|
|
|
|
|
|
The Sabin Center was a winner of the 2024 Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal Symposium Competition, which promotes the growth and development of Sea Grant legal programming. The grant will fund a hybrid symposium where experts, regulators and government representatives, scientific researchers, industry groups, and the NGO community will discuss legal and policy frameworks for advancing Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal activities.
|
|
|
This month, Ashwin Murthy joins the Sabin Center as a Negative Emissions fellow. Read here about his background and what his work will focus on.
|
|
|
Executive Director Michael Burger was featured in an American Bar Association podcast episode about state and multistate climate action and local initiatives drawing from his book Global Climate Change and U.S. Law, Third Edition (co-edited with Michael Gerrard and Jody Freeman).
|
|
|
Matthew Eisenson was quoted by The Express, Insurance Journal, and the Associated Press saying “When you have extremely restrictive local ordinances it can stop major wind and solar projects from moving forward,” in reference to wind opposition in Nebraska.
|
|
|
Sabin Center founder and faculty director Michael Gerrard was interviewed in an episode on the Columbia Energy Exchange titled “What the Chevron Decision Means for U.S. Regulators” about the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine.
|
|
|
Amy Turner, the director of the Cities Climate Law Initiative, was quoted in a New York Times article titled “New York City Bill Would Mandate Air-Conditioning for Tenants,” saying a bill requiring landlords to provide air conditioning would likely be protected from legal challenges because landlords must ensure “safe and habitable housing.”
|
|
|
The blog post summarizing the findings from the report is available here.
|
|
Highlighted Resource: RELDI Resource Bank
|
|
|
The Sabin Center's Renewable Energy Legal Defense Initiative created this resource bank, "Impact of Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles," so that advocates, landowners, and local residents in communities where renewable energy facilities are being proposed, as well as other members of the public, can reach informed opinions about renewable energy and electric vehicles.
This resource bank contains peer-reviewed articles, government publications, and other science-based reports about the impacts and viability of these technologies.
Please contact Matthew Eisenson at matthew.eisenson@law.columbia.edu with questions or suggestions. The Sabin Center is grateful to Naomi Zimmermann, Radhika Goyal, and Zoe Tseng for their work on the resource bank.
|
|
New on the Climate Law Blog
|
|
- Speeding Up the Green Transition: Proposed Permitting Reforms for Faster Renewable Energy Development, Pablo Alvarez, August 8, 2024
- Michigan’s New Siting Process Gives Some Authority to State Regulators, But Under What Circumstances?, Matthew Eisenson, August 7, 2024
- Federal Court Refuses to Halt Construction of Revolution Wind Project, by Jacob Elkin and Matthew Eisenson, August 6, 2024
- Ashwin Murthy joins the Sabin Center as Negative Emissions Fellow, by Tiffany Challe-Campiz, August 5, 2024
- So Your CPRG Application Didn’t Get Funded, by Amy Turner and Vincent Nolette, August 1, 2024
- Guest Blog: Big Announcements About New York Offshore Wind Development Mark Small (but Important) Steps Toward Meeting 2035 Target, by Anne Sappenfield, July 30, 2024
- Guest Blog: Implementing KlimaSeniorinnen: Evaluating the Initial Swiss Response, by Corina Heri, July 18, 2024
- The SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rule Will Reveal Healthcare’s Significant Climate Risk Exposure, by David Introcaso and Cynthia Hanawalt, July 23, 2024
More blog posts are available here.
|
|
Updates to the Climate Case Charts
|
|
Here are highlights of this month’s climate litigation update. The full update is available here.
