On the latest episode, Pat Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus and Senior Fellow for Climate Policy at the Environmental Law Center, joins Rachel Westrate and Terrence Neal, Vermont Law and Graduate School’s Parenteau Climate Action Fellows, to discuss EPA's international role, past and present. Both Rachel and Terrence come to VLGS from EPA, where they worked on international law and policy issues during the Biden Administration and the early days of the second Trump Administration. Listen as they discuss the EPA's longtime role in international environmental cooperation, the current Administration's unprecedented disengagement from international agreements and forums, and the prospects for law students to launch careers in international environmental law.
On the latest episode, Pat Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus and Senior Fellow for Climate Policy at the Environmental Law Center, joins Rachel Westrate and Terrence Neal, Vermont Law and Graduate School’s Parenteau Climate Action Fellows, to discuss EPA's international role, past and present. They discuss the EPA's longtime role in international environmental cooperation, the current Administration's unprecedented disengagement from international agreements and forums, and the prospects for law students to launch careers in international environmental law. Both Rachel and Terrence come to VLGS from EPA, where they worked on international law and policy issues during the Biden Administration and the early days of the second Trump Administration.
Narrator
This podcast is the production of the Maverick Lloyd School for the Environment, a Vermont law and graduate school.
Pat Parenteau
Well, hello everyone, and welcome to this episode of Hothouse Earth. I'm your host for today, Pat Parental. Professor of Law Emeritus now and senior Fellow for Climate policy at the Environmental Law Center at Vermont Law and Graduate School. Today's headlines are dominated by the announcement by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin that he was repealing the endangerment finding, which undergirds all of EPA's regulations dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and the driving force, of course, behind global warming and climate disruption.
There will be a lot more to say about this announcement. It will be challenged, of course, in court. But today we want to focus on another major aspect of the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle EPA programs and, in particular, its disengagement from international environmental cooperation and what that means for EPA's foreign policy role, a role that's not well understood.
And also, more specifically, the protection of human health and the environment. So I'm very, very pleased to be able to welcome today's guests, who are the parental Climate Action fellows, something that I'm very, very proud to be associated with, and that is Rachel Westray and Terrence Neal. These are our inaugural Climate Action fellows. They're already engaged in all kinds of fascinating projects, some of which we'll be hearing about today.
And both Rachel and Terence bring an incredible range of knowledge about the topic of international law and the role of EPA and the role of the United States in all of this. Both of them worked at the EPA in the international law programs during the Biden administration and for a brief while in the second Trump administration. Let me start with Tara.
So, prior to joining via GS, Terence was an attorney advisor at EPA. He was involved in a range of international and domestic issues, including the Extraterritorial Application of U.S. environmental law, human rights treaties, and, in particular, focusing on environmental justice and climate change considerations, incorporating those into EPA programs. He comes from rural Florida, so he knows a bit about environmental challenges and particular is interested in environmental protection and addressing the issues facing problems in marginalized communities, environmental justice, or frontline communities, as they're sometimes called.
Terence has held positions at the International Court of Justice, clerked for judges in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. He obtained his J.D. from Harvard Law School, another law school just down the road from us and his B.A. in public policy from Duke University. So welcome.
Terrence Neal
Thank you for that introduction, and I'm excited for that discussion today. I'm looking forward to speaking with you and Rachel.
Pat Parenteau
Our second guest is Rachel Westrate. Rachel is an expert in international environmental negotiations on air quality and climate law. Quite a package. She previously worked for the Office of International Affairs at EPA, leading negotiations in various international fora, including the United Nations, the G7 and G20, which, of course, are the associations of the major economic powers in the world.
She also served as a climate policy advisor at the Office of Management and Budget, focusing on the implementation of the bipartisan infrastructure law, which provided all kinds of funding initially for climate mitigation and climate adaptation-related programs. And importantly, in the Inflation Reduction Act, which of course has been gutted, unfortunately, by Congress. But still, some of the programs created by that law are in effect.
Rachel was the editor in chief of the well-known, well-regarded Environmental Law Review and was a student attorney in the International Human Rights Clinic. She also did Summers with the Environmental Defense Fund and the Inter American Association for Environmental Defense. And just to top it off, she worked even before law school at the World Resources Institute as a research assistant.
And of course, WRI is one of the leading think tanks, if you will, on climate and environmental issues in the world, frankly. Rachel is a graduate of Harvard Law School and 2021. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Policy and English Literature from Washington University in Saint Louis. So welcome, Rachel.
Rachel Westrate
Thanks so much, Pat, for the kind introduction. I'm excited to be here and excited for the discussion.
Pat Parenteau
So to get us started and before we dive into what the Trump administration is, actions and their impacts on EPA's international work might be doing, could each of you set up, set the scene, maybe for a bit about what exactly is EPA's role in the United States foreign policy? We know about EPA's dominant role or has been dominant role in domestic law, air quality, water quality, waste management, and so forth.
But I don't know how much people really understand about the role of EPA in this broader international context. So, Terence, would you like to start first?
Terrence Neal
Yeah, and thanks for the question. I think it's important to sort of provide some background on this topic because EPA does play a really important role in the foreign policy domain. I think it's easy to think about EPA being a domestic-oriented agency because of the statutes were often focused on the EPA administers, but also has very clear statutory authorizations with respect to acting on sort of transboundary environmental issues.
Such related to export of imports and substances. So one tangible example is EPA funds and administers the US-Mexico border water infrastructure Program. So that's providing grants for projects along the border with Mexico, particularly related to wastewater infrastructure, to make sure that transboundary rivers are not being put in a way that's negatively affecting human health and ecosystems. I was mentioning import of export.
So under or the resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA also has authority to regulate the export import of hazardous waste. So really clear authority in the regulatory realm to address sort of issues of interest or transboundary concern. And there's also certain procedures of the federal government that gives EPA a role and sort of negotiations of international agreements and other international initiatives.
One of these policies is called the Circular 75 procedure, and this is a procedure under Department of State's regulation that requires sort of interested or affected agencies to be involved in the process of negotiating international agreements. And so you can think of the department wants to go and negotiate a treaty on climate. EPA has special expertise in that area.
It's agency domestically that regulates climate pollutants. And so its interest is relevant. And it's important policy requires that EPA be engaged and clear negotiating positions. There's also very clear roles for domestic agency attorneys in those processes. For example, one of the key roles of the C 175 procedure is to make sure that the US is entering into agreements or negotiating agreements that it has legal authority to conclude or implement.
And so agency attorneys and EPA attorneys, for example, have a key role in making sure that the relevant legal authorities exist to implement potential future agreements. And I know Rachel probably has more to add in terms of policy. Legal and scientific equity is more relevant in the negotiating sphere and how that helps promote U.S. foreign policy.
Pat Parenteau
Right. So, Rachel, why don't you fill in some of the information on that front?
Rachel Westrate
Yeah, happy to, Pat. So this isn't something that only applies to EPA as well. Most domestic agencies in the U.S. government actually have international offices. So we have EPA's international office. But the Department of Energy has one. Noah has one. The Department of Treasury has one. So this is a framework that exists sort of across the U.S. government.
And the reason why that is important is because, as Terence said, domestic agencies have both a lot of technical capacity and technical expertise, but also understands the authority that U.S. law gives them to regulate domestically, which gives us the ability to do things internationally. One of the things that you often hear is that the U.S. can be very intense in negotiating spaces.
And the reason for that is because we do not want to agree to do things with our international partners, that we do not have the domestic authority to carry out. One of the big examples of that was in 2015 when President Barack Obama joined the Paris Agreement on climate change. That didn't go through a Senate ratified process. The reason for that is because under the Clean Air Act, authorities already existed for the United States to be able to implement their commitments.
And so having the EPA as the domestic agency responsible for the implementation of the Clean Air Act in those speeches and in those discussions is a really key portion to make sure that the U.S. can follow through. The State Department has negotiating officials and foreign policy experts that EPA can then bolster with its technical expertise. So a lot of our international engagements are what you might view or think of when you think of United Nations negotiations.
You know, 197 countries sitting in a room raising their flags, espousing important political priorities. But a lot of that work also happens in small technical rooms and scientific discussions with shared research agendas between countries. And that's really a key part of what EPA does in the international sphere, sharing expertise and talking to the experts in other countries. So you have these different types of negotiations that are going on, both political and technical and research-based.
