2024 TOP 10 BLOG

Bon Appétit: Regulating the Microplastics You Eat

VJEL Staff Editor: Hanna Walker

Faculty Member: Mia Montoya Hammersley

 

Background

 

Plastic is present in nearly every aspect of society, like food packaging, clothing, and cosmetic products. Each year, 400 million metric tons of plastic waste ends up in landfills, oceans, rivers, and shorelines, and scientists expect this number to triple by 2060. Studies estimate that by 2050, there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean. With immense amounts of plastic, comes a colossal amount of microplastics that pose health risks to life on Earth. This article focuses on a few recent studies on exposure risks to humans and outlines key political developments in regulating plastic pollution to monitor in 2024.

 

The mounting ecological and health crises posed by plastic production sparked the United Nations (UN) in 2022 to announce intentions to develop a legally binding treaty to curb plastic pollution. In November 2023, 150 nations and countless advocate groups met in Kenya to begin negotiation talks. Oil companies such as ExxonMobil and Chevron and oil-rich nations such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China, opposed restrictions on new plastic production, arguing that plastic recycling and alternative disposal methods can adequately address the crisis. This stance is unsurprising because over 99% of produced plastic comes from the fossil fuel industry, and in 2023, the global plastic market reached a value of US$712 billion. However, recycling alone is currently insufficient to keep up with the mountainous amounts of plastic that exist today. Only 5-6% of recycled plastic in the United States is converted into new products, underscoring the importance of reducing overall plastic production to effectively address the crisis.

 

As these UN meetings progress, plastic pollution will remain a forefront issue throughout 2024 as we wait for this new treaty to be finalized. Many people recognize the effects that plastic pollution has on their environment, but not many know of the effects that microplastics have on their health. In recent years, scientists have published more and more studies discussing the effects of microplastics on the human body, which makes the need for a UN plastic treaty even more urgent.

 

Exposure to Microplastics

 

Toxic chemicals including “carcinogens, neurotoxicants and endocrine disrupters such as phthalates, bisphenols, [and] per and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)” make up plastic. Plastic does not fully decompose—moisture, heat, and light cause it to break down plastic into smaller pieces, known as microplastics. Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic smaller than five millimeters (approximately the size of a sesame seed), including on the molecular level.

 

Recent studies reveal that humans are exposed to harmful microplastics through common means that would not make anyone think twice. For example, cutting vegetables on a polypropylene chopping board can result in ingesting about 50 grams of microplastics each year—equivalent to 10 credit cards—due to particles sticking to the food. From the safety of one’s home, humans breathe in approximately 11 microplastic particles per hour, mainly from cotton and paper products. Twisting the cap of a plastic soda bottle releases microplastics into the air, which is ultimately inhaled. In addition, humans ingest microplastics from drinking from plastic bottles. Microplastics enter drinking water mainly from surface run-off and wastewater effluent. A researcher at Penn State found that in a liter of water, bottled water contained 325 plastic particles compared to 5.5 plastic particles in tap water. Studies anticipate people who primarily drink bottled water to ingest 90,000 additional microplastic particles per year. Notably, communities of color are more likely to live where tap water isn’t safe to drink and may rely on bottled water more heavily. Studies have also found microplastics in soft drinks packaged in plastic bottles. These are just some examples of day-to-day activities that result in exposure to microplastics, and plastic-producing industries continue to profit at the expense of human health.

 

Impact on the Human Body

 

Scientists estimate that humans ingest up to 5 grams of plastic per week (equivalent to the weight of a credit card), and the effects on human health are still under review. Studies show that microplastics smaller than bacteria “pass from the gut into the blood, and from there into the brain, placenta, liver and other organs.” One study inserted polystyrene plastic into an artificial large intestine and found that the beneficial bacteria within the gut declined while the harmful bacteria rose. Medical practitioners see this fluctuation of beneficial and harmful bacteria in the “global rise” of inflammatory bowel diseases, and microplastics could play a role in the sudden rise. Lastly, another study showed a link between the severity of an individual’s inflammatory bowel disease and the amount of microplastic in their waste.

 

Microplastics contain harmful chemicals that are known endocrine disrupters. Endocrine disrupters are chemicals that may interfere with the body’s hormones, which can hinder bodily regulatory functions like “growth and development, reproduction, metabolism, sleep, and stress immune response.” Scientists believe that small hormonal changes resulting from low exposures to these disrupting chemicals can significantly affect the human body due to the hormonal system’s sensitivity. Additionally, plastic pollution disproportionately affects people living in communities near plastic production and disposal sites, Indigenous groups, women, children, workers, and racial and ethnic minorities. People residing near these sites have an increased risk of “premature birth, low birth weight, asthma, childhood leukemia, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer.” Drastic changes are needed to provide protections for communities experiencing disproportionate health impacts from the plastics industry.

 

Solutions

 

As evidenced above, microplastics are present in nearly all areas of life. To reduce microplastics, we need to first reduce plastic waste. In addition to the treaty negotiations currently taking place at the international level, there are several domestic efforts to curb plastic waste. For example, in 2015, the public began voicing their concerns about microplastics in cosmetic microbeads and their environmental impact. Subsequently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration enacted the Microbead-Free Waters Act to prohibit the “manufacturing, packaging, and distribution of rinse-off cosmetics containing microbeads.”

 

More recently, New York State sued PepsiCo in November 2023, arguing that the accumulation of PepsiCo-branded bottles in the Buffalo River is a public nuisance. Plastic in water sources breaks down into microplastics and leeches into the water supply, leading to human ingestion. The New York Attorney General stated that PepsiCo failed to warn consumers about the harmful health effects of plastic pollution and argued that the company should stop selling single-use plastics to protect New Yorkers’ state constitutional right to clean water. This case is one worth following as it unfolds in the upcoming year and perhaps can serve as a model for other states to bring action against giant-polluting companies.

 

Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a Draft National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution (Draft Strategy) pursuant to the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act of 2020. The public comment period closed on June 16, 2023, and the final rule will likely be forthcoming in 2024. The Draft Strategy has three main objectives: first, reduce pollution during plastic production by reducing the use and production of single-use and unrecyclable plastic products; second, enhance management of post-use materials by studying how effective waste-management systems are and the incentives for communities to recycle; and, third, prevent microplastics from entering the waterways and remove trash from the environment by improving waste and water management systems to capture more trash. The Draft Strategy appears to be a promising beginning to curb plastic pollution in the U.S.

 

Finally, with more education on the harmful effects of microplastics, citizens can advocate for more microplastic regulation and less production. For example, California is the first government in the world to test its water for microplastics. The state defined microplastics as “solid polymetric material to which chemical additives or other substances may have been added” and released standards and requirements for testing. Similarly, states are also releasing their own policies to regulate per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are widely-used chemicals that do not break down, commonly known as “forever chemicals.” Everyday items contain PFAS, such as “firefighting foam, non-stick cookware, cosmetics and materials that protect against grease, oil, and water, such as stain-resistant carpeting and fabrics, food packaging, and water-repellant clothing.” Humans unknowingly expose themselves to PFAS when food touches plastic food containers, drinking water, and air. These efforts demonstrate how measures can be taken to regulate a substance that is harmful to human health, despite its ubiquitousness in human life.

 

Conclusion

 

Microplastics are invisible to the naked eye, breathed in, and eaten unbeknownst to the consumer; it is time to change and hold petrochemical companies accountable for the harm they have caused to the health of our communities and environment. If plastic production persists, vulnerable communities will bear the ongoing impacts. With 2024 on the horizon, we need to remain proactive and involved in the developments of the UN’s plastic pollution treaty and the EPA’s National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution. Our voices have the power to bring plastic reform to the forefront and force policymakers to create the change we want to see.

 

<< 2024 Watch List #9

2024 TOP 10 BLOG

Natural, Native Solutions to Fire

VJEL Staff Editor: Joseph Gerngross

Faculty Member: Mark James

 

“[W]hy don’t you fight the rain, or fight earthquakes?”

