Environmental, natural resource, and energy planning will continue to rely on increasingly complex algorithms. Are these processes then also doomed to be inaccessible to key stakeholders? Hopefully not. There are multiple steps to ensuring process and participatory equity. There is ease of access to the process, access to necessary information, and then there is the matter of having the right information to be able to meaningfully impact outcomes of algorithm-assisted decisionmaking processes.

Agencies responsible for water and energy systems increasingly rely on algorithm-assisted decisionmaking to regulate these systems and shepherd them through climate adaptation. Legal scholars, attorneys, and environmental equity advocates should care about this fundamental change in governance for three reasons. First, climate adaptation depends on these tools. Second, algorithmic tools are not policy-neutral; rather they embed value-laden assumptions and biases. And third, the “rules” of this new forum impede equity and democratic participation, without deliberate countermeasures.

In 4°C, Ruhl and Craig effectively argue that governance measures, particularly adaptation planning, will fall short if institutions fail to embrace the real possibility that the planet will blow well past 2° Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial temperatures. Further, they argue that 4°C is a better target for adaptation planning because this metric better captures the future risk the nation faces. Ruhl and Craig are keenly aware that serious talk of a possible 4°C future will almost certainly trigger accusations of “doomism” from various critics.

In 4°C, Ruhl and Craig acknowledge that the Earth’s climate is changing at an increasingly rapid rate, outside the range to which society has adapted in the past. Realistically, achieving the goal set in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5°C will be almost unattainable without drastic actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Accelerating ice loss and expanding wildfire zones are potential markers of what are known as tipping points—thresholds along a nonlinear pattern of system change that accelerate the pace of change. Scientists are concerned that our global climate system is dangerously close to passing these points. This trend has significant implications for governance and law. Climate change disruptions will extend beyond biophysical systems to social systems, including systems of governance.

Curtis, Fisch, and Robertson's article, Do ESG Mutual Funds Deliver on Their Promises, is a timely and insightful piece with several important conclusions.

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing is a strategy for allocating investment funds on the basis of the extent to which the operations of a company, or a portfolio of companies, affect the environment, advance social justice, or follow good corporate governance practices. It is of intense and increasing interest to millions of investors who seek to minimize financial risks and maximize their financial returns. It also appeals to investors who seek to align their investments with their core personal values.

Corporations have received growing criticism for their role in climate change, perpetuating racial and gender inequality, and other pressing social issues. In response, shareholders are increasingly focusing on environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) criteria in selecting investments, and asset managers are responding by offering a growing number of ESG mutual funds. But are these funds giving investors what they promise? This Article provides a unique picture of the current ESG environment with an eye to informing regulatory policy.

The Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review (ELPAR) is published by the Environmental Law Institute’s (ELI’s) Environmental Law Reporter in partnership with Vanderbilt University Law School. This Comment highlights the results of the ELPAR article selection process and reports on the environmental legal scholarship for the 2021-2022 academic year, including the number of environmental law articles published in general law reviews versus environmental law journals, and the topics covered in the articles.