{"id":3117,"date":"2015-03-31T08:19:36","date_gmt":"2015-03-31T13:19:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=3117"},"modified":"2015-03-31T08:19:36","modified_gmt":"2015-03-31T13:19:36","slug":"arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/","title":{"rendered":"Arizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

On March 24, after years of litigation, the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County, ruled in favor of the University of Arizona and its efforts to protect climate scientists\u2019 correspondence and prepublication work.[1]<\/a>\u00a0 In particular, in Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al.<\/em>, the court upheld the University\u2019s decision to deny large portions of open records requests by Energy & Environment Legal (known as E&E, and formerly named the American Tradition Institute or ATI), a group that has repeatedly sought to use open records laws to access troves of researchers\u2019 private files.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 E&E has been described as having \u201ca core mission of discrediting climate science and dismantling environmental regulations\u201d in part through \u201cfiling nuisance suits to disrupt important academic research,\u201d and the group has been linked to the fossil fuel industry, \u201cmajor conservative players,\u201d and \u201corganizations opposing action on climate change.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

State and federal open records laws promote government transparency by allowing citizens to request administrative records, with exemptions for national security, trade secrets, and similar issues.\u00a0 But open records laws have also become common tools of those seeking to harass scientists,[4]<\/a> and open records requests for large swaths of documents (including private emails) have been made on scientists employed by the government or public universities, or who otherwise receive public funding.\u00a0 The scientists must then review and produce potentially thousands of documents \u2013 sometimes in a matter of days, depending on the applicable laws \u2013 or marshal a legal response explaining why the requests are invalid.<\/p>\n

In the Arizona case, E&E filed multiple requests under Arizona\u2019s open records laws for the files of University of Arizona climate scientists Dr. Malcolm Hughes and Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, seeking thirteen years of documents \u2013 including emails dating back to the 90s.\u00a0 (E&E has also unsuccessfully gone after Dr. Michael Mann\u2019s emails in Virginia,[5]<\/a> as well as many others.[6]<\/a>)\u00a0 The University of Arizona produced some documents but denied release of several thousand others.[7]<\/a>\u00a0 The University stated the withheld documents contained protected intellectual property, including trade secrets and prepublication data and drafts; it also applied Arizona\u2019s general records exemption that it was \u201cin the best interests of the state\u201d to withhold the documents.[8]<\/a> \u00a0The University argued that releasing the scientists\u2019 files would undermine academic collaboration and chill researcher correspondence \u2013 particularly between publicly funded scientists and privately funded ones, who are not at risk of such disclosure.\u00a0 This in turn would harm the scientific process and reduce the competitiveness of Arizona\u2019s public universities, as researchers would become more reluctant to work at Arizona public universities or with public university scientists.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n

E&E contested this decision and initiated litigation. \u00a0In its Amended Complaint, E&E stated it was conducting a \u201ctransparency project,\u201d which it claimed was necessitated in large part by its interpretation of emails released in the so-called \u201cClimategate\u201d hacking.[10]<\/a>\u00a0 In particular, E&E claimed that certain hacked emails involving the University of Arizona scientists and others indicated misdeeds worthy of further scrutiny,[11]<\/a> ignoring that all official investigations related to \u201cClimategate\u201d had shown no misconduct.[12]<\/a> \u00a0E&E also claimed any fear that releasing emails would \u201cchill the creative efforts of faculty\u201d was \u201cunfounded\u201d and it asserted instead that protecting researcher records actually \u201cencourages and rewards misbehavior.\u201d[13]<\/a> \u00a0E&E also acknowledged its requests sought, in part, documents that \u201cembarrass both Professors Hughes and Overpeck and the University.\u201d[14]<\/a><\/p>\n

The University of Arizona countered that protecting research correspondence and pre-publication work \u201cis necessary to ensure Arizona\u2019s great public universities continue their traditions of excellence in research and scholarship\u2026. \u00a0E&E\u2019s claim threatens to rupture ordinary and customary expectations of academic confidentiality, and a ruling in favor of E&E will inevitably harm Arizona\u2019s public universities and the scholars working in them.\u201d[15]<\/a>\u00a0 The University also stated that E&E was seeking \u201cto attack [researchers\u2019] science, criticize their interactions with each other and publicly assault how they speak about or defend themselves against the increasingly small group of outliers who continue to deny man\u2019s role in global climate change\u2026. \u00a0E&E request[s] that the Court help it police and control the conduct of climate scientists.\u201d[16]<\/a> \u00a0The University argued that, ultimately, E&E\u2019s \u201cbriefs and other public pronouncements reveal a plan to harass scientists whose views do not accord with those of E&E and its allies, or who simply do not play by the rules of etiquette E&E nominated itself to enforce.\u201d[17]<\/a><\/p>\n

In its March 24 decision, the Pima County Court analyzed whether the University of Arizona had committed an abuse of discretion in denying E&E\u2019s records requests, and it sided with the University.\u00a0 The court found that the University could properly protect \u201cprepublication critical analysis, unpublished data, analysis, research, results, drafts, and commentary\u201d as well as prepublication peer review work because the University was justified in concluding that, as is prohibited by Arizona law, \u201crelease of [the] information would have an important and harmful effect on the duties of a State agency or officer.\u201d[18]<\/a>\u00a0 The court also noted that the \u201cvolume and complexity of the records at issue is daunting,\u201d and the court acknowledged that it spent \u201c[m]any hours\u201d of its own reviewing 90 \u201ctechnical and esoteric\u201d sample emails \u2013 a small fraction compared to the other 1700+ withheld emails \u2013 with \u201cat least one [sample email] exceeding 800 pages in length.\u201d[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

