This Comment focuses on energy developments offshore. Part I recognizes OCSLA’s purpose of balancing energy needs with protection of marine animals, coastal beaches, and wetlands. Part II discusses examples of presidential use of OCSLA §12(a) authority to protect (withdraw from leasing) portions of the OCS temporarily or permanently, including challenges to President Biden’s recent withdrawal of the East Coast, West Coast, and part of the Gulf of Mexico and Bering Strait from future oil and gas leases.

Between January 2020 and March 2023, U.S. electronic cigarette sales grew 43%, from 15.6 million devices per month to 22.4 million devices. During this time frame, the portion of sales comprising disposable devices grew from 4 million to 11.9 million per month. The impact upon the environment has been largely overlooked by policymakers.

The Metals Company (TMC), sponsored by the Republic of Nauru, has made public its intention to be the first company to exploit polymetallic nodules, which contain minerals needed for electric batteries, from the deep ocean’s seabed. Nongovernmental organizations and national governments have objected to these proposed actions, with many calling for an outright ban. This Article offers a case study evaluating the parties’ respective claims in favor of, and in opposition to, permitting the proposed mining activities under the current legal framework.

This Comment responds to an article published in the February 2022 issue of ELR by Jaclyn Lopez. It discusses the significant agricultural benefits afforded by phosphate fertilizers; summarizes the U.S.

We are told the transition to a zero-carbon economy will depend upon the United States’ ability to assure a sufficient supply of rare earths and minerals such as cobalt, nickel, or lithium. The Biden Administration is intent on promoting some new form of a critical mineral policy, and calls for reforming the 1872 Mining Law have persisted for well over one hundred years. This Article is designed to provoke a meaningful conversation about a critical minerals policy informed by our past.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a toxic, environmentally persistent class of chemicals that have been used widely in consumer products. Despite growing evidence of adverse health effects associated with PFAS exposure, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not yet promulgated a legally enforceable standard for any of the individual chemicals in the PFAS group. This has resulted in largely unrestricted disposal of PFAS waste and dispersal of these persistent chemicals throughout the environment.

In the past few years, owners of contaminated land, seeking to supplement possible causes of action under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and under state common law and state statutes, increasingly have looked to §7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to shift responsibility for remediation costs to former owners or operators.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) represent federal regulatory regimes for protecting the environment. Although each statute initially places administrative responsibility in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each encourages states, to varying degrees, to take primary responsibility for implementing the statutory regime.

In Environmental Federalism Part 1: The History of Overfiling Under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA Prior to Harmon, Smithfield, and CLEAN, the history of judicial and administrative decisions relating to overfiling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) was analyzed. The history showed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with limited exceptions, generally was understood to have overfiling authority under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA. The limited exceptions focused on two situations.

One of the more daunting tasks facing environmental practitioners over the past decade or two has been the recovery of cleanup costs and related relief at sites contaminated with petroleum substances. Parties seeking relief face significant hurdles under the federal environmental statutes. The key federal environmental cost-recovery statute, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) often provides little help because of its petroleum exclusion.