logo: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy

YCELP News Feed

Section Image

On the Environment
Environmental Law & Governance

Monday, December 09, 2013
| Share

From Adaptation to Resilience: Climate Change in Megacities

By Guest Author, Amy Weinfurter, Yale F&ES '15

At first it sounds like the set-up of a joke or a riddle: “What has 8 percent of the world’s population, a GDP the size of China’s, and the potential to take a billion-ton bite out of the world’s carbon emissions?” These statistics characterize the 63 cities of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which brings mayors from around the world together to share strategies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Rit Aggarwala, the former director of long-term planning and sustainability for New York City, serves as special advisor to Michael Bloomberg in his role as chair of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. During his November 21 visit to the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Dr. Aggarwala discussed some of the driving forces behind cities’ leadership on climate change, and explored the ways different cities apply adaptation strategies to fit local needs and resources. 

The success of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group reflects urban areas’ growing leadership in climate change adaptation. A number of factors have spurred and enabled cities to act on climate change. To start, urban dwellers are more likely to see global warming as a real issue; 90 percent of cities stand near coasts, and city residents tend to be more dependent on the infrastructure that climate change threatens. For instance, an urban resident who relies on an elevator to leave his apartment or on public transit to commute to work may be especially affected by a blackout. Mayors typically face fewer political roadblocks than state and federal politicians, and the day-to-day responsibilities of managing a city provide both the tools and the practice for implementing pragmatic solutions. 

Dr. Aggarwala highlighted heat and drought; sea level rise and flooding; storms and extreme precipitation; and changes in the geographic distribution of disease as five key themes driving cities’ preparations. As cities implement policies to protect their citizens and their infrastructure, they face a diverse and sometime counter-intuitive array of challenges. For instance, London, a city close to the coast, and famous for its rain, is actually more concerned about heat than water. A sea wall currently keeps flooding at bay, while buildings and public transportation often lack air conditioners, fans, and other means to deal with hot weather. While rising sea levels and flooding do threaten Vietnam’s Ho Chi Ming City buildings, a sea wall here would pose significant financial challenges. So, instead of trying to keep water out, the city is experimenting with strategies to minimize the damage water causes when it comes in. 

Identifying the right solution is often far easier than figuring out how to implement the fix on a megacity scale.  For instance, a SmartCity partnership between IBM and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, uses microclimate data to predict landslides up to an hour before they occur. Landslides jeopardize some of the city’s most vulnerable communities, and as storms and precipitation increase, landslides are expected to become more frequent as well. By altering community leaders of danger via text messages, IBM’s technology saves lives. However, Dr. Aggarwala noted, its success ultimately depends on strong community networks, effective community leaders, and safe evacuation routes and centers. In responding to climate change, technology only makes up half the battle.  Effective management plays an equally important role. 

Sometimes, the best solution does not rest on innovative technology, but on new applications for something as simple as a water fountain. That’s the approach London used to help address rising rates of heat stroke on its subway platforms. Similarly, New York City plans to explore the use of window screens to help combat expected increases in insect-borne illnesses. Dr. Aggarwala pointed to examples like these as he distinguished climate change adaptation from resiliency.  He worries that the framework of climate change adaptation can narrow cities’ efforts, by focusing on new challenges and tools. In contrast, resiliency involves both preparing for new threats, such as rising sea levels, and responding to new levels of severity in existing challenges, like extreme storms and heat.

Dr. Aggarwala’s presentation concluded a semester-long speaker series, From Mitigation to Adaptation: Regional Responses to Climate Change. The series, co-hosted by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Yale Climate and Energy Institute, highlighted regional and local approaches to climate adaptation, and how those strategies fit within the larger context of climate change mitigation. His final remarks, in response to an audience question about the future of urban adaptation, offer a fitting end to this semester-long conversation.  As populations trends continue and “everything becomes urban,” Dr. Aggarwala suggested that urban adaptation will become less of a hot topic, and more of an integrated part of city’s management frameworks.

Amy Weinfurter is a first-year Masters of Environmental Management (MEM '15) candidate at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, focusing on the intersection between environmental communication and policy. Before arriving at Yale, she studied English and environmental science at Colby College, and worked with non-profit organizations in  Colorado and Washington, D.C., on communication, watershed management, and community outreach and engagement initiatives.

Posted in: Innovation & EnvironmentEnvironmental Law & GovernanceEnergy & Climate
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
| Share

Where’s the Law?

By Guest Author, Jennifer Skene, Yale Law School '14

“Where’s The Finance (WTF)?” That was the question posed repeatedly the past two weeks during the UNFCCC’s 19th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Warsaw. But this simply leads to another question: “Where’s the Law?”

In other cases of environmental damage for the past seventy years, under international law the question of “Where’s the Finance?” has been comparatively easy to answer—it lies with the countries to blame for the harms caused. This is known as the polluter pays principle (PPP), and it is now a widely recognized tenet of international law. Yet the PPP has yet to materialize in any UNFCCC agreements, meaning that developing countries, which are the hardest hit by climate change, are left with minimal financial assistance.

Ironically, it was a case brought by the United States that provided the initial foundation for the PPP. In the 1941 Trail Smelter decision the United States won a dispute against Canada for compensation for pollution damages caused to the U.S. by a Canadian smelter.

With climate change, however, the U.S. and other developed countries are successfully keeping compensation out of the picture, and this COP in Warsaw was no different.  The “Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage (IMLD)” is the compromise States reached during their overtime negotiations on Saturday, November 23. Despite the calls of developing nations to create a separate loss and damage mechanism, the IMLD will be housed under the existing adaptation mechanisms. Essentially this means that funding provided by developed nations, if and when it should materialize, will come in the form of financial assistance, not compensation for harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. And this financial assistance will almost certainly be far from adequate.

It may be up to other international legal institutions to bring compensation into the picture. In 2011 and 2012 the island nation of Palau sought an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on whether the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters are responsible for harm caused to developing countries. While an advisory opinion would not be binding, it could offer sufficient legal support to compel States to create a loss and damage mechanism based on compensation. However, developed countries, led by the United States, stymied Palau’s campaign, and it is, for now, dead in the water.

So Where’s The Finance? Until we answer the question of “Where’s the Law?” finance may remain elusive. As the latest COP further demonstrates, answering the question of “Where’s the Law” may take the authority of a body outside the UNFCCC altogether—like the ICJ. Until the entire international community understands compensation to be a legally binding obligation that they cannot negotiate away, developing countries will likely be left asking “WTF?”

Jennifer Skene is a third-year law student at Yale from Tallahassee, FL. She is the chair of the Native American Law Students Association, a board member for the Yale Environmental Law Association, and a Features Editor on the Yale Journal of International Law. Jennifer is active in Yale's Environmental Protection Clinic, and this past summer she received a Ford Fellowship to work at the Center for International Environmental Law. 

Posted in: Environmental Law & GovernanceEnergy & Climate
Friday, November 22, 2013
| Share

Down the Drain—Water Metering in the Home

By Guest Author, Rachel Lipstein, Yale College '15

Superstorms and costal flooding may grab headlines, but water scarcity is emerging as our most immediate environmental concern. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent assessment highlights the increasing risk of water scarcity in this age of climate extremes and skyrocketing populations. Another recent study finds that if, by the end of the century, 500 million people are subjected to water scarcity, it will be the result of an optimistic warming scenario. Even now, the droughts plaguing many of the world’s most arid regions—including parts of western United States—are contributing to economic fragility and social unrest.

Water meters, small devices that track water usage, could play a key role in helping people understand the reality of water as a limited resource. Because they allow utilities to bill by volume, meters encourage customers to conserve—often with dramatic results. In this series, we will examine metering's effect on water consumption, its intersection with cultural norms and individual rights, and its impact on communities.The first installment highlighted water metering policy in Chile.

***

In 2009, only 55 percent of the homes in California’s San Joaquin Valley had water meters installed. That low percentage was not the result of a naturally slow adoption process. It was a result of aggressive resistance to the devices, which were billed as “taxing machines.”[1] When the city of Fresno, in the heart of the arid valley, attempted to install 8,000 meters in a pilot program, a group of taxpayers fought fiercely and successfully to amend the city charter, banning residential meters.

The United States isn’t the only developed country with popular opposition to metering. In southern England a renewed compulsory metering drive has been met with indignation. Some customers claim that volumetric pricing is a tax on children, as larger families might now pay more.[2] Financial concerns are colored by a popular distrust of England’s private utility companies. In the past decade, water prices have increased 84 percent, while the utilities profits have jumped up to 200 percent.[3]

With correct regulation, however, residential metering encourages individual conservation. When coupled with grace period and gradual price increases, metering can be rolled out fairly. In Denmark, the transition to residential metering and volumetric billing were correlated with a 12.6-percent decrease in consumption between 1996 and 2007.[4]

Metering also improves equity. When customers pay by volume, the implicit subsidy that high-volume users receive at the expense of low-volume users is eliminated. Although most residences in the United States are metered, regulations differ by state and even by district. Water is not always billed volumetrically. Many meters are never even read.

In the past, Fresno utilities charged a flat rate regardless of usage. For a city that averaged just under 290 gallons per person per day—almost triple the national average of 100 gallons—this was a problem.[5] In light of diminishing aquifer levels and excessive usage, the California legislature mandated that any city drawing from federal dams install water meters by 2013.[6]

Today, Fresno is almost completely metered, and the results have been positive. Patrick Weimiller, Fresno’s director of Public Works, told local news affiliate KFSN that he has already seen a reduction in usage. “Our actual numbers are showing we're about 17 percent below where we were with the fixed rate, with some room to grow.”[7]

This post is the second in a series on water metering. The next installment will look at agricultural metering in the United States.


[7] http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=8934000

Rachel Lipstein is a junior at Yale College majoring in English major with a concentration in Writing. She is interested in sustainable agriculture and enjoys spending time on farms. Previously, she worked on the 108-foot sloop, Clearwater, which is dedicated to protecting the Hudson River through education, advocacy, and celebration.

Posted in: Environmental Performance MeasurementEnvironmental Law & GovernanceEnergy & Climate
Thursday, November 14, 2013
| Share

Rit Aggarwala to Speak on Megacities’s Leadership in Climate Change Adaptation

By Guest Author, Amy Weinfurter, Yale F&ES '15

Amidst the frustration surrounding national and international action to address climate change, cities are increasingly emerging as leaders in both adaptation and mitigation. As the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group notes, “City mayors are directly accountable to their constituents for their decisions, and are more nimble than state and national elected officials to take decisive action—often with immediate and impactful results. What … cities do individually and in unison to address climate change can set the agenda for communities and governments everywhere.”

Cities’ leadership in addressing global warming has potentially enormous impacts: the world’s larger cities consume two-thirds of the world’s energy, or over 70 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. From the development of glow-in-the-dark bike paths to the increasing use of green infrastructure and green spaces to buffer storm events, urban communities are especially adept seeing opportunities for change through existing infrastructure. This makes their innovations rapidly scalable, enabling the kind of fast-moving change needed to reduce or respond to climate change.   

As the former director of long-term planning and sustainability for New York City and the current special advisor to Michael Bloomberg in his role as chair of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Rit Aggarwala works at the center of this activity.  He visits Yale next week to discuss how implementing meaningful and sustainable climate-related actions locally will help address climate change globally. His talk, “Climate Change Adaptation in Megacities,” takes place on Thursday, November 21, at 5:00 PM, in Kroon Hall's Burke Auditorium. The talk is free and open to the public.

His presentation concludes a semester-long speaker series titled From Mitigation to Adaptation: Regional Responses to Climate Change. The series, co-hosted by YCELP and YCEI, highlights regional and local approaches to climate adaptation, and how those strategies fit within the larger context of climate change mitigation.

Amy Weinfurter is a first-year Masters of Environmental Management (MEM '15) candidate at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, focusing on the intersection between environmental communication and policy. Before arriving at Yale, she studied English and environmental science at Colby College, and worked with non-profit organizations in  Colorado and Washington, D.C., on communication, watershed management, and community outreach and engagement initiatives.

