Category Archives: Environmental Protection

Rockaway Beach Provides A Sad Example Of The Integrated Nature Of The Triple Bottom Line

Are you familiar with the Triple Bottom Line? First defined by John Elkington more than two decades ago, it refers to the principle that an organization should measure its social performance and environmental performance, and not solely its financial (or economic) performance. It is occasionally known as the Three P’s of performance, i.e. People, Planet, Profit.

But the principle can also be interpreted in a more complex manner. Each of these three performance factors impacts the others. Thus, the “bottom lines” of these factors should be reported in an integrated manner.

Last week, the City of New York sadly announced a community restriction that illustrates the integrated nature of the Triple Bottom Line. Due to the hurricanes and rising tides of climate change, severe sand erosion on the city’s southeastern peninsula has led to the closing of a prime strip of sandy beach in the Rockaways.

The decision occurred after local tourist businesses opened for the season. Residents, of course, have already begun to protest their government leaders’ decision.

In this situation, an environmental crisis has led to a social and economic catastrophe for a working neighborhood that relies on its primary community resource — i.e. its summer beach — for its survival.

The residents of the Rockaways will gladly attest to the integrative nature of the Triple Bottom Line. Hopefully, the municipal leaders of your own town will learn from the current travails of their New York City colleagues.

If Corporations Are People, Why Can’t Monkeys Be People?

It’s the Memorial Day weekend! As always, the holiday launches the summer vacation season in the United States.

It also marks the start of a heavy traffic period throughout America’s national park system. Throngs of citizens will drive their vehicles into forests, beaches, and other natural venues to enjoy the natural environment. And park rangers will struggle to protect the natural creatures from the massive invasive impact of tourists who come to visit them.

Earlier this year, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) explored an innovative legal strategy to protect one such creature. It sued in an American court to protect the rights of a macaque (i.e. a monkey) named Naruto to own his own image.

Why was that approach so innovative? PETA claimed that Naruto possesses rights that are normally attributable to humans. It then proposed to appoint itself to serve as the “Next Friend,” or legal guardian, of the animal.

PETA lost the legal case. But might it consider filing an appeal? After all, non-human entities have been granted various human rights in the United States.

No less a figure than Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, for instance, once created quite a stir by addressing the question of non-human rights. His declaration that “corporations are people, my friend,” was enthusiastically supported by his political allies and roundly denounced by his foes.

But if a legal business structure can be granted certain human rights, why not an intelligent animal? After all, humans and monkeys are both natural entities that are born of the Earth. We can hardly say as much about corporations!

This might be worth pondering as you enjoy the Great Outdoors during your Memorial Day travels. If you disrespect Mother Nature, its “Next Friend” may sue you!

Why Jurisdictions From Maine To California Are Questioning The EPA’s Definition Of Transparency

California. Delaware. The District of Columbia. Iowa. Maine. Minnesota. Pennsylvania. New York.

Those jurisdictions cover a fairly broad geographic swath of the United States, don’t they? Last week, they joined forces to send the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a simple two paragraph letter that questioned its fundamental understanding of science.

What did the letter say? In effect, not much. It simply asked the EPA to consult with other organizations and gather feedback about its controversial transparency rule. According to this new policy, the Agency will only rely on the results of scientific studies if the researchers make their research data available to the public.

Who can argue with the principle of open and freely available information? In principle, no one can. But in practice, many types of data are kept confidential because of valid privacy concerns.

Consider, for instance, a researcher who collects Protected Health Information (PHI) from individuals who live in the vicinity of a toxic oil spill. Under federal law, such information cannot be shared with third parties, and certainly cannot be made public, without consent.

In such cases, many individuals are willing to share health information with private researchers. But they understandably balk at sharing their information with the public.

And what of all the older studies that researchers still rely upon to develop new research activities? If the scientists who produced those studies have destroyed the original data in accordance with standard confidentiality practices, will the Agency begin to act as if the older studies never existed?

Whether you support or oppose the transparency rule, it’s reasonable to ask how the Agency plans to address these pragmatic issues. Indeed, would any one be harmed if the Agency slows down, takes a deep breath, and gathers more feedback before it implements the rule?