Ocean Garbage Patch: It’s Bigger than It Looks

Written for SIEL by:
Emi Kondo, 2014


Ocean Garbage Patch: It’s Bigger than It Looks

Last week, members of SIEL had the opportunity to watch Plasticized, a documentary that raised multiple issues with plastic pollution in the ocean. Though we never see the mythical “ocean garbage patch” in the film, members of the 5 Gyres Institute picked up small pieces of plastics in areas hundreds of miles from shore. Because the plastic degrades as it travels, the fact that these environmentalists found any plastic far from shore indicates that the plastic started as a significantly bigger piece when it left shore. If the plastic did not degrade, how much of our ocean would be covered with trash?

The film depicted the ocean cleanup efforts by the members of the 5 Gyre Institute. However, one of the members points out that these cleanup efforts can only alleviate the issue so much. Instead, we need to focus on preventing plastic pollution from entering the water. In addition, because marine species consume the plastics directly by mistaking it as food, or indirectly through dissolved plastics in the water, it may be as important to use biodegradable plastic that breaks down in water rather than in soil.

But what can we do on a daily basis to help? Reducing the amount of plastic used in everyday life is a good start. Bring your own bag to the grocery store. Drink tap water and carry a reusable water bottle instead of drinking out of plastic bottles. These changes may sound trivial; but such effort by many people around the globe can be a huge step towards eliminating the ocean plastic pollution.

As Climate Changes, will we Change our Temperament?

Written for SIEL by:
Andrea R. Herman, 2015


As Climate Changes, will we Change our Temperament?

If youve ever gotten mad at the rain, or felt like screaming as sweat drips down your face in a crowded coffee shop on a sunny day, you are living evidence that emotional turbulence matches periods of environmental turbulence around you. According to an article from TakePart, a study shows that interpersonal conflict and violence rise during periods of environmental unrest. The study suggests that there is a “surprisingly strong link between climate change and conflict on a range of scales -- from violent crime between individuals, to wars, and even the collapse of civilization.”

In the journal Science, UC Berkeley researcher Marshall Burke described a quantitative assessment made of 60 studies that showed a link between climate variables and conflict outcomes. All 27 of the studies that looked at the effect of hotter temperatures found that those temperatures cause more conflict; this research does not mean temperatures are the only cause of conflict, but the research is nonetheless indicative of a strong correlation. The study indicated that increases in temperature from present day until 2050 is likely to cause conflicts between ethnic groups and nations by as much as 56%, and interpersonal violence by as much as 16%. 

History evidences that climate has played a huge role in various conflict events. The collapse of the Akkadian Empire, sometime after 2,200 B.C., is considered to have been bolstered by prolonged drought. Domestic violence in Australia is linked to the unusual heat wave of 1992. Even hundreds of years of peasant rebellion from the 1400s to 1900s in China has been tied to the impact of continuous droughts and floods.

Of course, the study received criticism for its findings. One of the main disputes was over the study’s mistreatment of the subject-matter -- climate is not the same as weather. “Whereas weather is “atmospheric conditions over a short period of time, climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time.” Weather is what you live in, climate is what you predict. Nonetheless, the study’s researcher stated that "the relationship between climate variables and conflict shows up at a variety of time scales, from hourly changes in temperature to century-scale changes in temperature and rainfall."

Economic and humanitarian concerns must seriously be taken into consideration in assessing the link between conflict and climate change. "The costs of inaction are probably higher than we previously thought: "Our results suggest that rates of human conflict could rise relative to a world without climate change," Burke said. 

The evidence, even if only suggestive, tells us that it is time to act more diligently to combat climate change. 

What do you think about this evidence? 

Do you think it is obvious that climate effects our lives? 

Do you think our hormones or other physiological attributes change because of the environment and therefore make us more or less temperamental? 

Freedom of movement away from bad climates may limit conflict; if you have the means to move away from the rain, then you will be happier doing so. We must also consider those who are financially incapable of moving away from climates that make them unhappy. Will continuing environmental degradation resulting from climate change, as it already impacts impoverished communities (economies, resources, etc.), make those at risk even worse off?

