Position: Attorney-Advisor, US EPA Office of General Counsel (Deadline: Feb. 12, 2018, Washington, DC)

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/489882900

The Office of General Counsel Water Law Office (WLO) is recruiting for the position listed below.  All interested applicants should click on the USAJOBS link below and follow the instructions under “How To Apply.”

Job Title:  Attorney-Adviser, GS-905-12

Job Announcement Number: EPA-OGC-2018-0004

Open Period:  Monday, January 29, 2018 to Monday, February 12, 2018

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/489882900

 

Prize: 2017-18 HENRY L. DIAMOND CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW WRITING COMPETITION (Deadline: April 9, 2018)

2017-18 HENRY L. DIAMOND
CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW WRITING COMPETITION
The U.S. Constitution has long been interpreted by judges and understood by most Americans to support comprehensive environmental protection. However, arguments questioning the constitutional legitimacy or application of environmental law continue to be made, while other parties have brought constitutional and common-law claims in support of preserving or expanding environmental protections. ELI invites law students to submit papers exploring current issues of constitutional environmental law. This annual writing competition is made possible through the generous support of Beveridge & Diamond PC, one of the nation’s premier environmental law firms.
THE HENRY L. DIAMOND CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PRIZE: The author of the article deemed best by a panel of judges will receive $2000 cash, publication in ELI’s flagship publication, the Environmental Law Reporter, and a one-year individual membership to ELI.
TOPIC: Any topic addressing developments or trends in U.S. environmental law with a significant constitutional, “federalism,” or other cross-cutting component. (See sample topics below.)
ELIGIBILITY: Students currently enrolled in law school (in the U.S. or abroad) are eligible, including students who will graduate in 2018. Any relevant article, case comment, note, or essay may be submitted, including writing submitted for academic credit. Jointly authored pieces are eligible only if all authors are students and consent to submit. Previously published pieces, or pieces that are already slated for publication, are ineligible.
DEADLINE: Entries must be received no later than 11:59 pm ET on Monday, April 9, 2018. Please email entries (and any questions) to Lovinia Reynolds at reynolds@eli.org. You will receive a confirmation of receipt by email.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:
Cover page. This separate page must include the following information:
 Title;
 Author’s name, year in law school, and expected graduation date (to facilitate impartial judging, the author’s name and law school must NOT appear anywhere else in the entry, other than on this cover page);
 Law school name and address;
 Author’s permanent and school mailing addresses, email address, and phone number (IMPORTANT: indicate effective dates for any contact information that is subject to change);
 Abstract (limited to 100 words) describing the piece; and
 Certification that the article has not been published and is not slated for future publication (while authors may submit their articles to other publishers or competitions, acceptance for publication elsewhere will disqualify an entry from further consideration).
Format. Submissions may be of any length up to a maximum of 50 pages (including footnotes), in a double-spaced, 8.5 x 11-inch page format with 12-point font (10-point for footnotes, single-spaced). Citation style should conform to the Bluebook. Submissions must be made by email attachment in Microsoft Word format, with the cover page as a separate attachment.
CRITERIA & PUBLICATION: The prize will be awarded to the student work that, in the judgment of our reviewers, best advances the state of scholarship and informs the debate on a current topic of constitutional environmental law. ELI reserves the right to determine that no submission will receive the prize. While only one cash prize is available, ELI may decide to extend multiple offers of publication in the Environmental Law Reporter. To learn more about ELI, including the results of past writing competitions, please visit http://www.eli.org and http://www.eli.org/constitution-courts-and-legislation/diamond-constitutional-environmental-law-writing-competition.
SAMPLE TOPICS: Students may develop their own constitutional environmental law topic or submit a piece exploring one of the topics below:
1) Claims that actions of the Executive Branch or of Congress violate the principle of separation of powers. E.g., Public Citizen v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-00253 (D.D.C. Feb. 8, 2017) (challenging “two-for-one” executive order); Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke, No. 3:17-cv-00091 (D. Alaska Apr. 20, 2017) (challenging invalidation of existing regulation under the Congressional Review Act); League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-101 (D. Alaska May 3, 2017) (challenging reversal of presidential withdrawals of coastal areas from oil and gas leasing); Defenders of Wildlife v. Duke, No. 3:17-cv-01873 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2017) (challenging waiver of environmental protections for border security facilities); NRDC v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-02606 (D.D.C. Dec. 7, 2017) (challenging the shrinking of Bears Ears National Monument).
2) Role of the states under cooperative federalism, concerning issues like the EPA’s disapproval of state plans for controlling atmospheric haze, e.g., Texas v. EPA, 829 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2016), voluntarily remanded to agency, No. 16-60118, ECF No. 513923006 (Mar. 22, 2017), or the status of the Clean Air Act waivers that allow California to set vehicle emissions standards, e.g., 81 Fed. Reg. 78,149 (Nov. 7, 2016).
3) Claims that state efforts to pursue environmental goals violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, e.g., North Dakota v. Heydinger, 825 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2016) (Minnesota renewable energy standard); or are preempted by federal law, e.g., Ass’n Des Éleveurs De Canards Et D’oies Du Québec v. Harris, 729. F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that California sales ban on liver from force-fed birds is not preempted by federal law).
4) Claims that laws governing agricultural or environmental monitoring violate the First Amendment, e.g., W. Watersheds Project v. Michael, No. 16-8083, 2017 WL 3908875 (10th Cir. Sept. 7, 2017) (data collection); Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Wasden, No. 15-35960 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2017) (ag-gag law); or that product-labeling requirements compel speech in violation of the First Amendment, compare CTIA-The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley, Cal., 854 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2017) (cell phone health warning), with Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 16-16072, 2017 WL 4126944 (9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2017) (soda labeling).
5) The implications for environmental or natural resource protection of Supreme Court cases applying the Takings Clause. E.g., Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017).
6) Novel common-law or constitutional theories advanced to promote environmental protection, e.g., Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016) (denying federal government’s motion to dismiss in case presenting climate-related constitutional and public trust claims), petition for mandamus filed, No. 17-71692 (9th Cir. June 9, 2017); Foster v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, No. 75374-6-I, 2017 WL 3868481 (Wash. App. Div. 1 Sept. 5, 2017) (reversing trial court order pertaining to greenhouse gas rulemaking).
7) Other cross-cutting issues, including, e.g., statutory claims that agencies are required to consider climate change impacts, compare WildEarth Guardians v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 15-8109, 2017 WL 4079137 (10th Cir. Sept. 15, 2017) (holding analysis was inadequate), with Sierra Club v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, No. 15-1489, 2017 WL 3480702 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 15, 2017) (upholding analysis); or claims that an agency improperly delayed the effective date of a regulation, e.g., Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (rule governing methane and other greenhouse gas emissions); American Lung Ass’n v. EPA, No. 17-1172 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2017) (ozone designations under Clean Air Act).

