"What gives you hope?" is a tough prompt in these times, but one that's always worth reflecting on and sharing. Here are some thoughts from me and my colleagues around the Columbia Climate School (@climate.columbia.edu @sheilarose.bsky.social and more)
Looking forward to moderating this panel w/ leaders of some of the most impactful NGOs litigating to save our democracy: @abbiedillen.bsky.social of @earthjustice.org, @skyeperryman.bsky.social of @democracyforward.org, and Rob Weissman of @publiccitizen.bsky.social, plus @newjerseyoag.bsky.social
⭕ 📆On Monday, 9/22, join this #ClimateWeekNYC event titled Climate Change & Democracy, a lively discussion between leaders moderated by our Executive Director, Michael Burger (@profmikeburger.bsky.social).
Register ➡️ buff.ly/P1qwIXH @earthjustice.org
Major decision from the High Court in Hamm: In a lawsuit brought by @germanwatch.bsky.social on behalf of Peruvian farmer Saul Lliuya, the court dismissed the claim, determined that German emitters may be held liable for adaptation costs in other countries. Summary at the Sabin Center database
If ever there was a case to win on this theory, this is it.
Importantly, Heckler leaves open the door for judicial review "where it could justifiably be found that the agency has 'consciously and expressly adopted a general policy' that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities."
Heckler itself acknowledges that the presumption is rebuttable, and that "Congress did not set agencies free to disregard legislative direction in the statutory scheme that the agency administers.”
The @nytimes.com reports Trump has directed a broad policy of non-enforcement of federal rules. Citing to Heckler v. Cheney, a SCOTUS decision from 40 years ago, the article reports that non-enforcement decisions may be unreviewable by courts. Not exactly.
This was an extraordinary event, and I would recommend its panels and presentations to scientists, legal researchers and academics, lawyers, policymakers, and others interested in the intersection of attribution science and climate law.
We @sabincenter.bsky.social have been writing about the legal significance of climate change’s public health impacts - at the ICJ, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, elsewhere. This is predictable, and predictably bad
www.propublica.org/article/nih-...
Spoke w @alejandrabee.bsky.social @npr.org about yesterday's jury award against @greenpeace.org: "...the effect of a verdict like this...could be to chill speech, to make opponents more reluctant to be vocal in their in their opposition to major projects."
This is why anti-SLAPP legislation exists
Spoke to Simmone Shah @time.com about EPA's "reconsideration" of the Endangerment Finding, and noted that they will have to show it "was wrong or was not based on sufficient scientific evidence. And there's no basis for that. The science is quite clear, and the consensus is global.”
The full book, which focuses on The International Air Pollution provision of the Clean Air Act, is available here:
EPA is going to revisit the Endangerment Finding. Science will not support reversal, so EPA will look for a legal basis. For this, they will hope SCOTUS will reverse MA v EPA holding that CO2 is an "air pollutant" under the Clean Air Act. But as this book chapter by Phil Barnett shows, IT IS.
Speaking with @clarkmindock.bsky.social about EPA's deregulatory agenda announcmeent: "This administration will have a hard time doing what it wants to do within the confines of the law.”
Appreciated the opportunity to reflect a bit on next week’s trial in Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace: “It’s and a classic SLAPP….and a really, really big one.”
insideclimatenews.org/news/2102202...
I guess permitting reform was unnecessary and if the President says "emergency" anything goes? Seems like it's not really consistent with the law. Olivia Guarna and I wrote a bit about this scenario over the Climate Law Blog (blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechang...)
www.nytimes.com/2025/02/19/c...
Very excited about our upcoming Legal Colloquium: The New Climate Fiduciaries @sabincenter.bsky.social @columbialawschool.bsky.social climate.law.columbia.edu/events/legal...
The Global Climate Change Litigation Database, hosted @sabincenter.bsky.social @columbiauniversity.bsky.social, has hit its millenial mark: 1000 cases from some 65 jurisdictions around the world, reflecting the profound salience of climate litigation as a means of governance, and a tool for justice
"Trump’s effort to terminate the current roster of IGs and, if one allows oneself to speculate, install loyalists who will turn a blind eye to what is to come, is unprecedented and profoundly troubling" - w/ @zteirstein.bsky.social @gristnews.bsky.social about Trump firing federal Inspectors General
Trump administration is 0-1. Many more losses on the way.
Spoke with @zhirji.bsky.social @bloomberglp.bsky.social about last week's assault on our climate policy, environmental protections, and renewable energy development: "“The sheer threat of it kind of gets undermined by the onslaught.”
"If there’s an energy emergency and we need energy, then you would want to produce energy, including wind and solar energy ... It’s such a clear and obvious inconsistency that it lays bare what’s really driving this, which is fossil fuel interest.” Talking EOs w/ @chloeaiello.bsky.social @inc.com
Lots of direction for deregulation in "Unleasing American Energy." It revokes Biden's EOs on climate, environment, environmental justice, energy, and resource management. And it directs CEQ to rescind the NEPA regs (which is counterproductive at best.) There's more, but enough for now. 7/7
The Army Corps of Civil Engineers, asked to help cut regulatory corners, has emergency regs that apply to "very serious situations that could result in the loss of life, the loss of property, and/or a significant economic hardship if steps to remedy the situation are not immediately pursued." 6/7
There is no explicit emergency provision in FOOGLRA (Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Reform Act), so the Dept of Interior will have to look at what basis it would have under its statutory authority to in some way increase or expedite lease sales. Not a strong case to be made in supoort of that here. 5/7
Coal leasing can happen on an emergency basis, but in very limited circumstances. Any additional emergency authorizations would likely require Congressional approval. 4/7
On the so-called Energy Emergency - leave alone for the time being whether there is any credible evidence to support such a declaration at all. (Doubtful.) The Order directs agencies to look at their emergency authority to expedite (primarily) fossil fuel production and transport. What is there? 3/7
Let's start with the DOGE Order - the President does not create agencies and departments, nor determine what their authority is, nor organize the executive branch according to his preferences - at least, not for the most part. Congress does this. 2/7
There is so much noise in the Executive Orders issued yesterday, and so much that is so obviously legally dubious. I'm going to list here some relevant resources that help shed light on how things might play out. 1/7