Search

I. INTRODUCTION 542 II. BACKGROUND 544 III. EVALUATING WHETHER NEPA CAUSES SIGNIFICANT DELAYS IN PROJECTS 547 A. Environmental Impact Statements Are Not Common 547 B. Federal Agencies Spend Limited Time [...], The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the foundational statute of environmental law, is under intense scrutiny with calls from critics on both sides of the political spectrum for repeal or reform. Although calls for NEPA reform are not new, they have intensified recently as the United States attempts to build renewable energy infrastructure to combat climate change. The recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act highlighted this scrutiny. In order to secure enough votes to pass the bill, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N. Y.) agreed to submit a series of NEPA and federal permitting reforms authored by Senator Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) to Congress for a vote. The clamor for reform is based on a popular misconception that NEPA review causes delay in large infrastructure projects. This Article uses several recent analytical studies to show that this popular perception is incorrect and obscures the real reasons for federal project delays. The Article shows that environmental impact statements (EIS) are not that common and that NEPA analyses do not take an inordinate amount of time. It also reveals that NEPA reviews are not litigated often nor does NEPA litigation result in significant delays. It argues that NEPA analyses provide essential benefits that would be reduced or lost if NEPA were reformed. Finally, the paper recommends actions that agencies, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and Congress can implement, using tools, techniques, and resources currently at their disposal to decrease the burden of NEPA review without requiring an overhaul of the statute.

As law students passionate about sustainability, climate change, and environmental reform, we are deeply concerned with the lack of attention given to the transition of workers in the grander economic [...]

Abstract The human cause of climate change (greenhouse gas emissions) and its consequences can occur in different states. This is a challenge for domestic law, and a significant obstacle in [...]

CONTENTS I Introduction 1 II The Ineffective Paris Agreement 3 III Securitisation and Securitisation Theory 7 IV The Peril of UNSC Intervention 12 V A Promising Climate Change Intervention 18 [...], There is virtually no doubt that climate change poses a security risk for many, if not all, regions and peoples of the planet. This scope makes it precisely the type of threat the United Nations Security Council ('UNSC') should be addressing. The pertinent question is, do we want the UNSC as it is currently constituted, to tackle climate change? It is an institution with vestiges of a hegemonic world order that empowers five states above all others. It is also politically fragile, influenced by national policies that can cause it to become gridlocked. Yet, it has some important successes, notably in the areas of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ('WMDs'), both of which were handled as security threats in a pre-emptive manner. Thus, the UNSC has been situated as a potential means in which to galvanise the international climate response - which is found in the Paris Agreement and should not be afforded much success when measured against the continued increase in global emissions. This paper seeks to evaluate what promise, or peril, the UNSC offers through the securitisation of climate change.

CONTENTS I Introduction 1 II Overview of the Project 5 III The ILC's General Approach to the Protection of the Atmosphere 10 A A Controversial Project 10 B A Conservative [...], The International Law Commission ('ILC') adopted a set of 12 Draft Guidelines on the protection of the atmosphere on first reading in 2018. This project, led by Special Rapporteur Shinya Murase, could have provided the first authoritative interpretation of the general international law applicable, in particular, to climate change. Yet, the work of the ILC on the topic largely failed to comprehend the relevant rules. This review reveals numerous shortcomings of the Draft Guidelines and makes suggestions for the second reading.

In 1990, the state of California passed the pioneering mandate on zero emission vehicles (ZEV). This technology-forcing regulation is aimed at improvement of air quality and protection of public health from the adverse effects of air pollutants from automobiles. Facing severe opposition from the auto industry, the mandate has been revised a number of times, most recently in 2003, whereby the requirement for ZEVs have been made to align with the pace of technology development. Review of strategies used in implementation of the mandate has revealed greater emphasis on the economic incentives for rather than on environmental merits of ZEVs. Using prospect theory as the framework for analysis, the reasons have been explored. The findings of the study help us to understand how decisions are made with respect with to deviations from a mental anchor point and through the process of evaluation of losses and gains., Introduction In 1990, the state of California passed the pioneering mandate on zero emission vehicles (ZEV). This mandate is based on the promise of zero emission technology to battle air [...]

Once, in the not so distant past, smoke belching from urban factories and plants was viewed as a symbol of a prosperous, growing economy with abundant jobs. However, awareness of [...]