The Legally Disruptive Nature of Climate Change

Climate change gives rise to disputes and problems not easily addressed by existing legal doctrines and frameworks. This is because it is a polycentric problem; the assessment of future climate impacts must deal with uncertainty; climate change is socio‐politically controversial; and addressing climate change requires recognising a dynamic physical environment. As such, climate change can be thought of as legally disruptive in that it requires lawyers and legal scholars to reconcile the legal issues raised by climate change with existing legal orders. The legal disruption catalysed by climate change has not only led to the creation of new legal regimes but also given rise to a multitude of legal disputes that require adjudication. A study of some of these cases highlights the need for active and deliberate reflection about the nature of adjudication and the legal reasoning embedded in it when confronted by a disruptive phenomenon like climate change.     

EU Climate Change Litigation,the Role of the European Courts,and the Importance of Legal Culture

The purpose of this article is to show it is only in light of legal culture that climate change jurisprudence in the European Union can be explained. Examining the case law concerning the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, this article demonstrates that climate change proceedings in the European Union raise questions that stand at the heart of the EU legal order; that is, they demand that the boundaries of the EU's regulatory competences are drawn. In effect, the EU courts focus on ensuring that EU climate change laws are in accord with the rule of law or, in the context of EU law, the borders of the EU's environmental regulatory powers. As such, this article shows that attention needs to be given to the interaction between climate change laws and the constitutional role of the EU judiciary. These interactions are considered here together with the contingency of EU climate change litigation on EU legal culture.     

Good Climate Governance: Only a Fragmented System of International Law Away?

Fragmentation is the hallmark of international environmental law—it is both the key to its success and the pathway to its unraveling. Recognizing that law is an essential component of systems of supranational climate governance, addressing gaps between international legal systems is fundamentally important to the legitimacy of international law and to on‐going attempts to use international law as a central component in efforts to address climate change. This article analyzes developments in international environmental law with a view towards suggesting how efforts to develop an international climate change legal regime—and a broader system of global climate governance—highlight the pressing need to look more closely at the linkages between climate change and other areas of international law and to begin thinking about ways to minimize gaps and maximize cooperation among international environmental institutions and between international environmental law and other spheres of international law.     

Coverage for Climate Change: Footing the Bill for Carbon Footprints

Lawsuits against automakers, oil refineries, and power companies to recover damages allegedly attributable to greenhouse gas emissions are being filed across the country, and can present a real and expensive problem to businesses within these industries. This July, Steadfast Insurance Company sued its policyholder, AES, seeking a declaration that there was no coverage under its commercial general liability policy for a global warming lawsuit in which AES was a named defendant. Using the Steadfast litigation as a rubric, this article reviews the current state of climate change litigation, and evaluates some of the issues that may arise when seeking coverage for this litigation.     

Climate Change Litigation in Canada and the USA

This article examines the growing phenomenon of climate change litigation in the USA and Canada. It explores the expanding context in which this litigation is occurring and highlights key successes and failures of these actions. In the absence of a comprehensive federal framework in both countries, the article shows how litigation is being used by claimants to attempt to require government action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to force private entities to do the same and to pay damages. Whether a piecemeal approach to climate change engendered through litigation can provide a solution to this global issue remains to be seen.     

Climate Change Litigation,Obsession and Expertise: Reflecting on the Scholarly Response to Massachusetts v. EPA

Climate change litigation is an obsessive preoccupation for many legal scholars. Three different “narratives” can be identified for why scholars find such litigation important to study: litigation is a response to institutional failure, legal reasoning holds authority, and litigation is a forum for the co‐production of facts and social orders. The nature and consequences of these narratives are considered in the context of the first U.S. Supreme Court “climate change” case—Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). This analysis has implications for both how scholars understand their expertise in this area, and how they should foster it.     

Mobilizing Doubt: The Legal Mobilization of Climate Denialist Groups

The climate change countermovement (CCCM) deploys a broad repertoire of tactics in its effort to cast doubt on the science of climate change. One important yet understudied tactic is the effort by CCCM groups to use open records laws in scientifically uncertain areas to cast doubt on the accuracy of scientific information. This article explores the use of this tactic by CCCM groups and adds to the legal mobilization literature in three ways. First, it traces the origin of CCCM groups to the broader conservative legal movement of the 1970s that challenged the dominance of the liberal legal network. Second, it shows how CCCM groups waged an open records campaign against climate scientists in Virginia and Arizona, causing scientists to countermobilize by organizing their own legal campaigns. Finally, this article provides the first empirical evidence of the effect of CCCM Freedom of Information Act suits on the activities of university researchers. I find, through in‐depth personal interviews with twelve university researchers, that the experience of researchers who have been exposed to open records campaigns has been overwhelmingly negative, has caused them to change their methods of communication, and has imposed a new work burden that draws them away from other work responsibilities. I argue that the costs of these tactics are narrowly borne by a concentrated group of scientists whose production of knowledge is a public good that allows us to address the crosscutting and relentless problem of climate change.     