Position: Professor (tenure-track, in Environmental Law Program), University of Hawaii, Richardson School of Law (Deadline: Feb. 23, 2018, Honolulu, HI)

Title: Assistant, Associate or Full Professor (Law)

Position Number: 0085629

Hiring Unit: William S. Richardson School of Law

Location: University of Hawai`i at Manoa

Date Posted: January 22, 2018

Closing Date: February 23, 2018

Salary Information: Commensurate with qualifications and experience.

Monthly Type: 9 Month

Tenure Track: Tenure

Full Time/Part Time: Full Time

Temporary/Permanent: Permanent

Other Conditions: To begin academic year 2018-2019. Rank commensurate with experience.

Duties and Responsibilities

The successful candidate will be a full time member of the tenured or tenure track faculty in the Law School’s Environmental Law Program (ELP). The energy law focus of the position is on innovative renewable/clean energy, utility regulation, and sustainability and resiliency law and policy, including issues of particular importance to Hawai`i/Pacific/island communities such as energy from solar, ocean, wind, geothermal, and biofuels, and the intersection with climate change, renewable transportation, carbon budgets/markets, natural resources, indigenous rights, environmental justice, and human rights, at the local, regional, national, and international levels. His or her primary teaching, scholarship, and service responsibilities will center on the areas of energy, environmental, and administrative law. The successful candidate will oversee the Law School’s energy law curriculum and projects under the Environmental Law Program in an addition to assisting with other ELP program priorities.

Minimum Qualifications

A record of academic excellence, a Juris Doctor degree or equivalent, and manifest potential for excellence in teaching, scholarship, and professional service.

Desirable Qualifications

Demonstrated experience in energy law and policy in the government, non-profit, or private sector in Hawai`i/Pacific/island contexts.

Excellent interpersonal skills that allow the candidate to inspire and work effectively with diverse groups of students, staff, faculty, alumni, university units, government officials, and members of the bar.

Ability to work effectively in multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary contexts.

Hawai`i is a community of rich cultural diversity. We encourage applicants from minority groups, women, and others whose background or interest will contribute to diversity in the faculty. Applications from both experienced teachers and those new to teaching are welcome.

To Apply:

Submit cover letter indicating the position number for which you are applying, how you satisfy the minimum and desirable qualifications, full contact information (including e-mail addresses) of three professional references, resume, links to scholarship or writing samples, and transcripts to the following address. Copies of transcripts are acceptable, but original transcripts will be required at time of hire. E-mail applications preferred to: lssearch@hawaii.edu, William S. Richardson School of Law, Attention: Appointments Committee Chair Professor Nicholas Mirkay.