Maryland Trial Court Said Federal Law Preempted Baltimore’s Climate Claims Against Fossil Fuel Companies
A Maryland Circuit Court granted fossil fuel companies’ motion to dismiss the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore’s claims seeking to hold the companies liable for climate change-related injuries resulting from the companies’ alleged “sophisticated campaign of deception to misrepresent and conceal their products’ risks.” Aligning itself with the reasoning of decisions that held that New York City’s and Delaware’s claims against fossil fuel companies were preempted or largely preempted, the Maryland court rejected Baltimore’s contention that its lawsuit did not seek to regulate or impose liability for greenhouse gas emissions. The court found “that Baltimore’s complaint is entirely about addressing the injuries of global climate change and seeking damages for such alleged injuries” and that Baltimore’s explanation “that it only seeks to address and hold Defendants accountable for a deceptive misinformation campaign is simply a way to get in the back door what they cannot get in the front door.” The Maryland court concluded that federal common law applied because the case involved global emissions, that the Clean Air Act displaced federal common law related to domestic emissions, and that the Clean Air Act preempted Baltimore’s state law claims based on domestic emissions. The Maryland court further concluded that state law could not provide a remedy for claims arising from foreign emissions. The court distinguished the Fourth Circuit’s decision that the companies’ preemption defense did not create federal jurisdiction over Baltimore’s claims, citing “the heightened standard unique to the removability inquiry.” Although the Maryland court dismissed Baltimore’s claims on preemption grounds, the court also concluded—“to make the record complete”—that Baltimore failed to state claims of public and private nuisance, failure to warn, design defect, and trespass. The court also ruled that Baltimore’s Maryland Consumer Protection Act claim was time-barred. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP p.l.c., No. 24-C-18-004219 (Md. Cir. Ct. July 10, 2024)
Colombia: Constitutional Court Requires Consideration of Climate Change in Environmental Impact Assessments
On July 24, 2023, a group of citizens members of two NGOs (Dejusticia and Ilex Acción Jurídica) filed a lawsuit against article 57 of Law 99 of 1993. The article establishes the definition and criteria of environmental impact assessments (EIA) in Colombia, which includes biotic, abiotic and socioeconomic elements. Plaintiffs argue that as it stands this norm does not abide by the constitutional and international human rights standards given the lack of consideration of climate change and human rights. Plaintiffs assert that even though climate change-related standards only appeared after the law was issued, failing to update the interpretation of this legal provision results in unconstitutional restrictions and interpretation issues that prevent EIA from complying with international commitments that have been ratified by Colombia and are part of the constitutional bloc.
Plaintiffs are not asking the Court to declare the unconstitutionality of the article, since this would create a legal vacuum that could eventually result in more significant violations of constitutional rights. Instead, plaintiffs ask the Court to order that the provision should be interpreted as to include climate change and human rights protection as part of the criteria to be considered when conducting an EIA. In so doing, the legal provision is updated to comply with the currently admissible constitutional standard, while its interpretation is clarified, avoiding unconstitutional applications.
The plaintiffs’ arguments are twofold: first, article 57 results in a lack of constitutional protection, violating articles 2, 79, 80, and 93.1 of the Colombian Constitution, as well as articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, by failing to include impacts associated with climate change in the EIA criteria. Second, article 57 violates articles 7, 20, 74, 79, 80 and 334 of the Colombian Constitution, as well as articles 4.1, 5.1 and 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights by failing to include human rights violations in the EIA criteria. Plaintiffs claim that human rights and the environment are interconnected and that this should be reflected in the laws governing EIAs.
On January 12, 2024, the Constitutional Court declared the admissibility of the lawsuit, but only regarding the first argument supported in the alleged violation of articles 79 and 80 of the Colombian Constitution. The arguments relating to the violation of the legal provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights were dismissed. The Court also ordered several governmental authorities, including the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, as well as NGOs such as Greenpeace Colombia, the Colombian Association of Oil and Gas, and others to provide written comments on the impacts of climate change in the interpretation of the right to a healthy environment and article 57 of Law 99 of 1993.
On July 11, 2024, the Constitutional Court found that article 57 of Law 99 of 1993 was constitutional, insofar as it is understood that EIAs must include climate change among the evaluation criteria. The Court ordered Congress to issue the necessary regulations to ensure climate change is considered when conducting activities that require EIAs. The Court also ordered the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development to modify and update EIA’s terms of reference. In the Court’s opinion, failing to include climate change in EIA processes would amount to a violation of the Colombian Constitution and a failure to guarantee the protection of the right to a healthy environment and sustainable development. (Challenging Environmental Impact Assessment law for failing to consider climate Change, Constitutional Court, Colombia)
|
|
|
Please send additional material for inclusion in the climate case charts to manager@climatecasechart.com.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
