The Melting of Polar Ice Caps and Glaciers: A World in Liquid Transition

I. Introduction: Ice as the Planet’s Memory

Ice is not merely frozen water. It is memory, time, and testimony. Polar ice caps and glaciers hold centuries of climate history, atmospheric particles, traces of microscopic life, and geological silence. When they melt, it’s not just solid water that disappears-a part of the planet’s identity is lost.

The accelerated melting of polar and mountainous regions has become one of the most visible and alarming signs of global warming. The white landscape that once seemed eternal is retreating, fragmenting, transforming into liquid that flows into the oceans and disrupts the world’s balance. This phenomenon, though physical, is also symbolic: it represents the collapse of natural boundaries, the advance of the unknown, and the urgency of rethinking our place on Earth.

II. The Anatomy of Melting: How and Why

The melting of polar ice caps and glaciers results from a combination of interconnected factors. The main driver is the rise in average global temperature, fueled by the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But other elements are at play: warmer ocean currents, changes in wind patterns, loss of albedo (the ability to reflect sunlight), and extreme weather events.

Polar ice caps-found in Antarctica and the Arctic-are vast expanses of ice covering land and floating over the sea. Glaciers, on the other hand, are rivers of ice formed in mountainous and polar zones, fed by snow accumulated over decades. Both are losing mass at unprecedented speed, with consequences that extend far beyond frozen regions.

III. Sea Level Rise: The Silent Surge

One of the most direct consequences of melting is the rise in sea levels. When land-based ice-such as glaciers and grounded ice caps-melts, the resulting water flows into the oceans, increasing their volume. This process is slow but cumulative. Millimeters per year become centimeters per decade, and the impact is global.

Coastal cities, low-lying islands, and riverine zones are among the most vulnerable. Rising sea levels threaten infrastructure, agricultural lands, freshwater reserves, and even cultural heritage. In some cases, entire communities face the possibility of permanent displacement—so-called climate refugees. Melting, therefore, is not just an environmental issue: it is a matter of social justice and survival.

IV. Loss of Arctic Habitats: The Silence of the Bears

The Arctic is one of the ecosystems most affected by melting. Sea ice, which forms and dissolves seasonally, is becoming thinner and more unstable. Species such as polar bears, walruses, narwhals, and krill depend directly on the presence of ice for hunting, reproduction, and migration. As the ice disappears, their life cycles are disrupted.

But it’s not just large mammals that suffer. Melting alters the salinity and temperature of the water, affecting entire food chains. Migratory birds lose resting points, fish change routes, and microorganisms that sustain the ecosystem collapse. The Arctic, once a symbol of stability, is becoming a laboratory of extinction.

V. Ice as a Climate Regulator

Polar ice caps play a crucial role in regulating the global climate. Their high albedo allows them to reflect much of the sun’s radiation, keeping the planet cooler. When ice melts, this capacity diminishes, and more heat is absorbed by oceans and land. This feedback effect accelerates global warming, creating a vicious cycle.

Furthermore, melting affects ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, which depend on temperature and salinity differences to function. Its slowdown can alter climate patterns across the Northern Hemisphere, causing harsher winters, drier summers, and more frequent extreme events. Ice, therefore, is not just local-it is systemic.

VI. Melting and Geopolitics: The Arctic Race

The melting of polar ice caps is opening new maritime routes and exposing previously inaccessible natural resources, such as oil, gas, and rare minerals. This geographic transformation is triggering a geopolitical race among countries with Arctic interests, including Russia, the United States, Canada, Norway, and China.

Economic exploitation of these zones raises ethical and environmental questions. The fragility of polar ecosystems makes any human intervention potentially destructive. Moreover, militarization of the region and disputes over territorial sovereignty may escalate international tensions. Melting, then, is not just a natural phenomenon-it is a political catalyst.

VII. The Human Dimension: Communities at Risk

In regions like Alaska, Greenland, and northern Scandinavia, Indigenous communities have lived in harmony with ice for centuries. Their culture, diet, spirituality, and economy are deeply tied to seasonal cycles and the presence of ice. Melting threatens not only their territory but their identity.

Coastal erosion, collapse of infrastructure built on permafrost, and loss of natural resources are forcing painful relocations and adaptations. These populations face the dilemma of preserving traditions or adapting to a changing world. Melting, in this context, is also a matter of cultural memory and human rights.

VIII. Technical Solutions: Between Science and Hope

Although melting is an ongoing process, there are technical solutions that can mitigate its effects or slow its progression. The first line of defense is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Transitioning to renewable energy, decarbonizing industry, and promoting sustainable mobility are fundamental pillars.

But there are also more specific proposals. Satellite monitoring allows real-time tracking of ice masses. Advanced climate models help predict scenarios and guide public policy. In some regions, techniques to reinforce ice are being tested, such as dispersing reflective microspheres or building physical barriers to slow glacial collapse.

These solutions, though promising, face technical limitations, high costs, and ethical dilemmas. Human intervention in such sensitive natural systems requires caution, transparency, and scientific consensus. Melting cannot be fought with technology alone-it also demands behavioral change and political vision.

IX. The Role of Education and Communication

Public understanding of melting is essential to mobilize action. Often, the phenomenon is perceived as distant, technical, or inevitable. It is necessary to transform data into narratives, maps into stories, graphs into emotions. Environmental education should include melting as a cross-cutting theme, linking science, geography, ethics, and citizenship.

Visual communication-through documentaries, exhibitions, augmented reality-can bring the public closer to polar reality. Testimonies from scientists, local communities, and activists help humanize the debate. Art, literature, and cinema also have a role to play, evoking ice as a symbol of beauty, fragility, and urgency.

X. Ethical and Philosophical Dilemmas

Melting raises profound ethical questions. Do we have the right to exploit resources revealed by retreating ice? Should we intervene technically to preserve ecosystems that are disappearing? How do we balance economic, environmental, and cultural interests?

There is also a philosophical dimension. Ice represents slow time, nature’s patience, the planet’s memory. Its disappearance confronts us with the acceleration of modern life, the voracity of consumption, and the fragility of our civilization. Melting is a mirror-it shows us who we are and where we are heading.

XI. Melting and Climate Justice

The impacts of melting are not distributed equally. Island nations, coastal communities, and Indigenous populations are among the most affected, despite being the least responsible for global warming. Climate justice demands that the most polluting countries assume financial, technological, and political responsibilities.

Adapting to the consequences of melting-such as rising sea levels-requires resources that many countries lack. International cooperation, climate funds, and compensation mechanisms are essential tools. But more than money, recognition, solidarity, and historical reparation are needed.

XII. Conclusion: The Ice That Unites Us

The melting of polar ice caps and glaciers is a global phenomenon, but also deeply intimate. It affects oceans, cities, species, and cultures. It challenges science, politics, ethics, and imagination. It is a warning, a call to action, an opportunity for transformation.

We cannot freeze time, but we can change course. The ice that melts need not be only loss-it can be a starting point. For a new relationship with Earth, for a fairer economy, for humbler science, for a more conscious humanity.

Melting marks the end of an era. But it can also be the beginning of another-if we have the courage to listen to the silence of glaciers and act before everything turns to water.

Joomla Templates and Joomla Extensions by ZooTemplate.Com
Share

The Role of Renewable Energy in Mitigating Global Warming

AEW1

The increasing threat of global warming poses significant challenges to humanity. As the planet's average temperature rises, a myriad of consequences emerge, including extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and disruptions to ecosystems. In addressing this urgent issue, renewable energy has emerged as a powerful tool in the fight against global warming.

To understand the role of renewable energy, it is essential to acknowledge its different sources. Solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal energy are some of the most prominent forms, each harnessing natural processes to generate electricity without the harmful emissions associated with fossil fuels. Unlike traditional energy sources, renewable energy can be regenerated continuously, making it a sustainable choice capable of meeting the growing global energy demands.

The historical context of renewable energy showcases its evolution over time. While the concept has been around for centuries, the modern push toward renewables began in the late 20th century. The oil crisis in the 1970s shifted global attention towards alternative energy sources as nations recognized the vulnerabilities associated with dependence on fossil fuels. Government policies began to promote renewable energy initiatives in response to crises and increasing environmental awareness. Over subsequent decades, technology accelerated the development and feasibility of renewables, leading to significant improvements in efficiency and cost.

