This post is part of a series related to Teaching Environmental Law in Context, a recent book by Member Scholars Rebecca Bratspies and Carmen Gonzalez.
Teaching Environmental Law in Context is a fantastic resource, not only for law professors, but for professors of environmental studies and other adjacent fields. I can’t begin to tell you all the number of times that my colleagues at the University of Wisconsin Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (as well as colleagues in Environmental Science, Community and Environmental Sociology, and Geography) have asked for a primer like this with respect to environmental law. I am asking our library to get this book right now.
The chapters I was invited to review — on risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis — are incredibly useful for teachers (as well as colleagues whose work touches upon environmental law!). I’m writing here now from the perspective of my colleagues who teach undergraduate courses; many would welcome both the ground-level explanation, as well as the broader context that the chapters provide, and I’ve told them about this book, much to their excitement. Many of these colleagues do already teach risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, but more from scientific and economic perspectives, and this book provides them with more legal grounding in what they teach.
The content of these chapters is superbly written. The chapters walk through the basics of environmental law as it applies to risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses, but also discuss the various biases that can confound both types of analyses. So often, people misunderstand these analyses as a sort of black box calculator, with inputs leading to a clear answer. But these chapters explain why this is not the case. Instead, variables such as the ways in which injuries are monetized (or not!) and the inability to fully quantify benefits have profound effects on the outcomes of these analyses.
These chapters can help students think better about the ways in which analyses can be biased. Indeed, they can help students from environmental studies perspectives better reconcile potential biases and gaps with their own risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses. In short, this is crucial for their professional development.
The other thing I would add is that these chapters draw teachers’ and students’ attention to environmental justice. The chapters do so from the perspective of distributive effects, as well as biases built into risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses. These issues are often easy to ignore in environmental law textbooks, as U.S. environmental statutes barely mention distributive effects. But my environmental studies colleagues teach these issues all the time, so inclusion in this textbook would be especially welcome.
Moreover, the chapters come with useful teaching tips. For example, one tip states: “Ask students how much they would be willing to pay someone to refrain from killing them. Have them write the number on a piece of paper and then exchange papers with a classmate. Go around the room and ask students to read the numbers.” These tips are especially useful in the world of generative artificial intelligence (AI), where in-person evaluative assessments can be especially useful in terms of pedagogy. Note to other textbook authors: We need more of this!
Finally, the teaching exercises are succinct and vivid. These include benzene, mercury, lead, asbestos, and vinyl chloride exposure, as well as general air emissions from large ships. All of these examples invite broader discussions in the classroom. Again, in the world of generative AI, such in-person discussions can be helpful, both in terms of assessing students’ understandings, as well as creating opportunities for conversation and thought outside of digital media.
One thing I would like to see in the future is more development on exercises on environmental agency recalcitrance, both state and federal. What levers can citizens and environmental groups use? How can they exercise their powers to address some of these biases and gaps in risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses? Where are the potential feedback loops that can be harnessed? So many of my environmental studies colleagues teach systems thinking — for example, the works of Donella Meadows — so addressing this would be a welcome addition.
The other thing I would like to see in the future is a bit more of a focus on what environmental studies students need, not just in terms of legal training, but more in terms of academic understanding. The focus on risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis is great, but it is only a start. I’ve guest lectured at non-law school courses a number of times, and students have often asked, but wait, why can the government just lie? Why can companies just lie? What this makes me realize is that even more legal grounding might be necessary for educating students.
In sum, this book is a welcome resource for environmental law professors and environmental studies professors alike. I look forward to seeing it in many classrooms.
