At this point in time, climate change pervades every aspect of contemporary life. It is a persistent current through our lives and, increasingly, throughout the law. One would be hard-pressed to find any area of law that has not or will not soon be touched by climate change. The onset of climate change has prompted decades worth of deep and wide efforts to reshape law and policy. Yet, alongside this development, there is also erosion.
The European Union, China, California, and a number of U.S. states in the Northeast are currently using emissions trading as part of their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the popularity of emissions trading as a policy tool co-exists with a well-established, and increasingly politically powerful, set of critiques of it in the United States. These critiques come from environmental justice advocates as well as some academics and other observers.
Efforts to hold major greenhouse gas emitters accountable for the harms caused by global climate change have been consistently frustrated at the procedural stages of litigation in U.S. federal courts. This Article explores using a combination of class action mechanisms to engage with these threshold barriers and hold carbon-major corporations responsible for climate impacts.
The Paris Agreement’s goal to hold warming to 1.5°-2°C above pre-industrial levels now appears unrealistic. Profs. Robin Kundis Craig and J.B. Ruhl have recently argued that because a 4°C world may be likely, we must recognize the disruptive consequences of such a world and respond by reimagining governance structures to meet the challenges of adapting to it.
While climate policy typically focuses on future decarbonization 10 to 20 years out, temperatures continue to rise. Greenhouse gases emitted upfront from the materials fabrication, construction, and renovation of our physical environment—embodied emissions—accelerate the rate of global warming now. They increase atmospheric carbon before our buildings and infrastructure are even used.
The collapse of the Champlain Towers South condominium complex in Surfside, Florida, raised questions about how climate change and environmental impacts may cause damage to coastal buildings. Independent structural issues are suspected to be a major factor in the collapse, but scientists and legal researchers posit that environmental factors also played a role. On December 20, 2021, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts that explored the climate risks to coastal communities and buildings in Florida, California, and elsewhere.
Agriculture’s contribution to climate change is much more substantial than official figures suggest. We will not be able to achieve our overall mitigation goals unless agricultural emissions sharply decline. Farms and ranches can be a major part of the climate solution, while protecting biodiversity, strengthening rural communities, and improving the lives of the workers who cultivate our crops and rear our animals. Agriculture climate solutions are critical elements both in ensuring our food security and in limiting climate change.
The rapid transition of energy resources from fossil fuels toward renewables has been widely recognized as an essential tool in mitigating climate change. Yet, renewable energy development projects and facilities can be land use-intensive and have the potential to negatively impact conservation areas. To attempt to tackle these issues, President Joseph Biden signed Executive Order No.
Courts across the globe recognize that human-induced climate change leads to more frequent and severe extreme weather and other events, resulting in significant damages to persons and property. Although courts have therefore ordered countries and corporations to take more aggressive actions to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, no court has yet required any emitter to pay damages for injuries from a climate changerelated event. Causation issues remain a significant obstacle to such claims.
We are told the transition to a zero-carbon economy will depend upon the United States’ ability to assure a sufficient supply of rare earths and minerals such as cobalt, nickel, or lithium. The Biden Administration is intent on promoting some new form of a critical mineral policy, and calls for reforming the 1872 Mining Law have persisted for well over one hundred years. This Article is designed to provoke a meaningful conversation about a critical minerals policy informed by our past.