Posted in: Environmental Law & GovernanceEnergy & Climate
Thursday, October 24, 2013
| Share

Maxine Burkett and the “Ex-Situ Nation” as a New Home for Climate Refugees

By Guest Author, Amy Weinfurter, Yale F&ES '15

During a recent presentation at Yale Law School, Maxine Burkett noted that her scholarship often focuses “on the edge of what is possible.”  Professor Burkett, Associate Professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii, and the former director of the Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy (ICAP), visited campus Friday, October 18, as part of the fall speaker series From Mitigation to Adaptation: Regional Responses to Climate Change speaker series, co-hosted by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Yale Climate and Energy Institute. Her scholarship tackles a problem that indeed seems unimaginable, but increasingly threatens island and coastal communities across the world: how states might continue to exist, even after climate change has made their physical territories uninhabitable. 

For island and coastal nations, rising sea levels pose an urgent threat. Saltwater intrusion can damage water supplies, and ruin soil’s ability to support agriculture.  More frequent and intense storms can damage infrastructure, and accelerate coastal erosion, a phenomenon creating tough decisions for coastal Alaskan communities. For island nations, such as Tuvalu, the threat is so complete that it is difficult to truly comprehend; rising sea levels are likely to completely flood low-lying countries, creating scores of climate refugees.  

The toll of climate change on communities is already heavy, though the many people do not always recognize the link between migration and global warming.  Professor Burkett noted that in the continental United States – an area that might not seem to be at risk for climate-change-driven migration – Hurricane Katrina temporarily or permanently displaced 1.1 million people from communities in Louisiana and Mississippi. In addition to the impact of extreme weather events, like hurricanes, a more subtle and long-term exodus is also underway. Many residents of Pacific islands have begun what Professor Burkett terms a “slow-moving migration,” leaving now in anticipation of the future threat of rising seas.  This process threatens to create “empty states,” by draining communities of skills and tax revenue even before the full physical impacts of climate change hit. 

This migration poses challenges that existing legal tools cannot easily meet. As a closely watched court case in New Zealand demonstrates, human rights laws do not account or make provisions for victims of climate change. In New Zealand, as in most states, the “legal concept of a refugee is someone who is being persecuted, which requires human interaction.” Climate change, which depends on so many different decisions and decisionmakers, is difficult to fit into this framework, despite the clear threat it poses to the future of vulnerable communities. Additionally, in countries like the United States, the political difficulty of accepting the presence of global warming may prevent conversations about climate refugees. 

Professor Burkett argues that the unique threat climate change poses to vulnerable communities – and the current legal system’s inability to tackle it – requires a radical rethinking of the definition of a nation. The current legal framework for a state requires a permanent population, defined territory, functioning government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states. Professor Burkett envisions a new type of “ex-situ state” that could operate without a physical territory. These nations would use virtual networks to maintain a sense of culture and identity among a citizenry spread across the globe. They would also act as important intermediaries and advocates for citizens who have immigrated to – but not yet received full citizenship in – other countries. Her proposal draws on current alternative models of the state, such as the Tibetan Government-in-exile; the Sovereign Order of Malta, which operates out of Rome after losing access to its island territory; dual citizenship models; and the networks that link post-colonial diaspora populations to their home countries. 

Professor Burkett’s talk highlights the environmental injustice inherent in climate change; a major brunt of its impacts will be born by island nations with tiny carbon footprints. While adaptation strategies often call to mind engineering or urban planning initiatives, climate change also has the potential to radically alter political framework and boundaries.  Professor Burkett’s work eloquently illustrates the need to more fully plan for the human and sociopolitical impacts of climate change, and the moral imperative to invest in mitigation strategies, to make such drastic measures less necessary.  

Amy Weinfurter is a first-year Masters of Environmental Management (MEM '15) candidate at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, focusing on the intersection between environmental communication and policy. Before arriving at Yale, she studied English and environmental science at Colby College, and worked with non-profit organizations in  Colorado and Washington, D.C., on communication, watershed management, and community outreach and engagement initiatives.

Posted in: Environmental Law & GovernanceEnergy & Climate
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
| Share

Introduction to Metering: Spotlight on Chile

By Guest Author, Rachel Lipstein, Yale College '15

Superstorms and costal flooding may grab headlines, but water scarcity is emerging as our most immediate environmental concern. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent assessment highlights the increasing risk of water scarcity in this age of climate extremes and skyrocketing populations. Another recent study finds that if, by the end of the century, 500 million people are subjected to water scarcity, it will be the result of an optimistic warming scenario. Even now, the droughts plaguing many of the world’s most arid regions—including parts of western United States—are contributing to economic fragility and social unrest.

Water meters, small devices that track water usage, could play a key role in helping people understand the reality of water as a limited resource. Because they allow utilities to bill by volume, meters encourage customers to conserve—often with dramatic results. In the upcoming series, we will examine metering's effect on water consumption, its intersection with cultural norms and individual rights, and its impact on communities. 

***

In urban areas of Chile, people know exactly how much water they use. The country’s regulatory agency pegged average usage in 2009 at 44.9 gallons per capita per day, nearly half the United States’ average consumption. They know with such a high degree of certainty because 96 percent of households across the country—100 percent in urban areas—have water meters, small devices that track consumption. Meters allow for volumetric billing, charging consumers for the water they actually use, which encourages them to pay attention to how long they run the tap.

Outside of Chile, where meters are sparse or nonexistent, households pay for water at a flat rate, which encourages users to ignore how long they run the tap. With flat rates, lower-volume users subsidize higher-volume users, and neither has an incentive to curb consumption.

Urban Chileans pay for water by the cubic meter. The more they use, the more they pay. Poor Chileans are protected by a direct subsidy that has money going directly into citizens’ pockets to help pay the bills. To maintain fairness and equity, and to ensure that utilities charge a fair rate, tariffs are set by an independent regulatory body.

Despite success stories like the one in Chile, many countries have been slow to accept meters. Chile has a remarkable degree of meter coverage, particularly for Latin America (according to the World Bank). For the sake of comparison, Ireland hovers just above 0 percent. For most countries without a history of utility centralization and regulation, such as the United States, metering policy may vary widely from region to region. It seems high levels of development or GDP are no indicator of coverage.

Chile’s exceptional performance is a result of a series of transitions that began with a 1974 military coup headed by Augusto Pinochet. As a component of sweeping centralization, Pinochet implemented a national public water and sanitation company, extending coverage dramatically through the 1970s and 1980s. Meters were installed in most new connections, paving the way for a mandatory metering policy.

