It is now scientifically proven that climate change is causing disruptions to the world at large. These slow-motion consequences threaten most coastal areas around the world, especially the Pacific Island nations.  Scientists predict that climate change will cause the forced displacement of people; desertification; protracted destructive wildfires; sea-level rise; ocean acidification; extreme weather events; and severe drought, which then impacts the supply of food.

This Article highlights the role of advocates in pushing government to step up to the challenges of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and remaining steadfast through continued policy enforcement. The authors, who participated in the development of the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act, provide insights regarding climate legislation, regulation, and litigation in a state committed to addressing climate change.

The year 2015 marked a new era in climate efforts under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change when the nations of the world signed a new implementing agreement in Paris, France.

We must substantially reduce carbon emissions within a short time line, and this rapid decarbonization will cause negative economic and social impacts on workers and communities dependent upon fossil fuel extraction and use. “Just transition” often refers to addressing the needs of those communities, but an equitable transition into a low-carbon future should also take into account environmental justice communities that have suffered from disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards and that could and should benefit from job creation.

The principles of “common but differentiated responsibility” (CBDR) and sustainable development play an integral role in international environmental law. However, these principles have come under fire in recent years, particularly from the global North, which has grown impatient over the lack of contribution on climate change from the emerging economies. Much effort has been expended toward the establishment of greater contribution, and the shouldering of greater responsibility from these countries.

In 1990, when the Clean Air Act (CAA) was last substantially amended, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels stood at about 350 parts per million (ppm). Now they are close to 414 ppm, and the U.S.

In recent years, the drumbeat for more expansive climate-related corporate disclosures has grown louder and more consistent within a broader swath of the financial community. This intensifying call argues for considering more climate-related information legally material under existing U.S. securities disclosure law. A key component of materiality as defined in U.S. securities law—who is a “reasonable investor”—is evolving when it comes to climate-related information. This evolution may soon impact what climate-related information courts consider material.

Marine litter is human-created waste that has been discharged into the marine environment, including glass, metal, plastics, and other debris. According to data compiled by the United Nations, the equivalent of a garbage truck filled with plastic is dumped into the ocean every minute—more than 8 million metric tons per year. On November 11, 2019, the Environmental Law Institute hosted an expert panel that explored recent U.S.

Millions of tons of plastic enter the environment every year, killing wildlife, releasing toxins, clogging drains, and marring landscapes. Bans or restrictions on single-use plastics have exploded in popularity in recent years as a means of addressing these problems. Yet these bans remain controversial, with some businesses pushing back against what they consider excessive regulation and others maintaining that banning single-use plastics uses political capital that could be spent advancing more urgent and systemic agendas.

Although a vast literature focuses on the efforts of states on climate change, they are not the only sovereigns who are working to address its negative impacts. This Article argues that though tribal governments are not part of the federalist system, they are still capable of regulatory innovation that may prove helpful to other sovereigns, such as other tribes, states, and the federal government.