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.

The livestock sector is one of the planet’s primary causes of resource consumption and environmental degradation. Approximately 99% of meat and other animal products in the United States are from factory farms, and the number of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) continues to grow. This Article, adapted from Chapter 8 of What Can Animal Law Learn From Environmental Law?, 2d Edition (ELI Press, forthcoming 2020), examines animal agriculture in the U.S and the associated problems.

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.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the difficult mission of crafting complex environmental rules and regulations while considering the economic costs of those actions. The Agency must also engage in law enforcement functions to enforce these rules and regulations to ensure compliance, punish appropriately, and deter future offenders. Most of these enforcement actions rely on civil remedies to gain compliance, such as negotiating consent decrees or issuing civil penalties. In cases of willful, chronic, or serious offenses, the Agency can seek criminal penalties.

Section 401 certification and permit conditioning under the Clean Water Act is one of the most significant tools for states to influence federally permitted activities involving discharges into navigable waters. However, states are required to set conditions within one year or they forgo their ability to do so. In practice, the one-year review is difficult for states to meet and led to a common practice known as “withdraw and resubmit” in which states could reset the clock. But in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, the D.C.

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.

The role that cost-benefit analysis (CBA) plays in regulatory decisionmaking is at a crossroads, as is the role played by the agency that oversees its implementation, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The Trump Administration has largely demonstrated agnosticism toward CBA; this has left many to question whether OIRA can still play the role of ensuring quality analysis while serving as the eyes and ears of the president in overseeing regulation.