Editors' Summary: SARA raised the already high stakes in the CERCLA cleanup game. The incentive for potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to enlarge the pool of defendants has risen accordingly. In this Article, the authors discuss recent developments in three areas that may help PRPs in their efforts to spread out the liability for cleanup costs: joint and several liability, contribution, and liability of state and local governments.

Editors' Summary: Perhaps the most sinister environmental threats include those that are least perceptible. One such threat is the large scale extinction of biological species, with ominous implications for a shrinking gene pool and multiplier effects throughout the food web whenever key species are lost. This Comment analyzes one of the principal international responses to this threat, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

Welcome to the 15th Annual Airlie House Conference on the Environment.

Something, as they say, is going on, and we of the Standing Committee are not sure what it is. We seek, therefore, to explore the larger significance of a number of seemingly disparate events.

I would like to present a framework that may help to answer the question, "What is going on out there?" It may also help to gather together some of these disparate stories, like the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) negotiated rulemaking, Clean Sites's coalescing efforts at Superfund¹ sites, efforts to mediate land use and facility siting disputes, and statewide policy dialogues.

The issue of standard-setting by consent is an important one. In this talk, I would like to describe a case in which I served as a facilitator or mediator in such a consensus building effort. The case involved the siting of a resource recovery—or trash-to-energy—plant in New York City. The issue of standards arose, because a number of people, especially those in Brooklyn who lived next to the proposed site, decided that this kind of facility was not safe. Barry Commoner, a respected scientist and environmental advocate, supported their view.

I am not an expert at negotiation. I did participate, however, in a recent effort to amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).¹ Many people feel that this effort was a significant step toward resolving some of the major differences between our industry (the agricultural chemical pesticide industry) and the environmental community. I was asked to speak about these negotiations.

I have been involved in two of the experimental U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory negotiations. The first had to do with setting penalties for the truck makers who make engines that do not meet standards. The second, in which I am still participating, involves drawing up a standard for new woodstoves. I have also been involved in traditional settlement discussions in the context of lawsuits, several of which have been successful, and a couple of which are still in the works.

Up to now you have been hearing of the brave new world in which nice people sit down and talk together, perhaps under the leadership of charming mediators and facilitators, and when they are done, there will be a solution. For my part, I will be talking about the old world, the use of power. It is judicial power, but, essentially, one group of people imposing an outcome on others.

When we consider the respective roles and responsibilities of government and the private sector in maintaining compliance with the laws of the land, it becomes evident that there are big stakes on all sides. This includes the public, whom the laws are intended to protect, and who must pay for this protection in the end.