Environmentally Speaking

Clarice brings Marisa a hot take from Denmark.

Researchers at Aarhus University are testing whether the open water between offshore wind turbines, which is now treated as a mostly unusable zone, could be used to grow seaweed.

The article describes it as a reuse story. The seaweed could help absorb nutrient pollution (nitrogen and phosphorus, the drivers of harmful algal blooms), and it could be sold as a food crop, such as sugar kelp.

Marisa hears a warning in that framing. Rhode Island and Virginia fishermen were told they could keep fishing between turbines, with about one nautical mile of spacing. So if Denmark treats those areas as unfit for regular vessel traffic, what does that say about the promises made here?

From there the conversation widens:

Mentioned in this episode

Contact

Hosts: Marisa Desautel and Clarice Parsons

What happens when courts stop deferring to agency expertise?

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, hosts Marisa Desautel and Clarice Parsons unpack the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron deference and what it means for environmental law today. Marisa explains how Chevron shaped administrative law for nearly four decades before being replaced by the Loper Bright standard, while Clarice brings the perspective of a mediator to the discussion, exploring how these legal changes may influence dispute resolution and settlement strategies.

Together, they compare what they’re seeing in federal practice versus state practice, discuss why environmental agencies are facing greater uncertainty, and examine whether the shift away from agency deference will fundamentally change how environmental disputes are resolved.

Clarice also revisits last week’s discussion on mediation confidentiality, sharing insights from a recent conversation with an environmental law mediator about why confidentiality works differently when public agencies are involved.

This is Part 1 of a two-part series on Chevron and administrative law. In the next episode, Marisa and Clarice will discuss the more recent Chevron-related case and its broader implications.

Have a question or topic suggestion for a future episode? Connect with Desautel Browning through their website or follow the firm on LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and X.

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marisa Desautel and Clarice Parsons explore attorney-client confidentiality and how it applies across the many types of clients encountered in environmental law practice.

Marisa explains the differences between representing individuals, municipalities, state agencies, nonprofits, and other organizations, and discusses a key legal question: when the client is a group, who does the attorney actually represent?

The conversation covers attorney-client privilege, legal ethics, executive sessions, public transparency requirements, municipal boards, and the challenges of balancing confidentiality with accountability in government settings. Marisa also explains when privilege applies, how it can be waived, and why not every conversation with an attorney is automatically protected.

Clarice contributes insights from the mediation world, highlighting similarities between legal confidentiality and mediation agreements, including common exceptions and reporting requirements.

Topics Covered:

Join Marisa and Clarice for an engaging discussion on one of the most important—and often misunderstood—principles in legal practice.

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, hosts Marisa Desautel and Clarice Parsons unpack one of the most misunderstood aspects of environmental and municipal permitting: site control, property interests, and why some projects fail before they even truly begin.

What started as a social media reel and a “hot take” quickly turned into a deeper conversation about accountability in zoning and permitting.

Marisa explains why permitting delays and denials are not always the fault of municipalities or regulatory agencies — and how applicants often overlook critical foundational requirements before submitting a project.

Using real-world examples from environmental law and Rhode Island permitting processes, the episode explores:

Clarice brings the perspective of someone outside the legal world, asking the questions many property owners, developers, and applicants may not think to ask until it’s too late. Together, she and Marisa break down the legal concepts in a practical and approachable way.

If you’ve ever wondered why projects stall, why permits get denied, or how zoning and environmental approvals really work behind the scenes, this episode offers an informative look into the process — and the importance of doing your homework before filing an application.

Have a reel or environmental topic you’d like discussed on the podcast? Reach out and let the hosts know what you’d like covered in a future episode.

Hosted by:

Marisa Desautel & Clarice Parsons

Happy Memorial Day weekend, and thanks for listening to Environmentally Speaking!

In this week’s episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marisa and Clarice dive into the unexpected environmental recovery happening in and around the Chernobyl exclusion zone nearly 40 years after the nuclear disaster.

The conversation explores recent research showing that wetlands, peatlands, microbes, and even wildlife are not only returning to the region, but in some cases appear to be thriving despite ongoing radioactive contamination. The hosts discuss the critical role wetlands play as natural filtration systems, carbon sinks, and biodiversity hubs — and why these ecosystems may be central to the area’s long-term recovery.

They also unpack fascinating early-stage studies examining how bacteria and microbiomes within the Chernobyl wetlands may be adapting to, or surviving despite, ionizing radiation exposure. Along the way, the episode touches on ecosystem resilience, nature-based restoration, the cultural fascination surrounding Chernobyl, and the surprising ways the planet continues to adapt in extreme conditions.

Plus: mutant daisies, bog body science, and an important reminder that nature is often far more resilient than we expect.

