Roundtable #14 | Environmental Law

Τhe views in these articles are those of the individual authors and not of the Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Section I: Environmental Law: Evolutions and Historical Foundations

In order to understand the legal means that allow us to keep our governments accountable for environmental damage, it is crucial to have a holistic perspective on the evolutions and historical foundations of environmental law.  

Environmental litigation is based on a recently established legal framework. Indeed, most major environmental statutes were passed between the late 1960s and early 1980s, with the most significant pieces of legislation passed during the Nixon administration. [1] On January 1, 1970, Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, an important first step in the emergence of national environmental goals and policies. Later that year, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has since become a key institution in environmental law. Two of the most important laws governing the EPA were passed by Congress over the next two years: The Clean Air Act of 1970, which directs the EPA to set standards for what kind of pollutants may be released into the air, and the Clean Water Act of 1972, which instructs the EPA to set standards for what pollutants may be released into lakes, streams, and rivers. Although this legal framework is fairly recent, it has been quite static: the US has gone almost 30 years without major new environmental legislation. This inactivity, attributable to the growing partisanship of the environmental issues, means that while the climate crisis is rapidly accelerating—the last five years in human history were the five hottest on record—we are currently handling environmental crises with decades-old legislation.

The court’s role was largely restricted by the Chevron deference principle, established in the 1984 landmark case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, which established that courts have to defer to government agencies when a law's language is ambiguous, giving the courts little power in the enforcement of environmental statutes. [2] The doctrine evidently limits the possibilities for the Court to enforce statutes like the Clean Air Act because their interpretation is subject to the federal agencies to which they apply, in this case, the EPA. This limited role has led to inconsistent enforcement of environmental protections.

Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, writes “there is no silver bullet litigation for climate change.” Indeed, no existing legal theory has been infallible in allowing a group or community to successfully get a court order requiring the government to take comprehensive action against environmental damage. However, certain litigation strategies show more promise than others. 

Environmental litigation first began in the U.S. with public nuisance lawsuits that sought injunctive relief for climate change impacts. In Massachusetts v. EPA, Massachusetts and several other states petitioned the EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide, claiming that the EPA was required to do so by the Clean Air Act. However, the latter denied the petition, claiming that greenhouse gases fell outside the bounds of the Clean Air Act, and that the agency maintained the right to defer a decision until more research could be done on "the causes, extent and significance of climate change and the potential options for addressing it.” In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts, establishing that the state had the standing to sue the EPA over potential damage caused to its territory by global warming due to its "stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests." [4] The court thus broke precedents in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resourcesby making its own interpretation of the Clean Air Act, instead of leaving it entirely to the discretion of the EPA. However, the public nuisance approach is constrained by the rule that lawsuits may be initiated only by the state attorney general, and not by private citizens. [5] 

A parallel legal framework, which seems promising in holding governments accountable for legal damage, is the public trust doctrine. This refers to the government’s obligation to protect and maintain certain natural resources for the benefit of its citizens. Traditionally, the public trust doctrine applied to commerce and fishing in navigable waters, but its use was expanded in California in 1971 to include fish, wildlife, habitat, and recreation. In 2013, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision relied on the public trust doctrine to hold a law promoting fracking violated a state constitutional right to a healthful environment (Robinson Township v. Commonwealth). In response to global climate change, a movement has even been called to extend the public trust doctrine to include the earth’s atmosphere. The subsequent legal doctrine is called ATL: Atmospheric Trust Litigation. [6]

Such arguments are closely linked to the idea that the fundamental right to life is inextricably tied to a healthy environment, thus highlighting a tight legal link between the protection of human rights and the protection of the environment. The framework of human rights presents interesting opportunities to keep governments accountable for environmental damage, and attempts have been successful across the world. The legal framework in the European Union is particularly conducive to such methods. A number of the international legal standards developed by the Council of Europe – notably the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats – have successfully been invoked to make progress on environmental issues. So far, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on some 300 environment-related cases. [7] These lawsuits that incorporate rights-based arguments are a truly global phenomenon, with encouraging results across the world. However, they have failed to achieve formal success in the US. 

The legal theories and strategies presented thus far all have one crucial limitation: they have never led to a binding ruling. ATL in particular has never yielded a successful case at the federal level – all cases that presented opportunities for it were promptly dismissed. 

