Cross-Border Constraints on Climate Change Agreements: Legal Risks in the California-Quebec Cap-and-Trade Linkage

Date01 June 2016
Author
46 ELR 10478 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 6-2016
A R T I C L E S
Cross-Border
Constraints on
Climate Change
Agreements:
Legal Risks in the
California-Quebec
Cap-and-Trade
Linkage
David V. Wright
David Wright holds a 2016 LL.M. from Stanford Law School.
Summary
As the world begins implementing the Paris Agree-
ment, Canada and the United States remain without
comprehensive greenhouse gas regimes at the federal
level; most action has taken place at the subnational
level. At the forefront is the California-Quebec cap-
and-trade market linkage. Close examination of this
example demonstrates that such linkages are suscep-
tible to constitutional constraints on both sides of the
border. ๎€Ÿis Article presents constitutional dimen-
sions from Canada and the United States, and shows
there is a live risk that a court could ๎€nd the linkage
constitutionally o๎€œside due to its binding e๎€œect. Con-
stitutional constraints particular to the United States
also suggest that foreseeable changes may put the Cal-
ifornia state program at variance with federal climate
policy, rekindling risks around consistency between
state action and U.S. foreign policy. ๎€Ÿe Article puts
forward two suggestions, one federal and one subna-
tional, that could be taken in Canada and the United
States to partially reduce the remaining legal risk.
Canada and the United States share a long history
of managing a ir pollution together.1 Today, atten-
tion is largely focused on reduction of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. Most of the action is at the subna-
tional level, as seen in the linking of cap-and-trade regimes
between Ca lifornia and Quebec discussed in this Article.
With no comprehensive legal framework for GHG emis-
sion reductions at the federal level in both Canada and the
United States, this subnational trend is likely to continue.2
In fact, the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba con๎€rmed
in late 2015 that they are taking steps to implement cap-
and-trade regimes, with the stated intention of linking
with California and Quebec.3
Much at tention to date ha s focused on the economic
dimensions of the issue and the rationale for linking sub-
national markets.4 Less attention has been paid to the legal
risks involved by such cross-border agreements. Legal risks
primarily take the form of constitutional barriers to cross-
border linking of subnational carbon markets. ๎€Ÿese issues
have received some attention in the literature,5 primarily
1. Formalized cooperati on dates back to the Co nvention Between the Unit -
ed State s and Great Britain f or the Prot ection of Migratory Birds, Aug.
16, 1916, 39 U.S. Stat. 1702, T.I.A.S. No. 628. ๎€Ÿis convention is widely
recognized as the ๎€rst international conservation agreement in t he west-
ern hemisph ere.
2. Note that most consider subnational e๎€œorts to be a second-best option,
believing a comprehensive federal regime, either cap and trade or carbon
tax, to be preferable. See, e.g., Cary Coglianese & Jocelyn Dโ€™Ambrosio,
๎€ฑ๎๎๎Š๎„๎š๎Ž๎‚๎Œ๎Š๎๎ˆ๎€๎€ถ๎๎…๎†๎“๎€๎€ฑ๎“๎†๎”๎”๎–๎“๎†๎€›๎€๎‡ฒ๎†๎€๎€ฑ๎†๎“๎Š๎๎”๎€๎๎‡๎€ ๎€ช๎๎„๎“๎†๎Ž๎†๎๎•๎‚๎๎€๎€ณ๎†๎”๎‘๎๎๎”๎†๎”๎€๎•๎๎€ ๎€ค๎๎Š๎Ž๎‚๎•๎†๎€
Change, 40 C๎€•๎€˜๎€˜. L. R๎€™๎€. 1411, 1429 (2008). See also Valentina Boset-
ti & David G. ๎€ท๎Š๎„๎•๎๎“๎€๎€๎€ฑ๎๎๎Š๎•๎Š๎„๎”๎€๎‚๎๎…๎€ ๎€ฆ๎„๎๎๎๎Ž๎Š๎„๎”๎€๎๎‡๎€ ๎€ด๎†๎„๎๎๎…๎€Ž๎€ฃ๎†๎”๎•๎€ ๎€ณ๎†๎ˆ๎–๎๎‚๎•๎Š๎๎๎€๎๎‡๎€
๎€จ๎“๎†๎†๎๎‰๎๎–๎”๎†๎€๎€จ๎‚๎”๎†๎”๎€›๎€ ๎‡ฒ๎†๎€๎€ช๎Ž๎‘๎๎“๎•๎‚๎๎„๎†๎€ ๎๎‡๎€ ๎€ณ๎†๎ˆ๎–๎๎‚๎•๎๎“๎š๎€ ๎€ค๎“๎†๎…๎Š๎ƒ๎Š๎๎Š๎•๎š, 32 E๎€˜๎€™๎€š๎€‘๎€ J.