Please send comments to siel@lclark.edu. 

¹ Douglas Main. Hot and Angry -- Yes, Climate Change Could Increase Conflict. accessed on 10/11/2013 at http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/10/03/hot-and-angry-yes-climate-change-could-increase-conflict.

Morgan the Whale

Written for SIEL by:
Joshua Fortenbery, 2016

Recently, several members of SIEL went to see Blackfish, a movie that asks how appropriate it is for highly intelligent cetaceans, such as orcas or dolphins, to be kept in captivity.  Blackfish follows the saga of Tilikum, an orca that was captured in the wild and eventually confined at Sea World. Since his capture, there have been several accidents involving trainers and even a couple deaths. However, the movie is about much more than the dangers of capturing “what you can’t control,” as stated in the film’s trailer. It is rather an inquiry into the morality of confining cetaceans at all, exposing the inhumane treatment the animals suffer when put on exhibition.

Unfortunately, Tilikum’s case is not a unique one, and though healthy young whales are no longer taken from their pods, there are still many controversies surrounding sea park operations.  A current case of great importance to the international legal community (particularly for those interested in the welfare of cetaceans) is that of the orca Morgan, discussed in Cambridge University’s Transnational Environmental Law. Arie Trouwborst, Richard Caddell and Ed Couzens (2013). To Free or Not to Free? State Obligations and the Rescue and Release of Marine Mammals: A Case Study of ‘Morgan the Orca’. Transnational Environmental Law, 2, pp 117-144. 

Morgan was discovered off the coast of the Netherlands in June, 2010, in a malnourished and fragile state.  She was rescued and nursed back to health by Dolfinarium Harderwijk, which originally stated an intention to return her to the wild, but has since transferred Morgan to Loro Parque in Spain. Loro Parque is a place very much like Sea World, and since arriving Morgan has been abused and scarred by the other whales.  The original justification for keeping her in captivity was a fear that she would perish if she wasn’t reunited with her pod. However, her pod has since been located with 77 percent certainty and the decision of Dolfinarium (and subsequently the Dutch courts) has been heavily disputed by a group of experts and activists that formed the Free Morgan Foundation. (Id. at 119-120).

The article analyzes the case by applying all relevant international conventions and laws, eventually concluding that the Dutch authorities made a legal error in their decision to allow the whale to remain in captivity.  However, this article is by no means authoritative and the case exposes the ambiguity inherent in many international treaties, as well as the discretion national governments have in applying such conventions.  One example of the problems inherent in international law was the application of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This treaty states that “stranded and captured [cetaceans] must, as soon as possible after their rehabilitation… be released in a suitable habitat as close as possible to the place where they were found.” (Id. at 126)  This sounds conclusive, but, as always in the law, there are exceptions.  If it is decided that a release is not possible then the animal may be permanently confined for the purposes of “research.” (Id. at 127).

This exception in CITES allows an enormous amount of flexibility in determining whether or not release is possible, and the case of Morgan seems to indicate that an animal can be kept in captivity even in the face of overwhelming scientific opposition. Furthermore, the court authorized the transfer to Loro Parque for the purposes of research and education, blatantly ignoring the CITES regulation which expressly states that research be the sole reason for continued confinement. (Id. at 128). In short, the Dutch authorities seem to advance the interests of Loro Parque and Dolfinarium Hardewijk above both scientific evidence and international law, as they will benefit economically while performing little, if any, research.  The case has yet to reach a decision on its merits, but until international agreements become more explicit in addressing the capture of cetaceans, we can only speculate as to what the final result of Morgan’s case will be. Fingers crossed. 

Sustainable Agriculture in the UN article

Written for SIEL by:
Andrea R. Herman, September 28, 2013

The UN Conference for Trade and Development recently reported in a 321 page document about sustainable agriculture entitled “Wake up Before it’s too late: Make Agriculture Truly Sustainable Now for Food Security in a Changing Climate”. The document consists of topics such as the range of benefits of locally developed plant varieties, carbon sequestration as social justice, and democratizing access to seeds and other products. The article argues for organic, low-input, small-scale agriculture as the best means for feeding the world and managing the stress of drought, rain, and other weather catastrophes that are brought about by climate change. Though the UN does not specifically endorse this document, having the organization’s logo on the cover of the publication carries significance. 

Two writers for the report, Miguel Altieri and Parviz Koohafkan, discuss a thesis regarding the importance of various forms of traditional agriculture found around the world. They argue for a focus on the history of adaptation, the ability of humans to adjust and adapt to the changing physical and material environment from generation to generation. Since our world will be reaching 8 billion, the need for adaptation is pertinent. Last year, the Director of National Intelligence’s Global Trend Report for 2030 singled out biotechnology as the most promising means for tackling climate change issues as the demand for resources increases and the supply decreases. Industrial agriculture, as Altieri stated, is not feeding the world -- “Most of what it produces is biomass, which is for cattle, biotech crops, and biofuels.” 

Altieri would rather see an approach to agriculture that takes into account the historical knowledge that we have gained over time. He bodes for the development of a western scientific approach based on the practices of other countries that have been pressed with agricultural changes and challenges.  The report also indicates a need to step away from a “green revolution” approach that was developed by Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug in the 1960s. His approach was indicated by the transition of Latin American and Asian farming to modern hybrid wheat and rice varieties that were grown with irrigation and synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The report critiques this approach, instead arguing for “ecological intensification.” 

The discrepancy between the two theories is only a means to change the conversation about how to approach issues of global agriculture. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is working to continue the Green Revolution approach, but also is keeping in mind sustainability and biotechnology. They are working toward providing farmers access to seeds that are affordable, giving farmers the option of what strategy to use in obtaining he benefits of innovative farming practices. Perhaps the real focus should be on how to widely implement these ideas. Is the implementation based on politics, science, morality, or social movements? We need to change our attitude about chemical production of food to adapt to the struggles of our environment to handle such production methods, putting the focus on sustainable practices rather than merely altering the chemical structure of the foods we grow.

Information gathered from: http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/09/23/un-report-says-organic-sustainable-agriculture-key-feeding-world?cmpid=tpenviro-eml-2013-09-28-inventions.

Palm Oil; what we can do

Written for SIEL by:
Emi Kondo, September 10, 2013






Harvesting palm oil in Southeast Asian has been a controversial issue for many reasons. The topic first drew media attention when the harvesting led to destruction of orangutan habitat in order to replace the natural forest with oil palm plantation. Many of these orangutan species, such as the Sumatran orangutan and the Borneo orangutan, are currently considered endangered. Habitat destruction makes these endangered species more vulnerable. Fragmentation of habitat not only reduces the natural habitat for these species but also allows easier access for hunters and traders. Many poaching occur in these areas because illegal pet trade is prevalent.


Recently, environmental groups have been highlighting another issue: effects of deforestation to the ecosystem. To convert the forest to a plantation, the palm oil industry sometimes sets forest fires to clear the forest. This practice clears the forest, but at the same time, burns many animals to death in the process. Also, scientists have warned about the effects of such practices because the forest fires increase the carbon dioxide emission, which contributes to the global climate change. Forests are large carbon dioxide sinks, and a plantation does not have the same capacity to sequester as much carbon dioxide as a natural forest. Lastly, the smoke from fire decreases the air quality in the area, affecting animal and human health.


In addition, switching from a forest to a plantation also reduces tree species diversity because the plantations use monoculture practices to maximize the profit from palm oil. For example, a state agency in Malaysia announced in July that oil palm plantation has driven a subpopulation of keruing paya in Peninsular Malaysia to extinction. The reduction of species diversity is problematic because a disease can spread far more quickly over a large area if only one species exist in the area; on the other hand, when many species occupy an area in a forest, different species can act as a buffer against spreading of a disease.


