Docket Man

The short answer is: "yeah, but it ain't necessarily easy." Of course, few things worth doing are. Environmental law is complicated, the field is competitive, law school is expensive, and public-interest gigs cannot pay what the private sector can. But as for me, I can't imagine doing anything else. So it's challenging, but it's also rewarding. Yes, it's competitive, but that makes it exciting. No, it doesn't give you the same cash rewards that private practice can, but it's important and necessary work. You may have to scale back on the designer clothes, forget the Mercedes, and limit your reservations at the most expensive restaurants, but you can make a fairly comfortable and immensely satisfying living.

First, let me congratulate you. It's bold, exhilarating, and frightening to make such a big career change. Certainly, taking as many environmental courses as you can is helpful. To that end, in your second or third years, I would try a semester at a program that offers environmental classes -- and take as many as possible -- if that option is available to you. Regardless, I would volunteer or seek internships with environmental organizations. Many public-interest groups rely heavily on volunteers and can provide good learning and networking opportunities.

I have to admit that one of the reasons I went to law school was to escape math. I love words and analytical thought, and numbers give me a headache. So for me, I've definitely contributed more to environmental protection by litigating -- and I'm happier doing it. Many of my colleagues, however, have backgrounds in the physical sciences as well as law degrees. (Both come in handy.) The fact is lawyers rely on scientists to help inform policy development and to provide technical expertise in litigation. And scientists rely on lawyers to develop or vindicate policies and laws. I think you'll provide the greatest contribution by pursuing the career that best uses your particular skills and that you most enjoy.

It's a dilemma, and there are no easy answers. Public-interest environmental law is challenging and competitive. So having the best possible credentials is a plus, both in getting a job and positioning yourself to capably do the work. If I were to do it all over again, I'd rank law schools (both in an absolute sense and for their environmental programs), apply to a good cross section, enroll in the program that best positions me to do the work I want, and seek out every grant and scholarship I could find. In the meantime and during your law-school career, volunteer or seek internships with as many environmental organizations as you can. This will help you decide which environmental subject area you want to focus on and also bolster your chances of landing a job in that focus area when you graduate.

Vermont has a great environmental program, but there are other schools with environmental course offerings, if not programs per se. I'd check course directories online at schools that interest you. Also, keep in mind that administrative law, civil procedure, con law, federal jurisdiction, and many others are important in environmental practice.

You raise a great question that's central to environmental law and, well, responsible living -- the question of externalities and who bears the cost. An externality is a secondary or unintended consequence of an action, usually imposing costs on people who never consented to them. I think the answer to your question boils down to education, accountability, and willingness to pay. First, people must know these costs are being imposed. This requires transparency in transactions. Second, those who reap private benefits and foist the costs onto the public must be identified and held accountable. Otherwise it's the old game of privatizing the benefits and socializing the costs. But this will come with some cost to the public as well. We must be willing to pay it. A good example is the price of gas. The price that Americans pay at the pump doesn't reflect some of the back-end costs, like air pollution. If it did, we'd be paying $4 to $6 a gallon at the pump as they do in Europe.

The coal itself contains small amounts of mercury that become released into the atmosphere when combusted. For some old plants, the right combination of controls to reduce soot- and smog-forming pollution also can eliminate about 90 percent or more of mercury pollution. Another method that has proved effective -- reducing 90 to 98 percent of mercury emissions from coal -- uses treated powdered carbon that acts like a sponge to literally absorb mercury from the waste gases. Other promising technologies that work in much the same way have been successfully tested. And technologies for new coal-gasification plants can entirely eliminate mercury emissions.

(Hello, Jackie. We've met at a mercury conference or two.) I think the problem is two-fold. First, the process that uses large amounts of mercury to make chlorine is outdated ... damn near ancient. The fact is, mercury is a listed hazardous air pollutant, and EPA should require the seven remaining mercury-cell chlorine facilities to adopt the maximum pollution-reduction controls mandated by the Clean Air Act. This would mean switching to modern processes that don't use mercury. The second problem is that these old chlorine facilities that use mercury have already released hundreds of tons of mercury into the environment. If the government doesn't require these plants to clean up their mess, then citizens should sue to abate an imminent hazard under the Resource and Conservation Recovery Act.

No, SELC hasn't taken on that work as of yet. But a lot of groups do. If you're interested, you might check with the Mercury Policy Project or the New England Zero Mercury Campaign.

I think your best bet here is lobbying, either for an area-wide ban or to convince individual restaurants and bars that most of their patrons would prefer a smoke-free environment. I don't recall the outcome, but years ago flight attendants sued airlines claiming that their jobs exposed them against their will to secondhand smoke. You might check to see how those cases panned out.

In true lawyerly fashion, I'll say, "maybe." With the disclaimer that I'm not licensed to practice law or give legal advice in Virginia, I will say that nuisance, trespass, or tort theories may provide a legal cause of action, assuming you can prove a physical intrusion, exposure, and a link between the exposure and any injury. My best advice, however, is to get the advice of a qualified Virginia attorney.

No. If you're looking for the replacement value of a single tree or a few trees, I'd check with local nurseries or arborists. If it's the larger ecological value you're interested in, you might check with conservation groups. Locally, you might try the Eno River Association.

The jury's still out on this, as far as I know. But this works both ways. If the ivory-bill sightings are confirmed, it will be because committed environmentalists protected large areas of virgin wetlands in Arkansas. By the same token, the presence of the ivory-bill should invoke Endangered Species Act habitat protections that will aid in continuing to protect that ecosystem.

Yes, I'm single. But sadly, my dating skills have become vestigial.