– Chook Chook Hillman, Natural Resources Technician, Karuk Department of Natural Resources

 

Wildfires pose a risk to human life and property in a way that was far less common in pre-Columbian North America, in large part due to the absence of a regular cycle of controlled burns by indigenous cultures that mitigated wildfires. Indeed, as part of deliberate fire policies set forth by state and federal governments, large amounts of highly flammable natural fuel have accumulated on the floors of western forests over the past two centuries. Now, governments spend billions on fire suppression, fighting a natural force that always had a dominant role in the ecology of the American West. Recently, the United States Forest Service (USFS) recently announced a goal of 50 million acres of prescribed burns.

 

The resources devoted to the armies of firefighters employed to suppress the natural process of burning and regrowth should instead be invested in armies of fire-starters. Indigenous American communities had intimate knowledge of the impact of, and necessity for, periodic fires to renew the land. For thousands of years, indigenous communities native to North America practiced controlled burns to protect their forests, promote healthy growth, and, knowingly or not, protect themselves from the type of devastating wildfires that currently plague the American West. Today, indigenous communities are using their histories and traditions to educate the more receptive American community about the delicate practice of controlled burns.

 

Forgotten Knowledge

Figure 1: The Nature Conservancy: Quiet Fire (2020)

In California and Oregon, the Karuk, the Yarok, and Hoopa tribes had for countless generations practiced periodic burns to restore foraging resources and attract herbivorous animals to regrowing vegetation. To varying degrees, keeping in mind the recent frequency of naturally-started fires, indigenous people periodically burned their land for the benefit of themselves and the ecosystem. In a unique way, indigenous North Americans became part of the ecology of the land, another tile in the mosaic of biodiversity they relied upon.

 

So, human beings represented a keystone species in pre-Columbian environments in North America, promoting biodiversity and creating niches that otherwise would not exist. But these burn practices had a different, more widespread effect on the landscape itself. Land managed by prescribed fires was punctuated by open prairies and savannahs with sparse stands of trees. The landscape of inland North pre-settlement America looked very different than it does today, and ecosystems were far more resistant to wildfires due to the reduced fuel conditions and lower biomatter density that indigenous burning practices created. Periodic cleansing of the undergrowth not only opened up the land to new growth but reduced the risk of catastrophic fires by exhausting natural fuels periodically. Some settlers described the bleak, blackened expanses of prairies that indigenous peoples created with their prescribed burns. From their Western perspective, this savage, destructive practice of prairie burning was abhorrent to their concept of property ownership that formed the locus of European life. They never made the connection that the abundance of the Americas was in managed environments, gardenesque lands created deliberately by indigenous tribes for their communal use and for the health of their environment.

 

The deliberate destruction of indigenous cultures by white settler governments scattered the accumulated cultural knowledge of hundreds of generations of indigenous land stewardship. White settlers and the United States Army brutalized and evicted indigenous tribes in a long-term, systematic, ethnic cleansing that obliterated many indigenous North American cultures. With their demise, the world lost the wisdom and expertise of fire that indigenous peoples had perfected over millennia.

 

Accepting Fire and Restoring Tradition

 

In recent years, some tribes have revived their ancient burning practices, sharing their knowledge of the forest with governments and landowners alike. The Karuk tribe has lived on the Klamath River for countless generations, and, in the pre-settlement era, employed controlled burning to restore their land and reduce fuel loads. The Karuk work in tandem with the Klamath Prescribed Fire Training Exchange (KTREX) to expose the wider conservation field to their cultural knowledge of prescribed fire practices. “These forests are just tinderboxes waiting to go, and we have to have [prescribed] fire on the landscape to stop the catastrophic fire from destroying the landscape,” said Chook Chook Hillman, a Natural Resources Technician in the Karuk Department of Natural Resources. “If we don’t get [society] to accept fire, we’ll just keep losing these huge swaths of forest.”

 

From the perspective of the tribal community, the stakes are even higher. While Western culture increasingly adopts indigenous burning practices for the preservation of private property, timberlands, and cropland, tribes like the Karuk are attempting to regain the very fundaments of their culture. For many tribes like the Karuk, their regalia, food, medicine, and other culturally significant products and practices rely on species that have faded away since the disappearance of prescribed fire. The survival of the Karuk culture itself depends heavily on fire. Hillman laments, “How do I continue being myself if I don’t have these things? Whether it’s salmon, a forest, how do I live? Maybe I’m still alive, but would you want to be if your landscape is completely gone?”

 

A closely related tribe, the Yarok tribe, has partnered with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to experiment with small burns on their tribal land. Much of the impetus for this collaboration has been the desire of tribes like the Yarok to regrow certain plants, common before the era of fire suppression, which are vital to the practice of their ancient traditions. Prescribed burns have been incredibly successful to this end. In 2013, the tribe-government collaboration successfully employed the ancient practice of prescribed burning using modern controlled-burn equipment and protective gear. As the fire burnt across the Karuk’s ancestral forests, the marching flame left the ground black with ash. Tongues of flame reached up and scorched the bottom few inches of the larger woody plants. That area of forest was successfully relieved of its accumulated natural fuels, but, more importantly, after several weeks, the forest floor was blanketed by clean, straight hazelnut stalks from which the Yarok weave their traditional baskets.

 

After the hazel plants sprang up from the forest floor, their long stems were harvested by the Yurok community for the elaborate baskets that carry their babies, their food, and part of their culture. Yarok mothers could finally weave their baby baskets for the first time in years. Elizabeth Azzuz, Yurok tribal member and Head of Logistics of the Cultural Fire Management Council (CFMC), attending a recent burning, commented on the cultural revival that prescribed burns facilitate. “Everything that comes up new is going to make a basket weaver’s dream come true,” said Azzuz. The introduction of tribally managed fires also brings back prairie grains and wild potatoes that have been sparse in these lands for decades. “[W]e’re reclaiming our food security,” said Margo Robbins, President of CMFC.

 

Waking Up the Government with TEK

 

Some government efforts in more recent years seem to signal a sea-change in the world of fire management, especially after fires like the deadly Camp Fire in Northern California that caused at least 85 fatalities and represented the costliest global disaster in 2018. As a result of the Camp Fire and fires like it, the nation seems to be waking up to the traditions of prescribed fire. “[G]overnment agencies…are starting to realize that native people know more than a little something about what the land needs and how to use fire,” says Margo Robbins. The National Park Service (NPS) in partnership with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is making concerted efforts to use traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) to apply fire to land in need of renewal and fuel reduction.

 

The ecological health and fire safety of the American West requires prescribed fire.  The adoption of TEK by government agencies is a  major change in federal and state fire regimes. The NPS and the BIA are navigating the bureaucratic and practical channels that a cooperative fire regime based on TEK requires. The USFS embraces and assists in prescribed burns on tribal land, and uses prescribed burns on the land it manages. The USFS’s goal of 50 million acres for prescribed burns makes implementing TEK-based fire practices critical to achieving this goal. However, the widespread use of TEK-based fire regimes in land controlled by the USFS remains to be seen. These continuing efforts will inspire other federal land management agencies to use prescribed burns on their land and employ TEK in their wider practices. Cooperation between governmental entities on the West Coast, both federal and state, with indigenous tribes like the Karuk will revitalize forest ecology, create a safer fire regime for the American people, and nurture a more vibrant cultural landscape for indigenous tribes whose traditions rely on periodic fire.

 

<< 2024 Watch List #8 2024 Watch List #10 >>

2024 TOP 10 BLOG

Rising Waters, Rising Solutions: Navigating the Path to Flood Resiliency in a Changing Climate

VJEL Staff Editor: Hannah Weisgerber

Faculty Member: Christophe Courchesne

 

In 2011, Vermont experienced a devastating flood after Hurricane Irene brought historic levels of rainfall to the state. In 2023, “an atmospheric traffic jam,” and relentless rain once more inundated the state with catastrophic floodwaters coupled with an already unusually wet season. Both tragedies were spurred by similar conditions—after all, one of the long-anticipated effects of climate change is the increased frequency and intensity of flood events. Both tragedies in Vermont resulted in loss of life, communities battered by the resulting floodwaters, and severe degradation of the environment. This phenomenon is occurring across the United States: long-term warming trends are associated with increased flood risk across much of the country. Land management is one of the many tools the U.S. can employ to address the increasingly urgent need to protect at-risk flood communities.

