In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published what is commonly referred to as the “endangerment finding.” Prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) and reflecting robust science, the finding determined that six key greenhouse gases qualify as air pollution under the Clean Air Act and pose a threat to the health and welfare of future generations. This authorized EPA to set emissions standards for motor vehicles and other major sources of greenhouse gases; however, the Agency recently announced the finding will undergo reconsideration of whether it “complies with the law and is based on sound science and policy.” On May 22, 2025, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts to discuss the legal and scientific foundations of the endangerment finding. Here, we present a transcript of that discussion, which has been edited for style, clarity, and space considerations.

In Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration, a divided panel for the D.C. Circuit cast significant doubt on the continued durability of CEQ’s NEPA regulations, stating that the agency lacked the authority to issue binding regulations governing federal agencies’ compliance with NEPA. This Comment argues that on closer examination of the court’s legal reasoning, these sweeping statements concerning CEQ’s regulatory authority actually amount to nonbinding dicta. The author further contends that even if these statements were not dicta, the Marin Audubon decision suffers from multiple errors in reasoning.

For the first time in nearly 50 years, following the federal government's recission of CEQ's NEPA implementing regulations on April 11, 2025, there are no governmentwide regulations in place to provide consistent direction to all federal agencies on how to implement the governmentwide procedural obligations established by NEPA. This Comment explains the costs of eliminating the common floor that the CEQ regulations had established for federal agencies conducting the environmental analyses required to comply with NEPA’s statutory mandate, and why those costs need not have been incurred.

The iron and steel sector contributes nearly 7% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. As global climate commitments tighten and industrial decarbonization becomes urgent, green steel, produced using low-carbon alternatives such as green hydrogen and renewable electricity, has emerged as a potential solution. This Comment explores how national and international regulations are shaping the future of green steel, focusing on the interplay between climate policy and trade law.

There is a startling lack of global regulation of the marine ornamental trade. The only international legal framework that governs the trade of marine ornamentals is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Requirements under Appendix II help prevent traded species from reaching the point where they need stricter protections, while Appendix III targets species that range countries want help controlling in international trade. Yet both of these appendices are poorly equipped to help regulate the marine aquarium trade. This Comment proposes amendments to CITES and certification schemes as a means to enhance regulation of the marine aquarium trade. Expanding the listing criteria under Appendix III could fill gaps in data for species most at risk of overexploitation, and sharing technology among countries could increase efficiency at export and import and track species-specific trade data. Meanwhile, streamlined certification schemes through trade associations or through the CITES Secretariat could promote sustainability without creating too much of a financial burden on consumers.

In contrast to the large amount of attention that FERC’s consideration of climate change in natural gas permitting has received, there has been relatively little paid to how FERC does and should consider climate change in hydropower permitting. This Comment fills a gap in the literature by analyzing how FERC considers climate change during permitting for hydropower projects. And it offers suggestions for how FERC could better handle this subject, either now or under a future administration, by analyzing the emissions impact of hydropower projects in a more detailed manner, investing more resources in studying the impacts that climate change will have on hydropower projects, and altering its license reopener provisions.

State and local governments are contending with the challenge of “residual climate risk”—threats posed by private adaptation failures that endanger surrounding communities. While policy tools like municipal ordinances can help address this gap, enforcement challenges, budget constraints, and private-property rights often limit their effectiveness. Meanwhile, federal support for adaptation has significantly declined, forcing state and local governments to explore alternative approaches. This Article argues that private-law remedies such as nuisance and negligence claims offer a viable, low-cost, and politically feasible mechanism to deter private adaptation failure and promote climate adaptation. Using Fort Lauderdale as a case study, it explores how state and local policymakers can struggle to address unmitigated threats and discusses ways to promote property owners using private law to hold noncompliant neighbors accountable. While common-law doctrine will evolve in response to climate change, a proactive private-law strategy can help mitigate residual climate risk in the near term.

In the next few years, the International Maritime Organization will create the world’s first greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism to reduce emissions from shipping. The United States may be unable to adopt it legislatively, repeating the events of the Kyoto Protocol. To ease passage, nations agreed to create the mechanism as an amendment to the existing Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships (MARPOL), which a U.S. Secretary of State should be able to unilaterally accept or reject under the expedited amendment procedure of MARPOL’s implementing legislation. This Article demonstrates the insufficiency of this strategy, as the procedure is unbounded and the pricing scheme too extraordinary, such that its usage may easily run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine and the new “major questions doctrine.” If the amendment instead were implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through a Clean Air Act §115 finding, the executive may still be able to accept and implement the scheme, avoiding congressional gridlock.