This abstract is adapted from Albert C. Lin, Making Net Zero Matter, 79 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 679 (2022), and used with permission.

This abstract is adapted from Cass R. Sunstein, Arbitrariness Review and Climate Change, 170 U. Pa. L. Rev. 991 (2022), and used with permission.

In 4°C, Ruhl and Craig effectively argue that governance measures, particularly adaptation planning, will fall short if institutions fail to embrace the real possibility that the planet will blow well past 2° Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial temperatures. Further, they argue that 4°C is a better target for adaptation planning because this metric better captures the future risk the nation faces. Ruhl and Craig are keenly aware that serious talk of a possible 4°C future will almost certainly trigger accusations of “doomism” from various critics. This Comment concurs with the authors that the 2°C target is too conservative for adaptation planning and governance, but critiques their call for the development of enhanced foresight capabilities to navigate difficulties ahead and their employment of the 4°C metric, and argues that their recommendations need to be contextualized in light of the country’s current and probable near-term governance predicament.

In 4°C, Ruhl and Craig acknowledge that the Earth’s climate is changing at an increasingly rapid rate, outside the range to which society has adapted in the past. Realistically, achieving the goal set in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5°C will be almost unattainable without drastic actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ruhl and Craig acknowledge these trends and highlight the critical importance of concurrent governance efforts to both mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases to limit the rate of warming and anticipatorily adapt for inevitable impacts. But they go a step further, arguing that barring rapid global political, social, and technological transformations, we will be fortunate to limit temperature rise to 2.0°C and the possibility of reaching 4°C cannot be ignored. Whether or not one believes a 4°C world is likely, this Comment asserts that investments in anticipatory adaptation are critically important now.

Accelerating ice loss and expanding wildfire zones are potential markers of what are known as tipping points—thresholds along a nonlinear pattern of system change that accelerate the pace of change. Scientists are concerned that our global climate system is dangerously close to passing these points. This trend has significant implications for governance and law. Climate change disruptions will extend beyond biophysical systems to social systems, including systems of governance. Failing to anticipate and adaptively plan for that future presents an existential threat to democratic governance. There is now widespread agreement mitigation and adaptation must be concurrent governance efforts. However, adaptation inherently requires present governance institutions to anticipate uncertain future conditions in constant flux. Anticipatory governance reflects this challenge of formulating adaptation policy strategies built around possible future scenarios. The standard mitigation policy goal has been to contain the global average increase in temperature to 1.5° Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial levels ideally, and to 2°C at worst. Adaptation policy has likewise focused on the measures needed to adjust to this relatively limited amount of warming. Yet, research increasingly identifies warming of 2°C as a likely tipping point threshold for many ecological systems, with cascading effects on social systems, and things only get worse as the temperature keeps increasing. The vision of a 1.5-2°C future has played out in adaptation policy through three interconnected adaptation modes. First, to resist the impacts of climate change. Second, to build the resilience of social-ecological systems. Third, to retreat from unavoidable impacts. Moving past 2°C will require adding a fourth adaptation mode—redesign. By “redesign,” this Article means transformational adaptation measures needed to reconfigure and relocate our nation’s population distribution, land uses, infrastructure, economic and production networks, and natural resource management. Engaging now in anticipatory adaptation, it argues, is the best chance of avoiding a breakdown in democratic governance.