This Article examines the relationship between legal constructions of equity and rules of international environmental law, with particular emphasis on the emerging concept of intragenerational equity as a significant element in the debate on the international attainment of sustainable development. On one level, the concept of equity has always been an integral part of human experience. At its core is the notion that human beings, both as individuals and as members of civil society, should "pay more attention to justice . . .

Throughout the 20th century, the United States dedicated enormous resources to the construction of a staggering array of dams. Those structures are monuments to an era now past—a time during which free-flowing rivers were deemed "wasted," a period when the nation embarked upon a frenzied attempt to "reclaim" the landscape from its natural condition at all costs. Rivers were converted into elaborate plumbing systems as tens of thousands of dams, both public and private, impeded some 600,000 miles of flowing streams.¹

Reflecting on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) arrival at its 30th birthday, it is difficult not to anthropomorphize. This idealistic love child born of a strange affair between populist zeal and political ambition¹ has developed into a commanding agency whose decisions reverberate through the economy and significantly affect individual lives.

"When the trees are made of plastic and there's no more oil to drill; when Africa is empty and the zoos are finally filled; we'll sacrifice our children at the altar to the God of fossil fuel."¹

I. Introduction

Too often environmental debates turn on rhetoric and emotion rather than carefully considered data and analysis.¹ Firmer factual foundations and a higher degree of analytic rigor would help to narrow the range of dispute over which environmental battles rage and to move us beyond the current polarization over how best to achieve environmental goals.² At the heart of any shift toward more systematic environmental decisionmaking lies a need for reliable environmental "indicators" or "metrics" and other data that clarify the issues and the tr

I. Biodiversity and Biotechnology: Debate as Distraction

I. Introduction¹

The relationship between new technologies and the environment is a complex one. On the one hand, various human technologies—ranging from "low" technologies like slash-and-burn agriculture, to "high" technologies like nuclear weapons—have done more than their share of environmental harm. On the other hand, new technologies are often cleaner and safer than the older technologies they replace, and may offer ways of remedying environmental harms previously thought of as beyond help.

On August 15, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a landmark ruling, in the case National Wildlife Federation v. Babbitt (NWF v. Babbitt),¹ interpreting key provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This ruling provides important new direction to local governments, developers, federal wildlife agencies, and others seeking to design habitat conservation plans (HCPs).

From Wednesday, January 3d, through Sunday, January 7th, the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) held its 101st annual meeting in San Francisco. Among the numerous panel discussions, workshops, luncheons, receptions, and field trips that took place at that event was a lively and well-attended session (held on Friday, January 5th) entitled "Dinosaur or Phoenix?: Choosing Between Old-Fashioned Regulation and Second-Generation Strategies in the New Millennium."