What is the most effective mix of policy tools for achieving environmental improvements? Are governments leaving behind the “hard” law of legislation and regulation in favor of “soft” instruments like environmental management systems and voluntary disclosure agreements? A case study of pollutant release and transfer registries, an environmental policy designed as a soft law tool, reveals that hard uses may go hand in hand with soft uses of a policy. Results of the analysis demonstrate that policy tools may be used in various fashions simultaneously.

The weak tribal/federal partnership in regulating pesticide pollution can be strengthened by building pesticide programs that recognize tribal inherent authority and enhance the opportunities for tribal members and non-members to learn about indigenous knowledge for protecting human health and the environment. A regulatory
reinterpretation or congressional amendment of FIFRA that recognizes tribal inherent authority would address the issue of treating tribes as the appropriate

Though Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) was initially designed as a voluntary market-oriented mechanism, PES development in China became a top-down, government driven process that is gradually evolving from centralized large-scale projects to decentralized smaller scale ones. Aside from the main objective of ecosystem conservation, poverty alleviation is often an additional important objective of PES.

PSD permits issued to major emitting facilities must include BACT standards for each pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA. These standards must be determined by permitting authorities on a case-by-case basis, subject to EPA review and approval.

Although tomes could be written about delisting trends and the delisting of the gray wolf in particular, the purpose of this Comment is to explore current issues related to
endangered species recovery. Congressional delisting of the gray wolf short-circuited an important debate about what it means to recover a species. When should the protections of the ESA be removed? What do we even mean by recovery? Is it enough merely to prevent extinction? Might some species require federal protection forever?

Air law and policy are moving at a lightning-fast pace. At ELI’s annual Fall Practice Update, held October 21, 2011, attendees joined our expert panel to learn how developments in air law and policy interact and what picture they create when pieced together. What is the resulting regulatory tableau that industry must navigate? What are the potential political ramifications for the 2012 elections? The panel discussed the potential benefits and drawbacks of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the proposed Utility MACT rule.

Editors' Summary: One goal of information laws is to fulfill the Jeffersonian ideal of empowering citizens through knowledge. OSHA's hazard communication standard (HCS) and EPA's toxics release inventory (TRI) grow from the concept that citizens have a right to know about the toxic hazards in their workplaces and communities. These measures require employers in all workplace sectors and certain categories of manufacturers that use chemicals to disclose information about toxic chemicals to employees and the public.

The Marcellus Shale region is experiencing a boom in natural gas drilling due to high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as hydrofracking. This process has recently become controversial due to alleged drinking water contamination in Pennsylvania.

The Obama EPA has put forth several actions to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases from stationary sources. These regulatory developments take place in the context of failed efforts to pass comprehensive federal legislation and the Supreme Court’s death blow to federal common-law remedies. Two of the Administration’s regulatory initiatives—the Endangerment Finding and the embrace of greenouse gases in the prevention of significant deterioration program—are embroiled in litigation, the outcome of which may not be known for some time.

In an unnecessarily exaggerated response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the past decade, the agencies that implement the Clean Water Act have substantially reduced the scope of waters that are considered jurisdictional “waters of the United States” under the Act. The agencies are now working on new guidance and regulations that would be a step toward restoring the intended scope of “waters of the United States.” However, in an attempt to narrow interpretations of the Act, opponents of clean water regulation have sought to rewrite the history of the Act and its implementation.