• English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • English 
    • English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Globethics User Collection
  • Globethics Library Submissions
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Globethics User Collection
  • Globethics Library Submissions
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of the LibraryCommunitiesPublication DateTitlesSubjectsAuthorsThis CollectionPublication DateTitlesSubjectsAuthorsProfilesView

My Account

Login

The Library

AboutSearch GuideContact

Statistics

Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Interior:

  • CSV
  • RefMan
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • RefWorks
Thumbnail
Name:
elq37_2_17_waldron_2010_0630.pdf
Size:
48.44Kb
Format:
PDF
Download
Author(s)
Waldron, Maya
Keywords
environmental protection
land
law
GE Subjects
Political ethics
Environmental ethics
Ethics of law
Rights based legal ethics
Resources ethics
Biodiversity ethics

Full record
Show full item record
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/175833
Abstract
"In Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Interior (CBD v. DOI), the Ninth Circuit held that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLMPA) in evaluating the environmental impacts of a proposed land exchange between the federal government and a mining company, Asarco, LLC.1 The BLM assumed that mining would take place under both the noaction alternative and the proposed exchange. It thus neglected to consider the difference between the mining of public lands, which are subject to the Mining Law of 1872, and the mining of private lands, which are not. Because of this omission, the majority reversed the district court’s holding and concluded the BLM had not taken a “hard look” at the potential environmental impacts of the exchange, in violation of NEPA, and that the proposed land exchange was “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of FLPMA." (p. 1)
Date
2010
Type
Article
Copyright/License
With permission of the license/copyright holder
Collections
Globethics Library Submissions
Climate Ethics

entitlement

 
DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2025)  DuraSpace
Quick Guide | Contact Us
Open Repository is a service operated by 
Atmire NV
 

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.