Ecology Law Currents

Sulfuric Acid Mist: Regulating Uncertainties

Matthew Thurlow*

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

<<< See Update, January 2, 2013, below >>>

Sulfuric acid mist, also known as H₂SO₄ or SO₃,[1] is one of the least publicized air pollutants associated with emissions from coal-fired power plants. Long overshadowed by nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide, sulfuric acid mist is typically not emitted in the boundary-crossing and globe-altering quantities of the more frequently discussed air pollutants. In the whirlwind of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent air regulations of coal-fired power plants including the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards for power plants (MATS), the New Source Performance Standards and the Tailoring Rule for greenhouse gases, and the recently vacated Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, sulfuric acid mist has remained relatively untouched.[2] But EPA’s regulations, which have imposed dramatic new emission limits on sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, greenhouse gases, mercury, and hydrochloric acid, are likely to have a significant impact on sulfuric acid mist emission control strategies at coal-fired power plants.[3]

Sulfuric acid mist emissions from coal-fired power plants, which creates tell-tale blue plumes (not pictured here), has increasingly been under scrutiny by the EPA over the past decade. Photo credit to ribarnica.

Geographic Indications as a Tool to Promote Sustainability? Café de Colombia and Tequila Compared

Jennifer Barnette*

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

Geographical indications (GIs) are a type of intellectual property right associated with place-based names. GIs are used to identify products that come from certain regions and have particular characteristics that indicate the product’s quality or reputation (e.g. “Champagne,” “Roquefort”).[1] While GIs are protected by various legal principles and statutes—including sui generis GI laws, trademarks, certification marks, and collective marks—all GIs function to certify that a product possesses certain qualities, is made according to traditional methods, or enjoys a certain reputation due to its geographical origin.[2] While the oldest and most developed systems of GI protection are found in Europe, other developing countries have recently begun implementing GI legislation domestically and seeking protection in international trade agreements, with the goals of promoting rural development and protecting local heritage and the natural environment.[3]

Geographic indications, when managed to support the interests of local farmers, can bring sustainable economic development to developing countries. However, benefits to farmers are eroded when the focus shifts from regional uniqueness to corporate profits. Photo credit to krembo1.

As technological advances in communication and transportation continue to foster international economic transactions, the global distribution of agricultural products has increased competition among developing countries. In our globalized world of industrial agriculture, where large-scale producers from developed countries often benefit from government subsidies, agricultural producers in emerging economies are forced to achieve greater product differentiation to stand out from competitors and position themselves on more profitable market segments.[4] As part of a comprehensive strategy to increase product differentiation and charge higher prices in the international market, GIs offer a promising avenue for enhancing the value of local products.[5] Indeed, GI products tend to have a reputation for higher quality and therefore command a higher price than similar products that lack unique place-based characteristics.[6]

Will the Wilderness Act Be Diluted in Drakes Estero?

Nell Green Nylen, Elisabeth Long, Mary Loum, Heather Welles,
Dan Carlin, Brynn Cook, and Sage Adams*

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

<<< See Update 1, November 29, 2012, Below >>>
<<< See Update 2, December 10, 2012, Below >>>

Introduction and Background

Drakes Bay Oyster Company (DBOC)[1] runs a commercial shellfish farming operation in Drakes Estero, a 2,500-acre network of five finger-like bays that extend into the Point Reyes Peninsula, north of San Francisco, California.[2] In 1976, Congress designated more than 25,000 acres of wilderness and 8,003 acres (including the Estero) of potential wilderness within the Point Reyes National Seashore.[3] This marked the first time Congress used the “potential wilderness” designation, creating a new category for areas that would become full wilderness without further legislative action once temporary uses inconsistent with wilderness values ceased.[4] Since that time, Congress has designated more than 250,000 acres of potential wilderness—referred to in this Article as “congressionally designated potential wilderness areas” (CDPWAs)—associated with twenty-nine different wildernesses in thirteen states.[5] DBOC’s aquaculture business remains the sole nonconforming use preventing Drakes Estero from converting to full wilderness.[6] Its authorization to operate is set to expire before the end of 2012.[7]

Part of the onshore operations of Drakes Bay Oyster Company, which farms nonnative shellfish in Drakes Estero, an area Congress has designated as potential wilderness. Photo credit to Nell Green Nylen.

