Abstract
Communication scholars and practitioners emphasize the need for scientists to reach out to the general public, the media, and policymakers. But one important audience is often left off of this list: judges. In this chapter, we describe a recent legal challenge to California’s climate policy, which applies life cycle assessment methods to evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of transportation fuels. In December 2011, a federal district court found that the policy’s use of life cycle assessment impermissibly discriminates against interstate commerce. The authors represented two groups of scientists on appeal before the Ninth Circuit, providing science-based arguments in support of the policy’s methodological approach. Using this experience as a case study, we identify strategies for interdisciplinary collaboration between the scientific and legal communities.
Abstract
Communication scholars and practitioners emphasize the need for scientists to reach out to the general public, the media, and policymakers. But one important audience is often left off of this list: judges. In this chapter, we describe a recent legal challenge to California’s climate policy, which applies life cycle assessment methods to evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of transportation fuels. In December 2011, a federal district court found that the policy’s use of life cycle assessment impermissibly discriminates against interstate commerce. The authors represented two groups of scientists on appeal before the Ninth Circuit, providing science-based arguments in support of the policy’s methodological approach. Using this experience as a case study, we identify strategies for interdisciplinary collaboration between the scientific and legal communities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
This chapter is adapted from Cullenward and Weiskopf (2012).
- 2.
EPA (2009). EPA also established that greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources in the United States contribute to the endangerment it identified, a related step required to regulate each category of emissions sources under the Clean Air Act. Following this finding, EPA established regulations for greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles in 2010.
- 3.
This case concerned the regulation of greenhouse gases under a separate section of the Clean Air Act that applies to stationary sources. The facts of the case are quite complex and concern a number of detailed aspects of administrative law; it could also be appealed to the Supreme Court. For an overview, see Danish et al. (2012).
- 4.
The briefs are available on the Ninth Circuit’s PACER document system, which unfortunately charges users for viewing these public documents. Digital copies are available from the authors by email, or from the Environmental Defense Fund website: http://blogs.edf.org/californiadream/2012/06/25/outpouring-of-support-for-californias-low-carbon-fuel-standard/.
- 5.
Cal. Health & Safety Code § 38550.
- 6.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, §§ 95482-95483.
- 7.
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 17, § 95486.
- 8.
The full model and documentation are available on the CARB LCFS website, http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs-background.htm.
- 9.
The one legal citation in this brief is to Massachusetts v. EPA, which discusses the same issue. In dicta, the Supreme Court’s opinion endorsed the argument that a particular climate policy need not by itself stop climate change; reducing emissions at the margin will “slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere.” 549 U.S. at 256.
References
Brief of Climate Scientists David Battisti, et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2006) (No. 05-1120)
Brief for Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Defendant-Appellants, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Goldstene, No. 12-15131 (9th Cir. June 15, 2012)
Brief for Michael Wang, Ph.D., et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Defendant-Appellants, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Goldstene, No. 12-15131 (9th Cir. June 15, 2012)
California Air Resources Board (2008) Climate change scoping plan. Author, Sacramento
California Air Resources Board (2011) California greenhouse gas emissions inventory 2000–2009. Author, Sacramento
Cayan DR, Moser S, Franco G, Hanneman M, Jones M (eds) (2011) California second assessment: new climate impact studies and implications for adaptation. Clim Change 109(Supplement 1):1–405
Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 684 F. 3d 102 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (per curiam), reh’g denied (D.C. Cir. Dec. 20, 2012)
Cullenward D, Weiskopf D (2012) Is lifecycle assessment unconstitutional? New frontiers in the legal battle over climate science. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, San Francisco, December
Danish K, Fotis S, Fink H (2012) D.C. Circuit upholds suite of greenhouse gas rules. Retrieved from Van Ness Feldman LLP website http://www.vnf.com/news-alerts-727.html
Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Life cycle assessment principles and practice. (EPA Publication No. EPA/600/R-06/060). Cincinnati, OH. Environmental Protection Agency, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009)
Graedel G, Allenby B (2002) Industrial ecology. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
International Organization for Standardization (2006) Environmental management – life cycle assessment – requirements and guidelines, ISO 14044. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 (1986)
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)
National Research Council (2011) America’s climate choices. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Nordhaus RR (2012) Modernizing the clean air act: is there life after 40? Energy Law J 33:365–404
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Goldstene, 843 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cullenward, D., Weiskopf, D. (2014). Science Advocacy and the Legal System: Is Life Cycle Assessment Unconstitutional?. In: Drake, J., Kontar, Y., Rife, G. (eds) New Trends in Earth-Science Outreach and Engagement. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, vol 38. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01821-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01821-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01820-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01821-8
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)