Sustainability Law Blog

People think of Oregon, or at least Oregonians think of Oregon, as the cradle of the sustainability movement. And why not? Portland has more hybrid cars and "green buildings," per capita, than any other American city.

But, the Oregon legislature has taken Oregon’s Sustainability leadership to another level. When Governor Ted Kulongoski signed HB 2826 into law, Oregon became the first state to recognize legislatively the triple bottom line. The triple bottom line measures a corporation’s success according to the business’s impact on the environment, its contribution to the community, and its economic profitability.

Dick Roy, whose organization, Oregon Lawyers for a Sustainable Future, drafted the legislation, often compares the triple bottom line to a three-legged stool. Before HB 2826, corporate business practices could legally stand on only the profitability leg. Corporations have traditionally operated under the guiding legal principle that a corporation’s primary purpose is to maximize shareholder wealth.

HB 2826, codified at ORS 60.047(2)(e), places environmental and social issues on par with shareholder wealth and corporate profits. Now, articles of incorporation may include a specific statement that enables a corporation to conduct its business “in a manner that is environmentally and socially responsible.” In Oregon, a corporation can legally pursue sustainable business practices.

I’m sure Governor Kulongoski hopes that HB 2826 will attract business and investment to Oregon. If you’re a socially responsible business, Oregon is a great and welcoming place to call home.

Posted by David Copley Forman | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sustainable Business

Bookmark:

King County, Washington (which includes Seattle) recently became the first county in the nation to require a climate change impact analysis of any proposed project, as part of required environmental review. Washington state's SEPA law, like the federal NEPA, California's CEQA, and similar laws in other states promote informed decision making by requiring an evaluation of the environmental impacts of projects subject to government approval.

Because climate change science incorporates the study of so many individual environmental disciplines and the relationship between them, King County's approach is an important step forward. It reflects evolving environmental analysis towards consideration of global and regional, rather than just local, impacts.

King County, Washington may have been first, but the dominoes are falling fast. California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced a settlement of the state's lawsuit against San Bernardino County for failure to evaluate the greenhouse gas impacts of County-approved projects. The settlement requires the County to develop a comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction plan (read details of the settlement here). Brown has put several other California counties on notice that he expects the same, and some have voluntarily implemented greenhouse gas reduction measures. Massachusetts also recently began requiring evaluation of greenhouse gas impacts under its environmental review law.

This is a trend that is intended to arrest some harmful projects early in the process. It also will begin to condition local decisionmakers to habitually take climate change impacts into account when asked to approve new development.

Posted by David J. Petersen, partner practicing in the Sustainability and Real Estate & Land Use Practice Groups.

Posted by Tonkon Torp LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Climate Change

Bookmark:

The U.S. District Court in San Francisco recently ordered the White House to produce two climate change reports for Congress that were due in July 2006 and November 2004, respectively.

Environmental advocates sued the Bush administration for ignoring a 2004 congressional deadline to report to lawmakers and the public on the latest research on global warming. The 1990 Global Change Research Act requires the government to produce a scientific report every four years on climate change and its effect on the environment.

When the suit was filed, a spokesman for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the government had chosen other means of complying with the law: a series of 21 mini-reports on various aspects of climate change, issued over a two-year period. The first of those documents, in May 2006, discussed temperature trends in the lower atmosphere but did not describe any potential effects on the environment.

U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong, who issued the order, did not rule out the possibility that a series of reports might ultimately meet the requirements of the GCRA.

The court gave the Bush administration until May 31, 2008 to produce the reports, one of which is a research plan and the other an assessment of the effects of climate change. The response is oh-so-Washington -- according to the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, the administration intends to pursue the bizarre strategy of both complying with the ruling five months early, and appealing it. Don’t expect too many earth-shattering (or ice-cap melting) revelations in the eventual reports, given the administration's general head-in-the-sand approach to global warming.

This post contributed by David J. Petersen, partner practicing in the Sustainability and Real Estate & Land Use Practice Groups.

Posted by Tonkon Torp LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Legislation

Bookmark: