{"id":1971,"date":"2013-03-14T10:39:28","date_gmt":"2013-03-14T15:39:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=1971"},"modified":"2013-05-13T09:47:44","modified_gmt":"2013-05-13T14:47:44","slug":"updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/","title":{"rendered":"Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><p>New updates to the Center for Climate Change Law and Arnold &amp; Porter <strong>Climate Case Chart<\/strong>.\u00a0 Find the complete chart <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/web.law.columbia.edu\/climate-change\/resources\/us-climate-change-litigation-chart\">here<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>FEATURED DECISION<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Litigation (D.C. Cir. March 1, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201cEndangered Species Act\u201d slide.\u00a0 The D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Fish and Wildlife\u2019s \u201cthreatened\u201d designation given to polar bears under the Endangered Species Act as a result of climate change, holding that the FWS engaged in reasonable decision-making and adequately explained the scientific basis for its decision. In May 2008, the FWS listed the polar bear as threatened under the ESA.\u00a0 In June 2011, a federal district court in the District of Columbia dismissed challenges to the listing of the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.\u00a0 Environmental groups had sued to have the bear classified as endangered, a more protective classification, while Alaska, hunting groups, and others had asked the court to block any listing.\u00a0 The D.C. Circuit, deferring to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which made the determination, held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the agency acted irrationally in making its listing decision, noting that the agency considered more than 160,000 pages of documents and over 670,000 comment submissions before making its final decision.<\/p>\n<p><strong>DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Concerned Dublin Citizens v. City of Dublin<\/span><\/strong> (Cal. Ct. App. March 7, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201cstate NEPAs\u201d slide.\u00a0 A citizen\u2019s group challenged the City of Dublin\u2019s determination that a proposed development within a larger transit center development was exempt from the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because a previous EIR had been prepared and certified in 2002.\u00a0 The plaintiff alleged that supplemental environmental review was necessary because new information concerning GHG emissions has come to light since the EIR was certified in 2002.\u00a0 The trial court disagreed, holding that GHG emissions thresholds adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in 2010 constituted new information requiring additional environmental review given that the potential environmental effects of GHG emissions were known at the time the 2002 EIR was certified.\u00a0 On appeal, the appellate court affirmed on similar grounds.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Creed-21 v. City of Glendora<\/span> <\/strong>(Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201cstate NEPAs\u201d slide.\u00a0 A community group filed a lawsuit challenging the City of Glendora\u2019s approval of an expansion of an existing Wal-Mart store.\u00a0 Among other things, the lawsuit alleged that the city violated CEQA by preparing an EIR that did not adequately analyze the project\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts.\u00a0 The trial court denied the petition, holding that the EIR did properly evaluate the project\u2019s GHG emissions and climate change impacts.\u00a0 On appeal, the appellate court affirmed, holding that proposed mitigation measures concerning the use of alternative modes of transportations to reduce GHG emissions were too speculative and did not have to be considered.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">North Dakota v. Heydinger<\/span><\/strong> (D. Minn. Feb. 15, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201cchallenges to state action\u201d slide.\u00a0 A federal district court affirmed a magistrate judge\u2019s order denying several environmental groups\u2019 motion to intervene in an action concerning a Minnesota law designed to reduce GHG emissions, holding that the groups could not intervene given that they could not demonstrate a sufficient interest in the outcome of the case and that generalized interests in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions were not enough to confer standing.\u00a0 In the underlying lawsuit, North Dakota alleges that Minnesota\u2019s Next Generation Energy Act, which took effect in 2009 and prohibits the importation of power from any new large energy facility that would contribute to state-wide carbon dioxide emissions, violates the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause.\u00a0 According to the lawsuit, the law defines power sector carbon dioxide emissions to include carbon dioxide emitted from the generation of electricity generated outside of Minnesota but consumed in the state.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">WildEarth Guardians v. BLM<\/span><\/strong> (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201cNEPA\u201d slide.\u00a0 A federal district court in the District of Columbia granted the Bureau of Land Management\u2019s motion to transfer a case involving challenging coal leases to Wyoming, holding that the case could have been brought in Wyoming and public interests weighed decisively in favor of transfer.\u00a0\u00a0 The plaintiffs, several environmental groups, filed a lawsuit against BLM alleging that the agency\u2019s authorization of four large coal leases in the Power River Basin without fully analyzing the climate change impacts of increased carbon dioxide emissions violated NEPA.\u00a0 According to the complaint, collectively, the four leases have the potential to produce more than 1.8 billion tons of coal, resulting in over three billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>NEW CASES, MOTIONS AND NOTICES<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">WildEarth Guardians v. Klein<\/span><\/strong> (D. Colo., filed Feb. 27, 2013): added to the \u201cNEPA\u201d slide.\u00a0\u00a0 An environmental group commenced a lawsuit seeking to halt coal mining operations in four Western states because of alleged violations by the Department of Interior (DOI) in approving the mines.\u00a0 In particular, the lawsuit alleges that DOI\u2019s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement approved plans for mining on federally owned lands without providing an opportunity for public comment and without fully analyzing their direct and indirect environmental impacts, including impacts associated with coal transport and combustion, pursuant to NEPA.\u00a0 Several of the mines included in the complaint are located in the Powder River Basin, which contains some of the largest deposits in the world of low-sulfur subbituminous coal, which is used for electric power generation.\u00a0 Developers of several planned terminals in the Pacific Northwest are currently seeking federal regulatory approval to export to Asia coal mined from federal land in the basin.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\"><strong>Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp<\/strong>.<\/span> (U.S., filed Feb. 25, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201ccommon law claims\u201d<br \/>\nslide.\u00a0\u00a0 An Alaskan Village whose village is threatened by climate change filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of a Ninth Circuit\u2019s decision finding that its lawsuit seeking damages under state common law was displaced by the Clean Air Act.\u00a0 The lawsuit alleged that as a result of climate change, the Arctic sea ice that protects the Kivalina coast from storms has been diminished and that resulting erosion will require relocation of the residents at a cost of between $95 and $400 million.