After the 1988 transition to democracy, Chile adopted a spate of laws that divided the national company into several public and private corporations. Mandatory metering was implemented, and a powerful state regulatory agency was established to oversee it all. New progressive policies ensured that no household spent more than 5 percent of its average monthly income on water and sanitation. While customers have an incentive to conserve water, no one is denied access due to price. Utilities are incentivized to maintain good quality water and reliable systems.

Chile, the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean reported, has created the perfect public-private model. Privatization has increased in recent years, accompanied by a private service provision that maximizes efficiency and quality. Meanwhile, an autonomous public regulator ensures fair prices and equitable service. [1][2]

Bolivia is a counterpoint to Chile’s success. In 1997 and 1999, the government awarded two major contracts to foreign private utilities, granting them the right to provide water in La Paz and Cochabamba. These contracts resulted in skyrocketing prices and water cut-offs, along with mandatory meters. Multi-city riots ensued in a conflict known as the Cochabamba water wars. Thousands took to the streets, erected roadblocks, and defied police. Within the span of three days in April 2000, several protesters were killed, including a 17-year-old boy. Then-president Hugo Banzer declared martial law. The government finally agreed to grant water control to the grassroots coalition of protesters with the promise of dissolving the private contract.

The memory of that conflict remains in the hearts of many Bolivians. “In a lot of Latin America, there is a hesitancy to talk about metering due to its association with the water wars,” said Kim Lemme, of the international non-profit, Water for People. The mention of metering, she said, often elicits murmurs of “Bechtel,” one of the despised private water companies. “Being able to get people used to the idea of metering,” she concluded, “is powerful.”

Bolivians are still adjusting to the idea of meters. However because of innovative funding plans and the example set by model projects, several communities have already made the switch. According to Kate Fogelberg at Water for People, over 120 rural communities in Bolivia now have metering systems. While Chileans enjoy 96 percent metering, they still face challenges in their water sector, particularly in the over-allocation of rural water rights that leaves remote, arid, downstream households dry.

A progressive metering policy, accompanied by careful regulation, has made Chilean cities standout sites of clean, affordable water in Latin America. Because of its broad implications, water metering can act as an indicator of both water conservation policy and practice. However, spotty data coverage may hamper the development of a metric to assess how much water consumption is metered in countries, mainly because information is self-reported by the utilities themselves and only in selected countries. Representing the status of water resources, describing systems, and guiding policy meaningfully is an Augean task, one in which metering will play a part.


[2] http://www2.udec.cl/~mquirog/OECD%20Water%201.pdf

This post is the first in a series on water metering. The next installment will look at residential metering in the United States and other developed countries.

Rachel Lipstein is a junior at Yale College majoring in English major with a concentration in Writing. She is interested in sustainable agriculture and enjoys spending time on farms. Previously, she worked on the 108-foot sloop, Clearwater, which is dedicated to protecting the Hudson River through education, advocacy, and celebration.

Posted in: Environmental Performance MeasurementEnvironmental Law & GovernanceEnergy & Climate
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
| Share

Climate Law Expert and Climate Justice Champion to Speak at Yale Law School

By Guest Author, Verner Wilson, III, Yale F&ES '15

In the vast Pacific Ocean lie thousands of islands with rich cultures and histories. One of them is the country of Tuvalu. The country, with a population of about 12,000 people, is the fourth least-populated nation in the world.  Tuvaluans have called their island home for thousands of years and depend on fishing as well as their islands for food and livelihoods. As an Alaska Native I can relate to their culture. It shares a tradition of hunting and fishing for survival, as well as a deep connection to the sea. This island and my own home face a similar threat from the impacts of climate change.

Tuvalu and many other Pacific Island nations are low-lying. The tallest point in Tuvalu is fourteen feet above sea-level. This is problematic, since studies show sea levels will continue to rise as a result our changing climate. In late September, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) released its fifth assessment on the impacts of climate change, and their report predicted that oceans would rise by at least a foot or two this century. This is a larger increase than predicted in the IPCC’s previous report, and raises the stakes for small island-nations such as Tuvalu.

One or two feet may not seem like much, but in Tuvalu the average elevation is just about six feet above sea level. That means that infrastructure – homes, schools, workplaces – will be compromised. When this happens, Tuvaluans may be among the first nations forced to completely desert their homeland, creating a state of climate refugees. In Alaska, Shishmaref is facing a similar fate. The small Arctic village is located on a barrier reef. When I visited the Alaskan island last year, while working for the World Wildlife Fund, many people told me how reduced sea ice and increased storms had already carried away one home in their village. It struck me to hear of their experience and plea for action.

Stories like this illustrate the importance of Maxine Burkett’s work. Professor Burkett is an Associate Professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii, and the former director of the Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy (ICAP). She is an expert on climate change law and policy, and her previous work includes advising Pacific Island nations like Tuvalu on how to move forward. Her lecture, titled “Climate Refugees and the Challenge of Statehood: Defining the Problem, Identifying Solutions,” is on Thursday, October 17, at 12:30 PM in Yale Law School's Room 121. The Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy and the Yale Climate and Energy Institute are honored to host her while she explores the issue of climate justice and regional adaptation and mitigation measures in the Pacific. All are welcome to be a part of this important discussion.

Posted in: Environmental Law & GovernanceEnergy & Climate
Monday, September 30, 2013
| Share

Maria Trumpler To Present Webinar On Gender, and Feminism in Food and Agriculture

By Guest Author, Avana Andrade, Yale F&ES '15

Maria Trumpler is a fitting contributor to YCELP’s webinar series Frontiers in Food and Agriculture. Here at Yale, she is the Director of the Office of LGBTQ Resources, and her teaching interests include gender and science, feminist critiques of science, scientific studies of sexuality, and food studies. During this workshop, Trumpler will address the impact of gender on agriculture as a practice, and she’ll discuss gendered discourses surrounding the consumption of food. Her expertise helps us explore the interconnections between theory and practice in food justice.

In 1991, Trumpler received her PhD from Yale in History of Medicine and Life Science. After completing her PhD, Trumpler spent eight years teaching at Middlebury, Harvard, and Wesleyan, but left the academic scene to experiment with artisanal cheesemaking in Vermont. Through this work, Trumpler began to relate her interests in feminism, and food and agriculture. Eventually, she returned to Yale in the Women’s Studies Department and currently teaches a lecture course on “Women, Food and Culture” and a seminar on the “History of Sexuality.” 

