Search

The time has never been better for the Securities and Exchange Commision (SEC) to regulate climate change disclosures; however, the agency has a poor track record in mandating climate and other specialized disclosures from public corporations. Its 2010 guidance on climate-related disclosures was sparsely enforced. Its 2012 conflict materials rule was partially invalidated by the courts, and in 2019 and 2020, the agency failed to include climate disclosures when modernizing rules and guidelines on corporate disclosures. These past failures were due to agency intertia, which was facilitated by a combination of a lack of political feasibility, strong business resistance to specialized disclosures (despite investor enthusiasm), and rising judicial hostility to the SEC. These past failures should not dictate agency approaches to climate disclosures moving forward. Regulating climate change is high on the agenda of the Biden Administration. Investors are demanding that public corporations be more transparent about climate-related risks. The SEC is starting to act, issuing a call for public input on climate-related disclosures and enhancing its focus on climate-related disclosure in public company filings.These political, investor, and agency shifts are primarily due to the rising awareness of the potential systemic nature of the risks of climate change to financial systems, both in the U.S. and internationally. This article assesses the policy feasibility of climate-related disclosure rules. It argues that past SEC failures can and should inform SEC rulemaking on climate change disclosures moving forward. Regulating climate disclosures benefits not only investors and capital markets, but also companies, due to the systemic nature of climate risk. This article argues that robust cost-benefit analysts and industry-specific, flexible but firm regulatory approaches will improve policy feasibility.

This Article provides a snapshot of current climate policy and litigation experiences in a select group of Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, India, Pakistan, Kiribati, and The Bahamas. It traces current domestic climate policies and litigation experiences back to the colonial histories of these countries. These Commonwealth countries enjoy a shared common law tradition, but in the context of climate change, levels of climate vulnerabilities, resilience, and historic and current responsibilities for emissions vary tremendously. Levels of climate vulnerability, and climate responsibility, often reflect the colonial histories of these countries. These colonial histories are reflective of racial capitalist trajectories that impact current day emissions, consumptive habits, and climate vulnerabilities. Political and economic blockages to progressive climate action persist in some Global North countries. Many current carbon major emitting companies are also located in several Global North countries in the Commonwealth, and many of these companies also have colonial histories and climate responsibilities. Additionally, policy and financial constraints in tackling the climate crisis persist in Global South countries. Policy constraints and blockages are not uniform, and they at times cross over the North-South divide, as do emerging legal relationships. Vulnerable populations and sacrifice zones exist within the Global North. Elites in the Global South also replicate racial capitalistic tendencies of oppression and exclusion towards more vulnerable subpopulations. Despite these hurdles, significant opportunities have emerged in many jurisdictions, largely as a result of innovative climate litigation suits, particularly in the Global South. This Article argues that litigants across the Commonwealth can share strategies and best practices in order to move climate policy forward in their jurisdictions, and reduce climate vulnerabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Introduction The world is facing multiple crises--climate change, biodiversity loss, racial and financial inequality as well as a global health crisis. Companies and company law are implicated in these [...], A string of corporate litigation cases in the United Kingdom highlights the role of corporate group structures in complicating efforts to impose liability on parent companies for the activities of their subsidiaries, particularly where those subsidiaries are located in the Global South. Corporate group structures serve to insulate parent companies against liability for actions of their subsidiaries. This is the case even where economic benefits accrue to parent companies, which are often incorporated in the Global North. These group structures cabin liability for environmental and climate harms within subsidiary companies through reliance on company law principles such as limited liability and separate legal personality. These company law principles allow parent companies to enjoy corporate profits from the activities of their subsidiaries but disavow liability for any environmental damage resulting from such activities. This dichotomy has obvious equity implications, which are exacerbated in the extractive industries and in the context of climate change. Negative climate impacts are and will be felt predominantly in the Global South. In addition, environmental damage removes avenues of climate adaptation for vulnerable populations. But company law principles are not impervious to these equity challenges. These principles have never been absolute and courts have consistently found exceptions to them, although those exceptions have fluctuated in effectiveness and frequency over the years. Recent decisions by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the United Kingdom imposed duties on parent companies for environmental damage caused by their subsidiaries. Cases following the decision in Chandler v Cape Industries illustrate tension between company law as interpreted in the Global North, and climate and environmental justice as experienced in the Global South. Climate change forces a reconceptualization of company law, including transnational corporate liability. This paper argues that these reconsiderations are not only appropriate, but given the contested histories of many of these companies in the Global South, long overdue. Key words: International law; institutional change; customary international law; subsequent practice; authority.

I am so pleased to be writing the introduction to the first ever Issue of Environmental Law dedicated to environmental justice. I want to acknowledge the hard work and foresight [...]

Geographical place, socioeconomic status and citizenship matter in the context of climate change. The most vulnerable members of society are frequently the ones hardest hit by climate‐induced extreme events. Vulnerable communities often live in climate‐exposed locations, and have access to fewer resources to prepare for and respond to disasters. This is the case for Haitian migrants in The Bahamas—vulnerable communities located within a climate‐vulnerable country. Haitian communities were the locus of the majority of deaths and missing people attributed to the 2019 Hurricane Dorian and faced a series of distributional, procedural and recognition injustices. We investigate the historical factors and contemporary conditions of Haitian communities in The Bahamas that resulted in significant inequities, disproportional impacts and infractions of human rights by the Bahamian government. We show how this experience complexifies discourse on loss and damage and climate‐induced migration in small island developing states and exemplifies the need for human rights approaches to loss and damage that incorporate multi‐scalar dimensions of climate justice. We investigate the historical factors and contemporary conditions of Haitian communities in The Bahamas that resulted in significant inequities, disproportional impacts and infractions of human rights by the Bahamian government. We show how this experience complexifies discourse on loss and damage and climate‐induced migration in small island developing states and exemplifies the need for human rights approaches to loss and damage that incorporate multi‐scalar dimensions of climate justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Electric vehicles ("EVs") are everywhere. And they are cool--consumers love them. Federal agencies, such as EPA and NHTSA, promulgated rules which will usher in an EV revolution. But EVs have justice implications--both positive and negative. The transition to EVs will have significant climate and environmental justice benefits for some communities and negative impacts for others, including Native American tribes. EV batteries rely on minerals such as lithium and cobalt. Many of these minerals are located in or near tribal land, including sacred and culturally important sites. A previously unseen imbalance of sacrifices emerges in the context of the transition to EVs--tribes should not bear the brunt of this transition. EVs should instead contribute to environmental justice more broadly. Despite the Biden-Harris Administration's focus on environmental and racial justice, federal agencies may face headwinds as they work to redress longstanding environmental injustices. This Article argues that despite the importance of the EV transition to climate action, the transition should be equitable for environmental justice communities by honoring tribal sovereignty through updated mining regulations. In addition to updated mining rules, this Article recommends other agency actions that would elevate the voices of environmental justice communities; provide them with opportunities for economic justice; and ensure market and technological developments place environmental justice communities, including tribes, at the center of the transition to EVs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

These are limited to an obligation to consider whether the enterprise complies with the Principles when considering whether to cover liability (Principle 45.1) and requiring a compelling justification when covering liability risk of a non-complying enterprise (Principle 45.2). Global enterprises have more expansive obligations.[5] Controlling enterprises (for example, a parent company of a group) must ensure that any enterprise within their direct or indirect control complies with their GHG obligations (Principle 6, p 7). The second edition of the I Principles on Climate Obligations of Enterprises i (Enterprise Principles or Principles) provides an updated and expanded set of legal principles, articulating clear yet flexible responsibilities and legal "obligations" for enterprises. [Extracted from the article]