In marking the one year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, in April 2007, then-Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee John Dingell argued that developing trends--without the adoption of rationalizing comprehensive federal climate legislation--would lead to a "glorious mess." He was referring to the potential combination facing businesses of U.S.

Addressing global climate change through the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is an issue of broad national and international concern, touching on many facets of this country's environmental and economic well-being. Crafting a workable solution will require a coordinated and comprehensive approach, for only such an approach will maximize the environmental benefits of regulation while not imposing undue costs on already strained American businesses and consumers.

I. Introduction

Over the 35 years of its existence, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has given rise to a unique lexicon of buzzwords, catch-phrases, and terms-of-art. The depth and creativity of this vocabulary is not surprising, given the complex nature of the ESA's requirements and the pervasive effect they have had on wildlife conservation and the management and use of natural resources throughout the world.

With one of the more memorable opening lines in the annals of legal scholarship, J.B. Ruhl has skillfully set forth the promise and perils of addressing global warming's impact on imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). But while the pika may indeed be toast, other species affected by climate change have a better chance of survival and, as Ruhl notes, the ESA can play a critical role in ensuring it.

I. Introduction

Robert Stavins has performed a great and valuable public service by his role in moving cap-and-trade from an academic idea to real-world policy. Since the 1980s Stavins has tirelessly promoted the idea that the nation could have cleaner air at less cost if national policymakers would establish gradually shrinking emissions caps on pollutants and allow emitters to make their own decisions about how to adjust to this change in their market environment. Stavins' recent article Addressing Climate Change With a Comprehensive U.S.

Prof. Robert Stavins has contributed greatly to the evolution of environmental policy. He's pioneered new instruments for achieving environmental progress and improved the effectiveness of traditional tools. This paper is no exception. Here, Dr. Stavins offers compelling counsel on how best to structure a cap-and-trade policy to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas pollution.

Just as when comprehensive climate change legislation reached the floor of the U.S. Senate in the fall of 2008, the U.S. House of Representative's passage of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill (officially H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act) gave hope to supporters of comprehensive federal legislation.

For the Barack Obama Administration, addressing climate change has quickly risen as a priority. How the Administration should address climate change, however, remains very much in question. The U.S. Congress has started to move on climate legislation, but assuming passage, the final shape and detail of these efforts may not be known for months or even years. In the meantime, the Clean Air Act (CAA)1--a complex legal framework with many regulatory hooks and levers--remains the law of the land.