There has been an influx of “climate superfund” bills introduced and adopted in state legislatures across the country. Modeled after the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), these laws are designed to recover costs from large emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to pay for climate adaptation infrastructure. Following CERCLA’s strict liability framework, major polluters in New York and Vermont would be required to pay into state-managed funds in proportion to their shares of total GHG emissions; California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Oregon have proposed similar bills. On March 19, 2025, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts to discuss state climate superfund bills generally and the nuances of the Vermont and New York laws. Here, we present a transcript of that discussion, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.

PFAS exposure is emerging as a disability that veterans want covered by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). With claims relating to environmental exposure, it is often difficult to prove the disability is a result of service and not something else. However, there is another way to get service-connected disability coverage as a veteran: presumption of service connection. Part I of this Comment addresses how the military handles service-connected disabilities, specifically presumption of service connection with Agent Orange and, more recently, burn pits and water contamination at Camp Lejeune. Part II addresses the dangers of PFAS and how they often show up in military training settings, exposing servicemembers to higher levels. Part III argues that the VA should offer presumption of service connection for veterans and servicemembers facing the consequences of PFAS exposure by referencing presumption for similar issues. Part IV concludes.

In China, the year 2024 witnessed further evolution of environmental protection and development of legislation and rulemaking. This mainly included adoption of the Energy Law of the People’s Republic of China, revision of the Mineral Resources Law of the People’s Republic of China, and adoption of a series of administrative regulations. This Comment summarizes some of the year’s major developments.

The negotiations for the Global Plastics Treaty (GPT) that collapsed on December 2, 2024, were meant to be a step toward a plastics future informed by sustainable development principles. Given that no agreement has yet been reached, this Comment will discuss two broad issues that future GPT negotiating sessions must confront to produce an effective plastic life-cycle governance instrument. Part I reviews the fragmentation in current plastic waste-related governance instruments and institutions, and describes opportunities for the GPT to find synergies with those instruments. Part II discusses key sustainability issues—extended producer responsibility (EPR), circular waste management, and developed-developing world cooperation—that should drive a future agreement, and considers their interaction with the presently fragmented plastics governance system. Part III concludes.

An antitrust paradox lies at the heart of private-sector climate commitments. On the right, state attorneys general have warned that they may challenge these collaborations under antitrust laws. On the left, antitrust enforcers in the Biden Administration asserted that these actions will not receive preferential treatment even if they address societal ills that are not being addressed by governments. This Article asks what antitrust law is willing to consider: if prosocial goals are framed in terms of economic harms, should antitrust law view climate action as violating that standard? It argues that the avoided harms to the economy and consumers from emissions reductions can yield economically cognizable consumer welfare enhancement in the longer term, and that climate action thus is defensible under current antitrust doctrine.

State trust lands, covering more than 40 million acres across the West, were granted to states with the primary purpose of generating revenue for public schools and other designated beneficiaries. These lands were historically managed for extractive uses such as grazing, timber harvesting, and mineral development. This Article examines how recreation—ranging from hiking and hunting to wildlife viewing and camping—fits within this fiduciary framework. It analyzes state-level policies, revenue models, and accessibility considerations, and explores the opportunities and challenges of integrating recreation into trust land management. As recreational demand grows and state economies evolve, there is a need for adaptive management strategies that balance economic returns with ecological and public benefits.

Tribes in the Pacific Northwest have faced persistent obstacles to their exercise of treaty fishing rights, most prominently illegal regulation of off-reservation fishing by state governments. As salmon decline, a new frontier is emerging for treaty right violations: environmental degradation. A recent court victory ruled that a series of culverts owned and operated by the state of Washington violated tribal treaty rights to fish for salmonids at their “usual and accustomed” places. This Article adapts that “Culverts Case” framework to timber harvest applications and sale of timber on public lands, underscoring the tools and arguments available when making environmental degradation treaty rights claims and applying them to past timber sales and to current, contested timber sales. It identifies challenges such a lawsuit would face, and how these localized, small-scale cases relate to climate change mitigation and adaptation.