Population and Energy Consumption

There is no denying that certain regions of the world are facing population crises.  Nations have had to implement policies to control the growth, educate the public and prepare for the future.  What is unknown, to a certain extent, however, is how severe the population crisis will be in the future.  With population growth, especially the 3 billion-person increase by the end of the century as projected by the United Nations, comes increasing demand for food, energy and other resources (United Nations 2013).  However, this paper will focus on one major aspect that is uncertain – the future availability of energy for the future global population. 

           

            In 1973, John Holdren, who is currently the senior advisor the President Obama on science and technology issues, stated, “the 12-fold increase in total energy use is the product…of the four-fold increase in population and the three-fold increase in use per person” (Holdren 1973).  Although this was said four decades ago, the idea still remains applicable; as population increases, energy demand will increase exponentially.  As populations and nations become richer per capita, energy demand per person will also increase exponentially.  This raises an important question: How will future governments fuel their nations? 

There will be a point, that may be within the next few decades, and seems to be almost a certainty, that global oil reserves will be depleted, if current levels of extraction remain in place, by the middle to late part of this century (OPEC 2011).  In addition, estimates, at least in the United States, have our natural gas reserves lasting at most 100 years (Reuteman 2012).  Coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, is quickly becoming less frequently used due to its environmental impact.  Clearly, than, the solution seems to be that the future populations will need to be fueled by alternative energy, unless more fossil fuel reserves are discovered and can be accessed.  It will take an international effort to ensure that every nation has the resources available to provide alternative energy to its people. 

            Different economic statuses seem to indicate different methods of fueling a nation.  There are the poor, underdeveloped or developing nations that still rely on coal and wood fuel, such as Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa.  Developing nations that mainly use oil, but still rely on coal to an extent.  The argument could be made that an example of this would be China, given that many of the Chinese are poor and their heavy reliance on coal, even though it is rapidly becoming one of the world’s economic leaders.  Finally, there are the developed nations that regularly use fossil fuels, mainly oil and natural gas, but are beginning to implement alternative energy resources such as wind and solar energy. 

            The United States has already began reducing is dependence on foreign oil, and, as of 2013, alternative energy production has surpassed nuclear energy (Brownstein 2013).  Since President Obama assumed the office of the presidency in 2008, he has made it a top priority to reduce dependence on not just foreign oil, but oil in general.  He has implemented “green” initiatives that have created thousands of jobs to produce this nations future energy production cites.  Wind farms are being built throughout the nation, solar farms are producing massive amounts of energy, and together, they are fueling our nation through the improved smart grid (Wolak 2011).  The United States still has much work to do before it can produce an alternative energy infrastructure that can sustain our standard of living, and economic and social demands well into the future. 

            Developed nations have been transitioning to alternative energy in the masses, but the majority of the world, primarily the developing nations, still do not have the resources, whether it be economic or industrial, to manufacture these sources of energy.  A possible solution to this problem is to either sell used, but still functioning, equipment to developing nations to help build infrastructure that can support the beginning stages of an alternative energy supply; another option is to provide the poorer nations with financial support that must be applied to alternative energy manufacturing.  Either option is viable. 

           

            Considering the fact that the majority of the future population growth will occur in the developing nations around the world, it becomes a human rights issue that they be well supported and have the resources necessary to contribute to the national transition towards a developed economy.  As a developed nation, it would be immoral to sit back and watch a poor nation such as Haiti - which constantly battles disease, widespread poverty, a weak government and undernutrition – struggle to provide their people with affordable, clean and readily available energy.  Nations like Haiti rely on coal and wood to fuel their economy – so much so that they have removed nearly every tree for fuel.  At a certain point, developing nations will no longer have the resources to fuel their country, industries and economies.  But before this happens, a developed nation can intervene and provide cheap, used and functioning wind mills, or solar panels in an attempt to begin the process of converting the most vulnerable states into alternative energy economies.  As stated, this concept is not only applicable to Haiti, but rather almost every developing nation.  In addition to providing them with renewable energy, this clean source of energy will also reduce carbon concentrations and pollution in the local atmosphere, which in turn directly benefits human health (“Benefits…” 2013).  It will take an international effort, but it is essential to ensure that the developing nations and centers of future population growth have the resources necessary to establish and maintain an alternative energy infrastructure as fossil fuels become less readily available. 

            Another factor that must be addressed is the consumption of fuel for transportation.  According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, “oil accounts for more than 95 percent of all the energy used for transportation in the United States” (“Oil…” 2012).  Many automobile companies have taken the initiative to begin to develop and manufacture vehicles that are hybrids or alternative energy vehicles.  These vehicles have become extremely popular as the public has become more environmentally conscious, but also in response to increasing gasoline prices.  It can be expected that as oil becomes scarcer, gasoline prices will increase due to a lack of supply and increasing demand (more people on the earth) (Rosenberg 2008).  While this will trigger a larger movement for consumers to purchase more fuel-efficient cars, it will also force manufacturers to produce vehicles that do not rely on fossil fuels.  Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and the other major motor vehicle companies have all released a vehicle that runs on pure electricity.  This is an essential step in the right direction, but does not completely answer the question considering most of the electricity that will power the vehicle in the United States is generated from natural gas (Handley 2013).  The future of the motor vehicle industry is hydrogen fuel cell and solar vehicles.  Each of these technologies provides the public with clean and relatively renewable sources of energy, some more than others.  Although extremely expensive now, as these vehicles are mass-produced and consumed, prices will become more affordable for the general public.  Solar vehicles, are now being developed, but still have to overcome many obstacles before they can be produced for the public.  Currently, there is solar powered airplane that is crossing the United States (Hennigan 2013).  Although it is traveling slowly, scientists are hopeful that this model will open windows of opportunity for future models that may one day be commercialized.  Fuel cell vehicles, such as the Honda FCX, create electricity though a chemical reaction with hydrogen and oxygen, has zero emissions, gets the equivalent of 51 miles per gallon, and can even supply a home with power for a week (“Honda…” 2013).  An obvious challenge for fuel cell vehicles is the availability of hydrogen fueling stations.  In addition, there is not a significant amount of hydrogen fuel that can be used to supply future generations worth of vehicles – it will have to be produced (Siegel 2012).  California currently has a number of fueling stations throughout the state to supply its customers with this resource.  Japan and some European nations are also providing hydrogen filling stations, many of which are testing sites. 

