By: Bonnie Smith, Staff Editor, Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. This piece is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. Please leave any comments here, as this is the original post.

Introduction
 
            For the first time in the history of international climate negotiations, adaptation has its own article in a legal text. Even more striking is that loss and damage, historically treated as a component of adaptation, does too. For many years, negotiations concerning adaptation and loss and damage have been contentious between developed countries, which prioritize mitigation over adaptation and loss and damage, and developing countries uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Chronicling the controversial discussions and negotiations leading up to these monumental Paris Agreement articles reveals still-existing tensions between Parties to the Agreement. It also sheds light on negotiable points for future Conferences of the Parties (“COPs”).
            Adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage are three interconnected concepts pertaining to climate change. Defined simply, “adaptation” is the “adjustment of behaviour to limit harm, or exploit beneficial opportunities, arising from actual or expected climate change.”[1] In contrast, “mitigation” seeks to limit climate change, primarily by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.[2]  “Loss and damage” encompasses the costs associated with climate impacts that adaptation and mitigation cannot prevent.[3]  
            This article will begin comparing the historical treatment of adaptation and loss and damage with mitigation in the context of international climate change negotiations. Then, the article will analyze the Paris Agreement’s treatment of adaptation and loss and damage

By Oliver Jamin, Online Editor of Lewis and Clark Law School's Evironmental Law. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate, and any comments should be made on the original post, which can be found here.

By Maryam Al-Dabbagh, a Graduate Editor of NYU Environmental Law Journal. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. To leave a comment, please follow this link.

Introduction
​
In the lead-up to the Paris talks, the issue of loss and damage (L&D) was portrayed to be one of the biggest hurdles in the quest for an agreement. L&D had already suffered multiple drawbacks in previous talks, such as the mass walkout by G-77 countries at COP19 in Warsaw in protest of the response by developed countries to their demands for L&D.[1] Surprisingly, no similar issues occurred in Paris; instead, the agreement articulated a middle path between the seemingly divergent aims of developing and developed countries. This paper will trace that path through an analysis of the L&D articles of the agreement, and set forth the headway as well as the challenges that should be expected in coming years. 

By Will Grossenbacher

Will Grossenbacher is a 3L at the University of Virginia School of Law where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Virginia Environmental Law Journal. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate.

By Eric Anthony DeBellis

​The overwhelming majority of environmental enforcement actions settle out of court, but overlooking settlements as merely a mechanical means to save time and court costs is a mistake. An agency’s approach to settlement has tremendous environmental justice implications that go largely unnoticed.
​
In a traditional enforcement settlement model, the government claims the exclusive right to speak for the people. It brings an enforcement action against the defendant, and the two parties negotiate a penalty amount. The defendant signs a settlement agreement and pays the penalty to the Treasury. This is the “Speeding Ticket” settlement model. This model is expedient, but it excludes affected communities. The Speeding Ticket model remains the norm today, but several state and federal agencies have begun to explore an alternative tool: the supplemental environmental projects (SEP).

By Brenden Cline,

Brenden Cline is a 3L at Harvard Law School where he serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Environmental Law Review. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. Click here to see the original post and leave a comment. 

[This] is a ‘rare case.’ It is and should be . . . . But every generation or so a case comes along when this Court needs to say enough is enough.
— Chief Justice Roberts[1]
 
As my law school graduation nears, I’d like to advance a common-sense argument for the Clean Power Plan’s statutory authority that only a law student could make: the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court should reject EPA’s and challengers’ strained readings of the duplicative amendments to Clean Air Act section 111(d) and instead follow the late Justice Scalia’s “irreconcilability canon” to give these amendments no effect. To date, just one brief filed in the torrent of Clean Power Plan litigation mentions the irreconcilability canon in passing.[2] I think this interpretive tool warrants more attention.
​
So quit the jiggery-pokery, put down the applesauce, and take your head out of a bag. Justice Scalia may no longer be with us, but his immortal words endure. ​

By Myles Osborne
​
Myles Osborne is a first-year law student and a General Member on the Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law. He hopes to practice in California. Reach him at [email protected]. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. Click here to see the original post and leave a comment.

By Stacy Shelton

Stacy Shelton is a student at Vermont Law School where she serves as a Staff Editor on the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. Click here to see the original post and leave a comment.

By Ben Harris

Ben Harris is a 3L at the UCLA School of Law where he serves as Executive Editor for the UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy. This post is part of the Environmental Law Review Syndicate. Click here to see the original post and leave a comment.

The Clean Power Plan (“CPP”), announced and promulgated in late 2015 by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and backed by President Barack Obama, seeks to develop a comprehensive regulatory scheme over the nation’s power plants in an effort to promote cleaner energy development and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On February 10, 2016, the Supreme Court granted a petition to stay the Clean Power Plan until a legal challenge against it can proceed on the merits. This post 1) provides a short overview of the CPP, 2) explores the history of CPP litigation and the Supreme Court’s recent decision to stay, 3) predicts the future outlook of the CPP, and 4) provides an alternate arrangement by which the EPA could conceivably seek to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in the event that the CPP is struck down.