4 results
Contributors
-
- By Basem Abdelmalak, Joseph Abdelmalak, Alaa A. Abd-Elsayed, David L. Adams, Eric E. Adelman, Maged Argalious, Endrit Bala, Gene H. Barnett, Sheron Beltran, Andrew Bielaczyc, William Bingaman, James M. Blum, Alina Bodas, Vera Borzova, Richard Bowers, Adam Brown, Chad M. Brummett, Alexandra S. Bullough, James F. Burke, Juan P. Cata, Neeraj Chaudhary, Michael J. Claybon, Miguel Cruz, Milind Deogaonkar, Vikram Dhawan, Thomas Didier, D. John Doyle, Zeyd Ebrahim, Hesham Elsharkawy, Wael Ali Sakr Esa, Ehab Farag, Ryen D. Fons, Joseph J. Gemmete, Matt Giles, Phil Gillen, Goodarz Golmirzaie, Marcos Gomes, Lisa Grilly, Maged Guirguis, David W. Healy, Heather Hervey-Jumper, Shawn L. Hervey-Jumper, Paul E. Hilliard, Samuel A. Irefin, George K. Istaphanous, Teresa L. Jacobs, Ellen Janke, Greta Jo, James W. Jones, Rami Karroum, Allen Keebler, Stephen J. Kimatian, Colleen G. Koch, Robert Scott Kriss, Andrea Kurz, Jia Lin, Michael D. Maile, Negmeldeen F. Mamoun, Mariel Manlapaz, Edward Manno, Donn Marciniak, Piyush Mathur, Nicholas F. Marko, Matthew Martin, George A. Mashour, Marco Maurtua, Scott T. McCardle, Julie McClelland, Uma Menon, Paul S. Moor, Laurel E. Moore, Ruairi Moulding, Dileep R. Nair, Todd Nelson, Julie Niezgoda, Edward Noguera, Jerome O’Hara, Aditya S. Pandey, Mauricio Perilla, Paul Picton, Marc J. Popovich, J. Javier Provencio, Venkatakrishna Rajajee, Mohit Rastogi, Stacy Ritzman, Lauryn R. Rochlen, Leif Saager, Vivek Sabharwal, Oren Sagher, Kenneth Saliba, Milad Sharifpour, Lesli E. Skolarus, Paul Smythe, Wolf H. Stapelfeldt, William R. Stetler, Peter Stiles, Vijay Tarnal, Khoi D. Than, B. Gregory Thompson, Alparslan Turan, Christopher R. Turner, Justin Upp, Sumeet Vadera, Jennifer Vance, Anthony C. Wang, Robert J. Weil, Marnie B. Welch, Karen K. Wilkins, Erin S. Williams, George N. Youssef, Asma Zakaria, Sherif S. Zaky, Andrew Zura
- Edited by George A. Mashour, Ehab Farag
-
- Book:
- Case Studies in Neuroanesthesia and Neurocritical Care
- Published online:
- 03 May 2011
- Print publication:
- 03 February 2011, pp x-xvi
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
9 - Climate Change, Federalism, and Promoting Technological Change
- Edited by Alyson C. Flournoy, University of Florida, David M. Driesen, Syracuse University, New York
-
- Book:
- Beyond Environmental Law
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 26 February 2010, pp 199-222
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
THIS CHAPTER EXAMINES THE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT – STATE versus federal – at which an Environmental Competition Statute could be most effectively implemented. After years of inaction, the federal government is now debating legislation to address climate change. On May 21, 2009, the House Energy and Commerce Committee took the unprecedented step of voting for the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which would establish, among other important policies, a comprehensive cap-and-trade program for controlling emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Recent federal action follows a period of rapid policy development by state and local governments. In the absence of strong federal leadership, a growing number of states have filled the void in climate policy with a broad array of programs, including regulation of GHG emissions from vehicles and power plants, renewable energy mandates, GHG emissions registries, and energy-efficiency initiatives.
The question addressed in this chapter is how state initiatives can operate in conjunction with federal programs to induce the technological change needed to mitigate climate change. I show that promoting innovation is a distinct regulatory end that is subject to a market failure – technology spillovers – unrelated to the negative externalities that have traditionally justified environmental regulation. This distinction is significant because critics of state action have questioned whether anything is left for the states once the federal government acts or even whether state initiatives are per se misguided given the global scale inherent in reducing GHG emissions.
13 - Adaptive Environmental Federalism
- Edited by William W. Buzbee, Emory University, Atlanta
-
- Book:
- Preemption Choice
- Published online:
- 07 July 2009
- Print publication:
- 15 December 2008, pp 277-300
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
Environmental law is not neatly divided between the federal government and the states. The federal government continues to involve itself in highly localized issues with little clear connection to interstate environmental issues or a manifest need for federal uniformity. At the same time, states and local governments, especially recently, are not content to confine their attention to issues of local concern but are developing policies on environmental issues of national and even international importance. Nor do environmental issues “stay” in the control of any particular level of government but rather tend to pass back and forth, much like the proverbial football, between different levels of government.
The current system of environmental federalism is therefore a dynamic one of overlapping federal and state jurisdiction. However, it is threatened by federal legislation and Supreme Court rulings. A wave of preemptive legislation has emerged from Congress in recent years. Numerous bills pending in Congress, for example, would preempt state actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) that contribute to climate change. Similarly, following a long line of cases in which the Supreme Court has preempted a variety of state actions designed to protect the public, the Court recently (2004) preempted state auto-pollution regulations, despite, at best, ambiguous statutory language.
Legal academics are similarly hostile to the dynamism of environmental federalism because it runs contrary to the prevailing view that an optimal level of government exists from which to set environmental policy.
9 - Two Models for Scientific Transparency in Environmental Law
-
- By David E. Adelman, Ph.D., J.D., associate professor, University of Arizona
- Edited by Wendy Wagner, University of Texas, Austin, Rena Steinzor, University of Maryland, Baltimore
-
- Book:
- Rescuing Science from Politics
- Published online:
- 04 August 2010
- Print publication:
- 24 July 2006, pp 193-214
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Transparency in Science and in Law
Maximizing the transparency of scientific determinations is critically important to the disciplines that inform environmental policy. Environmental issues are riven by disputes over the use of quantitative methods and by uncertainty about risk. Despite the obvious limits of science, or perhaps because of them, agency officials and political actors who use science often fail to represent scientific uncertainty accurately, and instead overstate the role that science played in supporting particular findings to elevate the outcomes to which they are predisposed. As a result, science without transparency risks devolving into consequentialist science.
Chemical risk assessment provided the impetus for much of the debate over how science is used in a regulatory context. Objections to chemical risk assessment methods stem from the high uncertainties in risk estimates that exist at the low exposure levels relevant to regulatory standards. The controversy is also driven by the potential consequences of inaction – failures to protect workers against asbestos exposures, for example, may result in 250,000 additional cancers in the United States. These uncertainties require scientists to make difficult judgments, including critically important decisions to rely on highly simplified models to obtain the quantitative results needed to derive regulatory standards.
The vulnerability of scientific judgment to political pressure is evident in the high-profile controversies surrounding the Bush Administration's stacking of scientific advisory committees in agencies throughout the federal government.