 

Three months after Vermont’s 2023 summer floods, an estimated 250 people are still without functioning furnaces and boilers as winter draws near. Moreover, nearly 100 Montpelier-based businesses have yet to reopen. Considering the tragic effects of the flood this year still linger, is the state adequately prepared for the likely flooding of the future? This article discusses the flood resiliency plans that were implemented following Hurricane Irene, considers the neglected strategies, and emphasizes policy decisions that could reduce future flooding vulnerabilities. These strategies can be adjusted and replicated across the country.

 

Following Hurricane Irene, Vermont’s Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation commissioned a report—Enhancing Flood Resiliency of Vermont State Lands—to study how Vermont could increase its flood resiliency through public land management. Despite significant time and financial investments in enhancing flood resilience, public land management still lags. This report intended to evaluate the state’s existing land-use practices to make recommendations for improving water quality and reducing downstream flooding. The report also sought to find a process for identifying vulnerable land and implementing flood mitigation measures.

 

According to this report, flood resilience is defined as “a community’s capability to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from floods with minimum damage to social well-being, the economy, and the environment.” Although the state department commissioned the report, it is not obligated to implement the report’s recommendations. Despite Vermont’s implemented improvements to flood resiliency following Hurricane Irene—land buyouts, infrastructure repair, and increased funding and education for flood resiliency—not all opportunities have been realized.

 

Paving the Way for Flood Resiliency in Vermont

 

Since Hurricane Irene, Vermont and its local governments have adopted a variety of policies to decrease flood vulnerability and increase flood resiliency. For example, many cities and towns have “bought out property owners in flood zones to avert future problems.” The state also rebuilt stronger roads, bridges, and culverts and launched websites to increase public education, including Flood Ready Vermont and the Vermont Climate Assessment.

 

Other initiatives like the VTRans Better Roads Program, sought to reduce erosion during flood events with a budget of $2.78 million. Stream measurement systems also received an upgrade; an improvement that added detail to storm predictions, providing emergency crews with invaluable assistance.

 

Finally, the state updated its laws to encourage municipalities to address flood resilience and river corridor protection when it passed Act 16 in 2013. The Act’s goal is to encourage flood resilient communities by maintaining and restoring floodplains and upland forested areas. The Act also includes guidelines for municipal flood resilience plans. Vermont even provided incentives to municipalities to do this work. But what the statutory language does is “encourage” flood resiliency, floodplain protection, and flood emergency preparedness and response planning…is encouragement enough?

 

Residents described Irene as “just the appetizer,” for what’s to come in of flooding in Vermont. Because Vermont has experienced flooding every year since 2007, and 2023 was no different, it appears like the residents were right. If the improvements made following Hurricane Irene failed to prepare Vermont for this past summer’s flooding, what will?

 

Which Strategies were Forgotten, and Why?

 

The state of Vermont cares tremendously for its residents, and state legislators made that clear when they implemented a host of policy changes following Hurricane Irene. Even today, legislators are bustling away to improve non-native English language access to disaster resources, adapt to future flooding, and ensure federal funding is distributed throughout the state. Even so, critical flood resiliency strategies continue to be neglected by Vermont policymakers.

 

Much of the onus for flood resiliency in Vermont falls on the state’s municipalities. Yet, state lands represent an ideal percentage of forested land—eight percent—to begin preparing for flood resiliency. In fact, state lands were the original focus of the report that the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation commissioned. Prioritizing these lands is a logical starting point because forested public lands, when stewarded with wisdom, can help attenuate the flow of rain and flood.

 

The report identified nine improvements for the state to focus on, including updating the Acceptable Management Practices (AMPs) standards, incorporating flood resiliency in Long-Range Management Plans (LRMPs), and establishing appropriate conservation targets, to name a few.

 

The state failed to implement a key recommendation: adopting Optimal Conservation Practices (OCPs) for enhancing flood resiliency and water quality. The state currently uses the AMPs to maintain water quality when conducting logging. AMPs are “designed primarily with the objective of maintaining water quality and reducing the likelihood for direct discharges during historic storm conditions.” Indeed, the current version of the AMPs from 2019 makes no mention of flood resiliency.

 

But the OCPs take many important factors into account, striking a balance between management for economic benefit and management for flood resiliency. OCPs would incorporate a higher set of protections for those lands deemed “vulnerable.” “Vulnerable” land is land that may be located at a higher elevation, have steeper slopes, and may have clay or bedrock underneath it, which inhibits rainwater absorption. All those factors contribute to whether the land will generate more runoff and erosion in response to human landscape modifications and climate change. Protections include: adapting flood-sensitive infrastructure with mitigative actions, building roads during dry seasons, and increasing riparian buffers to protect water quality. Adhering to stricter standards for these vulnerable lands is not only a key to flood resiliency—it’s common sense.

 

Vermont State Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale, chair of the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs believes that disaster recovery hinges on “civic infrastructure.” As Vermont moves forward from its Summer 2023 flood, maintaining connections community members have with one another is imperative. But civic connections can only help so much.

 

Another shortcoming of the state’s land management is the inability to establish appropriate conservation targets for state lands and hydrologic resource zones in particular. The Agency of Natural Resources drafts and releases management plans for state lands known as Long-Range Management Plans. LRMPs establish targets for multiple management categories, including natural resources, recreation, and timber management. Recent plans for the management of state lands fail to include maps of the hydrologic zones. This is concerning because the state has an obligation to ensure flood resiliency on state lands. Without an inventory and map of vulnerable lands, how can the state be sure it is implementing the best practices?

 

To rectify this discrepancy, the state should follow recommendations laid out in the report it commissioned. If it does follow the recommendations, LRMPs will consider hydrological maps to ensure that projects in river corridors or hydrologic reserve zones will receive site-specific designs that incorporate appropriate conservation targets. On those vulnerable lands, the regular AMPs just won’t do it.

 

Going with the Flow: Embracing Flood Resiliency

 

Vermont has made a significant effort to increase its flood resiliency. It updated its statutes with important new guidance for municipalities, rebuilt bridges and culverts to withstand future floods, and created a host of opportunities for sharing information and funding throughout the state to respond to flood damage. However, the Green Mountain State is still resisting change.

 

In large part, this happens because better management of state lands to achieve flood resiliency doesn’t get the political prioritization that it deserves.Age-old debatesabout whether to manage forests as working forests or take a hands-off approach haveindustry members,conservationists, andexpertsin an ideological stalemate.

 

To maximize flood resiliency while maintaining economic functions of our state lands like timber harvesting, the state should adopt the OCPs that protect those lands that are already vulnerable to increased runoff and erosion. Furthermore, the state should incorporate thorough analyses of river corridors and hydrologic reserve zones into its LRMPs so forests can withstand the increasingly wet seasons in Vermont and around the world.

 

Without making these necessary changes, the state and its residents will be forced to endure the same floods year after year. As one resident put it, “you can only [rebuild] so many times.”

 

<< 2024 Watch List #7 2024 Watch List #9 >>

2024 TOP 10 BLOG

Fukushima’s Wastewater Problem: Balancing the Ocean’s Health with an Increasing Need for More Low-Carbon Energy

VJEL Staff Editor: Alexander Hume

Faculty Member: Yanmei Lin

 

Dr. Rafael Mariano Grossi, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), stated that nuclear power provides 10% of the world’s total electricity and one quarter of its low-carbon supply. Nuclear energy has an important role to play in helping countries achieve their net-zero climate goals. According to experts at the International Energy Agency (IEA), that means nuclear generation needs to double by 2050. IAEA’s high case project envisages that can be done through lifetime extensions of existing plants and about 550 gigawatts (GW) of new build. However, lack of safe and effective permanent solutions to nuclear waste impede nuclear energy as part of a zero-carbon future. Japan’s release of treated Fukushima’s nuclear wastewater to the Pacific Ocean casts more doubts on the fate of the nuclear renaissance.

 

Historical Background: Honshu, Japan

 

On March 11th of 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurred off the eastern boundary of Honshu, Japan’s largest and most populated island. Ranked as the fourth largest earthquake in recorded history, this earthquake caused severe destruction across the island. However, while the destructive power of this earthquake should not be undersold, the true devastation came from the gargantuan tsunami that followed.

