share |
---|
true |
Note: This page is created by Bing Chat using several prompts
Dark Waters is a 2019 American legal thriller film directed by Todd Haynes and written by Mario Correa and Matthew Michael Carnahan. The story dramatizes Robert Bilott’s case against the chemical manufacturing corporation DuPont after they contaminated a town with unregulated chemicals. It stars Mark Ruffalo as Bilott, along with Anne Hathaway, Tim Robbins, Bill Camp, Victor Garber, Mare Winningham, William Jackson Harper, and Bill Pullman.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of synthetic chemicals that have been widely used in various industries since the 1940s. They are known for their properties of being stain-resistant, nonstick, waterproof, and heat-resistant. However, they are also highly persistent in the environment and in the human body, and have been linked to various adverse health effects such as cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, immune system disruption, and developmental problems.
In recent years, there has been growing public awareness and concern about the widespread contamination of PFAS in drinking water sources across the United States. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), more than 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS-contaminated water. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued health advisories for two types of PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), at 70 parts per trillion (ppt) combined. However, many experts and advocates argue that this level is too high to protect public health, and that more action is needed to regulate PFAS as a class of hazardous substances.
One of the most prominent cases of PFAS contamination is the one involving DuPont, a chemical giant that produced PFOA for decades at its plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia. The company knew about the toxic effects of PFOA since at least the 1960s but failed to disclose them to regulators or the public. Instead, it dumped thousands of tons of PFOA waste into landfills, streams, and air vents near its plant, exposing thousands of residents and workers to high levels of the chemical.
The story of how DuPont's cover-up was exposed by a courageous lawyer named Robert Bilott is dramatized in the 2019 film Dark Waters , directed by Todd Haynes and starring Mark Ruffalo as Bilott. The film is based on Nathaniel Rich's article "The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare" published in The New York Times Magazine in 2016 , as well as Bilott's own memoir Exposure . The film follows Bilott's journey from being a corporate defense attorney who represented chemical companies like DuPont to becoming an environmental crusader who fought for justice for his clients who suffered from various diseases caused by PFOA exposure.
Dark Waters is a gripping legal thriller that exposes the dark side of corporate greed and corruption. It shows how DuPont used its power and influence to evade accountability for its actions while putting profits over people's lives. It also shows how Bilott faced tremendous challenges and risks in pursuing his case against DuPont for nearly two decades. He had to overcome legal obstacles such as statute of limitations , trade secrets , preemption , jurisdiction , class certification , discovery , settlement , appeals , etc. He also had to deal with personal sacrifices such as financial strain , family stress , health issues , professional isolation , death threats , etc.
Deepwater Horizon is a 2016 American disaster film directed by Peter Berg and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan and Matthew Sand. The film is based on the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It stars Mark Wahlberg, Kurt Russell, John Malkovich, Gina Rodriguez, Dylan O’Brien, and Kate Hudson. The film follows the story of Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg), an electrician who works on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, and his colleagues as they fight for survival after the rig explodes.
The movie Deepwater Horizon is a dramatization of the events that led to the worst oil spill in U.S. history, which occurred on April 20, 2010, when an offshore drilling rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and releasing millions of barrels of oil into the water for 87 days. The movie focuses on the personal stories of some of the rig workers who survived the disaster, as well as the technical challenges and ethical dilemmas they faced during the crisis.
The movie also raises some important legal issues regarding environmental liability for oil spills and other forms of pollution. In particular, it illustrates the concept of strict liability, which means that a person or entity can be held responsible for damages caused by their activities regardless of their fault or negligence. Strict liability is often applied in environmental cases where there is a high risk of harm to public health or natural resources.
In this blog post, we will explore how strict liability works in environmental cases, using examples from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and its aftermath. We will also discuss some of the benefits and drawbacks of strict liability as a legal tool for environmental protection.
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that imposes responsibility for damages on a person or entity without requiring proof of fault or negligence. In other words, it does not matter whether the person or entity acted intentionally, carelessly, or reasonably; they are still liable if their actions caused harm to others.
Strict liability is often contrasted with negligence liability, which requires proof that the person or entity failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances and that this failure caused harm to others. Negligence liability involves a subjective assessment of what a reasonable person would have done in a similar situation.
Strict liability is usually applied in situations where there is an inherently dangerous activity that poses a high risk of harm to others, such as blasting explosives, keeping wild animals, manufacturing defective products, or transporting hazardous materials. The rationale behind strict liability is that these activities are so risky that they should be discouraged or regulated by imposing high costs on those who engage in them. Moreover, strict liability aims to ensure fair compensation for victims who suffer injuries or losses due to these activities.
