RSS FeedEPA lawyers who criticize cap-and-trade cautioned by EPA over professional ethics
As the controversy over impeding U.S. climate legislation continues to simmer, one interesting recent development is the spotlight on two California EPA attorneys: Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel.
The N.Y. Times reported that the U.S. EPA has directed the pair to remove or to make changes to a YouTube video they posted which is critical of the cap-and-trade bills currently being tossed around in the legislative houses. (The video, apparently made in September, critiques the U.S. House of Representatives’ Waxman-Markey Bill [H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009]. Currently, the U.S. Senate is debating its own version [S.1733 Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act].)
According to the EPA, Williams and Zabel violated EPA ethical guidelines when they substantiated their views with their “20 years each working as attorneys at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency” – thereby accenting the credibility of their “personal opinion” with their office.
For some, this issue is censorship thinly veiled in professional ethics. The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct, for instance, doesn’t prohibit political expression by lawyers. Rule 1.2(b) specifically states that representation doesn’t constitute an endorsement of political views. The ABA Code of Judicial Conduct does restrict a judge’s capacity for political expression under Rule 4.1(A)(2), in order to maintain the impartiality of the position. But should government attorneys shed their capacity for political expression? On the other hand, for government attorneys, the government is their client. You don’t see many lawyers publishing videos where they criticize their client.
In either case, Williams and Zabel’s criticisms of cap-and-trade will no doubt be capitalized on by opponents of climate legislation. This is unfortunate, because their criticisms – which are just the media’s latest recognition of the carbon tax vs cap-and-trade debate (“carbon fees with rebates”… does anyone still fondly remember the Liberal Green Shift Plan?) – do voice very legitimate concerns.
I take Williams and Zabel’s criticisms to be essentially: 1) carbon offsets provide a run-around hard cap-targets; 2) carbon offsets often have unintended consequences; 3) the price instability associated with implementing a cap-and-trade scheme prevents the promotion of the desired innovation. Obviously, where the goal of the legislation is to curb carbon emissions and to shift to alternative energy, these are bad.
But, are their criticisms of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme, say… equally applicable to that of Kerry-Boxer? With respect to at least one point – offsets – yes, they are a potential problem. But are they an intractable one? Both bills provide mechanisms that attempt to limit the potential unintended consequences of offsets. (i.e. – regulatory bodies to administer, and the ability to reverse offsets). This may or may not completely obviate the point, but it does address it. With respect to price instability and innovation – that’s an economic argument that’s beyond my purview.
But I do know this: any hope of success at Copenhagen rests largely on the ability of the U.S. to pass strong climate legislation, and to thereby commit to hard targets. Most signs seem to indicate Kerry-Boxer will pass. Even if cap-and-trade wouldn’t achieve everything some think it needs to, at the very least it seems to be the first viable step.
Belief in global warming protected from discrimination in UK labour law
Image From National Post via WattUpWithThat?
In the public policy debates over climate change, critics of strong action to mitigate global warming have often described proponents as “religious zealots”, and vice-versa. Moreover, since the concern over global warming has entered the mainstream consciousness, religious groups have been increasingly drawn to the discussion. Now, in the UK, a recent decision by an employment tribunal has actually equivocated belief in global warming with religious belief, for the purposes of workplace discrimination.
The case centers around Tim Nicholson, whose position as Head of Sustainability at Grainger, plc was terminated over what he claims was “contempt” for his beliefs about anthropogenic global warming. Nicholson alleged that his termination was due to his beliefs – which he argued should be protected from discrimination by the UK’s Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations of 2003.
In its decision this week, the employment tribunal ruled Nicholson would be allowed to bring his discrimination claim because Nicholson’s beliefs in global warming passed the tests formulated for “philosophical belief” for the purposes of the regulations:
From the tribunal’s ruling:
Grainger Plc & Ors v. Nicholson [2009] UKEAT 0219_09_0311 (3 November 2009)
In no way could this ever be taken out of context by anybody on either side of the larger debate…
GreenTech War: Japan, China, Lithium, Batteries and Bolivia
First Posted on Commercial Law International on July 6, 2009
Bolivia: The Saudi Arabia of Lithium
A potential GreenTech war is brewing between Japan and China, location Bolivia.
The salt flats of Bolivia´s Salar De Uyuni, where most recent James Bond movie was shot (Quantum of Solace) seems like the most unlikely place for a green technology war, much less one between Japan and China. However, it very much is. Both countries through official diplomatic overtures and through its multi-nationals have sought to secure stable supplies of lithium.
Why lithium?
Well, given current technology, lithium is the key to battery power. And while batteries power all kinds of devices, it is the key to the electric car – I think you are seeing where I am going with this. Whoever control´s the lithium, controls the electric car.
Currently Chile is the world largest producer of the metal; however Bolivia has half the world´s proven reserves. According to the Times, ¨Bolivia is to lithium what Saudi Arabia is to oil.¨
It looks like the Salar De Uyuni could soon become much more than just a 007 film location, to being a linchpin in the world´s effort to curve carbon emissions. Let´s hope along with this the people of Bolivia see some true developmental benefits and the reduction of poverty from this greentech war.
Canada Best Equipped to Deal with Climate Change
A report released today by British-based Maplecroft states that Canada is the country positioned the best to deal with global warming and its related effects.
6 factors were examined:
- economy
- natural resources and ecosystems
- poverty, development and health
- agriculture
- population, settlement and infrastructure
- institutions, governance and social capital
African nations dominated those that will most strongly be effected by changes in the future. Other developed nations were also better situated, largely due to their non-equatorial positions.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change previously looked at the impact of global warming. What this report did is look at how countries are prepared to meet these changes.
Dr. Andy Thow, one of the report contributors, said,
Canada… is extremely well equipped to adapt to changes in climate. It scores well across all aspects of the index. This is because of the low pressure on natural resources resulting from a low population density and large land area, combined with high agricultural capacity, a healthy economy, few development and health challenges and excellent public institutions.
However, severe impacts to wildlife will still be seen in the Canadian Arctic.
The entire report can be viewed here:
The ethical issue many have wondered is how fair is it that the countries generating the most pollution and contributing the the greenhouse effect are least affected. The majority of the world’s population will experience the fallout of a small wealthy minority. Should there be legal obligations to assist those affected by our lifestyles?
Canada though, unlike many other developing nations, is doing more to address the issue of climate change.
Least Vulnerable: Canada, Ireland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, France, Uruguay, Switzerland, USA, United Kingdom, Japan, Iceland, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Estonia, Australia.
Most Vulnerable: Comoros, Somalia, Burundi, Yemen, Niger, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Chad, Rwanda, Haiti, Pakistan, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti, Nepal, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania.
