Web Editor – Page 2 – Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

Coming Back to Earth with Agroecology: Regenerating Our Soils and Our Communities Out of Agrochemical-Heavy Conventional Farming

By Ilinca Johnson

Agriculture could become one of the greatest mitigation forces of climate change, as well as remedy and prevent environmental justice issues in the American food system. Currently, the ability of the food system to meet food security needs is threatened by soil erosion, which is created by climate change, and conventional farming practices. An estimation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture suggests more than 57 billion tons of soil are eroded on Midwest farms due to conventional farming practice. These soil-negative circumstances are worsening already poor conditionsfor many farm workers and rural communities across America. Regenerating agricultural soils with agroecology through holistic system uplift goes together with making American farming a climate solution and addresses historic and present wrongs in rural and environmental justice communities.

Agroecology is distinctly and explicitly a systems theory similar to regenerative agriculture. However, agroecology goes further and approaches social and economic dimensions of localized, territorial food systems. When considering approaches to the systematically marginalized, agroecology “seeks to minimize external inputs and optimize sustainable interactions between plants, animals, humans and the broader environment.” Historically, agroecology originates from indigenous food practices before entering scientific literature in the past hundred years. Now, agroecology is promoted as a climate and social justice solution locally and globally.

Agroecology comprises both ecological and social principles. First, there is a link between the vitality of the soil microbiome and crops to be able to hold down higher carbon stocks, not erode, and maintain the health of civilization. If healthy soil bacteria and fungi are gone, then the soil degrades and cannot sustain plant-life. Humans depend on cropland for 99.7% of their food. With proper management from the agroecological regenerative farming techniques,the United States’ historical declines over the past two centuries of Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) can be reversed. Boosting SOC means drawing carbon out of the atmosphere, leading to the revitalization of soils and microscopic soil life. That then revitalizes surrounding or integrated ecosystems and rural communities, as well as provides more nutrient-rich foods to people everywhere.

Second, the social and cultural principles of agroecology encompass the local and cultural-specifics of farmworkers and rural communities, respectively. Agroecology facilitates co-creating and sharing of knowledge within the context-specific agricultural lands, incorporating local culture and food traditions, and building capacities that improve livelihoods and the rights of locals. Further, agroecology recognizes that these communities heavily depend on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and services for both livelihood and sustenance, requiring community-level governance with stakeholders. Lastly, agroecology is an agricultural mechanism for just transition, necessitating a shift to a circular, non-extractive economy.

At this time, 80% of all global agricultural land is moderately to severely eroded—to the point of no longer being arable from conventional farming practices. Modern, industrial agriculture replaces multispecies ecosystems with monoculture crops and technologies like laser-guided tractors and agrochemicals. Agrochemicals include herbicides, fertilizers, pesticides, antibiotics, and fungicides. Agrochemicals kill even beneficial soil microbes, causing soil fertility declines, and disrupting surrounding wild ecosystems by killing natural predators. More agrotechnological inputs are required to maintain crop yields as soil dies. Deteriorating soil fertility makes crops more vulnerable to insects. The negative repercussions extend to humans.

Rural agricultural communities living near farms or CAFOs are exposed to pesticides through their employment and pesticide drift. These pollutants can affect farmworkers and rural community members acutely in the short-term by causing headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and rashes. Over the long-term, pesticide and herbicide exposure can lead to cancer, asthma, suicide, autoimmune diseases, Parkinson’s disease, or sterility. Prenatal exposure has been associated with neurodevelopmental problems including lower IQ, and issues with brain function, reflexes, and ability to connect. Up to 300,000 farmworkers become ill each year because of pesticide exposure.

Significant consolidation of farming operations is leading to fewer protections for farmworkers and ruralcommunities. During the late 1940s, researchers investigated whether increasing the concentration of power in farming, as small independent farms decreased, has had an impact on communities’ overall wellbeing. Early researchdemonstrated that having greater numbers of small farms was related to community wellbeing, an outcome that received huge backlash by corporations. As a result, the USDA shut down its unit that commissioned this research. Later research, including much larger quantitative studies, showed similar findings to these early researches.

Runoff from crop fields and livestock releases large amounts of pollutants into neighboring bodies of water, accounting for “65 to 75 percent of all pollution in the most polluted waters of the United States.” Direct discharge of animal wastes, particularly Concentrated Animal Feeding Lots (“CAFOs”), lowers water quality and the standard of health within ecosystems. Waste spills from larger CAFO’s with poor sanitation are prone to waste spills and can cause public health emergencies, affecting nearby aquatic habitats and species. In North Carolina during the summer of 1995, there were seven major spills from waste lagoons, six related to hog feeding operations. Over more than 30 million gallons of hog waste poor into waterways, resulting in a “massive fish-kill” with over 15 million fish killed in their rivers.

A study from the California Institute for Rural Studies found that 45% of Fresno County farmworkers and 66%of Salinas Valley farmworkers are food insecure, despite living in two of the most agriculturally productive regions of the U.S. Farmworkers often live in substandard housing conditions that are overcrowded, whose conditions are unsanitary, where basic utilities are lacking, and in areas isolated for basic service needs including health clinics, grocery stores, and public transportation. Historically, big agriculture leaders and state law enforcement have met protests of farmworker treatment with violence and opposition.

The situation is not lost to the wind—soil is regenerative. So are people and surrounding communities given empowerment and resources. With the right practices, soil can be renewed, unlike fossil fuels in systems that also benefit small farmers and laborers, surrounding rural communities, and even the consumer too. In the first book ever published on American Agriculture, Connecticut Farmer Jared Eliot used the end of his introduction to consider what occurs when the best techniques are taken to the soil: “the progress that hath been made in So Short a Time is very wonderful.”

Climate Change and World Conflict: A Crucial Juncture

By Ian Lopez

As the world approaches a critical juncture on climate and energy policies in the face of accelerating global warming, policymakers face difficult choices. Yet, over the past five years, global conflict continues to produce new and pressing concerns for policymakers. Rather than considering these developments separately, they should be understood as intertwined; while not directly correlated, they greatly influence one another. Understanding this dynamic can prepare policymakers and help influence international policy. The unexpected shockwaves of international conflict, both present and potential, might be weathered better with an understanding of how these processes influence one another.

Chicken or the Egg: Which Influences Which?

Anthropogenic climate change is a relatively recent phenomenon; but war, unfortunately, has been a constant of human civilization for as long as history is recorded. Though conflict remains largely motivated by political and cultural movements, resources and scarcity are often top motivators. Due to the rise of concerns over resource scarcity, rapid global productivity, and climate shifts due to climate change, a hot area of scholarly debate focuses on whether concerns like resource scarcity, rapid global productivity, and climate shifts due to climate change increase conflict. The results are a tentative yes, but leading scholars stress that the relationship is not one of direct causation. Rather, climate change heightens certain stressors which can be part of the reason for conflict to begin; and even this is more often regional than between nations. For example, climate change might make droughts or flooding more frequent, displacing large populations, leading to conflict. Likewise, out-of-control resource extraction can devastate ecosystems, leading again to instability and conflict. Some far more direct examples of climate-induced conflict exist, such as the Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan border clashes during 2021-22, in which a dispute over a climate-impacted, rain deprived reservoir that fed critical agriculture was the main source of dispute. Substantial academic attention has also focused on the role of climate-induced drought, water scarcity, and its relation to crop failures and food shortages which contributed to the Syrian civil war, and the war in Darfur, Sudan. But these examples are rare; whether they are indicative of wider trends is hard to ascertain. More obvious is the devastating impacts of war on energy, commerce, and land, which in turn exacerbate the effects of climate change. An IPCC report on Human Security in 2018highlighted the cause-effect relationship between conflicts and environmental degradation, for example.

In any case, energy and resources are implicated in nearly every conflict today, including the Russo-Ukraine war. This makes a compelling case for climate change influencing conflict in a small but distinct way. When authoritarians consider the state of their country 10, 30, or 50 years from now, will an attractive chunk of arable, productive land across their border seem that much more tempting? They are preparing for a climate-pressed future, and so should we. This dispassionate cost-benefit calculus is undoubtedly influenced by the way climate change will benefit and disadvantage certain regions of the world.

Preparedness for a Climate-Conflict Linked Future

Policymakers must prepare for a world in which the calculus of conflict is changing. This necessitates a recognition that the motives and factors affecting conflict are shifting. The United Nations has already taken the first and most important step, in recognizing the existence of this pattern. Climate change’s most direct contribution to conflict is in the form of destabilization and forced migration away from regions that become unproductive and unlivable. The worldwide pattern of human migration is already deeply troubling and remains a major flashpoint of international politics. Migration naturally brings groups once separated by borders into conflict and already has contributed to the resurgence of right-wing politics in Europe. With climate change accelerating mass migrations, the future instability and damage that will result is likely to be significant. As such, awareness of climate change’s accelerating influence on these developments needs to be a top area of study; the United States should take the United Nation’s example in incorporating the climate-conflict relationship into foreign policy deliberations.

Part of the way for policymakers and leaders to prepare for and prevent conflict is to address their root causes through diplomacy or aid. However, the prospect of foreign aid from the perspective of the United States is in doubt under the current administration, to say the least. The pausing of foreign aid to numerous nations—particularly those under strong climate pressures in the coming decades—carries noteworthy implications for the climate-conflict relationship. Such aid represents our investment in global security, not just in health and food security, but also global stability. Scarcity, depravation, and uncertainty lead to the kind of political and economic instability which is the most potent indicator of imminent conflict. With these factors in mind, international policy—which has already begun to take note of this trend—must further adapt to the climate-conflict dynamic. Preparedness for this trend will not only help avoid the worst consequences. It will allow us to start considering potential solutions, such as foreign aid schemes, migratory and asylum agreements, and more, that will require substantial transnational cooperation.

A Comparison of the Biden and Trump Administration’s Energy Policy and Coal Leasing in the Powder River Basin

by Drew Collins

The 2024 election of President Trump brings rapid changes in the ways America will get its energy. President Trump clearly expressed his intentions to unleash American energy during his second administration. These intentions will undoubtedly affect the Powder River Basin (“PRB”), an area which President Biden banned from new coal leasingin 2024. To better picture the future of coal leasing in the PRB, it’s crucial to understand the PRB’s economic and environmental significance as well as the policies used to manage the PRB under the Biden Administration.

Significance of the Powder River Basin

The PRB is significant because it is a major source of U.S. coal, a major source of jobs across Wyoming, and a major source of potential pollution. The PRB is the largest reserve of coal in the country accounting for over 40 percentof the nation’s coal supply. The PRB makes Wyoming the nation’s largest coal producer. The PRB is home to the world’s largest deposits of low-sulfur subbituminous coal. Low-sulfur subbituminous coal is special because it is cleaner than regular coal, and its low sulfur contents lead to lower emissions levels.

