1 comment  

By Rosette Zarzar and Romany Webb

On Friday June 9, Representatives Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Marc Veasey (D-TX) proposed a bipartisan bill, aimed at supporting the development of new technologies to address natural gas pipeline leaks. The bill would provide $225 million for research on leak control technologies to, in the words of Rep. Veasey, “chip away at the high costs and current limits of [such] technologies.” While this is a laudable aim, in most cases, new technologies are not required to find and fix pipeline leaks. The vast majority of leaks are known to originate from aging pipelines, made of cast iron or bare steel, and can be easily eliminated by replacing those lines with newer plastic ones.

Read more »

The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, in collaboration with Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (APKS), has officially launched a new version of its climate litigation charts at http://climatecasechart.com. The new website is more easily navigable and searchable than the prior version, and for many older cases includes updated information and documents.

The new website provides a platform both for the U.S. climate litigation chart (a joint project of the Sabin Center and APKS) and for the non-U.S. litigation chart. The U.S. chart, created in 2007, tracks developments in domestic litigation and administrative proceedings related to climate change. It currently includes more than 700 cases with links to more than 2,000 case documents. Cases in the U.S. database are organized by type of claim and may be filtered by the principal laws they address, their filing years, and their jurisdictions. The database is also term searchable.

The non-U.S. climate litigation chart was created in 2011 and currently includes 236 cases, with links to 205 case documents. The chart exists independently of, and serves as a direct source of information for the Climate Change Laws of the World website, a joint project between the Sabin Center and the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics.

If you would like to receive a monthly newsletter that includes updates to the climate litigation charts as well as other Sabin Center publications and information, you can subscribe here.



 1 comment  

By Michael Burger and Nadra Rahman

Last week, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke submitted an interim report on his review of national monuments designated under the Antiquities Act of 1906, focusing in particular on the 1.35 million acre Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, which President Obama established on December 28, 2016. This week, Zinke has gone on the record with his emerging public lands policy, the key concept being that extracting fossil fuels from federal lands can lead to “energy dominance” (a Trumpist take on “energy independence”) and reduce the “social cost of not having jobs” (a not-so-clever play on the “social cost of carbon”). Curiously, Zinke is failing to connect the dots between his review of national monuments and his pro-extraction goals. This post will do the work for him.

Read more »

 1 comment  

By Romany Webb

Australia has a long, proud tradition of environmentalism. It is home to the second oldest national park in the world (after Yosemite) and was one of the first countries worldwide to adopt species protections. Despite this history, however, Australia has given up its leading position in recent years. This is especially true in the area of climate change, where Australia is at the very back of the pack, consistently ranking as one of the worst performers worldwide.

The Australian government has a modest goal of reducing climate-damaging greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. It has, however, adopted few concrete policies to ensure achievement of that goal. For example, whereas other countries have mandated emissions reductions in electricity generation and other sectors, no such mandates have been adopted in Australia. Nor does Australia have any long-term plan for reducing its use of high-emitting fossil fuels in generation and other applications. That’s long been a concern for local environmentalists. It should also worry anyone with an interest in reliable electricity as, according to a new government-commissioned study (the “Finkel Report”) published on June 9, “[t]he lack of a transparent, credible and enduring emissions reduction mechanism for the electricity sector is now the key threat to system reliability.”

Read more »

By Romany Webb

It is well known that, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we must reduce the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere. Most carbon dioxide emissions result from the burning of fossil fuels – i.e., coal, oil, and natural gas – in electricity generation, transport, and other applications. It will, therefore, be necessary to replace fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives such as wind and other renewable resources. Unfortunately however, a complete phase out of fossil fuels is unlikely, at least in the immediate future. This raises the question: is there anything else we can do now to prevent an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels? According to many scientists, the answer is yes.

Scientists have long discussed the possibility of capturing carbon dioxide at its source and injecting it into underground geological formations where it will (hopefully) remain permanently sequestered. This process, known as carbon capture and sequestration or CCS, has been successfully demonstrated in a number of studies. Its widespread use could allow us to continue burning some fossil fuels without adding to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. This will, however, require the identification of suitable injection sites where carbon dioxide will not leak into the atmosphere. Research is currently being undertaken into the possibility of injecting carbon dioxide offshore, into geological formations underlying the ocean floor.

