output
stringclasses 2
values | input
stringlengths 365
1.7k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
1
|
Climate change's causes and dangers are no longer subject to serious doubt. Modern science is “unequivocal that human influence”—in particular, the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide—“has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report, The Physical Science Basis: Headline Statements 1 (2021). The Earth is now warmer than at any time “in the history of modern civilization,” with the six warmest years on record all occurring in the last decade. U. S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Vol. I, p. 10 (2017); Brief for Climate Scientists as Amici Curiae 8. The rise in temperatures brings with it “increases in heat-related deaths,” “coastal inundation and erosion,” “more frequent and intense hurricanes, floods, and other extreme weather events,” “drought,” “destruction of ecosystems,” and “potentially significant disruptions of food production.” American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 417, 131 S.Ct. 2527, 180 L.Ed.2d 435 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean. See Brief for Climate Scientists as Amici Curiae 6. Rising waters, scorching heat, and other severe weather conditions could force “mass migration events[,] political crises, civil unrest,” and “even state failure.” Dept. of Defense, Climate Risk Analysis 8 (2021). And by the end of this century, climate change could be the cause of “4.6 million excess yearly deaths.” See R. Bressler, The Mortality Cost of Carbon, 12 Nature Communications 4467, p. 5 (2021).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The Navy’s own EA predicted substantial and irreparable harm to marine mammals. Sonar is linked to mass strandings of marine mammals, hemorrhaging around the brain and ears, acute spongiotic changes in the central nervous system, and lesions in vital organs. E.g., App. 600–602; 360–362; 478–479. As the Ninth Circuit noted, the EA predicts that the Navy’s “use of MFA sonar in the SOCAL exercises will result in 564 instances of physical injury including permanent hearing loss (Level A harassment) and nearly 170,000 behavioral disturbances (Level B harassment), more than 8,000 of which would also involve temporary hearing loss.” 518 F. 3d, at 696; see App. 223–224.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Within those totals, the EA predicts 436 Level A harassments of Cuvier’s beaked whales, of which, according to NOAA, as few as 1,121 may exist in California, Oregon and Washington combined. Likewise, the EA predicts 1,092 Level B harassments of bottlenose dolphins, of which only 5,271 may exist in the California Coastal and Offshore stocks. 518 F. 3d, at 691–692.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. Indeed, the NRC Report itself—which EPA regards as an “objective and independent assessment of the relevant science,” 68 Fed.Reg. 52930—identifies a number of environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms, including “the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of ice on rivers and lakes, [and] the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years ....” NRC Report 16.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
As to “actual” injury, the Court observes that “global sea levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming” and that “[t]hese rising seas have already begun to swallow Massachusetts' coastal land.” Ante, at 1456. But none of petitioners' declarations supports that connection. One declaration states that “a rise in sea level due to climate change is occurring on the coast of Massachusetts, in the metropolitan Boston area,” but there is no elaboration. Petitioners' Standing Appendix in No. 03–1361, etc. (CADC), p. 196 (Stdg.App.). And the declarant goes on to identify a “significan[t]” non-global-warming cause of Boston's rising sea level: land subsidence. Id., at 197; see also id., at 216. Thus, aside from a single conclusory statement, there is nothing in petitioners' 43 standing declarations and accompanying exhibits to support an inference of actual loss of Massachusetts coastal land from 20th-century global sea level increases. It is pure conjecture.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Finally, our examination of the record also reveals ample support for the Administrator's determination that lead-induced central nervous system deficits begin to occur in children at blood lead levels of 50 ug Pb/dl. The central nervous system damage about which the Administrator was concerned was not the severe brain damage that can occur at relatively high levels of lead exposure 80-100 ug Pb/dl. Rather, his focus was on more subtle and largely irreversible neurological and behavioral impairment that has been detected in children at lower blood lead levels, 43 Fed.Reg. 46253, JA 2955. The Criteria Document candidly admitted that “(t)he literature on this subject is somewhat limited and controversial,” but it was nevertheless able to conclude that “certain statements (can) be made about the possible hazard of low to moderate lead exposure levels.” CD 11-18, JA 1240.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The conclusion it reached, after a detailed review of various studies that have examined the subject, was that: (The) evidence tends to confirm that some type of neural damage does exist in asymptomatic children, and not necessarily only at very high level of blood lead. The body of studies on low- or moderate-level lead effects on neurobehavioral functions present overall a rather impressive array of data pointing to that conclusion. Several well-controlled studies have found effects that are clearly statistically significant, whereas others have found nonsignificant but borderline effects. Even some studies reporting generally nonsignificant findings at times contain data confirming statistically significant effects, which the authors attribute to various extraneous factors.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The Criteria Document reported that the blood lead levels associated with these neurobehavioral deficits are 50-60 ug Pb/dl. Id. These conclusions were endorsed by several of the experts who participated in the lead standards rulemaking proceedings, including one of LIA's experts.70 Some of these experts even suggested that these effects may occur at blood lead levels lower than the levels indicated by the Criteria Document.71 Contrary to LIA's suggestion, the evidence in the Criteria Document and the testimony of the experts provides an adequate basis for this court to undertake a review of the Administrator's findings concerning these effects. Accordingly, we reject LIA's challenge to the Administrator's conclusion that central nervous system deficits begin to occur in children at blood lead levels of 50 ug Pb/dl.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Byssinosis, known in its more severe manifestations as 'brown lung' disease, is a serious and potentially disabling respiratory disease primarily caused by the inhalation of cotton dust. See 43 Fed.Reg. 27352-27354 (1978); Exhibit 6-16, App. 15-22. Byssinosis is a 'continuum . . . disease,' 43 Fed.Reg. 27354, col. 2 (1978), that has been categorized into four grades. In its least serious form, byssinosis produces both subjective symptoms, such as chest tightness, shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing, and objective indications of loss of pulmonary functions. Id. at 27352, col. 2. In its most serious form, byssinosis is a chronic and irreversible obstructive pulmonary disease, clinically similar to chronic bronchitis or emphysema, and can be severely disabling. Ibid. At worst, as is true of other respiratory diseases, including bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma, byssinosis can create an additional strain on cardiovascular functions and can contribute to death from heart failure. See Exhibit 6-73, App. 72 ('there is an association between mortality and the extent of dust exposure'). One authority has described the increasing seriousness of byssinosis as follows:'In the first few years of exposure [to cotton dust], symptoms occur on Monday, or other days after absence from the work environment; later, symptoms occur on other days of the week; and eventually, symptoms are continuous, even in the absence of dust exposure.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The evidence presented on these points was extensive and complex. Hearings on a motion for a preliminary injunction were consolidated with the trial on the merits and during the nine-month period of 139 days of trial, the trial court heard more than 100 witnesses and received over 1,600 exhibits. The parties introduced testimony comparing the mineralogy of Reserve's cummingtonite-grunerite with amosite asbestos, such testimony based on electron microscope analysis of morphology, x-ray and electron diffraction analysis of crystal structure, laboratory analysis of chemical composition, and other identification techniques. As for the possible dispersion of the tailings throughout Lake Superior, witnesses disputed whether Reserve's discharges provided the sole source of cummingtonite-grunerite in the lake and whether the presence of the mineral could thus be used as a 'tracer' for Reserve's discharge. In an effort to assess the health hazard, the parties presented extensive expert scientific and medical testimony, and the court itself appointed certain expert witnesses, who assumed the task of assisting the court in the evaluation of scientific testimony and supervising court-sponsored studies to measure the levels of asbestos fibers in the air near Silver Bay, in Lake Superior water, and in the tissues of deceased Duluth residents.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The Early Winters Study made clear that on-site effects of the development will be minimal and will be easily mitigated. For example, the Study reported that “[i]mpacts from construction, maintenance and operation of the proposed ‘hill’ development on National Forest land will not have a measurable effect on existing or future air quality,” Early Winters Study 65, and that “[t]he effect development and operation of the ski hill would have on deer migration should be minor,” id., at 76. Given the limited on-site effects of the proposed development, the recommended ameliorative steps—which, for example, called for “prompt revegetation of all disturbed areas,” id., at 69, and suggested locating “new service roads away from water resources and fawning cover,” id., at 16—cannot be deemed overly vague or underdeveloped.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Petitioners allege that this only hints at the environmental damage yet to come. According to the climate scientist Michael MacCracken, “qualified scientific experts involved in climate change research” have reached a “strong consensus” that global warming threatens (among other things) a precipitate rise in sea levels by the end of the century, MacCracken Decl. ¶ 5, Stdg.App. 207, “severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems,” id., ¶ 5(d), at 209, a “significant reduction in water storage in winter snowpack in mountainous regions with direct and important economic consequences,” ibid., and an increase in the spread of disease, id., ¶ 28, at 218–219. He also observes that rising ocean temperatures may contribute to the ferocity of hurricanes. Id.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
And reducing domestic automobile emissions is hardly a tentative step. Even leaving aside the other greenhouse gases, the United States transportation sector emits an enormous quantity of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere—according to the MacCracken affidavit, more than 1.7 billion metric tons in 1999 alone. ¶ 30, Stdg.App. 219. That accounts for more than 6% of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. Id., at 232 (Oppenheimer Decl. ¶ 3); see also MacCracken Decl. ¶ 31, at 220. To put this in perspective: Considering just emissions from the transportation sector, which represent less than one-third of this country's total carbon dioxide emissions, the United States would still rank as the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, outpaced only by the European Union and China.22 Judged by any standard, U.S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations and hence, according to petitioners, to global warming.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
In sum—at least according to petitioners' uncontested affidavits—the rise in sea levels associated with global warming has already harmed and will continue to harm Massachusetts. The risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is nevertheless real. That risk would be reduced to some extent if petitioners received the relief they seek. We therefore hold that petitioners have standing to challenge EPA's denial of their rulemaking petition.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Finally, upwind pollutants that find their way downwind are not left unaltered by the journey. Rather, as the gases emitted by upwind polluters are carried downwind, they are transformed, through various chemical processes, into altogether different pollutants. The offending gases at issue in these cases—nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)—often develop into ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) by the time they reach the atmospheres of downwind States. See 76 Fed.Reg. 48222–48223 (2011). See also 69 Fed.Reg. 4575–4576 (2004) (describing the components of ozone and PM2.5). Downwind air quality must therefore be measured for ozone and PM2.5concentrations. EPA's chore is to quantify the amount of upwind gases (NOX and SO2) that must be reduced to enable downwind States to keep their levels of ozone and PM2.5in check.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The plaintiffs have compiled an extensive record, which at this stage in the litigation we take in the light most favorable to their claims. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 768, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 188 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2014). The record leaves little basis for denying that climate change is occurring at an increasingly rapid pace. It documents that since the dawn of the Industrial Age, atmospheric carbon dioxide has skyrocketed to levels not seen for almost three million years. For hundreds of thousands of years, average carbon concentration fluctuated between 180 and 280 parts per million. Today, it is over 410 parts per million and climbing. Although carbon levels rose gradually after the last Ice Age, the most recent surge has occurred more than 100 times faster; half of that increase has come in the last forty years.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Copious expert evidence establishes that this unprecedented rise stems from fossil fuel combustion and will wreak havoc on the Earth's climate if unchecked. Temperatures have already risen 0.9 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and may rise more than 6 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. The hottest years on record all fall within this decade, and each year since 1997 has been hotter than the previous average. This extreme heat is melting polar ice caps and may cause sea levels to rise 15 to 30 feet by 2100. The problem is approaching “the point of no return.” Absent some action, the destabilizing climate will bury cities, spawn life-threatening natural disasters, and jeopardize critical food and water supplies.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Significantly for the issue before us, biogenic carbon dioxide has a “unique role and impact ... in the carbon cycle.” Deferral Rule, 76 Fed.Reg. at 43,496. “Through relatively rapid photosynthesis, plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and add it to their biomass, which contains roughly 50% carbon by weight, through a process called sequestration.” Proposed Deferral Rule, 76 Fed.Reg. at 15,252. Carbon dioxide emitted by fossil-fuel combustion is reabsorbed over millennia, leading to a long carbon “ debt” period. By contrast, carbon dioxide released by biogenic sources will be sequestered when new plants are grown. The extent to which biogenic sources can serve as a carbon “sink” will depend on the type of source and its life cycle. See id. at 15,252–54. Given biogenic carbon dioxide's role in the carbon cycle, many state and federal programs treat biofuels as “renewable resources and promote bioenergy projects when they are a way to address climate change.” Deferral Rule, 76 Fed.Reg. at 43,492. But to be clear, once carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, “it is not possible to distinguish between the radiative forcing associated with a molecule of CO2 originating from a biogenic source and one originating from the combustion of fossil fuel.” Proposed Deferral Rule, 76 Fed.Reg. at 15,254. In layman's terms, the atmosphere makes no distinction between carbon dioxide emitted by biogenic and fossil-fuel sources.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
1
|
In this case, there is no dispute that the five oil refineries in Washington—BP Cherry Point, ConocoPhillips, Shell Oil, Tesoro, and U.S. Oil (collectively, Oil Refineries)—emit greenhouse gases. They are each members of Intervenor–Defendant WSPA, a non-profit trade association that represents the interests of the petroleum and petroleum products industry in several states, including Washington. Specifically, the refineries emit three greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides—during the conversion of crude oil into usable petroleum products, and they publicly report their annual greenhouse gas emission levels.4 Most of the refineries' GHG emissions are carbon dioxide. The collective GHG emission levels for the five refineries in 2008 were 5.94 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. This figure approximates current greenhouse gas emission levels from the refineries. Ecology reported that the total greenhouse gas emissions in Washington in 2008 were 101.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. Thus, in 2008, GHG emissions from the Oil Refineries were approximately 5.9% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in Washington.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
0
|
In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that Amendment 12 to the Bighorn Forest Plan (the mechanism by which the HPP was implemented) was a defacto change in the designation of lands within the Area of Consultation which were previously designated as suitable for wood fiber production (ie., logging). Plaintiff alleged, and argues on appeal, that the Forest Service failed to inquire into and disclose the effects of the HPP when it solicited public comment on the HPP. Plaintiff also maintains that the Service failed to follow its own Forest Service Handbook standards for amending the Forest Plan, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
0
|
Petitioners claim that the Administrator’s goal of approximating natural conditions is manifestly contrary to the intent of Congress, as expressed in the CWA and SMCRA, and that by redefining the goal for effluent reductions from mining operations in the west, the Administrator has replaced the CWA’s goal of “elimination of pollutants” with “not upsetting the natural hydrologic balance.” See 67 Fed.Reg. at 3404.As the EPA points out, this argument ignores the fact that the CWA gives the EPA wide latitude in fashioning effluent limitation guidelines. We addressed a similar argument in BP Exploration. There, the NRDC argued that the EPA illegally refused to require a zero discharge of produced waters through rein-jection, because the record showed that reinjection was technologically and economically feasible.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
0
|
We also agree with the district court that the plain language of the statute makes the vote taken by the Board voidable rather than void, and leaves discretion whether to uphold such actions to the courts. 736 F.Supp. at 367. Furthermore, taking the allegations in the complaint as true, we agree with the district court that under the circumstances the environmental Ordinance would not have invoked application of the statute because of the important factor of the participation of the citizens of Jay, first in passing the Ordinance by referendum and later in rejecting its repeal in a subsequent referendum. See id. Considering the loose foundation for IP’s claim of an actionable “conflict” and the democratic participation of the Jay citizenry, the district court properly dismissed this claim.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
0
|
The National Trust for Historic Preservation in its amicus brief contends that section 470f of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470 et seq., applies to the Boise project. The National Trust contends that WATCH (Waterbury Action, etc.) v. Harris, 603 F.2d 310 (2d Cir. 1979), requires HUD to comply with the NHPA whenever it exercises any continuing control over a project that receives federal funds.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
0
|
Although the Coalition’s NEPA claims are not barred by laches, neither the conversion from urban renewal funds to CDBG funds in 1979, nor HUD regulations applicable to that conversion, nor the planned destruction of a building included on the National Register requires an EIS for the Boise project. Preparation of an environmental assessment in 1979 to evaluate new information leading to changed circumstances with respect to the project’s impact on the historic and cultural environment was required by then-applicable HUD regulations. However, the 1979 environmental assessment’s finding of no significant impact was reasonable. As modified by this opinion, the judgment of the court below is AFFIRMED.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if scientific reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Scientific reasoning is defined as when considerations such as scientific support for environmental decisions, or scientific basis for standing influence the opinion.
|
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 1