Additionally, coal extraction in the PRB provides around six thousand direct mining jobs alongside 14 thousand indirect jobs. Indirect jobs are often associated with equipment manufacturing, transportation, and local retail. The coal industry provides some of the only meaningful employment in the rural areas where the PRB is located. Further, coal extraction supports five different Wyoming counties’ tax bases, with funding being directed towards schools, infrastructure, and other public services. However, Wyoming’s coal industry has struggled recently to find West Coastcities who have not banned coal generated energy. This struggle alongside President Biden’s ban on new leases in the PRB leaves many Wyoming residents fearful of impacts on their jobs and tax base.

Lastly, the PRB is significant because of its massive potential for emissions and pollution. Energy development in the PRB is responsible for nearly 15 percent of total U.S. carbon pollution, making it the largest single source of carbon dioxide pollution in the country. On top of emissions, strip mining techniques used in the PRB disrupt the habitats and migration patterns of local animal species such as the Sage-Grouse. Strip mining also negatively affects local air and water quality.

The significance of the PRB should not be understated. From these examples, it is clear changes in the management of the PRB could have major effects on U.S. energy generation, local economies, and the environment.

Biden Administration Energy Policies

Before the Trump Administration, President Biden subsidized American clean energy generation through the “Investing in America” initiative and the passing of the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”). The Biden Administration took steps to end non-renewable energy generation by regulating coal power plants emissions and increasing taxation on the oil industry. These regulations were significant because they signaled the curtailing of conventional energysources used for generation in America.

In furtherance of these initiatives, the Biden Administration banned new coal leasing in Wyoming’s PRB. President Biden’s ban recognized the market has shifted away from coal as an energy source to sources that are cheaper and cleaner. In other words, this ban is saving tax dollars from being invested into an industry that’s operating in a long-term decline. It is important to note that this ban does not prohibit coal extraction from existing leases in the PRB, but rather bans new leases for coal extraction. Considering the significance of the PRB, President Biden’s ban on new leases will likely have negative impacts on local Wyoming job markets. However, the ban could also save taxpayers billions of dollars from lost revenue and pollution damages (assuming social cost of carbon between $60 and $70).

Trump Administration Energy Policies

Not surprisingly, the current Trump Administration has a starkly different approach to energy policy than the Biden Administration. President Trump emphasizes U.S. energy dominance and security over renewables and clean technology. President Trump’s policies aim to achieve energy dominance primarily by subsidizing and deregulating the U.S. Oil and Coal Industries, while restricting the development of renewables such as wind energy. President Trump also plans to expand oil and gas extraction on public lands.

In the mere months since President Trump was elected to office, he and his Secretary of Interior, Doug Burgum, considered leasing in the PRB alongside other coal developments across Wyoming. In early February 2025, Burgum released orders that seek to review and revise a list of polarizing land plans consistent with President Trump’s goal to unleash American energy. These orders include a review of the BLM’s Buffalo, Wyoming field office which is responsible for management of the PRB.

However, the PRB and other multi-use public lands are managed based on an established Resource Management Plan (“RMP”). As it stands, the President does not have explicit authority to undo a RMP. In general, to overturn a current RMP, a substitute must be already prepared. RMPs are typically completed by the relevant federal agency with authority and take much time and detail to complete (sometimes up to 1,000 pages).

Considering President Trump’s lack of authority and time to complete a new RMP, it seems unlikely that he will be able to overturn President Biden’s ban of new leases in the PRB without some litigation. Although President Trump’s energy objectives in the PRB are clear, his means to reaching those objectives are murky at best. The future of the PRB and Biden’s ban on new coal leases is uncertain. The current Trump administration has already made strides for increased energy extraction in Wyoming, but the legality of these actions will likely face scrutiny by the court.

Triumphing Over Terror: The Fight for Environmental Justice Under a New Regime

by Kelly Bell

Not even one full day into his second term, President Donald Trump attacked environmental justice. Immediately slashed Biden-era executive orders protecting disadvantaged, low-income, and minority communities included Justice40 and America’s Commitment to Environmental Justice. Announcements continued on further rollbacks, and then, on Feb. 6, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the leave of 168 employees, all of whom worked for the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. That same day, the Office of Environmental Justice was also eliminated from the Department of Justice.

Funding freezes now block over $19 billion in EPA funding. In the not-so-distant past, EPA had a budget of $2.8 billion for the Environmental and Climate Justice Program alone. All over the country, communities facing environmental injustice no longer know if the funding promised to them will arrive. This loss of executive and agency support directly harms Americans. Without funding, federally-available information, and federal support, the already-uphill battle for environmental justice just got steeper. However, the fight was never easy, and now, hope cannot be lost.

States must now more than ever consider implementing their own environmental justice programs for the welfare of vulnerable residents. Vermont’s Environmental Justice Law, for example, created two committees that focus on ensuring environmental justice in the actions of State agencies. One step further that Vermont and other states should and must consider in the wake of the collapsing federal protections is providing state grants specifically to address environmental injustice within their borders. These state grants could be provided to communities, community organizations, or nonprofits in the areas. Vermont gives Community Development grants. Adding a separate initiative for environmental justice community grants tides over the loss of the federal support.

We will unfortunately not see states take as drastic an action as needed to protect these communities, and some states will not take any actions at all. President Biden’s administration faced state backlash from environmental justice initiatives. Louisiana is one state from which we will not see environmental justice support. The state’s 85-mile ‘Cancer Alley’ is a hotspot desperately needing environmental justice; minority communities disproportionally face the significant health effects impacting the region. In reaction to Biden’s initiatives, however, Louisiana refused to acknowledge or claim any significance on this racial disparity.