            Until this technology can be available to everyone, sustainable practices must be implemented and enforced by national and international authorities.  Setting fuel efficiency standards, as President Obama has done, is a way to reduce consumption on gasoline while benefiting the environment.  LEED certification, a standard that grades buildings on how environmentally friendly and sustainable they are, is becoming a target for major corporations.  These companies are under increasing pressure from the public, as well as from inside their boardroom to cut costs (in the long run).  Newly constructed buildings are constructed with environmentally friendly materials, have a smaller carbon footprint and use significantly less energy to run the systems.  At the commercial level, this idea of sustainability is working well; unfortunately, sustainable practices need to be implemented in homes if there are any hopes to reduce fuel consumption as population grows.  Policies could be implemented that would require that all households install compact fluorescent light bulbs, low-flow faucets, energy-saving windows, insulation, etc.  By providing tax credits as incentives to install these energy-saving solutions, the public may be willing to pay for the initial cost if they receive tax credits in the future, as well as paying less on their energy bills.  Implementing policies through tax credits has been used and has been proven to be successful in the United States as many homes around the nation installed solar panels after President Obama promised a tax credit for those who did so (Shapley 2011).  If every household in America were to install similar energy saving technologies, we could significantly reduce energy consumption now and for the future.  By applying this same logic to developing nations, but by supplying this technology as foreign aid, energy consumption in the regions where population will increase the most can also decrease.  It is possible that this decrease could sustain itself until better and more efficient alternative energy resources are cheaper and readily available to everyone in every nation. 

            Finally, by reducing our demand for certain types of energy, more agricultural land will be able to be used for food instead of energy production.  Currently, 1% of arable land is used for biofuel production.  It may not seem like much, but by 2030, 4.2% of arable land will be used for biofuel production in order to meet the global demand for biofuels (“Climate Change…” 2013).  Biofuels are highly inefficient and if the international community were to reduce its dependence on biofuels, such as ethanol, this land could instead be used for crop production to feed the growing population.  In addition, the demand for food will be highest in urban populations; the FAO projects that by 2050, 70% of the global population will live in urban areas (“How to…” 2013).  In this same report, they project that cereal and meat production will increase .9 million tonnes and 200 million tonnes, respectively.  “In developing nations”, says the FAO, “80 percent of the necessary production increases would come from increases in yields and cropping intensity and only 20 percent from expansion of arable land”, meaning that new land for agriculture will rarely be developed and the regions where population is set to increase the most will have to feed themselves off of the land they will have at the time by increasing the amount of food they can produce from that land (“How to…” 2013).  It will not be feasible to devote land that will be so essential to the future population to inefficient fuel that will be obsolete by the end of the century, as new technologies will take its place. 

            As the global population continues to exponentially increase, especially in the developing regions of the world, the international community faces a series of issues that must be addressed now to ensure the stability of the future.  Natural resource consumption, sustainability, technology and agriculture will all play an essential role in the next few decades.  In a way, they all are intertwined, as a change in one affects the other.  It will take a combination of national and international authority, cultural changes, will power, dignity and compassion to deal with the 3 billion-person increase that will occur by the end of the century.  Sacrifices will have to be made by some to ensure the safety and wellness of others.  Standards of living may have to change, as what was once feasible will no longer be in the future.  The international community will have to come together to assist the most vulnerable and most at-need regions of the world.  Generally speaking, population increases will occur in just about every nation, meaning we will all have to adapt to the inevitable changes and challenges that will be encountered.  Certain nations are more prepared to deal with these changes, while changes in other nations will only make the current situation exponentially worse.  Resources are becoming increasingly scarce in many parts of the world, and with only a few decades left until the next 1 billion people are added to this planet, action must be taken immediately to ensure that even the developed and developing nations have the resources and energy available to sustain and grow their economies.  The future population increase is arguably the most challenging issue that the international community faces.  The technology is there, it is a matter of making it cheaper and available to everyone so that the future generations have a chance at prosperity, environmental quality and survival. 

Works Cited

"Benefits of Renewable Energy Use  | Union of Concerned Scientists." UCS: Independent Science, Practical Solutions  | Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., 8 Apr. 2013. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/public-benefits-of-renewable.html>.

Brownstein, Ronald. "U.S. Renewable Energy Production Now Tops Nuclear Power - NationalJournal.com." NationalJournal.com. N.p., 1 Apr. 2013. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/u-s-renewable-energy-production-now-tops-nuclear-power-20130401>.

"Climate Change, Biofuels and Land." FAO. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2013. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/nr/HLCinfo/Land-Infosheet-En.pdf>.

Handley, Meg. "Is the U.S. Too Dependent on Natural Gas for Electricity? - US News and World Report." US News & World Report | News & Rankings | Best Colleges, Best Hospitals, and more. N.p., 28 Mar. 2013. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/28/is-the-us-too-dependent-on-natural-gas-for-electricity>.

Hennigan, W.J.. "Solar airplane begins first leg of trip across America - latimes.com." Los Angeles Times - California, national and world news - latimes.com. N.p., 3 May 2013. Web. 6 May 2013. <http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-solar-plane-trip-begins-20130503,0,2051242.story>.

Holdren, John P.. Population and the American predicament: the case against complacency. Pasadena, Calif.: California Institute of Technology, 1973. Print.

"Honda Worldwide | Fuel Cell." Honda Worldwide : Honda Motor Co.,Ltd.. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2013. <http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/>.

"How To Feed the World: 2050." FAO. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2013. <www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf>.

"OPEC." OPEC World Outlook 2011. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 May 2013. <www.opec.org/opec_web/static_files_project/media/downloads/publications/WOO_2011.pdf>.

"Oil Use and Fuel Consumption | Union of Concerned Scientists." UCS: Independent Science, Practical Solutions  | Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., 30 Apr. 2012. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/why-clean-cars/oil-use/>.

Reuteman, Rob. "The Math Behind the 100-Year, Natural-Gas Supply Debate." Stock Market News, Business News, Financial, Earnings, World Markets - CNBC. N.p., 20 June 2012. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.cnbc.com/id/47279959>.

Rosenberg, Matt. "Gas Prices - The Reason Gas Prices Are so High." Geography Home Page - Geography at About.com. N.p., 11 June 2008. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/gasoline.htm>.

Shapley, Dan. "Home Energy Tax  Credits - Tax Credits for Solar  Biodiesel  Hybrids - The Daily Green        ." Going Green, Fuel Efficiency, Organic Food, and Green Living - The Daily Green        . N.p., n.d. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/latest/renewable-energy-tax-credit-47100802>.

Siegel, RP. "Fuel Cell Energy: Pros and Cons." TriplePundit: A Media Platform for the Triple Bottom Line. N.p., 10 May 2012. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/05/fuel-cell-energy-pros-cons/>.

"United Nations News Centre - Global population to pass 10 billion by 2100, UN projections indicate." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38253#.UYiwuBzZW48>.

Wolak, Frank. "Renewable Energy and the Smart Grid - PESD." Program on Energy and Sustainable Development (PESD)                                  . N.p., n.d. Web. 7 May 2013. <http://pesd.stanford.edu/research/low_carbon_electricity>.

Any unauthorized use of this post is prohibited. 

Earth Day

Today is a day for recognition; for conservation; for awareness; for preservation; for remorse. Today is a day upon which we look back and critique the actions we have taken and question the avenues that we will take in the future. Today is a day that we look around and take in the beauty of nature. Today is a day that we stop and realize that we are not superior and that we all come from the same place and can be taken by our creator. Today is a day that we give back to the environment from which we have so selfishly taken. Today is a day that we educate others - whether it be our children, family, friends or strangers - in order to maintain some sort of hope for generations to come. Today is Earth Day.

Can we honestly say to ourselves that we have done enough to preserve and protect the environment and create a world that is not only sustainable, but healthy, safe, and promising?

The answer is no. 

Look back at the actions and events that took place in the United States over the past 10 years. Legislation that promotes fossil fuel production (not to mention gives billions of dollars per year to the industry) and deters alternative energy production. Deregulation of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act due to their negative impact on "jobs". Hunting endangered species. Un-ratified international treaties that are one of the first steps towards multi-national environmental actions. Increased asthma rates. The opening of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. Big Oil politics. Coal Ash disaster in Tennessee. Record temperatures (high and low). Record snowfall. Record droughts. Record ice melt. Record flooding. Record carbon-dioxide levels. Record sea-level rise. BP Horizon oil spill. Amazonian deforestation. Off-shore drilling. Hydraulic Fracturing. Arkansas Crude Oil Pipeline Spill. Keystone XL Pipeline? We will soon find out. 

These are just a few of the environmental issues that we have brought upon ourselves in the past 10 years. We should be ashamed. 

Are we prepared to say that the world we live in now is acceptable for our children to come into? For our grandchildren? Do you want your children coming into a world that is ridden with unprecedented climatic changes, global warming, scarce water, future energy shortages, tainted food, where a government that can be bought by Fortune 500 companies, topographic changes that will come with sea-level rise? 

Any sane person would say no. 

If that is the case, then why in the world are we treating the Earth as we do? Two words: Common Practice. 

We have a history, especially here in the United States, of thinking we can have our cake and eat it too. We think that we can literally take the natural resources of any nation, if we don't have it, and make money off of it - and we have done it and continue to do so. We believe that any problems we cause today can be solved tomorrow, or by the next administration, or in the next generation -- how has that turned out with economic issues, carbon-dioxide levels, health issues? We live on the idea that we are the superior nation and can do whatever we want to this Earth without any repercussions. 

Some may think that they are environmentally conscious, I sure do. But I am nowhere near the level of environmentally conscious that the human race needs to be in order to sustain life for the future. 

Our nation has been controlled, when it comes to environmental issues and sustainability, by partisan politics, interest groups and money for far too long. A clean and safe environment, clean water, clean air, healthy foods, and renewable and sustainable energy is not a Democrat/Republican issue - it is a requirement for the future security of our nation, of our people and of our world. 

At this point, I see a future that goes two ways:

Future One. 

We continue on the path that we are on. President Obama has done a respectable job when it comes to environmental and energy issues. We are starting to heavily invest in alternative energy usage, but still produce and consume massive levels of oil and natural gas. But this is not sustainable; at some point in our lifetime, we may live in a world that has depleted oil reserves and are close to depleting natural gas reserves. A world where carbon-dioxide levels are skyrocketing. A world where sea level has risen 4 feet, or more, resulting in one billion environmental refugees that have no where to go. Where nations are literally swallowed by the seas - nations such as the Maldives, Kiribati's and many of the Pacific island nations. A world where food levels cannot feed everyone and famine ensues because rich nations can buy more food than is necessary for their people - oh wait, that already happens. A world where we in the US have caused most of the self-inflicted wounds that we will receive. We will look back and say, "I wish we had handled this earlier when it was economically feasible." It will be too late, too many lives will have been lost and we will suffer from irreversible environmental changes. 

Pretty dismal - not something that is too pleasant to think about. 

Future Two. 

We change, as a nation, right now. Forget special interests. Forget Big Oil. Forget partisan politics. We need to start thinking about the future and what will happen. We will live in a world much different than today - almost futuristic (obviously), in the sense that there will be new agricultural technologies, fossil fuel technology is obsolete and environmental priorities. We may invest in vertical farming to support population growth; vertical farming is when farms are created in skyscrapers - a feasible option considering our love for creating massive structures. We will have transitioned to 100% alternative energies, primarily wind and solar energy. Studies have shown that we can sustain ourselves on these technologies and an addition of secondary alternative energy sources, such as tidal, hydroelectric, biomass and geothermal, will only add to our reserves. Our air will be cleaner as a result, we will be healthier as a result and life will be more pleasant as a result. Our cars will look different - there may no longer be large pickup trucks or gas guzzlers - and some may say, "That Ain't American!". I say, "Oh well." Cars will most likely run on hydrogen, biomass, or solely on electricity. Finally, our people and government will have dropped all worries about interest groups running certain aspects of the government. They will place high priority on environmental issues to the point where all legislation will be checked to ensure it does not place harm on the environment and the people. Sustainability will be what our nation is driven on. Everyone should be healthier, rich nations will have the capacity to help developing nations transition towards our cultural changes and we may actually live in a world that is able to support life, protect the environment and promote economic growth. 

An ideal world by an environmentalist's standards. 

Unfortunately, it is too good to be true - probably. 

The future will most likely be a mixture of the two. It depends on us to decide which points from each path will be included in our future society, though. We can live in a world that leans more towards Future Two than Future One, or vise-versa. I truly believe that we are capable of transitioning into a world like Future Two, and I hope that we do. It will take strong-handing by the government, education and cultural and societal changes, but it is possible. 

We currently have a handful of politicians leading the way in our federal government to combat climate change and promote sustainable practices. Among them is Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). As a proponent of the environmental movement, Senator Sanders has advocated for environmental awareness, alternative energy production and climate change action during his 20 year tenure on Capitol Hill. He states, "Unless we take bold action to reverse climate change, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to look back on this period in history and ask a very simple question: 'Where were they? Why didn't the United States of America lead the international community in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and preventing the devastating damage that the scientific community was sure would come?'"

This thought can be applied, not just to climate change, but sustainability as a whole. The coming generations will look back, if no action is taken, as blame us for leaving them with a deteriorated and dead environment, scarce water, scarce natural resources, polluted air, and a struggling economy as a result of all of this. It is not what I want and it is not what you should want, either. 

WE can be the difference that the future depends on. WE can lead the way if our government refuses to or is influenced by special interest groups. It is OUR future to shape. One person can create the idea, but it will take the effort of millions to make the changes that are necessary. This is not a new idea, our nations leaders have been promoting environmental consciousness since the creation of our nation. This is an idea that will determine our future. 