Key figures have played vital roles in advancing renewable energy technology and advocating for its adoption. One prominent figure is Dr. Hermann Scheer, a German politician and renewable energy advocate. He was instrumental in the development of the feed-in tariff, a system that incentivizes energy producers for generating renewable energy. This policy revolutionized the market in Germany and led to substantial growth in solar and wind energy globally. Similarly, figures like Bill McKibben, an environmentalist and founder of the grassroots climate organization 350. org, have raised awareness about climate change and the critical need for a transition to renewable energy sources. Their efforts emphasized both the technical and political dimensions of energy transition, fostering wider public support for renewable initiatives.

Despite the promising potential of renewable energy, there are various perspectives regarding its implementation. Proponents argue that transitioning to renewable sources is not only environmentally necessary but also economically beneficial. Renewable energy creates jobs, stimulates economic growth, and reduces dependency on imported fuels. For instance, a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency indicates that renewables employed over 11 million people worldwide in 2018, an increase from previous years. This data supports the argument that investing in renewables can foster sustainable development.

On the other hand, critics argue that renewable energy cannot entirely replace fossil fuels due to intermittency issues. Solar and wind sources are not always reliable, and energy storage remains a challenge. However, advancements in battery technology, such as lithium-ion batteries and emerging technologies like solid-state batteries, are enhancing energy storage capabilities and making renewables more viable as a primary energy source. The development of smart grids also allows for better integration of renewable energy sources, managing when and where the energy is used most effectively.

Recent developments indicate growing momentum toward a renewable energy future. Countries around the world are making commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase their renewable energy portfolios. In 2020, the European Union announced plans to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, aiming to reduce emissions significantly while promoting green technologies. Additionally, China's investments in renewable energy have positioned it as a global leader in solar and wind capacity. These examples reflect a global shift toward sustainability and showcase the vital role that renewable energy is expected to play in mitigating global warming.

Looking ahead, the future of renewable energy appears promising but is not without challenges. Climate change policies will need to prioritize technological innovation and consider social aspects like equity in energy access. For renewables to make a significant impact, the transition must be just, ensuring that vulnerable populations are not left behind. Furthermore, the integration of renewables into existing infrastructure needs careful planning and support from various stakeholders, including governments, businesses, and communities.

In conclusion, renewable energy has become a cornerstone in the effort to mitigate global warming. Its potential to provide sustainable energy solutions while reducing greenhouse gas emissions cannot be overstated. The historical advancements, contributions from key individuals, diverse perspectives, and the progress made in recent years all suggest that renewable energy is integral to combating climate change. As the world continues to grapple with the implications of a warming planet, embracing renewable energy will be crucial for fostering a sustainable and resilient future. The interplay between technology, policy, and public support will determine how effectively we harness renewable energy's full potential in the years to come.

References:

Phebe Asantewaa Owusu. "Full article: A review of renewable energy sources, sustainability issues and climate change mitigation." www.tandfonline.com https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311916.2016.1167990.

Laura Christensen. "Renewable Energy Adoption and Carbon Emission Reductions in Copenhagen, Denmark | International Journal of Climatic Studies." www.iprjb.org, 29 Sep. 2024, https://www.iprjb.org/journals/index.php/IJCS/article/view/2971?srsltid=AfmBOoqrG9_N7wbilmgXKLoUrOtcKerUapmvjOnrXUlIhhRUc18C3NF4.

Aws Zuhair Sameen, Qusay Hassan, Marek Jaszczur, Ali Khudhair Al-Jiboory, Bashar Mahmood Ali, Hayder M. Salman, Sameer Algburi, and Tariq J. Al-Musawi. "A comprehensive review of international renewable energy growth - ScienceDirect." www.sciencedirect.com, 09 Jan. 2024, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666123323001186.

Keshani Attanayake, Isuru Wickramage, Ruwan Jayathilaka, Udul Samarasinghe, Sandali Ehalapitiya, Yasangi Ranmini, and Shanta Yapa. "Renewable energy as a solution to climate change: Insights from a comprehensive study across nations - PMC." pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, 20 Jun. 2024, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11189203/.

Unknown Author. "Energies | Special Issue : Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Renewable Energy Technologies." www.mdpi.com, 21 Aug. 2024, https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies/special_issues/J10FDD524C?fbclid=IwAR1y_1cUtq4Xt7K5JKl_tCnUT3q9DOBviyjO3aWaiTdZv_1zFZgpm8Q98r4.

Carlo Aall, Brigt Dale, and Tarje Wanvik. "Climate Risks of the Transition to a Renewable Energy Society: The Need for Extending the Research Agenda in: Weather, Climate, and Society Volume 14 Issue 2 (2022)." journals.ametsoc.org, 15 Mar. 2022, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wcas/14/2/WCAS-D-21-0055.1.xml.

Nelson S. Chipangamate, and Glen T. Nwaila. "Assessment of challenges and strategies for driving energy transitions in emerging markets: A socio-technological systems perspective - ScienceDirect." www.sciencedirect.com, 01 Apr. 2024, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666759223001038.

Ifeoluwa Wole-Osho, Olusola Bamisile, Eric C. Okonkwo, and Muhammad Abid. "Grid integration of renewable energy in Qatar: Potentials and limitations - ScienceDirect." www.sciencedirect.com, 15 Nov. 2021, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544221015589.

Joomla Templates and Joomla Extensions by ZooTemplate.Com
Share

(30) Environmental Law

Some good news on China’s air pollution fight, but it comes with a warning

environmentallaw29

AIR POLLUTION, NOISE POLLUTION AND TOXIC TORTS

Air pollution

Relevant definitions

The definition of air pollution is found at s 4 of the Air Pollution Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), which states as follows:

‘Air pollution’ in this Act means a condition of the atmosphere in which a pollutant is present in such a quantity as to be liable to:

(i) Be injurious to public health; or

(ii) Have a deleterious effect on flora or fauna or damage property; or

(iii) Impair or interfere with amenities or with the environment.

The definition of air pollution in the 1987 Act was imported into the definition of ‘environmental pollution’ by virtue of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, s 4(2)(a). In addition, environmental pollution is also defined in s 4(2)(d) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 to mean:

The noise which is a nuisance, or would endanger human health or damage property or harm the environment.

Statutory noise nuisance

For the first time under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 (the EPA Act) a statutory remedy was created which is set out at s 108 of the EPA Act, which is misleadingly entitled in the margin as ‘Noise as a Nuisance’. This is not a nuisance in the sense of the common law tort of nuisance but rather represents a new statutory nuisance provision.

Section 108 provides as follows: 108(1). Where any noise which is so loud, so continuous, so repeated, of such duration or pitch or occurring at such times as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to a person in any premises in the neighborhood or to a person lawfully using any public place, a local authority, the Agency or any such person may complain to the District Court and the court may order the person or body making, causing or responsible for the noise to take the measures necessary to reduce the noise to a specified level or to take specified measures for the prevention or limitation of the noise and the person or body concerned shall comply with such order.

This provision also provides for a statutory defence as follows: 108(2). It shall be a good defence, in the case of proceedings under subsection

(1) Or in a prosecution for a contravention of this section, in the case of noise caused in the course of a trade or business, for the accused to prove that:

(a) He took all reasonable care to prevent or limit the noise to which the complaint relates by providing, maintaining, using, operating and supervising facilities, or by employing practices or methods of operation, that, having regard to all the circumstances, were suitable for the purposes of such prevention or limitation; or

(b) The noise is in accordance with

(i) The terms of a licence under this Act, or

(ii) Regulations under s 106.

The section also provides for exceptions so that it shall not apply to noise caused by aircraft or statutory undertakers or local authorities in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by or under any enactment (s 108(4)(a) and

(b) Of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992).

The general obligation not to cause harmful emissions

The Air Pollution Act 1987 imposes a statutory prohibition on creating environmental pollution as follows:

(a) The occupier of any premises other than a private dwelling shall use the best practicable means to limit and, if possible, to prevent an emission from such premises (s 24(1) of the Air Pollution Act 1987).

(b) The occupier of any premises shall not cause or permit an emission from such premises in such a quantity or in such a manner, as to be a nuisance (s 24(2) of the Air Pollution Act 1987).

(c) Under both the 1987 Act and the EPA Act there are specific provisions which make it an offence to contravene any provision of either Act or any regulations made under them or of any notice served under the Act.

Statutory penalty

Specifically, in relation to air pollution, the statutory penalty is set out in s 11(1)–(3) inclusive of the Air Pollution Act 1987:

(1) Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or of any regulation made under this Act or of any notice served under this Act shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate or by a person acting on behalf of a body corporate and is proved to have been so committed with the consent, connivance or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other official of such body, such person shall also be guilty of an offence.

(3) In this section, a reference to the contravention of the provision includes, where appropriate, a reference to a refusal, or a failure, to comply with that provision.

