Does the term "environmental law" have any significance beyond being a reference to an increasingly large group of statutes and court decisions? Does environmental law really represent a "new era," as Chief Judge Bazelon has proclaimed,¹ or is it instead very similar to the law taught in law schools (probably as administrative law) before the word "environment" had meaning for persons other than natural scientists?

Exploring these broad questions should help provide a foundation for the second issue I would like to raise, one that interests me not only conceptually but also personally, since it relates quite directly to the business of judging. Assuming there is something different about environmental law, what should be the judge's role in it? Should he immerse himself in the technical esoterica of, for example, respiratory absorption and epidemiology, as the District of Columbia Circuit did recently in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA,² or the reproductive habits of Hudson River striped bass, as my court did in the third Scenic Hudson³ case? Or should the judge instead limit his role solely to procedural review of decisions made by others with more specialized expertise, to making sure that all interests have been heard and all points of view fairly considered?