And it's really key to have EPA in those realms that happens both at the multinational level when you're working in big groups of countries, but also on the bilateral level when you're working, like Terence mentioned with Mexico on a U.S. Mexico border agreement and sharing expertise on water resources.
Pat Parenteau
Terrific. So let's dig in a little bit more on what the work of an international lawyer or policy adviser really looks like on a day-to-day basis at EPA in terms of the work that each of you have done and the portfolios that you managed. Talk a little bit more about that and maybe, Terrence, you had a connection with the Office of General Counsel, right?
Terrence Neal
So, yes, I was in the Office Counsel, which is one of a number of officers within the EPA that have a focus on international issues. Of course, being an optional counsel, your focus is more squarely on the legal dimensions of the international work. And so before I kind of dive into my specific practice areas of portfolio areas, it may be helpful to elaborate a bit more on how Odyssey is structured and sort of the type of work generally that's going on within AGC.
So sort of the hub for national Work and Odyssey is the cross-cutting issues. Law Office is international Environmental Law Practice group. Another group that I sat in. And so that group covers a wide range of issues from trade law and policy to international climate negotiations to the plastics agreement negotiations, which I was involved in. Also, there's more regular, I guess, lower-profile work, too.
So EPA pretty regularly negotiates bilateral memoranda of understanding with other countries just to set out the modes of cooperation on technical assistance or capacity building. So a lawyer would be involved in helping to draft and negotiate those. And then I won't go through all the offices, but with an agency, there's also an air radiation officer's office focused on water and civil rights and also pesticides.
And I would say there's international dimension of all of those offices, and that's based off of relevant statutory authorizations and experience. So, for example, with the radiation law office, there's attorneys in that group who are covering ozone-depleting substances. So they're involved in the Montreal Protocol related negotiations and conference of the Parties. And then for our water, look, there's the NPR saying, which is the statute focused on ocean dumping.
And so also covers U.S.-flagged vessels operating the high seas. So that program squarely international dimension. And those have a specific group of attorneys working on that issue. And I think it was even surprising to me all the things I could do at EPA, because I came from more of the international law background from guess Europe, I would say I was working at the International Court of Justice before I came to EPA, so I covered trade policy, which was really great to be involved in and the Biden administration, because some of the key things that I worked on was how do we articulate environmental justice considerations in the environment, chapters of trade agreements.
I also worked closely with U.S. State Department on inclusivity, chapters of trade instruments as well. And these chapters are focused on how do we ensure the benefits of trade agreements are actually being accessible to the broader society and not just a small group of enterprises or people? There's quite a long list of things I worked on that I think, and reflecting on it, But other key things to highlight are my indigenous peoples and human rights portfolio.
So engaging on human rights resolutions making those are taking into account the great work we're doing domestically on environmental justice, which in a sense of the human rights and environment and got to it an opportunity to work on World Health Organization issues with the pandemic and court negotiations and many more things that can keep going on. And then I had a small domestic portfolio focused on Aegean equities.
So I was involved. And the NEPA regulations and their revisions during the Biden administration, as well as various NEPA guidance documents and other things. And maybe just to give a sense of like what the day in the life looks like for an international attorney, and I would see the work as very much client-driven. So I think that will be common across, I guess, agents, the attorneys.
So folks in and out of the DOJ litigating or I guess excluding enforcement related offices. So really, my role was being an advisory attorney. I think in terms of also thinking about sort of skills in this context, I think it's super important to be having sort of diplomatic skills because a lot of your work as both coordinating with different offices within the legal office as well as with offices across the federal government.
I think it's a really great job for anyone interested in the environment to work in a very dynamic practice. So yeah, I find my time very exciting and I learned a lot from my experience.
Pat Parenteau
Rachel, why don't you talk a little bit about the work that you've done with some of EPA's other offices of International Engagement?
Rachel Westrate
Great. Yeah. So while I was at EPA, I was working in the Office of International Affairs, so I was working in a policy role there. And ostensibly my job was to negotiate with our international partners to come to both political agreements and sort of the general way forward that our countries were taking, but also on more specific actions we would take both domestically and in supporting partners internationally.
But in reality, a lot of my job was negotiating within the U.S. government, both within offices, the EPA and other agencies, and with the State Department to come up with what the US is negotiating position would be. Give a little bit of context to this. And my role as a negotiator, I had my portfolio, which, as you mentioned, I think in my introduction, included the United Nations Environment Program, the G7 and the G20, among others.
Those meetings happen every year or every two years. And so you're on a cyclical schedule of when things are happening and what it looks like leading up to that, as whoever is the president of the G7 or the G20 that rotates between different countries or whoever is proposing a motion for adoption in the United Nations Environment Assembly, we'll send out a document for everyone to look at.
And my job would be to send that around to all of our experts within EPA and around the U.S. government to say, what do we think about this document? What's good, what's bad, what can we agree to? What can't we agree to, and then negotiate within ourselves to figure out what our position would be? That process often takes months.
There are a lot of incredibly smart and dedicated people who have different expertise across the U.S. government, and we always want to make sure to get it right. So after we would do that, we would then go to these big meetings to explain the US's position to other countries and try to come to an agreement there. And once we did, we would come home, and then our job would be implementing that agreement.
That's something that I worked on in some senses, but also passed on a lot of that work to our domestic program offices, who again have the relevant expertise to be able to work on the technical aspects of air quality, water quality, resource conservation, etc., etc.. So I worked really closely with those program offices. As Terence mentioned, that's like the Office of Air and Radiation, the Office of Land and Emergency Management.
But I also worked quite closely with the administrator's office, the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency is the equivalent of the environment minister in other countries. And so that person is our delegate to international meetings to represent the environmental interests of the United States. So my job was to both know sort of the nitty gritty, technical U.S. positions on various negotiating topics, but also be able to prepare upper-level management and the administrator of the EPA to go to these meetings and talk with their counterparts to be able to come to some of those political-level choices.
And so that was it was sort of one of the big aspects of my work. And like Terence, I found it incredibly rewarding and exciting. It's very, very cool to be able to watch your work sort of trickle both up and down through high-level political statements and small policy choices and projects throughout the world.
Pat Parenteau
That's great. So we're now in year two of what could be called Trump 2.0, his second term and a couple of the most high profile actions that Trump has taken course is to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, which is the framework, frankly, for the work that's being done all around the world on both reducing the emissions that are driving climate disruption and funding adaptation for the most vulnerable nations in the world that are suffering enormously from the failure to deal with climate disruption.
And also and somewhat surprisingly, since he didn't do it in his first term, withdrawing the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Now, this, for those who may not know, is actually a treaty that the United States is a party to a treaty that was ratified by the Senate. So in terms of law, it's the as the Supreme Court has characterized it, the highest law in the land.
So it was somewhat surprising to see Trump withdrawing the US from the framework convention. And so, Rachel, maybe you could say initially a couple of words about these two moves by the Trump administration, and then we'll go on to talk about many other moves that the administration is making.
Rachel Westrate
Yeah. Happy to. So, not to self-promote, but I did just publish a blog on this topic on the Vermont Journal of Environmental Laws website. So take a look if you're interested, because it will get way more into depth than we are able to hear today. But just to give a high-level overview, so the administration published this executive order that said they're withdrawing from the Paris Agreement that happened last year.
And then just a couple of weeks ago, they published another executive order saying they were withdrawing from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, along with a bunch of other both U.N. and non-U.N. international organizations. The interesting thing is that they define withdrawal as ceasing participation in or funding to. And there's no mention of when they might actually legally withdraw from the treaty.
What they have to do in order to legally withdraw from the UN after policy is deposit a notice of withdrawal with the U.N. secretary general. So far as of today, Friday, February 13th, they have not deposited that notice of withdrawal. So we're not quite sure if they're going to do it. If they do. There is general consensus that a president can withdraw even from a Senate ratified treaty without asking the Senate to do so.
The Supreme Court has never said anything on this topic, but there's general consensus and among lawyers, and it's included in the restatement of foreign policy that that all lawyers rely on. But that's generally something that we think is okay. I think the big question is going to be can a future president rejoin a Senate ratified treaty without going back to the Senate if a previous president has withdrawn?
And I think that's an open question. There are some really good arguments out there, and I think there's a couple of law review articles linked in my blog posts that discuss why it's probably possible for a future president to actually rejoin the U.N., proceed without going back to the Senate. So that's going to be something that's really key to watch in the future, because that will really be able to dictate how the United States is able to participate in both the Paris Agreement and the greater U.N. policy framework moving forward and hopefully a future climate-friendly administration.
