Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation
- Somewhat ironically, this case is appreciated by some environmentalists for reaffirming the central role of the Clean Air Act in regulating greenhouse gas emissions, even as it closed off a major legal pathway for environmental redress through state tort law.
- Like other many other U.S. federal court decisions, the Second Circuit affirmed the reality of climate change and the enormous risk it poses, yet still found the judicial process not well-suited to redress widely spread environmental injuries (“Global warming presents a uniquely international problem of national concern. It is therefore not well-suited to the application of state law.”). This case is one of the major reasons that state courts are viewed more favourably by environmental plaintiffs.
- The trend towards consolidating power in slower-moving, generally conservative federal courts with respect to climate change litigation may be unfavourable to climate migrants and others alleging harms from the climate crisis.
Pages: 1 2