Address:

William S. Richardson School of Law

2515 Dole Street, Room 220

Honolulu, HI 96822

Inquiries: Nicholas Mirkay; 808-956-9435namirkay@hawaii.edu

The University of Hawaiʻi is an equal opportunity/affirmative action institution and is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender identity and expression, age, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, disability, genetic information, marital status, breastfeeding, income assignment for child support, arrest and court record (except as permissible under State law), sexual orientation, domestic or sexual violence victim status, national guard absence, or status as a covered veteran.

Employment is contingent on satisfying employment eligibility verification requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986; reference checks of previous employers; and for certain positions, criminal history record checks.

In accordance with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, annual campus crime statistics for the University of Hawaii may be viewed at: http://ope.ed.gov/security/, or a paper copy may be obtained upon request from the respective UH Campus Security or Administrative Services Office.

Position: Environmental Law Professor, Howard University School of Law, (deadline: Feb. 8, 2018, Washington, DC)

Howard University School of Law seeks Environmental Law professor

Howard University School of Law invites applications from candidates with an expertise in environmental law. This is for a tenure-track position beginning in the fall semester of 2018. The Law School will also consider applications for a visitor in this area for the academic year 2018-2019.

In addition to Environmental Law courses, the ideal candidate will teach Property and a class on Legislation and Regulation. Applicants should be prepared to spend significant time outside the classroom working with students.

Candidates must have a J.D. degree from an accredited law school, distinguished academic credentials, a record of excellence in practice or in academia, and the record or potential to become an outstanding teacher and scholar.

Interested persons should send a cover letter, curriculum vitae, names of references, and subject area preferences (electronic submissions only) to Professor Josephine Ross, Chair of the Initial Appointments Subcommittee at jross.howardlaw@gmail.com. Please also include Ms. Donnice Butler in the email: donnice.butler@law.howard.edu.

Applications will be reviewed on an ongoing basis, but for best consideration, please email your materials by February 8, 2018.

Howard University School of Law is committed to a diverse faculty, staff, and student body.  We encourage applications from women, minorities, persons with disabilities, and others whose background, experience, and viewpoints contribute to the diversity of our institution.

In Memory of Professor Gil Kujovich

Gil KujovichMy good friend Professor Gil Kujovich passed away on December 14.  He was a long-time beloved teacher at Vermont Law School who was one of the kindest and smartest person I met during my time teaching there.

Gil served in the Vietnam War and then attended Harvard Law School, where he was an articles editor of the Harvard Law Review.  He then went on to clerk for Judge Shirley Hufstedler of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justices Potter Stewart and Byron White of the U.S. Supreme Court. He then served in various positions in the Carter Administration, including  as counsel to the White House Intelligence Oversight Board from 1979 to 1980 and then as assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Education.  He joined the Vermont Law School faculty in 1981. During the consideration of civil union (same-sex marriage) legislation by the Vermont Legislature in the early 2000s, he testified numerous times before the House and Senate Judiciary committees.

Gil was deeply committed to the ideals of justice and racial equality and carried out those values by mentoring many of Vermont Law School’s students of color, including Shirley Jefferson who went on to become Vermont Law School’s Associate Dean for Student Affairs and Diversity.  Vermont Law School carried a tribute that provides the remembrances of many students and colleagues.  His kindness both as a teacher and colleague and his generosity of spirit left a lasting impression on all he came into contact with, especially myself.   Both I and my wife Tinling will miss him dearly.   (The picture of is of me with Gil and his wife Joni in 2003 or thereabouts.)

SummerwiththeKujovichs

ESG Investing is on the Rise as Investors Realize Good Environmental Practices are a Good Proxy for Strong Management and Higher Profits

By Si Jun Lee

According to August 2017 reports by Bank of America, “ESG” investing has grown by more than 97% globally in the past 20 years. ESG investing refers to the practice of using environmental, social, and governance criteria to screen and select companies for investment. Environmental criteria consider how a company manages its environmental resources and responsibilities; social criteria look at the company’s impacts in the communities where it does business; and governance criteria examine a company’s corporate structure and transparency.

