Foreword: Making sense of information for environmental protection

Texas Law Review

Volumn 86, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1347-1363

  Kysar, Douglas A ^a   Salzman, James ^b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 50049129369     PISSN: 00404411     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. See, e.g., RICHARD J. LAZARUS, THE MAKING OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 19-21 (2004) (noting ways in which scientific uncertainty is endemic to environmental law).
2. JOHN GODFREY SAXE, The Blind Men and the Elephant, in THE POETICAL WORKS OF JOHN GODFREY SAXE 111, 112 (Houghton Mifflin 1882).
3. See, e.g., Daniel C. Esty, Environmental Protection in the Information Age, 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 115, 156-74 (2004) (describing advances in data collection, analysis, and dissemination).
4. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7413 (2000) (detailing the federal enforcement provisions of the Clean Air Act).
5. 42 U.S.C. § 11023(a) (2000).
6. John S. Applegate, Bridging the Data Gap: Balancing the Supply and Demand for Chemical Information, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1365 (2008).
7. Bradley C. Karkkainen, Bottlenecks and Baselines: Tackling Information Deficits in Environmental Regulation, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1409 (2008).
8. See generally J.B. Ruhl & James Salzman, In Defense of Regulatory Peer Review, 84 WASH. U. L. REV. 1 (2006) (discussing peer review as a principal demand of the "sound science" agenda).
9. See generally Wendy E. Wagner, The "Bad Science" Fiction: Reclaiming the Debate over the Role of Science in Public Health and Environmental Regulation, 66 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS., Autumn 2003, at 63, 87-109 (mentioning several of the likely negative results from such initiatives, including the reduction of the number and quality of studies, the chilling of scientific innovation, and prohibitive costs and burdens).
10. Thomas O. McGarity, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Migrating Hot Spots, and the Prospect of Data-Driven Regulation of Complex Industrial Complexes, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1445 (2008).
11. Christine Overdevest & Brian Mayer, Harnessing the Power of Information Through Community Monitoring: Insights from Social Science, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1493 (2008).
12. Mary Jane Angelo, Harnessing the Power of Science in Environmental Law: Why We Should, Why We Don't, and How We Can, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1527 (2008).
13. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370 (2000).
14. See generally J.B. RUHL ET AL., THE PRACTICE AND POLICY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW 433 (2008) (noting that NEPA's reliance on simple information generation and gathering reflects a "belief that government will do the right thing if it has all of the relevant information before it").
15. Alyson C. Flournoy et al., Harnessing the Power of Information to Protect Our Public Natural Resource Legacy, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1575 (2008).
16. Holly Doremus, Scientific and Political Integrity in Environmental Policy, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1601 (2008).
17. Daniel A. Farber, Modeling Climate Change and Its Impacts: Law, Policy, and Science, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1655 (2008).
18. See J.B. Ruhl, Regulation by Adaptive Management - Is It Possible?, 7 MINN. J. L. SCI. & TECH. 21, 31 (2005) (noting that agencies have not been able to use adaptive management because legislatures have not empowered them to - and interest groups have not let them - do so).
19. Lynn E. Blais & Wendy E. Wagner, Emerging Science, Adaptive Regulation, and the Problem of Rulemaking Ruts, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1701 (2008).
20. Sidney A. Shapiro & Rena Steinzor, Capture, Accountability, and Regulatory Metrics, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1741 (2008).
21. EPA, Envirofacts Data Warehouse, http://www.epa.gov/enviro (last updated Feb. 21, 2008).
22. OSHA, OSHA/EPA Occupational Chemical Database, http://www.osha.gov/web/ dep/ chemicaldata.
23. Scorecard: The Pollution Information Site, http://scorecard.org.
24. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2000).
25. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, June 25, 1998, 2161 U.N.T.S. 447.
26. David C. Vladeck, Information Access - Surveying the Current Legal Landscape of Federal Right-to-Know Laws, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1787 (2008).
27. See, e.g., Phil Reeves, Nuclear Whistle-Blower Goes on Trial, INDEPENDENT, Oct. 20, 1998, at 15 (describing the trial of Alexander Nikitin, a Russian naval officer arrested and charged with treason for revealing details of Russia's handling of radioactive materials from its Northern submarine fleet).
28. Timothy D. Lytton, Using Tort Litigation to Enhance Policymaking: Evaluating Climate-Change Litigation in Light of Lessons from Gun-Industry and Clergy-Sexual-Abuse Lawsuits, 86 TEXAS L. REV. 1837 (2008).
29. LOUIS D. BRANDEIS, OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY AND HOW THE BANKERS USE IT 62 (Richard M. Abrams ed., Harper Torchbooks 1967) (1914).
30. See Douglas A. Kysar, Preferences for Processes: The Process/Product Distinction and the Regulation of Consumer Choice, 118 HARV. L. REV. 526, 561-62 (2004) (mentioning that the FDA's justification for not requiring labeling of genetically modified foods is that the labels might be incorrect or misleading).
31. The complete document in high-quality viewing format is available at http://legacy.library. ucsf.edu/tid/trm65e00.
32. See, e.g., J.B. Ruhl, Prescribing the Right Dose of Peer Review for the Endangered Species Act, 83 NEB. L. REV. 398, 399 n.2 (2004) (describing the origins and role of TASSC).