Linking Climate Litigation and Human Rights

Human activities since the beginning of the industrial age have produced emissions that are accelerating natural forces and changing the global climate. The expected impacts on sea levels, temperature, precipitation and storm intensity will stress many human communities and, in many cases, will threaten basic human rights. Climate litigation provides one tool that can be used to shape climate policy and to seek redress from climate-related injuries. This article explores the advantages and disadvantages of linking climate litigation and human rights in order to find effective strategies for protecting those most vulnerable to threats to well-being created by climate change.     

Climate Change Litigation's Regulatory Pathways: A Comparative Analysis of the United States and Australia

This article provides a critical next step in scholarship on climate change litigation's regulatory role. It creates a model for understanding the direct and indirect regulatory roles of this litigation. It then applies this model to the United States and Australia, two key jurisdictions for climate change lawsuits, in order to explore the regulatory pathways that this litigation has taken, is taking, and likely will take. This analysis helps to illuminate the ways in which litigation influences regulation and forms part of climate change governance.     

Turning the Tide: Recognizing Climate Change Refugees in International Law

Many of the debates surrounding the environmental, social, and economic implications of climate change are now well known. However, there is increasing concern over the extent to which those suffering displacement or forced migration as a result of climate change are protected. This article seeks to highlight the plight of such individuals and suggests how the current protection gap might be remedied. Present legal structures, such as the Refugee Convention and the framework for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), prove largely inadequate having been constructed for different purposes and being limited in their application. The alternative proposed in this article is a regionally oriented regime operating under the auspices of the UN Climate Change Framework. While both the Climate Change Convention and the Kyoto Protocol currently call for regional cooperation in respect of adaptation activities, it is argued there should be an explicit recognition of so‐called climate change refugees in the post‐Kyoto agreement that allows for, and facilitates, the development of regional programs to address the problem. Employing such a strategy would remedy the current protection gap that exists within the international legal system, while allowing states to respond and engage with climate change displacement in the most regionally appropriate manner.     

Climate Change and a Just Transition to the Future of Work

Rapidly growing concerns about the adverse effects of climate change are prompting a re-thinking of how companies view their strategies and operations and spurring legal and regulatory responses around the world. The overarching objective of these efforts is to facilitate and accelerate the transition to a more sustainable economy. The green transition will have substantial distributional and structural implications for workers and the workplace across companies and economic sectors. Indeed, the future of work will be significantly shaped by climate change. However, relatively scant scholarly attention has been devoted to the forward-looking legal implications of climate change for work. Similarly, legal scholars writing on climate change have largely neglected the laws governing employment. This article seeks to help fill that gap. How can companies, workers, and society respond to the green transition in a manner that enables better jobs, a safe and stable workplace, and more resilient companies? To answer this question, this article draws on the theory of just transition, which is rooted in environmental justice and labor rights. We offer an interpretation and application of just transition that expands its scope to serve as a blueprint for ethical business conduct and legal reform to improve the world of work and the lives of workers.     

我国气候变化立法的缺陷及其对策分析

我国气候变化立法存在着一些较为明显的缺陷,这在一定程度上制约着我国温室气体排放控制战略的实施。目前,气候变化问题已经成为威胁人类生存和发展的一大国际环境问题。温室气体的排放控制战略是《气候变化框架公约》所确立的应对气候变化问题的根本举措。我国应当按照《气候变化框架公约》和《京都议定书》的法律要求,健全和完善气候变化立法以进一步控制温室气体的排放量,从而为全球气候变化问题的应对做出更大的贡献。     

Climate change and national laws across Commonwealth countries

This paper furthers the Commonwealth agenda on climate action by exploring the kinds of ‘practical and swift action’ that might be taken through national legal frameworks to implement the Paris Agreement. The paper reviews national laws of Commonwealth member countries as they currently apply to and intersect with climate change. The paper investigates legal measures that relate directly to implement climate change policy, including climate change legislation and regulatory instruments such as emissions trading schemes and energy efficiency measures. It also considers indirect legal measures that can provide ‘co-benefits’ in relation to climate change policy, such as waste legislation and air quality measures. The paper presents examples of these different kinds of climate intersections in different Commonwealth legal systems, highlighting examples of what has worked well and what has not worked well to date, within different legal, economic and political cultures, and in different geographies and climates.     

