John Suttles.

What work do you do?

I'm a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.

How does it relate to the environment?

For the past 20 years, the Southern Environmental Law Center -- the biggest environmental organization headquartered in the Southeast -- has used the full power of the law to conserve clean water, healthy air, wild lands, and livable communities throughout our region. In addition to working to improve and strengthen environmental laws and policies, SELC uses targeted legal action to stop or prevent environmental abuses and ensure that existing laws and policies are enforced. By choosing our cases carefully, we are able to set far-reaching precedents.

What are you working on at the moment? Any major projects?

Clean air and clean water. For the better part of the past year, I've focused on mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants. At the federal level, I'm the lead SELC attorney representing four prominent national health-care groups suing EPA to overturn its unlawful and ironically named "Clean Air Mercury Rule," which actually exempts the biggest source of mercury air pollution from the hazardous air-pollution standards of the Clean Air Act. I'm also working with other SELC attorneys in a coordinated effort to implement stronger state-level mercury rules in the Southeast region.

How do you get to work?

I walk when I can. But far too often, out-of-office commitments prompt me to drive.

What long and winding road led you to your current position?

I entered law school hoping to practice public-interest environmental law. I left law school with the same hope. Unfortunately, I also left with crushing debt. So I entered private practice with a New Orleans law firm, where I focused on toxic tort defense work for 12 years. The work was challenging and exciting, and we did very well. My watershed moment came at a celebratory weekend sponsored by our client in New York. During the banquet, one of the New York attorneys gave a toast acknowledging the first successful asbestos-injury lawsuit and all the profitable work that case subsequently generated for us defense lawyers. The plaintiff in that case died of an asbestos-related disease. I decided at that moment I could not continue that work and enrolled in a part-time master of laws (LL.M.) program at Tulane. After obtaining my LL.M., I accepted a position as the deputy director of the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic. When a position opened at SELC two and a half years later, I took the opportunity to get back into active practice with a great organization as a public-interest environmental lawyer -- finally fulfilling my earlier dream.

Where were you born? Where do you live now?

I was born in the mountains of Virginia and reared on its beaches. After 20 years in New Orleans, however, I consider that my home. I currently live in Chapel Hill, N.C.

What has been the worst moment in your professional life to date?

There's the worst and then there's the most embarrassing. As a litigator, every case that I lost when I thought I should have won (which is every case) seemed like the worst moment at the time. But I have one most embarrassing moment: As a second-year lawyer sitting second chair in a federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) trial, my lead attorney nudged me and told me to object to opposing counsel's line of questioning. I jumped up and forcefully stated, "Objection, your Honor!" without any idea on what grounds I was objecting. Opposing counsel, who was much more senior than I, asked that I state the grounds. When nothing lawyer-sounding came to mind, I blurted, "This has gone on long enough!" Opposing counsel, the judge, the jury, and even my own senior counsel couldn't stifle their laughter.

What's been the best?

Every time I watched my students at the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic argue a case or examine a witness in court. Each time reaffirmed for me that enthusiasm, desire, and hard work can overcome experience and financial resources.

Who is your environmental hero?

Of course I admire the early environmental crusaders, like Rachel Carson, who had enough foresight to anticipate and enough courage to first sound the alarm. But mostly I admire so-called average people with the courage to stand up, take unpopular positions, and speak out for themselves and their neighbors against goliaths of self-serving industry and indifferent government agents.

What's your environmental vice?

I drive entirely too much (and too fast).

How do you spend your free time (if you have any)? Read any good books lately?

Riding my road bike (preferably on the Blue Ridge Parkway), yoga, surfing, scuba diving, listening to music, and reading. I'm currently reading Edward Abbey (The Fool's Progress), Tom Robbins (Jitterbug Perfume), and the latest issue of Harper's Magazine.

What's your favorite meal?

A soft-shell crawfish po' boy at Jazz Fest in New Orleans. Make that two.

What's your favorite place or ecosystem?

A coral reef, anywhere from 15 to 100 feet beneath clear, warm water.

Who was your favorite musical artist when you were 18? How about now?

When I was 18, I was a Who fan, first and foremost, with a little Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, and Grateful Dead thrown in for variety. After living in New Orleans, I've come to appreciate many different styles and artists. Currently, I'm listening to a lot of Son Volt, Cat Power, Jack Johnson, Los Lobos, and Ben Harper.

What's your favorite TV show? Movie?

