Volume 54, Issue 2

Where is the environment in environmental law? People often assume that “the environment” exists only outdoors. Although seemingly benign, this assumption can affect when, how, and how effectively environmental law and policy address indoor and outdoor environmental quality. This piece identifies, explores, and interrogates the assumption of “outdoorsiness” that underlies environmental law and policy, and considers the source, sense, and implications of creating sharp legal and regulatory discontinuity between indoors and out. It concludes that excluding indoor environments from the bailiwick of environmental law is a mistake, influenced by subconscious psychological phenomena that obscure indoor hazard and by romantic but inaccurate accounts of humans as separate from nature. Expanding understanding of the human environment to encompass indoor and outdoor spaces can align legal treatment of the environment with the reality of the human habitat, while providing opportunities to more clearly, comprehensively, and effectively achieve environmental goals.

Within the current legal landscape, this Article makes the “business case” for more environmentally and socially sustainable animal agriculture by large corporate entities. First, the Article details the negative externalities associated with industrialized animal farming operations, including high levels of greenhouse gas emissions as well as water and air pollution. The Article then highlights the significant human health issues related to industrial animal agriculture as well as how big animal agriculture contributes to structural racism, and subjects animals and farm workers—who are overwhelmingly marginalized persons of color—to misery on a daily basis. Next, the Article points out that industrial animal operations potentially lead to greater incidences of food borne illness, antibiotic resistance, and the development of other novel pathogens that could facilitate the next pandemic or even bio-terrorism. Against the backdrop of these circumstances, the Article describes the federal government’s failure to adequately regulate industrial animal farming facilities, including under the Clean Air and the Clean Water Acts — both of which provide expansive regulatory tools. Alongside these federal regulatory lapses, the Article discusses and analyzes California’s Proposition 12 regarding humane animal housing and the recent US Supreme Court decision upholding
Proposition 12, as well as other state laws on animal farming. Ultimately, this Article proposes that our continued heavy reliance on these industrial “farm” operations, given the adverse impact they have on the environment, human health, and communities, does not make sense. The Article thus proposes a multi-faceted framework to address the adverse effects of industrial animal agriculture in the U.S., involving consumer pressure, media exposure, stricter federal regulation, and a massive corporate buy-in. The argument proceeds that there exist real social, environmental and even economic benefits for the U.S. economy to turn away from industrial animal farming as it exists today. To successfully accomplish this, corporate actors must recognize the “business case” for more humane and less intensive animal agriculture—albeit with the right to sell their products at a higher price.

 

COMMENTS

Federal public lands along the United States southwestern border are a platform for regulatory disputes concerning the proper management of natural resources, infrastructure, human activity, and border security. U.S. border policy in recent decades has been characterized by the criminalization of the immigration system, which has led to increased border enforcement on public lands. This increased enforcement activity impacts both the livelihoods of refugees and migrants coming to the U.S. across the border, as well as environmentally sensitive ecosystems. This Comment explores how U.S. border policy interacts with public land protection and examines the conflicting interests and mandated responsibilities of relevant agencies. It argues that the mission conflict between U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and federal land management agencies results in a systematic prioritization of border enforcement over the protection of public lands. This Comment also discusses the legal implications of a systematic prioritization of border enforcement, suggesting that the ultimate consequence of interagency mission conflict is the formation of a “monster crimmigrator,” exacerbating the crimmigration system.

Do Re Mi: Workers’ Inclusion in Environmental Justice