Could not load widget with the id 2575.

Up in the Air: Examining the EPA’s Proposal to Revoke California’s Clean Air Act Preemption Waiver

Eric Brandies

            The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that inundated coastlines, severe food shortages, increased poverty, intensified wildfires and droughts, and mass die-offs of coral reefs loom in the near future.[1]In early October, the IPCC issued a special report examining the “impacts of global warming of 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.”[2]The report found that the planet will begin experiencing the detrimental effects of climate change decades sooner than previously expected.[3]It asserts that governments around the world must make drastic changes to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to avoid such severe impacts.[4]In the United States—the world’s second largest emitter of GHG emissions—transportation now constitutes the single largest source of GHG emissions.[5]These findings show that the transportation sector constitutes an ideal candidate for more stringent emission standards.

Preserving Pollination: How We Can Establish Standing to Protect Our Pollinators and Why We Need To

Danielle Bradtmiller

In 2006, the “Beepocalypse” hit Hanyuan county of China’s Sichuan province, threatening the production of the area’s primary economic resource, pears.[1]  The use of pesticides had decimated the area’s native bee population.[2]  To keep their trees producing pears, the farmers turned to a new pollinator—humans.[3]This event is the worst case scenario for an area dependent on pollinators.[4]  Yet, the spotlight seemed to shift directly to the managed honey bees, Apis mellifera, and their demise.[5]The honey bee arrived in the United States in the 1600s.[6]  However, many other pollinators lived—and still live—in the United States.[7] Wild bees,[8]butterflies,[9]birds,[10]bats,[11]moths,[12]flies,[13]beetles,[14]wasps,[15] and ants[16]represent pollinators native to the United States[17]—versus non-native, and potentially invasive, pollinators.

A Bodega Cat in the Cat Cafe: How Local Market-Based Legislation Can Supplement Housing Codes to Preemptively Address Inequitable Gentrification

Cydnee Bence

Ownership is a tricky thing, especially when ownership causes displacement. The law is full of legal fictions imperfectly strung together to try and balance competing ownership interests.[1]Gentrification weaves together  legal ownership,[2]personal ownership,[3]and historical ownership[4]—making the problems associated with gentrification tangled, tightly wound, and tricky. Often home ownership, specifically whoowns the homes in a neighborhood, is where the gentrification debate takes place.[5]However, the gentrification knot cannot be untangled by only looking at one thread. Gentrification law and policy must consider the economic factors beyond home ownership to achieve fair, just, and equitable community revitalization.

Fans of Wind Energy: Legislating a Better Aesthetic Siting Regime to Encourage Clean Energy Growth

Patrick Leary

The energy sector accounts for 35% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, helping to drive the warming of Earth’s atmosphere.[1] This percentage will be reduced in the future as society embraces plentiful renewable energy sources.[2] This Note is based on the premise that increasing the ease of wind project development provides a global good by reducing GHG emissions.[3] However, one of the major barriers to installing wind capacity is concern over aesthetics.[4] Wind farms have a wider aesthetic footprint than traditional fuel-based power sources, being typically installed in senic areas.[5] Thus, opposition and challenges to siting decisions for wind energy are frequent and often based on aesthetic grounds.[6]

Dairy I Ask How to Improve the American Milk Industry by Breaking it Up Through the Antitrust Law

Serena Tang

The green grass, the happy cows, and the rolling hills of the classic American dairy farm are no longer a reality. The idyllic rural farm of the American dream is gone. In its place is the twentieth century consolidated American dairy industry.[1] Big dairy industry players like Dean Foods Co. (Dean) and The Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) are accused of creating this reality by pricing out smaller farms to make their empires.[2] These two giants are turning the American dairy industry into their personal monopolies and monopsonies.[3]

Seismic Testing to Expand Offshore Drilling and its Effect on Marine Mammals

Dayna Spero

Noise pollution is a serious threat to marine mammals and has become increasingly prevalent with modern technology.[1] Some of the lead causes of noise pollution in the oceans include: commercial shipping, sonar, and air guns.[2] President Donald Trump has proposed allowing five companies to use air guns in seismic testing as a method to expand drilling in the Atlantic Ocean.[3] These five companies filed requests with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to authorize the incidental take of marine mammals that may occur as a result of these seismic surveys.[4]

Strategies for Sustainable Management of Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge

Simonne Valcour

Living along the bottom of the seabed under immense pressure, with volatile temperatures, toxic minerals, and devoid of sunlight, is the ecosystem of deep-sea hydrothermal vents.[1] These vents exist where tectonic plates spread apart and magma rises.[2] They are created when seawater circulates through figures in the ocean’s crust and becomes super-heated by magma.[3] After the mineral-rich waters reemerge, the minerals solidify to form vents.[4] These vents are the homes of biodiverse ecosystems and valuable mineral deposits.[5] Thus, it is a target for scientific research, the biotechnology industry, and mining companies.[6]

Pleas Use Voluntariness “Magic Words” Test—The Vermont Decision that Misinterpreted Criminal Rule 11

Kaelyn Barbour

Imagine a case where a defendant is charged with crimes spanning three different counties—involving 16 counts of burglary, 9 counts of grand larceny, and 8 counts of petit larceny.[1] The defendant agrees to plead guilty and, because of this, the prosecutor drops the nine counts of grand larceny and eight counts of petit larceny—both the prosecution and the defendant feel this effect.[2] At the plea hearing, the defendant signs a waiver of his rights and gives a full and complete confession to police.[3] Later, after serving five years of his sentence, the defendant successfully challenges the sufficiency of the plea colloquy.[4] The court withdraws the guilty plea, but the prosecutor dropped the original charges based on the defendant’s plea of guilty.[5] That is the precise case at issue here.

The Reverse Side of the Coin: Looking at Bank Markazi v. Peterson through the Lens of Checks and Balances

Joseph Strain

Early in the morning of Sunday, October 23, 1983, two vehicles moved undetected through the streets of Beirut, Lebanon.[1] At 6:22 a.m., one of these vehicles, a yellow Mercedes truck brimming with 12,000 pounds of explosives, crashed into a barrack filled with sleeping United States Marine Corps peace keepers.[2] When the truck reached the center of the barrack, the driver detonated the vehicle.[3] The explosion that resulted was the largest non-nuclear explosion on the face of the Earth up until that point.[4] The devastating blast killed 241 United States Military personnel.[5] Minutes later, the second vehicle exploded, damaging the headquarters of the French peacekeeping contingent, killing 58.[6] The first explosion was the deadliest terror attack against United States citizens prior to September 11, 2001.[7] Few observers could have predicted that the victims and their families’ search for compensation would begin a ripple effect, leading some legal theorists to question the fundamental doctrines of the United States Constitution.[8]

Modifications to the America COMPETES Act Can Improve the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy’s Ability to Fuel Cleantech Innovation and Secure Funding

Suraya Williams

In 2007, Congress and the Bush Administration authorized an agency within the Department of Energy under the America COMPETES Act.[1] The bipartisan goal of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA–E) was to “encourage American innovation” through research and development within the energy sector.[2] Forming ARPA-E was a strong push for “cleaner, more secure, [and] more affordable energy”.[3] In 2009, the Obama Administration provided ARPA-E with its first major funding through stimulus legislation.[4] The next year, the Obama Administration put billions of dollars into research at the Department of Energy, ARPA-E, and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.[5] The number of clean energy innovations was at a steady incline for about five years since the Obama Administration’s substantial funding .[6]

Submissions The Vermont Law Review continually seeks articles, commentaries, essays, and book reviews on any subject concerning recent developments in state, federal, Native American, or international law.

Learn more about the submissions process >