 

The subduction of the Pacific plate under the Okhotsk plate caused rapid water displacement, which formed the tsunami. This tsunami towered over 100 feet and made landfall less than half an hour later. Without underscoring the destructive force of the initial earthquake, the tsunami caused the lion’s share of damage. The immediate aftermath of this tsunami was incredibly tragic and almost incomprehensible. However, the enduring and catastrophic effects, exemplified by the damage to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, are no less consequential.

 

When the tsunami hit the nuclear power plant, there was no obvious damage to the reactors. However, the tsunami set off a chain reaction that led to catastrophic damage. The tsunami damaged the reactors’ cooling and seawater pumps, crucial components of any functioning nuclear facility. Without adequate cooling of the reactor (known as a loss-of-cooling accident), there will be nothing to cool down the nuclear core, which is incredibly volatile. If left unchecked, this could lead to a nuclear meltdown, causing potentially unparalleled damage. Japan was thus tasked with cooling down the reactors and averting a global disaster.

 

To cool the cores during the meltdown, plant workers utilized seawater and boric acid, which they pumped into the reactors via fire trucks. This arduous but ultimately successful endeavor prevented a criticality disaster, which led to the cores reaching a cool enough temperature where workers could achieve a cold shutdown in December. Despite this success, further issues emerged, highlighting the cluster of problems that can plague nuclear power.

 

By introducing seawater to the reactors, the workers knowingly exposed that water to highly radioactive elements. Those elements, which include iodine-131 and caesium-137, contaminate that water and make it extremely hazardous and unfit to be reintroduced into the ocean. Because there is a finite amount of space that could hold the contaminated water, Japan decided to release some of that water back into the Pacific in early April 2011, despite the water being over the legal limits for radiation. This release of water represented the opening of the literal floodgates that connected to the ocean, and the proverbial one that would lead to much debate a decade later when Japan decided to release more water into the Pacific.

 

Releasing the “Treated” Fukushima Wastewater: Ocean’s Health vs. Nuclear Power

 

On August 24th, 2023, Japan released the first batch of contaminated, but treated, wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. This release is just a fraction of the over 1 million tonnes of contaminated water that is being stored onsite in containment tanks. The phased, deliberate process spanning over 30 years is intended to minimize its impact on the environment. In terms of treatment, Japan has utilized the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS), which is an incredibly thorough and complex process that removes all radioactive materials, except for tritium. Despite these precautions, the decision to release this water back into the Pacific has raised concerns from the international and local communities regarding the potential environmental impacts it could have.

 

As mentioned previously, the water being released will contain tritium, a radioactive hydrogen isotope. Currently, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to remove tritium from water. Because of this, the tritium will inevitably find its way across the globe due to ocean currents. Exposure to this contaminated water could have adverse impacts on fish. The ocean is already being destroyed by climate change, and in this vulnerable state, any additional problems that are introduced to the ecosystem will be magnified. Humanity is dependent on the oceans and everything they provide, so when viewed from this perspective, it appears that dumping tritium-contaminated water should be avoided at all costs. In addition to the environmental impacts, Japan’s move to release this water will have significant international ramifications as well.

 

Japan’s International Environmental Obligations to Prevent Wastewater Dumping to Ocean

 

From an international perspective, Japan is largely governed by two separate agreements: the London Convention and its 1996 Protocol (LCP) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). While each of these agreements individually would likely be enough to prevent Japan from dumping nuclear wastewater into the ocean, when taken together, dumping should be an impossibility. Yet, evidently, that is not the case. By examining the conventions in turn, their purposes and provisions seem to imply that dumping should not be allowed.

 

Starting with the LCP, the official title of the convention is the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972. Judging by the convention’s title, the primary purpose to abate waste being dumped into the marine ecosystem is evident. Article 2 emphasizes signatories’ responsibility to safeguard a secure and thriving environment. Article 8 is also of significance, in that it lists examples of instances in which dumping is acceptable. However, this section emphasizes the need of imminent and dire action. While the wastewater that was initially dumped into the Pacific in 2011 likely meets these criteria, there is no evidence that this treated wastewater would. This current batch was being safely held in the storage tanks on site, where there was no obvious signs of danger. In other words, there was no imminent disaster that needed to be averted by dumping the wastewater into the Pacific. With the LCP in mind, it seems like Japan’s decision was at odds with what it agreed to. To emphasize how harmful this decision was, however, the provisions in UNCLOS should be considered alongside those in the LCP.

 

UNCLOS is the UN’s attempt at maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem, as well as promoting good international relations amongst those nations who depend on the ocean and the bounty of resources it provides. If the ocean is harmed by one nation, then it is not solely the perpetrator who will feel the adverse effects. Article 194 of UNCLOS deals specifically with this issue and lays out the general principles that signatories must adhere to. The most important aspect is that parties must once again take measures to prevent and curtail pollution of the marine environment. UNCLOS also states that parties must make specific attempts not to harm other parties, and due to the nature of ocean currents, any wastewater that is dumped in Japanese waters is likely to disperse across the globe and harm parties near and far.

 

How to Balance?

 

Despite these international environmental obligations, the Japanese government still made the unilateral decision to release nuclear-contaminated water. To justify the dumping, Japan subsequently requested that IAEA to conduct “a detailed review of the safety of related aspects of handling ALPS treated water.” Framing the nuclear wastewater as ALPS treated water, IAEA published a Comprehensive Report on the Safety Review of the ALPS-Treated Water at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Station on July 3, 2023, which concluded that the discharge of the ALPS treated water will “have a negligible radiological impact on people and the environment” as the operational plan is in consistent with standards developed by IAEA. However, China Atomic Energy Authority criticized this, saying it “does not fully reflect the opinions and comments of all the experts, and there are limitations and partiality in relevant conclusions.”

 

Apparently, as the global agency supporting and advocating nuclear power, IAEA should not be the only international institution to balance the health of the ocean’s health with an increasing need for nuclear power. Fukushima’s Wastewater Problem in 2023 was an international wakeup call, prompting a need to revise the existing international legal framework for the discharge of radioactive wastewater. This development warrants close attention for potential actions in 2024.

 

<< 2024 Watch List #6 2024 Watch List #8 >>

2024 TOP 10 BLOG

How Can Maine’s Constitutional “Right to Food” Serve as a Foundation for Prioritizing Food System Resilience Across the State of Maine?

VJEL Staff Editor: Alexander Arroyo

Faculty Member: Laurie Beyranevand

 

In Maine and beyond, food insecurity affects tens of millions of people. Every day, people face impossible choices between basic needs like healthcare, rent, and education. This intersectional burden disproportionately falls on working families with low incomes, people of color, women, and children. Unequal access to healthy and nutritious food reflects deep structural inequities across our society, such as wage and wealth gaps, elevated poverty rates, and racism. Currently, federal food assistance programs support over 160,000 Mainers. Yet, these critical programs are vulnerable to political shifts, where funding becomes a bargaining tool in negotiations on how to allocate federal funding in the farm and food space.

 

As the wild and destructive weather of this past summer shows, human systems are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Temperature increases, changes in rainfall patterns, reductions in water availability, and extreme weather events reduce agricultural productivity and can even wipe out entire crops for a growing season. These impacts also disrupt supply chains and food delivery, resulting in spikes in food prices and food unavailability. This situation is made worse by our current industrial food system, which heavily relies on massive monocropping. Moreover, a few giant agri-businesses have consolidated control of crucial commodities, making them the primary beneficiaries of federal subsidies, especially in the event of losses.

 

There is no better time than now to examine the shortcomings and inequities and consider how to address this dire situation in a sustainable and just manner. Food systems that are neither equitable, nor resilient, exacerbate food insecurity.

 

Maine’s recent constitutional amendment—the “Right to Food“— potentially serves as a beacon of hope, if done well and with consideration to make its protections equitable and democratic. In November 2021, Maine became the first state in the U.S. to enshrine the human right to food in Article I, Section 25 of its State Constitution. The success of the amendment followed a decade of organizing and legislative efforts to advance food sovereignty and food resiliency policies. These actions provide a broad base of support for Maine’s vision for ending hunger in the State by 2030.

