Plastic pollution is emerging as a defining crisis of our time. The United States has set a national goal to eliminate plastic release into the environment by 2040 and is engaging in negotiations on a global plastics treaty while simultaneously developing a national strategy. A recent report published by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and the Monterey Bay Aquarium provides a comprehensive overview of existing legal authorities the federal government can leverage to achieve this national goal while safeguarding human health and the environment.

Natural resource damages (NRD) under federal law is a statutory cause of action to compensate for injury to natural resources resulting from releases of hazardous substances or oil. Designated officials are authorized under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), among others, to act as “trustees” on behalf of the public or tribes.

From cookware to dental floss to stain-resistant fabrics, PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, pervade modern life. PFAS are a family of thousands of synthetic chemicals that have a variety of unique qualities that make them useful in industrial and consumer product applications. Unfortunately, there is a growing scientific recognition that many PFAS come with a cost to public health and the environment. While federal and state action is just beginning for PFAS and the regulatory landscape is changing quickly, the toxicity of many PFAS has been well-established.

The name of the climate game right now is fast, sustained progress. The world needs this both politically and technologically to effectively fight climate change. Progress was achieved both politically and technologically with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which allocated $369 billion to “energy security and climate change,” amounting to the United States’ largest investment in climate action to date.

Carbon offsets allow polluters to pay someone else to reduce, avoid, or remove emissions to counterbalance their own emissions. For some, carbon accounting concerns render offsets a necessary evil to be tightly regulated on the path toward decarbonization. For others, moral and political concerns render offsets a dangerous mistake to be thrown out of the climate law toolbox.

Editors' Summary: TSCA provides EPA with broad authority to address potential hazards posed by the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of chemical substances and mixtures. In this first of a three-part series, the authors begin a detailed examination of the statute and regulatory program. They review the origins, objectives, and key components of TSCA, and then analyze TSCA's scope -- focusing particularly on definitional issues and exclusions.

Aerial drones are emerging as an effective tool for environmental monitoring and enforcement because of their ability to reach areas that would be otherwise inaccessible or cost-prohibitive. However, the regulatory framework has not developed as fast as the technology, raising concerns. As EPA and other agencies consider using drones to monitor industrial sites and farmland, many landowners claim it would be an invasion of privacy. Using drones for inspections also raises legal questions about information obtained from drone flyovers and the associated evidentiary requirements.

Over the past several years, considerable public and private efforts in this country have been directed at reducing the risk of cancer that human exposure to high levels of radon gas poses. These efforts appear to have succeeded in raising public awareness of radon and in increasing testing for radon. For the most part, however, these efforts have been directed toward homeowners and have not addressed the problem of radon in residential rental properties. Yet, in 1989, nearly 34 million homes—over one-third of all housing units in the country—were rental units.

A more substantive precautionary principle of international law is evolving as new treaties articulate new measures of precaution in different contexts. Although there is considerable controversy over how to articulate or define a precautionary "principle" of law, the goal is to ensure that the mere lack of scientific knowledge about risks cannot justify a failure to take appropriate precautions. Where we have sufficient evidence of risk, we often take precautions, despite a lack of certainty about those risks.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) represent federal regulatory regimes for protecting the environment. Although each statute initially places administrative responsibility in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each encourages states, to varying degrees, to take primary responsibility for implementing the statutory regime.