2. Environmental Justice – Who pays for Environmental Protection?

3. Worldwide Energy Use - 2007

4. Case Studies Energy & Jobs v. Environmental Protection Indigenous Peoples’ Rights v. National Security Whose to pay for our waste OR Not in my back yard (NIMBY)

5. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

6. Four Congressionally Designated Management Areas:

8. From anwr.org - a pro-drilling group

10. No Impact on Wildlife?

13. Environmental Justice Case Study: The Yucca Mountain High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository and the Western Shoshone

15. Map of effected area

19. Case Study – Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in New York City NYC generates more than 36,000 tons of MSW per day City’s Department of Sanitation is responsible for handling about 13,000 tons per day (remainder is handled by private company) Until April 2001 the city used Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. Today – most MSW is sent to land-based transfer stations in city, on Long Island, or in New Jersey. From there, it is sent to nearby waste-to-energy incinerators or by train or trucks to landfills in N.J., Penn., Virginia, and Ohio NYC treats current program as short-term solution – what are alternatives?

20. Case Study – Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in New York City Negative Effects Transport of garbage by train or trucks causes increased air pollution (exhaust) & increased chance of environmental damage (e.g., spills) Landfills are a major source of methane – greenhouse gas. And Landfills are filling up! Many environmentalists believe that current local incinerators are old and create moe air pollution and toxic ash. Construction of new, cleaner incinerators is opposed by residents of proposed sites – NIMBY Cost of current NYC management strategy is over $310 million a year.

21. Case Study – Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in New York City Responses Plan: NYC has proposed a new long-term strategy of soldi waste management. Department of Sanitation’s share of MSW to be taken to upgraded “Marine Transfer Stations” Waste then compacted and placed in sealed containers for shipment – by barges, trucks, or trains to landfills in other parts of country. NYC negotiating 20-year contracts to ship solid waste to landfills in Georgia and South Carolina (among other sites) Price of plan over $300 million – however, NYC says this transport is safer; new landfills result in less environmental damage Eliminate use of incinerators – which is disliked by neighbors and environmentalists

22. Case Study – Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in New York City Criticisms “Long Distance” disposal plan would increase the time and distance that solid waste would be transported – increasing chance of accident Even with newer, safer containers – Probability of Risk increases with increased transportation time - Risk of increased pollution - Risk of large scale pollution from accidents - Example: 453,000 accidents involving large trucks in 1999 alone. Negative effect on establishing recycling program – only 18.2% of NYC solid waste was recycled in 1998, compared to a national average of 28.2% and 44% for Los Angeles and 47.3% for Chicago Columbia University report says that recycling could become more important part of NYC’s solid waste management IF city was forced to deal with its own waste on permanent basis – and not ship “out of sight, out of mind”

23. Case Study – Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in New York City What to do? Columbia University suggests recycling + modern waste-to-energy incinerators located near city – Use economic compensation (property tax breaks or new jobs) to overcome opposition of incinerators in neighborhoods - Changing NIMBY to YIMBY/FAP Yes in my backyard – for a price -Do you favor NYC’s or Columbia University Plan? -Which creates the most environmental injustice? -Shipping NYC’s waste to rural landfills in other states OR trying to convince (or pay) local residents to live with incinerators and waster in their neighborhoods? -Which creates the most environmental damage?

24. Environmental Law & Environmental Justice Private property versus the “Common Good” Biodiversity protection versus Economic Development

25. Lucas v. SC Coastal Council (1992)  Lucas buys 2 beachfront lots  Then this

26. Hurricane Hugo (1989) caused 29 deaths/$ 6 billion in damage

27. Lucas v. SC Coastal Council (1992)  SC Beachfront Management Act (1988)  no new structures on barrier islands  "beach/dune system [acts] as a buffer from high tides, storm surge, [and] hurricanes.”  The Act renders Lucas’ property worthless  S.Car. Supreme Court agrees, but holds  building in fragile coastal zone is a nuisance  nuisance is exception to “inverse condemnation”

28. Lucas v. SC Coastal Council (1992)  Supreme Court (per Scalia) holds:  No “preventing public harm” exception  destruction of value is a “categorical” taking  assuming the property had value to begin with  Background Principles  Does owner have right to a particular use, that government regulation now prohibits?  If no, then no property right has been taken.  If yes, then interference w/ right is analyzed under the takings clause.  Look to “existing rules or understandings”

29. Lucus v South Carolina Coastal Council (US S Ct 1992) 1988 South Carolina regulation prohibits building on barrier dunes seaward of coastal erosion line. J. Scalia for majority: Creates “categorical rule” to avoid balancing the public benefits of the regulations vs the private imposition. When there is a total wipeout it is a taking per se. One exception: if the right to prohibit activity already exists in state common law. J. Stevens dissent:What about 95% loss of value? Owners risk getting no compensation. After remand, state paid $1.5 million.

30. The Endangered Species Act (ESA): Substantive Prohibitions of the Act A. Section 7 - Federal Responsibilities: Duties 3 duties for federal agencies: 1) Conserve listed species by "carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species." 2) Insure any agency action does not "jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species.” 3) "Insure" any action does not destroy or modify "habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary to be critical.” -- For 2 & 3: See TVA v. Hill (1978)

31. TVA v. Hill - 1978 V.