, Energy, and Climate Change

Last night, President Barack Obama delivered his annual State of the Union Address. (photo credit)
Like last year, he focused on the potential for unity over energy independence, transition to cleaner energy, and energy infrastructure rather than on addressing climate change. He continued to tie that transition to innovation, construction, and jobs.
However, the tone was somewhat different. Unlike last year, where he did not mention climate change directly, he openly acknowledged partisan divisions with respect to climate change and even energy while trying to find bipartisan ground. The President also spent time discussing the expansion of offshore drilling and natural gas as positive rather than just emphasizing the need to shift towards cleaner sources.
I liked the realism of this shift. One of the reasons I spent time in the aftermath of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill exploring the complexity of offshore drilling and oil spill regulation, and principles for moving forward and addressing environmental justice concerns, is because I believe that the desire for energy independence and security will compel us to keep drilling deep in at least the short-to-medium term. Similarly, I think that natural gas is an important transitional energy source because we are not ready to shift dramatically to cleaner sources in the near term.
I do think it's important, though, to think beyond our present constraints. I live in the Midwest, with its massive wind capacity, and was particularly heartened by two experiences I had during my Climate Change and Clean Energy capstone course last semester. First, when John Dunlop of the American Wind Energy Association visited us, he emphasized that between on-shore and off-shore wind, we have capacity to more than meet our energy needs and that intermittency is more manageable than it is often portrayed as being. Second, when we went on a tour of the MISO, the Midwestern regional transmission organization, the operator answering our questions emphasized that they try to get as much wind online as possible. This effort is not motivated by any type of environmental mandate, but out of their mission of reducing cost and maximizing reliability – the wind is cheaper than the more polluting sources. I hope that we can move beyond bipartisanship to use law as a tool for the energy transformation – through a combination of conservation, efficiency, and transitioning sources – that would be a win-win for this country.
I include the most relevant portion of the State of the Union below:

Blogging trade + environment

Pleased to announce a new member of the international law cybercommunity.
It's Trade & Environment Nexus, a blog subtitled "Exploring synergy, linkage and conflict in trade and environment governance." Launched at the end of last year, the blog, now on our "connections" list at right, promises to analyze law and policy issues at the intersection of -- you guessed it -- trade and the environment. As explained at the site by its founder, Stockholm-based researcher and policy analyst Johan Westberg:

The area often referred to as 'Trade and Environment' is thus a facet of these attempts at integrating environmental consequences into current modes of international economic governance, dealing specifically with the current international trade regime and the places in which it brushes up against environmental issues.

A feature worth noting: in the spirit of IntLawGrrls' own Experts at Law series, Johan includes a list of "key academics" writing at the intersection of trade and environment, and he welcomes you to e-mail him to nominate others who belong on the list.