To look back, today is a day for recognition; for conservation; for awareness; for preservation; for remorse. Today is a day upon which we look back and critique our actions and question the avenues that we will take in the future. Today is a day that we look around and take in the beauty of nature. Today is a day that we stop and realize that we are not superior and that we all come from the same place and can be taken by our creator. Today is a day that we give back to our environment from which we have so selfishly taken. Today is a day that we educate others - whether it be our children, family, friends or strangers - in order to maintain some sort of hope for generations to come. Today is Earth Day.


"I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future."
- President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Power for the Future

My friend Matt sent me this video the other day. I've heard of supercapacitor batteries before, but recently, a few scientists have developed a sustainable battery that can very easily be the power source of the future once it is perfected.

Give it a watch and leave some comments on what you think this battery could be used for now and in the future!



The Super Supercapacitor | Brian Golden Davis from Focus Forward Films on Vimeo.

Sea Level Rise in New Jersey: The Effects that it has on the State and its Peoples

Abstract

This paper will discuss sea level rise along the Mid-Atlantic, specifically New Jersey.  A state ravaged by Hurricane Sandy, climate change and sea level rise has become a heavily discussed topic within the state and the local and state level.  Many New Jerseyan’ s have neglected to even think about this issue, but after the disaster that has caused billions of dollars in damage, climate change and sea level rise have taken the reigns as one of the most talked about issues in my home state.  I will also discuss recent studies that have discovered new estimates in sea level rise in New Jersey, as well as possible solutions to the problem and what the future may look like for New Jersey, the Mid-Atlantic and the world as a whole.

Introduction

New Jersey is my home state and I have spent most of my childhood and every summer at the Jersey Shore.  I have countless memories of waking up early to go to the boardwalk for breakfast with my family, going to Surf Street beach during the days, riding my first surfboard, the amusement parks at night and the saltiness in the air that one will always remember.  These memories were not exclusively mine, but were shared by millions of families. 

Other than the popular MTV show, “Jersey Shore”, New Jersey is well known for many other things: accents, its pristine beaches and nationally rated coastal communities, Wawa (a convenience store), a corrupt state government, Bruce Springsteen and of course, its population.  New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation.  As of now, there are currently 8.8 million people living there (Census, 2012).  Of that, as of 2012, 5.5 million people live in the coast counties, which make up 11 of its 21 total counties  (Census, 2012).

Hurricane Sandy brought many things to the New Jersey and the Mid-Atlantic: widespread devastation, coastal erosion, immense flooding, power outages lasting weeks, and hundreds of families that lost their homes.  All of this added up to tens of billions of dollars in damage.  Of course, there is one thing that cannot be labeled with a price, the loss of 100 plus lives. 

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, climate change has been a heavily discussed topic in politics, the media and by many New Jerseyan’s.  For as long as I can remember, sea level rise and climate change were rarely ever talked about in my state, at least among the citizens.  In the past few months, not only are more people discussing climate change, but they are demanding action be taken by Governor Chris Christie and President Obama.  Unfortunately, climate change is not a new phenomenon and the call for action may be coming a tad too late.  With UN and independent research constantly being done on climate change and the sea level rise that will occur as a result, it seems as if possible scenarios continue to look worse than the previous models. 

Data and Methods

New Jersey is a relatively low-lying state, and is very low lying in the Southern half of the state where the famous Pine Barrens are located.  Most living in New Jersey know that the Pine Barrens, known as “Pinelands”, is the largest pine barren complex in the world ("New Jersey Pinelands.", 2012), but not many know exactly how the Pine Barrens were formed.  The soil, that early settlers found to be nutrient-poor, was deposited on the ocean floor during the Miocene period 13-15 million years ago ("Pinelands Soil Background.", 2012).  At a time when sea levels were much higher, most of, if not all of, New Jersey was under water.  The true significance of the Pine Barrens is the sandy topsoil that resembles the beaches just miles away and that plays an imperative role in the filtration for the aquifer that lays just beneath it (“Pine Barrens…”, 2012).  Geologists and climatologists believe that this formation was created Pleistocene Epoch.  During this period of time, there were multiple glacial expansions and recessions.  As glaciers moved south, they carried grounded sediment and sand from the north.  Due to a terminal moraine that runs horizontal across Southern New Jersey, this sediment carried by the glaciers was deposited in the area now known as the Pine Barrens (Sheridan, 2005).  This formation plays an integral role in the climate change effects currently taking place in New Jersey, as well as the significant sea level rise that could follow. 

Since the early to mid-1900’s, New Jersey saw a population boom; after World War II, people flooded to the barrier islands in search of beachfront properties.  During this period, the towns of Ocean City, Sea Side Heights, Atlantic City, Long Beach Island and Cape May, were developed and from then on, would forever change the socio-economic status of New Jersey.  In addition, unforeseen environmental and ecological barriers were developed.

Barrier islands are natural geologic formations developed from the erosion of beaches over hundreds of thousand of years.  With time, barrier islands actually move closer and away from the shores of the coastline.  This process is called barrier island migration.  Barrier islands’ main purposes are to shield the coastline from violent storms, such as hurricanes, that may threaten the coast.  As humans develop on these islands, they not only put themselves at risk of violent storms, which is what was seen with Hurricane Sandy, but they also prohibit the natural process of barrier island migration with the constant dredging of beaches to prevent erosion. 

As climate change progresses and the earth gets warmer, ground ice will melt and make its way into the ocean, causing global sea levels to rise.  Science proves that this is inevitable, but what is unknown is by how much seas will rise.  For a low-lying state such as New Jersey, as well as for the majority of the states in the Mid-Atlantic, it is quite easy to understand what sea levels were like hundreds of thousands of years ago, which can be used to project what may happen in the future.  The Pine Barrens prove to be a useful tool for scientists as this area was underwater just a few thousand years ago. 

Sea level rise, environmentally speaking, is one of the top threats to New Jersey.  With over half of its population living in the coastal communities, and with over 1 million people living on the barrier islands, natural disasters, like Hurricane Sandy, have sparked the government to plan for climate change and sea level rise.  In a recent article published by Nature Climate Change titled “Sea versus Senators”, author Leigh Phillips discusses a startling find that scientists have found recently that may be reason to take sea level rise seriously in New Jersey.  According to Asbury Sallenger, an oceanographer for the United States Geological Survey in St. Petersburg Florida, sea level rise along the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States is rising at a rate 3 to 4 times greater than the global average (Phillips, 2012).  Specifically, Sallenger noted that since 1980, the sea level for the Mid-Atlantic (between North Carolina and Massachusetts) has risen 2.0 – 3.7 centimeters (3/4 to 1.5 inches).  Sallenger believes that these increased rates of sea level rise could be to changes in the North Atlantic Gyre, a circular rotation of water caused by numerous currents in the North Atlantic.  With more freshwater entering the North Atlantic, the changes that this freshwater could cause to the North Atlantic Oscillation may result in a weakening of the Gyre causing sea level rise which may be higher than the global average.  He also states in his piece, “These low levels could rise with warming and/or freshening of surface water in the sub-polar north Atlantic, where less dense water inhibits deep convection associated with the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC). The AMOC weakens and pressure gradients along the North American east coast decrease, raising sea levels” (Sallenger, 2012).  At this rate, Sallenger believes that the Mid-Atlantic could see a 30-centimeter addition to the already one meter global average sea level rise by 2100.  This 1.3 meter, or 4.25 foot, rise would inundate the many of the barrier islands, as well as much of the coastal counties of New Jersey. 

