517
From Responsibility to Cost-
Effectiveness to Litigation: The
Evolution of Climate Change
Regulation and the Emergence
of Climate Justice Litigation
Chilenye Nwapi*
Introduction .................................................................................................518
I. e CBDR Principle ............................................................................ 520
II. e Principle of Cost Dierentiation....................................................523
A. Emissions Trading ........................................................................... 524
B. e Clean Development Mechanism .............................................526
C. Joint Implementation .................................................................... 528
III. Climate Justice Litigation ..................................................................... 531
A. Climate Change Litigation as a Regulatory Tool to Stem
Global Warming ............................................................................531
B. Signicant Climate Change Cases .................................................. 533
1. Massachusetts v. EPA .................................................................. 533
2. California v. General Motors Corp. .............................................535
3. e Inuit Petition ..................................................................... 536
4. Kain v. Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection ........................................................... 537
C. e Impact of Climate Justice Litigation on Climate
Change Regulation ......................................................................... 539
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 541
* e author gratefully acknowledges the research assistance of Leara Morris-Stokes and
Demetrius Wilson, students at Florida A&M University College of Law.
Chapter 19
518 Climate Justice
Introduction
e deleterious eects of climate change are well documented,1 as is the link
between human activities and climate change.2 A n art icle that appeared in
Scientic American in 20 06 declared that “[t]he debate on global warming
is over. Present levels of carbon dioxide—nearing 400 ppm in the earth’s
atmosphere—are higher than they have been at any time in the past 650,0 00
years.”3 After examining 928 ar ticle abstracts published in scientic journals
between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the Institute of Scientic Information
database, Naomi Oreskes concluded that “the scienti c consensus [about
global warming] is clearly expressed ” in the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
mate Change (IPCC) reports.4 She described the study as follows:
e 928 pa pers were divided i nto six categories: ex plicit endorsement of the
consensus position, evaluation of impact s, mitigat ion proposals, methods,
paleoclimate analy sis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the
papers, 75% fell into the rst three categories, either e xplicitly or implicitly
accepting t he consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, t ak-
ing no position on cur rent anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none
of the papers disagre ed with the consensus position.5
Despite this compelling data, States and ot her policyma kers have strug-
gled for more than 25 yea rs to reach a consensus on the appropriate mecha-
nisms to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to global
warming.6
1. e most authoritative sources are the various assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). To date, there have been ve assessment reports, published in 1990, 1995,
2001, 2007, and 2014, plus a supplementary report published in 1992, http://www.ipcc.ch/publica-
tions_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml.
2. See IPCC, Cl C 2014: S R 2 (2015) (emphasizing that “[h]uman inuence
on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest
in history”), http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.
e synthesis report distills the ndings of the Working Groups to the Fifth Assessment Report.
3. Gary Stix, A Climate Repair Manual, 295 S. A. 46, 46 (2006).
4. Naomi Oreskes, Beyond the Ivory Tower: e Scientic Consensus on Climate Change, 306 S. 1686,
1686 (2004), http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/306/5702/1686.full.pdf.
5. Id.
6. See, e.g., Simon Chin-Yee, Brieng: Africa and the Paris Climate Change Agreement, A. A. 1, 3
(2016) (highlighting the “tensions and fears in the build-up to” the Paris Agreement); Raymond
Clémencon, e Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement: Dismal Failure or Historic Breakthrough, 25
J. E’ & D. 3, 18, 20 (2016) (arguing that the Paris Agreement was a product of unprecedented
global momentum for action on climate change, but concluding that it may represent “another
missed opportunity where international leaders made promises they were in no position or unwill-
ing to full”); James W. Coleman, Unilateral Climate Regulation, 38 H. E. L. R. 87, 89,
92 (2014) (observing that “the quest for a binding global treaty has proven to be a non-starter” and
that “an international treaty remains unlikely”); D J, R D T: W