SIEL is starting a project this year to increase awareness of these issues on Lewis & Clark Law campus. Palm oil tends to be used in baked goods, lotion, and soap. We will initially target these products and ask the vendors to replace the item with a palm oil-free product. This project aims to eliminate any palm oil from the campus, as well as educate the students and the vendors on the current issues.

U.S. Solar Market Sees Record Growth; Trade Tariff Impacts Hurt Chinese Manufacturers

In 2012, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) approved of the high tariffs (24-36%) that the United States placed on Chinese solar panel manufacturers.  The ITC found that the cheap Chinese panels hurt U.S. solar panel manufacturers’ ability to sell their product. Gordon Brinser, president of SolarWorld America and leader of the Coalition of American Solar Manufacturing (CASM) supported this decision based on the idea that “with the [] support of the Chinese government, [Chinese manufacturers] have attempted to game the international trading system in order to gain a virtual monopoly on solar cells and modules sales in the U.S. market.” 

Industry analysts surmise that these low-cost Chinese panels majorly contributed to the increase of solar installations in the United States. A recent solar trade group report demonstrated a large increase in the solar market. A headline for the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) website reads “U.S. Solar Market Grows 76% in 2012.” President and CEO of SEIA, Rhone Resch, stated that solar panel costs dropped by 60% since the beginning of 2011. This reduction in price has resulted from a number of factors, but obviously relates to the recent glut of solar panels that Chinese producers dumped on the United States over the recent years.

While it is not completely clear what the long-term repercussions of the tariffs will be, the impacts begin to come to light. On March 14, 2013, the New York Times covered the above-mentioned solar trade group report alongside a story about Suntech, one of the world’s largest manufacturer’s of solar panels.  Due to the tariffs, among other things, Suntech faces serious cash flow problems.  The company’s financial straits are so dire, that it is rumored that the local municipal government (Wuxi, China) is positioned to take over Suntech.

The trade report and financial issues plaguing Suntech demonstrate that winners and losers will result as the United States turns to the modern solar age.  Analysts consider the Chinese tariffs to have little impact on the overall cost of solar installations in the US, and any increase in price will be tempered by cost reductions due to improved technology.  Also, regardless of price fluctuations in solar panel costs, the United State’s government continues to bolster the burgeoning solar industry through the extension of the investment tax credit through 2016.  

Written for SIEL by:
Scott Hilgenberg, 3L

The Global Shale Initiative - “Balancing Energy Security and Environmental Concerns”

On August 23rd and 24th, the US Department of State hosted the first ever Global Shale Initiative under the theme “Balancing Energy Security and Environmental Concerns.” Over 50 delegates from 20 countries attended the meeting prominent amongst them were China, India, Poland and South Africa. Also in attendance were the EPA and 12 other USG agencies, oil companies with the fracking technology. 

Shale gas is natural gas formed as a result of being trapped in shale formations. The process used to extract shale gas is known as hydraulic fracturing or fracking. Hydraulic fracturing has become a contentious environmental and health issue throughout the world to the extent that France, Bulgaria and certain states in the United States like Vermont have banned the practice entirely, while some other countries and certain states in the United States have placed a moratorium on the practice to have ample time to carry further studies for purposes of making an informed decision.

Proponents of fracking were claiming before that no evidence has been found to prove that the process causes adverse environmental and health effects, thus implying that the process is safe. They also claim that developing natural gas using this modern technology will reduce dependence on foreign countries, create jobs and help in reducing green house gases. Right now they are saying that with effective regulations, fracking can be done safely.

On the other hand, those who are against it claim that it causes serious environmental and health risk such as water pollution, air pollution, increase of green house gases in the atmosphere, earth quakes and so on.