Professor Gerrard shared his insights on the possible evolutions of the field; the key to climate law litigation might be in the growing influence of State Law. Recent events in New York state provide a compelling illustration of this expanding role. If the constitutional recognition of the right to a safe environment on the national level has been unsuccessful, the constitution of the New York state was amended on November 2, 2021, to include the right to clean water, clean air, and a healthful environment in its Bill of Rights. Perhaps even more compellingly, in late October 2021, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) denied air permit applications to the developers of two large gas-fired power plants Astoria and Danskammer, rejecting the projects as inconsistent with New York’s landmark climate legislation and its 2040 emissions-free power sector mandate, setting a precedent that should put an end to the development of new fossil fuel-fired power generation in New York. [8]  

Without a “silver bullet”, what options are left to us to keep governments accountable? The purpose of this roundtable is precisely to explore the complexity of this question, by examining a variety of strategies and legal mechanisms and assessing the promise they hold for the future. We will endeavor to take a comparative approach, focusing mostly on the United States and the United Kingdom. 

by Ines Abi Mourad

Special thanks to Professor Michael Gerrard for his insights

Section II: A Comparative Analysis of Corporate Veil Piercing for Environmental Harm

Aside from governmental responsibility, environmental damages may be attributed to companies. It follows that if a company causes environmental harm, particularly environmental harm that causes others to suffer harm, the company (and by extension its parent company or controlling shareholder) should be held liable for those damages. Thus, this section will accomplish two related points. Firstly, this section will show that, doctrinally, it is comparatively easier to pierce the corporate veil to impose shareholder liability for environmental harms if the subsidiary company is American rather than English. For the sake of brevity, corporate veil piercing here is limited to veil piercing when a company causes harm and damages to third parties on the basis of a tortious act. Thereafter, the section will explain that this difference is likely a result of differing judicial priorities.

Companies are rational. If a company’s operations incur a risk of environmental harm, it is reasonable for that company to create a structure to limit its liabilities should environmental harms occur. A common structure is as follows. Firstly, the company will incorporate a subsidiary, where they are the sole shareholder, to undertake such activities (for instance, oil well exploration). The subsidiary may be incorporated in a common-law jurisdiction where there is consistent protection of separate corporate personality. Secondly, the company will capitalize the subsidiary at incorporation and keep minimal assets within the subsidiary. The combined effects are as such. If the subsidiary causes environmental harm amounting to a tort (a civil wrong causing harm), separate corporate personality dictates that the tort victims can only sue the subsidiary as, formally, it is the subsidiary and not the parent that undertakes such activities. Secondly, as the subsidiary has minimal assets, the subsidiary may not be worth suing as there are hardly any assets to recover. Furthermore, even if the subsidiary settles and folds under the financial burden, the parent is insulated as, under the principle of limited liability, they are only liable up to the initial capital that they have provided, which is minimal. 

To help the tort victims of such environmental harms, common law courts may invoke the doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil” which, poetically, shatters the corporate shell of the subsidiary to hold shareholders (the parent company) liable for the acts of the subsidiaries. But, given that this doctrine disregards the core feature of a company—separate corporate personality—courts may be hesitant to allow veil piercing. 

Though each US State has its own version of company law, the general tenor of the corporate veil piercing doctrine may be stated as follows. Per Walkovsky v Carlton, the corporate veil can be disregarded “whenever necessary to prevent fraud or to achieve equity”. [1] In some states, such as Nevada, the standard may be higher as the plaintiff must show (i) that the company is so influenced and governed to be the shareholder’s alter ego; (ii) that there is such unity of interest and ownership that they are inseparable; and (iii) that adherence to the corporate veil would sanction fraud or perpetuate injustice. [2]

The English position is different. In Prest v Petrodel Resources, Lord Sumption states that, in order to pierce the corporate veil, (i) the incorporator must have a pre-existing legal obligation and (ii) the company must be interposed between the incorporator and the obligation such that (iii) the separate legal personality of the company will defeat or frustrate the enforcement of the pre-existing obligation. [3] Pausing here, it must be noted that veil piercing is not the only form of shareholder liability in English law. Shareholders may also directly be responsible if they owe “a direct duty of care” to tort victims per Chandler v Cape. [4]

From the foregoing, it is clear that it is more difficult to pierce the corporate veil of a subsidiary causing environmental harm if that subsidiary is an English company for two reasons. 

Firstly, English law requires the evasion of a pre-existing obligation. By definition, the liabilities flowing from prospective environmental harm are future liabilities. Thus, a prayer for corporate veil piercing would fail in English courts as the parent, by setting up a subsidiary, is attempting to hedge future liabilities rather than interposing a company to avoid pre-existing liability. By contrast, as American law only requires an analysis of the parental control over the subsidiary to pierce the veil, veil piercing is not theoretically limited to cases of pre-existing liabilities, suggesting that the American doctrine is more expansive and allows corporate veil piercing in more factual permutations.

Secondly, it is doctrinally easier to pierce the corporate veil under American law due to the focus on injustice in American jurisprudence. As above, a shareholder who uses a company as an alter ego of themselves may have its corporate veil pierced if piercing would cure manifest injustice. In Edwards, the corporate veil was pierced as to leaving a tort victim without a claim would lead to injustice. [5] Thus, as American courts are more flexible in piercing the veil when tort victims are involved [6],  Peterson  notes that tort victims have a strong claim to pierce a corporate veil. [7] By contrast, this reasoning is untenable in English law as the corporate veil is only pierced if the incorporator is evading a pre-existing obligation. [8] Thus, corporate veil piercing is more difficult as the plaintiff must adduce specific evidence showing evasion rather than proving, on the totality of the evidence, that the incorporator has acted unconscionably. [9]

Thus, as corporate veil piercing is broader and more flexible in America, it is likely that, when a thinly capitalized American subsidiary causes environmental damages which harm innocent third parties, American courts are likely to pierce the corporate veil to hold the parent-shareholder accountable for those actions. [10] By contrast, it is unlikely that an English court would pierce the veil to hold an English subsidiary liable as the doctrine is limited and narrow. Hence, litigants suing an English company should consider alternate actions and remedies to hold an English subsidiary liable for environmental harm.

This difference may be explicable on the grounds of judicial priorities. Given that the American veil-piercing jurisprudence is still regarded as an equitable intervention with its consideration of injustice [11], it is clear that American courts are concerned with the equity and fairness of the outcome on the tort victim. [12] By contrast, the formulation of veil piercing in Prest suggests that the English doctrine is extremely narrow [13], suggesting that the English courts intend to safeguard separate legal personality in order to achieve doctrinal certainty in company law.

Cut from the same common law tapestry, modern English and American jurisprudence have approached veil-piercing differently. If the subsidiary is American, an American court would be more inclined to pierce the corporate veil as compared to their English brethren. This is ostensible because American courts are, generally, more concerned with stopping injustice whilst English courts are more concerned with the stability of core company law doctrines. This has profound implications on environmental harm victims as, should they wish to seek tortious compensation stemming from environmental harm, the availability of legal remedies against the parent company would likely dictate the combination of legal and non-legal steps that have to be taken.

by Ross Ruo Song Pey

Section III: Children’s Rights in Environmental Law 

Recent developments in children’s rights within environmental law exemplify the means by which individual concern for the environment and collective action is able to hold governments accountable for climate change. 

Climate change is one of the most alarming problems for today's youth. According to a 2018 UN report, air pollution, water pollution, and other types of environmental threats cause the deaths of 1.5 million children every year. [1] In addition, since children are physically and mentally developing, it is difficult for their bodies to adapt to shifting climate patterns, making them more susceptible to harmful effects of climate change such as respiratory illness, limited access to clean water, food insecurity, mental health issues, and developmental delays, among other problems. As a result, the protection of children from the dangers of climate change is an issue that must be prioritized and protected.

Within existing policy frameworks, children’s rights have been upheld through numerous earlier precedents. One of the organizations most responsible for outlining the key protections of children is the United Nations, founded in 1945 with a commitment to promoting international peace. One of the earliest precedents for children’s rights in environmental law was introduced by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which established that human rights are universal, indivisible, and interdependent. This principle establishes that children’s rights are inalienable and must be protected in conjunction with other intersecting policy areas, one of them being environmental law. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guarantees the protection of youth from harm, further specifies the responsibilities of human rights legislation in safeguarding the livelihoods of children. The four core principles addressed include non-discrimination, devotion to the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival, development, and respect for the views of the child. [2] Recent studies have shown that environmental damage has particularly devastating impacts on children’s wellbeing, especially conditions triggered by fossil fuels and other environmental contaminants. As a result, climate change protection measures must consider the particularly damaging effects of environmental harm on children. 

