This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In addition, the court rejected the contention that the CleanAirAct or foreign affairs doctrine completely preempted the plaintiffs’ claims and also indicated that federal common law would not provide a basis for complete preemption. Court Dismissed Counterclaims in ClimateScientist’s Defamation Lawsuit.
establishing that heat-trapping emissions (or greenhouse gas emissions) are air pollutants covered by the CleanAirAct. The court further mandated that, under the CleanAirAct, the EPA must set protective standards for global warming pollutants if the agency found them to be harmful to human health and welfare.
establishing that heat-trapping emissions (or greenhouse gas emissions) are air pollutants covered by the CleanAirAct. The court further mandated that, under the CleanAirAct, the EPA must set protective standards for global warming pollutants if the agency found them to be harmful to human health and welfare.
The court stated that the issue arose “because a necessary and critical element of the hydrological damage caused by defendants’ alleged conduct is the rising sealevel along the Pacific coast and in the San Francisco Bay, both of which are navigable waters of the United States.” ExxonMobil Corp. applied federal common law.
A climate change-related argument rejected by the trial court—that sealevel rise projections in the Plan were too high and not based on best available science—did not appear to have been before the appellate court. Delta Stewardship Council Cases , Nos.
National Audubon Society alleged that the rule “vastly expands potential sand mining projects in delicate coastal barriers” and further alleged that coastal barriers would become even more important due to climate change and were expected to mitigate $108 billion of sealevel rise and flooding damages over the next 50 years.
NOAA: The Biden administration named Dr. Sarah Kapnick as the agency’s chief scientist. Kapnick most recently worked as a senior climatescientist and sustainability strategist for asset and wealth management at J.P. Starting July 1, Sea-Level Rise Studies Required for Florida Gov’t Coastal Structures – Insurance Journal.
EPA – CleanAirAct Advisory Committee Meeting (Oct. EPA – Meeting of Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee (Oct. EPA – Local Government Advisory Committee and Small Communities Advisory Subcommittee Meeting (Oct. 18-19, comments due Oct.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content