This expertise and these unique experiences will be an excellent addition to the third annual Policy Workshop Webinar Series: Frontiers in Food and Agriculture. You can register for Maria Trumpler's webinar by following this link: https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/402736559

Co-sponsored by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, the Yale Sustainable Food Project and the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law School, this third annual webinar series highlights emerging issues in food and agriculture policy. The series is designed for academic and policy communities as well as the general public and is available to everyone online. The webinar format enables interested parties to access and participate in these presentations from anywhere in the world. The series is free and open to the public; presentation recordings are available online approximately one week after they air live. Find out more about the entire series here: Frontiers in Food and Agriculture.

Avana Andrade is a first year Master of Environmental Management candidate at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. She earned her B.A. in International Studies and Western European History at Colorado State University in 2010. Before returning to school, she worked as a public historian and backcountry ranger with the Student Conservation Association and the National Park Service in both Northern Arizona and Southern Utah. Her work has focused on the history of grazing and cultural resource management in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Canyonlands National Park. Work and recreation on the Colorado Plateau motivates her primary interest in grad school, environmental conflict mediation. Avana is a Colorado native and an avid backpacker and gardener.

Posted in: Environmental Law & Governance
Monday, September 16, 2013
| Share

Tanya Fields, Executive Director of The BLKProjek, to Launch Webinar Series

By Guest Author, Jena Clarke, Yale F&ES '15

Tanya Fields is a mother, activist and entrepreneur in the South Bronx. She is the Executive Director of The BLK ProjeK, a non-profit organization that works to create a better food system for marginalized neighborhoods and demographics, especially underserved women and youth of color. And she will be the first presenter in this year’s Policy Workshop Webinar series on the subject Frontiers in Food and Agriculture, which starts on Tuesday, September 17 at 12:00 PM EDT.  

A young woman of color herself, Tanya feels that she came to her work as an activist out of necessity.  As a single mother living in a low-income community and putting herself through school, she was intimately familiar with the struggles and stresses faced by families without the resources to access healthy food and environments. The challenges she faced in her own life inspired her to take action, working first with on issues of environmental justice for organizations including Mothers on the Move, Sustainable South Bronx and the Majora Carter Group. This work, and the networks, knowledge and experience she gained, led her to create the BLK ProjeK in 2009 as a means of embodying her ethic through “real, tangible, effective action.”

The BLK ProjeK’s current initiatives include the South Bronx Mobile Market, a converted school bus that makes fresh, local, and organic vegetables available to communities in the South Bronx. The ProjeK organizes the Bronx Grub Meal Series, a quarterly community dinner that serves a sustainable low cost or free meal, while encouraging civic engagement and dialogue. The BLK ProjeK has an on-going initiative called Libertad Urban Farm, a movement that seeks to reclaim underdeveloped land to put to use as community gardens. Although the BLK ProjeK’s work is rooted in food issues, its impact extends much wider: by working at the intersection of race, class and gender, it is actively engaged in issues of community growth and development, representation and empowerment, public and mental health, and environmental stewardship. 

To learn more about Tanya Fields, the BLK ProjeK, and food justice in urban communities, tune into Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy’s webinar “Frontiers in Food and Agriculture: A Conversation with Tanya Fields” on Tuesday, September 17 at 12:00 pm EDT. To register, visit www4.gotomeeting.com/register/941997655. Tanya’s presentation will be followed by an interactive Q&A session with the audience.

Jena Clarke is a first-year Master of Environmental Management candidate at the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. She earned her B.S. in International Agricultural Development from the University of California, Davis in 2009. She is interested in agricultural policy, especially relating to livestock production and rangeland management. Her background is in cattle ranching in the US and Australia, where she worked as a cowgirl and later as a business analyst for a corporate agricultural funds manager.

Posted in: Environmental Law & Governance
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
| Share

Climate Change and the ICJ: Seeking an Advisory Opinion on Transboundary Harm

By Guest Author, Halley Epstein, Yale Law School '14

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change draft report—leaked late last month—warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century. As analysts, including climate deniers, pore over various aspects of the report, island nations continue to wonder: is it too late to avoid catastrophic damage caused by climate change?

For people in low-lying nations, a sea level rise of three feet would wreak havoc on their ecosystems, territories, and ways of life. The New York Times notes that rising sea levels could affect “the world’s great cities,” including New York, New Orleans, Shanghai, Venice, and London. But the Times does not mention how rising seas are already affecting low-lying cities and nations not on their list – including the Republic of Palau.

Palau, and many others, are frustrated by the lack of binding international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This ongoing political impasse inspired Palau, along with a multistate coalition, to draw attention to climate change on a different international stage. The coalition initiated an international campaign to secure an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on assigning responsibility for causing climate change. At the ICJ, all interested nations, regardless of political influence in international climate negotiations, would have the opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter.

Last fall, a group of Yale graduate and professional students worked directly on this campaign with some of the coalition’s organizers, including Palau’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Stuart Beck, YLS ’71. “At its core the Palau campaign simply seeks to bring the rule of law to the problem of global climate change,” said Professor Douglas Kysar, the Joseph M. Field ’55 Professor of Law at Yale Law School and one of the course instructors. “So for us, it offers an ideal pedagogical opportunity to study the power of law in an age of despairing politics.”

Our goal was to assemble the legal, political, and scientific justifications for the coalition’s request and detail why the ICJ should issue an opinion on state responsibility for transboundary harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Together with Ambassador Beck, Aaron Korman -- Palau’s legal adviser -- and Professor Kysar, we compiled our findings in a new report, Climate Change & the International Court of Justice.

Drawing on climate science, international and domestic legal authorities, and the international legal principles of transboundary harm, the rule of law, and human rights, we conclude that supporting an ICJ opinion on climate change responsibility is in all states’ interest.

As the campaign progresses, Korman said, "we hope others will find this report useful for its overview of the international legal principles and arguments that support the ICJ campaign and that it will serve to build broad support for the advisory opinion request, as well as for decisive action on climate change."