 

This article explores how Maine’s groundbreaking constitutional provision can bolster state efforts to combat hunger, encourage policies that support local agriculture, and serve as a foundation for prioritizing food system equity and resilience across the state.

 

Food Systems and Food and Nutrition Security

 

Food systems define how we eat. They are complex networks that determine how we access and consume food. Food systems can be as simple as a trip to the garden or as complicated as a global network that is more industrial than natural. These systems are made up of farmworkers, farmers and ranchers, fishers and foragers, trucks and trains, markets and wholesalers, restaurants and cafeterias, consumers and eaters, and so much else.

 

Food and nutrition security is the measure of a person’s ability to consistently and equitably access healthy, nutritious, safe, and affordable foods that are essential for living a healthy, dignified, and thriving life. At a minimum, food and nutrition security means that nutritionally adequate and safe foods are both readily available and able to be acquired in socially acceptable ways, without resorting to emergency food supplies.

 

Local and regional food systems can play a crucial role in generating food and nutrition security and resilience for a community. Resilience refers to the capacity of food systems to respond to unforeseen disturbances, particularly in times of crisis, such as pandemics and climate change-related events. Often, resilience efforts are targeted at responding to the immediate crises rather than prioritizing long-term strategic planning that accounts for lasting impacts. Defining a right to food is a significant step to help prioritize long-term strategic food system planning in state policy now more than ever.

 

Maine’s Efforts to End Hunger

 

Maine’s food system exists at the end of a long, industrial food chain. This makes the state susceptible to disruptions in those long supply chains. Although the state produces enough crops to meet the needs of Maine’s 1.3 million residents, it imports the vast majority of the food that residents consume.

 

Maine has higher rates of food insecurity than other New England states. Hunger impacts hundreds of thousands of Mainers and jeopardizes the vitality of their communities. Data from 2022 revealed that nearly 12% of Maine residents experienced food insecurity and tens of thousands of families rely on federal food program assistance.

 

Maine has taken important steps toward ending hunger and building food system resilience. The state legislature enacted laws to address food and nutrition insecurity, increase food self-sufficiency, promote regional food procurement, and support local food sovereignty. The state’s plans include the promotion of “personal and regional food self-provisioning and self-sufficiency,” protecting farmland and fisheries, and encouraging urban agriculture and community gardens.

 

From a procurement perspective, Maine’s Department of Corrections is a national leader in sourcing local foods. They have even taken the initiative to establish farms that teach agricultural skills while growing produce for use on-site. Moreover, Maine’s schools utilize a state “Local Food Fund,” which matches funds for purchases of produce, dairy, protein, and other minimally processed foods purchased directly from a variety of local sources including farmers, local food hubs, local food processors, and food service distributors in the State.

 

Constitutionalizing an Enforceable Right to Food

 

In November 2021, Maine citizens voted to add the “Right to Food” to their State Constitution. The amendment seeks to ensure the right of individuals to grow crops, raise livestock, and forage and hunt during a time when industrial agriculture and corporatization threatens local and community ownership of food supplies.Sponsors of the amendment stated that the “legislation would help individuals fight hunger and regain control over food systems and supply” by supporting efforts to shrink supply chains and empower local food producers.  The nonprofit, Why Hunger, called the vote “a transformative step in ensuring the protection of food as an unequivocal basic human right.” This “Right to Food” will have its greatest social impact by encouraging sustainable and environmentally friendly production, while supporting equitable access to healthy and nutritious food for all Mainers.

 

At the federal level, the Farm Bill is an extensive piece of legislation that funds food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), among much other important support for agriculture. The Farm Bill expired at the end of September 2023, putting a stop to all critical aid from that program until Congress can pass a new Farm Bill. Over 160,000 Mainers rely on the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

 

Recognizing food as a human right obligates governments to eradicate food insecurity. A fundamental right to food for all residents necessarily depends on food systems that are resilient in the face of social and environmental change. Maine’s efforts to build a strong local food system, while guaranteeing a right to food to all Mainers, provides a solid foundation for a food system in Maine that serves Mainers equitably and is resilient to changing conditions. Maine can establish such a system on the foundation of a constitutionally guaranteed right to food. This will free the state from being reliant on industrial food supply chains and independent from the uncertainties of federal aid, which consistently put Mainers at risk of hunger.

 

A Right to Food should mean a right to a resilient food system. Framing this right as a central focus of food system policy enables coordinated government action that can address the multi-dimensional challenges posed by climate change and inequitable social structures.

 

If the focus is on just and equitable food system resilience, Maine’s constitutional “Right to Food” can serve as a model for asserting the basic human right to live free from fear of hunger. It can support state efforts to diversify and localize food systems, improve local procurement policies, and enhance the ability of individuals to access healthy and nutritious food consistently and affordably. It sets an example for other states to adopt constitutional provisions that prioritize resilient, local food systems which uphold the fundamental right to food. In Maine’s state motto, “Dirigo” (meaning “I guide“), there is a fitting reminder that Maine’s efforts can guide the nation towards a more equitable, resilient, and food-secure future.

 

<< 2024 Watch List #5 2024 Watch List #7 >>

2024 TOP 10 BLOG

Balancing the Need for Housing and Conserved Land in Vermont

VJEL Staff Editor: Nathaniel Launer

Co-Author: VT Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale

 

Throughout the country, rural communities and states are trying to balance the need for housing and conserved land. In June of 2023, two important pieces of legislation passed through the Vermont General Assembly that will determine this balance in Vermont. The Housing Opportunities Made for Everyone (HOME) bill was enacted on June 5, 2023. The HOME Act amends planning and permitting requirements to address the housing crisis—especially the lack of affordable housing—in Vermont. The Community Resilience and Biodiversity Protection Act (CRBPA) was enacted just six days later on June 12, 2023. The CRBPA establishes the goal of conserving one-third of Vermont’s land by 2030, and half of Vermont’s land by 2050. Balancing housing and these conservation goals will be challenging. The right place to start, perhaps, is with a conservation plan that ensures the benefits and burdens of the conserved land will be shared equitably by all Vermonters.

 

The CRBPA states that the Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR) “shall lead the effort in achieving” the act’s land conservation goals. The CRBPA requires the Secretary to work in consultation with the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) to create a “conservation plan” to achieve these goals. While leading the effort to achieve these goals and create the conservation plan, under Vermont’s environmental justice statute the Secretary of VTANR must consider “access to environmental benefits” and the “cumulative environmental burdens” of conserved land.

 

Environmental Benefits of Conserved Land

 

As the CBPRA states, conserved land provides the important environmental benefit of supporting biodiversity with habitat and migration corridors for wildlife. A report prepared by the Trust for Public Land with support from the VHCB states that conserved land also provides the benefit of valuable ecosystem services such as “flood control, and carbon sequestration and storage.” Conserved land also provides economic benefits. According to the report, conserved land helps maintain an “intact working landscape” which supports a farming industry that “produces $786 million in agricultural commodities” such as dairy products and maple syrup, and a forest products industry that “generates $1.48 billion” of annual revenue. The report further states that conserved land supports the state’s tourism industry which provides approximately $2.61 billion in annual tourist spending. Lastly, conserved land also supports the outdoor reaction industry which “generates $505 billion in annual consumer spending,” and “supports 51,000 jobs.” It is because of these benefits that Vermonters have worked hard to conserve the state’s land.

 

In the state’s early history, pastoral agriculture and heavy timber harvesting resulted in deforestation, damaging wildfires, declines in wildlife populations, and devastating floods. The environmental degradation prompted communities throughout the state to conserve land in its natural state and manage working and residential lands to conserve the environment. In 1924, private land was donated to the state and was conserved as Mt. Philo State Park, the first of the now 55 State Parks in Vermont. Then in 1925, the Vermont legislature approved the purchase of land that established the now approximately 400,000-acre Green Mountain National Forest. In 1957, however, the construction of the interstate highway stressed the land in a different way. The highway opened the state to more people, resulting in the development of land for residential properties, ski resorts, and accommodations for quickly increasing numbers of tourists. To prevent private land from being overdeveloped, municipalities established strict zoning regulations such as minimum lot sizes for residential properties and prohibited mobile homes in certain districts. Then in 1970, the state legislature enacted permitting requirements for large developments through Act 250. In 1987, recognizing the need to balance housing and development with land conservation, the state established the VHCB with the goal of “creating affordable housing for Vermonters, and conserving and protecting Vermont’s agricultural land, forestland, historic properties, important natural areas, and recreational lands.”

 

The efforts to conserve land and prevent overdevelopment have largely succeeded in preserving an ecologically functional landscape of forested mountains and hills in which small farms, local businesses, and rural communities have flourished. A landscape of scenic beauty that is distinctly, Vermont.

 

The Housing Crisis

 

Efforts to conserve land and prevent overdevelopment, however, have contributed to the current housing crisis in Vermont. Strict municipal zoning regulations such as minimum lot sizes prevent homes from being built in rural areas. Moreover, requiring housing developments to be reviewed under both municipal zoning regulations and state Act 250 often prevent affordable and multi-family housing from being built even in designated development areas. Now, according to the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, the state “will need 30,000 – 40,000 more year-round homes by 2030.”

 

The lack of housing is leading to population declines and homelessness across the state. The lack of housing is the main reason why residents are moving away and why young, working-age people are unable stay or move to Vermont. The lack of affordable, safe rental housing in particular, has led to the state having the second highest per capita rate of unhoused residents in the country. These population declines and rates of homelessness are worst in small, rural towns, especially in the Northeast Kingdom. The population decline in these small, rural towns is contributing to the consolidation and closure of local schools that struggle with declining enrollment and hinders economic development. And though it can be less noticeable in small, rural towns, these towns often have the highest rates of unhoused residents. As a result, small, rural towns in the Northeast Kingdom have the highest rates of unemployment, child poverty, and public assistance, and the lowest physical and mental health outcomes in the state.

 

The HOME Act is the latest effort to address this housing crisis. The Act reforms many of the permitting and regulatory requirements that prevent housing from being built. It reduces the number of required parking spaces per dwelling unit, allows multi-family housing in residential districts, requires the need for low- and moderate-income housing to be addressed in municipal plans, and requires the Natural Resources Board (NRB) to report on the environmental, social, and economic impacts of increasing the threshold for review under Act 250.

 

Environmental Burdens of Conserved Land

 

The report prepared by the Trust for Public Land with support from VHCB states that preventing residential development provides the benefit of “fiscal health,” explaining that communities can save money through “avoided costs on expensive infrastructure and other municipal services required by residential property owners, such as schools, police, and fire protection.” But for small, rural towns, struggling with the population decline, reduced economic development, and high rates of homelessness caused by the housing crisis, this is why more conserved land can sometimes feel like a burden. For these small towns, schools and municipal services such as the volunteer fire department, are the heart of the community—not costs to be avoided. Without local schools that serve as the “hub of the community,” Vermonters worry that small towns are going to fall apart. And without municipal services, small towns have a harder time recovering from natural disasters such as the flooding in July, 2023. These small, rural towns need more young families, more students attending local schools, and more working-age adults. These towns need more housing, perhaps more than they need more conserved land.

 

Balancing

 

Vermont’s environmental justice policy states that “no segment of the population of the State should, because of its racial, cultural, or economic makeup, bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens or be denied an equitable share of environmental benefits.” Balancing the need for housing with the state’s land conservation goals will be challenging, but balancing the benefits and burdens of conserved land will be an important place to start. First, the “conservation plan” required by the CRBPA should prioritize conserving land that both supports low-income and at-risk communities and maintains ecological functions. This means the first land to be conserved under CRBPA should be floodplains and mountain forests that provide resilience to natural disasters and the effects of climate change. Prioritizing this land for conservation would reduce the risk of low-income and at-risk communities, such as floodplain mobile home parks, suffering further damage and displacement. It would also encourage towns to plan for the relocation of at-risk communities and prevent future development in high-risk areas. Second, any burdens of conserved land should be distributed equitably throughout the state to support the growth of small, rural towns. This means working to achieve the CRBPA goals at the municipal scale, then perhaps financially reimbursing municipalities for land conserved under the CRBPA in exceedance of its goals. This would prevent the state from achieving the CRBPA’s goals by disproportionately conserving land in a way that limits the ability of small, rural towns to build new housing or otherwise sustain their communities.

 

Conclusion

 

Vermonters have long understood the benefits of conserved land. That is why, although 85% of land in the state is privately owned, approximately 78% of the state’s land is forested. While public land conservation, state regulations, and municipal zoning have been an essential part of conserving land, it is the people and communities that have preserved the ecologically functioning landscape and scenic beauty of this state. Farmers and timber harvesters who take pride in their stewardship of the land. Communities of restaurants, art galleries, and general stores that take care to foster local economies. The CRBPA establishes essential goals for protecting biodiversity and maintaining an ecologically functioning landscape in a changing climate. But while achieving these goals, however, sustaining the people and communities who work hard to protect the state’s land is essential.

 

<< 2024 Watch List #4 2024 Watch List #6 >>

2024 TOP 10 BLOG

The Global Stocktake Report: Ensuring Our Future

VJEL Staff Editor: Yanissa Rodriguez

Faculty Member: Derek Walker

 

The Global Stocktake (GST) resides at the heart of the Paris Agreement– the revolutionary agreement of countries worldwide to combat climate change by limiting global warming. The teeth behind the Agreement, Article 14, mandates an assessment on the implementation of the Paris Agreement. The findings are shared every five years at the United Nations’ Conference of the Parties (COP). The GST tracks the progress of goals made by the Parties to the Paris Agreement. Ideally, GST assessments on party progress should lay the groundwork for parties to set and pursue more ambitious targets.

 

With the first GST taking center stage at the recent COP28 in Dubai, it will be five years before the next report card, and the world can’t wait to turn up the dial on ambition. The synthesis report, released in September 2023, highlighted the pathways integral to our planet’s stability and collective well-being. While developed countries tussle with developing countries over issues like climate finance, action is needed now. The GST synthesis report touched on vital overarching goals for countries to consider as they pursue climate action. Throughout the report, a common thread could be found woven through these themes: the need for laws that not only work, but consider the practical concerns of individuals on the ground. The GST calls on countries to ratchet up their efforts to close the emissions gap, because at the moment, we are falling behind. Currently, we are only reducing emissions by 15-30%. How should Parties move forward then? The GST pushes the following recommendations forward:

 

Further Implementation of Domestic Policies

 

To meet the Paris Agreement’s ambitious temperature targets—limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius with significant effort towards hitting 1.5 degrees—countries must intensify their climate actions now. Developing and developed countries hold the same goal, but encounter different pathways and challenges as they work towards a net-zero, climate stable future. Each country has its own unique national profile, with distinct capabilities for reducing emissions, investing in domestic or international climate action, or even ramping up domestic efforts without the help of international support. These national actions and commitments must balance international commitments with domestic political and economic realities. To get an idea of this concept of differentiated responsibilities and capabilities, take the United States, for example. The U.S. is a political powerhouse and a leading emitter of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and therefore, can and should pull a larger weight in achieving climate targets. The U.S. has rejoined the Paris Agreement under President Biden, which includes financially supporting developing countries to compensate for the role of developed nations as historic emitters. Despite the U.S.’s outsized role in the global warming we are experiencing today, only recently, with the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act, did the U.S. take action that comes close to matching its responsibility. Generally, developed countries are poised to both reduce their emissions and significantly boost climate finance commitments to facilitate emissions reduction in developing countries. To date, financial commitments have fallen short of the mark, and a new assessment of how much finance is needed overall will be put forth at the upcoming COP meeting taking place in December 2023.

 

Increased Focus on Adaptation

 

One of the primary takeaways from the GST synthesis report is the need for mitigation and adaptation efforts to be driven by local knowledge. Mitigation has historically received most of the attention in climate discussions; adaptation is of increasing importance. Climate change manifests itself in diverse ways globally, displaying distinct impacts depending on the region. Adaptation requires addressing problems at the local level by assessing and treating problems within specific, individualized contexts. Local communities are best equipped to apply their local wisdom and resources for an effective outcome, although the amount of resources needed continues to rise as impacts from climate change intensify. Local communities know their land, people, and economies best—they are the best actors for designing solutions to their problems. To promote local adaptation, strong domestic policies and international cooperation and capacity building taking this into consideration are vital.

 

To effectively respond to the growing pressures of climate change and facilitate locally-driven responses, Parties should implement domestic policies rooted in the principles of just transition and equity. Placing vulnerable populations at the forefront of climate action and mobilizing financial support that is accessible and available when needed will be essential in successful adaptation efforts.

 

Achieving a Just Transition

 

Climate action requires transformation of our societies that will impact every aspect of life, including the transportation, agriculture, and industrial sectors. The Paris Agreement established the “just transition” as a guiding principle for Parties to integrate into their transformations. The UNFCCC defines just transition as “transforming the economy and economic system in a way that is as fair and inclusive as possible to everyone concerned, creating decent work opportunities and leaving no one behind.” A just and equitable transition includes promoting the participation and inclusivity of non-Party members from civil society organizations to local and Indigenous communities, the private sector, and cities and states. In a positive reinforcing cycle, the participation of these stakeholders will enable effective implementation efforts at the national level.

 

Just transition efforts have been globally recognized as essential components of environmental action. In Brazil, for example, the legislature passed into law a Fair Energy Transition Program to guide the energy transition of a coal-dependent state with economic, social, and environmental factors in mind. In Colombia, the legislature is adopting just transition principles into law when considering the way the nation transitions away from its second-largest export, coal. The UN estimates 38% of the nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which outline each country’s goals within the Paris Agreement’s mission to limit global temperatures to under 2 degrees Celsius, include principles related to a just transition. The likelihood of achieving durable and equitable outcomes is higher when just transition principles are embedded throughout national climate plans.

 

Not only are countries bolstering their domestic efforts, but progress is being made internationally through the implementation of just transition principles in Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs). TheInternational Partners Group, for example(made up by theEuropean Union, theUnited States, the UnitedKingdon,Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Denmarkand Norway), is one of many initiatives helping developing nations rehaultheir domestic energy infrastructure to provide a secure,reliant energy grid to everyone, but particularly vulnerablegroups. Currently, programs in Indonesia and Vietnam have collectively supplied close to $30 billion to aid both nations in an equitable, systemic overhaul of their energy infrastructure. These efforts indicate the GST’s hopeful vision in driving ambitiously collaborative climate action forward.

 

Conclusion

 

The cards are now in the hands of nations seeking to address climate change in accordance with the Paris Agreement. The onus is on them to adequately respond to the valuable information from the GST, and this GST is telling us we are way behind schedule. Climate change is a systems-level crisis, and Parties must respond to the alarming report card presented by the first GST by taking concrete steps towards transforming our current energy, transportation, and industrial systems to promote ambitious mitigation and adaptation outcomes. It will take considerable effort and sustained commitment from countries, companies, subnational governments, and a vast array of stakeholders around the world to achieve this transformation. Civil society groups and climate advocates around the world, including observers to the UN COP process like the Vermont Law and Graduate School delegation, are poised to hold their leaders accountable for achieving real results.

 

Editor’s Note: This article was written prior to the COP 28 event in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

 

<< 2024 Watch List #3 2024 Watch List #5 >>

2024 TOP 10 BLOG

Backlogged Projects May Actually See [and Use] the Light of Day in the Near Future

VJEL Staff Editor: Laura Arboleda Bowie

Faculty Member: Chester Harper

 

FERC’s Final Rule: E-1 – Order 2023 – RM22-14-000 / 18 CFR Part 35 / 184 FERC ¶ 61,054

Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements / Issued July 28, 2023

 

Introduction

 

The total amount of power from solar, wind, and battery storage awaiting interconnection, totals more than the amount currently generated on the nation’s grid–but the projects that have long-awaited review may begin to see the light at the end of what has been a lengthy permitting process.

 

The time frame for the connection approval process has increased since 2008, and the volume of proposed projects is overwhelming the grid connection process. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) promulgated Order 2023 – RM22-14-000 (the “Rule”) to address the backlog caused by the prior generator interconnection queue process. The promulgated Rule seeks to reform FERC’s standard interconnection procedures and agreements to ensure that customers seeking to connect to the transmission system do so in a “reliable, efficient, transparent, and timely manner.”

 

The History of This Rule and the Previous Version

 

Clean energy developers have long-awaited this rule, citing the grid connection process as a significant impediment to meeting states’ renewable energy policies.

 

Three major categories of energy for electricity generation are: fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), nuclear energy, and renewable energy sources. Developers are required to submit a FERC interconnection permit to connect any new electricity source to the existing transmitting system (the “grid”). Given all the possible models for energy generation, a backlog can grow quickly if the corresponding permitting system is inefficient. The interconnection permitting process begins before a generating facility supplies electricity. The first step, which requires a project developer to apply to interconnect to the transmission system, is the source of the substantial delays. And it’s at this step, through numerous updates in the process, that the promulgated Rule endeavors to fix.

 

Three Key Areas to Follow From This Rule

 

The promulgated Rule highlights three “key areas” that were updated in the permitting process, meant to provide improvements to the interconnection queue process.

 

The first update involves transitioning from a “first-come, first served serial process to a First-Ready, First Served Cluster Study Process.” Some major components under the first update of the promulgated Rule include:

 

1. Facilitating interconnection information access;
2. Replacing serial studies with cluster studies;
3. Allocating cluster study costs;
4. Allocating cluster network upgrade costs;
5. Increased financial commitment and readiness requirements of permit-seekers; and
6. Transition process that offers existing eligible interconnection customers a couple options to ease into the transition.

 

The second update involves increasing the speed of the interconnection queue processing. Some major components under the second update of the promulgated Rule include eliminating the reasonable efforts standard and seeking feedback on related issues.

 

The reasonable efforts standardrequires transmission providers to complete the interconnection process within a specific timeframe but without the financial consequences of failure to meet those deadlines. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NOPR”) seeks to eliminate the reasonable efforts standard, impose firm deadlines, and establish penalties that would apply when transmission providers fail to meet those deadlines.

 

An example of a topic that the Rule may seek information on includes affected systems and resource solicitation studies. Affected systems studies analyze the impact of proposed interconnection requests on neighboring transmission systems. Standardized affected systems agreements can provide consistency, transparency, and timely cost information during the interconnection process.

 

In addition to affected systems studies are Resource Solicitation Studies (the “Resource”), in which the NOPR further attempts to modify the interconnection process to better accommodate state energy planning processes. A resource planning entity can facilitate and organize interconnection requests consistent with their policy objectives. The Resource allows state agencies to gather information about potential interconnection costs affecting state-level energy initiatives.

 

The third update involves incorporating technological advancements in the interconnection process. Some major components under the third update include:

 

1. Increasing flexibility,
2. Incorporating alternative transmission technologies,
3. Modeling, and
4. Performance requirements for non-synchronous generating facilities.

 

Negative Implications From the Promulgated Rule

 

This Rule is new, and there may be implications or possible impacts. Specifically, there are questions about how the Rule willaffect current Regional Transmission Organizations (“RTOs”).RTOs manage about60% of the U.S. electric power supply. RTOs and Independent System Operators (“ISOs”) can propose tariff provisions that would require the submission of requests to recover or allocate the costs of specific interconnection study penalties.

 

There is also a concern about whether the 90-day compliance directive is unrealistic. Because the Rule is new and there are likely reforms in the works, complying with one Rule within the allotted time frame may be difficult if there is a pending change around the corner.

 

It is difficult to know for sure, and time will tell. Still, it is crucial to consider the implications of this Rule, especially if those considerations prompt reforms that could get ahead of potential issues.

 

What Does This Mean for the Future?

 

FERC recognizes the importance of the promulgated Rule and cites the aforementioned updates as necessary to address the current backlogs and long processing times, which historically prevented the much-needed generation from reaching the transmission grid, and those are often renewable energy technologies. However, many in the environmental and clean energy fields indicate that this rule should be the first step. If the nation is planning to reach 80% clean energy by 2030, then FERC would only benefit from creating more constructive steps.

When looking to the future, it is important to mention “grid enhancing technologies.” Implementing technologies that contain sensors provides cost savings and extracts more from the existing grid systems. As an article by Utility Drive puts it, implementing the sensor technologies is a relatively small effort for the magnitude of the return.