If you have expertise in microbiology, recombinant DNA, radiation impacts, or ecosystem restoration, the hosts would love to hear from you — and maybe even have you join the podcast for a future episode.

Podcast: Environmentally Speaking

Host: Marisa Desautel

Guest/Co-host: Clarice Parsons

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marissa Desautels and Clarice Parsons unpack a recent article raising concerns about the removal of climate change content from a scientific reference manual intended for judges. What starts as a reaction to a strange and troubling article quickly becomes a larger conversation about climate science denial, the role of expertise in the courtroom, and how recent changes in judicial deference may shift scientific decision-making away from agencies and toward judges.

The conversation explores the legal, political, and practical consequences of sidelining climate science in judicial and regulatory spaces. Marissa and Clarice question whether static reference materials can ever substitute for expert testimony, especially in fields like climate science that evolve rapidly. They also connect the issue to the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, arguing that reducing deference to agencies may not eliminate bias, but instead transfer power to judges who may lack technical expertise.

What the judges’ reference manual on scientific evidence appears to be

Why removing climate change material from that manual is so concerning

How the issue relates to the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision

Why agency expertise still matters in environmental decision-making

The limits of judges and reference manuals in evaluating evolving science

How climate denial continues to shape policy and public discourse

Why symbolic climate commitments often fall short of meaningful action

A broader question: what can actually be done when consensus is no longer realistic?

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 401-477-0023

Website: desautelbrowning.com

Reference:  https://earth.org/political-attack-scientists-condemn-removal-of-climate-chapter-from-us-judges-reference-manual/

Podcast: Environmentally Speaking

Host: Marisa Desautel

Guest/Co-host: Clarice Parsons

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marisa Desautel and Clarice Parsons unpack the federal EPA’s rescission of the 2009 “endangerment finding,” a policy determination that has shaped greenhouse gas regulation for the past 16 years. They break down what the finding is, why its rollback matters, and how recent shifts in judicial thinking about agency authority may have opened the door to broader deregulatory action.

The conversation explores the legal, environmental, and practical consequences of the rescission, from weakened climate oversight to uncertainty for industries and regulators. Marisa also reflects on how state programs, corporate compliance, and everyday consumer experiences, like start-stop car technology, may be affected by changing federal policy.

What the EPA’s “endangerment finding” actually is

Why the February 12 rescission is such a major development

How the Clean Air Act has been used to regulate greenhouse gases

The legal backdrop of recent Supreme Court limits on agency power

Why rescinding non-statutory policy findings may be easier than undoing formal regulations

The risks of deregulation for climate policy, air quality, and public health

What this could mean for future agency rollbacks beyond the EPA

A real-world example: start-stop technology in newer vehicles

The endangerment finding was a 2009 EPA scientific determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, giving the agency a basis to regulate emissions from sources like cars and trucks.

Because the finding was not written into statute or formalized as a regulation, Marisa explains that it may have been especially vulnerable to rescission.

The episode frames the rollback as part of a broader legal and political shift, especially after recent Supreme Court decisions limiting how much discretion federal agencies can exercise without explicit statutory authority.

Marisa argues that the rescission is environmentally harmful and warns that it could signal wider efforts to dismantle non-statutory federal programs across agencies.

The discussion also highlights uncertainty: litigation could reverse the move, industries may face inconsistent compliance expectations, and states may need to reassess how their own programs interact with federal changes.

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 401-477-0023

Website: desautelbrowning.com

Reference: President Trump and Administrator Zeldin Deliver Single Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History | US EPA

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, environmental attorney Marisa Desautel and co-host Clarice Parsons sit down with Rhode Island State Senator Alana DiMario (District 36) to discuss how environmental policy is shaped, implemented, and funded at the state level.

Senator DiMario shares her journey from mental health counselor to legislator and explains why climate change, coastal resiliency, and waste reduction are urgent priorities for her coastal district, including Narragansett, North Kingstown, and Block Island.

The conversation covers what happens after a bill passes, the importance of follow-through, and how state agencies, municipalities, and the public all play a role in turning environmental legislation into real-world action.

Topics covered include:

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marisa Desautel and co-host Clarice Parsons are joined by Rhode Island State Senator Alana DiMario to discuss how environmental policy is developed and carried out at the state level.

Senator DiMario shares her background and explains why climate change, coastal resiliency, and waste reduction are critical issues for her coastal district.

Topics covered include:

In this episode of Environmentally Speaking, Marissa Desautel and co-host Clarice Parsons discuss recent federal changes to environmental policy and growing challenges to public participation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

They examine lawsuits against the Bureau of Land Management, new federal permitting legislation, and concerns about how faster approvals may weaken environmental review—particularly for offshore wind projects.

Topics covered include: