Combating climate change requires not only rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but also removal of significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CO2 removal (CDR) comes in many different forms, but climate scientists and policymakers are focusing on the potentially important role of large-scale use of emerging ocean-based techniques, often referred to as marine CDR (mCDR). In the United States, mCDR in domestic waters is governed by a patchwork of laws and regulations. There are also major uncertainties concerning regulation of mCDR in the open ocean, where international treaty regimes have struggled to develop coherent rules. On September 30, 2024, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts that explored the issues, challenges, and opportunities for large-scale mCDR deployment. Here, we present a transcript of that discussion, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.

As in many other countries, climate change is driving new and complex litigation throughout India. These cases deal with a wide scope of issues, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, renewable energy development, and air pollution, among other topics. Five features related to India’s climate and energy policies, its judicial structure, and a recent Supreme Court decision make it likely that the courts will continue to play a significant role in shaping the country’s response to climate change.

What is climate litigation? Widely accepted definitions suggest it is any litigation pertaining directly or indirectly to climate change, which encompasses both strategic and routine litigation. Building on this framework, previous empirical assessments have found that climate litigation has not prompted a climate-oriented jurisprudence. However, empirical evidence suggests that strategic litigation—and not routine litigation—has contributed to development of a climate-oriented jurisprudence in jurisdictions across the globe. The different court receptiveness and variations in plaintiff behavior in strategic and routine litigation shed light on a distinctive framing for study: climate litigation as strategic litigation. While some commentators have criticized the disproportionate focus on “the tip of the iceberg,” this emphasis is perhaps better described as a deliberate choice rather than a failure to spot the entire iceberg.

President Biden’s 2021 Executive Order No. 14008 created a new federal legal concept of “energy communities.” The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) further defined this term, with an emphasis on historical dependence on fossil energy industries. This Article summarizes and assesses current law for “energy communities” in the United States, with an emphasis on recent developments and early implementation efforts. Following a brief overview, it explains how this conception of “energy communities” overlaps with, but is distinct from, other closely related definitions of communities in need of socioeconomic supports or revitalization. It then assesses the complexity, challenges, and progress to date toward implementation of the newly defined concept. With the recent election, many speculate about the durability of the IIJA and the IRA, but it is noteworthy that “energy communities” and their need for economic revitalization have enjoyed bipartisan recognition.

In 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will deliver an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of nations with respect to the mounting damage caused by climate change. This ruling will definitively restate applicable international law, provide a basis for new global policy decisions within the U.N. General Assembly, and provide a predicate for new lawsuits in national courts. To be effective, remedies for breaching a government’s duties to avert climate change will require a “collective remedy,” not merely financial compensation. This ruling was sought by law students from the South Pacific and elsewhere; this Article, also by young legal scholars, evaluates the scope and estimates the content of the forthcoming ICJ opinion.

Four myths are distorting the national debate over permit reform. First, it is misconceived as a singular issue, with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at its center. Second, reformers assume that federal reviews and permitting cause most project delays and failures. Third, there is a widespread belief that environmental laws are routinely weaponized against new infrastructure through obstructive litigation. Fourth, critics assert that environmental procedures and standards must be sacrificed to enable timely climate action. This Article debunks these myths and asserts that permitting efficiency is not incompatible with strong environmental standards, rigorous analysis, transparency, or public engagement. An empirically grounded approach would address the true causes of delay and reject the prevailing perspective that assumes deregulation is the only option. Increasing agency capacity through adequate funding, staffing, and training improves the permitting process for everyone. Interagency coordination reduces delays caused by inconsistent or redundant standards. Early, meaningful public engagement avoids delays by proactively addressing community concerns and mitigating harms. Agencies have already adopted these types of programs, improving efficiency without compromising regulatory standards. The Article proposes several principles that should guide permitting reform, describes established programs that should serve as models, and identifies future work that would promote an informed and constructive national debate.

Little has been said on how the just transition to a decarbonized world relates to the human right, recently recognized by the United Nations General Assembly, to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. This Article explores this relationship and how to build a framework that guides current and future climate change endeavors. It argues that the human right’s substantive and procedural content must incorporate just transition claims, which would help resolve whether and how to advocate for specific climate measures. One such case is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), a highly contested intervention where it is not clear whether it would ameliorate or aggravate climate impacts. The Article explores how to govern experimentation of this emerging technique while observing a just transition and environmental rights. If SAI is regulated and advanced within such a framework, its exploration potentially could help protect the world from the worst climate change impacts while finding more permanent mitigation and adaptation solutions.