Hydraulic Fracturing and Groundwater Contamination: Can Disclosure Rules Clarify What’s In Our Groundwater?

Rachel Degenhardt*

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

Hydraulic fracturing is a process whereby chemical additives, sand, and water are pumped into underground source rocks at high pressures in order to release natural gas and oil for fuel production.[1] There are a number of potential environmental impacts associated with this process, including risks of groundwater contamination, the mishandling of wastewater, and the potential migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface.[2] Despite these concerns, the Safe Water Drinking Act currently provides an exemption for the oil and natural gas industry and excludes the process known as hydraulic fracturing from regulatory efforts of underground injection controls.[3] This lack of regulation, coupled with the recent rise in domestic oil and natural gas production in the United States, has led to intense debate surrounding this controversial extraction process.[4]

China’s Regulatory Response to the Looming Energy Crisis

                                                                   Yuwa Wei*                                                    

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

When a country with a substantial population steers into an era of industrialization and urbanization, disequilibrium between energy demand and supply can become acute. Without intervention, the disequilibrium can trigger serious energy concerns. Today, China is at such a crossroads, experiencing bottlenecks in both technology innovation and effective legal regimes to regulate the industry.[1] At the turn of the millennium, many Chinese economists and academics began warning that China had lacked an energy planning and security strategy.[2] Today, researchers understand that a coordinated energy strategy is crucial to China’s development and security.[3] Some Chinese commentators have even asserted that an energy crisis could be the single greatest danger facing the nation, even more critical than a financial crisis.[4] In such an important era for China’s economic development, securing access to affordable, reliable, and clean energy is vital.[5]

Photo credit to SpecialKRB.

Student Review of Selected Panels at the 2012 Water Law Symposium "Water and Growth: The Imperative for Sustainable Approaches to Uncertainty"

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

 

Click here for videos of all sessions or on each session for its video.

All review authors attended the 2012 Water Law Symposium hosted at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law on January 21, 2012. The panel reviews are based on their own observations and reflections. No citations should be attributed directly to the panelists themselves.

Aviation and Emissions Trading in the European Union: Pie in the Sky or Compatible with International Law?

Stephanie Switzer*

[ Click Here to Comment ]
[ download PDF ]

In 2003, the then European Community[1] adopted Directive 2003/87/EC, establishing a scheme for trading allowances of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[2] Directive 2003/87/EC mandated the establishment of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) within the European Community “to promote reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective and economically efficient manner.”[3] The preamble to Directive 2003/87/EC states that the establishment of such a scheme would contribute to the achievement of the European Community’s and its Member States’ commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.[4] In this regard, the Protocol is a mechanism enacted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change[5] to promote reductions in emissions associated with climate change. The Protocol entered into force in 2005 and requires participating Annex 1 countries—in effect, developed countries—to reduce certain GHG emissions by 2012 to at least 5 percent below 1990 levels.[6] The European Union pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions listed in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol to 8 percent below 1990 levels in the period 2008 to 2012.[7]

Photo credit to shyb.

Because of the European Union’s emissions reduction pledge, the ETS is considered “a cornerstone of European policy on climate change”[8] and is the world’s largest such scheme.[9] The ETS did not initially include emissions from aviation activities; however the omission of aviation activities from the ETS eventually came to an end on January 1, 2012 when Directive 2008/101/EC, which amended Directive 2003/87/EC,[10] entered into force.[11].The extension of the ETS to aviation emissions requires aviation operators to surrender emission allowances equivalent to the total number of emissions produced the preceding year, and applies penalties to operators who do not comply with this obligation.[12] Initially, 85 percent of emission allowances will be distributed freely with the remaining 15 percent auctioned, with a reserve fund of allowances being made available to new market entrants.[13]