The U.S. Supreme Court heard five major environmental law cases in the term that ended last week and the environment lost every time, making 2008-2009 the worst term on record for environmental issues. Between October and June, the Court’s decisions:

• allowed the U.S. Navy to continue military exercises using sonar that threatens whales, according to many scientists and environmental groups;
• limited the liability of companies that are partially responsible for toxic spills;
• made it harder to challenge Forest Service regulations;
• cleared the way for mining waste to be dumped into an Alaskan lake; and
• enabled the EPA to use a faulty cost-benefit analysis process to weigh technology implementations or upgrades against adverse environmental impacts.

Business groups were generally pleased with the rulings while environmental groups were disappointed or, in some cases, outraged. Beyond the issues involved in these particular cases, however, is the larger question of whether the outcome of these five cases signals a shift in the legal perspective of the Supreme Court that may continue to jeopardize the environment.

Under the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts, who joined the Court in 2005, the Supreme Court has become increasingly conservative. And the addition of Justice Samuel Alito, who replaced Sandra O’Connor in 2006, has contributed to that trend. If Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed by the Senate, it will probably do little to change the Court’s approach to environmental cases.

With Congress and many state legislatures poised to pass a number of historic environmental laws—the kind that are almost sure to invite legal challenges—the question is whether the Supreme Court will ultimately advance or impede progress on key environmental issues.

Planning to take in one of those great fireworks displays on the Fourth of July? Be careful. Those fireworks may leave you and your family with more than a patriotic feeling.

Fireworks pollution litters the ground, contaminates water supplies, and rains down chemicals and heavy metals that contribute to a wide range of serious health problems. Perchlorate, which can interfere with thyroid function and metabolism, and may be detrimental to mental development in fetuses and young children, is one of the chemicals produced by the rockets' red glare.

Most researchers say a single fireworks display probably won't do you and your family serious harm, despite the toxins and heavy metals it produces--although the risks are higher for babies and unborn children--but repeated or long-term exposure can be a real problem for people who work around pyrotechnics.

Maybe it's time for a change in the way we celebrate our independence.
_{Photo by Getty Images}

About two weeks after refusing to disclose the location of 44 “high hazard potential” coal ash storage sites in the name of national security, the Obama administration has reversed course and published a list of the toxic sites for the sake of public safety.

Read more...

After decades of bad press, international outrage and government directives to clean up its act, the City of Victoria, capital of British Columbia, finally agreed to stop flushing raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, which divides the western edges of Canada and the United States and flows between the Pacific Ocean and Puget Sound in Washington state.

Earlier this month [June 2009], regional leaders approved a $1.2 billion plan to build four treatment plants to process the 34 million gallons of sewage that the 300,000 residents of Victoria and six neighboring suburbs dump into the Strait every day.

Environmentalists are cheering the long-overdue move, pointing out that untreated sewage contains toxic chemicals, heavy metals and other contaminants that pose risks to public health and marine life, including the region’s killer whales. Victoria’s neighbors in nearby Vancouver, BC, and in Washington’s coastal communities on the Olympic Peninsula and among the San Juan Islands are also happy about the plan.

Critics of the plan argue that the money is needed elsewhere and that raw sewage pumped into the strait is so quickly diluted and dispersed that it doesn’t need to be treated. Some scientists agree that sewage flushed into the strait poses only minor risks to the marine environment and public health.

But here’s the thing: Why should a modern city that bills itself as a tourist destination and the gateway to Vancouver Island’s pristine forests, waterways and beaches continue to function like a Third World village with no access to sewage treatment technology and processes? And how sustainable would it be if every city and town in the world took the same approach?

Victoria’s decision to finally take responsibility for its human waste is probably a long-delayed response to the BC government’s 2006 order for the city to develop a sewage treatment plan—or maybe public pressure and the ongoing protests finally got to city officials. In addition, the decision may have been motivated in part by the Winter Olympics, which are scheduled to take place in Vancouver in 2010 and sure to bring millions of new tourists to the region.

One thing is certain: Victoria isn’t going to win any gold medals for environmental stewardship or civic responsibility.

Also Read:

• Canada Takes Crap for Flushing Raw Sewage into the Ocean