While ESG investing was traditionally viewed as a niche investment strategy for the socially-conscious crowd, more mainstream investors are coming to the realization that strong ESG performance is an indicator of strong and effective management. CEOs that act responsibly in managing environmental impacts also approach other factors in their business in a more sustainable way, which means their business are more profitable over the long-term and deliver better returns to their investors. A 2014 study by the firm CDP found that companies that plan for environmental changes achieves return-on-investment (ROI) that is 18% higher than companies that do not plan for environmental change, and 67% higher ROI than companies that refuse to disclose their emissions.
BofA estimates that the amount of assets managed under ESG funds have gone from less than $100 billion in 1995 to $8.72 trillion in 2016, and women and Millennials investors are the two primary groups driving the sharp increase. A recent survey by Nielsen indicates that 90% of Millennials and 80% of women investors show an interest in ESG strategies, and are willing to pay extra for sustainable offerings.

Increased interest in ESG strategies has not gone unnoticed by corporate boards. Most global companies now issue Corporate Responsibility reports. Many mid-size companies are also starting to incorporate ESG considerations, to some extent, in their business planning.

But despite the progress, there are still significant barriers to ESG investing. One is the lack of uniform and comparable ESG reporting data. While many companies offer Corporate Responsibility reports, they often cover different issues and rely on different metrics. If the growth in ESG investing continues on the same trajectory, however, it is likely that the marketplace will adapt to develop more uniform and reliable standards as companies compete for a bigger share of ESG investment dollars.

The Paris Climate Agreement Math, in Terms a NY Real Estate Developer can Understand

By Si Jun Lee

The $100 billion Green Climate Fund figure at the center of the Paris Agreement has been singled out for criticism by both supporters and critics alike.

On one hand, President Trump’s assertion that the Green Climate Fund will require the U.S. to pay “billions and billions and billions of dollars” while “many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and . . . will never pay one dime” is inaccurate.

First, the Green Climate Fund is an outgrowth of the 2010 Copenhagen Climate Agreement.  It stipulated that 37 developed countries plus the European Union would “mobilize”—not “give”—a combined $100 billion in climate finance to developing countries by 2020.  That figure, however, includes only $10.3 in direct aid from developed countries, with the rest coming from private investments and voluntary contributions from other countries.   When the Paris Climate Agreement was signed in 2016, the total amount “mobilized” was already at $66.8 billion, with little coming from direct aid.  Second, other countries are paying as well.  The U.S. committed $3 billion of direct aid, but only paid $1 billion before President Trump reneged on the remaining $2 billion commitment.  According to the Green Climate fund’s Pledge Tracker, the majority of countries that pledged funds under the Agreement have already paid in full.  Others have paid significant sums as well: the UK $770 million, Japan $750 million, Germany $500 million, France $450 million, Canada $187 million, etc.

On the other hand, there is some truth in the sense that the financial burden has been uneven.  China and India have not committed any funds, and it is also no secret that the reason many developing countries joined for the Paris Agreement may well be to get a slice of the $100 billion pie, as evidenced by the Climate Action Plans submitted by developing countries uniformly requesting financing for action.  From a common sense perspective, a focus on climate change at the moment makes little sense for countries like Yemen, which is currently struggling with the aftermath of a long civil war and crippling hunger and disease epidemics.  Yet Yemen signed on to the Paris Climate Agreement and submitted a Climate Action Plan ahead of schedule, indicating it could institute programs to reduce its carbon emission by 1-14% conditional upon obtaining international financing for its climate program.  Despite the fact that the Green Climate Fund invests in specific projects and does not distribute money to countries for self-implementation, there is still some skepticism that—without strong oversight on a local level—there is a risk that funds intended for climate programs could dissipate through graft and corruption in some countries.

This does not mean, however, that the U.S. decision to walk away from the Agreement was financially wise.  The pre-Trump U.S. approach in supporting the Green Climate Fund is a strategy that President Trump should understand well from the real estate world.  It was designed to leverage a small direct investment to raise a substantially larger sum from other players for a global project that it could not—and should not have to—finance on its own.  The international goal of mobilizing $100 million by 2020 once seemed reachable, even with a relatively low commitment of direct aid from the U.S.  President Trump’s withdrawal now sends a strong signal akin to a lead investor pulling out of a real estate development deal at the last minute.  The U.S.’s departure won’t help convince China and India to do more (unless they see economic opportunities in the power vacuum).  Worse yet, it sounds the alarm for other private investors to pump the brakes on climate projects around the world.

While President Trump’s decision saved the U.S. $2 billion in short term cash, this pales in comparison to what the U.S. stands to lose from continued climate change.  According to a September 2017 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), U.S. agricultural, health, and labor sectors all suffer measurable economic impact from global emissions in other countries.  In addition, spending to respond to climate-change related natural disasters has cost the U.S. over $350 billion in the last decade.  And these costs are rising rapidly as climate change becomes more accelerated.  The GAO report, in fact, urged the Trump administration to take action to protect the environment before it starts costing the country more money in the long term.  Ironically, the Green Climate Fund was a way for the U.S. to accomplish exactly this goal… largely using other people’s money.