The Indian Supreme Court has been globally recognized for its inclination toward activism and its willingness to step in to fill gaps with respect to issues that affect the State and society alike. With respect to environmental issues, the Court’s activism has been markedly greater, and it has time and again played a leading role in deciding (and altering) the contours of the regulatory framework and in paving the way for a “sustainable India." This Comment analyzes one aspect of the Court's activism: its adoption and application of international environmental law principles.

Some threats to the environment, like acid rain and stratospheric ozone depletion, emerged fairly rapidly, and abrupt threats like an oil or toxic chemical spill demand an immediate response. But most environmental problems have the opposite character: they involve “slow threats,” where small, hardly noticeable changes add up over time to produce large impacts. Nearly all of the most serious environmental problems we face involve slow threats.

With real-time diagnostics, cutting-edge compliance management systems, and an underlying focus on sustainability as a good economic and reputational practice in many industry sectors, environmental compliance is increasingly self-policed and self-corrected by regulated entities. There is also much discussion about “cooperative federalism” and the need to ensure that program administration reflects the significant expertise and experience state agencies now have after decades of administering environmental protection laws.

The Trump Administration’s initial approach to federal land policy raises some long-standing, fundamental questions about the role of public participation and intergovernmental coordination in federal land management. Whether intentional or not, key administrative moves give the impression that it is trying to limit public participation as the Administration's priority is energy and natural resource development over conservation.

Since 1993, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program has funded the acquisition of over 37,000 flood-damaged properties. On these purchased properties, existing structures must be removed and the land dedicated to open space, recreational, or wetland management uses. Communities can restore and permanently protect these properties to provide natural habitats and help conserve biodiversity, while also providing amenities and improving resilience.

The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project Report calls for major increases in building and equipment efficiency to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. While the U.S. Department of Energy efficiency standards program is one of the most successful U.S. policies in driving energy savings, carbon reductions, and consumer savings, it will need to be made even stronger, and an integrated suite of additional and more ambitious energy-efficiency laws and regulations at the federal, state, and local level will be needed to meet this goal.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, requires responsible parties to clean up and remediate contaminated sites. Many states have similar local requirements. In the 35 years since the law was passed, there has been much discussion of reforming CERCLA, but has anything yet changed, and how might it change under the new presidential administration?

On August 15, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects," which seeks to expedite federal review and approval of infrastructure projects by imposing new timelines and procedures, including a two-year deadline for completing reviews under NEPA and issuing permits for major infrastructure projects.

Demand response—programs designed to encourage end-users to reduce electricity use during peak periods—has played a large role in contemporary energy markets. This growing market has created a new market actor: demand response aggregators. These aggregators have not enjoyed success in many of the states in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO): at least 10 of the 15 states prohibit aggregators from directly bidding into MISO wholesale markets, and these prohibitions vary significantly in their rationale.

Perception and experience are important to understanding the relevance and effectiveness of how we relate to and regulate our natural surroundings. This Article uses the term “insider” environmental law to distinguish local environmental governance capacity and suggests that local needs should serve more of a driving role in the formulation of environmental law and policy.