Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper examines the 'democratic deficit' in international dispute settlement, focusing on the World Trade Organization (WTO) and investor-state arbitration. It argues that these processes often lack transparency and public participation despite their significant impact on domestic public policy, human rights, and the environment. While the WTO has made some progress in publishing reports and accepting amicus curiae briefs, it still maintains confidential submissions and closed hearings. Investor-state arbitration is described as even more secretive, often based on private commercial models where the public may not even know a proceeding has begun. The author calls for reforms to these rules to ensure that decisions affecting the public are subject to public scrutiny.

The report analyzes 716 Argentine manufacturing firms to determine what drives the adoption and quality of environmental management activities (EMAs). It finds that larger firms and those with higher spending on technology acquisition are more likely to implement higher-quality EMAs. While environmental regulatory pressure stimulates innovative behavior, it tends to induce 'end-of-pipe' management rather than 'clean production' strategies. Foreign firms are more prone to undertake EMAs than domestic firms, but foreign ownership is associated with lower EMA quality. However, positive environmental spill-overs from foreign firms occur in domestic firms that possess high absorption capabilities, leading them toward 'simple clean production' management.

These regulations, published under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003, establish the administrative and operational framework for special nature reserves, national parks, and world heritage sites. They detail prohibitions on biodiversity disturbance, rules for biological resource use, access controls, commercial activity restrictions, and the establishment of advisory committees and management plans.

The document details the implementation and legal battles over the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which aim to reduce toxic air emissions from power plants. It highlights the significant public health benefits of the standards, including the prevention of thousands of premature deaths and heart attacks, and the reduction of mercury emissions by 75%. The text tracks the legal trajectory from the 2012 release of MATS through a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court remand and a subsequent 2015 U.S. Court of Appeals decision that upheld the standards against industry challenges.

Earthjustice and a coalition of organizations successfully challenged the Bush-era EPA's 2003 denial of a petition to limit carbon emissions from cars and trucks. This led to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which defined carbon emissions as "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act and required the EPA to set limits if they threaten public health or welfare. Consequently, the EPA determined in 2009 that carbon pollution endangers the public and established the first federal carbon pollution limits for vehicles in 2010, a move upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2012.

The report ranks the 'Big Six' automakers—Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, and General Motors—on their environmental performance, focusing on smog-forming and heat-trapping emissions. Honda consistently ranks as the cleanest, while General Motors has fallen to the bottom. The analysis highlights a trend where smog-forming pollution is improving due to regulation, but heat-trapping emissions remain stagnant. It specifically criticizes the use of regulatory loopholes, such as Flex-Fuel Vehicle (FFV) credits, which allow companies to artificially inflate fuel economy figures.

The document argues that for the United States to comply with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Congress must provide the EPA with clear statutory authority to eliminate listed chemicals without being constrained by de novo cost-benefit balancing or 'sound science' provisions that could be used to delay regulation. It emphasizes that the Convention's primary standard for Annex A chemicals is elimination, and that existing authority under TSCA § 6(a) is insufficient to ban industrial chemicals following the Corrosion Proof Fittings case. The author contends that the Executive Branch's decision to 'opt in' to new listings is a foreign affairs power, but this power is practically dependent on Congress providing the necessary implementing authority to the EPA.

Forty-two organizations oppose a June 17 draft of amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) intended to implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The signatories argue the draft contains flaws that would hinder the EPA's ability to regulate new POPs, contradicts the treaty's precautionary principle by requiring a 'reasonable balance' between health and economic costs, and introduces 'sound science' requirements that could invite litigation. They further criticize the draft for establishing a regulatory ceiling that prevents the U.S. from implementing stricter standards than the Convention minimums and for including preemption language that could void state and local protections. The organizations advocate for a draft proposed by Representative Solis, which they claim better enables the U.S. to fulfill its international obligations while preserving domestic environmental law.

The document analyzes the intersection of international economic law and water management, arguing that trade and investment agreements often prioritize foreign corporate rights over public welfare and environmental sustainability. It highlights the 'tripwire' risk where the commercialization of water may compel states to export freshwater and discusses how investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) allows corporations to challenge domestic regulations that affect profitability. The author emphasizes the need for developing countries to establish robust domestic regulatory frameworks before privatizing water services to avoid 'locking in' weak governance through international legal obligations.