 Air pollution case law

The best known and most detailed air emissions case in Ireland is that of Hanrahan v Merck, Sharp & Dohme Ltd [1988] ILRM 629, which was a case decided ultimately in favour of the plaintiffs, not on the grounds of negligence, which was not proven, but on the grounds of (malodorous) nuisance, which is a strict liability tort. In that particular case, the Hanrahan family claimed not only in respect of property damage but also damage to their cattle and to themselves individually in terms of personal injuries. The evidence was painstakingly gone through by each court, including the Supreme Court, which ultimately remitted the case to the High Court. It did so on the basis that, although negligence had not been proven, no amount of scientific or theoretical evidence, no matter how expert and learned the witnesses, could displace the empirical evidence on oath of the numerous witnesses who gave evidence on oath of their physical discomfort and medical conditions arising at times when sharp, chemical-type smells were noted in the air in the vicinity of the defendants’ factory.

On the facts, causation was found and therefore, nuisance being a strict liability tort, the Supreme Court ultimately found in favour - at least in part-of the plaintiffs.

Noise

Noise as a pollutant

The definition of noise as a nuisance in the EPA Act is the most practical guide available to the ordinary person on the type of noise which one can successfully prosecute. However, it should be noted that compensation does not arise as a remedy under this statutory provision. In addition there are other specific reference and guidance documents on what is or is not acceptable noise and, in particular, the EPA has issued Guidance Notes for Noise in relation to its IPPC licensed activities as well as Environmental Noise Survey Guidance documents, created to assist IPPC licensed facilities in complying with the atmospheric emissions and noise conditions of their licences. Typically, noise sensitive locations are agreed/stipulated by the EPA. These locations become the monitoring points for compliance by the IPPC licence holder with its noise emissions conditions. As with other emission monitoring data, the information gathered is publicly available both at the EPA’s offices and at the IPPC licensed site premises.

In the Environmental Noise Survey Guidance Document most recently issued by the EPA (ISBN 1-84095-113-3) the definition of noise is:

Any sound that has the potential to cause disturbance, discomfort or psychological stress to a subject exposed to it, or any sound that could cause actual physiological harm to a subject exposed to it, or physical damage to any structure exposed to it, is known as noise.

For all IPPC licence holders, noise sensitive locations are defined as:

Any dwelling house, hotel or hostel, health building, educational establishment, place of worship or entertainment, or any other facility or other areas of high amenity which affords proper enjoyment requires the absence of noise at nuisance levels.

How noisy can it get?

The EPA accepts that in a modern world, noise is almost ubiquitous. Most normal everyday activities lead to the production of noise. Noise from traffic, lawnmowers, household appliances, concerts, industrial activities and so on, are considered commonplace, particularly in the urban setting. In most cases, the majority of people scarcely notice these noises and if they do, they are not bothered by them, but in some cases, people can perceive the same noise as a nuisance. Such people may have more sensitive ears than others or maybe less reasonable than others. Some may be annoyed by noise because they have a personal particular need to sleep at a particular time or relax in a quiet atmosphere. In some cases, noise may present such a nuisance as to cause harmful effect on the health of those exposed to it. It inevitably depends on all the circumstances whether noise is a nuisance, and both subjective and objective criteria must be used when considering this question.

Noise measuring

In the Guidance Notes the EPA explains that, in order to assess whether intervention is needed to prevent, control or minimise noise, it is necessary to be able to quantify it, and ascribe a scale of measurement to it. This is not as simple or straightforward a science as one might think. Noise is usually measured on the decibel scale, which is a logarithmic scale of sound intensity. For human noise response, the decibel scale is adjusted slightly to compensate for slight aberrations in the way the human ear ‘hears’ sound along the scale. This adjusted scale is known as the A-weighted decibel scale, and the units of the scale are dBa. The EPA Guidance Notes include a table, set out below, which illustrates examples of everyday sound levels: As a general rule, the sensitivity to noise is usually greater at nighttime than it is during the day and this has been worked out as by about ten decibels A weighted dBa. Audible tones and impulsive tones at sensitive locations should be avoided irrespective of the noise level. In addition, it should be noted that noise includes vibration, under s 3 of the EPA Act.

Recent noise nuisance case law

A recent decision of the High Court is useful, if not salutary: Sheeran and Another v Meehan and Another (High Court Appeal No 2001/202CA, judgment of Mr Justice Herbert, delivered 6 February 2003). This case concerns a long-running dispute between the neighbouring occupiers of numbers 20 and 21 Belleview Park Avenue, Blackrock, County Dublin.

In this case the definition of nuisance approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Hanrahan v Merck, Sharp & Dohme referred to above was adopted. The test is found in the following excerpt (Henchy J in Hanrahan v Merck, Sharp & Dohme [1988] ILRM 629 at p 640): As I have pointed out earlier in this judgment, by reference to the cited passage from the judgment of Gannon J in Halpin & Others v Tara Mines Ltd, where the conduct relied on as constituting a nuisance is said to be an interference with the plaintiff’s comfort in the enjoyment of his property, the test is whether the interference is beyond what an objectively reasonable person should have to put up with in the circumstances of the case. The plaintiff is not entitled to insist that his personal nicety of taste or fastidiousness of requirements should be treated as inviolable. The case for damages and nuisance - we are not concerned here with the question of an injunction - is made out if the interference is so pronounced and prolonged or repeated that a person of normal or average sensibilities should not be expected to put up with it.

Essentially the case concerned the Meehans using their hi-fi radio stereo system to interfere with the Sheerans’ comfort and the enjoyment of their home. The extent of personal evidence was copious, including Mrs Meehan accepting in cross-examination that her response to Mr Sheeran’s complaint about the noise (when she had the radio playing from the kitchen of her house while she cleaned her car from 20 or more feet away from where she was working outside the house) was that Mr Sheeran ‘should turn up his own radio and then he would not be so conscious of theirs’. Acoustic engineers on both sides carried out detailed technical tests. Both experts considered that when the Meehans’ radio was played at a particular sound setting, it was non-intrusive and could not be heard in the Sheerans’ kitchen and master bedroom. It was ultimately accepted that the Meehans did not keep their hi-fi stereo radio system at the agreed limited sound setting (despite the placing of a physical limiter on their stereo). It would appear that from time to time the radio was turned up full blast and the family would leave the house and let it play all day or early in the morning at weekends.

The High Court judge, in describing this case as tragic, remarked that there were many aspects which were extremely distasteful. In a 19-page judgment, the High Court exercised its discretion to make no order for costs in favour of the extraordinary and unjustifiably belligerent defendants/appellants, having regard to what the court found to have been the altogether unsatisfactory manner in which they acted throughout the matter. The plaintiffs/respondents were found to have successfully established their claim as to approximately one-half only of the period of alleged nuisance and were accordingly limited in their costs recovery.

European law

Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relates to the assessment and management of environmental noise. It is due to be implemented in Ireland by 18 July 2004. It sets out in its recitals those categories of products already controlled by Community legislation on their noise emission limits. These include permissible sound levels for motor vehicles and their exhaust systems, the noise levels of tractors from the driver’s perception, subsonic aircraft, two and three-wheel motor vehicles and noise emissions in the environment from equipment for use outdoors. The key driver of the legislation is that the Community intends to achieve a high level of health protection and environmental protection from noise. The stated aim of the Directive at Art 1 is to avoid, prevent or reduce on a prioritized basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise. In this piece of legislation, the decision has been made to establish a common assessment method throughout the EU for environmental noise and a definition for limit values. This will undoubtedly assist those in the future who wish to bring claims arising from noise pollution. European-wide common noise indicators are to be put in place: Lden which will assess annoyance, and Lnight which will assess sleep disturbance, amongst other things. Competent authorities in each Member State are required to draw up action plans addressing priorities for noise reduction in areas of interest. For the purposes of the Directive, Art 3 defines environmental noise as: Unwanted or harmful outdoor sound created by human activities, including noise emitted by means of transport, road traffic, rail traffic, air traffic, and from sites of industrial activity such as those defined in Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control.

Harmful effects are defined as ‘negative effects on human health’. It is envisaged under Art 4 that each Member State will designate the competent authority to make and approve noise maps and action plans for agglomerations, major roads, major railways and major airports, all of which are defined; and for collecting noise maps and action plans. Annexe I sets out the noise indicators which shall be applied and commonly assessed throughout the EU. The remaining five Annexes set out minimum requirements for strategic noise mapping and for action plans, detail the assessment methods for harmful effects and for the noise indicators and list the data to be sent to the Commission.

Joomla Templates and Joomla Extensions by ZooTemplate.Com
Share

(29) Environmental Law

Environmental Law: New York State significantly revises Part 360 Solid Waste Management Regulations

The environmental law comes into force in Ukraine

Australia's birds are not being protected by environmental laws, the report says

Punishing Polluters: A Crash Course on Canadian Environmental Law and How it Affects You

EL29

AIR POLLUTION, NOISE POLLUTION AND TOXIC TORTS

 Air pollution

  1. Relevant definitions

The definition of air pollution is found at s 4 of the Air Pollution Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), which states as follows:

‘Air pollution’ in this Act means a condition of the atmosphere in which a pollutant is present in such a quantity as to be liable to:

(i) Be injurious to public health; or

(ii) Have a deleterious effect on flora or fauna or damage property; or

(iii) Impair or interfere with amenities or with the environment.

The definition of air pollution in the 1987 Act was imported into the definition of ‘environmental pollution’ by virtue of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, s 4(2)(a). In addition, environmental pollution is also defined in s 4(2)(d) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 to mean: Noise which is a nuisance or would endanger human health or damage property or harm the environment.

  1. Statutory noise nuisance

For the first time under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 (the EPA Act) a statutory remedy was created which is set out at s 108 of the EPA Act, which is misleadingly entitled in the margin as ‘Noise as a Nuisance’. This is not a nuisance in the sense of the common law tort of nuisance but rather represents a new statutory nuisance provision.

Section 108 provides as follows:

108(1). Where any noise which is so loud, so continuous, so repeated, of such duration or pitch or occurring at such times as to give reasonable cause for annoyance to a person in any premises in the neighbourhood or to a person lawfully using any public place, a local authority, the Agency or any such person may complain to the District Court and the court may order the person or body making, causing or responsible for the noise to take the measures necessary to reduce the noise to a specified level or to take specified measures for the prevention or limitation of the noise and the person or body concerned shall comply with such order.

This provision also provides for a statutory defence as follows:

108(2). It shall be a good defence, in the case of proceedings under subsection (1) or in a prosecution for a contravention of this section, in the case of noise caused in the course of a trade or business, for the accused to prove that - (a) he took all reasonable care to prevent or limit the noise to which the complaint relates by providing, maintaining, using, operating and supervising facilities, or by employing practices or methods of operation, that, having regard to all the circumstances, were suitable for the purposes of such prevention or limitation; or

(b) The noise is in accordance with

(i) The terms of a licence under this Act, or

(ii) Regulations under s 106.

The section also provides for exceptions so that it shall not apply to noise caused by aircraft or statutory undertakers or local authorities in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by or under any enactment (s 108(4)(a) and (b) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992).

  1.  The general obligation not to cause harmful emissions

The Air Pollution Act 1987 imposes a statutory prohibition on creating environmental pollution as follows:

(a) The occupier of any premises other than a private dwelling shall use the best practicable means to limit and, if possible, to prevent an emission from such premises (s 24(1) of the Air Pollution Act 1987).

(b) The occupier of any premises shall not cause or permit an emission from such premises in such a quantity or in such a manner, as to be a nuisance (s 24(2) of the Air Pollution Act 1987).

(c) Under both the 1987 Act and the EPA Act there are specific provisions which make it an offence to contravene any provision of either Act or any regulations made under them or of any notice served under the Act.

  1. Statutory penalty

Specifically, in relation to air pollution, the statutory penalty is set out in s 11(1)–(3) inclusive of the Air Pollution Act 1987:

(1) Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or of any regulation made under this Act or of any notice served under this Act shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate or by a person acting on behalf of a body corporate and is proved to have been so committed with the consent, connivance or approval of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other official of such body, such person shall also be guilty of an offence.

(3) In this section, a reference to the contravention of the provision includes, where appropriate, a reference to a refusal, or a failure, to comply with that provision.

  1.  Air pollution case law

The best known and most detailed air emissions case in Ireland is that of Hanrahan v Merck, Sharp & Dohme Ltd [1988] ILRM 629, which was a case decided ultimately in favour of the plaintiffs, not on the grounds of negligence, which was not proven, but on the grounds of (malodorous) nuisance, which is a strict liability tort. In that particular case, the Hanrahan family claimed not only in respect of property damage but also damage to their cattle and to themselves individually in terms of personal injuries. The evidence was painstakingly gone through by each court, including the Supreme Court, which ultimately remitted the case to the High Court. It did so on the basis that, although negligence had not been proven, no amount of scientific or theoretical evidence, no matter how expert and learned the witnesses, could displace the empirical evidence on oath of the numerous witnesses who gave evidence on oath of their physical discomfort and medical conditions arising at times when sharp, chemical-type smells were noted in the air in the vicinity of the defendants’ factory.

On the facts, causation was found and therefore, nuisance being a strict liability tort, the Supreme Court ultimately found in favour - at least in part - of the plaintiffs.

Noise

  1.  Noise as a pollutant

The definition of noise as a nuisance in the EPA Act is the most practical guide available to the ordinary person on the type of noise which one can successfully prosecute. However, it should be noted that compensation does not arise as a remedy under this statutory provision. In addition there are other specific reference and guidance documents on what is or is not acceptable noise and, in particular, the EPA has issued Guidance Notes for Noise in relation to its IPPC licensed activities as well as Environmental Noise Survey Guidance documents, created to assist IPPC licensed facilities in complying with the atmospheric emissions and noise conditions of their licences. Typically, noise sensitive locations are agreed/stipulated by the EPA. These locations become the monitoring points for compliance by the IPPC licence holder with its noise emissions conditions. As with other emission monitoring data, the information gathered is publicly available both at the EPA’s offices and at the IPPC licensed site premises.

In the Environmental Noise Survey Guidance Document most recently issued by the EPA (ISBN 1-84095-113-3) the definition of noise is: Any sound that has the potential to cause disturbance, discomfort or psychological stress to a subject exposed to it, or any sound that could cause actual physiological harm to a subject exposed to it, or physical damage to any structure exposed to it, is known as noise.

For all IPPC licence holders, noise sensitive locations are defined as: Any dwelling house, hotel or hostel, health building, educational establishment, place of worship or entertainment, or any other facility or another area of high amenity which affords proper enjoyment requires the absence of noise at nuisance levels.

  1.  How noisy can it get?

The EPA accepts that in a modern world, noise is almost ubiquitous. Most normal everyday activities lead to the production of noise. Noise from traffic, lawnmowers, household appliances, concerts, industrial activities and so on, are considered commonplace, particularly in the urban setting. In most cases, the majority of people scarcely notice these noises and if they do, they are not bothered by them, but in some cases, people can perceive the same noise as a nuisance. Such people may have more sensitive ears than others or maybe less reasonable than others. Some may be annoyed by noise because they have a personal particular need to sleep at a particular time or relax in a quiet atmosphere. In some cases, noise may present such a nuisance as to cause harmful effect on the health of those exposed to it. It inevitably depends on all the circumstances whether noise is a nuisance, and both subjective and objective criteria must be used when considering this question.

  1.  Noise measuring

In the Guidance Notes the EPA explains that, in order to assess whether intervention is needed to prevent, control or minimise noise, it is necessary to be able to quantify it and ascribe a scale of measurement to it. This is not as simple or straightforward a science as one might think. Noise is usually measured on the decibel scale, which is a logarithmic scale of sound intensity. For human noise response, the decibel scale is adjusted slightly to compensate for slight aberrations in the way the human ear ‘hears’ sound along the scale. This adjusted scale is known as the A-weighted decibel scale, and the units of the scale are dBa. As a general rule, the sensitivity to noise is usually greater at nighttime than it is during the day and this has been worked out as by about ten decibels A weighted dBa. Audible tones and impulsive tones at sensitive locations should be avoided irrespective of the noise level. In addition, it should be noted that noise includes vibration, under s 3 of the EPA Act.

Joomla Templates and Joomla Extensions by ZooTemplate.Com
Share

(28) Environmental Law

 Environmental Law Center

Environmental law - Wikipedia

Environmentallaw28

The Sea Pollution Act 1991

The release of a detained ship

 Section 24(3) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that any ship detained pursuant to s 22(2) or s 24(1) must be released if:

(a) The inspector or the harbour-master is reasonably satisfied that the ship no longer presents a serious threat to living marine resources or has ceased to be a cause of pollution; or

(b) The inspector is of the opinion that the ship can put to sea or leave the harbour for the purpose of proceeding to the nearest repair yard without presenting an undue threat of damage to flora or fauna or to living marine resources, and

• The master of the ship has undertaken to have the defect in the ship, or its equipment, whereby the ship is a cause of pollution, remedied, and

• The owner of the ship has put forward security which is satisfactory for the payment of the cost of remedying any pollution damage which may be caused by the ship once it is on its voyage to the nearest repair yard 8.4.35 Offences relating to a ship detained under s 24 of the Sea

Pollution Act

According to s 24(4) of the Sea Pollution Act, if a ship which has been detained under s 24 leaves or attempts to leave any harbour or other places otherwise than in accordance with s 24, the owner and the master of the ship shall each be guilty of an offence and the ship, wherever it may be, may be detained, or further detained, by an inspector or by a harbour master in his harbour.

The ship must not be unduly detained

Section 24(5) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that an inspector or a harbourmaster who detains a ship must not unduly detain or delay it.

Powers of the Minister to prevent, mitigate or eliminate pollution

Section 26 of the Sea Pollution Act deals with the powers of the Minister to prevent, mitigate or eliminate pollution. Section 26(1) provides that the Minister or any person authorised by him may for the purpose of preventing, mitigating or eliminating danger from pollution or threat of pollution by oil, or any substance other than oil (as defined in s 26(10) of the Sea Pollution Act) following on a maritime casualty or acts related to such a casualty, give directions to the owner or master of the ship or any person who is, or who in the reasonable opinion of the Minister or any person authorised by him, is in charge of the ship, or any salvor who is in possession of the vessel and is in charge of a salvage operation. Directions may also be given to such other person to whom it may appear reasonable and necessary to the Minister or authorised person to give directions. In giving such directions the Minister or authorised person must not unduly detain or delay the ship from proceeding on its voyage.

Section 26(3) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that if, in the opinion of the Minister, the powers conferred by s 26(1) are, or have proved to be, inadequate for the purpose, the Minister or authorised person may take such action and do such things in relation to the ship concerned or its stores, equipment or cargo as appear to be necessary and reasonable for the purpose of preventing, mitigating or eliminating the effects of pollution arising from a maritime casualty.

Definitions of ‘oil’ and ‘substances other than oil’

Section 26(10) of the Sea Pollution Act defines ‘oil’ as meaning:

Crude oil, fuel oil, diesel oil and lubricating oil. ‘Substance other than oil’ is defined as meaning: any substance in a list annexed to the Intervention Protocol and any other substance which is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.

Recovery of compensation from the Minister

Section 27(1) of the Sea Pollution Act gives a right to recover compensation from the Minister to any person who establishes that any measures taken outside the territorial waters of the state under s 26 of the Sea Pollution Act in relation to a ship registered in the state, or in a country which is a party to the Intervention Convention, went beyond what was reasonably necessary to achieve their purpose.

Such compensation shall be recoverable either by an arbitration award under the Intervention Convention or in any court of competent jurisdiction for any loss or damage caused to that person by reason of the fact that such measures went beyond those reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose.

Matters to be considered when deciding on entitlement to compensation

Section 27(2) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that in considering whether a person is entitled to recover compensation from the Minister under s 27(1) of the Sea Pollution Act, account shall be taken of:

(a) The extent and probability of imminent danger if those measures had not been taken;

(b) The likelihood of those measures being effective; and

(c) The extent of the damage caused by such measures.

Declarations of acceptance or renunciation of Conventions or Protocols

Under s 28 of the Sea Pollution Act if the Minister is satisfied that any country (other than the state) has accepted or denounced the Intervention Convention, the Intervention Protocol or the MARPOL Convention or any Convention or Protocol which has been ratified by the state and which amends or extends any such Convention or Protocol he may by order so declare. He may also declare by order that any such Convention or Protocol extends, or ceases to extend, to any territory.

Prosecution of offences

Section 30(1) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that summary proceedings for any offence under the Sea Pollution Act may be brought and prosecuted by the Minister. Where an offence is committed in relation to a particular harbour or particular harbour-master, s 30(2) provides that summary proceedings for such an offence may be brought and prosecuted by the harbour authority. Section 30(3) provides that summary proceedings in relation to an offence under the Sea Pollution Act may be brought, in every case, within two years from the date of the offence, or if, at the expiry of that period, the person to be charged is outside the state, within six months of the date on which the next enters the state.

According to s 30(4), proceedings in relation to an offence under the Sea Pollution Act may be taken at any place in the state and the offence may be treated as having been committed in that place. By virtue of s 30(5), such proceedings may be brought against a person wherever he may be.

Payment of fines

Section 33(1) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that, subject to s 33(3), all fines in respect of offences under the Sea Pollution Act shall be paid into the Exchequer in accordance with such directions as may be given by the Minister for Finance.

Where a fine imposed on the owner or master a ship is not duly paid, s 33(2) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that the court may, without prejudice to any other powers for enforcing payment, direct that any amount of the fine remaining unpaid be levied by the distress and sale of such property, comprising the ship, its equipment and stores as the court thinks necessary. Section 33(3) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that, where it appears to the court imposing the fines that any person has incurred, or will incur, expense in removing any pollution, or making good any damage attributable to the offence, the court may order that the whole or part of the fine be paid to that person for or towards defraying the expense.

Offences by bodies corporate

Sections 31 and 32 of the Sea Pollution Act deal with the prosecution of offences committed by bodies corporate. Section 33 concerns payment of fines and s 34 deals with proof of certain documents.

Discharges in the vicinity of a ship

Section 35 of the Sea Pollution Act provides that where a discharge of any substance to which the Sea Pollution Act applies is sighted, and a ship registered in the state, or a ship wherever registered while in the state, is sighted in close proximity to the discharge, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved,that it was discharged from the ship.

Court order requiring detention of master on board ship

Section 39 of the Sea Pollution Act provides that whenever an inspector or harbour-master detain a ship in the exercise of the powers conferred on him under s 22(2) or s 24, he must as soon as possible bring the master of the ship against whom proceedings for an offence under the Sea Pollution Act have been, or are about to be, instituted before a District Court judge. If the District Court judge is satisfied that such proceedings have been or are about to be issued against the master of the ship, he may by order directed to an inspector, or, as the case may be, harbour-master, require the inspector or harbour-master to detain the master on board the ship or such other person as he may direct at a specified place in the state until such proceedings have been adjudicated upon by a court in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, or until a further order has been made.

Detention of ship pending determination of an appeal

Section 40(1) of the Sea Pollution Act states that where a person is convicted of an offence under the Sea Pollution Act or proceedings in relation to an offence are dismissed, and the ship in relation to which the offence has been committed has been detained under the Sea Pollution Act, the judge concerned shall order the inspector or harbour-master in the event of an appeal from, or other proceedings in relation to, the order of the court hearing the matter, to detain the master on board the ship pending the determination of the appeal or other proceedings at a specified place in the state or until a further order has been made.

The release of the master if satisfactory security is given

Section 40(2) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that where an order for the detention of the master of the ship is made under s 40 or s 39, a District Court judge may order an inspector or harbour-master, as the case may be, to release the master unless the ship has been detained under ss 22, 24 or 26, if security is given which, in the opinion of the District Court judge, is sufficient to cover payment of:

(a) The maximum fine or fines which may be imposed, or such lesser sum as the District Court judge may decide; and

(b) The estimated amount of the costs (if any) of any trials, appeals or other proceedings which may be awarded, in the event of conviction of the defendant in respect of the offence or offences with which he was charged, or in the event of his failure to attend before any court when such attendance is required for the purposes of any preliminary examination under the Criminal Procedure Act 1967.

Fine and costs to be paid out of security

Section 41 of the Sea Pollution Act provides that whenever security is given by a defendant under s 40, the court may, when the trial, appeal or other proceedings, as the case may be, has or have been finally determined, direct that the amount of the fine imposed in respect of the offence, together with the amount of any costs awarded, be paid to the Minister out of the security.

Liability for costs and expenses of the Minister or harbour authority

Section 42 of the Sea Pollution Act states that where a person is convicted of an offence under the Sea Pollution Act, the court shall, unless it is satisfied that there are special and substantial reasons for not doing so, order the person to pay to the Minister, or to the harbour authority concerned, the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the Minister or authority in relation to the investigation, detection and prosecution of the offence. Such costs may also include costs incurred in the taking of samples, the carrying out of tests, examinations and analyses and the remuneration and other expenses of employees, consultants and advisers.