Here’s what I think was wrong with the Global Shale Initiative:
- Though the Global Shale Iniative included Environmental Concerns in its theme, no environmental organization was invited. The State Department invited the EPA, which has no regulation specifically on fracking, meanwhile state agencies which have some specific regulation on fracking were not invited.
- Also, Poland was among the countries invited and encouraged to develop it shale reserves. Poland gets most of its energy from Russia, if it can develop its shale reserves, it will become Energy Independent and less control from Russia.
- Also, the oil companies were invited to talk about the fracking technology and after the conference India, China and South Africa have invested million of dollars in these oil companies to get the technology.

Written for SIEL by:
Eric Denzel, 2012 L&C Alum

Tickled to Death – The Rapid Demise of the Slow Loris

Few are stranger to the “cute animal video” phenomenon that has swept the internet (don’t lie—we all know you’ve watched Henri the existential cat ponder the true meaning of Christmas). In fact, some of you have probably seen the viral videos of an adorable, saucer-eyed primate being tickled or holding a tiny cocktail umbrella. This umbrella-toting tickle-fiend is called the slow loris, from the genus Nycticebus. Slow lorises are nocturnal, venomous primates indigenous to the rainforests of South and Southeast Asia. They can have an adult weight of up to four pounds, and a lifespan of up to twenty years. Unfortunately, the slow loris rarely survives long enough to see old age due to habitat loss and, to a much greater extent, the illegal pet trade.

Photo taken by Dr. Karmele Llano Sánchez of the International Animal Rescue

In 2007, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora listed slow lorises under Appendix 1, the strictest level of protection provided, which prohibits international commercial trade of slow lorises. Additionally, in 2010, the International Union for Conservation of Nature listed all five species of slow loris as either vulnerable or endangered “due to severe and persistent persecution for the pet trade.” But despite the laws prohibiting the slow loris trade, enforcement of these laws is lacking, and thousands of slow lorises are still poached from the wild and illegally sold for the exotic pet trade, for use in traditional medicine, and as bushmeat (meat from endangered animals).

Standard practices involve stealing infant slow lorises from their mothers (often resulting in the death of their mothers), transporting them in poorly ventilated, cramped wire cages that cut their sensitive hands and feet, and cutting or pulling off their teeth with nail clippers—a procedure done without anesthetic, to make them “better” pets. It is not surprising that 76% of captured slow lorises die from stress, poor nutrition or infection while in transit to pet shops in Japan and Europe, or to be sold on the streets of Indonesia. But not all slow lorises are sold as pets. Many are dismembered for use in traditional medicine as love potions, cures for leprosy, or to ward off evil spirits (note: they don’t work).

In 2013, three new species of slow loris were distinguished. Two species—N. bancanus and N. borneanus—had previously been thought to be subspecies of the Bornean slow loris, and a new species—N. kayan—was discovered. Prior to this split, Bornean slow lorises were considered “low risk” because they seemed to be somewhat common due to their broad geographical distribution. However, with the new knowledge that Bornean slow lorises are actually comprised of four separate species, they are now known to be at a higher risk of extinction than originally presumed. Furthermore, accurately identifying distinct species of slow loris is critical to conservation efforts because it is essential for rescue centers and confiscation authorities to release them to appropriate locations.

The proper understanding of slow loris speciation is just one way scientific research is key to conservation efforts and developing effective policy. The first meeting of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is now underway in Bonn, Germany.  Although the purpose of this meeting is primarily to agree on rules of procedure for the platform, it is a significant step toward bridging the gap between science and policy to preserve biodiversity in terrestrial, marine, coastal, and inland water ecosystems. Along with improved scientific understanding and increased public awareness, 2013 could bring some positive changes for our cute, nocturnal friends and other animals harmed by the illegal wildlife trade.

Written for SIEL by:
Jia Feng, 1L

2013: Will a New Year Bring a Stronger Battle Against Wildlife Trafficking?

Did you know that the illegal wildlife trade falls into the top 5 most lucrative illegal markets in the world?  Some experts say that the illegal wildlife trade stands in the top 3, with guns and drugs taking the top lucrative spots.  The trade in wildlife and parts such as ivory, rhino horn, and tiger bones funnels tens of billions of dollars annually into the hands of criminal syndicates.  With the poachers so well funded, it became a struggle in recent years for nations to fight the slaughter happening daily on their territory.

But the tide may be changing.  In the second half of 2012, the New York Times reported on the ties between Kony, a rebel militia leader in Central Africa, and elephant poaching.  Evidence showed that he began using ivory to buy weapons for his army.  Soon after, the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime finally recognized environmental crime, such as wildlife trafficking, as a form of transnational organized crime. This recognition may help spur valuable partnerships with national governments and Interpol, Crime Commissions, etc.  Wildlife trafficking has been rooted in international crime syndicates for years, but finally international bodies recognized this connection. 

Another exciting proclamation and recognition of the epidemic came from the US Department of State.  Wildlife trafficking caught the attention of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.  She gave a speech to wildlife conservations and leaders declaring the urgent need for enhanced global partnerships and financial resources large enough to fight the vast resources the criminals use to poach.  

Finally top officials and international bodies took notice of the staggering threat to wildlife worldwide.  But unfortunately 2012 saw the worst poaching numbers yet for elephants and rhinos (668 rhinos killed in South Africa alone).  Will 2013 be the year of change in this fight?  We can only hope that this new momentum will be enough to win the war.

Written for SIEL by:
Mandy Rude, 3L

International Regulatory Schemes for Eco-Friendly Pearls

A pearl necklace is the result of combining a fragile, environmental indicator species like the pearl oyster with a multibillion dollar international jewelry industry.  When an indicator species is the subject of a multibillion dollar industry, there are economic reasons to monitor water quality and ensure return on investment.  Since pearl oysters only produce gem quality pearls in the cleanest water, a pearl oyster farmer is motivated to maintain a pollution-free coastal habitat and to respond rapidly to environmental threats.  By implementing industry standards for the operation of pearl oyster farms worldwide, there is an opportunity to increase the positive externalities of pearl production:  cleaner water, healthier coastal habitats, and improved working conditions for indigenous people.

Since pearl oysters are filter feeders, they remove pollutants and heavy metals from the water, thereby, improving water quality.  But, when the pollution is greater than these filter feeders can handle, the pearl oyster mortality rate rises and the quality of pearls falls.  A pearl oyster farmer is financially motivated to respond to high levels of pollution.  The pearl producer must be able to work domestically to improve national waters and with neighboring countries to protect shared water basins. In particular, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] has developed national strategies assisting aquaculturalists in sharing industry knowledge and advancements with neighboring countries, and building cooperation in maintaining a healthy marine environment.  The FAO also calls upon individual nations to promote regulations and laws that will protect aquaculturalists, such as control standards for industrial or agricultural run-off water pollution, seepage from garbage dumps, and city sewage treatment.  These national strategies for sharing and cooperation are a way of encouraging nations to maintain a healthy coastlines and communication with neighboring countries regarding shared bodies of water. 

Today, pearl oyster farms are located throughout Australasia, the Middle East, and South America.  Many of these locations are remote and include environmentally threatened coastal areas inhabited by indigenous people with long-standing claims to the coastal resources.  The Nature Conservancy [TNC] has developed Marine Conservation Agreements [MCA] to negotiate mutually favorable contracts between large companies and small communities.  These agreements combine economic incentives with conservation commitments, and, use anthropological studies to assist in protecting the interests of the local people.  These MCAs are exemplified by the agreement between Atlas South Sea Pearl Company and the Kawe people.  

When a farm includes one of these MCAs in their business plan, the pearls cultured can be deemed 'green.' In this context an aquaculturist make use of  national strategies to strengthen national and international efforts to maintain a pristine coastal habitat. Because the pearl oyster is an environmental sentinel, the waters of the coastal area will be monitored by farmers invested in the health of the local environment and prepared to fight for the long-term health of that investment.

Written for SIEL by:
Heather Murray, 3L