This of course is one model out of the thousands that are run every year.  The United States Environmental Protection Agency also released a study in which they provide a “best-case” and “worst case” scenario for climate change, temperature change and sea level rise.  They calculate these models based off of possible carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming during our lifetime, emissions from the present until 2100.  Based off of the carbon emission trend from the 1960’s into the 1970’s and a continuation of lower levels of carbon emissions, the United States could expect to see an average temperature increase of 4-6 degrees Fahrenheit, with a 6-10 degree increase in Alaska.  In the higher-level emissions model, the entire country will see an 8-10 degree increase with all of Alaska experiencing a 10+-degree increase by 2100 (EPA, 2012).  Similar results are found when these measurements of emissions are applied globally.  Low-level emissions will result in a 6-10 degree increase for much of the Northern Hemisphere and an 8-10+ increase using the high-level emissions model.  Something not shown in these models was ice melting from the regions of Greenland, Antarctica and other glacial formations.  In these regions, using low level emissions testing, Greenland and the northern part of the North Hemisphere would see an 8 degree average increase by the end of the century and a 5 degree increase in Antarctica.  These temperature increases are significantly different when applied to the high emissions test in which Greenland and the northern part of the Northern Hemisphere would see a 10-14 degree increase and Antarctica would see an 8-10 degree increase.  As a result of the high level model, in which nations such as China and India would continue to emit continuously higher levels of carbon-dioxide and the United States and the other top 10 emitting nations would barely cut back emissions or stay on pace with current emissions, the average 1 meter global rise in sea level could turn into a 6 meter (~20 feet) rise if just Greenland were to loose most of its ice and an unimaginable 60 meters (~200 feet) should Antarctica lose all of its ice.  This is the worst-case scenario (DOSEWPC: AAD, 2008).  Of course if all of Antarctica were to melt, all of Greenland, as well as all frozen ground ice, would melt as well.  Scientists are not ruling this out, but do consider this to be highly unlikely to happen by the end of the century.  But on a continuation of the current societal path, this scenario very well could happen at some point into the next century.  Should this happen, not only would the entire state of New Jersey be hundreds of feet underwater, the entire map of the world would have to be redone and almost every metropolis in the world will be gone, displacing billions of people inland

Aside from the apocalyptic scenario just presented, New Jersey would be still be severely threatened by the more likely, and expected, 2-4 meter rise in sea level by 2100.  Inundated regions will cause billions of dollars in damage as well as forcing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people from their homes forcing them to relocate.  Geology.com has produced a model to show how sea level rise would affect New Jersey by showing the flooding that would incur from different rises in sea level from 1m to 60m.  Figure 4 shows New Jersey at present sea level and what the state would look like from a 4-meter rise in sea level, which is on the higher end of the more likely scenario.  In addition to the inundation of the barrier islands that would be uninhabitable, the inlet regions of the state in major population hubs – such as Toms River, Brick, Galloway Township, Egg Harbor Township, Camden, Gloucester City, Hoboken, Wall Township, Red Bank and Perth Amboy – would all suffer heavy flooding (Tingle, 2012).  A very concerning aspect of this sea level rise is the possibility of the flooding of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant in Southern New Jersey.  This power plant lies on the Delaware Bay and would be entirely underwater should a 4-meter rise in sea level occur.  Aside from a shutdown of a major source of energy for this area, there is the obvious concern of the safety hazards when nuclear power plants flood with seawater – as we saw in Fukushima.   

Results and Recommendations

Governor Christie and his administration are working intensively with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to begin to prepare vulnerable regions of the state for sea level rise and other side effects of climate change that may threaten New Jersey.  In 2008 the current Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson (the then Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection) created the Office of Climate and Energy under her department and began to address climate change concerns facing her state (Mauriello, 2009).  This office enforces the New Jersey Global Warming Response Act and Global Warming Solutions Fund Act, signed into effect in 2007, which address the call for carbon-dioxide emission reduction to 1990 levels by 2020, an 80% reduction in emissions from the 2006 levels by 2050, and increased usage of alternative energy resources creating “green” jobs.  Unfortunately, this plan does not answer sea level concerns, nor would New Jersey’s carbon emissions reduction have any significant impact on global levels. 

Recently, there has been talk within the state governments of New Jersey and New York about the halting of development on these barrier islands and areas vulnerable to sea level rise.  The New York Times spoke with Dr. Norbert P. Psuty, a professor at the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University in New Jersey, in which he states, “We can avoid damage like that of Hurricane Sandy if we encourage people to move and discourage further development” (Psuty, 2012).  While politicians have been hesitant to listen to scientists for economic development tips over the years, they have been more accepting of their advice recently.  In New Jersey, advice, such as that given by Dr. Psuty, is being considered more than possible economic benefits of development in these areas.  Some believe that the damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy was not due to sea level rise; while this may be true, the flooding that resulted in most of the damage can shed light on what future flooding from sea level rise could do to the state.  The main difference is that unlike the hurricane flooding, the water from sea level rise would not recede. 

One of the main concerns by developers and scientists is the development of communities on the barrier islands.  As stated, over 1 million New Jerseyan’s live on the barrier islands that line more than 3/4 of the coastline.  After Hurricane Sandy, those living in the state saw first hand what heavy flooding could do to these areas.  In a recent post on my website, Worn Trails, I recommended that New Jerseyan’s living here should seriously consider relocating and moving inland.  While the idea of living just minutes from the beach is ideal for some, the rising seas and permanent inundation of this area may outweigh the benefits of staying put (Clementi, 2012).  Barrier islands were never meant to be inhabited.  Their natural responsibilities are hindered and weakened as development continues.  With over 200+ years of development, cultivation and dredging, barrier islands have not been able to perform their duties and in some ways are becoming more dangerous than helpful.  People are now at the front lines of natural disasters.  By the end of the century, millions of people will be displaced from their communities in search of new homes.  Many underestimate the seriousness of this situation.  As seas rise, the value of these homes will drop significantly; thus, the window for relocating and getting good value for ones home is closing.  Should people opt to stay put, they not only put themselves and their families at risk from the flooding that will occur, but they put the lives of others, such as first responders, at risk as we continue to see the “100 year flood” every year, as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo stated after Hurricane Sandy (Sledge, 2012). 

