Many chemicals and hazardous substances are kept in places that can withstand ordinary rain, but not severe storms or floods. If these events occur and the chemicals are released, people and the environment may be endangered. This Article discusses the hazards posed to chemical and waste disposal facilities by extreme weather events that would be worsened as a result of climate change, and how U.S. laws do (or do not) deal with these hazards; and considers how the law would need to change to cope with what would happen to these facilities in a potentially 4°C world.

Climate change has captured the attention of governments, regulators, international bodies, and the private sector. But climate change is arguably a single facet of a larger concern: the “rapid decline” in the integrity of nature. Climate and other natural systems are interconnected, and recent literature has focused increasingly on this “interdependence of climate, ecosystems, and biodiversity,” spurring a wide variety of organizations to reflect on the broader role nature plays in environmental sustainability.

Numerous cities, states, and counties have sued fossil fuel companies, with claims based on evidence found in the companies’ own internal documents and statements. These companies have argued their public statements are protected by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and right to petition clauses. This Article describes the current litigation, discusses the companies’ statements disseminated through various sources, and summarizes U.S. Supreme Court precedent and caselaw on commercial speech.

Over two dozen U.S. states and municipalities have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies, seeking abatement orders and compensation for climate damages based on theories such as public nuisance, negligence, and failure to warn, and alleging these companies knew about the dangers of their products, intentionally concealed those dangers, created doubt about climate science, and undermined public support for climate action.

Underregulation is a common and persistent environmental law problem, with recent scholarly focus on individual contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), whose harm is not fully known. But little attention has been given to the general trend of underregulation with respect to these chemicals, or explaining why this systematic underregulation occurs. This Article posits that federal agencies have been unacceptably slow to initiate protective regulations, and even once regulations are promulgated, they leave regulatory gaps that continue to expose populations to harmful effects.

The field of environmental law has seen many changes over the years, with demonstrable legal and policy victories for cleaner air and water. While the face of the environmental movement in its beginnings was predominantly male, women have become more prominent and influential within environmental law and policy over the decades.