However, despite the precedents in place that highlight the importance of children’s rights within environmental law discourse, governments’ refusal to recognize these priorities results in insufficient environmental policy. For example, while 196 nations have ratified the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, one particularly jarring country has left itself out: the United States. One possible reason is that many believed such policies would hinder American sovereignty. [4] Since not every country has ratified this treaty, there is no international cohesive effort to protect children’s rights, particularly as they relate to environmental harm.

In contrast, the United Kingdom ratified the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child in December 1991. Further evidence of the United Kingdom’s work in promoting children’s environmental protections is in the publication of  “A Children’s Environment and Health Strategy for the United Kingdom,” a report prepared by the Health Protection Agency and commissioned by the Department of Health on behalf of the Interdepartmental Steering Group in Environment and Health in 2008. This proposal committed ministers across the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe to the development of national Children’s Environment and Health Action Plans (CEHAP) to cover four Regional Priority Goals addressing: water, sanitation, health, injuries, obesity, air pollution, and chemical, physical, and biological hazards. [5] The success of this commitment can be seen in the UK’s Environment Bill passed on November 10, 2021, two years after it was first introduced. The bill intends to forward the UK's approach to creating comprehensive environmental policy post-Brexit. While it addresses environmental improvement plans for all people in the UK, not specifically children, it addresses similar priorities as CEHAP, such as improving the natural environment, evaluating waste and resource efficiency, recalling products that fail to meet environmental standards, addressing water, nature, biodiversity, and the regulation of chemicals. 

Environmental regulations in the United States, however, are trailing behind. Though there have been recent efforts made to commit to climate change advocacy, such as President Biden rejoining the Paris Agreement on climate change in February,  recent youth advocacy efforts claim that not enough is being done. The current Juliana v United States case in the US Court of Appeals, filed by 21 youth activist plaintiffs against the US government,  argues that “children are uniquely and disproportionately affected by climate change. The government’s systems of subsidies and programs promoting fossil fuel use cause climate change, yet children are unable to influence these harmful government policies.” [6] In other words, despite being affected drastically by climate change, children do not possess the political power to advocate against policies that are directly harmful to them. The plaintiffs argue that the government’s contribution to climate change has violated their constitutional and public trust rights and seek an order to urge defendants to develop plans to reduce C02 violations. The plaintiff cited specific violations of the rights to life, liberty, and damage to property, as well as other issues, such as personal health and trauma. In conjunction with this argument was the argument presented that “the harms to children caused by climate change are the direct result of government policies.” [7] The example cited by plaintiffs is that, though the EPA and White House Council on Environmental Quality identified the dangers of continuing to burn fossil fuels more than 30 years ago, the federal government has continued to promote fossil fuel use. For example, they have used fossil fuels through “beneficial tax provisions, permits for imports and exports, subsidies for domestic and overseas projects, and leases for fuel.” The case argues this is an example of neglect on the government’s behalf, one that goes against the rights of children. 

A similar court case is the City of Cleburne vs Cleburne Living Center, Inc., case, where the Supreme Court stood up for the rights of disabled people by invalidating the decision to require special use permits for group homes as “irrational and unsupported by legitimate interest.” [8] Similar to how the courts have protected individuals with disabilities, the courts must also stand by another group with limited power in the political process: children. The arguments presented in these two cases point to the obligation of courts to step in to protect vulnerable individuals. Cleburne’s protection of disabled individuals shows the potential of courts to support those who are marginalized from the political process. Children, who are also vulnerable individuals, must also be protected. This sets the precedent that the courts can exercise power when a certain group lacks the power to improve conditions for itself, and the same offers legal validity to the advocacy for children’s rights within environmental law litigation. 