This is a large task to ask more than one million people to do.  The economic benefits that these islands and low-lying areas provide to New Jersey may very well be irreplaceable.  The tourism industry brings billions of dollars each year to this state, not to mention the hundreds of billions of dollars in real estate that lines the coastline that provide billions more in tax revenue.  This issue was once an economic and political issue that was put off for years, and often viewed as a ridiculous consideration.  But as always, it usually takes a disaster to force those in power to reconsider.  After Hurricane Sandy, the possibility of relocation is slowly becoming more accepted, but it will be the task of convincing these citizens to pack up and leave the communities, in which many have lived their whole lives, that will prove to be the most difficult.  While there are still decades until the impacts of sea level rise start to threaten people’s homes and lives, the time for preparation is now.  In discussing this issue with many of those that I know that live on these barrier islands, the general consensus amongst them is that they are not overwhelmingly concerned with sea level rise at the moment.  Some do not believe that where their homes currently sit could be under water by the time many of them are in their later years in life.  Those that do realize that sea level rise will happen and will inundate the areas in which they live believe that there is still time before any precautions or relocations need to take place, and some are optimistic about the idea that governments and scientists may be able to reverse the effects of climate change or develop ways to shield coastal communities from sea level rise. 

Conclusion

Sea level rise is not isolated to just one part of the world, as water is added to the oceans from the melting of ground ice – such as Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers all over the world - every coastal region will be impacted.  Due to changes in oceanic processes, the geological composition of the coastlines, and underwater bathymetry of the shoreline, some regions of the world will experience more detrimental sea level rises than others.  With population set to increase three billion people to a total of ten billion by 2100, according to the UN, New Jersey’s population is also on track to increase (United Nations, 2011).  More people now live towards near the coast instead of the regions in the center of the majority of countries.  That is no different in New Jersey.  With more than half of the close to 9 million people living in its 11 coastal counties, the majority of its population faces serious changes in the near future. 

New Jersey relies heavily on the tourism that coastal communities provide to the millions of visitors each summer, the tax revenue that the real estate provides and the energy resources, such as the Salem Nuclear Power Plant that provides millions with electricity.  For many decades, climate change and sea level rise was not considered at the government level, but within the last few years, steps have been taken to prepare the state and its peoples for disastrous situations that may occur as a result of coastal flooding from sea level rise, or violent storms as a result of the warming coastal waters.  Thanks to breakthroughs in technology, climatologists, politicians and developers can use extremely accurate models that have the ability to predict what may happen in a number of scenarios showing sea level rise.  This technology is being put to use every day to test different variables that may change the outcome or prediction of climate change and sea level rise in the future.  While many are apprehensive about the thought of relocating to higher ground, this idea is becoming accepted my more people living in vulnerable areas of the state. 

Many different organizations have conducted studies that show variations in the extent to which sea levels will rise in this region.  The recently released study by Asbury Sallenger is proving to be one in which many scientists and politicians are accepting.  With new information showing the sea level is rising 3 to 4 times faster in this region than the global average, the focus now points to politicians and how they will handle this situation.  There is no more room for political gridlock or economic cost benefit analyses; the general consensus of the science community that seas will rise by a meter or more by 2100 needs to be the only factor that politicians consider when planning for the future development and status of their state.  

Law, Society and Climate Change

 In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, there has been a significant increase and focus on an issue, that for decades, has been a subject of controversy and divide – climate change.  Since the 1970’s, climate change and climate research has been the backbone of monumental environmental legislation, political and legal tensions and caused a push, both foreign and domestic, to act on this process that could have detrimental effects on the global society.  This paper will consist of peer-reviewed information about how societal factors, as well as legal factors play a role in the action, and inaction, of climate change.   Each of the four main legal theories – positivism, realism, natural law and formalism – all offer a different viewpoint on the legal and political influences of climate change legislation.  By using these legal theories and applying them to Massachusetts v. EPA (arguably the most important case yet as it relates to climate change), one will have a better understanding of how these theories can not only play a role in the courts, but also in the mindset of everyday peoples and politicians.

In 2007, the United States Supreme Court announced their 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.  This suit was brought against the Environmental Protection Agency not only by Massachusetts, but also eleven other states and a number of organizations, municipalities and political territories.  In addition to the Environmental Protection Agency, defendants also included ten states, a number of automobile organizations and pro fossil fuel firms.  With this decision, the Supreme Court would now make it mandatory for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, but more importantly as a pollutant (549 U.S. 497, 127 S.Ct. 1438).  The Supreme Court Justices – J. Scalia, J. Stevens, J. Kennedy, J. Souter, J. Thomas, J. Ginsburg, J. Breyer and J. Alito – each with there own preferred legal theory to interpret the law, contributed in different ways to each opinion (Horwitz, 1975).  With certain Justice’s more vocal about their preferred legal theory (for example, Justice Scalia is known to be a Formalist), each brought forth specific and important interpretations of the requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency and how they should, or should not, handle carbon dioxide.

Aside from the judiciary opinions having to do with climate change and Massachusetts v. EPA, there is also a very important political aspect that influences its mission and implementation.  When the Environmental Protection Agency was created under the Nixon Administration in 1970, Congress “has ordered the EPA to protect Massachusetts (among others) by prescribing standards applicable to the ‘emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of motor vehicle engines, which in [the Administrator’s] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.’” (Percival, 2009).  Congress granted the EPA specific powers, none more important than to protect the health and wellbeing of humans.  In addition, Congress’ specific language that they include in bills or legislation creating a federal agency are imperative to the obligations of the agency, but also to the interpretations by any judiciary that may follow the agency’s creation. 

Before one can understand the judicial and legal factors of climate change, the social factors must be well understood.  At this point in our nation’s history, one could argue that the polarization in our nation is at an all time high.  Climate change is no exception, and this divide between “believers” and “non-believer” has been apparent for decades.  Skepticism may arise from any number of sources, but there is a strong belief that a large source of skepticism is politically driven.  When climate change science was first heavily studied in the mid to late 20^th century, there was a strong consensus among citizens, but more importantly, politicians, that action must be taken.  There was a strong sense of unification when it came to environmentalism and environmental concerns.  For the next few decades (from the 1970’s to 1990) there were many monumental environmental regulations and agencies that were created – Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, etc – and were highly accepted among Congress and the United States.  The tides changed with the Reagan Administration and into President George H. W. Bush’s Administration.  In this period of time, these two presidents were strongly opposed to environmental regulation, specifically regulations placed on fossil fuel production and regulations that could “hinder” economic progression.  In fact, The Jewish Policy Center (a think-tank aimed at Jewish Republicans) states, “Federal regulation was widely viewed as a substantial factor in the slow economic growth of the decade [under the Reagan Administration]” and goes on to say, “his [President Reagan] administration aimed to bring regulatory activity back into a proper economic balance” (Hayward, 2009). 

