Category: Ecoperspectives

EcoPerspectives Blog

How Can Vertical Farming Solve the Issue of Global Population Increase and Food Scarcity?

By Sai Spoorthi Swamy, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

According to the United Nations, the human population will reach 8.5 billion by 2030 and 9.7 billion by 2050. Most of the population increase will occur in developing countries. The drastic increase in population threatens global food security and places pressure on agricultural land. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (UNFAO) estimates that food production must increase by 70 percent before 2050. The increase in food production will lead to resource scarcity and volatility. Conventional agriculture requires the consumption of 70 percent global water supply, and half of the world’s population will experience water scarcity by 2030. Current agriculture practices result in 40 percent of crops wasted, which signals that they are unsustainable to meet food demands for the expected population growth in 2030 and 2050. Furthermore, agricultural production has also been impacted by the drastic natural disasters from climate change, which has made agriculture production unreliable, volatile, and vulnerable to crop pests.

Vertical farming is one solution to food scarcity and prevents the volatility in agricultural production caused by climate change. Vertical farming is an agricultural practice that involves producing large quantities of crops in multistory buildings using controlled environmental conditions and nutrients to allow for fast crop growth and planned production. Vertical farming has become popular in recent years. Many countries, such as the United States, Japan, China, Netherlands, Dubai, United Kingdom, and France, have implemented successful vertical farm systems.

Vertical farming has proven to be advantageous. One advantage is that vertical farming systems can operate in cities, allowing for local crop growth. Growing crops locally reduces waste and the energy used to produce and provide food to consumers. In addition, vertically stacked farms are more sustainable, requiring less land and water when compared to conventional farming. For example, vertical farms can yield 10 to 20 times more per acre when compared to conventional farming. Further, vertical farming increases efficiency since it allows crop production year-round. While seasonal changes and geographical locations limit when conventional farmers can grow crops, vertical farming has no such limitations. Growing crops in an indoor, controlled environment also eliminates the need for toxic pesticides or weather resilience, increasing the production of organic produce. Ultimately, vertical farming systems can replace and reduce the risks associated with conventional farming. For example, risks that crops produced by conventional farming are an increase in pests, the spread of diseases, and contamination.

While vertical farming has its advantages, there are also disadvantages. A disadvantage of vertical farming is the cost of construction, specifically the energy and heating costs associated with operating the farm itself. Crop growth in a vertical farming system requires artificial light sources, thus requiring a lot of energy which becomes costly. Along with artificial lighting, vertical farms also require proper ventilation, heating, and air conditioning systems to control humidity which are all expensive. In addition, vertical farming requires dependency on technology, which increases cost and the risk of spoilage from power outages in places like California.

However, ensuring backup generators are available in case a power outage occurs can mitigate this issue. While both vertical and conventional farms are no match for natural disasters like earthquakes, conventional farmers are more vulnerable to natural disasters. This is because natural disasters result in the loss of harvest or livestock and the destruction of agricultural infrastructure and irrigation systems. In comparison, crops and the infrastructure required to produce crops in vertical farms have a layer of foundation that protects them from natural disasters or any outside factor. Furthermore, vertical farming could lead to conventional farmers losing their jobs along the process.

While vertical farming has advantages and disadvantages, it is a promising solution to addressing the drastic increase in global population. Before expanding the use of vertical farming, further research or technological advancement is required to help reduce the high operating costs associated with vertical farming.

EcoPerspectives Blog

In the Midst of Climate Disaster, We Continue to Cater to Big Oil

By Katlyn Schafer, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

In one of the world’s most remote areas lies a vast, 23-million-acre petroleum reserve. The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) makes up the majority of Alaska’s North Slope. Owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management, this massive petroleum reserve remains largely untouched-but not for long. ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s largest crude oil producer, was just approved to begin construction of an extensive project in the heart of this reserve. The approved “Willow Project” is an $8 billion dollar expenditure that will be the largest oil project the country has seen in decades.

ConocoPhillips is quick to highlight all of the positive impacts the Willow Project will create. Boasting 2,500 construction jobs, 300 permanent jobs, and at least $8 billion in projected revenue, the company frames this project as a “saving grace” to the small communities in the proposed construction area. But the company has not been as forthcoming about the environmental harms expected to follow. The environmental review for the project estimated a release of about 9.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. The expected emissions output is significant and roughly equivalent to putting 2 million extra cars on U.S. roads.

As with any major project, there are pros and cons. Those against the project argue “people over profit,” while supporters assert that the profit ultimately benefits the people. But is creating only 300 permanent jobs worth the global climate catastrophes that will follow from this project’s expected emissions? Why then, did President Biden, who ran his campaign on a promise to end oil and gas leasing on federal lands, approve such a controversial project? Political controversies and fear of litigation may have played a role.

High gas prices continue to place a heavy financial burden on our economy. Between the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, oil prices have increased significantly in the last two years. In an attempt to help stabilize supply and demand, President Biden released oil barrels from the U.S. Strategic Reserve, a move that some might say is only “kicking the can down the road,” as the current outlook for oil supply is still grim. Economically, this reasoning makes a strong case in support of the project. The more oil we can produce on our own, the less we need to rely on our unreliable global imports. But at such a critical point in our struggle to mitigate climate change, is more fossil fuel extraction really what we need?

Politics aside, the Biden Administration may have felt forced to approve this project. Anonymous government sources told CNN that the Administration felt as though “their hands were tied.” ConocoPhillips first purchased the lease for the area back in 1999, giving the company a long established and valid lease of the area and its resources. Rejection of the company’s project proposal would have inevitably led to aggressive litigation against the Biden Administration. But the devastating environmental consequences that will come from the millions of tons of emissions expected from the project seem far more threatening than the fear of a possible legal challenge.

The climate around the North Slope has been warming at a rate three times faster than the global average, making it one of the fastest warming areas on the planet. Melting permafrost is already shifting houses, destroying roads, and causing mudslides. Many are being forced to relocate out of areas that their families have lived in for generations, making them among the first climate refugees in the U.S. But it isn’t just the people that are impacted by these rising temperatures. The North Slope provides critical habitat to many species, including caribou, waterfowl, and even polar bears. A number of these species are already threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and they all face the threat of a warming climate.

Domestic energy production will be benefitted by the Willow Project. But this approval goes directly against the pledge Biden made under the Paris Agreement to cut U.S. emissions 50% below 2005 levels by 2030. The pledge was already an ambitious and unlikely goal, but constructing the Willow Project now makes it near impossible. Many fear that the project will encourage an increase in drilling sites across the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, leading to more oil extraction, and ultimately greater greenhouse gas emissions.

Not all hope is lost, however. Environmental organizations are already mobilizing against the project, seeking to get an injunction from the courts to stop construction before it can even begin. Earthjustice, in particular, is working on a legal strategy that could not only stop the Willow Project, but any future oil and gas projects as well. Anyone who wishes to help aid in the efforts to stop the progression of the Willow Project can go to the Earthjustice website and either donate to their litigation fund or sign their petition and send a message to the Biden Administration that the approval of this project was a mistake.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Stay Vigilant: Keeping Companies Accountable Under France’s New Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law

By Josie Pechous, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

Hungry? Grab a plastic container of Activia yogurt. Thirsty? Open a plastic bottle of Evian water. Dairy-free? Twist the plastic cap off of Silk oat milk. Each of these products is made by one of the world’s top ten plastic polluters: Danone. A French-based company, Danone sells products in over 120 countries and employs over 100,000 people globally. In 2021, Danone increased its plastic use to 750,995 metric tons, roughly equivalent to 75 Eiffel Towers. ClientEarth, joined by Surfrider Foundation Europe and Zero Waste France, is taking Danone to court for its contribution to plastic pollution. The three NGOs contend that Danone failed to comply with France’s recently adopted Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law.

The Duty of Vigilance Law requires France’s largest companies to assess and prevent negative impacts of their supply chains on human rights and the environment. The law applies to any French company with more than 5,000 French-based employees or 10,000 global employees. This covers roughly 100-150 companies. Under the law, companies are responsible for their own direct and indirect activities, as well as the activities of their subsidiaries, subcontractors, and suppliers. The purpose of this law is to mitigate risks in all crevices of the supply chain. The law requires companies to establish, implement, and publish a Vigilance Plan, which must include five components. The five components are: 1) identifying, analyzing, and ranking risks, 2) procedures to assess risks throughout the supply chain, 3) actions to mitigate risks or prevent serious violations, 4) an alert mechanism to report risks, and 5) a monitoring scheme.

ClientEarth is unimpressed with Danone’s efforts on components one, two, and three. ClientEarth asks Danone to do three things: 1) map the impact its plastics have across the supply chain, 2) provide a complete assessment of its plastic footprint, and 3) create a “deplastification” plan with quantified and dated objectives. This request comes after ClientEarth put Danone and eight other large food production companies on notice for inadequately addressing their contribution to plastics pollution. ClientEarth gave the notice in September 2022 and, per the statute, allowed the nine companies three months to remedy their actions. ClientEarth says Danone’s response to the notice “wasn’t good enough,” so it initiated legal action in January 2023. The case now awaits its initial hearing in the Paris Tribunal Judiaire (a French civil court). At this hearing, the judge will decide whether to open the case.

Danone’s 2021 Vigilance Plan comprises of five pages within its 70-page Social, Societal, and Environmental Responsibility policy. Although its Vigilance Plan does not mention plastics, Danone provides specific efforts for combating plastic pollution in the pages before and after its Vigilance Plan. For example, Danone has adopted a circular economy of packaging. This initiative includes: 100% recyclable, reusable, or compostable plastic packaging by 2025; reduce its use of virgin plastic; and increase the proportion of recycled plastic in its packaging. Surfrider, one of the NGOs joining ClientEarth in this case, says Danone’s efforts are unsatisfactory and lack meaningful impact.

Danone refutes the claims against it and recognizes itself as “a pioneer in environmental risk management.” As it stands, Danone’s main strategy to mitigate plastic pollution is to increase the recyclability of its products. But recycling is a false solution. The sad reality is that only 9% of the plastic produced in the last 70 years has been recycled. Plus, Danone has a large presence in many countries who already receive the brunt of the Western world’s plastic excess. In 2022, Danone distinguished itself as the #1 polluter in Indonesia, Spain, and Tunisia.

Interestingly, in February 2022, Danone joined over 100 companies, investors, and business associations in signing a statement urging the European Union to propose mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. Notably missing from the signatories were any of the other eight companies ClientEarth filed a notice against in September 2022. This fact could work both for and against Danone. On one hand, this demonstrates Danone’s commitment to advancing corporate responsibility, which would undercut ClientEarth’s argument that Danone is complacent in this area. On the other hand, ClientEarth may try to hold Danone to a higher standard by showing its public endorsement of “meaningful action on impacts on people and planet.”

France’s Duty of Vigilance Law represents ones of the first concrete actions in the global momentum towards corporate accountability. In 2021, Germany and Norway adopted similar due diligence laws, with the Netherlands and Finland likely to soon adopt their own. Laws such as these help companies get ahead of potential risks that could otherwise lead to legal, financial, and reputational consequences. That said, the true purpose of these laws is to make it easier for victims to prove when a company fails to act on its promises by requiring companies to publicly identify and mitigate risks. These laws provide a means to bypass the complexity, scale, and influence of large companies that usually hinders parties from achieving justice. Ultimately, these laws empower affected people and communities to hold companies accountable for their environmental impacts.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Potentially Colassal Mistake: The Environmental Ramifications of De-Extinction

By Nicholas Govostes, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

Cutting edge company attempts de-extinction of lost species for scientific and financial gain ­- sound familiar? Maybe six movies and several books describing this exact process, the end result, and the subsequent fallout ring a bell? For the non-movie buffs, the Jurassic Park franchise is one of the most profitable and well-known movie franchises of all time, dating back to the first Jurassic Park movie released in 1993. Since then, the franchise has generated millions of dollars from movies, games, and toys and has captured the imagination of several generations. Also, the franchise (theoretically) serves as a warning to those who considered meddling with the forces of nature and genetics—”playing God” so to speak. Unfortunately, it would seem that warning has fallen on deaf ears, particularly those of Colossal Biosciences’ founders and investors.

Colossal Biosciences is a biotech startup based out of Dallas whose mission is to use genetic technology to “de-extinct” previously lost species. While striving to make Earth healthier, Colossal is also aiming to develop new technology and software from this process that can completely revolutionize the science of genomics and provide new avenues for addressing economic concerns and biological conditions. A lofty goal to say the least. To this point, three species are on their de-extinction agenda: the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger), the wooly mammoth, and more recently, the dodo bird. The company has notable investors including life coach and motivational speaker Tony Robbins and billionaire film producer Thomas Tull. They also have institutional partnerships with top universities like Harvard and Cornell, among others. Colossal is currently seeking investors for the dodo bird project, but the estimated $1 billion company seems well on its way to make that project a reality.

To justify this project on the “rewilding” front (the reintroduction of lost species into their natural habitats), Colossal cites to the Yellowstone Wolf Project as proof that such projects can be successful. For context, in the early 1900s, wolf populations in Yellowstone National Park had been virtually eradicated by hunters and the U.S. government. The removal of wolves, along with bears, cougars, and other predators, led to a cascade effect where the elk population grew out of control. As a result, vegetation became more scarce, which caused further harm to other species like beavers and fish. The park lost a keystone species and the food web felt the effects. In 1995, the Yellowstone Wolf Project reintroduced wolf populations into the park. The impacts of the wolves were felt immediately, as elk numbers were quickly brought under control, impaired species were able to bounce back, and the ecosystem became healthier than it had been in decades.

The Yellowstone Wolf Project was a success and premier example of how rewilding can work, but the comparison to Colossal’s project feels misplaced. For one, Yellowstone needed the wolves to bring the ecosystem into balance, whereas here there is no tangible benefit to introducing an old species back into its “old” environment – no ecosystem requires the Tasmanian tiger, wooly mammoth, or dodo bird to bring it back into balance. Although certainly remarkable to see the species returned to… well… being alive, rewilding them would only serve to add another mouth to feed into the food chain of the respective ecosystem, putting pressure on the other species already present. The “new” members of the ecosystem could potentially push food sources to a breaking point and even drive other species to extinction. Also, there is no guarantee a species like the wooly mammoth (gone for roughly 3,700 years) or dodo bird (gone since approximately 1690) would adapt to their new living conditions, particularly in the face of climate change.

While rewilding is presumably not the sole purpose of Colossal’s project, it will be worth monitoring the project going forward to see just how serious they are about reintroducing lost species into their old environments, as well as how quickly they choose to do so. Developing new technology and software for the good of mankind is a noble goal, but the means in which we do so are equally important to consider. By the looks of things, Colossal appears more concerned with the benefits that can be derived from the technology developed for the de-extinction process, not the actual revival of the extinct species. In the words of Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldbloom): “[Y]our scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Colossal has no trouble thinking that they could de-extinct their selected species. But perhaps they need to rethink whether they should.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Rhino Wars: Attack of the Drones—A New Hope to Stop Poachers

By Robert A. McCormick, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

The Javan Rhino is Critically Endangered

It is time to use the dark side—drones programmed with artificial intelligence—against the black-market trade of rhinoceros (rhino) horns. Poachers kill rhinos to sell the horns and make money. Poachers are those who illegally hunt wildlife. The illegal wildlife trade generates approximately $4.5 billion each year.

Poachers have helped decimate various animal and fish populations. Rhinos, in particular, have suffered from illegal hunts. From 2018 to 2021, hunters illegally killed at least 2,707 rhinos. Humans continue to slaughter other creatures, leaving few non-human mammals left. As of 2018, 96% of all mammal biomass was human or livestock for humans.

One rhino population is at greater risk than any other rhino species; the Javan rhinoceros or rhinoceros sondaicus is almost completely extinct. In fact, the World Wide Fund for Nature lists the Javan rhino as the one species facing the greatest threat of becoming extinct. This makes sense given that there are only approximately 76 Javan rhinos alive as of; even “Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MOEF) estimates the Javan rhino population at 76 individuals in 2022, a small increase over last year’s 75, with one birth and no deaths reported so far this year.” The Javan rhinos have existed in small numbers for many years. By 1967, there were fewer than 30 Javan rhinos left alive. “[T]he Javan rhino was confirmed extinct from the Cat Loc part of the Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam in October 2011.”

According to University of Michigan Museum of Zoology: The historical range of the Javan rhino is believed to have included southeastern areas of Asia. In the past, the Javan rhino ranged from the highest northern parts of Burma and quite possibly extended to present-day eastern Vietnam. However, it is known that the Javan species also inhabited all areas of Sumatra. It was also found in the north and northeastern region of Thailand, extending into Cambodia. It is possible that the rhino’s range included the southern Malaysian peninsula. The rhino once inhabited the majority of the Javan island. The 76 remaining Javan rhinos remain only in The Ujung Kulon National Park.

A New Hope for the Javan Rhino

The Javan rhino population needs extra support to spread its population. We must do all that we can to limit one of the gravest threats facing rhinos—poachers. With only 76 left, the Javan rhino is at severe risk of being wiped off the face of this planet. There is, however, some hope because the number of Javan Rhinos has slowly increased over the years. Still, poachers pose a serious threat to rhinos.

However, there is a New Hope—A.I. drones. Drones with surveillance technology can assist local rangers and communities to collect and analyze data, which can help determine threat areas and organize drone flight plans. For those of you interested, check out the Top 7 Drones to Stop Poaching. Personally, I am a big fan of the Skywalker 1800.

 Analyzing hours of footage from a drone may strain limited resources for some communities. In the fight against poaching, every second counts. Rhino conservationists face a daunting task in protecting these magnificent animals from illegal hunting. That is why rhino conservationists should take after the Department of Defense’s Project Maven. This would incorporate A.I. technology with drones to analyze data about and footage of poachers. By using A.I. algorithms, drones can determine the most efficient flight paths, making it easier for rangers and conservationists to monitor large areas. This is a game-changer in the fight against poaching because it frees up limited resources that can be allocated elsewhere.

Poaching is a serious issue that has had devastating effects on wildlife populations around the world. The Javan rhino cannot afford to be slaughtered from illegal hunting.  With the growing advancements in technology, it is encouraging to see the emergence of new tools and methods to combat this issue.

Help us A.I. Drones; you’re our only hope.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Function Over Form: Considering Functional Diversity for Ecosystem Protection and Restoration from Invasive Species

By Mackenzie Dix, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

       

Biodiversity is only half of the story; the other half is functional diversity. Functional diversity is a “component of biodiversity that generally concerns the range of things that organisms do in a community and ecosystem.” Ecologists use functional diversity to measure how individual species interact with other parts of the ecosystem. The other parts of an ecosystem include other species, such as animals and plants, and non-living parts of ecosystems, such as water, soil, and sunlight.

Studying functional diversity usually involves measuring functional traits to place organisms in functional groups. For example, when forests begin to reestablish after a natural disturbance such as a fire or after human interference such as logging, the first species to colonize an area are early successional species. They are sun-loving and fast-growing plants. In Vermont, pioneer species include white pine, northern white cedar, and balsam fir. These species function to create an environment for shade-tolerant, slower-growing, late successional species such as northern maple, American beech, and Eastern hemlock.

The species contained in these two categories, early and late successional, have functional redundancy, which means they have similar functions within an ecosystem. This redundancy allows systems to recover more efficiently after disturbances because multiple species fulfill the same or similar functions. The loss of a single species may not cause an ecosystem to fail if another species can fulfill the same or similar functions. Functional redundancy is essential to a thriving, resilient ecosystem. Redundancy also ensures that an ecosystem can continue functioning if a species is lost to invasive species.

To understand the effects of invasive species on ecosystem function, this blog post will look at one particular invasive species in the U.S. hemlock wooly adelgid (HWA). HWA is an insect that infects hemlock species and causes them to die. It has spread to 17 states since its introduction in the 1950s. The insect was first identified in Virginia and has spread throughout much of the Eastern hemlock’s range. HWA has also been identified in a few places in Southern Vermont.

