Columbia Journal of Environmental Law https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cjel <div class="content"> <p>The&nbsp;<em>Columbia Journal of Environmental Law</em>&nbsp;was founded in 1972 with a grant from the Ford Foundation. The&nbsp;<em>Journal</em>&nbsp;is one of the oldest environmental law journals in the nation and is regarded as one of the preeminent environmental journals in the country. &nbsp;Our subscribers include law libraries, law firms, individuals, and federal, local, and state courts, as well as a significant international readership.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> </div> Columbia University Libraries en-US Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 0098-4582 Squashing the Beef: Why American Animal Rights Advocates Should Start Liking Jewish and Islamic Law https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cjel/article/view/9871 <div class="page" title="Page 1"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <p>Animal rights advocates in the West decry the mistreatment of animals, such as their use in experimentation and, most notoriously, factory farming. They identify the fact that animals are legally considered mere property as the source of these abuses. They also tend to view Abrahamic religions as responsible for this paradigm and in conflict with animal rights. The most flashpoint in this context is the battle over Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter. However, this Note argues, animal rights advocates mistarget their animosity. Jewish and Islamic law are quite favorable towards animals in comparison to American law, and while they obviously do not go as far as animal rights advocates would like in according rights to animals, they do cohere with modern animal rights views in several ways, such as by according animals a legal status distinct from mere property, subjecting the use of animals for food to heightened scrutiny, and providing more clearly for the enforcement of animal protection laws. As animal rights advocates and their opponents continue to debate the extent to which animals should be accorded greater legal protections under American law, these religious traditions show that the matters they are debating were considered and debated by Muslim and Jewish jurists thousands of years ago, and that, far from impeding animal rights, religious bodies of law constitute a positive example that can help advance them.</p> </div> </div> </div> Samier Saeed Copyright (c) 2022 Samier Saeed https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2022-06-05 2022-06-05 47 2 10.52214/cjel.v47i2.9871 Fusing Electricity and Carbon Markets in the American West: Can Organized Electricity Markets Bolster Cap-and- Trade? https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cjel/article/view/9872 <div class="page" title="Page 1"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <p>Efforts to “link” together several state or provincial GHG cap-and- trade programs to form a regional cap-and-trade initiative in western North America began in the early 2000s but never realized their aims. Now, emerging organized electricity markets in western states, includ- ing the Energy Imbalance Market, offer the possibility of integrating these markets with a regional cap-and-trade program to cut emissions at a low cost. This Note explains how a regional cap-and-trade program could be incorporated into the West’s nascent organized electricity mar- kets. It then argues that doing so could cost-effectively reduce power sector emissions, guide clean energy development, and alleviate incon- sistencies between varying state climate regulations. However, because of a phenomenon called “resource shuffling,” these benefits would not materialize unless all or most western states participate in the cap-and- trade program. To realize the climate benefits of integrating organized markets with cap-and-trade, climate-concerned advocates and policy- makers should therefore continue to aspire to a national cap-and-trade program or a regional program that attracts broad participation.</p> </div> </div> </div> Luther Caulkins Copyright (c) 2022 Luther Caulkins https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2022-06-05 2022-06-05 47 2 10.52214/cjel.v47i2.9872 Reading the Waves: Continuity and Change in Ocean Lawmaking https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cjel/article/view/9874 <div class="page" title="Page 1"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <p>During the last several decades the ocean has maintained its historically pivotal socio-economic and geopolitical role. Humans rely on the ocean for habitation and nourishment, energy and sanitation, migration and refuge, trade and communication, knowledge and meaninggiving, and the maintenance of global peace and security. Yet many who depend on the ocean are poorly served by what may be called “ocean law.” Moreover, the ocean and its resources are under acute strain through overfishing, the varied consequences of climate change and ocean degradation, sea-level rise, and the risk of marine infectious diseases, among other threats. This Article identifies widely-recognized deficiencies in “ocean law,” traces them to the design of ocean lawmaking, and draws on the latter’s history to point towards a path of democratic reform. Navigators are skilled at “reading the waves,” distilling insights about past and likely future events from ripples on the ocean’s surface. Similarly, this Article samples from the modern history of humanity’s relationship with the ocean to gain insights into continuities, changes, and dynamic elements in contemporary ocean lawmaking. The Article argues that keeping in mind, supporting, and leveraging certain dynamic elements revealed in this lawmaking arena can help democratize ocean lawmaking and accelerate sorely needed reforms in ocean law. Such reforms are needed because contemporary ocean lawmaking has produced ocean law whose main defect is not merely that it is patchy, <span style="font-size: 0.875rem; font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">uncoordinated, and often ineffective but that it is heavily skewed towards powerful actors with vested interests in the status quo. As a result, it has sidelined those who must bear the downstream costs of its lawmaking outcomes and placed at risk the very survival of the ocean ecosystem and those who rely on it. In turn, any reform of ocean lawmaking should give more power and voice to vulnerable coastal communities, victims of human trafficking, refugees, maritime workers, people deriving their livelihood from the marine economy, consumers, the scientific community, indigenous peoples, future generations, and the maritime ecosystem itself.</span></p> </div> </div> </div> Gregor Novak Copyright (c) 2022 Gregor Novak https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2022-06-05 2022-06-05 47 2 10.52214/cjel.v47i2.9874 Preventing Another Pandemic: How Changing the Legal Paradigm Governing Intensive Animal Agriculture Will Reduce the Risk of Future Zoonoses https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/cjel/article/view/9873 <div class="page" title="Page 1"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <p>The public health consequences tied to our relationships with animals are significant. The COVID-19 pandemic and previous instances of zo- onotic disease emergence and re-emergence have demonstrated that human relationships with animals can have a profound impact on our health. In the US, the most prevalent human-animal relationship is the one we have with the animals that we eat. This relationship is defined and facilitated by intensive animal agriculture, a practice at high risk of causing zoonotic disease emergence. This Article explores the current regulatory regime governing intensive animal agriculture and argues that it is deficient in the context of zoonotic disease. It argues that this deficiency is a result of the legal anthropocentrism that manifests in practices inherent to intensive animal agriculture and demonstrates that such an approach is unable to adequately manage the risk of future zoonoses. This Article argues for a regulatory approach that acknowl- edges the interdependence of humans, animals, and the environment. It proposes Wild Law as the most appropriate framework to address the risk of zoonotic disease and concludes that intensive animal agriculture would not be permitted under a Wild Law approach due to its inherent inability to operate within the context of an interdependent human-an- imal-environment relationship.</p> </div> </div> </div> Jane Kotzmann Morgan Stonebridge Copyright (c) 2022 Jane Kotzmann, Morgan Stonebridge https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2022-06-05 2022-06-05 47 2 10.52214/cjel.v47i2.9873