FERC has laid the path, but the integration and development of the promulgated Rule will ultimately determine if the backlogged projects will see the light of day.

 

<< 2024 Watch List #2 2024 Watch List #4 >>

2024 TOP 10 BLOG

Americans Must Shift Car Culture: Transportation Policy Can Help

VJEL Staff Editor: Margaret Chafouleas

Co-Author: Monica Nerz, Editor-in-Chief, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, Volume 25

 

The world’s first Sustainable Transport Day was recently celebrated on November 26, 2023, reflecting a historic shift in the global mindset towards sustainable transportation and development. According to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the day “remind[s] us that the road to a better future depends on cleaner and greener transportation systems.” The UN reports that shifting from cars to public transportation alone can reduce up to 2.2 tons of carbon emissions annually per individual.

 

For most Americans, however, daily transportation relies solely on cars. In the United States, 91% of households have at least one car, and more than three-quarters of commuters drive to work alone every day. Driving is inherent to American culture, and its reliance on cars is killing the planet. Cars are a major source of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas that is well-known to cause anthropogenic climate change, and the transportation sector is the largest contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S., which predominantly comes from cars and trucks.

 

Not only are emissions from cars warming the planet, but car accidents are the leading cause of death in the U.S. for people ages 1-54. Cars pose a clear environmental and safety risk to people across the country. So, why do we keep using them?

 

It’s no surprise that American dependence on cars is partially due to the lack of safe and efficient transportation alternatives, like walking, biking, and public transit. Forty-five percent of Americans have no access to transit, and U.S. cities are less walkable than their international counterparts. This is because cars are prioritized in U.S. transportation infrastructure. The construction of highways, urban planning strategies that result in urban sprawl, and insufficient funding and planning for public transit projects on the local, state, and federal levels all contribute to car dependency.

 

These transportation infrastructure decisions are not an accident. Deliberate lobbying from the automotive and fossil fuel industries has historically targeted public transit and transportation policy and continues to do so today. Transportation policy is not politically neutral, but it is essential to the fight against climate change. Future transportation infrastructure decisions will either serve to perpetuate American’s disproportionately enormous climate impact, or help reduce it. Building transportation infrastructure that serves people, and not cars, requires effective climate-conscious and people-centered transportation policy.

 

The 2021 Infrastructure Bill Is Not Enough

 

This issue is particularly relevant now, as the rollout of the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) begins. IIJA, passed in November 2021, is a comprehensive piece of legislation that aims to upgrade the country’s infrastructure, including the transportation sector. IIJA allocated historic amounts of funding for several transportation-related projects, like $109 billion for transit, $102 billion for rail, and $432 billion for highways. With a focus on climate change and substantial investment in electric vehicle infrastructure, IIJA marks Congress’ initial and notable step toward promoting sustainability in U.S. infrastructure development.

 

However, IIJA is not the perfect solution to America’s car-dependency problem. Although IIJA’s historic investment in infrastructure will enhance safety and update deteriorating transit systems, it falls short of President Biden’s initial presentation as a groundbreaking environmental policy. Further policy is needed to specifically address transit accessibility, highway removal, and provide support for urban planning in cities.

 

Focusing Transit Policy for Real Outcomes

 

Firstly, IIJA does not make any fundamental changes to existing transit policy, despite increasing funding for transit projects by 79%. Although more funding is undoubtedly a win for sustainable transportation policy advocates, the policy provides no guidance on how that money may be spent. Instead, IIJA reinforces the goals of its predecessor, the FAST Act.

 

The largest amount of the funding for transit is allocated to the Capital Investments Grant Program. This program allocates money to state and local governments to develop their own high-capacity transit service. Without clear guidance on what projects are eligible for funding, deference to state and local governments may not lead to a meaningful decrease in car-dependency and creates a risk of allowing ineffective transit initiatives.

 

Instead, policy should favor transit projects that give, as Transportation 4 America advocates, “as many people as possible greater access to high quality transit, helping to keep the growth of emissions and vehicle miles traveled in check.” Policy that funds new transit projects should also explicitly guide state and local governments towards repairing inequities to transit system access.

 

Additionally, although IIJA provides a large increase in funding for transit projects, the amount still falls short of what is needed to institute real change. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that the current backlog of transit investments considering vehicles, facilities, and rail track that are past their useful lives to total over $176 billion. For example, in Chicago, a project to modernize the red and purple bus line is projected to cost $8.7 billion over 10 years. IIJA commits only $39 billion to funding new local public transit nationwide. Meaning, a project like Chicago’s alone uses over 20% of the allocated budget.

 

Investing In Highway Removal Instead of Reinforcing Interstate Infrastructure

 

Secondly, IIJA reinforces transportation infrastructure built for a car-centric country by allocating a historic amount of funding for highway spending. Highways pose environmental and social issues that are contrary to the goal of creating a more sustainable, less car-centric transportation system. The U.S. Interstate Highway System is a huge player in the car-dependency conversation. The 1956 Highway Act, signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, authorized the construction of 40,000 miles of highways, solidifying the nation’s commitment to infrastructure for cars and trucks at the expense of people. These highways played a pivotal role in shaping the U.S.’ transportation landscape and significantly contributed to making Americans more car-dependent.

 

Interstates were designed for swift access to and from city centers, facilitating the ‘white flight‘ phenomenon in the 1950s and 1960s. This development favored affluent white commuters, leading them to reside outside urban centers. As a result, suburban communities flourished, where car ownership was not just a convenience, but a necessity.

 

However, highway construction directed in urban areas exhibited racial and socioeconomic biases. Highways in urban areas were deliberately constructed directly through poor neighborhoods where citizens were under-resourced and unable to fight back against displacement. This resulted in over 1 million Americans being forced out of their homes in the name of urban renewal in just two decades. Displacing minority communities and causing property values to further plumet in poor neighborhoods was done in the explicitly racist name of “slum clearing.”

 

Congress recognizes the harm that highways cause to American communities and our environment. However, IIJA allocates only $1 billion for reconnecting communities separated by highways. This investment is only one-tenth of what is recommended by advocacy organizations, and one-twentieth of what was originally proposed in the House. The $1 billion allocated is a band-aid solution to the broader issue of highways in the U.S. and is negated by the large amount of money allocated for highway spending. Further investment in highway removal projects is necessary to usher in a new era of sustainable transportation policy.

 

Policy to Plan Cities for People, Not Cars

 

Lastly, to reduce car-dependence, future policy should support and guide state and local governments on how to build more walkable and bikeable cities. During the highway boom of the 1950s and 1960s, cities shifted towards urban design decisions that accommodated people driving in from the suburbs in their cars, resulting in car-centric planning. Car-centric planning choices include the construction of parking lots, wider roads, and sprawling shopping centers.

 

Investing in walk and bike-ability is an effective way to decrease car dependency. For example, in Philadelphia, a project to create miles of protected bike lanes led to a nearly 70% increase in the number of people who biked to work from 2010 to 2017.

 

IIJA provides $6 billion for road safety programs, titled “Safe Streets and Roads For All.” This provision dictates that, “at least 15 percent of a state’s highway safety improvement program funds to address pedestrians, bicyclists and other non-motorized road users if those groups make up 15 percent or more of the state’s crash fatalities.” Local governments already have, and should continue to use this policy to promote safer street development for walking and biking pedestrians. When the time comes to renew the IIJA, pedestrian safety measures must be re-emphasized so that pedestrians are prioritized in transportation infrastructure.

 

To Conclude, Shifting Car Culture Is Possible

 

While IIJA is generally a positive step for funding projects that can potentially reduce car-dependency, most importantly, its effectiveness in addressing emissions reductions from transportation will depend on how the funds are allocated and implemented at the state and local levels. Future policy should further incentivize equitable public transit, highway removal, and pedestrian-centric urban development.

Just because America’s transportation systems are built to prioritize cars now, doesn’t mean they have to be in the future. People across the country are fighting against dated transportation infrastructure practices already, and resistance has proven successful. Shifting American car culture is doable: policymakers must prioritize it in order for our country to reduce its climate impact.

 

<< 2024 Watch List #1 2024 Watch List #3 >>