It was this era that stemmed the political and national polarization in environmental issues, specifically climate change.  As presidents and politicians began to separate themselves from one another, with some, taking a hostile stance against climate change, so did their constituents.  From the 1990’s to the present, polarization has increased exponentially.  Democratic Presidents (Clinton and Obama) tend to favor environmental regulations, and Republican Presidents (Bush, Sr. and Bush, Jr.) tend to oppose environmental regulations.  These trends are mirror images of the trends among Democrats and Republican Americans over the past 20 years.  Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), with recent environmental disasters – such as Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, horrific droughts, sea level rise, forest fires, etc – there has been an increase in those who not only believe that climate change is real, but that human factors are a leading cause.  Many of these same people are calling for government action to combat climate change; consequently, due to the political gridlock in our government, that seems to be a dream among the hopeful. 

Legal theories, such as the ones that will be discussed in this paper, not only can be used by justices or judges, but also by ordinary people.  Whether they know it or not, how a person interprets an issue or expresses his or her beliefs can most likely be matched up with one kind of legal theory.  There seems to be some sort of wiggle room, though; this idea is strictly circumstantial.  A person’s view is usually based on the outcome that they desire.  For example, in a matter concerning climate change action by the EPA, an activist in support of the law that the EPA must regulate all pollutants would most likely take a liberal, contextual legal theory approach.  On the other hand, someone opposed to this action would look to the conservative, text-based approach.  This can be easily switched if the case were one in which those (the public) who took a text-based approach in Massachusetts v. EPA were presented with a case that they did favor – they would then, most likely, favor a broader, contextual approach in an effort to seek the outcome that they want.  Of course, this really only applies to the public.  Our justices and judges do not have the ability to pick and choose which side of the argument they want – they can only interpret the law for what it is and only what it is.  But what really is the law?  It is this question that draws the main issue in our judicial system and is the reason that main legal theories – positivism, realism, formalism and natural law – were created. 

Perhaps the most prominent and well-known legal positivist is legal philosopher, H.L.A. Hart.  Hart created a guideline system for legal positivists to follow that established two categories to determine what law is and how to interpret the same.  He first believes that law consists of two parts, primary and secondary rules; these rules are very straight forward – primary being “do” and “do not do” laws, and secondary being law making laws (for example the U.S. Constitution) (Koulish, 9/18/2012).  Next, he divides law into two parts: core and penumbra.  Core law needs no interpretation; “Do not litter” and “Do not dump hazardous waste into streams” are both examples of core law (Koulish, 9/18/2012).  Then there is penumbra, which is a little more in depth.  Penumbra law are ambiguous and are “resolved by judicial interpretation and look for ought statements” (Koulish, 9/18/2012). 

In general, legal positivism is not favored among those who are environmental activists, specifically those that are advocates of environmental protection, some even going so far as to call it the “the so-called tool of tyrants” (Nicholson, 1982).   This theory has, in many cases, gone against the ideals of environmentalism.  Many environmentalists, at least in modern times, believe that morality must be fully considered when interpreting environmental law, a factor that some, such as Joseph Raz – a world renowned legal positivist scholar -, believe (Himma, 2001).  When interpreting law, some believe a judge must consider the possible future effects of perhaps, a decision on whether or not to overturn a decision such as Massachusetts v. EPA, and the implications that the non-regulation of carbon dioxide could have on climate change.  Consequently, others have a different view towards legal positivism and environmental law.  Ming-Sun Kuo, an international environmental law scholar states, in the context of international environmental law, “given the absence of agreement on content-based criteria and of an agreed political theory, it is doubtful whether any approach to law other than legal positivism can provide a baseline acceptability for determining what is law” (Kuo, 2012). 

As it relates to Massachusetts v. EPA, a legal positivist would have ruled in favor of mandatory EPA regulation.  The language of the law clearly states that Congress empowered and expects the EPA to protect citizens from air pollutants that may be emitted by any sort of vehicle (Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007).  Being that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as made clear by the science community, the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide.  One benefit to the legal positivist theory in this case is the fact that a legal positivist would separate the politics from the law itself.  The political lobbying by fossil fuel corporations, that unfortunately have an influence on our elected leaders, would not influence a legal positivist.  By eliminating that factor, a legal positivist can more easily interpret the law as Congress intended. 

Oliver Wendell Holmes, at one time a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, was the focal point of legal realism.  Environmentalists would greatly prefer legal realism to legal positivism, if anything, for one specific reason: legal realism looks at the time and space of law, because it depends on the current state of society and current circumstance, thus taking the larger context of the issue into consideration when interpreting law (Koulish, 9/25/2012).  By using the current state of society, trends in the way society is moving, and common opinions, this theory is much more favorable among environmentalists.  At a time when climate change is among us, and already affecting many nations and peoples, a legal realist would take into consideration that there are strong environmental movements taking place in the United States and around the world where people are advocating for government action, stricter regulations and reductions in fossil fuel usage, when interpreting a related environmental law.  While some theories are criticized for considering morality, legal realism does not, but seems to find common ground.  At one point in time, legal realists were heavily criticized for how they interpreted the law.  Michael Green, a scholar at the William & Mary School of Law, states, “realists' rejection of legal rules was an attack on the idea of political obligation and the duty to obey the law.” (Green, 2005).  Legal realists do not believe that morality is relevant to understanding law, nor do they believe that conforming to political “obligations” is necessary, they will instead argue that interpreting current societal circumstances are relevant and very important when studying and interpreting law.  A legal realist would most likely vote in favor of a law, such as Massachusetts v. EPA, strictly because there was, and still is, a strong environmentalist push for the regulation of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide, due to its significant impact on climate change.  In addition, the fact that climate change was one of the main reasons for this law suit would probably be enough of a reason for a legal realist to rule in favor of this case; climate change is a serious threat to man kind and given that legal realists look at contextual matters, regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant would answer societal trends, but more importantly would answer the question of whether or not this “threat” is one that our government should begin to consider. 

Legal formalism, as viewed through an environmentalists’ perspective, is an adversary.  This legal theory is very text-based and offers no consideration to morality, nor any outside factor other than the law itself.  This negative view towards legal formalism is partly due to a famous formalist that currently sits on the United States Supreme Court – Justice Anthony Scalia (Horwitz, 1975).  Justice Scalia is notorious for his narrow-minded, anti-environmental opinions that favor conservative ideologies and a text-based approach to interpreting laws.  Legal formalists will tell you that this system is autonomous and separates itself from politics and society, but a non-legal formalist can debunk argument by suggesting that Justice Scalia, in many ways, uses his conservative values in his work.  These conservative values include deregulation, anti-environmental opinions, increased fossil fuel usage, etc.  In Massachusetts v. EPA, Justice Scalia presented the dissenting opinion and believed that the court had no jurisdiction to answer the question presented in the case: Should the EPA regulate carbon dioxide? (Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007). 

