Institutional Affiliations

Environmental Science


Institutional Affiliations

Question One

The Environmental Defense Fund is a United States body that addresses environmental issues by targeting at factors that are affecting people all over the world. The organization works in partnership with other agencies to strengthen their efforts in providing a clean and safe environment. The Environmental Defense Fund also participates in activities such as lobbying and funding political candidates and parties. For example, in 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, the organization has spent a total of 4,736,574 US dollars on lobbying (Marcus, 2005). This was in an attempt to seek influence and persuasion on political interests.

Also, the Environmental Defense Fund has been actively engaged in offering political support especially to the leaders and parties who have interest in improving environmental concerns. For example, the organization spends a total of 106,300 US Dollars on political contributions with money given to individual candidates, the leadership, political parties, committees, and outside spending groups (Marcus, 2005).

Besides, the organization giving money to political leaders depends on the issues the candidate seeks to address once in the office. For example, in 2016, they funded political leaders with more money being given to leaders whose agenda was to address environmental issues. In 2016, Hillary Clinton, the Democrat presidential candidate received a lot of funds from the Environmental Defense Fund. Hillary received a total of 38,402 US dollars to fund her campaigns (Marcus, 2005). This is because the US Secretary of the state was committed to addressing transparency as part of the global climate change agreement. The Environmental Defense Fund applauded Hillary efforts and supported her to realize her goal.

Furthermore, the Environmental Defense Fund works in collaboration with other bodies such as law firms in various lobbying projects. For instance, the organization has worked closely with the K & L Gates and in 2016; the law firm realized a total lobbying income of 15,960,000 US dollars from all the sources (Marcus, 2005).

Besides, due to the revenue and profits, the K &L Gates is earning from its project, the law firm is currently hiring government affair specialists in lobbying. The positions were advertised sixteen days ago, and the specialists will be located in Washington, DC (Marcus, 2005).

Question Two

Darion's neighbors realize that their water wells are contaminated able to trace the source of contamination to Darion's land. The evidence of pollution and considering the cause of nuisance and negligence, the neighbors can be allowed to sue Darion in a civil court. However, the statute limitations of the law allow the neighbors to use a proper channel of mediation and negotiation before taking legal actions. The neighbors can trace the source of pollution, and it is true that the garbage accumulation has caused water pollution thus suffering to the people. The law requires that they choose from four courses of action (Hadden, 2015). First, the neighbors need to speak to Darion and explain to him the problem he is causing to their water sources. However, this might fail especially when the friend is not willing to remove the mess and prevent water pollution. Secondly, the neighbors can contact the municipality who can enforce the law to Darion to stop the nuisance. If Darion does not abide by the municipal law, then he can be prosecuted for violation of the laws. The third option would be complaining to the ministry of environment. They can act by issuing a cleanup exercise or a stop order. The last option would be suing Darion in a civil court. The neighbors can join the lawsuit and cover for legal expenses in the case where all participants claim the damage. Darion can be served with an injunction forcing him to stop the polluting actions. It is evident that the neighbors can sue Darion if he does not abide by the first three measures they take towards stopping him from causing water pollution. The riparian water laws allow water users to sue any person who damages the quality of water (Hadden, 2015).

If Darion died in 1985 and the current owner of the land, Baylee is unaware of the dumping site; the neighbors should not sue her in a civil court. However, they should talk to her about the source of contamination and if possible help her report the problem to the ministry of the environment which can arrange for a cleanup exercise. If Baylee does not allow people to access her land and considers it a trespass, then the neighbors can sue her to a civil court. Water contamination must not be allowed at any point, and thus efforts must be made to stop all forms of pollution.

Question Three

This issue will explore the Cowspiracy documentary and evaluate the work from personal life, its importance to the present life. The film as directed by Kip and Keegan focuses on the sustainability secret of the environment. The filmmakers uncover the destructive and polluting industry that faces the world today (Andersen & Kuhn, 2014). The documentary also gives an explanation why the environmental organizations are afraid to talk about the polluted environment. The documentary focuses on the journey of one person and narrates the feeling of an individual who wanted to know about the environment passionately. The directors are environmentalists, and thus the film is fueled by desire and passion for truth. The topic may make the audience think that the movie is all about cows and cattle, but this is not the case. Cowspiracy is about human beings, the world they live, and the impact of animal rearing to the environment.

Furthermore, a more exciting idea in the documentary is about the pigs that are thought to be dirty, but they are presented as important animals on the planet. In fact, when watching the documentary, I thought it would be prudent for people to eat less meat and have fewer farms. Some facts are presented in the film, for example, an individual who does not consume animals can save a lot of water, grains, land, and animal life. The film is acted by animal activists and thus the passion for the environment and keeping the animals alive are well presented. The documentary provides an elaborate importance of maintaining and protecting the world wild places and ecosystems at large (Andersen & Kuhn, 2014). The directors have also achieved the purpose of ensuring the well-being of earth inhabitants.

The documentary relates to the present day life in that many environmental organizations and individuals are working towards protecting the ecosystem and the animals and plants. The world is working towards having an environment where pollution has been minimized. The film gives one the desire to see the world thrive and flourish will its inhabitants having a fresh environment to live in. Kip and Keegan's work increases my understanding of conserving the environment and making efforts to preserve the animals as well as the plants because they are all relevant entities of our environment. It leaves me with the motivation to feed all animals and ensure they are not killed.

Kip and Keegan's work is highly merited. The filmmakers present important points and facts that are critical in the planet today for any person willing to take care of the environment. The work is accurate, and they present key data to back up their documentary. For instance, 75 percent of Americans who consider themselves as environmentalist consume meat. A cattle rancher asserts that a person cannot be out to conserve the animal ecosystem and eat meat. The producers also provide evidence that a vegan releases 50 percent less carbon dioxide than a person who eats meat. Also, data suggests that 18 percent of greenhouse emissions are released from cattle, and thus every person has to come out and protect the environment (Andersen & Kuhn, 2014).

Question Four

Sierra Club v Morton case in 1972 provided relevant facts that gave rise to a civil lawsuit. The Sierra Club was having interest in conservation and maintenance of forests, game parks, and national reserves filed a petition against the Mineral King Valley. The petition gained a lawsuit because Sierra Club had suffered from the action of the agency. Again, the public work involved questions about the use and conservation of natural resources. Despite the district court granting a preliminary injunction, the court of appeal reversed the judgment claiming that the Sierra Club was deficient of standing and thus there was no irreparable injury (Sierra Club v. Morton, 1972).

The issue of Sierra Club v Morton was whether the former had "standing" to sue for injunctive relief in civil court. The Supreme Court did not find any harm the club had suffered because the Sierra Club asserted that there was no physical or economic injury suffered by their members. The court found no standing to back their claim and thus they only complained because the action was displeasing and distasteful to them. The club showed a direct interest that could not constitute a standing and thus did not hold a legal action (Sierra Club v. Morton, 1972).

Considering the Sierra Club v Morton case, one can conclude that for an organization to be able to take a standing in a civil action, it must present evidence in the claim that they have suffered physical or economic loss from challenged actions (Sierra Club v. Morton, 1972). The petition should not rely on administrative procedures rather consider the harm they are suffering from the effects.


Andersen, K., & Kuhn, K. (2014). Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret [Motion Picture]. Retrieved from

Hadden, D. W. (2015). Environmental Law Section. State Bar of Michigan. Retrieved from

Marcus, R. (2005). Centre for Responsive Politics: Environmental Defense Fund. Retrieved from

Sierra Club v. Morton, 70-34 (U.S. Supreme Court April 19, 1972). Retrieved from