46622 research outputs found
Sort by
Biodiversity Conservation and the Ever-Expanding Web of Federal Laws Regulating Nonfederal Lands: Time for Something Completely Differenct?
Full text linkTransitioning to Regenerative Agriculture: One Net-Zero Pledge at a Time
No full textAs climate change intensifies, food sector multinational companies (MNCs), like Nestlé; Mars, Inc.; Unilever; PepsiCo; and Danone, face increasing pressure to reach net-zero by 2050, whereby they would reduce and ultimately eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from their supply chains by 2050. Carbon dioxide emissions are a major business liability, decreasing a firm’s value an average of $212,000 for every one thousand metric tons produced. As companies seek to align their pledges with regional, national, and subnational climate goals, they are legally required to comply with a growing number of disclosure rules for foods entering the United States and the European Union.
This Article exposes the vital role of regenerative agriculture in net-zero pledges. Using a case study approach, this Article examines the global rise of regenerative agricultural practices as a tool to help companies reach net-zero commitments by helping them reduce Scope 3 supply chain emissions. The problem is, as companies rush to make net-zero claims, they need to be careful as these claims are under heavy scrutiny from regulators, self-regulatory bodies, competitors, consumers, and investors who are monitoring deceptive environmental marketing claims and greenwashing. This Article examines recent ongoing litigation, including People v. JBS USA Food Co., in which the New York State Attorney General (N.Y. A.G.) alleges that JBS’s advertisements—“Net Zero by 2040”—are unfair and deceptive under State consumer protection laws and that JBS made these claims with no viable plan to meet them. The case could have far-reaching implications for how companies advertise net-zero targets.
New regulations on the regenerative agricultural market would enable greater consistency in the adoption and use of these practices worldwide. Solutions are presented that include harmonizing regenerative agriculture credentials for food companies to allow them to secure global market access and ensure compliance across regimes leading to reduced risk of ligation, regulatory, or investment enforcement actions. This Article also recommends broadening the scope of SEC climate disclosure to include Scope 3 emissions in line with practices in Europe
Agreeing to Disagree: Abortion Jurisprudence in Jewish and Islamic Law
No full textThis Article challenges the prevailing perception that religious people and religious legal traditions are anti-abortion. While this may be true within certain conservative Christian perspectives, this perception is an inaccurate representation of Jewish and Muslim Americans and their respective legal traditions. Both the Jewish and Islamic legal traditions offer a range of nuanced positions on abortion. Furthermore, diverse opinions of Jewish and Islamic abortion jurisprudence inform a variety of topics salient to the current legal debate in the United States. This range of opinions includes strict limitations on abortion, circumstantial legality, and general permissibility. Scholars from both traditions engaged in lengthy debates (spanning millennia) on the topic, developing rich legal frameworks regarding abortion. While they disagreed on the specific circumstances and timing for permissible abortions, they acknowledged the validity of differing viewpoints.
Unlike the current American legal framework wherein the legality of abortion is dependent on geographic location, Jewish and Islamic scholars created legal frameworks that allowed for individuals to choose among a range of authoritative opinions. Namely, because Jewish and Muslim scholars did not reach any unanimity of opinion on the legality of abortion, they acknowledged that on questions related to the protection of potential life no single opinion controls. Based on this approach, Jewish and Islamic law provide for a wide range of opinion, all held to be legitimate and authoritative, allowing for choice among the range of recognized legal positions. It is noteworthy that Jewish and Islamic jurisprudence have distinct perspectives on personhood and life as compared to the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u27s Health Organization. For instance, within the first forty days after conception Jewish law refers to the embryo as “mere water,” and Islamic law refers to it as a “mixed drop,” both designations indicating that the embryo falls short of legal human life. This Article is the first to put Jewish and Islamic abortion jurisprudence into conversation, highlighting their remarkable similarities in the permissibility of pregnancy termination and requirements for legal human life. The Article also aims to provide guidance for Jewish and Muslim Americans bringing First Amendment abortion claims. More generally, to the extent that abortion rights discourse is deeply influenced by religion in the United States, accounting for Jewish and Islamic traditions begins to provide a more inclusive accounting beyond the hegemony of conservative Christianity
Abandoned Mines, Abandoned Treaties: The Federal Government\u27s Failure to Remediate Abandoned Uranium Mines on the Navajo Nation
No full text
