From COVID-19 to Climate Change: Disaster & Inequality at the Crossroads

This essay explores how the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic exposes and exacerbates structural inequalities in ways that are both obvious and alarming. It suggests that, even as the pandemic worsens inequality it forces us to confront it, and to see how the impacts of climate change will ripple unevenly across existing pathways of disparity. The essay begins by examining how the COVID-19 pandemic is spotlighting and intensifying inequality and suggests that the vivid harms of the pandemic compel us to do more and do better to address structural inequality. The essay then provides an account of how climate change interacts with and amplifies the inequality that natural disasters and the pandemic uncover then briefly weaves the role of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) into the discussion. Here the essay suggests that the WIM creates an avenue through which to advance climate and equity-oriented recovery responses in the immediate wake of the pandemic. The essay concludes with an invocation to heed the lessons the pandemic is offering in order to avoid catastrophic climate disaster

Adapting to 4 Degrees C World

The Paris Agreement\u27s goal to hold warming to 1.50-2 0 C above pre-industrial levels now appears unrealistic. Profs. Robin Kundis Craig and J.B. Ruhl have recently argued that because a 40 C world may be likely, we must recognize the disruptive consequences of such a world and respond by reimagining governance structures to meet the challenges of adapting to it. In this latest in a biannual series of essays, they and other members of the Environmental Law Collaborative explore what 40 C might mean for a variety of current legal doctrines, planning policies, governance structures, and institutions

Risky Business: The Ups and Downs of Mixing Economics, Security and Climate Change

Economic and security motivations increasingly influence the formulation of climate change law and policy worldwide. The way in which notions of economic wellbeing and security are defined and incorporated into climate change law and policy raises fundamental concerns over both the internal and external equity of existing and evolving climate strategies. In particular, a key question that emerges is whether climate policies, based on economic and security considerations, promote more effective mitigation and adaptation strategies or whether they in fact encourage inward-looking, protectionist policies that impair long-term emissions abatement and disadvantage already vulnerable sectors of society. Economic and security concerns can be wielded for great good or great harm in the climate change debate. Drawing upon economic flexibility mechanisms and security-based measures to address climate change can facilitate global cooperation or it can perpetuate existing social, economic and environmental imbalances. The record of implementation thus far suggests that there is an urgent need to reassess the ability of economic flexibility mechanisms to promote long-term, equitable emissions reductions and to pre-emptively introduce equity considerations into the climate security debate. Melding climate change to economics and security makes domestic and international climate change initiatives more politically palatable and more responsive to the realities of global governance. The challenge is to find ways to wield economic and security concerns for the collective goo

Disrupting Dominance

Climate change poses one of the greatest threats to human health and well-being. It also poses enormous challenges to the rule of law. As climate change progresses and climate impacts intensify, it becomes increasingly urgent to consider whether and how we are drawing upon the law as a tool to advance human adaptation to climate change. Equally, we must consider whether and how the evolving rule of law around climate change responds to existing patterns of social, political, and economic inequality. These are the questions this article engages. As a starting point, this Article centers human vulnerability as a necessary focal point for analyzing adaptation law. Humans are vulnerable to climate change. However, levels of vulnerability vary widely depending on who we are and where we live. The spaces we live and the places we call home are characterized by inequalities and precarities that shape how resilient communities are in the face of climate change. Climate change will exacerbate these inequalities absent intentional efforts to surface and disrupt dominance in climate adaptation strategies. Disrupting Dominance advances the project of disrupting patterns of dominance and enabling more effective and equitable climate adaptation law. To achieve these goals, the Article contextualizes the extensive but disparate threats climate change poses to humans before examining the evolving but underdeveloped legal architecture for adaptation planning. Disrupting Dominance then engages the questions of what vulnerability is and why vulnerability matters in the context of climate change adaptation. Here we make our case for moving towards a model of adaptation planning that is responsive to the needs, priorities, and capacities of all members of society. Finally, this Article explores climate adaptation in context to show how different local governments vary in their commitment to disrupting dominance and centering equity in climate adaptation planning. Disrupting Dominance offers a critical intervention in climate adaptation law. It demonstrates how dominance limits the ability of communities to flourish in the face of climate adversity and offers a more equitable and sustainable model for climate adaptation law

Disrupting Dominance

Climate change poses one of the greatest threats to human health and well-being. It also poses enormous challenges to the rule of law. As climate change progresses and climate impacts intensify, it becomes increasingly urgent to consider whether and how we are drawing upon the law as a tool to advance human adaptation to climate change. Equally, we must consider whether and how the evolving rule of law around climate change responds to existing patterns of social, political, and economic inequality. These are the questions this article engages. As a starting point, this Article centers human vulnerability as a necessary focal point for analyzing adaptation law. Humans are vulnerable to climate change. However, levels of vulnerability vary widely depending on who we are and where we live. The spaces we live and the places we call home are characterized by inequalities and precarities that shape how resilient communities are in the face of climate change. Climate change will exacerbate these inequalities absent intentional efforts to surface and disrupt dominance in climate adaptation strategies. Disrupting Dominance advances the project of disrupting patterns of dominance and enabling more effective and equitable climate adaptation law. To achieve these goals, the Article contextualizes the extensive but disparate threats climate change poses to humans before examining the evolving but underdeveloped legal architecture for adaptation planning. Disrupting Dominance then engages the questions of what vulnerability is and why vulnerability matters in the context of climate change adaptation. Here we make our case for moving towards a model of adaptation planning that is responsive to the needs, priorities, and capacities of all members of society. Finally, this Article explores climate adaptation in context to show how different local governments vary in their commitment to disrupting dominance and centering equity in climate adaptation planning. Disrupting Dominance offers a critical intervention in climate adaptation law. It demonstrates how dominance limits the ability of communities to flourish in the face of climate adversity and offers a more equitable and sustainable model for climate adaptation law

The Climate Moratorium

Climate change is our new reality. The impacts of climatic changes, including massive forest fires, floods, drought, severe storms, saltwater intrusion, and the resulting migration of people displaced by such impacts, will continue to ravage communities across the nation into the foreseeable future. In the meantime, communities continue to expand and growth continues unabated in many of the most climate-impacted areas. Given that most communities are unprepared for the onslaught of climate disasters and many continue to increase existing community vulnerabilities through unsustainable growth and development practices, we need legal tools that will provide space to engage in effective adaptation planning. The climate moratorium is one such tool. Moratoria, which have been used to temporarily halt development and associated impacts to facilitate effective land-use planning, have long been used by communities to address community and infrastructure vulnerabilities. This Article proposes a climate moratorium