Nonprofits––both legal and community-founded––will need to keep the dreams of environmental justice alive by stepping up and filling the gaps left by states. The Southern Environmental Law Center, for example, explicitly called for protecting the federal funding already promised to communities suffering from environmental injustice. The Michigan Sierra Club made a statement regarding its priorities to safeguard communities, as did Earthjustice. During President Trump’s first term in office, nonprofits were able to keep environmental justice alive through tireless activism.

Community nonprofits and organizers, burdened once again with a fight their government should be handling for them, carry the heaviest loads. Often on the ground, in the moment, and dealing with the environmental injustice firsthand, community activists have a long fight ahead. The director of a Louisiana nonprofit faces downsizing but plans to keep up the fight as best as possible (though this is a clear example of how deep the work will get in these states supporting Trump’s rollbacks on environmental justice). The steps forward for directors in these situations seem grim, but possibilities exist. Grassroots organizing, making due without the federal grants, may not give way to much progress, but it another way to minimize the harm of the stripped protections. The Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education, for example, works to promote education about environmental justice impacting the local community and aid in community projects.

In conclusion, President Trump’s environmental justice rollbacks will harm vulnerable communities. States should step up and fight for their communities, but many agree with the rollbacks and will allow these changes without a fight. Legal nonprofits have and will continue fighting, but much of the work in keeping the communities running will fall on residents and local organizations themselves. Instead of embracing fear, remember: in times where we only have each other, unity is our strength.

Supplement to: THE TOXIC DIVIDE: INTERNATIONAL WASTE DUMPING AND THE FIGHT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY

By Christine Paul

This blog is a supplement to an original article published by Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 26 Issue 2. You can find the original piece here.

The environmental landscape continues to evolve as research sheds light on the complexities of international toxic waste disposal and its disproportionate impacts on developing nations. The article explored the frameworks established by the Bamako, Basel, and Stockholm Conventions to regulate transboundary hazardous waste movement and highlighted case studies from Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire, and Haiti.

This short supplement expands upon the original research addressing newly identified intersections between environmental justice and toxic waste disposal, focusing on Haiti. It examines the implications of the 2010 earthquake on toxic waste management, and how the nation’s ongoing political crisis exacerbates the challenges of waste regulation.

By providing these additional perspectives, this supplement deepens the analysis of systemic inequities by global waste practices and contextualizes the environmental and human health impacts within historically marginalized communities.

Underlying vulnerabilities in Haiti such as poor governance, lack of sound infrastructure and technical capacities, and corruption provide the baseline for inconsistent or nonexistent environmental laws and regulation. The flagrant lack of regulation promotes widespread deforestation, leaves infrastructure vulnerable to frequent natural disasters, and results in unorganized waste disposal.[1]

Illegal hazardous waste imports have been on the back burner as Haitian officials prioritize responses to natural disasters and other climate-related harms.[2] For example, on January 12, 2010, an earthquake struck Haiti near Port-au-Prince in a catastrophic event, affecting approximately 3.5 million people.[3] Reports estimate 220,000 individuals died, 300,000 homes were destroyed, and over 1.5 million were displaced.[4] To date, a significant portion of the population remain displaced after the catastrophic disaster. [5]

Some argue that Haiti’s current poor environmental management results from a lack of sufficiently developed environmental policy and responsible government institutions that fail to enact meaningful change.[6] The majority of environmental regulations were formulated through the twentieth century.[7] Reportedly, more than a hundred laws, orders, and decrees were promulgated up until 1995 dealing with various aspects of the environment.[8] In 1998, the Haitian Collective for the Protection of the Environment and Sustainable Development produced a compilation of two hundred legal texts on the environment.[9]

An example of a modern environmental law regulated by the Ministry of the Environment is the law of September 21, 2017 (the Law), which replaces the Decree of March 3, 1981 (the Decree).[10] The Decree recognized the “first national framework specifically addressing the issue of solid waste management in the country.”[11] This decree also created the Metropolitan Solid Waste Collection Service (MSWCS), the first state institution in charge of waste management.[12] As of 2022, the law emphasizes solid, medical, and high-toxicity waste without providing precise definitions for those terms.[13] Waste management remains problematic even after the law’s promulgation.[14] For example, the MSWCS lacks the manpower and supporting regulations to ensure that waste is appropriately disposed.[15]

History shows that decades of ineffective environmental regulation, coupled with the country’s socio-political climate, has greatly exacerbated Haiti’s tenuous environmental scheme.[16] This is why Haiti must establish a regulatory body that responsibly implements, executes, and enforces environmental laws and regulations; or transform the Ministry of the Environment into a force that effectively addresses the country’s many environmental woes. The Haitian government and relevant stakeholders must prioritize these issues and others affecting the Haitian people and the environment.

Footnotes:

[1] Richener Noël, Governance and environmental degradation in Haiti, in 12 Humanitarian Aid on the Move 1, 8–11 (2023), https://www.urd.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/URD_HEM_12_EN.pdf.

[2] UN summit puts global spotlight on land degradation, UNEP (Dec. 2, 2024), https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/un-summit-puts-global-spotlight-land-degradation; See also Global response to drought takes center stage at UN land conference in Riyadh, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (Dec. 3, 2024), https://www.unccd.int/news-stories/press-releases/global-response-drought-takes-center-stage-un-land-conference-riyadh.

[3] Francois Pierre-Louis, Earthquakes, Nongovernmental Organizations, and Governance in Haiti, 42 J. of Black Stud. 186, 187 (2011).

[4] Id.

