The circular economy has gone mainstream as a goal in the transitions toward a more sustainable society. Often, however, laws that promote a circular economy remain vague or narrowly focused on resource efficiency, obscuring the fact that they have multiple environmental effects and can lead to environmental trade offs. This Article examines how to properly frame circular economy laws for sustainability, focusing on product-service systems generally and the case of car sharing in particular.

The Biden Administration’s efforts to promote clean energy have prompted calls for permit reform. A clean energy economy demands a global increase in mineral production, and some suggest environmental standards must be loosened. This premise fails to distinguish among causes of delay in the permitting process, and increased demand for minerals should not overshadow the productive purposes served by permitting. At the same time, there are opportunities to improve permitting without compromising health and safety standards.

On October 29, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, a petition filed by several states and coal companies attacking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court’s holding in this case would determine EPA’s continued ability to use the CAA—including the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) program—as a climate change tool.

This Comment provides a basic introduction to the Superfund removal program, a program through which millions of dollars are allocated through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 10 regional offices each year for cleaning up contaminated sites that are not designated “Superfund” sites, and particularly encourages consideration of Superfund removals to address growing concerns for environmental justice.

On the final day of the 2021-2022 term, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. The majority (6-3) opinion limited the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under Clean Air Act §111(d), in part by invoking the “major questions doctrine.” The decision has implications for EPA’s authority both to regulate emissions from stationary sources and to regulate greenhouse gases more broadly.

While the environmental justice movement has gained traction in the United States, the relationship between agri-food systems and environmental injustices in rural areas has yet to come into focus. This Article explores the relationship between U.S. agricultural exceptionalism and rural environmental justice through examining right-to-farm laws.

This Article, adapted from Leo E. Strine Jr., Kirby M. Smith, and Reilly S. Steel, Caremark and ESG, Perfect Together: A Practical Approach to Implementing an Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Caremark and EESG, 106 Iowa L. Rev. 18853 (2021), and used with permission, proposes a way of thinking about "EESG" that promotes ethical, fair, and sustainable behavior without heaping additional work on already-stretched employees and directors.

This abstract is adapted from Victor B. Flatt, Holding Polluters Accountable in Times of Climate and COVID Risk: The Problems With “Emergency” Enforcement Waivers, 12 San Diego J. Climate & Energy L. 1 (2021), and used with permission.

Leo Strine, Kirby Smith, and Reilly Steel make an important contribution to the corporate governance literature.

In Caremark and ESG, Perfect Together: A Practical Approach to Implementing an Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Caremark EESG Strategy, Leo Strine and co-authors frame a board’s duty of oversight for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues in light of the common-law duties articulated under Caremark. The landmark Caremark decision articulated that corporations and their directors have a duty to implement and monitor compliance programs to ensure that the company honors its legal obligations.