I probably shouldn't admit this, but I'm a South Park fan. Sure, it's crude and profane, but it may be the most honest show on TV. As for movies, I like everything from black-and-white classics like Citizen Kane and M, to the documentaries of Errol Morris, to This is Spinal Tap.

Which actor would play you in the story of your life?

Is Alf still around?

If you could have every InterActivist reader do one thing, what would it be?

Think about this and, if you believe it, act on it: our unsustainable patterns of production and consumption won't destroy the earth, just our ability to live on it.

John Suttles, Southern Environmental Law Center.

Docket Man

Would you recommend entering the law profession with the intention of becoming a public-interest attorney? There already seem to be a flood of people with the exact same idea. Can someone realistically earn a living as a public-interest lawyer?    -- Jesse Langdon, Seattle, Wash.

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.

I'm a 40-something CFO making a huge left turn and starting law school this fall. However, the school I will be attending doesn't have a specific environmental law program. Do you have any suggestions regarding how to best position myself for a possible future career as an activist pro-environment attorney?    -- Sonja Stupel, Tucson, Ariz.

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 am a college senior, and I'm torn between pursuing law school with a goal to practice environmental law and spending less time and money to get a master's degree in a similar field. Do you see benefits one way or another? Do you feel you have contributed more to the planet by being able to litigate?    -- Sierra Schneider-Williams, Knoxville, Tenn.

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.

I am looking to go into law school in the fall of 2007. I want to make myself as competitive as possible, but that usually means choosing a school with a huge price tag. If you had to do it all over again, how would you balance your moral ideals with today's cost of law school?    -- Patrick Cunningham, San Jose, Costa Rica

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.

I'll be moving to Pennsylvania next year and am wondering if you could recommend a reputable environmental law program in the state. Is Vermont Law my only option in the Northeast?    -- Alba Roldan, Sunnyside, N.Y.

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.

Radioactive waste, mercury emissions, pesticide residues, pharmaceuticals and antibacterials in sewage, and even carbon dioxide from smokestacks and tailpipes are all examples of products that do not have their full life cycles incorporated into their price. Why can't we have an economic system that requires price to include the full life cycle?    -- William Belknap, Boulder City, Nev.

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.

How is mercury produced in a coal-burning power plant, and what modifications in the plant would eliminate or reduce the problem?    -- Jeff Essen, Chapel Hill, N.C.

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.

As you know, chlorine factories that continue to use mercury to make chlorine -- even though it's not necessary for that purpose -- rival power plants as a major mercury source. What legal mechanisms can be used to address this serious problem, which is partially focused in the Southeast?    -- Jackie Savitz, Churchton, Md.

(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.

Does your legal work address the significant environmental exposure coming from mercury use in the dental community?    -- Dorice Madronero, Suffern, N.Y.

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.

Currently, no laws regulate indoor air quality in South Carolina. Restaurant and bar owners have the freedom to allow or ban smoking in their venues. As a result, many public places expose employees and patrons to hazardous levels of polluted air. Legally, can anything be done?    -- Andrew Seidenberg, Columbia, S.C.

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.

Does a chemically sensitive person have any legal recourse to hang over neighbors' heads in order to get them to stop using toxic lawn chemicals?    -- Jenny Stevens, Midlothian, Va.

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.

Have you ever been involved in a case where the value of trees was decided?    -- Guy Meilleur, Apex, N.C.

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.

Would you like to say something about Southern reactions to the reported rediscovery of the ivory-billed woodpecker, and to that rediscovery turning out to be a mirage? Has the ivory-billed woodpecker story helped the wetlands of eastern Arkansas? Has it helped other woodlands in the South?    -- Mark Stephen Caponigro, New York, N.Y.

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.

Are you single?    -- Karen Simon, Carrboro, N.C.

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

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Lawsuit accuses Virginia power company of poisoning Dominican community with toxic coal ash

Climate Citizen: Majora Carter

Big conservation deal will protect 218,000 acres of forest in the South

Conservationists are celebrating the biggest sale of private land for preservation in the South's history. The Nature Conservancy and the Conservation Fund have put up a combined $300 million for 218,000 acres of forestland owned by International Paper in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. Most of the acreage will continue to be worked for timber, but the most eco-sensitive areas will be put off-limits to loggers, and all of the land will be kept out of the hands of real-estate developers. Green groups are pleased that the deal will preserve contiguous forest and shoreline wildlife habitat. Meanwhile, up in Wisconsin, the Nature Conservancy has gone in with the state on a purchase of more than 64,000 IP acres worth about $83.7 million.

