Rethinking Clean Air: Air Quality Law and Covid-19

Air quality has long been a serious health problem caused by industrialisation and urbanisation.1 It has also been a very difficult policy and regulatory problem to address.2 This is partly a problem of regulatory strategy—what suite of measures work together to reduce air pollution levels without simply displacing pollution? It is partly a problem of controlling individual behaviour—as a collective problem, many individual actions generate air pollution. It is partly a problem of policy priority—air quality is often traded off against economic progress. And it is partly a failure of governance—identifying the appropriate actors to govern air quality and ensuring they work in concert. It is also a matter of defining what is acceptable air quality in the first place, and expressing this in law. None of these issues had been resolved well before the COVID-19 pandemic struck. The pandemic sheds these air quality law challenges in a new light. It is a public health crisis with many links to air quality, whether related to air pollution and its impacts on disease outcomes, or by examining the transmission pathways of COVID-19. Responding to the pandemic has involved bold regulatory experiments, heavily restricting behaviours, such as movements across transport networks, that are prime causes of urban nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollution in particular. Above all, the pandemic has increased the profile of air quality as a social problem to address, creating a moment to rethink this problem and what we might do about it

Legislation and the Stress of Environmental Problems

For lawyers and legal scholars, legislation seems a known quantity—a relatively permanent, public expression of democratic processes in parliamentary democracies and of the rule of law. This ‘knowable’ character can however be misleading, particularly in the field of environmental law. This article examines why research into environmental legislation is challenging but critically important. A short history of UK environmental law provides salient examples of political stress and highly complex, unsettled, even unknowable, environmental legislation. Collective environmental problems demand legislative responses in shaping individual behaviours and guiding social policies—but knowing how to craft these responses and how to evaluate the resulting legislation is often uncharted legal territory. Navigating that legislative terrain is a vital task for legal scholars and practitioners, particularly to investigate the serious legal problems that can arise from its construction, including poor legibility, legal fragmentation, and concerns about compatibility with the rule of law

The Legally Disruptive Nature of Climate Change

Climate change gives rise to disputes and problems not easily addressed by existing legal doctrines and frameworks. This is because it is a polycentric problem; the assessment of future climate impacts must deal with uncertainty; climate change is socio-politically controversial; and addressing climate change requires recognising a dynamic physical environment. As such, climate change can be thought of as legally disruptive in that it requires lawyers and legal scholars to reconcile the legal issues raised by climate change with existing legal orders. The legal disruption catalysed by climate change has not only led to the creation of new legal regimes but also given rise to a multitude of legal disputes that require adjudication. A study of some of these cases highlights the need for active and deliberate reflection about the nature of adjudication and the legal reasoning embedded in it when confronted by a disruptive phenomenon like climate change

First large-scale study of antimicrobial susceptibility data, and genetic resistance determinants, in Fusobacterium necrophorum highlighting the importance of continuing focused susceptibility trend surveillance

Objectives: The objective of the study was to explore antimicrobial resistance gene determinant, and phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility, data for Fusobacterium necrophorum from a collection of UK strains. In addition, antimicrobial resistance genes detected in publicly available assembled whole genome sequences were investigated for comparison.Methods: Three hundred and eighty five F. necrophorum strains (1982-2019) were revived from cryovials (Prolab). Subsequent to sequencing (Illumina) and quality checking, 374 whole genomes were available for analysis. These genomes, in addition to publicly available assembled F. necrophorum genetic data, were interrogated using BioNumerics (bioMérieux; v 8.1), for the presence of known antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs). Agar dilution susceptibility results for 313 F. necrophorum isolates (2016-2021) were also examined.Results: The phenotypic antibiotic test data for the 313 contemporary strains demonstrated potential resistance to penicillin, without increased dosing, in only three isolates. Otherwise, all strains were susceptible to ceftriaxone, clindamycin, co-amoxiclav, meropenem, metronidazole, penicillin and piperacillin/tazobactam, using EUCAST (v 11.0) interpretive guidance. The tet(O), tet(M), tet(40), aph(3’)-III, ant(6)-la and blaOXA-85 ARGs were present in publicly available assembled genomes. tet(M), tet(32), erm(A) and erm(B) were found within the UK strains, with correspondingly raised clindamycin and tetracycline minimum inhibitory concentrations.Conclusions: Current antibiotics recommended for the treatment of infections caused by F. necrophorum, including Lemierre’s disease, are likely to be effective in most cases. However, with evidence of potential ARG transmission from oral bacteria, and the detection of a transposon-mediated beta-lactamase resistance determinant in F. necrophorum, surveillance of both phenotypic and genotypic antimicrobial susceptibility trends must continue, and increase.<br/

Protecting Wild Land from Wind Farms in a Post-EU Scotland

Scotland is one of the places in Europe to have experienced significant wind farm development over recent years. Concern about impacts on wild land has resulted in legal challenges based on European Union (EU) law. This article analyses whether wild land can be protected from wind farms and the differences that the United Kingdom (UK) departure from the EU will make. It considers the concept of 'wild land' compared with 'wilderness', analyses the legal basis (if any) for wild land protection, and examines potential impacts from wind farms. It highlights the significance of EU environmental law, particularly nature conservation and environmental assessment law, and analyses recent Scottish jurisprudence that has applied this. The role of the European Commission and Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) is emphasised as a key part of EU environmental law. The article asks whether relevant global and regional environmental agreements can effectively replace the content of the substantive law and context of the Commission and CJEU. Four environmental agreements and two related compliance procedures are briefly evaluated. The conclusion is that while EU law does not directly provide protection for wild land, it is considerably stronger than the international environmental agreements that may replace it

The legally disruptive nature of climate change

Climate change gives rise to disputes and problems not easily addressed by existing legal doctrines and frameworks. This is because it is a polycentric problem; the assessment of future climate impacts must deal with uncertainty; climate change is socio‐politically controversial; and addressing climate change requires recognising a dynamic physical environment. As such, climate change can be thought of as legally disruptive in that it requires lawyers and legal scholars to reconcile the legal issues raised by climate change with existing legal orders. The legal disruption catalysed by climate change has not only led to the creation of new legal regimes but also given rise to a multitude of legal disputes that require adjudication. A study of some of these cases highlights the need for active and deliberate reflection about the nature of adjudication and the legal reasoning embedded in it when confronted by a disruptive phenomenon like climate change

Maturity and methodology: Starting a debate about environmental law scholarship

Many environmental law scholars perceive environmental law scholarship as immature. We discuss why this self-perception has arisen and argue that a common theme is methodology. We argue that the subject can only mature when we face its methodological challenges head on, and we identify four particular issues that have given rise to these challenges: the speed and scale of legal/regulatory change, the interdisciplinary nature of the subject, the heavy reliance in environmental law on a diverse range of governance arrangements and the multi-jurisdictional nature of the subject. We argue that there is a need for debate in the face of these challenges and identify some starting points for that debate. © The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved