Divergent legal obligations among major greenhouse gas emitters are a roadblock to establishing an effective climate change mitigation treaty. The United States, and now Canada, Japan, and Russia, have rejected time-bound, legally binding emissions reduction obligations unless major developing country emitters such as China and India undertake comparable binding obligations to reduce their emissions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in American Electric Power v. Connecticut appeared to affirm what many legal scholars have argued: that tort law is not a suitable or effective means to address climate change. While it did close a valuable door for plaintiffs seeking to advance the “carbon tort,” it did not represent the end of tort law’s role in providing relief for those whom climate change impacts now and into the future.

Scientists are virtually certain that climate change will lead to sea-level rise, more extreme storms, heat waves, wildfires, changing weather patterns, and the spread of disease. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is necessary, but not sufficient. Global, national, and subnational adaptation measures to reduce climate harm are essential. Because the consequences of increased disasters, long-term impacts on habitability, and public health threats will not fall equally around the globe or within the United States, equity considerations should play a vital role in emerging U.S.

Since the turn of the millennium, China has become an increasingly important economic and political power in Sub-Saharan Africa. Although China has unequivocally come in search of natural resources, its mission is undoubtedly deeper, broader, and more considerable, given the establishment of institutional mechanisms such as the Forum on China Africa Cooperation. China has come with new development modalities, but also with a poor environmental record. This has meant increased investment and trade for African nations, as well as serious environmental challenges that must be addressed.

The May 25, 2012, report—entitled EPA Inaction in Identifying Hazardous Waste Pharmaceuticals May Result in Unsafe Disposal—disapproved of EPA’s lack of progress in determining

Each October, the U.S. Supreme Court begins a new term. And each year, the Environmental Law Institute convenes a national seminar with some of the preeminent experts on the Supreme Court and environmental law to examine the potential significance for environmental law of both the Court’s rulings from its past term, as well as the cases already on the Court’s docket for its new term. This year’s panel, co-sponsored by Harvard Law School, was held on October 25, 2012, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The panel discussed the Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v.