\u00a0 In 2009, a federal district court in California dismissed the village\u2019s lawsuit against 24 oil, energy and utility companies, holding that the question of how best to address climate change is a political question not appropriate for a federal trial court to decide. The court also held that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that the companies had caused them injury.\u00a0 In September 2012, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that plaintiffs could not sue under a theory of public nuisance given that it had been displaced by the Clean Air Act.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Conservation Law Foundation v. Dominion Energy<\/span><\/strong> (D. Mass., filed Feb. 22, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201ccoal-fired power plants challenges\u201d slide.\u00a0 Several environmental groups filed a citizen suit alleging that the owner of a coal-fired power plant violated the Clean Air Act, including monitoring requirements for carbon dioxide.\u00a0 According to the complaint, the alleged violations are based on the company\u2019s filings with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, including quarterly excess emissions reports, permit deviation reports, and semiannual and annual compliance reports.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Grocery Manufacturers Association v. EPA<\/span><\/strong> (U.S., filed Feb. 21, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201cchallenges to federal action\u201d slide.\u00a0 Several industry groups filed a motion for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court concerning a decision by the D.C. Circuit that the groups lacked standing to challenge EPA waivers that increases the amount of ethanol allowed in gasoline for newer automobiles.\u00a0 In the lawsuit, the groups challenged EPA\u2019s decision to grant a waiver allowing more ethanol in fuel for 2007 and newer vehicles, alleging that the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act.\u00a0 The decision raises from 10 percent to 15 percent the maximum ethanol level in gasoline used in these vehicles.\u00a0 In August 2012, the D.C. Circuit dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds, holding that none of the industry groups that challenged the decision could show that they were harmed by the rule given that the waivers did not directly impose regulatory restrictions, costs, or other burdens on any of the groups.<\/p>\n<p><strong><span style=\"text-decoration: underline\">Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Conservation<\/span><\/strong> (Cal. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 24, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201cchallenges to state action\u201d slide.\u00a0 Several environmental groups commenced a lawsuit against the California Department of Conservation (CDEC) alleging that the state has failed to properly oversee hydraulic fracturing operations.\u00a0 According to the complaint, the state\u2019s Underground Injection Control program requires a division of CDEC to regulate oil and natural gas fracking operations.\u00a0 The lawsuit seeks to prohibit hydraulic fracturing of oil and natural gas wells until CDEC takes steps to regulate the wells and ensure that the operations pose no risks to public health or the environment.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>New updates to the Center for Climate Change Law and Arnold &amp; Porter Climate Case Chart.\u00a0 Find the complete chart here. FEATURED DECISION In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Litigation (D.C. Cir. March 1, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201cEndangered Species Act\u201d slide.\u00a0 The D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Fish and Wildlife\u2019s \u201cthreatened\u201d designation given [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":838,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5673],"tags":[9384],"class_list":{"0":"post-1971","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-litigation","7":"tag-climate-chart","8":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"New updates to the Center for Climate Change Law and Arnold &amp; Porter Climate Case Chart.\u00a0 Find the complete chart here. FEATURED DECISION In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Litigation (D.C. Cir. March 1, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201cEndangered Species Act\u201d slide.\u00a0 The D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Fish and Wildlife\u2019s \u201cthreatened\u201d designation given [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2013-03-14T15:39:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2013-05-13T14:47:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Anne Siders\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Anne Siders\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2013\\\/03\\\/14\\\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2013\\\/03\\\/14\\\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Anne Siders\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/360134b14bed4e655a0c85842fe8d855\"},\"headline\":\"Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart\",\"datePublished\":\"2013-03-14T15:39:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2013-05-13T14:47:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2013\\\/03\\\/14\\\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1482,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Climate Chart\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Litigation\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2013\\\/03\\\/14\\\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2013\\\/03\\\/14\\\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\\\/\",\"name\":\"Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2013-03-14T15:39:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2013-05-13T14:47:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2013\\\/03\\\/14\\\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2013\\\/03\\\/14\\\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2013\\\/03\\\/14\\\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/360134b14bed4e655a0c85842fe8d855\",\"name\":\"Anne Siders\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/asider\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"New updates to the Center for Climate Change Law and Arnold &amp; Porter Climate Case Chart.\u00a0 Find the complete chart here. FEATURED DECISION In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Litigation (D.C. Cir. March 1, 2013):\u00a0 added to the \u201cEndangered Species Act\u201d slide.\u00a0 The D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Fish and Wildlife\u2019s \u201cthreatened\u201d designation given [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2013-03-14T15:39:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2013-05-13T14:47:44+00:00","author":"Anne Siders","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Anne Siders","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/"},"author":{"name":"Anne Siders","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/360134b14bed4e655a0c85842fe8d855"},"headline":"Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart","datePublished":"2013-03-14T15:39:28+00:00","dateModified":"2013-05-13T14:47:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/"},"wordCount":1482,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"keywords":["Climate Chart"],"articleSection":["Climate Litigation"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/","name":"Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-03-14T15:39:28+00:00","dateModified":"2013-05-13T14:47:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2013\/03\/14\/updates-to-the-climate-change-litigation-chart\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Updates to the Climate Change Litigation Chart"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/360134b14bed4e655a0c85842fe8d855","name":"Anne Siders","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/asider\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1971","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/838"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}