The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Climate Disclosure Rule has provoked heated controversy on many fronts. Several commenters have argued that the First Amendment precludes the SEC from demanding climate-related disclosures. This Article grapples with the unsettled state of “compelled commercial speech” doctrine, arguing that the rule’s constitutionality should be scrutinized using the prevailing rational basis test, and that even under the intermediate scrutiny test, the rule should be upheld.

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.

In April, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed new regulations governing land management decisions on public lands. Dubbed the “conservation rule,” this rule seeks to protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat, and manage for ecosystem resilience.

Using the most comprehensive data set on U.S. household recycling behavior, this Comment quantifies the relative impact on recycling of characteristics associated with recycling in different populations, under different governmental rules, and having different facilitating resources and amenities.

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

This abstract is adapted from Justin R. Pidot & Ezekiel A. Peterson, Conservation Rights-of-Way on Public Lands, 55 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 89 (2022), and used with permission.

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.