Because HWA targets only Hemlocks and has been in the U.S. for some time, its effects have been observed and studied quite extensively. To understand how HWA affects a forest ecosystem, understanding the function of the eastern Hemlock in the forest is crucial. As discussed above, the Eastern hemlocks are later successional species and  extremely shade tolerant. The shade from hemlocks reduces sunlight that reaches the forest floor and plays a crucial role in regulating temperature beneath the canopy. Temperature regulation plays a particularly important role for surface water such as streams that are both a habitat and resource for many species.

When HWA infests an area, hemlocks die. When hemlocks are initially infected, they lose needles which increase nutrients reaching the forest floor. Once trees die and fall, large woody debris volumes increase in the forest and disrupt surface water flow. HWA infestation and hemlock death has also been linked to reduced below-ground fungal colonization. All of these results indicate Hemlock plays an important role in how ecosystems function. When they are lost, the forest changes.

Hemlocks are then replaced with other species that fill the forest gap. They have some of the same functions, but do not occupy the exact same niche. In southern Appalachia hemlock have been replaced with rhododendron, an woody evergreen shrub. In more northern forests, hemlocks are often replaced with deciduous trees, trees that lose their leaves in winter, such as, red oak, maple species, and witch hazel.

       

One difference in function that is especially interesting is how these replacement species interact with the forest as a part of the water cycle. Plants lose water through their leaves in order to photosynthesize, a process called transpiration. They essentially act a large water pump that pulls water from the ground and releases it to the air.

Hemlocks are evergreen trees with needles. These needles have a large surface area, which means they transpire a lot. The rhododendron, in the South, have less surface area which means less water is returned to the atmosphere. Evergreens also can transpire all year round. Deciduous trees only transpire when they have leaves. When ecosystems lose hemlocks, changes ensue in how and when water moves within a forest system.. These are just some examples of how HWA causes ecosystem function to change.

As seen with HWA, invasive species change how an ecosystem function. Replacement species still move water through the system, provide shade to the understory and create habitat for some species. These replacement species, however, may have different ecological patterns that cause ecosystem processes to shift or change entirely. Understanding these changes is crucial to effectively responding to invasive species.

To better protect ecosystems, policy makers must consider functional diversity as well as biodiversity. This likely means investing in research as well as consulting with people who can help translate the research into actual policy goals. Creating policies that only protect biodiversity is no longer sufficient. To conserve ecosystems, policy makers must consider how species interact as a piece of ecosystem function. Considering broader ecological function will make ecological conservation and restoration more effective.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Derailing Environmental Protection: Concerns Over Air and Water After the East Palestine, OH Derailment

By Jacob Baverso, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

The Department of Transportation recognizes rail shipment for hazardous materials as the safest method to move such materials over long distances. Despite suggesting that the rail industry’s safety statistics are increasing, there have been a cluster of recent train derailments due to a lack of safety regulation enforcement and rollbacks under the Trump Administration. Most notably is the derailment in East Palestine, Ohio on February 3, in which five rail cars of “vinyl chloride,” and a dozen other cars of hazardous chemicals spilled, leading to it to ignite after a mechanical failure. Vinyl chloride is an important component for PVC and other plastics. According to the Centers for Disease Control, vinyl chloride exposure can lead to respiratory issues, neurological symptoms, chronic exposure, and is associated with liver damage and cancer. Additionally, other chemicals contained on the Norfolk Southern manifest released by EPA, including ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, ethylhexyl acrylate, and isobutylene, all cause respiratory irritation and neurological symptoms.

In response to this leak, cleanup authorities conducted a controlled burn three days after the derailment and ordered residents within a one-mile radius to evacuate. However, burning these chemicals resulted in other chemical releases, such as hydrogen chloride and phosgene (a chemical weapon used during World War I), which lead to respiratory issues, impaired vision, nausea, and rashes. Despite EPA stating that it was safe to return to East Palestine, residents are hesitant to return and are still complaining about strong smells, headaches, and nausea (understandably so). This comes after over 3,500 fish and amphibians were found dead within the Ohio River watershed. Additionally, pet and livestock owners complained that their animals were suffering from many of the same symptoms. The CDC has also updated its toxicological profile and sent out a draft for public comment in January, but this draft eliminates much of the safety concerns printed in the original profile report (and most notably, has had little revision since its publication in 2006, until weeks before the derailment in East Palestine). If the area is so safe, then why are residents still getting sick and why are animals suddenly dying?

After the derailment, vaporized vinyl chloride, as well as the products it produces after being burned (notably hydrogen chloride and phosgene) is governed by the Clean Air Act, which sets Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). Additionally, OSHA regulations permit 5 ppm for up to 15 minutes of exposure to vinyl chloride (or 0.5 ppm averaged over 8 hours). There is still ongoing studies as to environmental impacts, however governmental authorities and independent researchers have offered conflicting evidence from early studies. EPA insists that air quality in East Palestine is safe, yet residents continue to complain about breathing problems, rashes, and other health effects.