In environmental law, strict liability has been adopted by many statutes and regulations at both federal and state levels to address various forms of pollution and contamination. For example,
- The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation And Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund , imposes strict liability on potentially responsible parties (PRPs) for cleanup costs and natural resource damages resulting from releases of hazardous substances into the environment.
- The Oil Pollution Act (OPA), enacted after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 , imposes strict liability on owners and operators of vessels and facilities for removal costs and damages caused by oil spills into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.
- The Clean Water Act (CWA), amended after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill , imposes strict liability on owners and operators of offshore facilities for civil penalties up to $1 ,100 per barrel spilled ($4 ,300 per barrel if gross negligence or willful misconduct is proven) for violations of water quality standards.
- Many state laws also impose strict liability on polluters for various types of environmental harms , such as air pollution , water pollution , solid waste disposal , underground storage tanks , etc.
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was one of the most complex and costly environmental litigation cases ever faced by the U.S . government , BP (the lessee and operator of the Macondo well ) , Transocean (the owner and operator of the rig ) , Halliburton (the contractor that provided cementing services ) , and other defendants allegedly responsible for the spill .
The U.S . government pursued multiple claims against BP and other defendants under various federal laws that impose strict liability for oil spills ,such as OPA , CWA , and CERCLA. These claims included removal costs , civil penalties , natural resource damages , economic damages , and punitive damages .
BP also faced numerous lawsuits from private plaintiffs , such as fishermen , shrimpers , oyster harvesters , hotel owners , restaurant owners , and other businesses and individuals
Erin Brockovich is one of the most iconic movies of the 21st century. It tells the true story of a single mother who became a legal assistant and fought against a powerful corporation that was polluting the water supply of a small town in California. The movie, starring Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich, won critical acclaim and several awards, including an Oscar for Best Actress.
But more than just a cinematic success, Erin Brockovich also had a profound impact on the public awareness and activism around environmental issues, especially water quality. The movie exposed the dangers of hexavalent chromium, a carcinogenic chemical that was used by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to prevent corrosion in its pipelines. PG&E had been dumping this chemical into unlined ponds near Hinkley, California, contaminating the groundwater and causing health problems for the residents.
Erin Brockovich, working for lawyer Ed Masry (played by Albert Finney), discovered this cover-up and helped build a case against PG&E on behalf of more than 600 plaintiffs. The case was settled in 1996 for $333 million, the largest direct-action lawsuit in US history at that time.
The movie also highlighted the importance of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which is the primary federal law governing water pollution in the United States. The CWA was enacted in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. The CWA prohibits any discharge of pollutants into navigable waters without a permit from EPA or an authorized state agency. The CWA also provides funding for wastewater treatment plants and wetland protection programs.
The movie showed how PG&E violated the CWA by discharging hexavalent chromium without proper permits or monitoring. It also showed how Erin Brockovich used her investigative skills to gather evidence from public records, such as water quality reports and medical records. She also interviewed hundreds of residents who suffered from various illnesses, such as cancer, kidney failure, miscarriages, and birth defects.
The movie inspired many people to become more aware of their water sources and their rights as citizens to demand clean water. It also inspired many people to pursue careers or activism in environmental law or science. Some examples are:
- Robert Bilott: A lawyer who represented thousands of people affected by PFAS contamination from DuPont's plant in West Virginia. He was dubbed "the real-life Erin Brockovich" by The New York Times.
- Lois Gibbs: A housewife who led a grassroots campaign to relocate families from Love Canal, a toxic waste site in New York. She later founded the Center for Health, Environment & Justice (CHEJ), which helps communities fight against environmental hazards.
- Mark Ruffalo: An actor who co-founded Water Defense, an organization that advocates for clean water and renewable energy. He also starred in Dark Waters (2019), a movie based on Robert Bilott's story.
- Erin Brockovich herself: She continued to work as an environmental activist and consultant after her famous case. She has been involved in several other lawsuits against polluters, such as BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010. She also hosts a podcast called Superman's Not Coming, which explores various environmental issues across America.
A Civil Action is a 1998 film based on a true story of a lawsuit involving two corporations that allegedly contaminated the water supply of Woburn, Massachusetts, causing several cases of leukemia and other health problems among the residents. The film stars John Travolta as Jan Schlichtmann, a personal injury lawyer who takes on the case against Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace and Company, despite the risks of losing his reputation and money. Robert Duvall plays Jerome Facher, the defense lawyer for Beatrice Foods, who is determined to win the case by any means necessary.
The film depicts the legal process and challenges that Schlichtmann faces as he tries to prove that the defendants are responsible for dumping trichloroethylene (TCE), an industrial solvent, into the groundwater that feeds two municipal wells in Woburn. TCE is a known carcinogen that can cause leukemia and other cancers when ingested or inhaled. Schlichtmann relies on scientific evidence, expert witnesses, and testimonies from the plaintiffs' families to support his claim. However, he also encounters obstacles such as lack of cooperation from government agencies, unfavorable rulings from the judge, financial difficulties, and ethical dilemmas.
The film raises important questions about environmental justice, corporate accountability, and chemicals regulation in the United States. It shows how difficult it is for ordinary citizens to seek compensation and justice when they are harmed by environmental pollution caused by powerful corporations. It also exposes how weak and inadequate the existing laws and regulations are to protect public health and safety from hazardous chemicals. For example, TCE was not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until 1989, after decades of widespread use and disposal by various industries. Even today, TCE is still widely used as a degreaser and solvent in many sectors such as aerospace, metal fabrication, electronics manufacturing.
The film also highlights how scientific uncertainty can be exploited by both sides of a legal dispute to advance their interests. For instance, Schlichtmann tries to use epidemiological studies to show that there is a causal link between TCE exposure and leukemia incidence in Woburn. However, Facher argues that these studies are inconclusive and unreliable because they do not account for other factors such as genetics or lifestyle choices that could affect cancer risk. Facher also questions the validity of Schlichtmann's experts' opinions and methods by casting doubt on their credentials or motives.
The film ultimately shows how complex and costly it is to pursue a civil action against corporations that pollute the environment with harmful chemicals. It also reveals how such cases can have personal and professional consequences for everyone involved: lawyers who sacrifice their careers or principles; plaintiffs who suffer emotional trauma or financial hardship; defendants who face public scrutiny or legal liability; judges who balance fairness with efficiency; jurors who decide life-and-death issues based on limited information; scientists who provide evidence or opinions under pressure; journalists who report or influence public opinion; activists who advocate or protest for change; regulators who enforce or reform laws; policymakers who make or amend rules.
Climate change is one of the most urgent and complex challenges facing humanity today. The scientific evidence is overwhelming: human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are causing global warming and disrupting the natural balance of the Earth's climate system. The consequences are already visible: melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels, more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts, floods, storms, wildfires, and epidemics. If left unchecked, climate change could pose an existential threat to civilization and life on Earth.
One of the most influential voices raising awareness about this issue is former US Vice President Al Gore. In 2006, he released a documentary film called An Inconvenient Truth, based on his slide show presentation that he had delivered over 1,000 times to audiences worldwide. The film was directed by Davis Guggenheim and produced by Laurie David, Lawrence Bender, Scott Z. Burns, and Gore himself. It won two Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song.
The film combines scientific data, graphs, images, animations, personal anecdotes, and historical footage to explain the causes and effects of climate change in a clear and compelling way. It also exposes some of the myths and misconceptions that prevent people from taking action or accepting responsibility for their carbon footprint. Gore argues that climate change is not only a moral issue but also an economic opportunity for innovation and leadership. He urges viewers to join him in demanding political action from their governments and making personal changes in their lifestyles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
One of the main political actions that Gore advocates for is the ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that was adopted in 1997 as an extension of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The treaty commits its parties to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels during the first commitment period from 2008 to 2012. The treaty covers six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
The Kyoto Protocol follows a principle of "common but differentiated responsibility" which recognizes that developed countries have contributed more to global warming than developing countries and should therefore take on greater obligations to cut their emissions. The treaty divides its parties into two groups: Annex I parties are industrialized countries and economies in transition that have binding emission reduction targets; non-Annex I parties are mostly developing countries that do not have binding targets but are encouraged to take voluntary measures.
The Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005 after being ratified by at least 55 parties representing at least 55 percent of Annex I emissions. As of 2022, 192 parties have ratified or acceded to the treaty, including the European Union, Cook Islands, Niue, and all UN member states except Andorra, Canada, South Sudan, and the United States. Canada withdrew from the protocol in 2011, citing its inability to meet its target and its preference for a new agreement that would include all major emitters. The United States signed the protocol in 1998 but never ratified it, arguing that it would harm its economy and that it was unfair to exclude developing countries like China and India from binding commitments.
In 2012, the parties adopted the Doha Amendment to extend the protocol for a second commitment period from 2013 to 2020 with new emission reduction targets for Annex I parties. The amendment also added nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) as a regulated greenhouse gas and made some changes to several articles of the protocol. The amendment entered into force in 2020 after being ratified by at least 144 parties.
The Kyoto Protocol has been widely praised as a landmark achievement in international ooperation on environmental issues. It has also been criticized for being insufficiently ambitious , ineffective , unfair , costly , or outdated . Some of its limitations include:
-
Its coverage: The protocol only covers about one-third of global emissions, excluding major emitters like China, India, and the United States (which withdrew from the protocol in 2001). Moreover, it only binds developed countries to emission reduction targets, while developing countries have no obligations. This creates a problem of carbon leakage, where emissions shift from regulated to unregulated regions.
-
Its ambition: The protocol's targets are based on 1990 emission levels, which are outdated and do not reflect current realities. The protocol's overall goal is to reduce emissions by an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 (the first commitment period) and by at least 18 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 (the second commitment period). However, these targets are far from sufficient to limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, as agreed by the Paris Agreement in 2015.
-
Its effectiveness: The protocol relies on market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading and carbon offsetting to achieve its targets. However, these mechanisms have been plagued by problems such as low prices, oversupply of credits, lack of transparency, fraud, and environmental integrity. Moreover, some countries have failed to comply with their targets or have used loopholes such as land use change and forestry accounting to inflate their emission reductions.
-
Its fairness: The protocol's principle of "common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities" implies that developed countries should bear more responsibility for reducing emissions than developing countries because they have contributed more to historical emissions and have more financial and technological resources. However, this principle has been contested by some developing countries who argue that they have the right to pursue economic development and poverty alleviation without being constrained by emission limits. Furthermore, some developed countries argue that they should not be penalized for their early action on climate change or their low population growth.
-
Its relevance: The protocol's second commitment period expires in 2020 and there is no clear plan for its future beyond that date. The protocol has been superseded by the Paris Agreement which covers all countries and sets a more ambitious goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. The Paris Agreement also adopts a more flexible approach that allows each country to determine its own nationally determined contribution (NDC) based on its national circumstances and capabilities.
References: : https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol : https://www.britannica.com/event/Kyoto-Protocol : https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement
Before the Flood, a 2016 documentary film directed by Fisher Stevens and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio is such an important and powerful work. The film takes us on a global journey to witness first-hand how climate change is impacting our planet and what we can do to prevent its worst effects.
DiCaprio, who is also a UN Messenger of Peace for climate action, interviews world leaders, scientists, activists and local communities to explore the causes and solutions of climate change. He also exposes the role of fossil fuel industry lobbyists and politicians who obstruct or undermine climate action.
The film covers a wide range of topics related to climate change, such as deforestation, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, renewable energy sources, carbon pricing and more. It also shows how climate change affects various regions of the world differently, with some facing more severe risks than others.
One of the main messages of the film is that we have a limited window of opportunity to avoid crossing a dangerous threshold: 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This is the internationally agreed target for limiting global warming, beyond which climate change risks become unacceptably high.
But what exactly does 2 degrees mean? And what will happen if we overshoot it?
The 2 degree target was first proposed by economist William Nordhaus in the 1970s as a rough estimate of what level of warming could cause extreme conditions based on historical records. It gained more prominence after NASA scientist James Hansen testified before Congress in 1988 about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Since then, many studies have used 1 or 2 degrees as reference points to model what might happen to Earth at different levels of warming. In 2010, countries formally adopted both 2 degrees and 1.5 degrees as goals in an international accord known as the Cancun Agreements. In 2015, countries agreed to make plans to limit their emissions under the Paris Agreement, which aims to keep global warming well below 2 degrees and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees.
The choice of these targets was based on scientific assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which summarizes climate science from around the world. The IPCC has found that even at current levels of warming (about 1 degree), there are already observable impacts on natural systems and human societies. These include:
- More frequent and intense heat waves
- Longer droughts
- Heavier rainfall events
- More wildfires
- Reduced snow cover
- Shrinking glaciers
- Thawing permafrost
- Rising sea levels
- Changing ocean currents
- Declining Arctic sea ice
- Increasing ocean acidity
- Loss of biodiversity
These impacts have serious implications for food production, water availability, health, infrastructure, economy, security, culture, and human rights.
As warming increases further towards 1.5 or 2 degrees, these impacts will become more severe, more widespread, and more irreversible.
Some examples are:
- Increased risk of crop failures due to heat stress, pests, diseases, and water scarcity
- Reduced fish stocks due to ocean warming, acidification, and deoxygenation
- Increased risk of waterborne diseases due to flooding, contamination, and poor sanitation
- Increased risk of vector-borne diseases due to expanding ranges of mosquitoes, ticks, and other carriers
- Increased mortality due to heat waves