This Article argues that growing private efforts to address climate change collectively take on the attributes and functions of a governance system that could be vital to societal decarbonization. Instead of evaluating specific initiatives or actions of particular businesses, it explores the entire field of private climate action and offers new ways of thinking about the path ahead.

It is now scientifically proven that climate change is causing disruptions to the world at large. These slow-motion consequences threaten most coastal areas around the world, especially the Pacific Island nations.  Scientists predict that climate change will cause the forced displacement of people; desertification; protracted destructive wildfires; sea-level rise; ocean acidification; extreme weather events; and severe drought, which then impacts the supply of food.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service raises important questions about the scope of the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA’s) protections for critical habitat. Foremost among them is a question one might think was long settled: what is “habitat”? In a short ruling, the Weyerhaeuser Court opined that “critical habitat” must first be “habitat,” but it did not attempt to define exactly what habitat is or how much deference the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should get on what is both a biological and policy question.

This Article, adapted from Chapter 16 of What Can Animal Law Learn From Environmental Law?, 2d Edition (ELI Press, forthcoming 2020), explores existing and potential wildlife conservation policies that could play a vital role in mitigating global climate change. It describes how climate change is impacting wildlife and biodiversity around the globe and reviews the history and current state of U.S. policy, including how the federal government currently manages climate change issues under the ESA.

This Article highlights the role of advocates in pushing government to step up to the challenges of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and remaining steadfast through continued policy enforcement. The authors, who participated in the development of the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act, provide insights regarding climate legislation, regulation, and litigation in a state committed to addressing climate change.

The year 2015 marked a new era in climate efforts under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change when the nations of the world signed a new implementing agreement in Paris, France.

Heralded in 1970 as the nation’s environmental Magna Carta, the National Environmental Policy Act’s (NEPA’s) luster seems faded and its future uncertain. While Trump Administration initiatives threaten to diminish further and perhaps even dismantle aspects of NEPA, this Article chronicles how the current assault merely continues NEPA’s unfortunate trajectory, examining how the courts, the U.S. Congress, and the executive branch each have whittled away at the Act. NEPA consequently sits at a critical juncture: it could soon fade away or it could hew back toward its original promise.

One of the most important and transformative mechanisms the U.S. Congress has ever created to protect the environment is under assault from the Donald Trump Administration. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ushered in the modern era of U.S. environmental law.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) plays a crucial role in the authorization and approval of more development projects than any other federal law. Proponents believe NEPA protects communities and the environment from potentially detrimental projects, while critics counter the Act prevents timely review of important infrastructure projects.

We must substantially reduce carbon emissions within a short time line, and this rapid decarbonization will cause negative economic and social impacts on workers and communities dependent upon fossil fuel extraction and use. “Just transition” often refers to addressing the needs of those communities, but an equitable transition into a low-carbon future should also take into account environmental justice communities that have suffered from disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards and that could and should benefit from job creation.