Nearly nine million tons of plastic waste flow into our oceans each year, arriving in many ways—ranging from polluted rivers and waterways to the wastewater from our washing machines. Once in the ocean, this pervasive plastic pollution is nearly impossible to clean up. If there is anything positive to say about such a broad and complex challenge, it is that there are multiple ways to tackle the problem. Legal and policy solutions are increasingly moving away from the piecemeal, product-by-product approach of single-use plastic bans

People, businesses, cities, and states are increasingly burdened by extreme weather events. Drought, heat, wildfires, precipitation, hurricanes, and tornadoes are becoming more intense. Most analysts point toward an emerging trend: as the earth warms, extreme weather events are becoming more costly and more deadly, though some raise lingering uncertainties about linking climate change to specific types of weather or specific events.

With the increased risk of flooding due to climate change, potential liability from construction and maintenance of flood control measures is a major consideration governments must consider when planning and building them. This Article discusses how the Supreme Court’s decision in Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States (AGF) laid the groundwork for a new form of takings that the authors term “negligent takings,” increasing the likelihood that the government will be liable after a flooding event.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a toxic, environmentally persistent class of chemicals that have been used widely in consumer products. Despite growing evidence of adverse health effects associated with PFAS exposure, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not yet promulgated a legally enforceable standard for any of the individual chemicals in the PFAS group. This has resulted in largely unrestricted disposal of PFAS waste and dispersal of these persistent chemicals throughout the environment.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and complex machine learning algorithms have come to play a profound role in many of our day-to-day activities.

The COVID-19 pandemic will have far-reaching and even transformative implications for environmental law.

As companies increase their environmental, social, governance (ESG) reporting and statements in response to market and shareholder demands, plaintiffs have pursued with growing success legal challenges to company claims and disclosures related to ESG performance. Similarly, inventive theories are being put forward to directly attack companies for alleged ESG-related performance and operational deficiencies. In both arenas, there has been a recent growth in efforts to hold companies accountable for supplier misconduct.

This October Term, the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to weigh in on three and possibly all four of its pending original jurisdiction controversies over interstate waters. The Court’s past judgments and opinions have established little in the way of “federal common law” governing the states’ interests in shared waters. But they have established this much: these interests vest in states-as-states directly under the U.S. Constitution, even if the Court itself is reluctant to specify the interests with much precision or to enjoin violations thereof.

On May 7, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 13921, Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth, stating that it is U.S. policy to “facilitate aquaculture projects through regulatory transparency and long-term strategic planning.” To further this policy, the Order directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to create a nationwide permit for aquaculture operations, and tasks the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with a variety of planning- and permit-related responsibilities.

International environmental law (IEL) has developed widely since the first global meeting in Stockholm in 1972. Accounts estimate that there are more than 500 multilateral environmental treaties (MEAs). However, the predicted future shows that current global environmental policy efforts are undeniably insufficient. IEL’s prevailing anthropocentric ethic has directly contributed to the crisis, suppressing the symptoms rather than treating them.