Future of Mexico's New Climate Law a Question Under President-Elect

By Erin Parlar, Legal Intern

Enrique Pena Nieto’s pending ascendancy to the presidency in Mexico has raised questions concerning his stance on climate change legislation recently enacted by current President Felipe Calderon. Under Calderon’s leadership, Mexico rose to the forefront of climate change politics, culminating in the national law he signed in June. It is unclear how Pena Nieto, who pledged in his campaign to increase Mexico’s GDP growth to around 6 percent each year, plans to implement the measure.

Pena Nieto will represent the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) when he assumes the presidency this December, bringing back the party that had a 71-year reign over Mexico prior to its loss in the 2000 elections to the Vicente Fox-led National Action Party. It is believed that the change in parties is rooted in Mexico’s stagnant economic growth, which has averaged only 2.6 percent over the last 20 years. Pena Nieto ran on a platform that promised to reinvigorate a sagging industrial sector and reform Pemex, Mexico’s state-owned oil company, to allow for more private investment. Because much of PRI’s resources during Pena Nieto’s election run came from the industrial sector and his platform has focused largely on economic issues, policy experts believe that the president-elect will take a very cautious approach to Calderon’s climate change law in the first few years of his presidency.

Mexico’s climate law aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from business-as-usual levels by 2020 and by 50 percent by 2050. It also calls for a major increase in the use of renewable sources to supply up to 35 percent of all electricity consumption in the country and imposes mandatory reporting requirements on all major economic sectors. However, the legislation necessitates the implementation of several mechanisms, including financial incentives and an emissions trading system, to give its provisions full effect. As Calderon’s window of opportunity closes, all eyes are on Pena Nieto to see how he approaches the legislation. It is clear that the president-elect is in a privileged position regarding the future of Mexico’s approach to climate change.

Source: https://planetark.org/enviro-news/item/66009

Monica Molina

+ posts

Published April 9, 2021

April 2021 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

FEATURED CASE

Second Circuit Rejected New York City’s State Law Climate Claims Against Oil Companies

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of New York City’s lawsuit seeking climate change damages from oil companies. The Second Circuit’s decision largely followed the reasoning of the district court’s 2018 decision. First, the Second Circuit held that federal common law displaced the City’s state-law public nuisance, private nuisance, and trespass claims because the lawsuit would regulate cross-border greenhouse gas emissions, albeit “in an indirect and roundabout manner,” and because state law claims “would further risk upsetting the careful balance that has been struck between the prevention of global warming, a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation, on the one hand, and energy production, economic growth, foreign policy, and national security, on the other.” The Second Circuit then held that the Clean Air Act, in turn, displaced federal common law claims related to domestic emissions. The Second Circuit cited American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), as establishing “beyond cavil” that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law nuisance suits to abate domestic transboundary greenhouse gas emissions, and found that Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012), provided “sound reasoning” for determining that the Clean Air Act also displaced federal common law damages claims. The Second Circuit also rejected New York City’s contention that the Clean Air Act’s displacement of federal common law claims resuscitated its state law common law claims. Finally, the Second Circuit held that although the Clean Air Act did not displace New York’s federal common law claims addressing emissions outside the United States, foreign policy concerns foreclosed such claims. The Second Circuit said holding the oil companies liable for “purely foreign activity” would “sow confusion and needlessly complicate the nation’s foreign policy, while clearly infringing on the prerogatives of the political branches.” City of New York v. BP p.l.c., No. 18-2188 (2d Cir. Apr. 1, 2021).