As a result, recent cases and discussions about climate change have involved the role of youth activism and concern for how youth can impact environmental legislation. Looking at these precedents, it can be understood that there is an inherent responsibility within courts to protect the rights of youth, and that includes rights related to climate change. 

by Ashfah Alam

Section IV: The Climate Leadership Drought: Who should bring the rain?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released a report warning that human influence has “warmed the planet at a rate that is unprecedented in at least the last 2000 years.” [1] This is set against a stark backdrop of government inaction. The Paris Climate Accords in 2015 were thought to help curb the development of such a reality. However, the actions of the international community signal that this may be but a mere fantasy. 

The central problem is that governments have treated climate change as a “headache, not a heart attack.” [2] Mired in political and economic discourse, action has been slow.  This was markedly pronounced in the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 26). Countries made sweeping statements regarding their pledges of net-zero emissions, with an absence of adequate legal frameworks to support them. There is thus a leadership vacuum created by governments that need to be filled.

The courts are in a prime position to fill such a vacuum. They utilize existing national and international laws that protect the right of citizens to a healthy environment, constituting a faster response to an increasingly pertinent problem. [3] According to a report published by the United Nations Environment Programme [4], there has been increasing recourse to this method of protection as the rate of climate change litigation has nearly doubled within the past four years. 

There have been several landmark cases that have delivered justice for victims of government inaction. First is the Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands. [5] In this case, a Dutch environmental group and nine hundred Dutch citizens sued the Dutch government for its contributions to global climate change. The Court in the Hague ordered the Dutch state to limit emissions in line with the government’s existing pledge in order to meet the UN goal of keeping global temperature increases under two degrees Celsius. Crucially, the Court recognised the “severity of the consequences of climate change and the great risk of climate change occurring”, and declared that the state has a duty to adopt climate mitigation measures. This conclusion was grounded on the basis of existing domestic and international law provisions and was the first decision by any court in the world to order a state to limit greenhouse gas emissions for reasons other than statutory mandates. [7]

The second is Future Generations v Ministry of the Environment and Others. [8] Here, twenty-five youth plaintiffs sued several bodies within the Colombian government to enforce their rights to a healthy environment, life, health, food, and water. This was in response to the government’s failure to reduce deforestation and ensure compliance with a target for zero-net deforestation in the Colombia Amazon by 2020. Crucially, the obligation was enshrined in the Paris Climate Accords and the country’s National Development Plan 2014-2018. The Supreme Court examined the State’s fulfillment of its obligations and concluded the government had not adequately formulated and implemented action plans to address deforestation in the Amazon. The Court thus ordered the government to create such a framework. This decision was significant in that it identified the corollary of health, freedom, and human dignity as the environment and the ecosystem.

Third, in Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland [9], the Supreme Court of Ireland quashed the government’s deficient National Mitigation Plan. The Plan had failed to specify the manner in which it was proposed to “transition to a low carbon, climate-resilient, and environmentally sustainable economy” by 2050. [10] The Supreme Court, therefore, ordered the government to create a new plan which was compliant with the 2015 Climate Act. 

This body of strategic climate cases marks a pivotal shift in the approach to climate litigation. Free from the shackles of politics, the courts are bold in the critiques of their respective governments and are comfortable to conclude that a government’s mitigation policies do not comply with the law. However, recourse to the judiciary is not an all-encompassing solution to climate change. By their very constitutional nature, they do not possess the power to enforce their judgments. Furthermore, the courts are limited by the current domestic and international legislation in force in their jurisdiction. This is entirely shaped by the will of the legislature, and to a large extent, the executive. Thus, their ability to mitigate the effects of climate change is limited. 

This was evident in La Rose et al v Her Majesty the Queen. [11] In this case, fifteen youths alleged that Canada emits and contributes to emitting greenhouse gases that are incompatible with a stable climate. [12] However, the Supreme Court dismissed the case. It was held that Canada’s conduct is not justiciable as there was no particular constitutional right to environmental protection or for that matter, an all-encompassing climate law. The Supreme Court was therefore hesitant to interpret the law to meet the existential threat of climate change [13], stating that it “cannot circumvent its constitutional boundaries.” [14] 

A popular response to the deficiencies of the executive and judiciary is to advocate for grassroots solutions. This was a significant feature of the recent COP26 conference. A Brazilian indigenous tribe urgently called for the protection of indigenous territories and rights as they are “part of the solution.” [15] Fundamentally, those who are directly affected by climate change will bring a greater level of urgency and a deeper understanding of what mitigation measures should be implemented. Furthermore, such a response is not shrouded in unnecessary bureaucracy. Examples include ‘Predator Free New Zealand 2050’ which is a biodiversity conservation initiative combining Māori environmental principles with the skills and knowledge of agricultural workers, and the ‘Transition Town Movement’ which is creating self-sustaining economies through local food security and community owner energy production. 

