Editors' Summary: Prof. Daniel Farber argues that compensation for harm caused by climate change is a moral imperative, and he surveys various mechanisms that have been used in other circumstances to compensate large numbers of victims for environmental and other harms. In response, Professor Feinberg cautions that significant hurdles remain before any realistic compensation system could be considered, but suggests that the most effective approach may be evolving parallel tracks of civil litigation and government action to address climate harm. Peter Lehner and William Dornbos argue that using common-law doctrines to find greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters liable for harm is a more pressing concern than creating a compensation system. Finally, Raymond Ludwiszewski and Charles Haake claim that the basic elements of liability are not readily discernable with climate change and that it would be more productive to invest in curtailing GHG emissions.