Joomla Templates and Joomla Extensions by ZooTemplate.Com
Share

(27) Environmental Law

Training Manual on International Environmental Law

droitenvironnement

The Sea Pollution Act 1991

Provision of facilities for discharge or disposal of oil and related substances

Where the Minister is of the opinion that the facilities in any harbour in the state for the discharge or disposal of oil, oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances, sewage or garbage are necessary or that the facilities which exist at that harbour for such discharge or such disposal are inadequate, he may make regulations under s 12(1) of the Sea Pollution Act requiring where there is a harbour authority in charge of the harbour, the harbour authority, and in any other case, the person under whose control the harbour is to make such provision as may be specified in the regulations for such discharge or such disposal.

According to s 12(2), regulations made under s 12(1) may provide for such matters as the manner in which oil, oily mixture, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances, sewage and garbage may be discharged from a ship, the disposal of any such substance so discharged, the facilities for such discharge or such disposal to be provided by a harbour authority or, as the case may be, the person having control of the harbour and the time within which such facilities are to be provided.

Offence to contravene a regulation made under s 12 of the Sea Pollution Act

Section 12(4) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that a person who contravenes a regulation made under s 12 shall be guilty of an offence.

Duty to report a discharge or probable discharge

Aduty is imposed by s 13(1) of the Sea Pollution Act on the owner or the master of a ship to report a discharge or probable discharge in the state, or in any prescribed area outside the state, of any oil, oily mixture, noxious liquid substance, harmful substance, sewage or garbage:

(a) Resulting from damage to the ship; or

(b) For the purpose of securing the safety of the ship; or

(c) For the purpose of saving human life.

A report must also be made where there is, during the operation of a ship in the state or any such prescribed area, a discharge or probable discharge of any such substance in excess of the quantity (if any) permitted by regulations made under s 10 of the Sea Pollution Act.

If the discharge or probable discharge occurred in the state or in any prescribed area outside the state other than in a harbour, the Minister must be notified of the fact and cause of the incident. If the discharge or probable discharge occurred in a harbour, the harbour-master or person having control of the harbour must be notified of the fact and cause of the incident and such person must then report the incident to the Minister under s 13(2).

Section 13(3) specifies that every report made under s 13 must give details of the nature of the incident, the identity of the ship or ships concerned, the time, type and location of the incident, the quantity and type of substance the incident.

The Minister is given power by s 13(4) to make regulations in relation to the making of a report under s 13 of the Sea Pollution Act.

Regulations as to construction, fitting or operation of ships

The Minister may make regulations under s 14(1) of the Sea Pollution Act requiring the owner or master of a ship, or ship of a prescribed class, which is registered in the state, to have such ship constructed, fitted or operated in such manner as may be specified in the regulations and the owner or master must comply with such other requirements as may be so specified, so as to prevent, control or reduce the discharge into the sea of oil, oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances, sewage or garbage.

It shall be an offence under s 14(2) for the owner or master of a ship to contravene any regulation made under s 14 of the Sea Pollution Act.

Records to be kept by the master relating to prescribed substances

Section 15(1) of the Sea Pollution Act requires the master of a ship to which s 14 of the Sea Pollution Act applies to keep such records as may be prescribed of operations on board his ship in relation to any prescribed substance and of the discharge of any prescribed substance resulting from damage to a ship, or for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea. Records must also be kept by the master of the discharge of any substance, in excess of the quantity (if any) permitted by regulations under s 10 of the Sea Pollution Act.

Section 15(2) provides that the Minister may make regulations under s 15(1) in relation to the manner and form in which any records required under s 15 should be kept, the custody, preservation and disposal of any such records, the making available of any such records for inspection and such other matters as appear to the Minister to be necessary.

It shall be an offence under s 15(3) for any person to contravene s 15, or any regulation made under that section, or to make any entry or alteration in any record required to be kept under s 15 of the Sea Pollution Act which is to his knowledge false and misleading in a material respect.

Application of ss 14 and 15 of the Sea Pollution Act to ships not registered in the state

Section 16 extends the application of ss 14 and 15 to a ship and the owner and master of a ship registered in a country other than the state whilst that ship is in the state as if the ship was registered in the state.

Survey of ships

Part III of the Sea Pollution Act deals with enforcement. Section 17(1) gives the Minister power to make regulations requiring that any ship, or a ship of such class as may be specified in the regulations, its equipment and fittings be surveyed, inspected or tested in such manner and at such times as may be prescribed. Section 17(2) provides that all duties in respect of a survey, inspection or test for the purposes of regulations made under s 17 shall be performed in accordance with the directions of the Minister by a surveyor of ships, or an inspector appointed under s 20 of the Sea Pollution Act.

Section 17(3) of the Sea Pollution Act imposes a duty on the owner or master of the ship to submit the ship to such survey, inspection or test and to pay such fee as may be prescribed.

Certificate of compliance with requirements of the Sea Pollution Act

If the surveyor of ships or other person appointed for the purposes of s 17 surveys the ship and is satisfied that the ship, its equipment or fittings to which the survey relates complies with the requirements of the Sea Pollution Act, the Minister shall, on payment of the prescribed fee, cause a certificate of compliance to be issued under s 17(4). The certificate may be issued in such form and manner as the Minister may prescribe.

Fees for surveys, inspections and tests

The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make an order under s 17(5), prescribing the fees to be paid for surveys, inspections and tests carried and certificates issued under s 17 of the Sea Pollution Act.

No change in structure, equipment or fittings without Minister’s consent

Where a certificate has been issued under s 17(4) of the Sea Pollution Act in relation to a ship, s 17(6) provides that no change, other than the replacement of any defective equipment or fittings, shall be made in the structure, equipment or fittings of the ship, without prior consent given by or on behalf of the Minister.

Offence to contravene s 17 of the Sea Pollution Act or relevant regulations

Section 17(7) states that the owner and the master of a ship in respect of which there is a contravention of s 17 or regulations made under that section shall be guilty of an offence.

Survey of ships registered in a MARPOL Convention country

Under s 18(1) of the Sea Pollution Act the government of another country which is a party to the MARPOL Convention may request the Minister to have a ship registered in that country surveyed and the Minister may comply with such a request. Where such a request is made, ss 14 and 17 shall apply to such ship as if it was a ship registered in the state and the owner had submitted to the survey.

Section 18(2) provides that any certificate issued under s 17 of the Sea Pollution Act in respect of such a ship must contain a statement that it has been issued at the request of the government concerned. Section 18(3) provides that a copy of a survey report and a copy of a certificate made or issued in pursuance of s 18 must be transmitted as soon as possible to the government concerned.

Duties of a surveyor of ships

Section 19 of the Sea Pollution Act stipulates that a surveyor of ships shall be an inspector for the purposes of the Sea Pollution Act. The surveyor must report to the Minister generally on:

(a) Whether the requirements of the Sea Pollution Act are being complied with;

(b) What measures have been taken for the prevention of pollution caused by the escape from ships of oil, oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances, sewage or garbage; and

(c) Whether facilities exist in any harbour or any other place in the state for the discharge and disposal of such substances and whether such facilities are adequate.

Appointment of an inspector

The Minister is given power by s 20 of the Sea Pollution Act to appoint a person to be an inspector for the purposes of the Act to carry out such functions as are specified in his warrant of appointment.

Powers of an inspector

Section 21(1) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that an inspector may do all such things as he considers necessary for the purpose of carrying out his functions under the Sea Pollution Act. Section 21(2) of the Sea Pollution Act sets out the powers of an inspector, which include a right to:

(a) At any time go on board any ship while the ship is in the state or an Irish ship anywhere and inspect the ship and all machinery, boats, equipment or fittings on that ship and test any equipment on board the ship with which the ship is required to be fitted;

(b) Inspect any document on board the ship and require any person on board to produce to him any document in his possession or control;

(c) Require that person to furnish him with his name and address;

(d) Take samples of oil, oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances, sewage or garbage from any ship;

(e) Copy any entry in any prescribed document or record or in any log book of the ship and require the person by whom the document or record is kept to certify the copy as a true copy of the entry;

(f) Enter any place, at any time, whether on land or at sea, and inspect in that place any container for the storage of oil, oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances, sewage or garbage, or any apparatus for the transfer of such matter to or from a ship;

(g) Require by summons any person to attend before him and examine him on oath;

(h) Require a witness to make and subscribe a declaration of the truth of any statements made at his examination.

Taking of evidence

Section 21(3), (4), and (5) of the Sea Pollution Act contain procedural provisions as to the taking of evidence.

Offences relating to evidence

Section 21(6) of the Sea Pollution Act states that any person who is summoned as a witness before an inspector and tendered his expenses but fails to attend or who refuses to take an oath legally required by the inspector to be taken, or refuses or neglects to make any answer, or to produce any document, or certify a copy of any entry, or, on being requested by an inspector to stop a ship for the purpose of enabling the inspector to board the ship, shall be guilty of an offence.

