Switching from a meat-heavy to a plant-based diet is one of the highest-impact lifestyle changes for climate mitigation and adaptation. However, conventional demand-side energy policy has focused on increasing consumption of efficient machines and fuels. Regulating food demand has key advantages. First, food consumption is biologically constrained, thus switching to more efficient foods avoids unintended consequences of switching to more efficient machines, like higher overall energy consumption.

As in prior years, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 contains a variety of provisions setting U.S. Department of Defense priorities for energy, environmental, and natural resource issues. These include measures that touch on climate change and infrastructure investment, and that thus represent some degree of consensus on these often politicized topics.

Local opposition to development of socially desirable facilities is one of the most important policy challenges in the United States. Despite decades of effort, a formula to reduce “Not in My Back Yard” (NIMBY) opposition is yet to be found. Cash payments, inclusive deliberation, benefits negotiations, and statutory mandates are only a few of the policy and legislative measures that have been attempted. This Article offers a different approach. Disempowerment is one of the main drivers of NIMBY sentiments.

An increasingly sophisticated public, rapid changes in monitoring technology, the ability to process large volumes of data, and social media are increasing the capacity for members of the public and advocacy groups to gather, interpret, and exchange environmental data. This development has the potential to alter the government-centric approach to environmental governance; however, citizen science has had a mixed record in influencing government decisions and actions.

The Donald Trump Administration has proposed to revoke California’s long-standing authority to set its own vehicle emission standards. The success of California in mitigating air pollution and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under CAA §209—and that of the 15 states that have invoked waivers under §177—is now in question. The Trump Administration argues that the §209 waiver was not intended to “solve climate change” and that its new standards would save consumers $500 billion.

Actions that fall under the catchall of “corporate social responsibility” have been viewed with skepticism. In the United States, part of the blame lies with lax laws and regulations surrounding social and environmental disclosure. Disclosure may soon be vastly improved with finalization of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board’s (SASB's) financially material social and environmental reporting standards.

With respect to conflict and post-conflict environmental peacebuilding, three key themes characterize the post-Cold War world: (1) a change in how wars are fought and financed; (2) the United Nations’ more frequent and wide-ranging intervention in conflicts, as well as its increasing emphasis on peacebuilding; and (3) a change in international environmental policy and international cooperation around the environment. This Article discusses each in turn, their interrelationship, and the recently emerging interdisciplinary field of environmental peacebuilding.

This Comment explores the evolution and influence of international environmental norms. One of the present authors, Prof. Armin Rosencranz, in a 2003 article discussed the origin and emergence of these norms. That article identified 20 norms as either prevailing or rising in the field of environmental law and organized them generally in order of their emergence.

Contamination of drinking water by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has garnered much attention in recent years. PFAS include perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and PFAS exposures and risks can result in regulatory concerns and active management at contaminated sites and surrounding areas.

The modern doctrine of environmental standing prevents many worthy plaintiffs from presenting their cases in court. Especially in the context of climate change, this restrictive doctrine has profound implications. But the modern doctrine is an aberration; this Article shows that for most of American history there were no comparably severe standing requirements, that the Supreme Court Justices of the mid-20th century who transformed the doctrine did so inadvertently, and that Justices’ invocation of “tradition” in justifying the modern doctrine is simply incorrect.