To complement the ongoing scientific research, the Sabin Center is today publishing a whitepaper, examining the regulatory framework for offshore carbon storage. The paper, which I co-authored with the Center’s Faculty Director Michael Gerrard, finds that the regulation of carbon storage projects differs depending on where they occur. Projects occurring within three nautical miles of the coast (or, in the case of Texas and the west coast of Florida, nine nautical miles) are regulated under the Environmental Protection Agency’s (“EPA’s”) Underground Injection Control Program. That program does not, however, apply to projects undertaken further from the coast.

There is currently no comprehensive regulatory regime for carbon storage projects undertaken more than three (or, in some cases, nine) nautical miles from the U.S. coast. Such projects are regulated under a patchwork of regulations, many of which were developed with other activities in mind, and are thus often poorly suited to carbon storage. Take EPA’s ocean dumping program, for example. The program was developed to address the problem of ocean pollution, but may have the unintended consequence of preventing offshore carbon storage, either entirely or without a permit from EPA. This is because, under the program, persons may dispose of material in the ocean only if they have received permits from EPA. A permit cannot, however, be issued by EPA where the material constitutes “industrial waste” generated by a manufacturing or processing plant. That could include carbon dioxide.

Even if an offshore carbon capture project is permitted under the ocean dumping program, it will still require various other approvals, including from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Army Corps of Engineers. Due to the numerous agencies involved, the approval process is likely to be costly, in terms of both time and money. Adoption of new regulations, tailored to offshore carbon storage, may therefore be necessary for widespread deployment of this important technology. In the interim, we hope our report will prove useful to those interested in CCS, helping them to navigate the complex regulatory regime that currently applies to offshore projects.

June 2017 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

Posted on June 7th, 2017 by Jessica Wentz

Each month, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. and non-U.S. climate litigation charts.  If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com.



Environmental Groups Challenged President Trump’s Reversal of Prohibition on Future Oil and Gas Leases in Arctic and Atlantic Ocean Areas

Ten environmental groups filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the District of Alaska challenging the portions of President Trump’s executive order of April 28, 2017 on “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy” that purported to eliminate protections for lands in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. President Obama withdrew the lands from future oil and gas leasing in January 2015 and December 2016 pursuant to presidential authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The complaint noted that in withdrawing the lands, President Obama and the White House had cited a number of factors supporting the withdrawal, including the need to make a transition from fossil fuels to address climate change, stresses to Arctic species resulting from climate change, and the contribution of withdrawn Atlantic Ocean canyons to climate stability as well as threats to the canyons from climate change. In their complaint, the environmental groups asserted that President Trump’s executive order exceeded his constitutional authority and intruded on congressional authority under the Property Clause of the Constitution in violation of the separation of powers doctrine. They also asserted that his actions exceeded authority granted by OCSLA, which they argued did not authorize presidents to re-open lands for disposition once they had been withdrawn. League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-00101 (D. Alaska, filed May 3, 2017).

Read more »

by Justin Gundlach & Jessica Wentz 

By changing sea levels, coastlines, and patterns of precipitation, climate change is literally shifting the ground under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).  Even as floodplains in many parts of the country (especially on the coasts) have grown, however, FEMA has never formally addressed the question of whether the NFIP induces development in floodplains, nor has FEMA developed standard protocols for informing communities and policyholders about how climate change could affect the risks they face from floods.

FEMA seemed poised to move on both of these issues several years ago, when it initiated a programmatic environmental review of the NFIP for that purpose, among others. Unfortunately, with its recently published Draft Nationwide Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DNPEIS) for the NFIP, FEMA appears to have reversed course. Specifically, FEMA DNPEIS ignores the impacts of the NFIP on floodplain development and thus also ignores how the NFIP has put communities and homeowners on a collision course with climate-related flood risks. Furthermore, FEMA’s DNPEIS fails to consider potential strategies to mitigate risks associated with flooding and climate change, such as providing advisory mapping information about sea level rise and possible future flood risks. This latter point is notable also because it runs counter to FEMA’s obligation under the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act to consider and implement recommendations of the Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) – a body established to guide FEMA on matters related to the NFIP – which include providing such mapping information to communities and policyholders.

