News
28th Annual Tulane Environmental Law & Policy Summit
Great free conference!
Unprecedented snowfall on US west coast is ‘once-in-a-generation’ event
Climate change means more extremes at both ends, not just more warming.
Assignment
We have reviewed the science of climate change and the legal cases on the regulatory approach to climate. After West Virginia v. EPA, regulations under the CAA have been cut off. Congress could amend the CAA to clearly address climate change mitigation, but that is unlikely to happen. The IRA is pure incentives. It did not modify the CCA and thus did not address the West Virginia v. EPA problem. We are now going to look at a case that asks the courts to create a right to a healthy (not warming) environment and then enforce it.
Juliana is the children’s crusade case:
https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us
Review the WWW site to get an idea of what is going on with the case. It has been the most visible climate case and has been a great public relations exercise. The district court allowed plaintiffs to put climate change on trial and present days of expert testimony on climate change. For example, see:
The Economics of Climate Change – Expert Report Of Joseph E. Stiglitz, Ph.D.
This is an annotated and edited copy of the 9th Circuit ruling that ended the Juliana case, based on the failure of standing. This is the most liberal/climate change-friendly circuit in the US. Read this and be prepared to answer the questions that I have inserted in the text.
Juliana v. United States, 947 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2020) (pdf)
The next case deals with federal law nuisance claims against the fossil fuel industry and leads us into the state law nuisance cases.
Background on Kivalina and the permafrost problem
A Wrenching Choice for Alaska Towns in the Path of Climate Change
Alaskan Village, Citing Climate Change, Seeks Disaster Relief In Order To Relocate
Kivalina on the Coast: how an Arctic community is responding to climate change
Climate change thawing permafrost in Northern Canada
Read the majority opinion in Native Vill. of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012). Kivalina – annotated Why did their claims fail?
Resources