[ad_1]
Being the husband and father of 3 healthcare professionals who have been on the front lines of COVID-19, I am the last person to make a joke about the pandemic. At the same time, like many of you, I’m worn out with 24/7 coverage. So much so that over the past year I have stopped banning myself from news media and social media. However, I did sometimes indulge myself when I made a particularly reckless decision or misguided action by stating that I blame my poor form on the ‘Rona.
Particularly over the past year due to elections and the like, we as environmental law practitioners, as well as taxpayers and supporters of our economy, have been faced with the following that I couldn’t find a way to blame the “Rona:
PFAS and other “emerging contaminants” ESG / Shared prosperity Environmental justice / New Green Deal / Global warming – GES
Starting with PFAS / Emerging Contaminants, and recognizing that some of these topics have been in the works for years, I offer some perspective by going through Tulsa, Oklahoma. Emerging contaminants such as PFAS and 1,4 dioxane are, or soon will be, regulated substances that will be considered potential risks to public health and the environment at partial concentrations per trillion. Additionally, these substances are ubiquitous, and in many cases state and federal governments, including agencies such as the Department of Defense, are major PRPs. As we grapple with these issues, knowing that we all care about protecting the environment, my question is, “Who is going to pay for the remediation of one part per trillion concentrations?” ”
With regard to the environment, social and governance (ESG) and the related concept of ‘shared prosperity’, we, as practitioners of environmental law, support the concept of the corporate responsibility to protect and protect. benefit the environment and operate in a fiscally and socially responsible manner. Shared Prosperity takes ESG a step further by taxing the spending (sharing) of organizational wealth somewhat, especially when the organization is seeking approvals for a new project or improvements to an existing one. I have a similar question for you: “If the concepts of ESG and shared prosperity are here to stay, how can we, as environmental lawyers, help guide the process and parameters so that we can give a certain objectivity and fairness to all the requirements? “
Regarding environmental justice / GND / GHG / global warming, there is some connection between these programs / regulations / interests and the two previous topics. As members of ACOEL, we have a role of supporting these programs / regulations / interests through the process and social and regulatory dialogue. What concerns me is that this category of environmental matters represents avenues of redress against many of our clients who have made very good faith efforts, including significant investments, over the past decades to right the wrongs of consumers. day-to-day activities make the protection and enhancement of the environment an essential pillar of their activity. My question for you is: “How, as environmental lawyers, do we work together to prevent or mitigate frivolous or unfounded litigation that only benefits the plaintiff’s lawyers and their teams and investors” scientists’ associates, while often having little or no benefit to those who have actually been harmed? Since this is a blog, I don’t need to have the answers to my questions (although having answers can make me have “followers” and be an “influencer”). I guess part of my answer is ACOEL, because as a collective we represent such a wide range of career types, ages and interests. I would say that each of these categories is rooted in very real environmental issues that cannot be ignored. At the same time, especially for ACOEL members, it behooves us to weave into these matters common sense, courtesy and reasonable goals whenever we have the opportunity. I look forward to such a dialogue when we have the privilege of meeting face to face in 2021 and beyond.
[ad_2]
picture credit