While an ICJ advisory opinion remains just that—advisory—a ruling on states’ rights and obligations under international law could shape international norms and influence future UNFCCC negotiations. Some industrialized nations oppose the campaign because of potential impacts on international negotiations. For island nations, though, the ability to obtain a ruling on international legal responsibility outside of the UNFCCC process is the most realistic way to fight for their right to exist.  


Posted in: Environmental Law & GovernanceEnergy & Climate
Monday, August 05, 2013
| Share

Off Alaska’s North Slope: To drill or not to drill?

By Guest Author, Amy Mount, Yale F&ES '14

“This is good: now that we’ve got an adult with us, we can walk along the beach!” said the 9-year-old Inuit girl.

“Erm, why do you need an adult to walk along the beach?” I asked tentatively, wondering what I’d committed myself to when agreeing to hang out with the bunch of kids who’d been watching Nickelodeon in the cafe where I was eating lunch.

“In case there are polar bears,” she replied nonchalantly, slurping her garish blue Slush Puppie and flicking her hair behind her head.

We were in the tiny village of Wainwright, Alaska, roughly 70 miles from the northernmost city in the United States, perched on the coast where the great expanse of tundra that covers Alaska’s North Slope meets the chilly Arctic Ocean.  The sea ice had begun its springtime melt and three or four whaling crews had towed their boats using snow-machines across the land-fast ice to the patch of dark blue water that had opened up a mile or so from the shore. The rest of the village’s inhabitants had tuned into channel 12 on the CB radio to listen for updates from the whalers, pausing in their work or play occasionally to scan the sea through their binoculars, looking for tell-tale spouts of water.

I couldn’t help gazing out to sea. I’d never seen an ice-covered ocean before and something about it fascinated me: the way it had grown a temporary topography during the dark winter, the frozen layer exhibiting a kind of plate-tectonic behaviour, pushed and pulled by currents and tides, leaving not a smooth landscape but one of ridges and fissures. 

In the 19th century, whales were hunted in large numbers by non-indigenous commercial whaling boats, in what one Alaska Native described to me as the North Slope’s first “offshore oil rush.” The blubber was boiled to extract oil that, in turn, was burned in lamps. Commercial whaling (as distinguished from indigenous people’s subsistence whaling) has been illegal for some time now, but these days there is talk of a new offshore oil rush on the horizon. Decreasing Arctic sea-ice coverage and relatively high global energy prices have been drawing drillships northward in search of the fossilized hydrocarbons thought to lie beneath the sea bed.

I had been drawn north too, intrigued by the media narratives of an inevitable “opening up” of the Arctic. I was travelling around Alaska to research the decisionmaking process that determines whether or not drilling will happen in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas; to learn about who makes those decisions, whose views are considered, and which factors are seen to be important. I have so far interviewed more than 40 people from a variety of backgrounds: oil companies, the Alaska legislature, federal and state agencies, environmental organisations, and Alaska Native institutions. 

Hours of analysis and writing await me in the coming academic year, so it would be rash of me to announce any conclusions just yet. I do, however, want to share one thought. The urban Alaskans from Anchorage and Juneau often alluded to the “bind” or difficult situation in which people up on the North Slope find themselves. Since oil began to flow from the onshore area around Prudhoe Bay in the 1970s, the villages dotting the Arctic coastline have become accustomed to a parallel flow of benefits in the form of greatly improved public services, infrastructure, and cash. Now that the onshore fields are producing less, some hope that offshore drilling could fill the gap and ensure the continued flow of cash to the local economy. 

At the same time, there is great concern for the wellbeing of the bowhead whales that are seen as essential to those communities’ food security, social practices and cultural heritage. Whales might be harmed or pushed away by the noise of drilling, seismic testing, or perhaps the mess of an oil spill – not to mention the impacts of fossil-fuelled climate change on the region as a whole, which indeed were not often mentioned by many of my interviewees but which are increasingly documented in scientific literature. 

No one seems to know a satisfactory way out of this apparent tension between the need for ecological integrity and the need for cash. People in the south sigh and shake their heads in pity at the situation of those in the north. Yet it seems to me that the tension on the North Slope is but an early indication of a condition that exists globally, in a world whose leaders declare their countries to be “addicted” to fossil fuels but whose security is undermined by the extraction and combustion of those very materials – due principally to global warming but also to more locally felt environmental impacts. Understanding the politics, policies and decisions that surround fossil fuel extraction is important not just for Arctic inhabitants but for us all.

Amy Mount, a joint-degree master’s of environmental management and international relations student, is studying the politics of offshore drilling in Alaska.

Posted in: Environmental Law & GovernanceEnergy & Climate
Friday, July 26, 2013
| Share

Oceans: A rising tide of policy concern

By Guest Author, Omar Malik, Yale F&ES '13

Oceans are (figuratively) a hot topic these days—not least because they are, (literally), getting warmer due to climate change. Along with sea-level rise and ocean acidification, the changes to the oceans will affect the world’s coastlines by destroying coral reefs, threatening infrastructure, and flooding low-lying areas with salt-water.

The concern for oceans has galvanized action at the local scale. The Port of Los Angeles recently announced plans for a new oceans research center to help understand the impacts of sea-level rise on cities and sustainability—an important step for advancing the kind of science-based policymaking that is needed to implement effective climate change mitigation.

At the federal level in the United Sates, a body known as the Joint Ocean Commission released a new report, “Charting the Course: Securing the Future of America’s Oceans.” The Report calls for increased data collection, research activities, and inter-agency cooperation. It looks forward to 2015 when the U.S. will chair the Arctic Council, a position that will give the U.S. an opportunity to be more proactive in the polar region. And the Report encourages the Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea Convention—something that would likely help further international ocean cooperation.

Meanwhile, in other ocean news, civil society members, policy experts, and government representatives have launched the Global Ocean Commission, which is concerned with advancing oceans policies. At the United Nations, recent four-day talks on ocean acidificationtook place to raise awareness, and discussions outlining the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have led the proposal for a specific SDG on oceans in the post-2015 agenda. The Republic of Palau, for example, has proposed an SDG that would include policy targets on ocean acidification, sustainable fisheries, and marine ecosystem health.

“Hopefully our collective efforts will serve as a banner to rally oceans advocates around the world,” said Ambassador Stuart Beck, representative of Palau to the United Nations, at a recent meeting on the issue in New York.

All of these efforts call for action, monitoring, and stewardship and will require the use of good data. Tools like the Ocean Health Index and the EPI can help track policy progress once countries get serious about such big environmental issues.

Posted in: Environmental Law & Governance
Friday, July 19, 2013
| Share

Revisiting Florida Wetlands

By Josh Galperin, Associate Director

In a post last week I mentioned that I had made two particular predictions this past year. I was happily correct in one of my predictions, and I posted on that last week. I also promised to discuss my wrong prediction this week. I thought about breaking that promise because I don’t like being wrong, but the subject matter is too interesting to ignore.

At the end of January I blogged about an environmental case in the United States Supreme Court. The case, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District involved (I thought) some very nuanced aspects of the U.S. Constitution’s Takings Clause. I discussed all the details in the earlier post, so I’ll give only a very brief recap here: Mr. Koontz wanted to develop some wetlands into commercial shopping. Local environmental officials asked Koontz to pay for restoration at wetlands several miles away or to reduce the size of his planned development. Koontz refused these conditions and the officials denied his permit.

Koontz’s lawsuit claimed that the state had effectively taken his property without compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.  As my previous post explained, this argument is typically used when the government either physically appropriates private property—as in the example of Harvey and Phyllis Karan’s strip of beach in New Jersey—or regulates property so heavily that it is effectively unusable for private purposes—for example, when regulation prohibits all construction on the property. One thing that makes Koontz an interesting case is that the government never took Koontz’s property; they merely denied him a development permit.

I wrote above that “I thought” this was a case about the Takings Clause. In my previous post I argued that if the government had approved a permit for Koontz, and that permit required him to mitigate wetlands, then, perhaps, they would have effectively taken his property and would have to pay or change the permit. However, because the government denied the permit, no property ever changed hands. Therefore there could not be a taking, and Koontz would lose the case.

That’s where I was wrong.

As it turns out, the Court didn’t quite look at this case as one about taking property. Rather, they looked to the legal doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. The Court ruled in Koontz’s favor because they looked at the government’s proposed condition (Koontz only gets a permit on the condition that he pays to mitigate wetlands) and said that it would have been a taking if it had happened.

When the government says to a citizen “You cannot get benefit B unless you give up constitutional right C”, then there has been an unconstitutional condition. For instance, it would be unconstitutional for a state to tell a citizen that he cannot get his Medicare benefits unless he stops protesting the war. Protest is a constitutionally guaranteed right and the government cannot withhold a benefit on the condition that a citizen gives up that right. To my own surprise I foreshadowed this argument in my earlier post when I said Mr. Koontz might argue that he is effectively being forced to accept an unconstitutional permit if he wants a resolution, because if he doesn’t accept the permit then no property changes hands and he has no basis on which to sue.

Even though I thought of this argument, I reached a different conclusion from the Court. I reasoned that the right Koontz was being asked to give up—the right to keep his property—was not a constitutional right. The Constitution clearly permits the government to take private property. Where I fell short was in ignoring the requirement of just compensation. If the government did, in fact, demand property from Koontz, they demanded it without offering just compensation. In other words, (at least in theory, and I’ll come back to this) the government conditioned Koontz’s permit on his willingness to give up property without just compensation. It is unconstitutional to take property without compensation and a condition demanding property without compensation is therefore an unconstitutional condition. On this point the Court was exactly right and I was exactly wrong.

There are two important notes here.  First, it is important to realize that under this logic, the case really is not about takings law. Because the government never issued Koontz a permit, no property ever changed hands, nothing was taken. Koontz refused to accede to the unconstitutional condition. Since nothing ever changed hands, Koontz is not entitled to the constitutional remedy of just compensation. Nothing was taken so there is nothing for which to compensate him. If he gets any payment for his troubles it will not be payment demanded by the Constitution, but some payment that might be required by Florida law.

The second note brings us back to the underlying condition. The Court reasoned that the condition was unconstitutional if it required transfer of property without compensation.  So there was one last issue that the Supreme Court had to decide: Could there be a taking where the demanded property was money rather than physical or intellectual property? In other words: Could a requirement to pay, rather than a requirement to give up land, amount to a taking?

The Court found that transfer of money could amount to a taking. The Takings Clause is traditionally focused on physical or intellectual property, so expanding to general cash transfers is a dramatic shift, and to me, this shift seems to lead to absurd results. Suppose the government demands that Koontz remediate a wetland for the cost of $5,000 and that is deemed a taking. It therefore requires just compensation. It isn’t hard to calculate a fair compensation for taking $5,000. Unless there has been a dramatic economic shift, the fair value of $5,000 is $5,000. The government then gives Koontz his money back. Now there has essentially been no taking to begin with. Other than some transaction costs, everybody is back to exactly where they started.  Put differently, it is as if there had never been a taking in the first place. Nothing of consequence has happened.

This is absurd because the Constitution very explicitly allows the government to take property. This is exactly the point of the Takings Clause. The government can take property so long as the property is taken for a public use and the government pays just compensation. But if the Court views money as property for these purpose, then the government has effectively lost its constitutional ability to take this type of property even when necessary for a public use. Imagine if the Court ruled that government could take land to build a school, but only as long as the government returned the land as soon as they took it! In effect the government cannot take the property at all. This is a farcical reading of the Constitution but is an exact parallel to what the Court is setting up when cash can be the basis of a taking. The ruling also suggests that government may never be able to charge fees or levy taxes without immediately refunding them. The Court noted this fear and assured that the Koontz ruling does not infringe on taxes, but the Court gave no guidance on a distinction between charges that require refunds and those that do not.

That seems absurd to me, and unconstitutional, but I’ve been wrong before.

Posted in: Environmental Law & Governance
Thursday, July 11, 2013
| Share

Revisiting the New Jersey Coast

By Guest Author, Josh Galperin, YCELP Associate Director

The problem with making predictions is that sometimes predictions are wrong. Over the past several months I made two predictions on this blog about two important environmental law cases. I ended up one-for-two.

That isn’t such a bad performance, but the consequences of being wrong are significant -- not just for my ego, but for the on-the-ground reality of environmental planning. Of course the consequences of being right are also important. This post addresses the good news. Stay tuned next week for the bad news.

In December I wrote about climate adaptation efforts in New Jersey. The town of Harvey Cedars, the State of New Jersey, and the federal government were cooperatively working to strengthen a dune system in order to protect against devastating storm surges like those associated with Hurricane Sandy. But bigger and better dunes can mean diminished views for some homeowners. Harvey and Phyllis Karan lost some of their view and a court initially awarded them $375,000 for the loss. Shortly afterward, Sandy came along and, because of the new dunes, didn’t destroy their home. So Mr. and Mrs. Karan had hundreds of thousands of dollars and an intact home thanks to the dune project.

I argued that this was an unreasonable result and if the law continues to require this sort of double-benefit whenever private property is hampered by climate adaptation projects, climate adaptation would become financially infeasible.

Luckily for the future of New Jersey’s beaches, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Monday, July 8, that the lower court was wrong when it awarded $375,000 to the Karans. The lower court did not allow the jury to consider the fact that the dune project would give the Karans a significant benefit (saving their home!), and it should have. According to the New Jersey Supreme Court, the jury should consider the fair market value of the property before the governmental interference and compare that to the fair market value after the interference, including any potential increases resulting from the project.

This case now returns to the lower court where a new jury will consider how the home-saving benefits of dune replenishment will affect the value of the Karans’ home. Hurricane Sandy likely had some impact on the court’s decision in this case, even if only subconsciously. It is also likely that the memory of Sandy will influence the next jury to determine how much money the Karans should receive.

Sandy may or may not have a connection to climate change, but the storm is at least a demonstration of what climate change looks like. In my earlier post I suggested that the reality of climate change may drive changes to the strictures of property law, and this week’s decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court suggests this could be exactly what is happening.

 

Posted in: Environmental Law & GovernanceEnergy & Climate
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
| Share

Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide in Eugene, OR: Where Lawyers Are Advocates

By Guest Author, Marissa Knodel, Yale F&ES '14

The next time I am asked whether I can be an advocate for people and places with the least information, access to, and ability to obtain a just, healthy, and resilient future, and have a career, I can confidently answer “yes!”

After my first day at Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW) in Eugene, Oregon, I knew I found the type of dynamic, engaging, hard working, and innovative legal community for which I want to be part of for the long-term. As a dual J.D./M.E.M. candidate, I accelerated through law school and missed valuable opportunities to apply my learning to a “real-world” situation. Such omissions proved frustrating for my legal education because law is a skill-based discipline that requires an application, otherwise one is left with a bag of tools, raw material, and no directions.

Thus, adrift in my sea of legal reasoning and academic conceptions about environmental justice and community empowerment, I sought mentorship from lawyers working in the interconnected fields of environmental and public interest law. I was fortunate to discover ELAW, which was founded in 1989 at the University of Oregon Law School by a group of lawyers from ten countries who discovered they could promote environmental protection for their communities more effectively by sharing strategies and legal and scientific information. This cross-border collaboration has since expanded to include more than 300 public interest advocates from seventy countries. ELAW remains a nonprofit public interest and environmental law organization that “helps communities speak out for clean air, clean water, and a healthy planet” and promotes “grassroots efforts to build a sustainable, just future.”

I cannot disclose specifics, but my day-to-day assignments go something like this:

An advocate (lawyer) in ____ country is thinking about bringing a claim against ____ project or company on behalf of ____  community in defense of their human, environmental, and/or constitutional rights to a safe, healthy, and sustainable environment for present and future generations. Can you provide information about relevant laws, precedent cases, and advice about the viability of such a claim?

Then off I go onto the Internet and law library to research and write a memo in response, usually in collaboration with other ELAW law and science experts. For example, I’ve researched international financing of gold, copper and silver operations that are impacting a local community, investigated whether noxious odors constitute a violation of the right to a healthy environment, and summarized, for comparison, U.S. laws and regulations pertaining to wetland development and phosphate mining. I also help update and expand an online database of countries’ environmental impact assessment (EIA) legislation. Exploring how different countries articulate and enforce environmental laws, especially with regard to EIAs, is fascinating, and says a lot about the nation’s governance and rule of law, political and colonial history, economic development, and other socio-economic and socio-cultural issues. Environmental changes exacerbate existing social, political, and economic stressors, so there is a strong emphasis on the intersection between human and environmental rights.

Though difficult, I am learning that the “answer” to a particular request is often negative or unclear. In addition, I may or may not find out whether a particular memo made a beneficial difference in a case or not. The important part of my work, however, is not always about winning or personal recognition, but about aid through empowerment. ELAW’s philosophy and purpose is to provide legal and scientific assistance at the request of communities, with the goal of strengthening the rule of law and access to justice at the local level. The personal relationships established with the lawyers who represent these communities helps elucidate the elements that comprise environmental justice: recognition, participation, enforcement, and empowerment.

Non-profit work is not always romantic and certainly has its challenges. A great deal of time must be spent fundraising and writing grant applications. ELAW’s physical office space and amenities are limited, but the location is beautiful, and my co-workers are personable, friendly, and generous. Largely dependent upon volunteers and unpaid interns, the ELAW community is more value- than profit-driven. Non-profit legal work, in sum, is simultaneously rewarding and humbling in the most satisfactory way. ELAW has already taught me that to be a more effective environmental and public interest lawyer, one must first identify as an environmental and community advocate.

I find it difficult to believe that a month has already passed since my move to the west coast. At the same time, if my knowledge and list of amazing experiences continue at their current rate, I am looking forward to my remaining six weeks with enthusiasm and determination to take advantage of every exponential opportunity.

Marissa Knodel grew up in Rochester, Minnesota, and has been fortunate to live and study in a variety of other locations, including Alaska, Belize, South Africa, and France. She earned her B.A. in Environmental Studies and International Public Policy from Dartmouth College in 2009. After graduation, she worked as the Sustainability Programs Specialist at Dartmouth College and indulged her passion for food and wine with a summer internship at Jewell Towne Vineyards in South Hampton, New Hampshire. She enrolled in the dual degree program with Vermont Law School and the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies in 2010 to explore her interest in the definition and intersection of justice and sustainable development in the climate change context.

Posted in: Environmental Law & Governance

Page 2 of 6 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

Blog Home



2007-2010 Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy | Contact Us | Website by Asirastudio LLC