Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation : Vol. 25, no. 2 (Fall 2010)
Permanent URI for this collection
A print copy of this title is available through the UO Libraries under the call number: LAW LIB. K 10 .O425
Browse
Browsing Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation : Vol. 25, no. 2 (Fall 2010) by Subject "Climatic changes -- Law and legislation -- United States"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation : Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 385-458 : A Litigious Proposal: A Citizen’s Duty to Challenge Climate Change, Lessons from Recent Federal Standing Analysis, and Possible State-Level Remedies Private Citizens Can Pursue(University of Oregon School of Law, 2010) Brown, ChristopherThis Article examines climate change as an ethical and moral issue from the perspective of an American citizen, and considers concrete legal remedies she might pursue.Item Open Access Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation : Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 559-582 : NEPA and Climate Change: Beneficial Applications and Practical Tensions(University of Oregon School of Law, 2010) Kraft, Aaron J.This Comment explores the benefits and problems of requiring agencies to consider climate change in their NEPA analyses. Part I presents an overview of NEPA, including statutory language, agency duties, and regulations that detail specific agency requirements. It then addresses the prospect of challenging federal action when agencies fail to consider climate change. Finally, it discusses the role of NEPA in agency decision making, relevant case law, and the issue of standing in NEPA-based climate change litigation. Part II discusses the impact of probable congressional action on climate change and how that may affect agencies’ NEPA responsibilities. It discusses how courts should construe NEPA in the event Congress enacts climate legislation, and considers the role of agency discretion in the face of carbon regulation. Part III considers the increased demand for renewable energy in a carbon-regulated world and whether federal agencies may use climate change to justify development on wild public lands through their required NEPA analysis. This part addresses agency discretion to allow public land development and highlights the need for comprehensive policies that recognize the value of unaltered ecosystems. Specifically, it considers agency action in the context of National Wildlife Refuges and unprotected, wilderness-quality BLM-managed lands. Finally, Part IV concludes that federal agencies must consider climate change in their decisions. It argues that citizens should challenge agencies for failing to address climate considerations. But citizens must not allow the tremendous threat of climate change to justify irresponsible energy development, which itself would destroy natural places and invaluable ecosystem services.