However, grassroots solutions are small-scale and fail to make a significant impact on the global climate crisis. Nevertheless, certain principles from such an approach can be synthesised with the judiciary’s authority to create a coherent and effective response to climate change. These principles include the pace with which the solution is implemented, contextual knowledge of the environment, and agency for those directly affected by the crisis. 

The potential for a combined judicial and grassroots approach could potentially stem from Montana v United States. [16] While this case predates the recent climate change movement, it embodies foundational principles that are necessary for the hybrid approach proposed. The key issue was whether the Crow Tribe of Montana retained regulatory authority over hunting and fishing on reservation land owned in fee-simple (an absolute right to the estate) by non-Indians. The Supreme Court held that tribes do not have inherent sovereign power to exercise civil jurisdiction over activities occurring on fee-simple reservation land owned by members unless it conforms to stringent conditions. Subsequent case law has interpreted this ruling narrowly, holding that conduct must imperil the subsistence of the tribal community in order for jurisdiction to be exercised. However, it is possible for future interpretation of this dicta to evolve, and enable Indigenous communities to tackle climate catastrophes taking place on their reservations. This is a phenomenon that pervades many Indian reservations. For example, the rise in sea level at Newton or the mega-fires at Colville. [17] Therefore, a wider reading of Montana v United States could have a tangible impact on communities feeling the deleterious effects of climate change.

The courts have gone some way to filling the leadership vacuum created by government inaction on climate change. They have enabled claimants to seek redress for their grievances and ensured that governments live up to their obligations, both on the domestic and international planes. However, understandably, the role of the courts is circumscribed by constitutional structures. Taking principles from grassroots solutions, a hybrid solution can be embraced as the ‘rain’ to the leadership ‘drought’.

by Ayra Ali

This Roundtable was edited by Phillip Le and Aishlinn Kivlighn

Section 1 Citations

[1] Meyer, Robinson. “How the U.S. Protects the Environment, from Nixon to Trump.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, March 29, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/how-the-epa-and-us-environmental-law-works-a-civics-guide-pruitt-trump/521001/. 

[2] Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984)

[3] “Recent Trend in Environmental Litigation: Public Nuisance Cases against Regulated Entities for Air Pollution.” SGR Law, November 22, 2019. https://sgrlaw.com/recent-trend-in-environmental-litigation-public-nuisance-cases-against-regulated-entities-for-air-pollution/. 

[4] Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U. S. 497 (2007)

[5] “Case Western Reserve Law Review.” Accessed December 2, 2021. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1747&context=caselrev. 

[6] “Atmospheric Trust Litigation in the United States ... - GW Law.” Accessed December 2, 2021. https://www.law.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2351/f/downloads/AbateClimateJusticeBookch20copyright.pdf. 

[7] Protecting the environment using Human Rights Law. Council of Europe. (n.d.). Retrieved January 4, 2022, from https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/human-rights-environment 

[8] New York Dec denies Danskammer and Astoria fracked gas plant permits. Sierra Club. (2021, October 29). Retrieved January 4, 2022, from https://www.sierraclub.org/environmental-law/new-york-dec-denies-danskammer-and-astoria-fracked-gas-plant-permits 

Section 2 Citations 

[1] Walkovszky v. Carlton, 18 N.Y.2d 414

[2] Truck Ins. Exchange v. Swanson, 124 Nev. 629

[3] [2013] UKSC 34

[4] Chandler v Cape [2015] EWCA Civ 525

[5] Edwards Co. v. Monogram Industries, Inc., 730 F.2d 977

[6] Jablonsky v. Klemm, 377 N.W.2d 560

[7] Christopher Peterson (Attorney, Husch Blackwell), 'Piercing the Corporate Veil by Tort Creditors' [2017] 13(1) Journal of Business & Technology Law 63

[8] See Lord Sumption’s lead judgment in Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 at [28]

[9] See Lady Hale’s partial concurrence in Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34 at [92]

[10] See Trinity Industries Inc v. Greenlease Holding Co., No. 16-2244 (3d Cir. 2018). Although not a tort case, the corporate veil was pierced to impose liability on the parent for environmental harms.

[11] Christopher Peterson, 'Piercing the Corporate Veil by Tort Creditors' [2017] 13(1) Journal of Business & Technology Law 63

[12] Christopher Peterson, 'Piercing the Corporate Veil by Tort Creditors' [2017] 13(1) Journal of Business & Technology Law 63

[13] [2013] UKSC 34

Section 3 Citations: 

[1] Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Children's Rights and the Environment: Report to the Human Rights Council on the Rights of Children and the Environment, OHCHR (2018), https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/environment/srenvironment/pages/environmentandrightschild.aspx.

[2] "Four Principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child." Unicef. Last modified June 24, 2019. Accessed December 6, 2021. https://www.unicef.org/armenia/en/stories/four-principles-convention-rights-child.

[3] "The Impacts of Climate Change Put Almost Every Child at Risk." Unicef. Last modified August 19, 2021. Accessed December 6, 2021. https://www.unicef.org/stories/impacts-climate-change-put-almost-every-child-risk.

[4] S. C, "Why Won't America Ratify the UN Convention on Children's Rights?," The Economist (NY), October 7, 2013, accessed December 6, 2021, https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/10/06/why-wont-america-ratify-the-un-convention-on-childrens-rights.

[5] Lorraine Stewart, John Kemm, and Patrick Joseph Saunders, Children's Environment and Health Action Plan (CEHAP): Pilot Environmental Health Indicators Toolkit (Chilton: Health Protection Agency, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, 2010).

[6] https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2593

[7] Id. 

[8] City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc, 473 S. Ct. (July 1, 1985). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/432/. 

Section 4 Citations

[1] IPCC Working Group I, Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC (2021), online at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf (visited 11 December, 2021)

[2] Henry Mance, Political Inaction is dragging the UK deeper into the climate crisis, Financial Times (2021), online at https://www.ft.com/content/5fc8178e-fda9-41e3-b0f3-a9dd002e7f8b (visited 11 December, 2021)

[3] In battle against climate change, courts become a new frontier, United Nations Environment Programme (2021), online at https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/battle-against-climate-change-courts-become-new-frontier (visited 11 December, 2021)

[4] Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review, United Nations Environment Programme (2021), online at https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-climate-litigation-report-2020-status-review (visited 11 December, 2021)

[5] Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (2015) HAZA C/09/00456689

[6] Urgenda Foundation v. State of the Netherlands, Climate Case Chart (2015), online at http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/urgenda-foundation-v-kingdom-of-the-netherlands/ (visited 11 December, 2021)

[7] Id.

[8] Future Generations v Ministry of the Environment (2018) 11001 22 03 000 2018 00319 00

[9] Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland (2017) No. 793 JR

[10] National Mitigation Plan, Government of Ireland (2017), online at https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/48d4e-national-mitigation-plan/ (visited 11 December, 2021)

[11] La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen (2019) T-1750-19

[12] La Rose v. Her Majesty the Queen, Climate Case Chart (2019), online at http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/la-rose-v-her-majesty-the-queen/ (visited 11 December, 2021)

[13] Jason MacLean, Why the youth climate court case failed, and what’s next for Canadian climate policy, The Conversation (2020), online at https://theconversation.com/why-the-youth-climate-court-case-failed-and-whats-next-for-canadian-climate-policy-149064 (visited 11 December, 2021)

[14] La Rose et al v Her Majesty the Queen 

[15] Anthony Boadle, Brazil indigenous people tell COP26: you need us to solve climate crisis, Reuters (2021), online at https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/brazil-indigenous-people-tell-cop26-you-need-us-solve-climate-crisis-2021-11-01/ (visited 11 December, 2021)

[16] Montana v United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981)

[17] Dylan R. Hedden-Nicely, Tribal Regulatory Authority to Combat Climate Change, The Regulatory Review (2021), online at https://www.theregreview.org/2021/03/22/hedden-nicely-tribal-regulatory-authority-climate-change/ (visited 11 December, 2021)