The application seeks to address whether the 'police powers' exclusion from expropriatory measures includes bona fide non-health environmental measures, arguing that such a legal clarification is necessary if California's MTBE ban is not found to be a public health measure.

The application seeks to provide the Tribunal with legal analysis on whether 'police powers' exclusions from expropriation include bona fide non-health environmental measures, specifically in the context of California's MTBE ban.

The document analyzes the investment regimes of Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Malaysia, and Thailand, highlighting that bilateral investment treaties (BITs) are not always necessary to attract FDI. It identifies systemic challenges, including the 'disorder' of overlapping international obligations, the lack of data on FDI's impact on poverty and sustainable development, and the tension between investor-state arbitration and domestic policy goals like Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa.

The document details how the U.S. Department of the Interior, under the direction of Deputy Secretary J. Stephen Griles, shifted the focus of a court-mandated environmental impact statement (EIS) from minimizing environmental damage to streamlining coal-mining permits. Despite federal agency data showing that mountaintop removal mining caused the loss of over 1,200 miles of streams and 7% of Appalachian forests between 1985 and 2001, the administration allegedly stripped 'significant' or 'severe' language from reports and omitted substantive alternatives to mitigate damage. The report highlights a conflict of interest, noting Griles' former role as a mining lobbyist and his frequent meetings with industry representatives during the EIS's redirection.

The EPA proposed a selenium standard for fish tissue of 7.9 ppm, which scientists argue is based on a faulty reading of a study by Dennis Lemly. The error involved an incorrect assumption about sample size, leading the EPA to underestimate fish mortality rates. Despite protests from over 90 scientists and a recommendation for a 5.85 ppm limit, the EPA maintained the 7.9 ppm standard in its 2004 draft, potentially benefiting the coal-mining industry at the expense of aquatic ecosystems.

In April 2004, air quality modelers from nine EPA regional offices protested a policy change allowing states to select their own baseline years for measuring pollution in 'Class I' areas. This policy emerged from a compromise with North Dakota, which had been out of compliance with the Clean Air Act regarding Theodore Roosevelt National Park, hindering plans for new coal-fired power plants. EPA scientists argued the change 'artificially inflate[s]' baselines to mask policy changes and feared it would set a national precedent, as other states like Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming sought to follow suit.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the U.S.-Morocco Free Trade Agreement's investment chapter grants foreign investors excessive rights that exceed those of domestic U.S. investors, violating the Trade Act of 2002. CIEL highlights the risks of the investor-state dispute mechanism, the lack of a general environmental exception, and the use of subjective standards like 'fair and equitable treatment' which could undermine public interest regulations and democratic governance.

A coalition of eighteen environmental organizations argues that the Bush Administration's proposed FIFRA amendments fail to effectively implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The groups claim the proposal denies the EPA effective authority to ban additional POPs pesticides, introduces burdensome cost-benefit requirements that contradict the treaty's precautionary principle, and attempts to limit Congressional regulatory power through an unfounded constitutional interpretation. They recommend that implementing legislation adopt a health-based standard of "reasonable certainty of no harm," use international ban decisions as the default for domestic regulation, and ensure the U.S. regulatory process parallels the international decision-making process.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) argues that the Bush Administration's claims regarding the unconstitutionality of notice and comment provisions in S. 1486 have no basis in U.S. law. The DOJ asserted that requiring the Executive Branch to consult with stakeholders during international negotiations violates the separation of powers. CIEL counters that such provisions do not dictate negotiation outcomes and that Congress has the authority to regulate the domestic acquisition of information. Furthermore, CIEL rejects the 'international nondelegation doctrine' invoked by the Administration, noting that U.S. law frequently contains contingent delegations based on international decisions, such as in the Clean Air Act and the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

The authors argue that CAFTA's investment chapter grants foreign investors greater substantive rights than U.S. investors, violating the Trade Act of 2002. They specifically criticize the lack of an appellate review mechanism, the absence of a general environmental exception, and the use of subjective standards like "fair and equitable treatment" which they claim could undermine democratic governance and environmental protections.

The document provides legal arguments to support the legitimacy of California's MTBE ban in the arbitration between Methanex Corporation and the United States. It contends that international law, including the precautionary principle and the right to potable water, mandates deference to government health and environmental regulations. The authors argue that foreseeable impacts on foreign investors or the existence of alternative measures do not prove discriminatory intent under NAFTA Chapter 11.