Pat Parenteau
That is good news. And let's hope that we see that happen. So, Terence, why don't you talk about some of the other things that the Trump administration is doing to pull us back from international engagement?
Terrence Neal
Yeah, things. And this will maybe go into a bit more detail on some of the executive orders and memos that Rachel just mentioned. So, sort of one of the first actions that President Trump and it's an administration did back in January 2025 was issue an executive order with the sense that we're sort of putting America first in international environmental agreements as a, you know, domestic law. American considerations were not historically considered in those types of agreements. And so...
Rachel Westrate
Ridiculous claim to begin.
Terrence Neal
And so through this executive order, it's directing sort of agencies involved in negotiations of international agreements to basically prioritize economic considerations. It really basically just favors this idea that we should be giving financial assistance to developing countries that, for example, adapt to climate change or develop sort of mitigation strategies. Trump's instructions. I was like, that's not in the U.S. favor.
We should not be doing that. And there's also this executive order that Rachel was mentioning that intent to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement. Again. And so this has pretty broad implications in terms of what it looks like when the U.S. shows up to a negotiation. For example, I was involved in the plastic treaty negotiations, which is focused on addressing or ending plastic pollution globally, including in the marine environment.
And of course, plastics is linked to climate because polymer production is linked to oil and gas production as well. And so some of the tricky things in the negotiation was related to financial assistance for developing countries or the idea of a just transition for workers across borders. And so this sort of executive order says, wait a minute, like maybe the Biden administration that was in favor of those sort of things, but we're not going to be comfortable any longer showing negotiation, saying, yes, we want to just transition for everyone or yes, we think we can have some sort of contributions to a fund to help countries implement this potential future agreement on plastics.
And it also gets into some of the substantive provisions, which are focused on putting a cap on plastic production. And, of course, that would have significant implications for the U.S. economy because the U.S. is a major plastic producer. So I think it's really altering how we see our role in negotiations in the environmental sphere, which is ultimately detrimental to sort of global community, because these are big transboundary.
Global issues that we're trying to address in the context of these negotiations. Another executive order that I think both Rachel and I had some experience with implementing or sort of the effects of implementation during our time at EPA during the first few months of the Trump administration this year was 14199, which was basically the State Department to look into the different organizations that he was participating, as well as the different agreements that he was participating in, determining which ones were in the U.S. interest or not.
And for the ones that were not, and that the U.S. chose to provide some recommendations on withdrawing or reforming our contributions to those organizations. And this really greatly affected our day-to-day work. So there was a pause on the ability to engage internationally for many offices, and the executive order is ultimately what led to the U.N. triple C withdrawal that Rachel was also just mentioning.
Pat Parenteau
Wow. Yeah. I was going to say to Rachel, it sounds like Trump has wiped out all of the international programs. Is that true?
Rachel Westrate
So it feels that way, and it certainly felt that way at the beginning when we were under that sort of stop work order that Terrence mentioned. But that hasn't stopped all international work that's happening. So like I mentioned, we are still part of the G-7 and the G-20. Usually, those organizations have what they call environmental tracts during that.
So that's over the course of the year. We talk to the countries that are part of those two groups, and we discuss different environmental priorities. Now, the U.S. still goes to them. They still discussed international priorities and went to the environment ministerial last year in the G-7 and the G-20. And actually the U.S. is the president of the G-20.
This year and is working on water re-use as one of its priorities now, not under a full environment track, but under the energy track. And so there are still ways that international environmental negotiations are happening and moving forward, they just look different than how they used to work. We also haven't pulled out of all of the international environmental organizations that we are part of.
For example, we're still part of the United Nations Environment Program, which is the leading organization doing environmental work worldwide. Every two years they have a meeting called the United Nations Environment Assembly. The last one was held in December of 2025. The U.S. did not send anyone, didn't even show up for the first time ever. But that doesn't mean we couldn't re-engage in the future.
And so there's still work happening. There's still discussions happening at the staff level between members of international organizations and civil servants, at domestic agencies and at EPA. There's still conversations happening between officials of other countries and officials of the U.S. government on environmental topics, but it definitely is different than how it used to be. Under the Biden administration, I think, had it pretty good where environmental of climate and social justice concerns were at the top of the presidential agenda.
Now, that's obviously not the case. And in some ways the opposite is true, right? They're being targeted by this administration as things that are bad and that we shouldn't be doing. But that doesn't mean our work has shut down and it doesn't mean that all good work has been shut down. I think there are still areas of cooperation that are ongoing and are still going to produce fruitful projects and outcomes even in this atmosphere.
Pat Parenteau
Well, that's certainly good news. And we know Trump will be there forever. So let's take a moment to look ahead and pose this question to both of you. Assuming the next administration is willing to re-engage with the international community and cooperate on global problems like climate disruption, like biodiversity loss, like plastics in the ocean and many, many others.
What would you suggest each of you as maybe one or two things that you'd recommend for the federal government to re-engage with the international community and rebuild some of the federal government's international environmental programs? Terence, you want to start?
Terrence Neal
Thanks for that question. First, I actually just want to go back a few points that I think are easier. They don't have international implications, but do and this is this DEI trans lens that this administration has. So there's a number of executive orders that are attacking.
Pat Parenteau
And by DEI, you mean diversity, equity and inclusion, right?
Terrence Neal
That's right. Thank you for clarifying that. And so the Trump administration is saying that these efforts are discrimination and that environmental justice and equity are things that fall under the umbrella of the DEI. Because of these anti-DEI, anti-trans related policies, the U.S. is not showing up.
It also is sort of hurting countries who want to make progress on but are incorporating vulnerable groups in their domestic law. So the US corporation programs work countries in Southeast Asia on how to reform their moral impact assessment programs to better take into account easy considerations. And that's no longer possible.
On top of those sort of policy changes, those executive orders ordered the termination of a number of offices that worked on these issues. So, the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, I think over 100 employees were immediately probably when Trump office and have now been terminated.
And so even the capacity to engage in these types of substantive issues is just not there anymore, or at least not at the same level. So there will be a need to rebuild. We are going to be able to get back on an international plane and promote equity, social justice-related issues. But turning to your question, and just as a reminder, it was about the things that the EPA or the U.S. can do to re-engage in these international processes on these pressing contemporary environmental challenges.
I guess I'll go pretty broad in terms of the type of solutions and that's to say that we really have to kind of clean up shop at home to be a trusted international partner. So I think the current sense is that every four years maybe we will have a radically different political positioning. So like if the US is pushing this novel program, Internet slave like, do other countries really want to buy into that?
Because maybe the US isn't going to provide money for it in four years. Maybe they're not going to start to implement that program. So I think we really need to focus on sort of core democracy related things domestically, whether it's voting rights, more legislation to ensure that we're having oversight and accountability over the executive branch, I think is absolutely necessary for our foreign partners to take us seriously.
I don't think we can just come back and say, Hey, we're back and we care about our let's use them, we're back, re-engage. I think there's been a lot of damage done by the Trump administration on how things have swung back and forth over the past few election cycles.
Pat Parenteau
Right. So, Rachel, what would you like to tell the next president to do to rebuild some of the nations in international programs?
Rachel Westrate
Yeah, I think I have two main pieces of advice, and I think the first one builds on what Terence just said. I think that we have to be bold and we have to reconsider what we've done for the past 20, 30, 40 years in the international environmental context. And because our international partners were getting tired of that even under the Biden administration.
So if we're going to credibly go back into international climate negotiations, for example, we best be addressing fossil fuel subsidies at home. We best be addressing how we're going to help marginalized and developing countries work on these issues. I think we have to really think of the power that the U.S. can bring and where we're putting that power.
And I think that will go a long way in helping our international allies look at us and say, okay, they're stepping up. They're not only coming back to the table, but they're coming back with more than they left with. So I think that's important. I think the second thing, and it's sort of related is, you know, we need to look closer to home.
Like you started out this podcast with Pat. We just repealed the endangerment finding, which gives EPA the ability to regulate greenhouse gases. We're going to need to figure that one out. We need to be able to have a credible, long-term, legally stable solution to how we're addressing climate change in this country and a host of other environmental issues before we can go internationally and say we're ready to help out again.
And I think the third thing that I would say is there are a lot of really good people who are still in the administration right now in the civil service who haven't left. They are the ones grasping at our international relationships. They are the people who are interacting with other people in different countries every day and trying to maintain normalcy.
I would say reach out to those people. We need to listen to the people who have been on the ground these past four years, who are hearing from our international partners what they care about, where they want to go and we need to take that seriously because we can't come in again and say, well, we're the U.S. and we're back, but we have to really extend a helping hand and hope that others will reach out and take it and help.
Pat Parenteau
Very good. So before we wrap up here, I'd like to ask one final question of each of you, and that is, what advice would you have for law students? And, of course, you know, we're in the business of educating and training the next generation of environmental advocates. Right. So what advice do you have for our students and others, law students across the country that are interested in international environmental work? What would you recommend they do to prepare and what sort of career paths did you see for them? Terrance, go ahead.
Terrence Neal
Honestly, I think there's probably a lack of information out there in how you do really interesting international environmental law work and federal government, for example. But things that I recommend in terms of, I guess, educating and preparing oneself. I would say don't try to over-specialize too soon. I think we're kind of in a world where everyone feels like they have to pick a niche or various specializations, even coming into law school.
I think international law, you really need to know the basics and be grounded in public interest law generally. And I think if you have that grounding, it's much more easier to, over the course of your career change from like fisheries agreements or working on climate. I think if you get hyper-focused on one regime in particular, there's a need to like change that regime.
It's a bit tougher to really understand the world in which you're working in. At the same time, I think it's I would not focus on interest a lot at the expense of not having deep knowledge on U.S. law. I think international law is based off of domestic legal system to an extent. And so having a firm understanding of how our system works, I think, would be very useful for someone and gave us an international environment to work.
From my perspective, I think it depends on the person. I would hopefully encourage trying to find either one or two internships abroad. I think the U.S., particularly US law schools, maybe gives us a very like U.S. exceptionalist view of law. And I think when working with international partners abroad, it's very important to be able to relate to their positions, understand where they're coming from, and not just be so baked into our very specific U.S. view of how international law should work. And so that would be my advice for law students thinking about this field.
Pat Parenteau
Very useful. And, Rachel, what do you suggest?
Rachel Westrate
Yeah, I just want to add on to what Terence just said about getting an international internship. Also, think about civil society groups in other countries. I worked at an organization called the International Association for Environmental Defense in Mexico City. My one else summer, and it shaped my thinking about both international and environmental law and the rest of my career.
And so I think it's really important to get out there and work at organized actions that will give you the experience of working across different disciplines, different legal frameworks, different cultures. That's going to be key to your understanding on an intellectual level of the issues that you want to work on, but also on the relationship-building aspect of it, which I think is a really key aspect of a lot of international work.
And so I think that that work experience is is really key. And there are different ways to do that. Even if you can't get an international internship or, you know, you can't afford to live for a summer in Fiji. There are a lot of organizations that work across different countries and so try to get an internship with a US-based organization that maybe has a country team that works out of Indonesia or out of Ethiopia.
So those experiences I think, can be really valuable. I would also encourage you to expand your class offerings beyond just environmental classes or just international law classes. I think the more well-rounded that you can be understanding different aspects of la, is going to be really helpful. I mean, I think I mentioned earlier, you know, I think the U.S. needs to reform their subsidies law, but I have no idea how subsidies work.
It would be super helpful if I did. I wish I had taken tax law. I want to know what's happening there. And so I think that the more you can be intellectually curious about various areas and how they might interact with the things that you're interested in, the better prepared you would be to both work on a variety of different issues that come up in the international environmental context.
But also, you can market yourself a lot better, sort of having those pieces of knowledge behind you as you're going out there for the job market.
Pat Parenteau
Well, Rachel and Terence, I can't tell you how proud I am to have my name associated with your work, and I encourage everyone listening to this podcast follow their progress in terms of the research they're doing, the scholarship that they are going to be producing, and the really practical suggestions that I know they're both going to be coming up with for how do we get out of the mess that we're currently in.
But it's not the end, and there is still much good work that needs to be done, must be done, and will be done. So we'll close the program with, “Thanks to everyone for listening.” And stay tuned for other episodes of Hothouse Earth. Thank you.
Narrator
If you want to hear more about hot topics on environmental law and policy issues, check us out. Subscribe to the hothouse Earth podcast wherever you get your podcasts.