S. 3269
would set and meet a national goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2050.
would set and meet a national goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2050.
which would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security to research and evaluate existing federal research regarding approaches to mitigate climate change on homeland security to identify areas for further research within the Department, and research and develop approaches to mitigate the consequences of climate change on homeland security, was passed by the House.
would require the Comptroller General to evaluate and issue a report on the structural and economic impacts of climate resiliency at FEMA, including recommendations on how to improve the building codes and standards that the agency uses to prepare for climate change and address resiliency in housing, public buildings, and infrastructure such as roads and bridges.
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. This Comment seeks to analyze principles of CBDR and sustainable development, two central pillars upon which international climate change law and policy have developed, and to identify the reasons for the present discontent of the global North over the obligations of emerging economies. It also seeks to establish a basis for a new interpretation of the principle of CBDR to assist the forward march of global climate change negotiations.
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. Congress has not amended the CAA despite broad public support for action.The law of democracy and the law of climate change are fundamentally intertwined: how politics and law will be able to adjust to the future turns on who decides the law, and so on the health of our democracy. So far, the prognosis is mixed: a vital protest movement, active state responses, and growing economic pressure for action are balanced against powerful political actors seeking stasis and a sclerotic jurisprudence that limits democratic responsiveness. This Comment discusses the ways inequities in climate change risk and in democratic representation mirror each other, addresses the U.S. Supreme Court’s inconsistent and unhelpful jurisprudence on democracy and agency action and how it tends to reinforce this crisis of democracy, suggests alternate theories of judicial action that would better reinforce democratic responsiveness, and reflects on a broadened conceptual framework for climate law—as a legal framework fundamentally concerned with preserving equity and democracy in the face of climate change, and as a foundation for climate action.
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. Uunderstanding how courts may treat such information under the existing securities law framework is crucial to achieving more expansive disclosures. This Comment attempts to contribute to that conversation by surveying current trends that may influence courts’ analyses of the materiality of climate-related topics.
would authorize the imposition of sanctions with respect to significant actions that exacerbate climate change and reinforce comprehensive efforts to limit global average temperature rise.
would direct the Administrator of FEMA to revise agency policy to address the threats of climate change and include considerations of climate change in the agency's strategic plan.
would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security to research and evaluate existing federal research regarding approaches to mitigate climate change on homeland security to identify areas for further research within the Department, and research and develop approaches to mitigate the consequences of climate change on homeland security.
You are not logged in. To access this content: