Young people are leading the fight against climate change in the United States and around the world. Thirty-two percent of Gen Zers—more than any other generation—have taken concrete actions to address climate change in the last year. Local governments and officials can work with young leaders in their communities to advance climate action by providing resources and enacting change through ordinances, policies, programs, and infrastructure development.

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.

This Article examines the nature of the threats that climate change poses and will continue to pose for salmon recovery, as well as possible legal responses to combat these threats. It also considers the future prospects of Pacific salmon in a world that will include significant climate change and other threats to preserving and equitably apportioning the salmon resource, whose environmental sensitivity and expansive life cycle will continue to pose substantial challenges for the foreseeable future.

In February 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) promulgated climate-resilient development (CRD), which combines adaptation and mitigation as a principal strategy for managing climate change. This Article discusses local land use law in the context of CRD and provides a methodology for identifying and evaluating strategies that address the global climate crisis at the local level. Local governments have the power to integrate land use strategies that include CRD components, and the IPCC identified these strategies as effective tools for implementing CRD.

Economic theory suggests that pollution tax and cap-and-trade regulations can be functionally equivalent. Environmentalists tend to prefer the firm emissions cap in cap-and-trade programs, while economists and business interests tend to prefer the price certainty of tax programs. But both may be overlooking behavioral distinctions between the two policies. Using a novel randomized case experiment, this Article tests whether the framing changes negotiated policies.