在政治与法律之间——气候变化诉讼中的政治问题理论

气候变化问题越来越引起全球关注,与此相应,气候变化诉讼案件在世界各国法院大量涌现。无论在美国还是在其他国家,气候变化诉讼都面临一个法律障碍:法院是否有权进行裁决。这取决于各个国家是否将气候变化问题视为法律问题。在美国,气候变化诉讼从产生之日起就面临所谓的"政治理论问题"的困扰。根据美国最高法院判例,政治性的问题或者那些被宪法和法律授予行政部门负责的问题,决不能由本法院来处理。气候问题是不是政治问题,引起了法律界的广泛关注。美国法院的判决在双方面也没有一个明确的答案。随着跨国气候变化诉讼的增加,联合国也开始关注这一问题。中国作为世界最大的碳排放国,应该及早在法律上作出应对。     

Climate Change and Global Citizenship

The international climate change regime has failed. Even the most optimistic assessment of action to limit greenhouse pollution in the coming few decades will not prevent calamitous changes in Earth's climate. Arguments for international—that is, interstate—justice that have permeated international negotiations on climate change have been insufficient in fostering robust action by states. Indeed, by diverting all responsibility to states, focusing on international justice has not addressed consumption and pollution by hundreds of millions of affluent people around the world, including many millions living within developing states that have no treaty obligations to limit nationwide pollution. Increasingly, however, it is these individuals that matter: more and more of them who are not now subject to any climate‐related legal obligations are able to afford lifestyles that lead to greenhouse gas emissions and more climate change. This is especially true given the very rapid increase in the numbers of affluent people in the developing world. Bearing this in mind, this article goes beyond the still important questions of international climate justice to explore cosmopolitan or global climate justice. Global justice demands that affluent individuals in both affluent and poor states do much more to limit their pollution of the atmosphere. By being good global citizens, capable persons can help states start the world on a path to reducing the severity of climate change.     

Natural Resource Damages for Climate Change—An Idea Whose Time Is Not Yet Come,Part I: NRD Claims Are Not Currently Viable under CERCLA

As the effects of climate change are felt, affected parties will seek redress in the legal system. Numerous suits have already been filed and this may only be the beginning of a trend. One type of suit that has not yet been filed is the natural resource damage (NRD) claim under CERCLA. While it is unlikely that climate change-based NRD claims could succeed under current law, it may only be a matter of time before they are brought. With the present legal landscape in mind, this article examines statutory requirements under CERCLA to bring a climate change related NRD claim.     

Greenhouse Gas Politics and Climate Change Public Nuisance Litigation

In late 2009 three long-awaited decisions were handed down in the main climate change public nuisance cases. In one case, the Northern District of California became the latest trial court to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims, while in the others the Second and Fifth Circuits reversed, allowing the plaintiffs' claims to proceed. The decisions all have been appealed. The ultimate outcome of the appeals could be affected by several legislative and administrative initiatives that are expected to see further development in 2010. This article reviews some of those initiatives and discusses their relevance to the nuisance litigation.     

The struggle over retiree medical benefits: who's on top?

Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of litigation addressing an employer's right to unilaterally amend or terminate medical benefits provided to retirees. The sheer volume of these cases and the variety of facts and legal theories have combined to obscure the patterns and trends that actually are emerging from this litigation. This article will describe the context of the struggle over retiree benefits and discuss those leading decisions in which the federal courts of appeals have established their rules for deciding retiree benefits cases.     

Insurance Coverage for Climate Change Suits: The Battle Has Begun

When it comes to climate change litigation, the stakes are almost as high for insurance companies as they are for the defendants they insure. Insurers therefore have strong incentives to closely parse their policies and pursue every possible basis for denying coverage, while policyholders, of course, have the opposite incentives. Given the novelty of the underlying claims, complex coverage issues involved, and high stakes, it is expected that the resulting insurance coverage disputes will be lengthy and hard-fought.

Climate change litigation has been slowly heating up, but the expected coverage battles have not materialized, until now that is. In July 2008 Steadfast Insurance Company filed the first coverage suit challenging an insurer's obligations to provide coverage for climate change-related suits against its insured: Steadfast Insurance Co. v. The AES Corporation, No. 2008-858 (Va. Cir. Ct.).

This article provides background on the Steadfast dispute, as well as the underlying climate change suit. It then examines each of the three coverage issues raised in the Steadfast suit: (1) whether the claims arise out of an “occurrence,” (2) whether the claims are barred by the “loss in progress” doctrine, and (3) whether the pollution exclusion applies. The article predicts that the outcome of Steadfast will likely turn on the pollution exclusion defense, but that even with respect to that issue, the insurer faces an uphill battle.     

VOICE ALTERATIONS

The experience of divorce is difficult for everyone involved. To best help with the legal experience, we need to understand gender differences that affect the process. This article adds to the understanding of that difference by addressing women's development and the female "voice." Women have not been acculturated to the subtle rules of litigation, which are in the male "voice." The authors offer an alternative scenario to add balance to the traditional experience of divorce for women and men and to the divorce process itself.