Animals are also experiencing sudden health effects, such as heart complications, difficulty breathing, facial swelling, and even death. Scientists from Texas A&M analyzed the data reported by EPA. They found elevated levels of acrolein (a hazardous chemical commonly found in smoke) and other hazardous chemicals at levels high enough to cause long-term health problems. Furthermore, it is unknown how far these toxic chemicals in the air have spread. It depends on local wind patterns, weather, and topography. Unfortunately, it may be difficult to track the spread or even detect vinyl chloride or its burn products, because they break down after a few days in the atmosphere. After breaking down, these substances become hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde, and carbon dioxide—common chemicals found from other emissions sources like power plants, vehicles, and breaking down composite/compressed wood products. Complicating this further, it might take months for scientists to fully analyze impacts to surrounding air quality, and even years to determine long-term effects.

Unlike air pollution, water pollution is easier to track and lasts longer. Following the spill, pets, wildlife, and over 3,500 fish and amphibians died along local waterways, including the Ohio River, within days of the spill. Animals are also dying as far as 20 miles from the derailment site. Additionally, the spilled chemicals left a sheen on the water. The spill initially contaminated Sulphur Run, which then spread to Leslie Run, Bull Creek, and North Fork Little Beaver Creek—all tributaries of the Ohio River. The sheens are more noticeable when the water is stirred up, such as by throwing a rock or disturbing the water. This is because vinyl chloride is denser than water, so it sinks to the bottom. Like the air pollution, EPA is providing conflicting information. They claimed at first that the Village should drink bottled water. But only a matter of days after this, they said the water was safe to drink.

Officials visited homes after public outcry (including EPA Administrator Michael Regan and Ohio Governor Mike DeWine) and drank tap water from residents’ homes. This comes after the Ohio EPA posted a photo of state officials drinking tap water—but had a bottle of Smart Water within the shot—which residents further scrutinized the safety of their water. But drinking one glass of tap water likely does not have the same effects as drinking it every day. Drinking contaminated water leads to bioaccumulation: a process where toxins build up gradually in tissues after constant exposure, leading to long term health issues. In response to concerns, grocery chain Giant Eagle also pulled bottled water from its shelves at 25 locations to prevent potential sales of contaminated water. Not only was there water contamination from the spill itself within the watershed, but also from the water used to extinguish the fire. Officials shipped over 500,000 gallons of wastewater contaminated with vinyl chloride to Deer Park, Texas for disposal into 4,000-foot deep injection wells. Injection wells are prone to leaking and are frequently located near low income, racial minority communities, including the wells in Texas.

So how do the issues with East Palestine get resolved? Unfortunately, the Biden Administration’s response to the derailment was lackluster and left many people—not just East Palestine residents—questioning the government’s commitment to ensuring people have a safe and healthy environment. East Palestine has become one of the largest political battles in early 2023, and partisan attempts are being made to make sure something like this does not happen again.

While EPA and other federal agencies have been in contact early on, some of their ultimate responses have been delayed by weeks, such as EPA’s response requiring Norfolk Southern to foot the cleanup bill or EPA Administrator Regan and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg visiting East Palestine. President Biden also fueled the fire by stating he has no plans to visit East Palestine, while former president Trump did. On the other hand, Congress has introduced proposals to strengthen railway safety requirements and FEMA is determining how much assistance it will provide. Residents of East Palestine have also filed more than a dozen class-action lawsuits against Norfolk Southern for business damages and chemical exposure. Residents also filed another lawsuit against federal and state officials for deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment rights and lack of care while responding to the disaster.

Hopefully, we take this as a lesson to strengthen environmental and safety protections, as well as governmental response, so another disaster like this does not happen again.

EcoPerspectives Blog

Changing Tides: Threats to Public Ownership of Small Community Water Systems

By Dante DeNault, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

May 2, 2023

       

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) expressly regulates public water systems (including community water systems) by imposing national drinking water regulations to ensure public health and safety. Public water systems are defined as systems that provide “water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such a system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals.” In exclusively defining public water systems, it follows that those systems falling outside the definition are implicitly exempt from regulation under the SDWA. According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regulated public water systems “provide drinking water to 90% of Americans.” Community water systems, a type of public water system, are defined as systems that supply water to the same people year round. Importantly, they include very small and small systems, which account for the majority of all health violations.

Ownership of community water systems has varied over time; swinging from predominantly private ownership in the 19th century to prevailing public ownership in the 20th and 21st centuries. Today, about 80% of community water systems are owned by a local public utility whereas private utilities own 10%. Private utilities have varying ownership structures including nonprofit organizations, ancillary companies, and for-profit companies (including those publicly traded companies). Reports reveal that the trend towards public ownership, often by municipalization, continues to rise. Despite the trend towards public ownership, privatization is concentrated in a few states. “In 25 states, private water companies serve less than 10% of the population, while 4 states have private water companies serving more than 35% of the population.” When examining Pennsylvania, a state with the highest number of private water utility companies, the trend towards privatization emerged within the last decade. This is a particularly concerning trend to see develop, especially when it is hidden by the overall national trend to public ownership.

While public ownership continues to rise, a cascade of consequences is piling up, threatening municipal ownership of small community water systems. These threats are compelled by two converging crises—aging infrastructure and deferred federal funding. EPA estimates that utilities will need $472.6 billion over the next 20 years to repair and maintain existing water infrastructure. Despite the necessity for funding public health projects, “the federal government’s share of capital spending in the water sector fell from 63% in 1977 to 9% of total capital spending in 2017.” It should be no surprise that the United States received a C- on the 2021 Report Card for America’s Drinking Water Infrastructure. Additionally, the American Society of Civil Engineers graded American drinking water infrastructure and wastewater infrastructure at a D and D+ respectively. Ultimately, the wide majority of these vital costs will unfortunately become the consumer’s responsibility, “potentially tripling the current cost of water and sewer service for U.S. households.”

When the cost of infrastructure increases—rates rise—causing unaffordable water bills. Water bills have become so expensive that the rising cost of water continues to outpace inflation. This is particularly egregious when viewed in light of historical and present issues like rural population decline and the historic divestment in low income and BIPOC communities. In the past, the federal government funded drinking water infrastructure projects through construction grants. Presently, the federal government encourages loans through the state revolving fund, which is criticized as being inequitable and unaffordable for small, cash-strapped localities. The switch from grants to loans shifted the costs of infrastructure improvements to municipalities, rather than the federal government who funded the construction of community water systems. Communities had to utilize methods of repayment, like water bill revenue or municipal taxes, to repay the loans. Coupled with the catastrophic climate change impacts on water and on water utilities, adaptation actions must be factored into the future costs of construction and maintenance.

The cumulative impacts of aging infrastructure, deferred federal funding, lack of grants, rising water rates, population decline, historic divestment, and climate change will continue to pave the way for private ownership of underfunded rural community water systems. Privatization can be avoided if the federal government changes course by increasing appropriations to grant municipalities the cash they need to fund construction and maintenance projects of community water systems. Without a massive federal infusion of cash, America’s drinking water infrastructure will continue to deteriorate; thus, recklessly putting the public in harm’s way.

EcoPerspectives Blog

The Potential Contribution of the BBNJ Agreement to Strengthen Environmental Protection in the Development of Marine Renewable Energy Technologies in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction

By Dr. Carlos Soria-Rodriguez, Marie Skodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Jaén, Spain & Associate Fellow, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium

April 5, 2023

Nearly two-thirds of the global ocean and almost half of the planet are marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). These maritime spaces, which are comprised by the Area and the high seas, present an extraordinary potential for the development of the marine renewable energy (MRE) industry not only for economic reasons but also to provide energy security and as a tool to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, the deployment of MRE technologies can also have impacts on the environment in ABNJ which require to be considered and regulated in advance in order to guarantee that they are developed in a sustainable way. The objective of this post is to highlight the potential of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement to strengthen the framework for the protection of the environment in the development of MRE technologies in ABNJ. 

 

The importance of ABNJ and the need to protect them

ABNJ are essential for life and the development of human activities. These spaces are key for the regulation of the global climate and temperature, host multiple habitats for many species as well as provide essential resources and economic and non-economic services, including food through fishing and the transports of goods through navigation, among others. However, the exponential growth and unsustainable development of human activities are putting at risk the marine ecosystems and its functions. Pollution from different sources as well the rising greenhouse gas emission levels are some of the main drivers of the degradation of marine ABNJ. It is therefore essential to strengthen the efforts for the protection and conservation of these maritime spaces. 

The governance of ABNJ and the BBNJ negotiations 

ABNJ and the activities that are managed in these spaces, including the protection of the environment, are mainly, but not exclusively, regulated under the framework provided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In order to strengthen the governance of ABNJ and the protection of the biodiversity in these spaces, the United Nations General Assembly adopted in December 2017 a resolution to begin negotiations on an international legally binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ under UNCLOS. The BBNJ negotiations started in April 2018 and the new instrument was agreed on 4 March 2023. The BBNJ treaty addresses four main topics, namely marine genetic resources, including questions on the sharing of benefits, measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, environmental impacts assessments (EIAs), and capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology. 

 

The potential impact of the BBNJ agreement for the protection of the environment in the development of MRE technologies in ABNJ

The BBNJ agreement, and specifically the regulation on area-based management tools and the EIA under this instrument, can potentially strengthen the framework for the protection of the environment in the development of MRE technologies in ABNJ. On one hand, the regulation of area-based management tools and the development of a system for designation of marine protected areas in ABNJ can contribute to provide more specific regulation on how to coordinate activities in these spaces as well as identify vulnerable and ecologically sensitive areas which require protection and where activities that can pose threats are prohibited or limited. This could help to prevent the placement of MRE technologies on vulnerable sites. On the other hand, the regulation of the EIA under the BBNJ agreement can contribute to strengthen the existing EIA obligations under UNCLOS Articles 204-206 and establish essential elements such as the content of the obligation to conduct the EIA, the consideration of activities for which the EIA is required as well the stages to be considered during the process or the impacts to evaluate, among other elements. This can strengthen the protection against the environmental impacts associated with the deployment of MRE technologies. That being said, the development of MRE projects is not specifically considered as an activity subject to the EIA under the BBNJ agreement, which maybe should be reconsidered. 

Acknowledgement: this work has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skodowska-Curie grant agreement No 892077.

Note: the content of this work is partially based on the research conducted for two publications available in open access: 1) Soria-Rodríguez, C., (2022) ‘Marine renewable energy technologies in the high seas: challenges and opportunities to strengthen international environmental and renewable energy governance’, Cambridge International Law Journal, Vol. 11, Issue 2  p. 202-219; 2) Soria-Rodríguez, C., (2023) ‘La evaluación del impacto ambiental en el esperado acuerdo para la gobernanza de la biodiversidad marina fuera de la jurisdicción nacional y su previsible aplicación a las tecnologías para la obtención de energía renovable marina’, Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional 16, p. 1-30. 

The Beacon Blog: Consider It Briefed

The Drina River: Mankind Ruining the Helper of Mankind

By Stephanie Piccininni, Staff Editor for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

March 31, 2023

Narrow, windy roads fill the mountainous landscape. Rivers glide across the ground as trees fill lush emerald forests. Villages and cities breathe life into the natural scenery. This is Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

The beauty of Bosnia is coupled with extreme resilience of the people and landscape. Bosnia is still recovering from the genocide Serbians committed against Bosnian Muslims in the early 1990s. After Bosnia declared its independence in 1992, the Serbian-controlled Yugoslavian army initiated a war on Bosnian Muslims that lasted over three years. Over 80,000 Bosnias were killed while others were “rape[d], torture[d], and forcibl[y] displace[d].”  

Additionally, minefields and land mines are present throughout the nation. Depleted uranium continues to contaminate the water and air due to the United States weapons used during the war. Vigorous fighting within Bosnia made “the destruction of towns, farms, and countryside..inevitable.” 

The Drina River runs over 200 miles through Bosnia, Montenegro, and Serbia. The Drina Basin encompasses nearly 8,000 square miles throughout these countries. The Drina Basin flows into the larger Sava River Basin. The word “drina” means “helper and defender of mankind.” Bosnians mirror this sentiment with the tradition of creating wells for others. 

The Drina is known for its breathtaking landscapes and fishing. Individuals also raft along the Drina. Unfortunately, the Drina is not in wide use when it is garbage season.  

Garbage season occurs during the winter and early spring each year. During this season, snow is melting and rain is heavily falling throughout the country. These garbage seasons have been occurring in Bosnia for over two decades.  

The Drina River frequently holds enormous amounts of waste. In 2021, for example, approximately 4,000 cubic meters of garbage overflowed into the Drina. Removing this amount of waste takes approximately six months each year. 

To mitigate the damage to the Drina, trash barriers were installed by a Bosnian hydroelectric plant to collect garbage during the winter season. Trash barriers create an easier way to extract waste from the Drina River. Employees from the plant collect waste that is then transported to local landfills. 

In January 2023, the areas surrounding the Drina suffered from unusually warm weather and large amounts of precipitation. This weather caused an overflow of streams and rivers. Individuals living along the Drina had to evacuate their homes to avoid torrential rainfall and flooding. The Drina once again began overflowing with garbage. 

This instance, however, was different. In January, the Drina has accumulated over 10,000 cubic meters of garbage. Most of the garbage consists of plastic waste. However, there are other household items among the garbage, such as refrigerators. Much of the waste comes from unmonitored landfills along the river.  

Višegrad is a town that sits along the Drina River. The large trash barrier accumulating all of the garbage from January is located near Višegrad. The barrier was installed by a Bosnian hydroelectric plant. This plant wished to prevent garbage from entering its dam. After garbage removal, waste travels to the Višegrad landfill.  

Unfortunately, the landfill does not have the capacity to store all of the waste from garbage season. The landfill continually burns to make room for Drina waste in addition to Višegrad waste. The fumes from these fires create large environmental and human health consequences.  

Bosnia has the fifth highest mortality rate due to air pollution. In addition to the landfill fumes, Bosnians rely on coal and wood for heat. In the winter, air pollutants get trapped in the narrow river valleys where cities are located and cause harm to residents. Individuals living near coal-fired power plants suffer from lung problems and refuse to leave the house for days from the pollution.  

Clusters of polluted material are also destroying segments of the river ecosystem, resulting in habitat loss in the most severe instances. Microplastics, in particular, are harmful to animals and humans. Microplastics can cause large instances of death and disease for aquatic animals. Further, humans can suffer from a range of disorders as microplastics enter their systems. 

Citizens along the Drina River, however, have options in terms of relief. There are environmental activists within Bosnia that are challenging the government to examine its role in destroying the ecosystems surrounding hydropower plants. Activists are demanding governmental accountability and relief for causing environmental harms. 

Additionally, in 2002, the Framework Agreement on the Sava River Basin created the International Sava River Basin Commission. Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Serbia, the four riparian countries, agreed to cooperate towards sustainable water resource management. Objectives include preventing or limiting hazards and reducing “adverse consequences, including those from floods…and incidents involving substances hazardous to water.” Unfortunately, the International Sava River Basin Commission has not addressed garbage season for almost twenty years.  

Further, in the summer of 2022, the Federation entity parliament in Bosnia changed the Law on Electricity to ban building small hydropower plants. The Federation confirmed that hydropower plants negatively impact the environment.  

In the future, Bosnians and activists should be advised when addressing current and future needs. Years cannot continue to go by while Bosnians suffer further harms. Bosnians deserve better now.