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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Recent studies suggest natural gas is significantly more carbon-intensive than previously realized, with methane having at least 25 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. If the United States is to meet greenhouse gas reduction goals, it must curtail methane leakage between 30% and 90%, and leakage is anticipated to cost producers $2 billion each year in lost product. Absent regulations from the federal government and many states, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector are developing innovative solutions.

The U.S. military has recognized climate change as a national security threat. Over the past three decades, installations across the country have experienced infrastructure damage, personnel evacuations, and millions or billions in rebuilding or repair costs. This Article argues that most military facilities are woefully unprepared for these impacts; to expedite action, it calls for a focus on expanding Other Transaction Authority (OTA) for infrastructure-related procurement, as well as specific measures, mandates, and responses.

This Comment looks at the background of national scenic trails and lawmakers’ intent for the experiences these trails should provide, analyzes the difference in meaning between the terms and concepts of “on” and “along,” and considers the width of adjacent management areas that lawmakers implied with the use of the latter term. It also examines the management implications of these interpretations, and where agencies and nonprofit trail management partners may go from here.

As the prospects of significantly mitigating climate change through emissions reductions become dimmer, the critical necessity of adaptation has become clearer, with failure-to-adapt litigation possibly playing an important role in bringing adaptation measures to pass. Based on a review of every adaptation-related case in the U.S. Climate Litigation Database maintained by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, this Article offers the first comprehensive assessment of failure-to-adapt litigation in the United States.