Morton Horwitz, an expert on legal formalism, describes legal formalism as a theory that is catered to support the “men of commerce and industry” since its creation in the 1800’s (Horwitz, 1975).  This same rationale still holds true today and is believed by many in the legal theorist field, politics and the public.  Today, men of commerce and industry would be stereotyped as conservatives; this is how much of modern society views these types of people and in many cases these men (there are now women that fall under this label) justify being labeled as this.  As it relates to environmentalism, an environmentalist would specifically point out fossil fuel executives and anti-environmental regulation politicians as the “men of commerce and industry”.  These men would look to legal formalism as favorable to their interests.  Justice Scalia is a great example because he has voted against almost every pro-environment case, and voted in favor of almost every anti-environment case, that has come to the Supreme Court.  Just as Justice Scalia voted against Massachusetts v. EPA, a strong argument can be made that any legal formalist judge would have done the same.  The strong implications of carbon dioxide regulation, to a conservative, is very much against their values and to them, would hurt industry and economic growth.  While this is a stereotype, due to the action, and inaction, of prominent legal formalists, many people give the formalist label to anyone that associates themselves with anti-environmental ideologies that many show in their judicial obligations.

The last of the four main legal theories is the polar opposite of legal formalism.  Natural law embodies the belief that law must be moral in order for it to be law.  Famed natural law theorist Lon Fuller formulated a system to distinguish that a law was actually law by running it through 8 points.  If it cleared these requirements then it is, in fact, law.  More importantly is the idea that natural law encompasses the theory that law is determined by nature and human nature – how things are supposed to be in society, not how others want things to be in society.  Natural law has been associated with common law, which has been mostly eradicated since modern laws typically have replaced and made common laws irrelevant.  This is a common misconception that Peter Byrne, a lawyer and professor at Georgetown Law School, discusses in his piece “Rising Seas and Common Law Baselines: A Comment on Regulatory Takings Discourse Concerning Climate Change”.  He writes that since common law utilizes older cases for precedent, they are “blissfully ignorant of the types of environmental harms” (Byrne, 2010). 

This legal theory is, arguably, one of the most relatable to environmentalists and the climate change movement.  A judge using natural law in the case Massachusetts v. EPA would look at the moral grounds of the argument and the natural and human impacts of climate change.  By doing this, they would come to the conclusion that it would be morally and naturally imperative for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide in an attempt to curb carbon dioxide emissions.  The impacts that climate change will have on our society would be enough evidence for a natural law theorist to understand that regulations are what is supposed to happen, but more importantly, what needs to happen for the betterment of society. 

With the current obstacles that humans face, environmentally speaking, of all legal theories, natural law may be the most important and could have monumental impacts on our society. Judith Koons, a professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, calls for Earth Jurisprudence, which she describes as, “a developing field that rethinks law and governance from an Earth-centered perspective”, and believes that Earth Jurisprudence has the ability “to guide the transformation of law and governance for the well-being of humanity and the Earth community.” (Koons, 2012).  With this type of thought process, Earth Jurisprudence seems to evolve natural law ideologies from legal theories into a fully functional system with the ability to sustain an entire society. 

These legal theories have been in practice for decades now, each being applied to the thousands of cases that are brought to our courts each day.              Whether it be the application of law to facts that positivists use, the circumstantial and real life applications that realists use, the text-based and conservative approach of formalism or the use of morality and human nature in natural law, all of these legal theories, in their own way, play an imperative role in our legal system.  Each has their uses and flaws and some are favored over others, but nonetheless, whether loved or hated, the combination of these legal theories through their uses in cases throughout our history are what makes our society what it is. 

But our society faces new challenges.  As our climates continue to change with each passing day, there is a sense of built up frustration amongst environmentalists, scientists, legal theorists, scholars and even politicians.  The want and need for climate change action is higher now than ever before in our nation’s history.  Many look to those in the legal field - whether it be lawyers, politicians or judges - for guidance and some sort of signal that action is coming.  Unfortunately, at least for now, that hope is being lost due to political gridlock in Washington. 

Society is becoming more aware of the adverse affects that climate change could have on it and our families, and there is a general consensus that something needs to be done.  There is no doubt that in the coming years, the legal theories discussed in this paper will be used in cases concerning climate change, carbon emissions, sea level rise, food crises, fossil fuel shortages, and socio-economic suits that may eventually be presented in court.  Whenever that day comes, the legal theories used by judges and lawmakers and the environmental legal actions taken now, will ultimately determine the state of our society and climate in the future. 

Bibliography

Byrne, Peter J. ."Rising Seas and Common Law Baselines: A Comment on Regulatory

Takings Discourse Concerning Climate Change" (2010). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. Paper 338.

Green, Michael S. .“Legal Realism as Theory of Law”. 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1915

(2005). <http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol46/iss6/2>

Hayward, Steven F. ."Ronald Reagan and the Environment - inFocus Quarterly Journal." Jewish

Policy Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2012. <http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/1409/ronald-reagan-environment>.

Himma, Kenneth. "Legal Positivism”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p. . 17 Apr. 2001.

Web. 3 Dec. 2012. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/legalpos/>.

Horwitz, Morton J. .“The Rise of Legal Formalism”. The American Journal of Legal History.

Vol. 19. No. 4 (Oct., 1975). pp. 251-264.

Koons, Judith E. .“At the Tipping Point: Defining an Earth Jurisprudence for Social and

Ecological Justice”. (2012). Loyola Law Review. 58 Loy. L. Rev. 349.

Koulish, Robert. "Hart-Fuller Debate." GVPT331: Law and Society. University of Maryland –

College Park. Susquehanna Hall, College Park. 18 Sept. 2012. Class lecture.

Koulish, Robert. "O.W. Holmes and Legal Realism." GVPT331: Law and Society. University of

Maryland - College Park. Susquehanna Hall, College Park. 25 Sept. 2012. Class lecture.

Kuo, Ming-Sung. “Inter-Public Legality or Post-Public Legitimacy? Global Governance

and the Curious Case of Global Administrative Law as a New Paradigm of Law”. International Journal of Constitutional Law. (2012). Warwick School of Law Research Paper No. 2012/07. 29 Feb. 2012.

Massachusetts v. E.P.A. 549 U.S. 497, 127 S.Ct. 1438. Supreme Court of the United States.

2007. Westlaw Academic. Web. 14 November 2012.

Nicholson, Francis J. .“Juridical Positivism and Human Rights By Mieczyslaw Maneli”. 5 B.C.

Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 489 (1982). 1 Aug. 1982. <http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol5/iss2/8>

Percival, Robert, Christopher Schroeder, Alan Miller, and James Leape. “Environmental

Regulations: Law, Science and Policy”. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2009. Print.