[5] Robin Whitlock, Dealing with the Aftermath of a Disaster—Hazardous Materials, Rubble, and Ashes, The Earth and I (Dec. 13, 2024), https://www.theearthandi.org/post/dealing-with-the-aftermath-of-a-disaster-hazardous-materials-rubble-and-ashes; See also Juliette Benet, Behind the numbers: the shadow of 2010’s earthquake still looms large in Haiti, Internal Displacement Monitoring Ctr. (Jan. 13, 2020), https://www.internal-displacement.org/expert-analysis/behind-the-numbers-the-shadow-of-2010s-earthquake-still-looms-large-in-haiti/.

[6] Glenn R. Smucker et al., Environmental Vulnerability in Haiti: Findings and Recommendations 68 (U.S. Agency for Int’l Dev., 2007).

[7] Association Haitienne de Droit de l’Environnement et al., Republic of Haiti, United Nations Universal Periodic Rev. (Oct. 3, 2011), https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/lib-docs/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/session12/HT/JS5-JointSubmission5-eng.pdf?utm.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Mickens Mathieu, Spotlight on the law of September 21, 2017: to better address the challenges of the solid waste management system in Haiti, UNDP Haiti (Mar. 22, 2022), https://www.undp.org/fr/haiti/blog/spotlight-law-september-21-2017-better-address-challenges-solid-waste-management-system-haiti.

[11] Mathieu, supra note 10.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Waste Management, International Trade Administration (2024) https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/haiti-waste-management#.

[15] Mickens Mathieu, A Focus on Informal Solid Waste Collectors in Haiti: Key Players but Neglected Actors, UNDP Haiti (Mar. 17, 2022), https://www.undp.org/fr/haiti/blog/focus-informal-solid-waste-collectors-haiti-key-players-neglected-actors.

[16] Marcelin LH, Cela T, Shultz JM. Haiti and the politics of governance and community responses to Hurricane Matthew, Disaster Health. 2016 Nov 22;3(4):151–161.

About the Author:

Christine Paul is a Class of 2023 Presidential Management Fellow. She holds a J.D. from Vermont Law and Graduate School and a B.S. in Biology from St. John’s University. Christine is dedicated to environmental law and justice, and thanks Professor Catherine Fregosi and Christine Ryan for their invaluable support while writing.

Green Gentrification: Rochester’s Inner Loop

By Katherine Scott

Community development is an essential part of creating a more sustainable society. The way that most cities currently operate is not efficient and is generally detrimental to the environment. To change that, city planners, architects, and legislators will scope out spaces that can be re-utilized into something more sustainable. They develop plans to create more walkable cities to reduce the amount of time an average commuter has to spend in a car, or they’ll create larger plots of land for trees and other vegetation to create “green space” in a city.

These are great ideas, but the plans often overlook what is already in front of them. City planners and legislators often tear down what already exists to create green spaces or more walkable cities. By doing so, they discount the residents who live in that community.

The major factor that often goes under looked, or that gets reduced to a small net loss, is the economic impact that “greening” the city will have on the current residents. Too often, those residents are low-income and disproportionately people of color. For example, New York City converted an abandoned subway track into a lovely park for people to walk on, called the High Line. This park includes modern art, plenty of plants and flowers, and an incredible view of the city. However, many parts of the High Line are surrounded by resident housing (as is most of New York City). Any residential housing adjacent to the High Line raised housing values by 35%. The increase displaced current residents and keeps out anyone who cannot meet the new economic norm.

This is the process known as green gentrification. Cities have big aspirations of creating a sustainable community but end up displacing low-income residents. This happens all over the country, but more specifically, it is happening right now in Rochester, New York.

Marketview Heights is a community in Rochester that has existed for generations. Members of the Marketview Heights community want to keep the community’s sense of place and are skeptical about the incoming teardown of Inner Loop North. Sense of place is the attachment that one has to their home and to their community. When there is not a strong connection to the community, people tend to not treat the space very well. Renters who move into the places built in place of the Inner Loop often do not have a strong connection to their community. Residents fear losing this sense of place, especially given what they have already experienced from the Inner Loop East project.

In the place of Inner Loop East, where part of the highway used to run, are towering modernized apartment buildings for renters. It is quite a juxtaposition from the houses just across the river that have been standing for generations. When asked about the change, Suzanna Mayer, of the local Non-profit Hinge Neighborhoods, said, “They got rid of a moat, and built a wall.”

The city of Rochester, New York, has just recently received a substantial grant from the state to tear down another part of the Inner Loop–a highway that has segregated the downtown Rochester community since the 1960s. From the perspective of an observer of the downtown Rochester community, this is a great success. The city of Rochester is achieving its goal of tearing down the eye-sore highway, making downtown Rochester a more walkable city, and creating “. . .safer streets, bike lanes, green spaces, and good paying local construction jobs. . ..” to quote Senator Chuck Schumer when interviewed for the City of Rochester website. This seems like a great environmental win for the city. Some residents of Marketview Heights, the community right down the street from the recent Inner Loop East construction, disagree.

Renters who move into the places built in place of the Inner Loop often do not have a strong connection to their community.

A solution to this inevitable paradox: Consider what the people already living in that community have to say about developing their community. The experts in community development are the people who live there. No one can create a better place for a person when they have no idea of the needs of that person and their community. Take into consideration that there could be more community-building events or what they can do to encourage renters to consider long-term living.

The “wall” that Inner Loop East built was not just a physical, aesthetic divide but a social divide as well. There must be a plan to incorporate the current Marketview Heights community into the new one created by the Inner Loop project; a plan to create opportunities for the people coming into the community and especially opportunities for its current residents. The architects of the Inner Loop project should build upon what is already in the community and listen to the residents’ input and ideas.

image used with public share permission from: ProtectThackerPass.org/resources

While We’re Here: Acknowledging Harm in Federal Green Initiatives

By Ariana Richmond

On day one in office, the new administration canceled climate change initiatives. Executive Order 14154 eliminated the “electric vehicle (EV) mandate,” revoked twelve executive orders addressing the climate crisis, and attempted to override bipartisan climate change legislation. Setting aside the consequences likely to result from an absence of federal leadership, this complete stop is also an opportunity to pause and think about equitable solutions through a Just Transition. To that end, how have green initiatives like electric vehicle goals harmed marginalized communities?

Federal green initiatives—even well-intentioned with environmental justice—too often still come at the expense of historically oppressed communities. Under the Biden administration, there was bipartisan support for clean energy and infrastructure as well as environmental justice—and even for putting them all together.

At the executive level, the Biden administration committed to environmental justice through the Justice40 (J40) Initiative. Through Executive Orders 14008 and 14096, the White House committed 40% of overall benefits from federal clean energy and infrastructure projects to historically disadvantaged communities.

Consistent with this, Congress passed, and President Biden signed into law, two pieces of landmark legislation: the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL) and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Both laws established infrastructure and clean energy projects that prioritized disadvantaged communities. From this, the Biden administration produced a list of over 500 programs under J40authorized by Congress for climate change and environmental justice. In this way, the federal government committed to a green economy while purporting to serve marginalized communities.

However, some of the clean energy programs directly harm marginalized communities. For example, the BIL and IRA advance electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing, which has harmful local impacts. The IRA alone appropriated $3 billion to the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, and removed the program’s loan cap, to fund direct loans for manufacturing facilities for EV battery critical minerals. Accordingly, the Department of Energy issued a $2.26 billion loan to Lithium Americas, a Canadian company, to build a lithium mining facility at Thacker Pass in northern Nevada. Notably, this is all part of the J40 environmental justice program. Further, both the Biden and previous administration supported the mine, with the Biden administration increasing funding and finalizing the loan.

The area of the mine, Thacker Pass, Nevada (Peehee Mu’huh), is unceded land. The Numu/Nuwu and Newe Peoples maintain rights to the land. Today, the area borders Oregon, sits atop an extinct volcano, and is likely one of the largest sources of lithium in the U.S. Most importantly, the area is hugely significant to the Indigenous Peoples who have lived there since time immemorial.

Forcibly removed to reservations nearby, at least six federally recognized Tribes of the Numu/Nuwu and Newe People resist the mine site. The Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone Tribe has a 54-square mile reservation that is around 30 miles from the mine. Some of the harm to Tribes from the mine includes: obstructing hunting, fishing, and gathering rights; preventing cultural and religious practices; obstructing the continuation of traditions; and infringing on ancestral land claims—in addition to ecological and environmental harm. There is also an increased risk of violence, including sexual violence against women, historically pervasive among extractive industry practices. Additionally, the land is a sacred burial site since 1865, when U.S. soldiers massacred Numu/Nuwu and Newe Peoples who inhabited the land.

Tribes resisting the mine have sued in federal district court, lost, and lost on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. Under the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA, the federal government must follow procedural requirements, including Tribal consultation, before approving the project. Additionally, the U.S. government has a trust relationship with Indigenous Nations and must engage in good-faith, nation-to-nation consultation. According to a February 2025 Human Rights Watch report, the construction of the mine also violates Indigenous Peoples’ rights under international law, to obtain free, prior, and informed consent before permitting the mine. Yet, the U.S. government failed to uphold each of these obligations.

In this way, the lithium mine violates the rights of Tribes despite the U.S. government categorizing the project as green and just. This case illustrates how federal green initiatives purporting to advance environmental justice fail to do so. A green economy carried out at the expense of Indigenous Peoples is neither green nor just. It is important to acknowledge this harm now while federal initiatives are stalled. It is equally important to consult directly with environmental justice communities, including Indigenous Peoples, before advancing policies for a green economy.

With Global Fishing Fleets, Justice Walks the Plank

By Ilinca Johnson

What happens when poorly regulated fishery harvest practices lead industry to exploit vulnerable, impoverished communities? Global Fishing Fleets (“GFFs”) are large-scale industrial operations sustained by harmful fishery subsidiesprovided by their respective governments. The largest fleets are maintained by China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and theUnited States. GFF operations keep the cost of seafood low for consumers around the globe by raising numerous other costs that marine ecosystems, the climate, and marginalized communities bear instead. Most alarming is how GFFs promote modern-day slavery. The current state of GFFs calls for great reform to prevent resource exploitation and protect vulnerable communities globally.

Working in the theory of Environmental Justice, scholars “tend to cast a broad net to allow consideration of how exploitative relationships between industrial actors and marginalized communities, including workers, transcend into peoples’ everyday lives.” In this current case, the exploitative practices of GFFs unsustainably harvest from marine ecosystems while simultaneously violating the human rights of vulnerable communities, demonstrating the intersection of environmental and social injustices.

Environmentally, industrial fishing has severely depleted fish stocks. In the past few decades, GFFs have tripled the number of over-harvested stocks of fish through illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing (IUU). Today, one out of every five fish is caught IUU. Approximately 27 million tons of marine life – including an estimated 300,000 whales and dolphins—are caught and discarded as bycatch each year.

GFFs often illegally harvest in protected areas or the territorial waters of developing nations with weaker regulatory systems. GFFs avoid detection through falsifying reports, deactivating transponders, and transshipments. Transshipments move catch between vessels at sea to large “reefer” ships. These reefers have huge onboard freezers where legal and illegal fish alike mix, hiding their original source. Overfishing threatens the survival of iconic and ecologically important species including the bluefin tuna, cod, and numerous shark species, damaging marine ecosystems and devastating local indigenous communities reliant on subsistence fishing.

GFFs also contribute significant carbon emissions. Since the 1950s, greenhouse gas emissions have more than quadrupled due to unsustainable fishing practices. Today, fleets must expend more energy to maintain catch levels, going further and further from their coastlines in search of enough fish. Now, it takes twice as much effort to harvest the same number of fish as in the 1950s. The loss in fish populations disrupts blue carbon sequestration in the deep ocean, contributing even more carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere.

Beyond environmental destruction, GFFs notoriously exploit labor. An estimated one-third of these fleets engage in forced labor, particularly in South Asia, where trafficked workers from Myanmar, Cambodia, Thailand, and Bangladesh then endure inhumane conditions. Many are lured by deceptive job offers, only to have their passports confiscated.

These people then face months to years of twenty-hour workdays without pay while sleeping in a concentration-style bunk room and given largely non-nutritious meals. Supported by reefers and supply ships, a ship crew could be at sea for years. Reports indicate widespread torture, forced confinement, and even the murder of laborers. Between 2019 and 2020, at least 30 Indonesian workers died on Chinese fishing vessels. Today, potentially half a million migrants remain enslaved in Thailand’s shrimp industry. Additionally, Uyghurs and North Koreans are documented as working under forced labor conditions in Chinese seafood processing plants directly supplying global markets.

The exploitation of forced labor is deeply tied to overfishing. Some studies suggest the use of forced labor is a direct response to the diminished populations of fish in the ocean. By aggressively reducing expenditure on crew by utilizing human trafficking, Global Fishing Fleets save money and can provide cheap seafood to the world.

Western consumer markets, particularly in the U.S. and EU, inadvertently fuel these abuses by prioritizing cheap seafood over ethical sourcing. Major retailers such as Walmart, Tesco, and Costco sell shrimp produced through slave labor in Thailand. Currently, it is virtually impossible to trace the opaque supply chains within the global shrimp industry, though efforts are being made. The U.S. alone accounts for 14% of global seafood imports, with an estimated average potential slavery risk of 3.1 kg (~6.8 lb) of seafood per tonne consumed. That risk is 17 times higher than seafood from domestic fishery sources.

To address these injustices, urgent action is needed. Governments and industry leaders must prioritize human rights and environmental sustainability by implementing stronger labor regulations, increasing supply chain transparency, banning harmful subsidies, and ending or closely managing transshipment practices. Closing the high seas to fishing and investing in small-scale, equitable fisheries would help restore fish populations, create more equitable access to highly migratory species like tuna. Most importantly, adopting such measures would protect both the environment and vulnerable communities globally, leading to a more secure future for millions. Without reform, continued overexploitation deepens economic and social inequalities that threaten global food security, the livelihoods of millions, and the long-term health of marine ecosystems.

The time for change is now—ensuring ethical, sustainable fishing practices is essential for both people and the oceans.

The Substitution Effect: Could Reducing Fossil Fuel Sales Truly Have No Impact?

By Shekhar Pathak

“Climate change is an extremely complex and difficult issue. It crosses jurisdictional boundaries, is rapidly worsening and has the potential to cause unprecedented loss and damage.”

–Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ

Imagine, a large paper company, aware that its logging practices contribute to deforestation and increased carbon emissions, argues that it should not be held liable for these environmental impacts, because if it ceased operations, other firms would take over the same logging areas, leading to no net reduction in emissions. A Dutch appellate court (“Court”) reflected similar reasoning in a recent ruling concerning Shell’s climate obligations. Globally, temperature increases, driven by greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, reach 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels but specifically rise above those levels by 1.7°C in the Netherlands. The Court overturned a landmark ruling that had required Shell, whose energy sales in 2023 were 91% derived from major GHG sources, to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030. The Court acknowledged Shell’s significant duty of care in mitigating climate change, given its century-long dominance in the fossil fuel market. However, regarding Scope 3 emissions, the Court rejected Shell’s claim that it had limited influence on demand-side factors, but accepted its supply-side argument. It also agreed with the substitution argument, noting that reducing Shell’s fossil fuel sales would not lower overall CO2 emissions, as other suppliers would step in to fill the gap, leaving global emissions unchanged. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that Milieudefensie et al. lacked sufficient legal interest under Article 3:303 of the Dutch Civil Code (“DCC”) to impose a Scope 3 reduction obligation on Shell.

However, as observed, the Court’s reasoning—claiming that reducing Shell’s fossil fuel sales would not lead to a net reduction in CO2 emissions—is flawed on two significant grounds: First, it overlooks the inherently collective nature of climate change, where individual actions cumulatively contribute to global emissions. Further, while Shell and similar carbon producers may not have specific obligations to future generations, the court acknowledged their general duty to avoid jeopardising future living conditions. Second, the Court’s reliance on the ‘but-for’ test in assessing sufficient interest under Article 3:303 DCC implies that since granting the claim would not directly benefit the claimant, there is no legal interest. While this test is effective for assessing discrete causation, it fails to account for complexity, as seen in Gloucester Resources, where it proves problematic for systemic issues like attributing specific climate-related events to individual emitters. And, by focusing solely on whether harm would have occurred without Shell’s actions, the court overlooked the shared responsibility for climate change, making it nearly impossible to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Shell’s actions were the direct cause of the harm.

The challenge of proving causation in climate-related cases is evident globally. In the Native Village of Kivalina, an Alaskan Inupiat village sued 24 companies for nuisance, alleging their emissions contributed to coastal destruction. Similarly, in Luciano, a Peruvian farmer claimed a corporate defendant’s emissions caused glacier melting, leading to significant mitigation costs. In Smith, the plaintiff alleged public nuisance, negligence, and breach of duty against corporate emitters. In all these cases, plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite causal link for climate change-related harm, reflecting the inherent difficulty in attributing specific damages to individual emitters. Moreover, its rigidity not merely applies to climate change but also to toxic torts, as seen in Fairchild, Barker, Sienkiewicz and Sindell as well as to emotional harms, as highlighted in Shorey, and Calascione, which have similarly struggled with conventional approaches to legal causation.

The observations made in the above case laws suggest, that the core difficulty in applying the traditional causation test, specifically in climate change litigation, lies in the following: First, a plaintiff faces difficulty in proving the direct, causal link required by the test between their harm and the defendant’s actions. In this case, the judge considered emissions from other third-party emitters, which, in the absence of Shell’s contributions, merge indistinguishably, interact, and ultimately, through complex natural processes, contribute climate change. This makes it impossible to establish a clear causal chain from one emission source to specific damage. Second, given that everyone contributes to emissions, Shell is just one of more than seven billion emitters. The plaintiff cannot establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the harm would not happen in the absence of the defendant’s emissions. It is more likely that the harm occurred because of the actions of other emitters. However, in reality, Shell’s emissions, alongside those of other corporations, contribute to a harmful set of factors. Reducing Shell’s emissions would still mitigate the overall damage, even if other contributors remain active.

Therefore, the court should adopt a more flexible approach, such as the ‘extended but-for test’ proposed by Professor Jane Stapleton, considering the complexities of environmental protection. This test identifies a factor as causal if it positively contributes to the mechanism causing harm, even if it is not independently sufficient. For example, a defendant who negligently pushes a car over a cliff alongside others remains a cause, even if the act could have occurred without their involvement. The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Financial Conduct Authority reiterated this departure from the strict ‘but-for’ test. In addressing business losses caused by COVID-19 restrictions, the Court held that an insured peril could be considered a cause of loss, even if it was neither necessary nor sufficient alone, as long as it contributed alongside other factors. This approach recognises the limitations of the rigid traditional test and provides a more adaptable framework for addressing causation in complex, systemic scenarios, such as determining the liability of giant emitter corporations like Shell.

The Climate Is Changing in the United States: Preserving Environmental Interests in a New Administration

By Eric Grimes

President Trump made his intentions for United States environmental interests clear within hours of his inauguration. Among the slew of executive orders President Trump passed on his first day in office was an order withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, another authorizing unlimited oil drilling, and another gutting green initiatives across the country. Few people in the world today do not believe climate change and the health of the environment are extremely prominent issues requiring immediate and extensive action. Unfortunately, the President and his administration seem to be among the group of people uninterested and unwilling to act. While the President’s policies do not look good for the United States’ environment, hope for its protection can still be found elsewhere. President Trump has attacked many environmental issues, but this post will focus on the initiatives surrounding the Paris Agreement. Many initiatives outside of the Federal government aim to mitigate the President’s environmental policies.

When President Trump was elected for a second term, many hoped he would reverse his stance from his first termand allow the United States to stay in the Paris Agreement. The Agreement focuses on keeping global warming below a 2 degrees Celsius increase from global temperature in 1990. The 2-degree level is largely understood to be a temperature at which there will be severe climate change impacts. Unfortunately, President Trump has felt that goal does not align with his policy interests. Luckily, between the initiatives established after the President’s first withdrawal and a substantial number of pessimists (or possibly realists?) concerned with his second withdrawal, avenues have been made to uphold the U.S. obligations to the Paris Agreement without Trump.

The most prominent representation of hope for Pro-Paris interests is the U.S. Climate Alliance. The U.S. Climate Alliance is a coalition of state governors interested in upholding the United States obligations under the Paris Agreement in their states. The representative states make up over 50% of the United States population and economy. The U.S. Climate Alliance allowed states to fight back against President Trump’s first withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. After the first withdrawal, the U.S. Climate Alliance was responsible for extensive climate legislation and regulations. Some of the resulting statutes passed included the Vermont Global Warming Solutions Act of 2020, which held Vermont to even stronger goals than the Paris Agreement, and the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, which created an extensive plan for California to achieve its climate goals. When President Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement after taking office, the U.S. Climate Alliance slowed down its activity. However, on the same day as President Trump’s recent withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the U.S. Climate Alliance made a public statement about upholding the United States’ pledge to the Agreement.

The current political turmoil in the United States has created a shift toward greater localization of action. The U.S. Climate Alliance is a perfect example of localizing action to address climate change. State governments might not have the reach or the resources that the federal government possesses, but they have the drive and support to address change where they can. Situations like these can sometimes even encourage states–such as Vermont, California, Hawai’i, and New York–to create stronger goals and legislation to address climate change than the federal government can or would implement. On top of state-specific action, local governments, organizations, and companies have started to take action to support the fight against climate change. America Is All In, a joint declaration of over 5,000 organizations committed to upholding the obligations of the Paris Agreement, is a prominent example of companies joining the fight against climate change. The coalition includes many influential companies such as Microsoft, which recently entered into an agreement to directly support the Paris Agreement.

While the United States may have left the Paris Agreement, hope can still be found in the shift to localized efforts. President Trump’s efforts to disrupt climate action in the United States may be successful at the federal level, but the path forward is clear for state and local governments, companies and organizations, and people and communities. Climate change must be addressed through all available avenues. For issues as pressing as climate change, action cannot be put off till the next administration.