{"id":387,"date":"2010-12-14T09:54:07","date_gmt":"2010-12-14T14:54:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=387"},"modified":"2012-01-31T15:23:03","modified_gmt":"2012-01-31T20:23:03","slug":"examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/","title":{"rendered":"Examining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Gregory E. Wannier
\nDeputy Director<\/p>\n

On December 8, the DC Circuit scheduled oral arguments<\/a> for a challenge to EPA\u2019s waiver for California\u2019s vehicle tailpipe emission standards for greenhouse gases.\u00a0 The challenge is the latest in a six-year battle over proper use and interpretation of the Clean Air Act, and represents a final effort by industry to mandate one national emission standard for vehicle GHG emissions.<\/p>\n

The case revolves around \u00a7209 of the CAA and whether it can and should allow California to implement regulations adopted in 2004 to control GHG emissions from vehicles in the state.\u00a0 The first part of \u00a7209 states simply that no \u201cState or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt\u2026any standard relating to the control or emission from new motor vehicles.\u201d[1]<\/a> It was designed to prevent individual states from putting up too many individual barriers to pollution that could unfairly burden car companies with trying to comply with 50 different standards.\u00a0 However, the section also provides an outlet for more environmentally minded states to set stricter emission standards.\u00a0 This ability is explicitly centered on California: the second part of \u00a7209 states that the EPA Administrator \u201cshall\u2026waive application of this section to [California] if the\u2026standards will be\u2026at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal Standards.\u201d\u00a0 However, no waiver will be allowed to California if it does not need higher standards to meet \u201ccompelling and extraordinary conditions.\u201d[2]<\/a><\/p>\n

As an initial point, two interesting pieces of history around this waiver make the current case particularly interesting, although they likely do not affect the final outcome of the case.\u00a0 One is that Administrator Johnson originally denied California\u2019s waiver, in 2007 under President George W. Bush.\u00a0 This denial spurred its own challenge, which was pending before the DC Circuit until Administrator Jackson reversed Johnson’s denial in 2009 (under President Obama).\u00a0 As a result, the opposite interests are now suing EPA.\u00a0 The second interesting note is that California itself is not planning to use this waiver: it has indicated that it will accept newly stringent federal standards in lieu of its own starting in 2012.\u00a0 However, under \u00a7177 of the CAA other states may adopt California\u2019s standards,[3]<\/a> and six such states in the Northeast have indicated that they plan to do so until 2016.\u00a0 It is these states\u2019 activities that in large part have motivated this administrative challenge.<\/p>\n

The petitioners\u2019 argument<\/a> focuses on a textual analysis of \u00a7209.\u00a0 Pointing out that the waiver is only allowed where necessary to meet extraordinary conditions in California, they argue that it cannot apply in the context of GHG regulation because it is fundamentally a global problem with global solutions.\u00a0 According to their brief, each waiver decision must be treated in a vacuum, and on its own merits.\u00a0 Turning then to those individual merits, petitioners see nothing to justify an individual waiver: even if California is uniquely harmed by GHGs (which augment health issues associated with ozone accumulation in California\u2019s polluted urban areas), they argue that California must show that local <\/em>reductions in emissions will lead to verifiable local effects.\u00a0 This, of course, could not be shown, because California contributes only marginally to global emissions.<\/p>\n

In its response brief<\/a>, EPA first disagrees with petitioners\u2019 characterization of the inquiry as being case-specific.\u00a0 Instead, EPA characterizes the waiver as being typical of the CAA\u2019s larger purpose, noting that the CAA was designed specifically to take advantage of state innovation (in the design of SIPs, state application of BACT standards, elsewhere).\u00a0 In particular, California was selected so that it could be a \u201cleader in experimenting with techniques for control of air pollution from automobiles.\u201d\u00a0 This conclusion is strengthened, EPA claims, by the CAA Amendments of 1977.\u00a0 By authorizing waivers for California so long as its program was \u201cin the aggregate\u201d as protective as the federal program, they provided more flexibility for California to experiment and showed a clear intent for California not to be bound in its individual regulatory decisions to national activities.<\/p>\n

EPA further argues that even under petitioners\u2019 standards the waiver is justifiable.\u00a0 First, it says California\u2019s regulations can be justified individually as part of its effort to curb ozone-related deaths in the region: although it may not be able to solve the problem single-handedly, California can fairly classify GHG reductions as part of its effort to deal with this localized problem.\u00a0 EPA cites Massachusetts v. EPA<\/em> to support its contention that partial reduction can justify action, even if it does not fix the entire problem.\u00a0 Second, EPA states that it has in its (Chevron<\/em>-supported) judgment, determined that California\u2019s particular risks from climate change (including its large agricultural sector and severely threatened water supply) constitute compelling and extraordinary circumstances, and warrant particular measures if California should so choose.<\/p>\n