1, 19 (2011); Mathew Ranson & Robert Stavins, ๎€ญ๎Š๎๎Œ๎‚๎ˆ๎†๎€๎๎‡๎€๎€จ๎“๎†๎†๎๎‰๎๎–๎”๎†๎€
๎€จ๎‚๎”๎€๎€ฆ๎Ž๎Š๎”๎”๎Š๎๎๎”๎€๎€ต๎“๎‚๎…๎Š๎๎ˆ๎€๎€ด๎š๎”๎•๎†๎Ž๎”๎€›๎€๎€ญ๎†๎‚๎“๎๎Š๎๎ˆ๎€๎€ง๎“๎๎Ž๎€๎€ฆ๎™๎‘๎†๎“๎Š๎†๎๎„๎† (Harvard Project
on Climate Agreements, 2013); Ann Carlson, Designing E๎€žective Climate
๎€ฑ๎๎๎Š๎„๎š๎€›๎€๎€ค๎‚๎‘๎€Ž๎‚๎๎…๎€Ž๎€ต๎“๎‚๎…๎†๎€๎‚๎๎…๎€๎€ค๎๎Ž๎‘๎๎†๎Ž๎†๎๎•๎‚๎“๎š๎€๎€ฑ๎๎๎Š๎„๎Š๎†๎”, 49 H๎€’๎€š๎€ J. L๎€™๎€‘๎€๎€–. 207
(2012).
3. Canadian Press, ๎€ฎ๎‚๎๎Š๎•๎๎ƒ๎‚๎€๎€ ๎€ฐ๎๎•๎‚๎“๎Š๎๎€๎€๎€ฒ๎–๎†๎ƒ๎†๎„๎€ ๎€ด๎Š๎ˆ๎๎€๎€ข๎„๎„๎๎“๎…๎€๎•๎๎€ ๎€ญ๎Š๎๎Œ๎€ ๎€ค๎‚๎‘๎€Ž๎‚๎๎…๎€Ž
๎€ต๎“๎‚๎…๎†๎€๎€ด๎š๎”๎•๎†๎Ž๎”, G๎€‹๎€•๎€Œ๎€™ ๎€ M๎€’๎€๎€‹, Dec. 07, 2015, available at http://www.the-
globeandmail.com/news/national/manitoba-ontario-quebec-link-cap-and-
trade-systems/article27629453/. During the 2015 international climate
change negotiations in Paris, provinces signed a memorandum of under-
standing (MOU) on this. See Memorandum of Understanding Between the
Government of Ontario, the Government of Quรฉbec and the Government
of Manitoba Concerning Concerted Climate Change Actions and Mar-
ket-Based Mechanisms (2015), https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2015/12/
memorandum-of-understanding-between-the-government-of-ontario-the-
government-of-quebec-and-the-gover.html.
