legal
Trump could face fewer hurdles to overhaul the EPA in a second term
Donald Trump, if re-elected, would likely face fewer legal and bureaucratic barriers to significantly alter environmental and climate regulations, leveraging a more favorable judicial landscape and conservative support.
Brad Plumer and Lisa Friedman report for The New York Times.
In short:
- Trump's previous attempts to roll back environmental regulations were often blocked by courts and internal resistance.
- Project 2025, led by conservative allies, outlines plans to weaken the EPA's authority on climate rules and environmental protections.
- The Supreme Court's conservative majority could facilitate Trump's regulatory changes, posing a challenge to existing environmental policies.
Key quote:
"It's going to be easier. They’re going to have better people, more committed people, more experienced people."
— Myron Ebell, former EPA transition leader
Why this matters:
A weakened EPA could result in reduced efforts to combat climate change, affecting global warming mitigation. Regulatory changes may increase environmental risks and undermine public health protections.
Michigan to seek damages from oil companies for climate impacts
Michigan's Attorney General Dana Nessel is initiating a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies to recover losses due to climate change impacts, marking a significant legal move.
In short:
- Dana Nessel aims to hold oil companies financially accountable for their role in exacerbating climate change, which has affected Michigan's economy and lifestyle.
- The state plans to join other governments in litigation efforts, seeking to compensate for damages like severe weather and economic downturns.
- External legal teams are being solicited to support the extensive legal battle, with a potential to secure billions in damages.
Key quote:
"It’s long past time that we step up and hold the fossil fuel companies that are responsible for all these damages accountable."
— Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General
Why this matters:
This legal move mirrors a growing trend where states leverage the judicial system to address environmental and public health issues directly tied to climate change. By focusing on the fossil fuel industry, which has historically played a significant role in greenhouse gas emissions, Nessel aims to not only secure financial compensation for the state but also push for greater corporate accountability and transparency in environmental practices.
Also see:
- How the car and gas industry knew about the health risks of leaded fuel but sold it for 100 years anyway.
- Plaintiffs in the recently dismissed Held vs Montana argue: “We are entitled to a ‘clean and healthful’ environment. Montana’s policies are endangering that.”
Feds delay decision in Dakota Access enviro review
E&E News writer Shelby Webb reports that the Dakota Access oil pipeline’s future remains uncertain after the Army Corps of Engineers released a long-awaited draft environmental study that will help determine whether it receives an easement needed to keep operating.
In a nutshell:
The study, which will influence whether the pipeline can continue operating, did not provide a recommendation on granting an easement for a section under Lake Oahe, near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's reservation. The final study, with a public comment period, will determine this decision. Legal disputes and environmental concerns surround the pipeline, with calls from environmental groups for its shutdown and Republican lawmakers emphasizing its importance for energy security and economic growth.
Key quote:
“We stand in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in opposing this dirty and dangerous pipeline that harms the climate and threatens the primary water source for the Tribe,” Amy Mall, a senior advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement. “The Army Corps must consider all of the risks of this pipeline, make all significant environmental information available without redactions, and honor the Tribe’s treaty rights.”
The big picture:
The Dakota Access pipeline poses a risk of oil spills, particularly under Lake Oahe, which could contaminate the primary water source for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. There are broader environmental concerns, including the release of greenhouse gases from burning the transported oil, though quantifying this impact is challenging. These issues have led to legal disputes and calls for more rigorous environmental assessments to determine the pipeline's long-term effects on both public health and the environment.
Read the article at E&E News.
For additional context, read Peter Dykstra's commentary about how Native tribes, hell-raisers and lawyers have combined to battle pipeline projects.
Climate change adds questions to Supreme Court case on Navajo water
In Arizona v. Navajo Nation, tribal attorneys argue that, by not providing their nation with sufficient water, the United States has breached a trust obligation related to treaties settled in 1849 and 1868.
Court restrictions on climate protesters ‘deeply concerning’, say leading lawyers
Restrictions placed on non-violent climate protesters who have been tried in criminal courts were part of a “deeply concerning” “pincer movement” narrowing their rights to free expression, leading lawyers have told the Guardian.
Australia rejects a coal mine near Great Barrier Reef due to risk of 'irreversible damage'
The Australian government on Wednesday turned down a proposal for a new open-cut coal mine near the Great Barrier Reef, invoking environmental laws and the risk of “irreversible damage.”