The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) both have long-standing risk regulation regimes. To promote deployment of advanced nuclear reactors, Congress directed the NRC to reform its licensing regulations to increase the use of risk-informed, performance-based, and technology-neutral approaches. However, the NRC has doubled down on its traditional risk-management strategies, which require eliminating even the most remote and improbable risks, and which fail to account for the benefits of advanced reactors.

Today's climate impacts and those on the horizon increasingly infuse mitigation and adaptation efforts with urgency, causing policymakers to contemplate or issue formal declarations of a climate emergency and to streamline review processes to aid rapid development of mitigation and adaptation infrastructure and technology. Yet, this urgency and need have the potential to create injustice and sideline or overwhelm efforts to reduce existing injustice.

Many environmental law paradigms focus on fixed points. Sometimes, the fixed points are in the past, and environmental laws call upon us to look at a baseline or previous state of nature and compare our actions against it. Other approaches call for us to consider an ideal state and develop strategies regarding how to reach it. In a 4° Celsius world, both strategies fail. Adhering to baselines is meaningless and striving for goals that are unachievable may lead to paralysis.

Climate change and invasive species are jeopardizing already endangered and threatened species, prompting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to finalize its 2023 rule allowing experimental populations to be introduced into habitat outside their historical range, as long as the areas are capable of supporting the experimental population.