4. See, e.g., M๎€’๎€š๎€‡ P๎€›๎€š๎€…๎€•๎€˜ ๎€™๎€— ๎€’๎€‹., S๎€›๎€–๎€—๎€’๎€๎€˜๎€’๎€Œ๎€‹๎€™ P๎€š๎€•๎€–๎€Ž๎€™๎€š๎€๎€—๎€, T๎€“๎€™ P๎€•๎€‹๎€๎€—๎€๎€†๎€’๎€‹
E๎€†๎€•๎€˜๎€•๎€ˆ๎€ ๎€•๎€” C๎€’๎€‹๎€๎€”๎€•๎€š๎€˜๎€๎€’ ๎€’๎€˜๎€… Q๎€›๎‚๎€Œ๎€™๎€†โ€™๎€– C๎€’๎€Ž-๎€’๎€˜๎€…-T๎€š๎€’๎€…๎€™ S๎€๎€–๎€—๎€™๎€ˆ๎€– (2014),
available at http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/sites/default/๎€les/publica-
tions/๎€les/QuebecCalifornia%20FINAL.pdf. See also M๎€’๎€—๎€“๎€™๎€‰ B๎€š๎€’๎€ˆ๎€‹๎€™๎€
๎€™๎€— ๎€’๎€‹., I๎€˜๎€—๎€™๎€š๎€˜๎€’๎€—๎€๎€•๎€˜๎€’๎€‹ I๎€˜๎€–๎€—. ๎€”๎€•๎€š S๎€›๎€–๎€—๎€’๎€๎€˜๎€’๎€Œ๎€‹๎€™ D๎€™๎€., L๎€๎€˜๎€‡๎€๎€˜๎€‘ N๎€’๎€—๎€๎€•๎€˜๎€’๎€‹
C๎€’๎€Ž-๎€’๎€˜๎€…-T๎€š๎€’๎€…๎€™ S๎€๎€–๎€—๎€™๎€ˆ๎€– ๎€๎€˜ N๎€•๎€š๎€—๎€“ A๎€ˆ๎€™๎€š๎€๎€†๎€’ (2009), available at https://
www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/linking_nat_cap_north_america.pdf.
5. Douglas Kysar & Bernadette Meyler, Like a Nation State, 55 UCLA L. R๎€™๎€.
1621 (2008); Jeremy Lawrence, ๎€Ÿe Wester n Climate Initiative: Cross-Border
Authorโ€™s Note: Sincere thanks to Michael Wara, Bernadette Meyler, Vanessa
๎€ค๎‚๎”๎‚๎…๎๎€Ž๎€ฑ๎ƒ๎“๎†๎›๎€๎€๎‚๎๎…๎€๎€ฅ๎‚๎๎๎š๎€๎€ค๎–๎๎๎†๎๎˜๎‚๎“๎…๎€๎‡๎๎“๎€๎‰๎†๎๎‘๎‡๎–๎๎€๎Š๎๎”๎Š๎ˆ๎‰๎•๎”๎€๎‚๎๎…๎€๎„๎๎Ž๎Ž๎†๎๎•๎”๎€
๎…๎–๎“๎Š๎๎ˆ๎€๎•๎‰๎†๎€๎…๎†๎—๎†๎๎๎‘๎Ž๎†๎๎•๎€๎๎‡๎€๎•๎‰๎Š๎”๎€๎€ข๎“๎•๎Š๎„๎๎†๎€๎€๎€ข๎๎š๎€๎†๎“๎“๎๎“๎”๎€๎‚๎“๎†๎€๎•๎‰๎†๎€๎‚๎–๎•๎‰๎๎“๎€ˆ๎”๎€๎‚๎๎๎๎†๎€๎€
๎€ค๎๎Ž๎Ž๎†๎๎•๎”๎€๎๎“๎€๎…๎Š๎”๎„๎–๎”๎”๎Š๎๎๎€๎Ž๎‚๎š๎€๎ƒ๎†๎€๎…๎Š๎“๎†๎„๎•๎†๎…๎€๎•๎๎€๎…๎—๎˜๎“๎Š๎ˆ๎‰๎•๎€ก๎”๎•๎‚๎๎‡๎๎“๎…๎€๎†๎…๎–๎€
Copyright ยฉ 2016 Environmental Law Instituteยฎ, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELRยฎ, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.
6-2016 NEWS & ANALYSIS 46 ELR 10479
in the period between the passing of Californiaโ€™s Global
Warming Solutions Act of 20066 and the 2009 interna-
tional climate change negotiations in Copenha gen. How-
ever, there ha s been less commentary in recent years despite
several signi๎€ca nt changes in a climate change context.
Evolution from hypothetical to actual cross-border link-
age is the most obvious change. On January 1, 2014, Cali-
fornia and Quebec o๎€žcially linked cap-and-trade markets,
holding six joint auctions a s of Februar y 2016.7 ๎€Ÿis link-
age is part of a broader change unfolding in political, legal,
and scienti๎€c realms. For example, movement toward
more carbon pricing in Ca nada has gained momentum as
a result of recent election resu lts in A lberta, Ontario, and
at the federal level.8 Meanwhile, on the American side, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released
the ๎€nal Clean Power Plan (CPP)9 requiring all states to
take action to reduce emissions from the United Statesโ€™
largest source of em issionsโ€”the electricity sector.10 At the
international level, parties to the United Nations Frame-
work Convention on Climate Change (U NFCCC) have
adopted the Paris Agreement,11 marking a funda men-
๎€ค๎๎๎๎‚๎ƒ๎๎“๎‚๎•๎Š๎๎๎€๎‚๎๎…๎€๎€ค๎๎๎”๎•๎Š๎•๎–๎•๎Š๎๎๎‚๎๎€๎€ด๎•๎“๎–๎„๎•๎–๎“๎†๎€๎Š๎๎€๎•๎‰๎†๎€ ๎€ถ๎๎Š๎•๎†๎…๎€๎€ด๎•๎‚๎•๎†๎”๎€๎‚๎๎…๎€๎€ค๎‚๎๎‚๎…๎‚,
82 S. C๎€’๎€‹. L. R๎€™๎€. 1225 (2008); Michael Barnett, ๎€ค๎‚๎๎‚๎…๎Š๎‚๎๎€๎€ฑ๎“๎๎—๎Š๎๎„๎†๎”๎€๎‚๎๎…๎€
๎•๎‰๎†๎€๎€ธ๎†๎”๎•๎†๎“๎๎€๎€ค๎๎Š๎Ž๎‚๎•๎†๎€๎€ช๎๎Š๎•๎Š๎‚๎•๎Š๎—๎†๎€›๎€ ๎‡ฒ๎†๎€๎€ค๎๎๎”๎•๎Š๎•๎–๎•๎Š๎๎๎‚๎๎Š๎•๎š๎€ ๎๎‡๎€๎€ฆ๎™๎•๎“๎‚๎๎“๎…๎Š๎๎‚๎“๎š๎€ ๎€ค๎“๎๎”๎”๎€Ž
Border Cooperation, 48 C๎€•๎€‹๎€›๎€ˆ. J. T๎€š๎€’๎€˜๎€–๎€˜๎€’๎€—โ€™๎€‹ L. 321 (2009); Shelley Wel-
ton, ๎€ด๎•๎‚๎•๎†๎€๎€ฅ๎š๎๎‚๎Ž๎Š๎”๎Ž๎€๎€ ๎€ง๎†๎…๎†๎“๎‚๎๎€๎€ค๎๎๎”๎•๎“๎‚๎Š๎๎•๎”๎€›๎€๎€ฑ๎๎”๎”๎Š๎ƒ๎๎†๎€๎€ค๎๎๎”๎•๎Š๎•๎–๎•๎Š๎๎๎‚๎๎€๎€ฉ๎–๎“๎…๎๎†๎”๎€๎•๎๎€
๎€ค๎“๎๎”๎”๎€Ž๎€ฃ๎๎“๎…๎†๎“๎€๎€ค๎‚๎‘๎€Ž๎‚๎๎…๎€Ž๎€ต๎“๎‚๎…๎†, 27 N๎€’๎€—. R๎€™๎€–๎€•๎€›๎€š๎€†๎€™๎€– ๎€ E๎€˜๎€โ€™๎€— 36 (2012); Han-
nah Chang, ๎€ง๎๎“๎†๎Š๎ˆ๎๎€๎€ข๎ƒฌ๎‚๎Š๎“๎”๎€๎€ง๎†๎…๎†๎“๎‚๎๎Š๎”๎Ž๎€›๎€๎‡ฒ๎†๎€๎€ญ๎†๎ˆ๎‚๎๎Š๎•๎š๎€๎๎‡๎€๎€ค๎‚๎๎Š๎‡๎๎“๎๎Š๎‚๎€ˆ๎”๎€๎€ญ๎Š๎๎Œ๎€๎€ธ๎Š๎•๎‰๎€
๎•๎‰๎†๎€๎€ฆ๎–๎“๎๎‘๎†๎‚๎๎€๎€ถ๎๎Š๎๎๎€๎€ฆ๎Ž๎Š๎”๎”๎Š๎๎๎”๎€๎€ต๎“๎‚๎…๎Š๎๎ˆ๎€๎€ด๎„๎‰๎†๎Ž๎†, 37 ELR 10771 (Oct. 2007).
6. Global Warming Solutions Act, C๎€’๎€‹. H๎€™๎€’๎€‹๎€—๎€“ ๎€ S๎€’๎€”๎€™๎€—๎€ C๎€•๎€…๎€™ ยงยง38501-
38599 (2006), Assembly Bill 32 [hereinafter AB 32].
7. California Air Resources Board (CARB), ๎€ข๎–๎„๎•๎Š๎๎๎€ ๎€ฏ๎๎•๎Š๎„๎†๎€๎€๎€ค๎‚๎๎Š๎‡๎๎“๎๎Š๎‚๎€ ๎€ค๎‚๎‘๎€Ž
๎‚๎๎…๎€Ž๎€ต๎“๎‚๎…๎†๎€๎€ฑ๎“๎๎ˆ๎“๎‚๎Ž๎€๎‚๎๎…๎€๎€ฒ๎–๎ƒ๎ƒ๎†๎„๎€๎€ค๎‚๎‘๎€Ž๎‚๎๎…๎€Ž๎€ต๎“๎‚๎…๎†๎€๎€ด๎š๎”๎•๎†๎Ž๎€๎€ซ๎๎Š๎๎•๎€๎€ข๎–๎„๎•๎Š๎๎๎€๎๎‡๎€๎€จ๎“๎†๎†๎-
๎‰๎๎–๎”๎†๎€๎€จ๎‚๎”๎€๎€ข๎๎๎๎˜๎‚๎๎„๎†๎”๎€๎๎๎€๎€ง๎†๎ƒ๎“๎–๎‚๎“๎š๎€๎€’๎€˜๎€๎€๎€“๎€‘๎€’๎€— (2015), available at http://www.
arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/auction/feb-2016/notice.pdf.
8. See Jason Kroft et al., ๎€ค๎‚๎๎‚๎…๎Š๎‚๎๎€๎€ค๎‚๎“๎ƒ๎๎๎€๎€ฑ๎๎๎Š๎•๎Š๎„๎”๎€๎€ณ๎†๎…๎–๎™๎€›๎€๎€ค๎๎Š๎Ž๎‚๎•๎†๎€๎€ค๎‰๎‚๎๎ˆ๎†๎€๎€ง๎๎-
lowing a Liberal Majority Win, Stikeman Elliott LLP blog, Nov. 26, 2015.
A leading climate economist in Canada recently remarked, โ€œNovember
2015 has likely been the busiest month for Canadian climate policy mak-
ers, ever.โ€ Nicolas Rivers, ๎€ซ๎–๎”๎•๎€๎€ธ๎‰๎‚๎•๎€๎€ช๎”๎€๎€ค๎‚๎๎‚๎…๎‚๎€๎€ฃ๎“๎Š๎๎ˆ๎Š๎๎ˆ๎€ ๎•๎๎€๎•๎‰๎†๎€ ๎€ต๎‚๎ƒ๎๎†๎€๎‚๎•๎€๎•๎‰๎†๎€
๎€ฑ๎‚๎“๎Š๎”๎€๎€ค๎๎Š๎Ž๎‚๎•๎†๎€๎€ด๎–๎Ž๎Ž๎Š๎•๎€ , P๎€•๎€‹๎€๎€†๎€ O๎€Ž๎€—๎€๎€•๎€˜๎€– (Nov. 2015), http://policyoptions.
irpp.org/ 2015/11/ 24/just- what-is- canada-b ringing -to-the- table-at -the-
paris-climate-summit. In fact, on February 24, 2016, Ontario released the
Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act, 2016, which
is the provinceโ€™s proposed cap-and-trade legislation. See Bill 142, 41st Leg.
