This week I had my first classes at the China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL). CUPL probably has more students interested in Environmental Law than any other law school in China. This is in large measure the result of Professor Wang Canfa teaching there. He is the founder and director of the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims (CLAPV). I am teaching two classes at CUPL - Environmental Law, which meets for three hours on Monday afternoons, and Comparative Law, which meets for two hours on Thursday mornings. I am focusing on comparative environmental law in the latter class and using it to introduce the students to the concept of global environmental law.
There are 45 students in my Environmental Law class and 25 students in my Comparative Law class. As I do in my classes at Maryland, I start the first class by filming the students introducing themselves. I use the video to make individual photos of each students. This allows me use iPhoto to construct a digital seating chart, with the audio available to ensure that I can pronounce each name correctly. I then create a slideshow of the class to test myself on how well I remember each student’s names. I show the slideshow to the students at the beginning of the second last.
This practice has proven particularly valuable here in China where the names are somewhat harder for me to remember given my relative lack of familiarity with Chinese names and the fact that there are six Wangs in my Environmental Law class. It also elicited a particularly warm response from the Chinese students who frequently have classes where they sit passively as the professor lectures at them without making much effort to engage them. I posted the raw videos of the students online so that the students could view them. The Environmental Law class video is online at: http://gallery.mac.com/rperci#100102. The video of my Comparative Law class is online at: http://gallery.mac.com/rperci#100110.
I was impressed with the quality of the English spoken by many of my students, though I am following the advice of former Fulbrighters in trying to speak as slowly as possible. I also was impressed with the high level of interest in environmental law expressed by students in both classes. Class discussions of environmental issues leave me with the impression that there is less understanding of the threat of global warming here than among my Maryland students, perhaps because basic pollution problems pose a much more immediate challenge in China. There also seems to be much greater concern among my Chinese students about job prospects in the environmental field. While my Maryland students generally can be confident about their job prospects in the environmental field, many of the Chinese students are making a leap of faith that jobs will materialize in the future in a field that is just developing.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Fulbright Orientation
This week I attended a three-day orientation program for new Fulbright scholars in China, sponsored by the State Department’s Fulbright Program. Since there is no Fulbright Commission in China, the orientation was run by the U.S. Embassy. The program, which was held at the Swissotel in Beijing, brought together past and present Fulbright scholars who provided wide-ranging advice on living and teaching in China. It included briefings from political and medical officers from the embassy, a reception at the home of Daniel Piccuta, deputy chief of the U.S. Mission, lunch with Chinese Fulbright alumni, a visit to a Confucian temple, and dinner and dancing at the Makayame Tibetan Restaurant. It was a great opportunity to get to know the other Fulbrighters in China, many of whom I had met at the Washington, D.C. orientation last June. It also was fun to talk international politics with embassy personnel. Photos from the orientation can be viewed online at: http://gallery.mac.com/rperci/100084 A short video clip of dancing at the Tibetan restaurant is online at: http://gallery.mac.com/rperci/100094.
Beijing is considered a “hardship” post by the State Department in part because of the severity of the air pollution. Fortunately both traffic and pollution in Beijing have been lighter than normal in the past week. Embassy staff attributed this in part to the fact that many people were still taking Spring Festival vacations that had been delayed by the severe weather that hit China weeks ago. One diplomat noted that the fact that traffic and pollution levels could be noticeably affected by vacations illustrated how much motor vehicle ownership had penetrated into the Chinese middle class.
While at the Swissotel I ran into three former co-workers from my days at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) during the 1980s - Linda Greer and Susan Egan-Keane, who are now scientists at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and David Lennett, a former EDF lawyer who is now a consultant for NRDC. They were meeting with staff from the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims (CLAPV), the Chinese public interest environmental group run by Wang Canfa, a professor at the China University of Political Science and Law where I am teaching this semester. I attended part of their meeting to launch the joint China-NRDC Public Health and Law Project on Friday. The project initially will focus on using NRDC’s legal and scientific expertise to assist CLAPV in seeking redress for villagers harmed by pollution from mining waste.
In talking to embassy staff, I learned that Major League Baseball will soon be making its debut in China. On March 15-16, the Los Angeles Dodgers will play two spring training exhibition games in Beijing against the San Diego Padres at Wukesong Stadium, where the Olympic baseball competition will be held. One of the owners of the Dodgers, Jamie McCourt, who is an alum of the University of Maryland School of Law, will be accompanying the team. My dean is trying to arrange tickets through her because the dean and a group of other Maryland faculty and students will be visiting me in China then during Maryland’s spring break.
Beijing is considered a “hardship” post by the State Department in part because of the severity of the air pollution. Fortunately both traffic and pollution in Beijing have been lighter than normal in the past week. Embassy staff attributed this in part to the fact that many people were still taking Spring Festival vacations that had been delayed by the severe weather that hit China weeks ago. One diplomat noted that the fact that traffic and pollution levels could be noticeably affected by vacations illustrated how much motor vehicle ownership had penetrated into the Chinese middle class.
While at the Swissotel I ran into three former co-workers from my days at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) during the 1980s - Linda Greer and Susan Egan-Keane, who are now scientists at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and David Lennett, a former EDF lawyer who is now a consultant for NRDC. They were meeting with staff from the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims (CLAPV), the Chinese public interest environmental group run by Wang Canfa, a professor at the China University of Political Science and Law where I am teaching this semester. I attended part of their meeting to launch the joint China-NRDC Public Health and Law Project on Friday. The project initially will focus on using NRDC’s legal and scientific expertise to assist CLAPV in seeking redress for villagers harmed by pollution from mining waste.
In talking to embassy staff, I learned that Major League Baseball will soon be making its debut in China. On March 15-16, the Los Angeles Dodgers will play two spring training exhibition games in Beijing against the San Diego Padres at Wukesong Stadium, where the Olympic baseball competition will be held. One of the owners of the Dodgers, Jamie McCourt, who is an alum of the University of Maryland School of Law, will be accompanying the team. My dean is trying to arrange tickets through her because the dean and a group of other Maryland faculty and students will be visiting me in China then during Maryland’s spring break.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Arrival in China
I arrived in China on Friday to start my semester teaching as a J. William Fulbright Distinguished Lecturer at the China University of Political Science and Law. Chinese universities start their spring semester after the Spring Festival and celebration of Chinese New Year, which is why classes don’t start until February 25. The spring semester runs until early July.
The nonstop flight from Washington Dulles to Beijing flies north-northeast, passing over western Greenland and then just east of the North Pole. Greenland was a frequent topic in my household growing up, long before thoughts of it centered on the possibility that global warming may melt its icecap, because my father had been stationed in Greenland during World War II. He described it as a cold and boring experience. The only “combat” he saw was a mission to destroy a German weather station on the east side of the island, which turned out to be unoccupied. I inherited the incredible Army parka my father used in Greenland, which I wore frequently during the Minnesota winters while in college. It saved me from serious injury when I was in a van that rolled over, killing the driver, who was my best friend and debate partner, on the way to a debate tournament.
The flight to Beijing, which takes more than 13 hours from Washington, passed over the North Pole in darkness. Nine hours after takeoff the sun rose as the flight entered Russian airspace over northern Siberia. While this was my ninth flight to China in the last three years, it was the first time the flight flew over Lake Baikal, the largest freshwater lake in the world by volume. The lake is located just north of the Mongolian border and east of Irkutsk (a place familiar to players of the game “Risk”). The lake has been the subject of environmental controversy concerning the siting of a paper mill along its shores. Our flight flew just east of Irkutsk, providing an excellent view of the ice and snow-covered lake and what most likely was the Russian town of Babushkin on the southeastern shore.
Just minutes before the flight landed in Beijing, it passed over a portion of the Great Wall of China just north of Beijing. A common myth is that the Great Wall is the only man-made structure visible from outer space. In fact it is one of many manmade objects that can be seen from space and it is far from being the most visible one (see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/visible_from_space_031006.html).
On my flight was Jun Bi, deputy dean of the School of Environment at Nanjing University. I first met him in March 2005 when I gave a guest lecture in Nanjing. In July 2005 I had the privilege of introducing his family to American baseball by taking them to a Washington Nationals game at RFK Stadium. Prior to boarding the plane, Jun Bi wisely stopped at Vino Volo near the departure gate at Dulles to purchase wine to bring to China where wines are much more expensive than in the U.S. Also on the flight I met Susan Beth Farmer, a law professor from Penn State-Dickinson School of Law, who will be teaching this spring as a Fulbright scholar at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing sent two representatives to meet us at the airport. They were nice enough to drive Beth to the hotel where the Fulbright orientation will be held and me to my apartment in downtown Beijing. My apartment is in The Towers above Oriental Plaza, three blocks east of Tiananmen Square and the Forbidden City in the heart of downtown. It is above the best shopping mall in the city and the Wangfujin subway stop, and an easy walk to the Gui Jie “snack street”.
I love my new apartment and I am thrilled to be living in China.
The nonstop flight from Washington Dulles to Beijing flies north-northeast, passing over western Greenland and then just east of the North Pole. Greenland was a frequent topic in my household growing up, long before thoughts of it centered on the possibility that global warming may melt its icecap, because my father had been stationed in Greenland during World War II. He described it as a cold and boring experience. The only “combat” he saw was a mission to destroy a German weather station on the east side of the island, which turned out to be unoccupied. I inherited the incredible Army parka my father used in Greenland, which I wore frequently during the Minnesota winters while in college. It saved me from serious injury when I was in a van that rolled over, killing the driver, who was my best friend and debate partner, on the way to a debate tournament.
The flight to Beijing, which takes more than 13 hours from Washington, passed over the North Pole in darkness. Nine hours after takeoff the sun rose as the flight entered Russian airspace over northern Siberia. While this was my ninth flight to China in the last three years, it was the first time the flight flew over Lake Baikal, the largest freshwater lake in the world by volume. The lake is located just north of the Mongolian border and east of Irkutsk (a place familiar to players of the game “Risk”). The lake has been the subject of environmental controversy concerning the siting of a paper mill along its shores. Our flight flew just east of Irkutsk, providing an excellent view of the ice and snow-covered lake and what most likely was the Russian town of Babushkin on the southeastern shore.
Just minutes before the flight landed in Beijing, it passed over a portion of the Great Wall of China just north of Beijing. A common myth is that the Great Wall is the only man-made structure visible from outer space. In fact it is one of many manmade objects that can be seen from space and it is far from being the most visible one (see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/visible_from_space_031006.html).
On my flight was Jun Bi, deputy dean of the School of Environment at Nanjing University. I first met him in March 2005 when I gave a guest lecture in Nanjing. In July 2005 I had the privilege of introducing his family to American baseball by taking them to a Washington Nationals game at RFK Stadium. Prior to boarding the plane, Jun Bi wisely stopped at Vino Volo near the departure gate at Dulles to purchase wine to bring to China where wines are much more expensive than in the U.S. Also on the flight I met Susan Beth Farmer, a law professor from Penn State-Dickinson School of Law, who will be teaching this spring as a Fulbright scholar at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing. The U.S. Embassy in Beijing sent two representatives to meet us at the airport. They were nice enough to drive Beth to the hotel where the Fulbright orientation will be held and me to my apartment in downtown Beijing. My apartment is in The Towers above Oriental Plaza, three blocks east of Tiananmen Square and the Forbidden City in the heart of downtown. It is above the best shopping mall in the city and the Wangfujin subway stop, and an easy walk to the Gui Jie “snack street”.
I love my new apartment and I am thrilled to be living in China.
Monday, February 11, 2008
China Move, Casebook Update & Chile Conference
This is the last time for several months that I will be making a post from the United States. I am moving to China on Thursday to begin my semester teaching as a Fulbright scholar at the China University of Political Science and Law. I expect that many of my future postings will deal with my experiences in China, like the blog Tseming Yang maintained when teaching as a Fulbright scholar at Tsinghua Unversity during the fall semester 2005.
Tseming and I met briefly in Baltimore on Friday to discuss the progress of our Global Environmental Law casebook project. We had a lengthy conference call with the editor Aspen Publishing has assigned to us. I am delighted to have an editor who I have previously worked well with on various projects.
Valentina Duran from the University of Chile’s Center for Environmental Law was kind enough to send me a photo displayed of her wearing a Maryland Law softball cap at Laguna Biscanti near San Pedro de Atacama in northern Chile. She proposes that we try to collect photos of the hat in as many far flung locations as possible. Valentina’s Center will be hosting a conference on “Sustainable Development: Governance and Law” from June 25-27, 2008. My proposal to prepare a paper on “The Emergence of Global Environmental Law” for the conference has been approved. While I am not certain whether I will be able to attend the conference in person (it’s a very long way from Beijing), I will submit a Spanish translation of the paper for the publication that the Center will be distributing at the conference.
Tseming and I met briefly in Baltimore on Friday to discuss the progress of our Global Environmental Law casebook project. We had a lengthy conference call with the editor Aspen Publishing has assigned to us. I am delighted to have an editor who I have previously worked well with on various projects.
Valentina Duran from the University of Chile’s Center for Environmental Law was kind enough to send me a photo displayed of her wearing a Maryland Law softball cap at Laguna Biscanti near San Pedro de Atacama in northern Chile. She proposes that we try to collect photos of the hat in as many far flung locations as possible. Valentina’s Center will be hosting a conference on “Sustainable Development: Governance and Law” from June 25-27, 2008. My proposal to prepare a paper on “The Emergence of Global Environmental Law” for the conference has been approved. While I am not certain whether I will be able to attend the conference in person (it’s a very long way from Beijing), I will submit a Spanish translation of the paper for the publication that the Center will be distributing at the conference.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
UCLA Meeting, EU Targets & Focus the Nation
On January 24 I attended a meeting of the directors of environmental law programs that was convened by the UCLA School of Law. There were more than 30 representatives of approximately two dozen U.S. law schools present at the meeting. At the meeting we discussed recent developments in our programs and how to improve the education of future environmental lawyers. A similar meeting was hosting by UCLA in April 2006. There seemed to be a strong sense that the global climate crisis was making environmental law a hot field once again. UCLA announced that they just received a donation with a matching gift challenge totaling $10 million to set up a new Center on Climate Change and the Environment. The gift will enable UCLA School of Law to establish a new endowed chair for an environmental law professor. Several schools indicated that they are hiring additional environmental law professors. There was surprisingly little discussion of global environmental law initiatives by the schools, aside from a few that already are well known.
On January 25 the UCLA Law Review hosted a climate change conference that I attended. It featured some terrific presentations, including a panel that featured California Air Resources Board (CARB) chairman Mary Nichols, who discussed the state’s ambitious plans to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. She explained how the state already has done so much to promote energy efficiency that there is not nearly as much “low hanging fruit” available. I know Mary from long ago when I was an attorney for Environmental Defense and she was a member of our board of directors. I spoke with her after her presentation and she told me that both Senators Clinton and Obama have pledged to reverse EPA’s veto of the state’s regulations to control GHG emissions from motor vehicles. During the Republican presidential debate on January 30, all four of the Republican candidates stated that they favored a reversal of EPA's decision. While at UCLA I thought about how different my career might have been if I had accepted their law school’s offer of a faculty position in 1981 when Bill Warren was their dean and I was finishing my clerkship with Justice White. I instead opted to join Environmental Defense because I felt strongly that it was important to gain experience in practice before embarking on a teaching career. As a result I was able to develop expertise in environmental law.
On January 23 the European Commission unveiled its proposed country-by-country targets for achieving its commitments to reduce overall GHG emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels and to produce 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. The “Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package” proposes a 10 percent reduction below 2005 levels of GHG emissions from transport, housing, agriculture, and waste - sectors not currently included in the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS). Proposed national emissions targets vary by country with the richer countries, such as Denmark, required to cut GHG emissions by 20% below 2005 levels and poorer countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria, allowed to increase their emissions by 20 percent. It is estimated that the overall cost of complying with these targets will be approximately $90 billion, about 0.5% of total EU GDP, but that they will prevent damage nearly ten times greater than the cost. The proposal also provides for a transition to auctioning emissions allowances that currently are being distributed for free. Details of the package are available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm
On January 31, more than 1,700 schools and universities throughout the U.S. hosted a "Focus the Nation" national “teach-in” focusing on the global climate crisis. The event was the brainchild of economics professor Eban Goodstein from Lewis & Clark College in Portland. Students from the University of Maryland School of Law organized one of the most comprehensive programs held at any law school in the U.S. The event opened at 9:30am with a keynote address from Shari Wilson, Maryland’s Secretary of the Environment. The conference, which drew a large audience, featured a variety of panels, running until 5pm, that focused on how law, science and technology can contribute to solving the global climate crisis. Videos of each of the panel presentations made at the event are available online at:
mms://media.law.umaryland.edu/mels/focus_the_nation_intro1-31-08.wmv mms://media.law.umaryland.edu/mels/focus_the_nation_panel1_1-31-08.wmv mms://media.law.umaryland.edu/mels/focus_the_nation_panel2_1-31-08.wmv mms://media.law.umaryland.edu/mels/focus_the_nation_panel3_1-31-08.wmv mms://media.law.umaryland.edu/mels/focus_the_nation_panel4_1-31-08.wmv
I did not participate in the law school event because I was serving as the keynote speaker at the University of Maryland-College Park’s “Focus the Nation” program. Following my keynote, the College Park program featured panels on the ecologic, economic, and political dimensions of the climate crisis, a panel on citizen action, a green fair, and a movie presentation that ran until 9pm in the evening. See http://www.focusthenation.umd.edu/schedule.html. At the event I met some of College Park’s climate scientists, who among other things are tracing global pollution plumes. They noted that they had been studying through air sampling in the upper atmosphere pollution plumes produced by China that can be traced all the way to California. However, they noted that it is difficult to detect pollution plumes from India, which they attributed to its lower level of economic activity.
On January 25 the UCLA Law Review hosted a climate change conference that I attended. It featured some terrific presentations, including a panel that featured California Air Resources Board (CARB) chairman Mary Nichols, who discussed the state’s ambitious plans to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. She explained how the state already has done so much to promote energy efficiency that there is not nearly as much “low hanging fruit” available. I know Mary from long ago when I was an attorney for Environmental Defense and she was a member of our board of directors. I spoke with her after her presentation and she told me that both Senators Clinton and Obama have pledged to reverse EPA’s veto of the state’s regulations to control GHG emissions from motor vehicles. During the Republican presidential debate on January 30, all four of the Republican candidates stated that they favored a reversal of EPA's decision. While at UCLA I thought about how different my career might have been if I had accepted their law school’s offer of a faculty position in 1981 when Bill Warren was their dean and I was finishing my clerkship with Justice White. I instead opted to join Environmental Defense because I felt strongly that it was important to gain experience in practice before embarking on a teaching career. As a result I was able to develop expertise in environmental law.
On January 23 the European Commission unveiled its proposed country-by-country targets for achieving its commitments to reduce overall GHG emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels and to produce 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020. The “Climate Action and Renewable Energy Package” proposes a 10 percent reduction below 2005 levels of GHG emissions from transport, housing, agriculture, and waste - sectors not currently included in the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS). Proposed national emissions targets vary by country with the richer countries, such as Denmark, required to cut GHG emissions by 20% below 2005 levels and poorer countries, such as Romania and Bulgaria, allowed to increase their emissions by 20 percent. It is estimated that the overall cost of complying with these targets will be approximately $90 billion, about 0.5% of total EU GDP, but that they will prevent damage nearly ten times greater than the cost. The proposal also provides for a transition to auctioning emissions allowances that currently are being distributed for free. Details of the package are available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/climate_action.htm
On January 31, more than 1,700 schools and universities throughout the U.S. hosted a "Focus the Nation" national “teach-in” focusing on the global climate crisis. The event was the brainchild of economics professor Eban Goodstein from Lewis & Clark College in Portland. Students from the University of Maryland School of Law organized one of the most comprehensive programs held at any law school in the U.S. The event opened at 9:30am with a keynote address from Shari Wilson, Maryland’s Secretary of the Environment. The conference, which drew a large audience, featured a variety of panels, running until 5pm, that focused on how law, science and technology can contribute to solving the global climate crisis. Videos of each of the panel presentations made at the event are available online at:
mms://media.law.umaryland.edu/mels/focus_the_nation_intro1-31-08.wmv mms://media.law.umaryland.edu/mels/focus_the_nation_panel1_1-31-08.wmv mms://media.law.umaryland.edu/mels/focus_the_nation_panel2_1-31-08.wmv mms://media.law.umaryland.edu/mels/focus_the_nation_panel3_1-31-08.wmv mms://media.law.umaryland.edu/mels/focus_the_nation_panel4_1-31-08.wmv
I did not participate in the law school event because I was serving as the keynote speaker at the University of Maryland-College Park’s “Focus the Nation” program. Following my keynote, the College Park program featured panels on the ecologic, economic, and political dimensions of the climate crisis, a panel on citizen action, a green fair, and a movie presentation that ran until 9pm in the evening. See http://www.focusthenation.umd.edu/schedule.html. At the event I met some of College Park’s climate scientists, who among other things are tracing global pollution plumes. They noted that they had been studying through air sampling in the upper atmosphere pollution plumes produced by China that can be traced all the way to California. However, they noted that it is difficult to detect pollution plumes from India, which they attributed to its lower level of economic activity.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
A Greener Apple at Macworld; Sir Edmund Hillary
I just returned from the Macworld conference in San Francisco where the latest innovations in Apple’s product lines are showcased each year. As an Apple fanatic, I have attended virtually every Macworld for the past decade. The highlight of each conference is the keynote address by Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Jobs uses his keynote to lift the fiercely guarded veil of secrecy surrounding new product releases by Apple. At last year’s Macworld Greenpeace was distributing flyers criticizing Apple for not phasing out the use of toxic chemicals in its products. This year Greenpeace was not at the conference because Apple announced in May 2007 that it was adopting far-reaching policies to produce “A Greener Apple” (www.apple.com/hotnews/agreenerapple). Jobs concluded this year’s keynote by highlighting what Apple is doing to protect the environment. Jobs indicated that this may become an annual feature of his keynote.
Jobs announced that the Apple’s new Macbook Air, the world’s thinnest laptop, had been designed with the environment in mind. Its aluminum case is fully recyclable; its 15-inch display is mercury-free and its glass contains no arsenic. Its circuit boards are free of brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride. These innovations are consistent with the significant environmental pledges made in the company’s announcement of “a greener Apple” only nine months after Greenpeace launched its campaign. The company pledged to beat deadlines for phasing out toxics in its products under the EU’s RoHS regulations, while noting that some other electronics companies were using little-known exemptions to claim RoHS compliance.
What is particularly noteworthy about the Greenpeace campaign is that it did not seek to demonize Apple - the group’s flyers began with the statement “We love Apple - Apple knows more about ‘clean’ design than anybody”. This has not always been Greenpeace’s strategy, but it seems to have worked in this case. It is hard not to think that the world’s environment would be in far better shape today if oil companies or automobile manufacturers had the kind of management that has been running Apple.
On January 11, 2008, Sir Edmund Hillary died. On May 29, 1953, Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay became the first persons to climb Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. I had the enormous privilege of meeting Sir Edmund in Nepal in 1981, entirely by coincidence. I had been part of a group of novice climbers led by Sherpa Pertemba who were returning from a climb of 20,000-foot Island Peak. While hiking down a trail near the village of Khumjung, we encountered Sir Edmund who was hiking up the trail in the opposite direction. He was in Nepal to visit a school funded by the Himalayan Trust he established, which built many schools, bridges and hospitals in the region. Sir Edmund could not have been nicer or more gracious to our group, congratulating us on our climb and posing for pictures with us. On my office wall I have a photo of our group with me standing next to Sir Edmund. I often ask students if they can identify who the famous person in the photo is and which one is me. Few are able to answer either question correctly because Hillary remained relatively anonymous and I had a beard and was in far better physical shape than I am today. In this day of obsession with egomaniacal celebrities, I often think of Hillary as a true role model - a modest man who quietly used his celebrity status to raise money to help the poor in a most beautiful corner of the world. Hillary will be buried in a state funeral in his home country of New Zealand on January 22.
Jobs announced that the Apple’s new Macbook Air, the world’s thinnest laptop, had been designed with the environment in mind. Its aluminum case is fully recyclable; its 15-inch display is mercury-free and its glass contains no arsenic. Its circuit boards are free of brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride. These innovations are consistent with the significant environmental pledges made in the company’s announcement of “a greener Apple” only nine months after Greenpeace launched its campaign. The company pledged to beat deadlines for phasing out toxics in its products under the EU’s RoHS regulations, while noting that some other electronics companies were using little-known exemptions to claim RoHS compliance.
What is particularly noteworthy about the Greenpeace campaign is that it did not seek to demonize Apple - the group’s flyers began with the statement “We love Apple - Apple knows more about ‘clean’ design than anybody”. This has not always been Greenpeace’s strategy, but it seems to have worked in this case. It is hard not to think that the world’s environment would be in far better shape today if oil companies or automobile manufacturers had the kind of management that has been running Apple.
On January 11, 2008, Sir Edmund Hillary died. On May 29, 1953, Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay became the first persons to climb Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. I had the enormous privilege of meeting Sir Edmund in Nepal in 1981, entirely by coincidence. I had been part of a group of novice climbers led by Sherpa Pertemba who were returning from a climb of 20,000-foot Island Peak. While hiking down a trail near the village of Khumjung, we encountered Sir Edmund who was hiking up the trail in the opposite direction. He was in Nepal to visit a school funded by the Himalayan Trust he established, which built many schools, bridges and hospitals in the region. Sir Edmund could not have been nicer or more gracious to our group, congratulating us on our climb and posing for pictures with us. On my office wall I have a photo of our group with me standing next to Sir Edmund. I often ask students if they can identify who the famous person in the photo is and which one is me. Few are able to answer either question correctly because Hillary remained relatively anonymous and I had a beard and was in far better physical shape than I am today. In this day of obsession with egomaniacal celebrities, I often think of Hillary as a true role model - a modest man who quietly used his celebrity status to raise money to help the poor in a most beautiful corner of the world. Hillary will be buried in a state funeral in his home country of New Zealand on January 22.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Transportation and the Global Environment
The transportation sector accounts for a third of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuels. There have been several important developments related to efforts to control emissions from this sector in past weeks. On December 19 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shocked most observers when it denied California’s request for permission to impose its own controls on GHG emissions from motor vehicles. California’s regulations, which would have become effective with 2009 model-year vehicles, would have mandated a 30% reduction in GHG emissions from new cars and light trucks sold in the state by 2016.
EPA’s decision to veto these regulations was hastily announced by Administrator Steve Johnson just hours after President Bush had signed legislation raising national fuel economy standards to a fleetwide average of 35 mpg by 2020. EPA, which previously had routinely approved California’s requests to adopt more stringent air pollution standards pursuant to §209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), argued that “a clear national solution” was a better approach than “a confusing patchwork of state standards.” This rationale was transparently false because EPA has no national strategy to control GHG emissions, the new fuel economy legislation was never intended to represent a national solution, and “a confusing patchwork” is impossible because the CAA requires any other states who wish to adopt more stringent standards to adopt standards identical to California’s. EPA’s veto of the California standards came after two federal district courts - one in Vermont in September and one in California in December - had ruled that state adoption of the California standards was not preempted by existing national fuel economy standards. EPA also argued that California’s waiver request differed from previously approved requests because climate change is a global problem - but that hardly justifies blocking the most promising state initiative to combat it.
Outrage at EPA’s decision was expressed by officials in California and the 16 other states (with a combined total of nearly half of the U.S. auto market) that had planned to adopt the California standards. A prominent Chinese environmental law professor who is part of our China/U.S. Research Project on the Experience of Environmental Law in Foreign Countries (see Nov. 11, 2007 post on globalenvironmentallaw.com) expressed shock that EPA had vetoed the California standards. In an email message he indicated that maybe the environmental laws in the U.S. are not as good as he had previously believed.
On December 19, 2007, the Environment Council of the European Union (EU) reached agreement on a plan to include GHG emissions from aircraft in the EU’s scheme to control GHG emissions beginning in 2012. While emissions from this sector account for only 3% of EU emissions, they are growing rapidly, having doubled since 1990. They are projected to double again by 2020 if not controlled. The plan is to cap aircraft emissions at average levels prevailing from 2004-2006 beginning in 2012, a year later than initially recommended by the European Parliament. Airlines will be able to purchase carbon credits to comply with the standards. Rapidly growing airlines will have access to extra allowances and companies in developing countries with few flights to the EU may be exempted. The U.S. has strongly opposed these limits. After being adopted as a “common position” sometime in 2008, the plan will be returned to the European Parliament for review.
On December 19, the European Commission proposed tightening limits on GHG emissions from new motor vehicles in the EU to levels that are almost as stringent as California’s plan. Under the Commission proposal, new passenger cars would have to cut average emissions of CO2 from the current limit of 160 grams per kilometer to 130 g/km by 2012. German automakers are strongly proposed to the proposal, which they believe will disadvantage larger vehicles, though the proposal incorporates a sliding scale that allows greater emissions from larger cars. The California’s regulations that were vetoed (for now) by EPA would limit CO2 emissions from new passenger cars and light duty trucks to 205 grams per mile in the 2016 vehicle year and beyond. For purposes of comparing this to the EU limits, the EU limit of 130g/km translates into a limit of 209 grams per mile, not quite as stringent as California’s. The EU previously had proposed a target of 120 g/km (193 g/mile), which would have been more stringent than California’s program. On January 2, 2008 California, 15 other states, and several environmental organizations filed suit against EPA to challenge its denial of California’s waiver request, which blocked controls the states planned to impose on emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from motor vehicles. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, rather than in the D.C. Circuit, which has exclusive venue over nationally applicable regulatory decisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Ninth Circuit may be more favorably disposed to California’s lawsuit, though even conservative judges on the D.C. Circuit have not hesitated to strike down politically-motivated decisions by the Bush EPA.
EPA may argue that the case should have been filed in D.C. because the decision has a national effect and it also may claim that the lawsuit is premature. Even if such arguments are successful, they would only postpone a likely defeat in court for EPA. EPA’s rationale for its decision appears to have been hastily concocted in response to White House dictates, despite the opposition of EPA’s professional staff who advised that the agency would lose in court. While a good case could be made for expedited review of the litigation, the most likely result is that the courts will not decide the case before January 2009 when a new administration will promptly reverse EPA’s decision and approve California’s waiver request.
India’s Tata Group announced on January 10, 2008 that beginning in September it will be marketing a new “one lakh” “People’s Car” to make automobiles far more affordable to the general population of that rapidly growing country. “One lakh” refers to the vehicle’s price tag of 100,000 rupees, approximately $2,600, less than half the price of current small passenger cars in India. Tata apparently is able to make a car this inexpensive by stripping it down to include only the most basic technology. Environmentalists are concerned that this includes only minimal safety and pollution control technology. If the car proves to be as popular as expected, it could further clog India’s already overtaxed transportation infrastructure and greatly increase the country’s (and the globe’s) pollution problems. The rapid growth in automobile use in China already is contributing mightily to that country’s growing pollution problems. The availability of such a low-cost automobile in India could replicate this pattern in India. Tata’s response is that if it does not move aggressively to appeal to India’s growing middle class, Chinese and other countries’ automobile manufacturers will claim this market instead.
This issue poses a particularly important challenge as part of the larger set of issues of how to reconcile the demands of global environmental protection with the legitimate aspirations of developing countries. The development of an inexpensive automobile will create many jobs in India (the Indian government’s “automotive mission plan” projects the creation of 25 million jobs in this sector by 2016) and bring “motoring to the masses.” How can these benefits be achieved without greatly adding to already serious pollution and climate change problems? The Financial Times quotes R.K. Pachauri, the Indian chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as stating that the prospect of the “one lakh” car hitting the Indian market is giving him “nightmares.”
EPA’s decision to veto these regulations was hastily announced by Administrator Steve Johnson just hours after President Bush had signed legislation raising national fuel economy standards to a fleetwide average of 35 mpg by 2020. EPA, which previously had routinely approved California’s requests to adopt more stringent air pollution standards pursuant to §209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), argued that “a clear national solution” was a better approach than “a confusing patchwork of state standards.” This rationale was transparently false because EPA has no national strategy to control GHG emissions, the new fuel economy legislation was never intended to represent a national solution, and “a confusing patchwork” is impossible because the CAA requires any other states who wish to adopt more stringent standards to adopt standards identical to California’s. EPA’s veto of the California standards came after two federal district courts - one in Vermont in September and one in California in December - had ruled that state adoption of the California standards was not preempted by existing national fuel economy standards. EPA also argued that California’s waiver request differed from previously approved requests because climate change is a global problem - but that hardly justifies blocking the most promising state initiative to combat it.
Outrage at EPA’s decision was expressed by officials in California and the 16 other states (with a combined total of nearly half of the U.S. auto market) that had planned to adopt the California standards. A prominent Chinese environmental law professor who is part of our China/U.S. Research Project on the Experience of Environmental Law in Foreign Countries (see Nov. 11, 2007 post on globalenvironmentallaw.com) expressed shock that EPA had vetoed the California standards. In an email message he indicated that maybe the environmental laws in the U.S. are not as good as he had previously believed.
On December 19, 2007, the Environment Council of the European Union (EU) reached agreement on a plan to include GHG emissions from aircraft in the EU’s scheme to control GHG emissions beginning in 2012. While emissions from this sector account for only 3% of EU emissions, they are growing rapidly, having doubled since 1990. They are projected to double again by 2020 if not controlled. The plan is to cap aircraft emissions at average levels prevailing from 2004-2006 beginning in 2012, a year later than initially recommended by the European Parliament. Airlines will be able to purchase carbon credits to comply with the standards. Rapidly growing airlines will have access to extra allowances and companies in developing countries with few flights to the EU may be exempted. The U.S. has strongly opposed these limits. After being adopted as a “common position” sometime in 2008, the plan will be returned to the European Parliament for review.
On December 19, the European Commission proposed tightening limits on GHG emissions from new motor vehicles in the EU to levels that are almost as stringent as California’s plan. Under the Commission proposal, new passenger cars would have to cut average emissions of CO2 from the current limit of 160 grams per kilometer to 130 g/km by 2012. German automakers are strongly proposed to the proposal, which they believe will disadvantage larger vehicles, though the proposal incorporates a sliding scale that allows greater emissions from larger cars. The California’s regulations that were vetoed (for now) by EPA would limit CO2 emissions from new passenger cars and light duty trucks to 205 grams per mile in the 2016 vehicle year and beyond. For purposes of comparing this to the EU limits, the EU limit of 130g/km translates into a limit of 209 grams per mile, not quite as stringent as California’s. The EU previously had proposed a target of 120 g/km (193 g/mile), which would have been more stringent than California’s program. On January 2, 2008 California, 15 other states, and several environmental organizations filed suit against EPA to challenge its denial of California’s waiver request, which blocked controls the states planned to impose on emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from motor vehicles. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, rather than in the D.C. Circuit, which has exclusive venue over nationally applicable regulatory decisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Ninth Circuit may be more favorably disposed to California’s lawsuit, though even conservative judges on the D.C. Circuit have not hesitated to strike down politically-motivated decisions by the Bush EPA.
EPA may argue that the case should have been filed in D.C. because the decision has a national effect and it also may claim that the lawsuit is premature. Even if such arguments are successful, they would only postpone a likely defeat in court for EPA. EPA’s rationale for its decision appears to have been hastily concocted in response to White House dictates, despite the opposition of EPA’s professional staff who advised that the agency would lose in court. While a good case could be made for expedited review of the litigation, the most likely result is that the courts will not decide the case before January 2009 when a new administration will promptly reverse EPA’s decision and approve California’s waiver request.
India’s Tata Group announced on January 10, 2008 that beginning in September it will be marketing a new “one lakh” “People’s Car” to make automobiles far more affordable to the general population of that rapidly growing country. “One lakh” refers to the vehicle’s price tag of 100,000 rupees, approximately $2,600, less than half the price of current small passenger cars in India. Tata apparently is able to make a car this inexpensive by stripping it down to include only the most basic technology. Environmentalists are concerned that this includes only minimal safety and pollution control technology. If the car proves to be as popular as expected, it could further clog India’s already overtaxed transportation infrastructure and greatly increase the country’s (and the globe’s) pollution problems. The rapid growth in automobile use in China already is contributing mightily to that country’s growing pollution problems. The availability of such a low-cost automobile in India could replicate this pattern in India. Tata’s response is that if it does not move aggressively to appeal to India’s growing middle class, Chinese and other countries’ automobile manufacturers will claim this market instead.
This issue poses a particularly important challenge as part of the larger set of issues of how to reconcile the demands of global environmental protection with the legitimate aspirations of developing countries. The development of an inexpensive automobile will create many jobs in India (the Indian government’s “automotive mission plan” projects the creation of 25 million jobs in this sector by 2016) and bring “motoring to the masses.” How can these benefits be achieved without greatly adding to already serious pollution and climate change problems? The Financial Times quotes R.K. Pachauri, the Indian chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as stating that the prospect of the “one lakh” car hitting the Indian market is giving him “nightmares.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
