The hottest Environmental Law Substack posts right now

A deadly factory collapse helped prompt a French duty-of-vigilance law that makes large companies responsible for preventing serious human-rights, health, safety, and environmental harms across their subsidiaries and supply chains, with potential civil liability.
The law is vague about whether and how companies must address climate change, causing uneven corporate responses and frustration among stakeholders.
A landmark Paris trial against TotalEnergies could force companies to cut oil and gas production to meet national climate commitments, setting a precedent with big implications for multinational liability and France’s energy industry.

A recent EPA decision tries to reinterpret the Clean Air Act in a way that risks stepping into the judiciary’s role, which almost certainly invites lawsuits and constitutional conflict.
Leaving water vapor out of the regulated greenhouse gases was the Endangerment Finding’s weakest point, because combustion-derived water vapor can measurably affect local and regional climate and therefore fits the logic used to regulate other gases.
Including water vapor in regulation would be politically and practically chaotic and costly, so the real fix is for Congress to update the Clean Air Act or for litigation to force a clear judicial ruling.

The EPA formally rescinded the 2009 Endangerment Finding and the vehicle greenhouse-gas rules by reinterpreting key words in the Clean Air Act, and it says this decision is based on legal reasoning rather than new claims about climate science.
EPA's core legal claim is that vehicle emissions would have only a minuscule effect on global temperature and sea level, so they do not materially "contribute" to pollution that can "reasonably be anticipated to endanger" health or welfare, meaning the costs of regulation would outweigh de minimis benefits.
The rule’s future is legally uncertain and could be overturned in court, and there is a clear opportunity for Congress to clarify the Clean Air Act and craft a bipartisan, coherent approach to greenhouse-gas policy.

Canada has huge oil resources known as the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin, which can supply energy for over a century.
There is ongoing conflict between Alberta's provincial government and the federal government over climate policies and emissions caps that could hurt Alberta's oil industry.
The battle between local and federal powers in Canada is heating up, especially with approaching elections bringing more attention to these energy issues.

New rules in Ottawa limit how long you can warm up your car in winter, aiming to cut emissions. Many people think this is silly given the extreme cold.
Bureaucratic efforts to fight climate change, like the car warming rule, often get a lot of attention but may not really help the environment.
There's a growing debate over whether such regulations are practical or just inconvenience people without making a real difference.

Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

Economic interests are leading to the destruction of important ecosystems like rainforests and wetlands. This is troubling because these places help clean our air and support many species.
Many governments prioritize short-term profits over environmental protection, resulting in harmful projects that threaten biodiversity. This could lead to serious consequences for our planet's health.
Robust environmental laws and smarter decisions are needed to protect these special areas. Without these, activities that harm the environment will continue to increase.

Building infrastructure in America has become very slow and difficult mainly due to environmental regulations like the National Environmental Policy Act. These rules, which were made to protect the environment, now often delay important projects for years.
Many energy projects are stuck in regulatory and court processes, making it hard to shift to cleaner energy sources. Reforming these regulations could help speed up the development of clean energy initiatives.
Judicial reviews and the ability of courts to issue injunctions often hold up projects unnecessarily. There needs to be a limit on how long these reviews can take to encourage investment in new infrastructure.

NEPA compliance is costly and time-consuming, with reports taking over 5 years to complete.
The FAST Act of 2015 led to significant decreases in the time to complete environmental impact statements.
Though NEPA timelines have shown improvement since 2016, the impact of the FAST Act reforms on the true burden of environmental reviews remains uncertain.

"Sue and settle" lets environmental groups privately settle lawsuits with federal agencies so agencies agree to new rules, which can bypass Congress and public rulemaking.
Taxpayers have paid over $20 million in plaintiff attorney fees since 2013, with payouts growing under recent administrations and those payments are often opaque and hard to oversee.
The practice creates conflict-of-interest risks because lawyers and staff move between agencies, nonprofits, and firms, and efforts to curb the practice have been inconsistent so the issue remains unresolved.

A small group of environmental nonprofits filed a large share of climate-related lawsuits against federal agencies, often using statutes like the ESA and NEPA and causing multi-year delays for projects.
Many of those nonprofits also receive millions in federal and state funds — including COVID relief, grants, and contracts — so taxpayer money can indirectly support litigation against the government.
NEPA reviews are lengthy and a major focus of reform: one administration expanded CEQ and sped up reviews while another loosened CEQ rules to accelerate projects, yet litigation still frequently delays work even though agencies win most challenges.