The timing of environmental analysis and judicial review presents critical issues of interpretation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Courts must be able to review an agency's compliance with NEPA before the agency makes major decisions, and before it invests significant resources that can compromise environmental review. Agencies must not be allowed to delay environmental review just because necessary data and research are difficult to obtain, or environmental impacts are uncertain. This Article discusses how the courts have handled these timing problems.

On May 16, 2000, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) Company announced its intention to voluntarily phase out its perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)-based line of products from the global chemical market.¹ This announcement surprised many in the industry, as 3M had manufactured PFOS-based products such as Scotchgard TM for nearly 40 years.² In its press release, 3M executives indicated their decision was based on their pursuit of responsible environmental management.³ However, while the scientific information av

Advances in genomics, the study of the structure and function of our genetic make-up, are fundamentally transforming toxicology, the science of how toxic substances affect our bodies.

Proponents of "economic incentives" frequently state that emissions trading promotes technological innovation.¹ Emissions trading programs authorize polluters to meet pollution reduction obligations by purchasing extra reductions from polluters reducing their emissions below applicable limits. This Article examines the claim that this trading of compliance obligations fosters innovation.

The worth of education must now be measured against the standards of decency and human survival—the issues now looming so large before us in the 21st century. It is not education, but education of a certain kind, that will save us.¹

—David Orr

For years, individual law professors have offered courses in wildlife law. Many of the courses have centered on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or on the preservation of biological diversity. Others have considered the subject more broadly, attending to issues of the allocation of power within the federal system, to wildlife-related problems on federal lands, or to issues arising under state game laws.

Overview

Few if any U.S. environmental laws explicitly consider sustainable development as their goal or objective. At most, a few U.S. laws may be said to be partial or imperfect reflections of sustainable development theory and to incorporate portions of the concept of sustainable development. Nonetheless, recent quantitative indicators on a cross-national basis suggest that U.S. law and policy has been reasonably effective at promoting sustainable development.

On January 29, 2000, over 130 countries adopted the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biosafety Protocol or Protocol).¹ The Protocol establishes international procedures applicable to the transboundary movement of bioengineered living organisms (referred to in the Protocol as living modified organisms (LMOs)). The adoption of the Protocol marked the close of over four years of intensive, contentious, and often emotional negotiations regarding the multibillion-dollar trade in bioengineered organisms.

Introduction

The key issue is no longer resource development and water quantity but resource allocation and water quality.¹