(First Reading, Feb.24, 2016).
9. U.S. E๎€˜๎€๎€—โ€™๎€‹ P๎€š๎€•๎€—. A๎€‘๎€™๎€˜๎€†๎€ (EPA), Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines
for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Final
Rule, 80 Fed. Reg. 64661-65120 (Oct. 23, 2015), https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-22842.pdf [hereinafter Clean Power
Plan (CPP)].
10. See U.S. EPA, ๎€ง๎‚๎„๎•๎€๎€ด๎‰๎†๎†๎•๎€›๎€ ๎€ค๎๎†๎‚๎๎€๎€ฑ๎๎˜๎†๎“๎€๎€ฑ๎๎‚๎๎€๎ƒ๎š๎€๎•๎‰๎†๎€๎€ฏ๎–๎Ž๎ƒ๎†๎“๎” (2015), http://
www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-numbers#print.
11. ๎€Ÿe Paris Agreement was initially simply an Annex to the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties
(COP) decision to adopt it; however, it became a separate formal agreement
when it opened for signature on Apr. 22, 2015. See U.N. Doc. FCCC/
CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1. See also UNFCCC, ๎€ข๎…๎๎‘๎•๎Š๎๎๎€๎๎‡๎€ ๎•๎‰๎†๎€๎€ฑ๎‚๎“๎Š๎”๎€ ๎€ข๎ˆ๎“๎†๎†๎Ž๎†๎๎•๎€›๎€
๎€ฑ๎“๎๎‘๎๎”๎‚๎๎€๎ƒ๎š๎€๎•๎‰๎†๎€๎€ฑ๎“๎†๎”๎Š๎…๎†๎๎• (Dec 2015), http://unfccc.int/documentation/doc-
uments/advanced_s earch/items/6911 .php?priref=60000 8831.ParisAgree-
ment [hereinafter Paris Agreement].
tal shift toward a bottom-up approach to global climate
change governance t hat includes emissions reduction
targets for both developed and developing countries.12
Finally, but perhaps most signi๎€cantly, climate change
impacts have become increasingly palpable.13
Such cha nges warrant a fresh look at legal constraints
on state/province carbon market linkages. ๎€Ÿe time is a lso
ripe to consider ways t hat cu rrent a nd emergi ng reg imes
can minimize risks of legal challenge on c onstitutiona l
bases. Part I of this Article provides a snapshot of the
climate change mitigation regime with an emphasis on
subnational carbon markets in Canad a and the United
States, and the linkage between Quebec and Cal ifor-
nia in particular. Part II presents a detailed view of the
anatomy of t he Quebec-Ca lifornia lin kage. ๎€Ÿis set s up
a re visiting of constitutiona l constraints in Canad a and
the United States in Part III, with speci ๎€c reference to the
now-operationa l cross-border market l inkage. Part I V
builds on the a nalysis by explor ing t wo options available
to m anage constitutiona l constraints, one at the federal
level and one subnationa l.
It should be stated at the outset t hat th is Article does
not put forward a normative argument for proliferation
of subnational carbon market s. A legitimate debate is
ongoing about the merits of such incrementalism ver-
sus waiting for a comprehensive national or conti nental
carbon market.14 Rather, the Article takes as its start-
ing point t he fact that these subnational linkages exist,
that they are exposed to constitutional constra ints, and
that furt her cl arity is desirable in this evolving context ,
including with respect to reconcili ng tension between
linka ges and constra ints.
๎€Ÿe analysis is broadly relevant given the international
climate regimeโ€™s direction toward the bottom-up approach,
the implementation of which is likely to include many sub-
national jurisdictions cooperating across borders. While
the California-Quebec arrangement is the ๎€rst (and so far
only) subnational cross-border carbon market linkage in
North America, the trend is likely to increase on this con-
tinent and beyond.
12. For discussion of the bottom-up approach and its relation to linking di๎€œerent
jurisdictions, see Daniel Bodanksy et al., ๎€ง๎‚๎„๎Š๎๎Š๎•๎‚๎•๎Š๎๎ˆ๎€๎€ญ๎Š๎๎Œ๎‚๎ˆ๎†๎€๎๎‡๎€๎€ฉ๎†๎•๎†๎“๎๎ˆ๎†๎๎†๎๎–๎”๎€
๎€ณ๎†๎ˆ๎Š๎๎๎‚๎๎€๎€๎€ฏ๎‚๎•๎Š๎๎๎‚๎๎€๎€๎‚๎๎…๎€๎€ด๎–๎ƒ๎€Ž๎€ฏ๎‚๎•๎Š๎๎๎‚๎๎€๎€ค๎๎Š๎Ž๎‚๎•๎†๎€๎€ฑ๎๎๎Š๎„๎Š๎†๎”๎€๎‡ฒ๎“๎๎–๎ˆ๎‰๎€๎‚๎€๎€ง๎–๎•๎–๎“๎†๎€๎€ช๎๎•๎†๎“-
national Agreement (Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, 2014), available
at http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/๎€les/ieta-hpca-es-sept2014.pdf.
13. See generally I๎€˜๎€—๎€™๎€š๎€‘๎€•๎€๎€™๎€š๎€˜๎€ˆ๎€™๎€˜๎€—๎€’๎€‹ P๎€’๎€˜๎€™๎€‹ ๎€•๎€˜ C๎€‹๎€๎€ˆ๎€’๎€—๎€™ C๎€“๎€’๎€˜๎€‘๎€™ (IPCC),
S๎€›๎€ˆ๎€ˆ๎€’๎€š๎€ ๎€”๎€•๎€š P๎€•๎€‹๎€๎€†๎€ M๎€’๎€‡๎€™๎€š๎€–: C๎€‹๎€๎€ˆ๎€’๎€—๎€™ C๎€“๎€’๎€˜๎€‘๎€™ I๎€ˆ๎€Ž๎€’๎€†๎€—๎€– 2014: I๎€ˆ๎€Ž๎€’๎€†๎€—๎€–,
A๎€…๎€’๎€Ž๎€—๎€’๎€—๎€๎€•๎€˜, ๎€’๎€˜๎€… V๎€›๎€‹๎€˜๎€™๎€š๎€’๎€Œ๎€๎€‹๎€๎€—๎€ (C.B. Field et al. eds., 2014), available at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf
(providing a detailed view of impacts across the globe). See also U.S. G๎€‹๎€•๎€Œ๎€’๎€‹
C๎€“๎€’๎€˜๎€‘๎€™ R๎€™๎€–๎€™๎€’๎€š๎€†๎€“ P๎€š๎€•๎€‘๎€š๎€’๎€ˆ, C๎€‹๎€๎€ˆ๎€’๎€—๎€™ C๎€“๎€’๎€˜๎€‘๎€™ I๎€ˆ๎€Ž๎€’๎€†๎€—๎€– ๎€๎€˜ ๎€—๎€“๎€™ U๎€˜๎€๎€—๎€™๎€…
S๎€—๎€’๎€—๎€™๎€–: T๎€“๎€™ T๎€“๎€๎€š๎€… N๎€’๎€—๎€๎€•๎€˜๎€’๎€‹ C๎€‹๎€๎€ˆ๎€’๎€—๎€™ A๎€–๎€–๎€™๎€–๎€–๎€ˆ๎€™๎€˜๎€— ( Jerry Melillo et al.
eds., 2014), http://nca2014.globalchange.gov (providing a detailed view of
impacts in the United States).
14. See, e.g., Coglianese & Dโ€™Ambrosio, supra note 2.
Copyright ยฉ 2016 Environmental Law Instituteยฎ, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELRยฎ, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT