Oil companies and their agents have been actively involved in creating and propagating climate change disinformation for the past half-century. In response to this deception, more than two dozen American states and cities have sued these companies under traditional tort-based causes of action like public nuisance, fraud, negligence, and failure to warn, alleging that the companies fueled uncertainty about climate science and undercut public support for necessary climate action.

More severe storm surges and rising sea levels along the coast of the United States pose a threat to coastal communities, infrastructure, and ecosystems.

Since 2017, 115 North Atlantic right whales (NARWs) have been documented dead, seriously injured, or sporting sublethal injuries and illnesses. Scientists refer to this phenomenon as an unusual mortality event, and assert that entanglement and vessel strikes are the leading causes. Fewer than 350 NARWs remain, and it is estimated that only one-third of their deaths are documented. Experts claim that only “quick and decisive action from humans” can ensure the species’ survival. Some proposed regulations will affect where and how the relevant fisheries are able to operate.

This abstract is adapted from Albert C. Lin, Making Net Zero Matter, 79 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 679 (2022), and used with permission.

This abstract is adapted from Cass R. Sunstein, Arbitrariness Review and Climate Change, 170 U. Pa. L. Rev. 991 (2022), and used with permission.

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.

This Article, adapted from the Climate Science and Law for Judges Curriculum, examines the status and viability of judicial remedies in climate change litigation. It focuses on climate cases that are seeking science-based remedies specifically related to climate mitigation (actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or draw down atmospheric carbon) and climate-change adaptation (actions to reduce the negative impacts of climate disruption on human and natural communities).

In June 2022, in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that on “major questions” the U.S. Congress must legislate with far more clarity and specificity than previously demanded. The Court held the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may regulate power plant carbon emissions in traditional ways, but the novel approach taken in the Clean Power Plan required clearer authorization than Congress had provided. Six weeks later, Congress enacted the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).