I think this blog is now closed….

Impressions

I’ve been putting off my blog post for a little while now, but definitely not for lack of things to write about. The journey both there and back could probably fill up a few entries, but I’m going to try to keep things somewhat relevant.Although I’ll give myself credit for following the environmental headlines and trying to get an understanding of the issues that goes somewhat beneath the surface, I’d have to say that I’m somewhat of a neophyte when it comes to environmental law. Also, being a first year student, I couldn’t help but feel like a neophyte to the law in general (thanks for the CivPro wisdom Jen). This being said, there was one recurring theme that I observed throughout the conference that I couldn’t help but be struck by: the sheer divergence of opinions held by individuals who were seemingly in support of the same cause.

When flipping through the pages of the Globe and Mail while eating my Vector and soy milk, it’s fairly easy to label the players in the debate as for and against the environment. However, once placed amidst the discourse of how to proceed in this era of begrudged acceptance of the fact of global warming, the categories of ‘for’ and ‘against’ become far less contained.I found this to be particularly the case at the auspiciously titled panel, ‘The Real Climate Debate: Cap and Trade or Carbon Fee’. The discussion surrounded the pros and cons of these two mechanisms of attempting to reduce a country’s carbon emissions by tying them to economic disincentives. From my previously external view point, both systems seemed great in that they are both aimed to reduce emissions. Unfortunately, the failure of cap and trade systems to produce any effect in the European Union has caused policy makers to reconsider. Once political and corporate interests are folded into the mix, the issue becomes even more complex and the solution seems more distant.

In returning to class on Monday, I couldn’t help but express a little disgruntlement over this infighting that I witnessed to a friend who is a staunch activist of a different cause. He assuaged my frustration somewhat by assuring me that these sorts of inner conflicts within groups are a good thing. While they may have the net effect of slowing positive action, they ensure that the action that does take place is the best tailored to meet the challenge at hand. While these insights might seem trite and naive (or perhaps overly optimistic) to someone who’s been in the game for a while, they were new to me and helped to convince me that the countless hours of debate that I witnessed were purposeful.

…And the vegan food was delicious.

-Brian

3 photos

These are taken from Shannon’s facebook. Thank you Shannon.

PIELC

The theme of this year’s conference was Compelling a Climate of Change. Not surprisingly, climate change was a hot topic among the panels (pun intended). While much of the debate focused on American jurisprudence and American laws, it was nonetheless an invaluable experience for me. We gained practical knowledge about the applicability of essentially every facet of law to environmental issues: property law, municipal law, tort law, and the criminal law, to name a few. But perhaps more importantly, it was inspiring to see such large group of committed lawyers making a living doing something they care about (despite the doom and gloom of some of the messages…turns out global warming is bad. Who knew?). I have often been told that in the legal profession you can do what you care about and starve, or you can sell yourself and make a fortune. These lawyers weren’t starving, nor were all of them exclusively engaged in environmental law, but they all had incorporated issues they felt passionately about into their professional lives.

 

Oh and agreed that the best panel (I went to anyway) was the one on the criminal law. The defense lawyer was all about discussing how important a fair trial is to our democratic system and the rule of law, etc., so he has to operate under a different set of morals when defending people in environmental law criminal cases. Then the federal prosecutor stood up and said “My job is great. I have no cognitive dissonance at all. I put the bad guys in jail.” It was awesome.

more righteous than you!

Hello all,

Where to start? Micah, I really enjoy your cartooning talents. I can assure you that there were no breath-holding contests but our car did fail miserably at the New York Times Crossword.

I would first like to thank the United States government and its citizens for the warm welcome that the honorable defenders of homeland security offered at the boarder.

No blog entry would be complete without a plug for Breath-right nasal strips. Breath-right nasal strips: Our patented reflex action lifts open nasal passages to help you get more air. Show your friends you care and purchase Breath-right today!

Ok, back to the conference. It was host to a diverse mix of (mostly) American activists, academics and attorneys. For those of you unable to attend, I’d like to share some of the interesting panels, speakers and ideas I was able to be a part of.

1. Blowing the top off of a mountain to mine for coal is not especially environmentally friendly. It has contributed to 1200 miles of Appalachian streams buried in rock and debris. An attorney for affected interests has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Energy for failure to properly conduct environmental assessments and issue tax credits (sound familiar anyone?). The organization (ilovemountains.org) developed a cool tool that citizens can use to determine how much of their power comes from these coal operations and which banks, senators and congress members are involved.

2. Arguably, the best panel was a debate on the use of criminal law for environmental enforcement in the US. A criminal defence lawyer took on two federal prosecutors and an academic in arguing that we cautiously apply criminal sanctions.

3. The green anarchy movement was invited inside the conference (traditionally they protest) to give a rather disorganized (seriously) presentation on how we’re avoiding the big issue. I think their main point was that until we smash capitalism (which I am not entirely opposed to) we are doomed to fail.

There were many more interesting panels I attended and even more that I was unable to. Some other highlights include suing Dole Corp. for spraying sterilizing pesticides in Nicaragua, a panel on Cap and Trade, a panel representing hunters and fishers who are opposed to unrelenting expansion of oil and gas in Wyoming, and speeches by David Cobb, Cynthia McKinney and Jane Williams.

In closing, I would like to remind all of my friends and colleagues that our cause, that of protecting the earth, is of the highest righteousness!

Good Times at the PIELC

                 This was my first time at the PIELC and it was a great experience.  Not only did I get to see some really inspiring and fascinating panel sessions, I met some interesting new people and also got to know the rest of the ELC gang a little better.  I was actually a little blown away by how accomplished, friendly, fun, brilliant, and overall awesome the other ELC’ers were.

                In terms of the panels, I learned a lot about US laws and international environmental law issues.  While the US system is different from the Canadian legal setup, the conference was still quite valuable as there are similarities between US and Canadian laws and US laws affect Canada.  Many sessions focused on global warming, emissions and carbon credits, and the associated policy and legal solutions.  These sessions were obviously quite relevant to Canada’s situation.

 I went to several panel talks that tied human rights issues into environmental issues.  In particular, my favourite session was on the recent Los Angeles trial against Dole Foods and the Dow Chemical Company on behalf of Nicaraguan banana plantation workers sterilized by pesticides.   There were three panellists: one scientist who had found evidence of the harms caused by such pesticides in Central America and two lawyers who actually litigated the case.  One lawyer presented the evidence and arguments used against Dole and Dow, while the other presented some of Dole and Dow’s arguments and spoke about the general problems associated with such cases.  The most interesting thing I learned from the talk was how important it is to bring a suit in the right location.  It can make a huge difference in the trial’s outcome and chances of fairness if it is brought in the US instead of Nicaragua, and in California instead of another state.  In this case, the suit could only be brought in LA because there were business connections in California.  This is obviously a big issue for all environmental/human rights cases that cross borders. 

                I almost didn’t go to the PIELC, but I am so glad I changed my mind.  It was a long drive and I missed a few classes, but I came back more energized and excited about law than when I left, so it was worth it.  I look forward to going again next year, when I know a little more about the law and can get even more out of the conference.

-Katie Hamilton

Oregon Trail Return Trip

This is how I think the trip back might have gone….

Awkward…

Well, I was hoping by now there would be maybe a post or two about the conference, or maybe some photos of Oregon. I hear it’s pretty.

Maybe the travellers don’t have internet access at the hotel? Maybe they are just having the time of their lives?

Help me out here guys…

Update: It just occurred to me – maybe they are getting revenge on me for making them do the blog I promised to do back in October when I thought I would be able to go…

Oregon Trail

INTRODUCTION AND PROLOGUE

Tomorrow afternoon the first group of students will be taking the ferry to the mainland and then heading down the coast towards Eugene, and this year’s PIELC. Right now we’re all making final preparations: packing bags, checking maps, circling sessions in the conference program and doing all that other last-minute stuff. Part of that other last minute stuff is setting up this blog. I’m fairly new at this, so I’d expect things to change a bit as I figure out how it works. If you have any suggestions, please use the comments.

More authors will be joining this thing soon, and we’ll be telling you about all aspects of the trip and the conference; we’ll try to share not just the knowledge but also the experience. Our goal is to be informative and interesting. And there are a few really good photographers in our group, so we’ll have pictures for you as well.

Also, I’d like to thank our generous sponsor, the Law Foundation of British Columbia, for making this trip possible.