The tension between the two parties\u2019 analyses rests in their methods.\u00a0 Petitioners rely primarily on certain literal interpretations of the waiver provisions, whereas EPA looks to the larger meaning and structure of the Act to justify its position.\u00a0 Both raise valid arguments.\u00a0 GHGs are undeniably a global issue, and California\u2019s problems, though large, are not even the largest in the United States (New Orleans, and even Lower Manhattan, face inundation from the ocean, and water supplies are tight across the West).\u00a0 Their interpretation of \u00a7209 (as allowing California to act only in extreme circumstances) would not seem to justify a waiver.\u00a0 However, if EPA\u2019s depiction of the intent and meaning of the California waiver is correct, then it would be hard to deny a waiver here \u2013 California can fairly say that GHG controls are well within its larger pollution control program, and it would undoubtedly provide a useful testing ground for tighter vehicle fleet standards.<\/p>\n

According to an amicus brief filed in support of EPA\u2019s position<\/a> by former Administrators William Reilly and Russell Train (both of whom served exclusively under Republican administrations in Presidents Nixon, Ford, and George H.W. Bush), EPA\u2019s characterization is correct.\u00a0 In describing \u00a7209, this brief mirrors EPA arguments about legislative intent to allow California to experiment \u2013 and then argues that over 40 years of EPA practice supported, and indeed relied upon, this experimentation.\u00a0 One example given is that of the catalytic converter, which significantly reduced the toxicity of vehicle tailpipe emissions and where \u201ca phase-in of catalysts [in California] during the 1975 model year\u2026lay the necessary foundation for [national] use of catalysts in 1976\u201d (quote from President Nixon\u2019s first EPA Administrator, William Ruckelshaus).\u00a0 Another is the implementation of California\u2019s Low Emissions Vehicles (LEV) program in the 1990s, which opened the door for national LEV standards soon thereafter.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the most troublesome fact in the Administrators\u2019 brief for the petitioners is that even Administrator Johnson\u2019s original denial of California\u2019s waiver in 2007 was done against the legal advice of virtually the entirety of his non-political EPA staff members.\u00a0 Internal memos suggest not only that Administrator Jackson\u2019s 2009 decision to grant the waiver is justifiable, but that the opposite position (to deny this waiver) seemed unjustifiable to EPA\u2019s own legal advisors at the time.\u00a0 If this is true, it appears to be a difficult case for the petitioners to win.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> 42 U.S.C. \u00a77543(a)<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> 42 U.S.C. \u00a77543(b)<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> 42 U.S.C. \u00a77507<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Gregory E. Wannier Deputy Director On December 8, the DC Circuit scheduled oral arguments for a challenge to EPA\u2019s waiver for California\u2019s vehicle tailpipe emission standards for greenhouse gases.\u00a0 The challenge is the latest in a six-year battle over proper use and interpretation of the Clean Air Act, and represents a final effort by industry […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"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":[5677],"tags":[5529,835],"class_list":{"0":"post-387","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-clean-air-act","7":"tag-epa-clean-air-act-ghg-rules","8":"tag-state-activity","9":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nExamining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions - 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\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california\u2019s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Examining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Gregory E. Wannier Deputy Director On December 8, the DC Circuit scheduled oral arguments for a challenge to EPA\u2019s waiver for California\u2019s vehicle tailpipe emission standards for greenhouse gases.\u00a0 The challenge is the latest in a six-year battle over proper use and interpretation of the Clean Air Act, and represents a final effort by industry […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california\u2019s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-14T14:54:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-01-31T20:23:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Greg Wannier\" \/>\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=\"Greg Wannier\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 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\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Greg Wannier\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/88adf71647fcd6fb1bc4e222498f7f52\"},\"headline\":\"Examining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-14T14:54:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-01-31T20:23:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/\"},\"wordCount\":1201,\"commentCount\":1,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Clean Air Act\",\"State Activity\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Clean Air Act\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/\",\"name\":\"Examining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-14T14:54:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-01-31T20:23:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Examining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions\"}]},{\"@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\/88adf71647fcd6fb1bc4e222498f7f52\",\"name\":\"Greg Wannier\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/gwanni\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Examining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions - 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\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california\u2019s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Examining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"Gregory E. Wannier Deputy Director On December 8, the DC Circuit scheduled oral arguments for a challenge to EPA\u2019s waiver for California\u2019s vehicle tailpipe emission standards for greenhouse gases.\u00a0 The challenge is the latest in a six-year battle over proper use and interpretation of the Clean Air Act, and represents a final effort by industry […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california\u2019s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2010-12-14T14:54:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-01-31T20:23:03+00:00","author":"Greg Wannier","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Greg Wannier","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/"},"author":{"name":"Greg Wannier","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/88adf71647fcd6fb1bc4e222498f7f52"},"headline":"Examining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions","datePublished":"2010-12-14T14:54:07+00:00","dateModified":"2012-01-31T20:23:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/"},"wordCount":1201,"commentCount":1,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"keywords":["Clean Air Act","State Activity"],"articleSection":["Clean Air Act"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/","name":"Examining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-14T14:54:07+00:00","dateModified":"2012-01-31T20:23:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2010\/12\/14\/examining-california%e2%80%99s-right-to-regulate-vehicle-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Examining California\u2019s Right to Regulate Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions"}]},{"@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\/88adf71647fcd6fb1bc4e222498f7f52","name":"Greg Wannier","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/gwanni\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/387","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\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=387"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/387\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}