The Sabin Center has submitted comments to FEMA explaining why the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires it to consider the effects of the NFIP on floodplain development, and outlining the various climate change-related considerations that should be addressed in the final EIS. In particular, we urge FEMA to:

  • Consider how climate change may exacerbate flood risk in areas currently covered by the NFIP and evaluate whether any changes in the NFIP are warranted in light of this analysis (e.g., FEMA may conclude that it is necessary to increase insurance premiums in coastal areas to account for heightened flood risk).
  • Adopt some of the recommendations issued by the Technical Mapping Advisory Committee, such as that FEMA develop guidance and technical support tools to help local planners and individual property owners prepare for the effects of climate change. For example, we urge FEMA to adopt the TMAC’s recommendation to provide advisory maps showing how sea level rise scenarios will affect flood risk in coastal areas.
  • Incorporate existing sea level rise and flood risk projections prepared by other federal agencies as well as state and local authorities into its evaluation of climate change impacts and possible response measures.


Our comments are available here.

by Justin Gundlach

What is green infrastructure (GI) and why does New York City need more of it?

Green roofs, bioswales, and porous pavers are all examples of GI (see images at right), which one article defines as “a network of approaches and technologies that mimic, maintain, or restore natural hydological features in the urban landscape.” What all forms of GI have in common is that they retain or detain stormwater, preventing it from just becoming runoff that flows into a sewer system. They generally also have a higher albedo and retain heat less efficiently than impervious materials (making GI a promising means of mitigating the urban heat island effect that will grow worse with climate change). In addition to slowing runoff and being cooler than conventional surfaces, GI also tends to improve buildings’ energy efficiency and, sometimes, ambient air quality as well.

New York, a city covered in impervious asphalt, concrete, roofing materials, and more, has several practical problems that GI can help address. One of those practical problems—the effect of stormwater runoff on the City’s wastewater treatment plants—has led to regular violations of the Clean Water Act. Those violations have in turn motivated the City to look to GI as a means of stemming the flow of stormwater runoff and, specifically, to try to replace impervious surfaces with GI wherever it is feasible and cost-effective to do so. On public property, this has meant a mushrooming of bioswales and the redesign of once-impervious parks. On private property, however, it has not meant much—not because the City’s Department of Environmental Protection is disinclined to install GI on private property, but because a thicket of issues tends to get in the way of efforts to spend public money on the installation of valuable assets on private property.

A new Sabin Center whitepaper examines this troublesome thicket of legal, administrative, political, and practical issues. In addition to describing their root causes and GI-stymieing effects, it also provides background on the benefits of GI and suggestions for what can be done at the city- and state levels to help bring more of those benefits to New York City via GI installations on private property.

By Michael Burger

Yesterday a group of 22 Republican senators led by James Inhofe and Mitch McConnell delivered a letter to President Trump declaring their view that the Paris Agreement stands as an impediment to his promise to undo the Clean Power Plan. Previous legal arguments along these lines have been refuted, and have apparently failed to persuade the administration to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Now, these senators are taking a different tack, arguing that the Paris Agreement is a problem because of the existence of Section 115 of the Clean Air Act, the “International Air Pollution” provision. Their argument relies in part on a paper, for which I served as coordinating lead author, that laid out the case for using Section 115 to address climate change in the wake of the Paris Agreement. The senators fundamentally misconstrue the paper, and they are wrong on the law in two crucial ways, fatal to their cause.

Read more »

By Mike Burger & Justin Gundlach

Today, the Sabin Center and UN Environment have officially launched The Status of Climate Change Litigation – A Global Review. The report offers a (relatively) concise survey of decided and ongoing cases, an overview of salient trends, and descriptions of key issues that courts must resolve in the course of deciding different sorts of climate change cases. In addition to acting as a primer for those encountering climate change litigation for the first time, the report is also meant to provide researchers and practitioners with a basic conceptual framework and common source of terminology.

The report’s timing is no coincidence. As various articles and analyses have observed, climate change litigation is becoming an increasingly prominent and significant feature of the climate law and policy landscape. This seems to be the natural consequence of a decade’s worth of increasingly concrete and meaningful legislation and regulation aimed at climate change—lawmaking that recognizes new rights, creates new duties, and is subject to challenge by parties seeking greater ambition from policymakers or adversely affected by new obligations and restrictions. As we explain below the jump, the growing prominence of climate change litigation also seems to owe to other factors as well, such as the Paris Agreement’s role in national-level climate change policymaking debates in countries other than the United States.

Read more »

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.