Inspector may order master to remedy defects in ship

Section 22(1) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that where an inspector determines, having inspected a ship, that the ship or any equipment or fitting on that ship does not correspond substantially with the particulars specified in a certificate under s 17 or an equivalent certificate issued by another party to the MARPOL Convention, or is so defective that the ship is not fit to be put to sea without presenting a serious threat of damage to the marine environment, he may direct the master of the ship to take all action necessary to ensure that the ship or its equipment corresponds with those specified particulars, or that any defect is remedied.

Power of an inspector to detain a ship

Section 22(2) of the Sea Pollution Act gives an inspector power to detain a ship to which s 22(1) applies until there has been compliance with any directions given by him under s 22 in relation to the ship. Section 22(3) imposes a duty on an inspector to take all such steps as appear to him to be necessary to ensure that a ship in relation to which he has given directions under s 22 of the Sea Pollution Act will not put to sea or leave harbour for the purpose of proceeding to the nearest repair yard without presenting an undue threat of damage to living marine resources.

Offences relating to a ship which has been detained under s 22 of the Sea Pollution Act

It shall be an offence under s 22(4) of the Sea Pollution Act for any person to fail to comply with a direction of any inspector under s 22, or to put to sea, or attempt to put to sea, otherwise than in accordance with the Sea Pollution Act, a ship which has been detained by an inspector under s 22(2).

Duty of an inspector to report non-compliance to the Minister

If the master of a ship registered in the state does not comply with the direction of an inspector under s 22, s 22(5) provides that the inspector must immediately report the fact to the Minister who may direct that a certificate issued under s 17 of the Sea Pollution Act, in relation to the ship be withdrawn.

Power of a harbour-master to refuse entry of a ship into a harbor Section 23(1) of the Sea Pollution Act gives a harbour-master power to refuse entry into the harbour over which he has control to a ship where he has reasonable cause to believe that the ship does not comply with the requirements of the Sea Pollution Act, or that it would cause a serious threat of damage to flora or fauna, living marine resources, the harbour or other ships, unless the entry of the ship is necessary for the purpose of saving life.

Section 23(2) gives the Minister, or a person appointed by him under s 23(4) to act on his behalf, a similar power to refuse entry to a ship into the state, or into a harbour or to require the ship to leave the state or harbour and to comply with such conditions as may be specified, where he is satisfied that the ship does not comply with any of the specified conditions as may be specified.

Minister may direct a harbour-master to permit entry of ship

If a harbour-master has refused entry under s 23(1) of the Sea Pollution Act, the Minister, or a person appointed by him to act on his behalf, may direct the harbour-master under s 23(3) to permit the ship to enter, and to comply with such conditions as may be specified, following consultation with the harbourmaster. Where such a direction is issued, the harbour-master must permit the ship to enter the harbour upon such conditions, and the master of the ship must comply with those conditions.

Power of the Minister to appoint a person to act on his behalf

Section 23(4) of the Sea Pollution Act gives the Minister power to appoint by warrant a person to act on his behalf for the purposes of s 23(2) and (3). Such a person will be provided with a warrant which he must produce on request for inspection when exercising a function under s 23 of the Sea Pollution Act.

Regulations relating to entry and destination of ships

The Minister is given power by section 23(5) of the Sea Pollution Act to make regulations providing, in respect of ships generally or ships of any prescribed class, for the giving by the owner or master of a ship of notice of the entry or intended entry of the ship into the state and of its passage and destination while in the state and such other information relating to the ship and its cargo as may be prescribed.

The Minister may also make regulations preventing the entry of a ship or of a ship carrying a specified cargo into the state if he has reasonable cause to believe it will cause serious threat of hazards to human health, damage to human life, harm to living marine resources or to flora or fauna or damage to amenities, or interference with legitimate uses of the sea.

Offence to fail to comply with a direction under s 23 of the Sea Pollution Act

Section 23(6) makes it an offence for the owner, master or any person to fail to comply with a direction, or the requirements of regulations, under s 23 of the Sea Pollution Act.

Power to stop and detain a ship which has caused or may cause pollution

Section 24(1) of the Sea Pollution Act gives an inspector or a harbour-master power to stop and detain a ship where he has reasonable cause to believe that the ship has caused, or may cause, pollution and the ship is in the state. However, s 24(2) of the Sea Pollution Act states that a harbour-master may only exercise such power whilst the ship concerned is within the harbour over which he has control.

Joomla Templates and Joomla Extensions by ZooTemplate.Com
Share

(26) Environmental Law

SEA POLLUTION ACT, 1991

Environmental-Law

  1. Introduction

The Sea Pollution Act 1991 gives effect to the London Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 (the MARPOL Convention), as amended by the London Protocol of 1978. It also gives effect to the London Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil 1973 (the Intervention Protocol). The Sea Pollution Act 1991 also repeals the Oil Pollution of the Sea Acts 1956 to 1977 and provides for other related matters.

2. Definitions

Section 3 of the Sea Pollution Act 1991 provides a number of definitions, the most important of which are as follows:

‘Discharge’ is defined for the purposes of the Sea Pollution Act in relation to oil, oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, harmful substances, sewage or garbage or any effluent containing any of those substances as meaning: any release, howsoever caused, from a ship and includes any escape, disposal, spilling, leaking, pumping, emitting or emptying of any substance from a ship, but does not include

(a) Dumping, within the meaning of the Dumping at Sea Act 1981; or

(b) The release of oil, oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances or harmful substances directly arising from the exploration exploitation and associated offshore processing of sea bed mineral resources; or

(c) The release of oil, oily mixtures, noxious liquid substances, or harmful substances for the purpose of legitimate scientific research into pollution abatement or control.

‘Garbage’ is defined as meaning: all kind of victual, domestic and operational waste (excluding fresh fish and parts thereof) and any other substance generated during the normal operation of a ship and liable to be disposed of either continuously or periodically other than a substance specifically regulated by [the] Act.

‘Harbour’ is defined as including: any dock, pier, wharf, jetty, boat slip, offshore terminal, installation or place intended or used for the accommodation, berthing or anchorage or for the shipping, unshipping or transshipping of goods.

‘Harmful substance’ means: any substance which, if introduced into the sea, is liable to:

(a) Create hazards to human health;

(b) Harm living marine resources;

(c) Harm flora and fauna;

(d) Damage amenities; or

(e) Interfere with legitimate uses of the sea, and any substance subject to control by the MARPOL Convention or prescribed under s 10 as a harmful substance and includes any such substance carried at sea, however carried.

‘Inspector’ is defined as: a person being:

(a) A surveyor of ships; or

(b) A person appointed to be an inspector by warrant of the Minister for Communications and Natural Resources (the ‘Minister’) under s 20; or

(c) An officer holding a commissioned naval rank in the Defence Forces; or

(d) A member of the Garda Síochána.

The ‘Intervention Convention’ means: the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969, done at Brussels on the 29th day of November, 1969.

The ‘Intervention Protocol’ means: the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil done at London on the 2nd day of November, 1973.

‘Maritime casualty’ means: a collision of ships, stranding or other incident of navigation, or other occurrence on board a ship or external to it resulting in material damage or imminent threat of material damage to a ship or cargo.

‘Master’ is defined as: the person having, for the time being, the command or charge of the ship.

‘Noxious liquid substance’ means: any liquid substance which, if introduced into the sea, is liable to:

(a) Create hazards to human health;

(b) Harm living marine resources;

(c) Harm flora and fauna;

(d) Damage amenities; or

(e) Interfere with legitimate uses of the sea; and any liquid substance prescribed under s 10 as a noxious liquid substance.

‘Oil’ is defined as meaning: (other than in s 26) ... petroleum in any form including crude oil, fuel oil, diesel oil, lubricating oil, sludge, oil refuse and refined products and any oil or oily mixture prescribed as such under s 10 but does not include any substance prescribed as a noxious liquid substance ‘Oily mixture’ means: a mixture which has any oil content.

‘Owner’, in relation to a ship, is defined as: the person registered as the owner of the ship, the person who owns the ship, and, in the case of a ship which is owned by a state (including the state) and is operated by a person who in that state is registered as the ship’s operator, ‘owner’ means the person registered as such operator.

‘Pollution’ is defined as including: when used without qualification ... pollution by oil, by an oily mixture, by a noxious liquid substance, by a harmful substance, by sewage or by garbage.

