Today's climate impacts and those on the horizon increasingly infuse mitigation and adaptation efforts with urgency, causing policymakers to contemplate or issue formal declarations of a climate emergency and to streamline review processes to aid rapid development of mitigation and adaptation infrastructure and technology. Yet, this urgency and need have the potential to create injustice and sideline or overwhelm efforts to reduce existing injustice.

Many environmental law paradigms focus on fixed points. Sometimes, the fixed points are in the past, and environmental laws call upon us to look at a baseline or previous state of nature and compare our actions against it. Other approaches call for us to consider an ideal state and develop strategies regarding how to reach it. In a 4° Celsius world, both strategies fail. Adhering to baselines is meaningless and striving for goals that are unachievable may lead to paralysis.

Since passage of the early natural resource protection laws and regulations in the United States decades ago, legal, technical, and economic practitioners have been challenged with understanding the ever-changing and ever-evolving environmental law and policy landscape. Riveting changes have advanced the position of natural resources and related matters of conservation and biodiversity across domestic and international agendas, in corporate, government, and public interest agendas, and in the lives of everyday citizens.

Last September, the Biden Administration announced the American Climate Corps, a workforce training and service initiative with the goal of giving young people skills-based training for careers in the clean energy, conservation, and climate resilience sectors. The initiative will offer 20,000 Americans paid training in a variety of environmental fields, specifically prioritize equity and environmental justice, and collaborate with federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, and tribal, state, and local governments.

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Climate Disclosure Rule has provoked heated controversy on many fronts. Several commenters have argued that the First Amendment precludes the SEC from demanding climate-related disclosures. This Article grapples with the unsettled state of “compelled commercial speech” doctrine, arguing that the rule’s constitutionality should be scrutinized using the prevailing rational basis test, and that even under the intermediate scrutiny test, the rule should be upheld.

Oil companies and their agents have been actively involved in creating and propagating climate change disinformation for the past half-century. In response to this deception, more than two dozen American states and cities have sued these companies under traditional tort-based causes of action like public nuisance, fraud, negligence, and failure to warn, alleging that the companies fueled uncertainty about climate science and undercut public support for necessary climate action.

Using the most comprehensive data set on U.S. household recycling behavior, this Comment quantifies the relative impact on recycling of characteristics associated with recycling in different populations, under different governmental rules, and having different facilitating resources and amenities.

More severe storm surges and rising sea levels along the coast of the United States pose a threat to coastal communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems.

Despite five decades of experience, there is a considerable gap in legal and empirical study on the impacts of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Proponents of reform often claim NEPA litigation is a major obstacle for federal actions; others have concluded litigation is not a major contributor of project cost escalation or delays. This Article studies the incidence and conditions of infrastructure project litigation under NEPA, using a data set of 355 major transportation and energy infrastructure projects that completed a federal environmental study between 2010 and 2018.

The Metals Company (TMC), sponsored by the Republic of Nauru, has made public its intention to be the first company to exploit polymetallic nodules, which contain minerals needed for electric batteries, from the deep ocean’s seabed. Nongovernmental organizations and national governments have objected to these proposed actions, with many calling for an outright ban. This Article offers a case study evaluating the parties’ respective claims in favor of, and in opposition to, permitting the proposed mining activities under the current legal framework.