Sustainability Law Blog

Erin Flynn, Economic Development Director of the Portland Development Commission, made that comment at the recent Portland Leadership Summit’s breakout session on Economic Development and Prosperity.

Ms. Flynn said that Portland economic development faces two challenges: the need for new development tools, and institutional fragmentation. She noted that while the city has good tools for development, they are place-based and real estate-dependent. She argued for creating complementary economic development tools that will encourage entrepreneurship and micro business development. She also suggested making manufacturing more visible and cautioned that as we develop the city, we not displace profitable businesses from their current locations.

Ms. Flynn also believes that accountability for economic development is spread too thin over many city agencies. Good ideas can languish or get lost in translation when one agency is responsible for developing an idea but another agency is responsible for implementing it. Ms. Flynn suggested that the city must systematically coordinate economic development resources and activities across bureaus in order to improve delivery and impact as well as identify remaining gaps.

For someone who's been arguing that the city spends too much time boasting about sustainable development and not concentrating enough on developing a sustainable economy - of which sustainable development is a vital component (see blog post November 27, 2007) - I welcome Ms. Flynn’s point of view.

Two bills are under consideration by the Washington state legislature to achieve aggressive emission reduction targets set in 2007. The first, HB 2815, would convert the goals passed in 2007 to concrete targets, then direct the statewide Department of Ecology to design a cap-and-trade system, a monitoring and reporting system, and a comprehensive emissions inventory for point-source emitters. These efforts would be coordinated with the Western Climate Initiative, of which Washington is a member. The program should be designed for implementation by 2012.

While HB 2815 appears to have broad support, another bill, HB 2797, is more controversial. This bill would focus on land use and transportation planning as a method for reducing emissions, rather than targeting point-source emissions as HB 2815 does. Specifically, HB 2797 would add a climate change goal to the state's Growth Management Act, require cities and counties to adapt their comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances to further that goal, and take other actions that require consideration of climate change issues by local governments when making land use decisions.

It is too early to tell how either bill will emerge, if at all, from the legislature for the Governor's signature. However, given the large role that transportation and land development play in greenhouse gas emissions, it seems likely that a point-source emissions law will not be enough to meet Washington's aggressive targets. Thus, some variation of HB 2797 will eventually be needed, even if it does not become law in 2008.

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

The recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has sparked controversy about whether or not greenhouse gas emissions can be regulated under the ESA.

The Bush administration is adamant that they cannot. Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, whose state produces 15% of the nation's oil, couldn't agree more. On May 21, Governor Palin announced that the state of Alaska intends to sue to challenge the polar bears' listing. The Governor's overriding concern is not for the bears, she thinks they're doing just fine, but is for the oil and gas industry whose operations take place in prime polar bear habitat.

Specifically, the state intends to sue under the Administrative Procedure Act and the ESA based on the argument that the models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, are wrong. Considering that Alaska touts itself as "the premier destination for adventure and ecotourists seeking a personal connection with nature, wilderness and the local people," the Governor's position seems to be selling the state of Alaska short.

(To see satellite images of the decline in sea ice since 1979, click here).

Posted by Jeanette C. Schuster, attorney practicing in the Real Estate and Land Use Group.

Forced by court order, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Kempthorne capitulated on May 14 and listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). While acknowledging that the best science available predicts a continued steady decline in sea ice and that the threat to polar bears comes from global climate change and its effect on sea ice, the DOI took several steps to bar any action designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the listing. Sepcifically, Secretary Kempthorne announced plans to propose amendments to the ESA, which he characterized as one of "the most inflexible laws Congress has passed," and he ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue guidance to its staff declaring that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to polar bears and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project, or government action.

In addition, the DOI directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a rule that would allow activities that are permissible under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to also be permissible under the ESA. Most controversially, the MMPA permits oil and gas drilling and exploration. Consequently, the DOI's recent listing and related directives could have inapposite results under the ESA—on the one hand, the DOI's actions would allow fossil fuel production in prime polar bear habitat, while on the other hand, they could potentially force the agency to protect the bears against the products of fossil fuel combustion, greenhouse gases.

You can read the full remarks by Secretary Kempthorne from the press conference on the polar bear listing May 14, 2008 here.

Posted by Jeanette C. Schuster, attorney practicing in the Real Estate & Land Use Practice Group.

Did you ever wonder what's buried in a cemetery – besides dead bodies? According to Michael d' Estries in a March 25 post in Green Living, "The average cemetery buries 1,000 gallons of embalming fluid, 97.5 tons of steel, 2,028 tons of concrete, and 56,250 board feet of high quality wood in just one acre of green." I don't know what's scarier, dead bodies or 1,000 gallons of embalming fluid. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust – apparently not.

Don't want to spend eternity polluting the Earth? Now you can "go green" even when you're no longer going. Just have a ‘natural burial.’ “It is composting at its best,” said Cynthia Beal, owner of Portland's The Natural Burial Company, in "Green Funerals Feature Biodegradable Coffins," a December 27, 2007 CNN.com/technology post. The Natural Burial Company sells the Ecopod, a kayak shaped coffin made from recycled newspapers. Cynthia's book, "Be a Tree," will be available soon.

Natural burials have been popular in Britain for years. Now many burial companies in the United States are offering a natural alternative. Memorial Ecosystems Inc. opened the first green cemetery in the U.S., The Ramsey Preserve in South Carolina, and green cemeteries are sprouting up all over the country.

The Green Burial Council says it has been working since 2005 “to make burial sustainable for the planet, meaningful for families, and economically viable for the provider." According to its website, greenburialcouncil.org, they're doing it by:

• developing a certification program that is bringing about a new ethic in death care rooted in transparency, accountability and ecological responsibility;

• building out an international network of "approved providers" committed to reducing toxins, waste and carbon emissions associated with conventional end of life rituals; and

• bringing conservation organizations together with cemetery operators, funeral establishments and cremation companies to create burial programs that facilitate the restoration, acquisition and stewardship of natural areas.

Cynthia wants to be a cherry tree, but she and others in the green burial movement are fertilizing the seeds of something grander.

Lately, the ire of many commentators has been focused on the biofuels industry. Their claim is that increased demand for corn and other feedstocks to make biofuels has caused a worldwide shortage, sending commodity prices through the roof. These efforts have led to calls by some policymakers to reconsider the nation's support for biofuels.

However, the facts show that the effect of biofuel manufacturing on food prices is negligible. According to an editorial in the Portland Tribune on April 22, domestic corn growers (noting the demand from ethanol manufacturers) increased corn output by 24% in 2007, well more than all the corn used in ethanol that year. US corn exports reached an all-time high in 2007, notwithstanding the diversion of some corn to domestic ethanol. If there is a world corn shortage, it does not arise in the United States.

Moreover, the contribution of corn to many staple groceries is minimal in terms of cost. For example, a standard box of cornflakes includes about 5 cents worth of corn and a can of soda less than 2 cents worth of corn sweetener, even at today's corn prices. It is true that the cost of raising livestock has gone up due to corn price increases, but blaming ethanol for higher meat prices ignores the calls that have been made for years, and which have fallen mostly on deaf ears, for the livestock industry to modernize and diversify its feed supply.

Continue reading " Ethanol's Impact On Food Prices Is Grossly Overstated " »

The ethanol strategy is intended to displace some of the U.S.'s use of foreign oil, right? Does it strike anyone as odd that we are spending trillions of defense dollars in the Middle East, prompted to some degree by a perceived need to stabilize U.S. access to petroleum resources, while we debate relative minutia related to the possible global effects of our ethanol production? We appear to be taking it as an inescapable given that U.S. petroleum policy will have massive consequences throughout the world, but we scrutinize any competitive product for each and every tenuous connection to adverse impacts on the international economy.