From Responsibility to Cost-Effectiveness to Litigation: The Evolution of Climate Change Regulation and the Emergence of Climate Justice Litigation

• Author: Chilenye Nwapi
• Pages: 517-542

517

From Responsibility to Cost-

Effectiveness to Litigation: The

Evolution of Climate Change

Regulation and the Emergence

of Climate Justice Litigation

Chilenye Nwapi*

Introduction .................................................................................................518

I. e CBDR Principle ............................................................................ 520

II. e Principle of Cost Dierentiation....................................................523

A. Emissions Trading ........................................................................... 524

B. e Clean Development Mechanism .............................................526

C. Joint Implementation .................................................................... 528

III. Climate Justice Litigation ..................................................................... 531

A. Climate Change Litigation as a Regulatory Tool to Stem

Global Warming ............................................................................531

B. Signicant Climate Change Cases .................................................. 533

1. Massachusetts v. EPA .................................................................. 533

2. California v. General Motors Corp. .............................................535

3. e Inuit Petition ..................................................................... 536

4. Kain v. Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection ........................................................... 537

C. e Impact of Climate Justice Litigation on Climate

Change Regulation ......................................................................... 539

Conclusion ................................................................................................... 541

* e author gratefully acknowledges the research assistance of Leara Morris-Stokes and

Demetrius Wilson, students at Florida A&M University College of Law.

Chapter 19

518 Climate Justice

Introduction

e deleterious eects of climate change are well documented,1 as is the link

between human activities and climate change.2 A n art icle that appeared in

Scientic American in 20 06 declared that “[t]he debate on global warming

is over. Present levels of carbon dioxide—nearing 400 ppm in the earth’s

atmosphere—are higher than they have been at any time in the past 650,0 00

years.”3 After examining 928 ar ticle abstracts published in scientic journals

between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the Institute of Scientic Information

database, Naomi Oreskes concluded that “the scienti c consensus [about

global warming] is clearly expressed ” in the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-

mate Change (IPCC) reports.4 She described the study as follows:

e 928 pa pers were divided i nto six categories: ex plicit endorsement of the

consensus position, evaluation of impact s, mitigat ion proposals, methods,

paleoclimate analy sis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the

papers, 75% fell into the rst three categories, either e xplicitly or implicitly

accepting t he consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, t ak-

ing no position on cur rent anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none

of the papers disagre ed with the consensus position.5

Despite this compelling data, States and ot her policyma kers have strug-

gled for more than 25 yea rs to reach a consensus on the appropriate mecha-

nisms to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to global

warming.6

1. e most authoritative sources are the various assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC). To date, there have been ve assessment reports, published in 1990, 1995,

2001, 2007, and 2014, plus a supplementary report published in 1992, http://www.ipcc.ch/publica-

tions_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml.

2. See IPCC, Cl C 2014: S R 2 (2015) (emphasizing that “[h]uman inuence

on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest

in history”), http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.

e synthesis report distills the ndings of the Working Groups to the Fifth Assessment Report.

3. Gary Stix, A Climate Repair Manual, 295 S. A. 46, 46 (2006).

4. Naomi Oreskes, Beyond the Ivory Tower: e Scientic Consensus on Climate Change, 306 S. 1686,

1686 (2004), http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/306/5702/1686.full.pdf.

5. Id.

6. See, e.g., Simon Chin-Yee, Brieng: Africa and the Paris Climate Change Agreement, A. A. 1, 3

(2016) (highlighting the “tensions and fears in the build-up to” the Paris Agreement); Raymond

Clémencon, e Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement: Dismal Failure or Historic Breakthrough, 25

J. E’ & D. 3, 18, 20 (2016) (arguing that the Paris Agreement was a product of unprecedented

global momentum for action on climate change, but concluding that it may represent “another

missed opportunity where international leaders made promises they were in no position or unwill-

ing to full”); James W. Coleman, Unilateral Climate Regulation, 38 H. E. L. R. 87, 89,

92 (2014) (observing that “the quest for a binding global treaty has proven to be a non-starter” and

that “an international treaty remains unlikely”); D J, R   D T: W 