The changing face of environmental law has set the scene for an exciting 2013
2013 presents an exciting horizon for environmental lawyers, both domestically and internationally. Unsurprisingly, natural resources remain the focus; securing access to these resources is the key to growth, particularly in the fastest-developing economies. However, such growth comes at a cost – Deepwater Horizon, Bohai Bay and Fukushima are just a few examples. The globalisation of these issues has inevitably resulted in the globalisation of environmental law. It is no wonder that we face such a changing landscape. So what can we expect for the rest of 2013?
March 27, 2013 at 08:03 PM
5 minute read
Macfarlanes' Paul Davies and Michael Green round up the issues set to keep environmental lawyers busy this year
2013 presents an exciting horizon for environmental lawyers, both domestically and internationally. Unsurprisingly, natural resources remain the focus; securing access to these resources is the key to growth, particularly in the fastest-developing economies. However, such growth comes at a cost – Deepwater Horizon, Bohai Bay and Fukushima are just a few examples.
The globalisation of these issues has inevitably resulted in the globalisation of environmental law. It is no wonder that we face such a changing landscape. So what can we expect for the rest of 2013?
Shale gas fracking
One of the most contentious developments is shale gas fracking. The cheap supply of shale gas in the US has fundamentally changed the investment model of major industrial companies. In the UK, the moratorium on shale gas fracking was lifted in December 2012.
Shale gas now lies at the heart of the Government's 'dash for gas' strategy, and ministers recently announced in the Budget a tax support regime, including a new field allowance for shale gas. Further details of such tax incentives and a consultation on the measures are expected in due course.
But there are several challenges facing the commercial viability of this fledgling industry, not least the potential obstacles of planning decisions – where challenges from local residents are likely to be vocal – the cost of extraction and the uncertainty surrounding European Union regulation.
This is at a time when the development of new nuclear power stations is facing significant difficulties, despite repeated warnings relating to energy security in the UK (as coal-powered stations are turned off).
Green Deal
Notwithstanding the dash for gas, the Government continues to push green initiatives, with the launch of the Green Deal in January. This aims to improve the energy efficiency of the UK's existing building stock, by offering consumers energy efficiency improvements at no upfront cost. The financing is recovered through a charge in instalments on the energy bill, with repayments funded by the resulting savings on energy costs.
The success of the initiative remains to be seen, after details of controversially high interest rates – potentially more than 9% – on Green Deal plans were published. A further complication is the government proposal that by April 2018 (or potentially earlier) there will be a restriction on the letting of properties unless they meet a minimum energy efficiency standard. Landlords with considerable portfolios of non-energy efficient properties will need to start acting soon.
Noise nuisance
Keeping the focus on the UK, the law of nuisance is in the spotlight ahead of a Supreme Court decision later this year. The appeal concerns a noise nuisance claim brought by local residents against the owners and operators of a motorcross stadium (Lawrence v Fen Tigers).
The Court of Appeal found that although a planning authority could not authorise the commission of a nuisance, the grant of planning permission and its implementation had changed the character of the locality. Given the decision by the Court of Appeal in Barr v Biffa, there remains some confusion as to the effect of planning permissions and permitted activities in the context of the law of nuisance.
International action
Internationally, the end of 2012 saw the signing of the extension to the Kyoto Protocol in Doha, Qatar, and developments in climate change and carbon reduction initiatives are set to continue in 2013. The Kyoto Protocol has been extended to 2020 and was agreed by nearly 200 nations, including Australia and those in Europe.
Meanwhile, the two largest economies in the world are looking at their own domestic policies on climate change. In the US, Barack Obama announced in his recent State of the Union address that he will take action on climate change (with or without Congress), with measures that include a "market-based solution".
In China, the administration has introduced seven regional pilot emissions trading scheme projects, which have the potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions on a global scale and dramatically alter the climate change market.
The globalisation of environmental law has catalysed and encouraged the development of certain global voluntary standards, particularly in the finance industry. The Equator Principles have been adopted by the vast majority of banks and other financial institutions, and have particular application to natural resource-focused projects. The latest revision of the principles is expected this year and will see an increase in the number of loans that will be subject to these voluntary standards.
Moreover, the previous redrafting of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises has resulted in greater scrutiny of the supply chains and investments made by global corporations.
This sweeping summary of environmental law in 2013 unashamedly concentrates on the challenges faced in the natural resources sector. Finite supply, the cost of energy and climate change are set to become increasingly significant issues on the global agenda. The key issue for companies is to respond appropriately, keeping both investors and stakeholders updated.
The most successful companies will be those that understand how environmental issues affect not only where they do business, but the way in which they conduct their business.
Paul Davies is a partner and head of the environment practice and Michael Green is a senior litigation lawyer at Macfarlanes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInternational Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Uber Cannot Be Held Vicariously Liable for Driver's Alleged Negligent Conduct
- 2TikTok Law and TikTok Politics
- 3California Supreme Court Vacates Murder Conviction in Infant Abuse Case
- 4New York’s Proposed Legislation Restraining Transfer of Real Property
- 5Withers Hires Lawyers, Staff From LA Trusts and Estates Boutique
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250