‘Sewage’ means:

(a) Drainage and other wastes from any form of toilets, urinals and water closet scuppers on board a ship; or

(b) Drainage from medical quarters on board a ship by way of wash basins, wash tubs and scuppers located in such quarters; or

(c) Drainage from spaces containing live animals on board a ship; or

(d) Any other waste water discharged from a ship when such water is intermingled with any of the drainages specified at paragraphs (a), (b) or (c).

‘Ship’ is defined as: a vessel of any type whatsoever operating in the marine environment and includes hydrofoil boats, air-cushioned vehicles, submersibles, floating craft and fixed or floating platforms and includes fixtures, fittings and equipment.

3. Application of the Sea Pollution Act

Section 4(1) provides that the Sea Pollution Act shall not apply to any warship or to any ship for the time being used by the government of any country for purposes other than commercial purposes.

The Minister may make regulations exempting, subject to such conditions (if any) as may be specified in the regulations, any class or classes of ships registered in the state from compliance with any provision of the Sea Pollution Act or of any of the regulations made under the Sea Pollution Act, where he is satisfied that such an exemption would not result in a mere risk of pollution.

4. Discharge of oil, oily mixture and related substances

Part II of the Sea Pollution Act deals with the prevention of pollution. Section 10(1) gives the Minister power to make regulations prohibiting or regulating the discharge anywhere at sea from a ship registered in the state, or the discharge in the state from any ship, of any oil, oily mixture, noxious liquid substance, harmful substance, sewage or garbage. The Minister may also make regulations, pursuant to the section, governing prescribed operations on board ship relating to any such substance carried on the ship.

Section 10(3) of the Sea Pollution Act provides that regulations made under s 10 may relate to ships generally or to any class of ship, to substances generally or any description of substance and may be made subject to such conditions and such exemptions as may be rescribed. Section 10(4) of the Sea Pollution Act gives the Minister power to provide by regulations that any prescribed substance shall be a harmful substance, a noxious liquid substance, an oil or oily mixture, sewage or garbage, for the purposes of the Sea Pollution Act.

The Minister may also, by regulations made under s 10(5) of the Sea Pollution Act, require the notification at such time and in such manner as may be prescribed, by the master or owner of a ship carrying any prescribed substance of any intent to load or unload any such substance in the state.

5. Offence to contravene regulations made under s 10(1) of the Sea Pollution Act

Where any regulations made under s 10 are contravened, the owner and the master of the ship in respect of which there is a contravention shall be guilty of an offence under s 10(2) of the Sea Pollution Act.

6. Matters not covered by regulations made under s 10 of the Sea Pollution Act

Section 11 provides that regulations made under s 10 of Sea Pollution Act shall not apply:

(a) To the discharge into the sea of any oil, oily mixture, noxious liquid substance, harmful substance, sewage or garbage for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship, or saving life at sea, if such discharge was, having regard to all the circumstances, necessary and reasonable; or

(b) To the discharge into the sea of any oil, oily mixture, noxious liquid substance, harmful substance, sewage or garbage which resulted from any damage to the ship, or to its equipment provided that all reasonable steps have been taken after the occurrence of the damage, or, as the case may be, the discovery of the discharge, to prevent or minimize the discharge and the owner or the master did not act with intent to cause damage or recklessly; or

(c) To the discharge into the sea of any prescribed substance for the purpose of minimizing the damage from pollution, provided that the discharge was sanctioned by or on behalf of the Minister.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joomla Templates and Joomla Extensions by ZooTemplate.Com
Share

(25) Environmental Law

Enforce the Clean Water

Water pollution

Pollutionwater

The Local Government (Water Pollution) (Amendment) Act 1990

This Act (the 1990 Act) amends and extends the Act and the Fisheries Act 1959 (in so far as the Fisheries Act 1959 relates to water pollution).

Civil liability for pollution

Section 20 of the 1990 Act deals with civil liability for pollution. Section 20 (1) provides that where trade effluent, sewage effluent or other polluting matter enters waters and causes injury, loss or damage to a person or to the property of a person, the person may recover damages. Damages may be recovered in any court of competent jurisdiction for such injury, loss or damage:

(a) from the occupier of the premises from which the effluent or matter originated unless the entry was caused by an act of God or an act or omission of a third party over whose conduct such occupier had no control, being an act or omission that such occupier could not reasonably have foreseen and guarded against; or

(b) if the entry was occasioned by an act or omission of any person that, in the opinion of the court, contravenes a provision of the Act or the 1990 Act, from that person.

Non-application of s 20(1) of the 1990 Act

Section 20(2) provides that s 20(1) does not apply to the entry of trade effluent, sewage effluent or other polluting matter to waters which is under and in accordance with a licence under s 4 of the 1977 Act or s 171 of the Fisheries Act 1959 or is exempted from the application of s 3(1) of the Act by s 3(5) of that Act.

Bye-laws relating to the carrying on of a specified activity

Under s 21(2) of the 1990 Act a local authority may make bye-laws prohibiting the carrying on of a specified activity in all or part of its area, or providing for the regulation of a specified activity, if it considers it necessary to do so for the purpose of preventing or eliminating the entry of polluted matter to waters.

The activities to which s 21 applies are those listed in s 21(1) of the 1990 Act, including any one or more of the following:

(a) the collection, storage, treatment and disposal of any polluting matter used in connection with, or arising from any operation, activity, practice or use of land or other premises carried on for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture or forestry;

(b) any activity that involves the application to land or to grow crops, or the injection into the land, of any silage effluent, animal slurry, manure, fertiliser, pesticide or other polluting matter; or

(c) any other operation, activity, practice or use of land or other premises for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture or forestry.

Offence to contravene any bye-law

Section 21(3) of the 1990 Act provides that it shall be an offence to contravene or fail to comply with any bye-laws made under s 21.

Declaration that a combined drain shall become a sewer

Section 22(1) of the 1990 Act provides that a sanitary authority may declare by order that a specified combined drain shall become and be a sewer for the purposes of the Act and the 1990 Act. Whenever it does so the drain concerned shall, on commencement of the order, become and be a sewer for those purposes.

Section 22(2) of the Act requires the sanitary authority to give written a notice to the owner of the drain and to the occupier of premises from which effluent is being discharged to the drain of its intention to make such an order. The owner and the occupier may, within 30 days of receipt of the notice, then make written representations to the sanitary authority in relation to the proposed order. These representations, if any, must be considered by the sanitary authority before the order is made.

Offences by bodies corporate

Under s 23 of the 1990 Act, where an offence under the Act or the 1990 Act has been committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a person being a director, manager, secretary or other officer of that body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in such capacity, that person shall also be guilty of an offence.

Payment of fines to local authority, sanitary authority or regional board

Where a prosecution is brought by a local authority, sanitary authority or regional board, s 26 of the 1990 Act empowers the court, on the application of the local authority, sanitary authority or regional board concerned, to provide for payment of the fine imposed by the court to the relevant local authority, sanitary authority or regional board.

Prosecution of offences

Section 27 of the 1990 Act deals with a number of matters relating to prosecution of offences under the Act. Section 27(a) and (b) stipulate the persons who may bring prosecutions under various sections of the Act. Section 27(c) of the 1990 Act provides that a summary offence under s 21 of the 1990 Act may be prosecuted by the local authority concerned.

According to s 27(d) of the 1990 Act, summary proceedings may be commenced within a period of six months from the date on which evidence sufficient to initiate proceedings comes to the knowledge of the person prosecuting those proceedings. Proceedings may not be initiated later than five years from the date of commission of the offence.

Acertificate signed by, or on behalf of, the person bringing the proceedings, setting out the date or dates on which the relevant evidence came to his knowledge would provide prima facie evidence of those dates, unless the contrary is shown.

Payment of costs of local authority, sanitary authority or regional board

According to s 28 of the 1990 Act where a person is convicted of an offence  under the Act 1977 or the 1990 Act, or s 171 or s 172 of the Fisheries Act 1959, the court shall, unless it is satisfied that there are special and substantial reasons for not doing so, order the person to pay to any local authority, sanitary authority or regional board concerned the costs reasonably incurred by that local authority, sanitary authority or regional board in relation to the investigation, detection and prosecution of the offence, including the costs incurred in taking samples, carrying out tests and examinations and in respect of the remuneration and other expenses of employees, consultants and advisors.

 

Joomla Templates and Joomla Extensions by ZooTemplate.Com
Share

Search

Translate

ar bg ca zh-chs zh-cht cs da nl en et fi fr de el ht he hi hu id it ja ko lv lt no pl pt ro ru sk sl es sv th tr uk vi

Newsletter

Subscribe our Newsletter

Visitors