Related Links:

EU pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Having depleted their own nation's once-plentiful turtle populations, Chinese buyers are now offering top dollar for turtles from the southern U.S. In the last three years, there's been a dramatic upswing in the number of turtles exported to China, where the animals' meat is considered a delicacy and their shells are ground up to make virility powders. In 2002, 23,000 turtles were extracted from the waterways of North Carolina, up from just a few thousand in 1999. So troubling is this trend that North Carolina is poised to impose a moratorium on turtle fishing. South Carolina is also considering a moratorium, and Alabama and Mississippi have put strict limits on turtle trapping. Southern populations of the slow-moving creatures don't seem to be in danger yet, but lawmakers want to act before it's too late.

Related Links:

EU pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity

Copenhagen climate summit (part 1): the expectations

Wash. Times: “China vows to dramatically slow emissions growth.”

In the South, low-income, black citizens are becoming more outspoken and effective as they fight the construction of landfills, polluting factories, and other environmentally hazardous facilities in their communities, and they're increasingly being joined by neighbors of all colors. "Companies now don't just bully in," said Robert Bullard, a sociology professor at Clark Atlanta University who has studied environmental racism. "When they do, they're in for a rude awakening." Companies often argue that their proposed plants and incinerators would create jobs, but even in economically depressed areas, many citizens aren't willing to overlook the pollution that these developments bring to their water, air, and land. In rural Lowndes County in Alabama, national civil rights leaders have joined locals in crying out against plans for a landfill near the Selma-to-Montgomery National Historic Trail. "Twelve jobs -- come on. Twelve jobs for a dump on the ... historic civil rights trail," said community leader Barbara Evans, dismissing the small economic boost the landfill would bring.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Growing up green: Breathing for two

Almost 6,000 people will die prematurely from respiratory illness due to emissions from power plants owned by eight utility companies that the Clinton administration sued for violating the Clean Air Act, according to a private report released yesterday. In addition to the deaths, the report predicted that the pollution would lead to 140,000 asthma attacks and 14,000 cases of acute bronchitis. Residents of the Midwest and the South will be hit hardest, and the nation's overall productivity will suffer as well, because Americans will miss an estimated 1.2 million days of work per year due to related health problems. The energy industry pooh-poohed the study, with one spokesperson calling it the "45 millionth" of its kind and questioning the science behind it. The report, which was prepared by Abt Associates and paid for by the Rockefeller Family Fund, comes as the Bush administration is lobbying to change the Clean Air Act in ways that environmentalists say would weaken it.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

More than 31 million acres of forest in the southern United States will disappear into the maw of urban development in the next four decades, according to a report released yesterday by the U.S. Forest Service in collaboration with other federal agencies. Wildlife and water and air quality will suffer as trees make way for sprawling growth and timber harvests increase by half, the report found. That's bad news, but environmentalists say it's not bad enough; they criticize the report as going too light on the timber and paper industries, noting that paper mills alone annually destroy 5 million acres of forests in the South. They also point out that the net loss of forested areas -- which the report places at about 2 percent by 2040 -- would be much greater if pine plantations and other tree farms were not counted as true forestland.

Related Links:

Meet your new national parks chief

Does anyone still care about “the land”?

Teddy Roosevelt and the search for new ‘wilderness warriors’

A memo circulated recently around the Sierra Club's offices highlighted the "Top Ten" reasons the group should not endorse Vice Pres. Al Gore. The memo, written by Sierra Club board member Michael Dorsey and unearthed by the Washington Times last week, says: "Does Vice President Gore really care about nature? Does he care about protecting people from hazardous waste and toxic pollution? Does he care about human life and the future of the planet? The answers seem to be a resounding and deafening NO."

The Sierra Club went into maximum spin mode after the memo leaked, criticizing the Washington Times for misrepresenting the document as some sort of official organization position and assuring reporters that it was just one board member's opinion that grew out of a recent discussion of possible endorsements and that should never have become public.

"We need to have a much more elaborate discussion with the candidates and with our members" before issuing any endorsements, Sierra Club National Conservation Director Bruce Hamilton told Muckraker. "[Dorsey's memo] wasn't what you would say is balanced. It was a personal reaction and not an official Sierra Club communication."

Okay, so is the group going to come out one way or another before the Democratic race is over, which could be as early as next month?

"The general assessment," Hamilton said, "is that both Bradley and Gore have equally strong environmental records. We've been looking for all the candidates, particularly the two Democrats, to do a little bit more and articulate a vision of what they would want to do if they were elected president."

In other words: Don't hold your breath.

Speaking of the Sierra Club, they've moved on from whacking Texas Gov. George W. Bush on air pollution to targeting Sen. John McCain for opposing national monument status for two chunks of land in his home state of Arizona.

John McCain.

The group is running ads on TV and radio this week in Phoenix, ripping McCain for saying he would model his presidency on Theodore Roosevelt while at the same time opposing something Roosevelt embraced: making certain lands off-limits to commercial development by presidential decree.

"Arizona's Grand Canyon ... All six of our national forests ... were picked for protection by President Theodore Roosevelt," the ads intone. "It's a tradition of protecting wild places Sen. John McCain says he plans to follow. So why is he attacking the president's plan to protect out National Forests and create the Grand Canyon-Parashant National Monument?"

McCain, of course, has said that the one place where he would disagree with his Republican idol is on TR's habit of unilaterally setting aside public land.

A new poll indicates that McCain and the rest of Arizona's congressional delegation, which is in something of a swivet over the monuments Clinton created yesterday, should take a chill pill. Seventy-six percent of Arizonans believe the lands should be protected, including 65 percent of Republicans, according to the poll, conducted by the Behavior Research Center of Phoenix. (And speaking of polls, a national one conducted recently by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance found that 58 percent of Americans believe that "not enough" wilderness has been protected by the federal government.)

This column, intended to bring you all the vicissitudes of daily life in the environmental movement, is particularly interested in the exploits of small and scrappy green groups on the verge of breaking through.

One such organization, the Southeast Forest Project, is vying to bring the issue of chip mills in the South onto the national enviro scene, where it has been mostly absent for years.

How much wood would this chip mill chip ...

Trevor FitzGibbon, who represents half of the organization's tiny Washington shop, tells Muckraker that he's been bending the ear of Gore's staff of late in an effort to get the vice president to take a stand on the issue by both keeping his eyes on a federal study currently underway and publicly urging state officials to take action.

"He has an opportunity to be a real hero here," FitzGibbon said of Gore. "He came out in 1992 with a position, but that was 1992, when there were only a few chip mills. It's now 2000 and you've got close to 160 mills, and in Tennessee [Gore's home state] it's totally out of hand."

There are few laws to prevent large timber companies from clear-cutting forests in the Southeast and replacing them with genetically modified redwoods that can be quickly grown and harvested and fed to the noisy mills, which create woodchips for export and for domestic use as particle board, rayon, and other products. FitzGibbon's group, along with the Dogwood Alliance, is pushing for new regulations, be they state, local, or federal. Vice presidential attention, of course, couldn't hurt.

"We know that we need some checks and balances in the South. The public is demanding it and the forest is demanding it," FitzGibbon said.

We promise to stop flogging this story soon, but we couldn't put it to rest without one more installment. Following our airing of Greenpeace USA PR hound Craig Culp's response to our original item on the mass resignation of the group's board of directors and allegations of low employee morale, our phone immediately started ringing off the hook with former staffers coming out of the woodwork (all anonymously, of course) to complain about what a snake pit they say the place has become.

We start with John (or perhaps Jane) Doe #1, who called Culp's denials of a reign of terror by Executive Director Kristen Engberg "completely erroneous." This person says, "What is happening here is horrible. If the people who fund this organization had any idea what was going on, they would be shocked."

This source says that staff members who dared to ask questions in public meetings about departmental reorganizations were later dragged in and given serious tongue-lashings about loyalty, courtesy of Engberg. "Kristen basically operates through fear," this source said.

John/Jane Doe #2 called his/her brief time working at Greenpeace USA "the worst experience of my entire life." John/Jane Doe #3 described Engberg's reign as a "dictatorship" and said there has been a parade of people walking out the door.

Bill Bradley weighed in on global warming last week on Chris Matthew's cable shout-fest on MSNBC, saying he would work to get Kyoto through the Senate and noting: "There are some people that think that global warming is a myth, but all they have to do is come to New Hampshire right now. ... We've just been through a decade that's been the warmest decade in history. We see the polar ice cap melting."

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Greenpeace calls on world leaders to stop rainforest destruction