Despite losing in court, E&E was still able to create considerable damage through this litigation:\u00a0 the scientists had to pull and go through their records from the late 90s on, including hundreds of thousands of pages of emails and attachments.[20]<\/a>\u00a0 Dr. Hughes said it took him over ten weeks to go through the massive number of documents E&E was seeking, taking him away from his research for a full summer (the time that he would normally use to focus on his research because he teaches during the academic year).[21]<\/a> \u00a0The University and the public court system also spent a substantial amount of time and money during the years of litigation.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, this recent Arizona decision is a significant victory.\u00a0 Combined with the 2014 Virginia Supreme Court decision in Dr. Mann\u2019s case \u2013 which held that releasing faculty files could cause \u201charm to university-wide research efforts, damage to faculty recruitment and retention, undermining of faculty expectations of privacy and confidentiality and impairment of free thought and expression\u201d[22]<\/a> \u2013 the decision bolsters the consensus among courts that abusive records requests are not a permissible use of open records laws and only harm the scientific endeavor. \u00a0Unfortunately, this growing consensus has not yet stopped groups like E&E, which is committed to \u201cpeppering universities around the country\u201d with open records requests[23]<\/a> \u2013 including another one dated February 27, 2015, seeking additional records concerning the same two University of Arizona scientists.[24]<\/a><\/p>\n

For more information on attacks on scientists, please visit https:\/\/climatesciencedefensefund.org<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which previously assisted with the representation of Dr. Mann in his Virginia open records litigation. <\/em><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> https:\/\/s3.amazonaws.com\/ucs-documents\/science-and-democracy\/19966054.pdf<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> https:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/how-to-cope-when-activists-ask-for-climate-scientists-personal-emails\/<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2012\/may\/09\/climate-change-american-tradition-insitute<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> https:\/\/www.ucsusa.org\/center-science-and-democracy\/protecting-scientists-harassment\/freedom-bully-how-laws#.VRdv7Eu0HKE<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/blogs\/local\/wp\/2014\/04\/17\/va-supreme-court-rules-for-u-va-in-global-warming-foia-case\/<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> https:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/how-to-cope-when-activists-ask-for-climate-scientists-personal-emails\/<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Petitioners\u2019 Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.\u00a0 Cited court filings are available from the author upon request.\u00a0 See also<\/em> Amended Complaint dated October 9, 2013.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Letter from the University of Arizona to ATI (now known as E&E) dated February 5, 2013.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Respondents\u2019 Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> https:\/\/www.ucsusa.org\/global_warming\/solutions\/fight-misinformation\/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VRiv1ku0HKF<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Amended Complaint dated October 9, 2013.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> https:\/\/www.scientificamerican.com\/article\/uk-police-close-climategate\/<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Petitioners\u2019 Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Petitioners\u2019 Opening Brief dated June 26, 2014.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Respondents\u2019 Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Respondents\u2019 Final Reply dated September 19, 2014.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Respondents\u2019 Final Reply dated September 19, 2014.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> https:\/\/s3.amazonaws.com\/ucs-documents\/science-and-democracy\/19966054.pdf<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> https:\/\/s3.amazonaws.com\/ucs-documents\/science-and-democracy\/19966054.pdf<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Respondents\u2019 Opening Memorandum dated July 31, 2014.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Conversation with author.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> https:\/\/www.courts.state.va.us\/opinions\/opnscvwp\/1130934.pdf<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> https:\/\/eelegal.org\/?p=2958<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> https:\/\/eelegal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/EELI-FME-Law-AORA-Research-Funding-Conflicts-request-U-of-A.pdf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On March 24, after years of litigation, the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County, ruled in favor of the University of Arizona and its efforts to protect climate scientists\u2019 correspondence and prepublication work.[1]\u00a0 In particular, in Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al., the court upheld the University\u2019s decision to deny […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1475,"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":[5673,9417],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3117","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-litigation","7":"category-state-law","8":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nArizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence - 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\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On March 24, after years of litigation, the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County, ruled in favor of the University of Arizona and its efforts to protect climate scientists\u2019 correspondence and prepublication work.[1]\u00a0 In particular, in Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al., the court upheld the University\u2019s decision to deny […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-03-31T13:19:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Lauren Kurtz\" \/>\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=\"Lauren Kurtz\" \/>\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\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/31\\\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/31\\\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lauren Kurtz\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1\"},\"headline\":\"Arizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-03-31T13:19:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/31\\\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1366,\"commentCount\":6,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Litigation\",\"State Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/31\\\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/31\\\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\\\/\",\"name\":\"Arizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-03-31T13:19:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/31\\\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/31\\\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/31\\\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence\"}]},{\"@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\\\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1\",\"name\":\"Lauren Kurtz\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/lkurtz\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Arizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence - 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\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"On March 24, after years of litigation, the Arizona Superior Court, Pima County, ruled in favor of the University of Arizona and its efforts to protect climate scientists\u2019 correspondence and prepublication work.[1]\u00a0 In particular, in Energy & Environment Legal Institute v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al., the court upheld the University\u2019s decision to deny […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2015-03-31T13:19:36+00:00","author":"Lauren Kurtz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Lauren Kurtz","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/"},"author":{"name":"Lauren Kurtz","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1"},"headline":"Arizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence","datePublished":"2015-03-31T13:19:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/"},"wordCount":1366,"commentCount":6,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Climate Litigation","State Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/","name":"Arizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-03-31T13:19:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/31\/arizona-court-upholds-protections-for-scientific-research-and-correspondence\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arizona Court Upholds Protections for Scientific Research and Correspondence"}]},{"@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\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1","name":"Lauren Kurtz","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/lkurtz\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3117","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\/1475"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3117"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3117\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}