{"id":1686,"date":"2013-10-01T15:33:38","date_gmt":"2013-10-01T19:33:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www3.law.harvard.edu\/journals\/elr\/?p=1686"},"modified":"2023-07-25T16:00:09","modified_gmt":"2023-07-25T20:00:09","slug":"bondvus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/2013\/10\/01\/bondvus\/","title":{"rendered":"A global solution to climate change: the possible impact of Bond v. United States"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"SKY_rainclouds_WY_alecharris\"<\/a>By Theresa Borden — Oct. 1, 2013 at 3:33pm<\/em><\/p>\n

New legislation to deal with the global problem of climate change may seem politically unrealistic given the current inhospitable environment in Congress, but there are reasons to think that the prospect of reaching an international agreement may be more viable now than it was in the past.\u00a0 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon recently called for world leaders to meet<\/a> in anticipation of the 2015 international climate meeting in Paris and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently announced<\/a> that humans are the dominant cause of global warming since the 1950s. \u00a0Although climate change denial still exists in the U.S.<\/a>, the international community generally accepts the science.\u00a0 Interestingly, this could indicate that reaching an international agreement is easier than reaching a domestic agreement.\u00a0 Of course, Congressional action would still be necessary to ratify any treaty, but if the enumerated shortcomings<\/a> of the Kyoto Protocol are addressed in the 2015 negotiations, domestic action may be facilitated, especially if the President stands behind the agreement.<\/p>\n

But even if the legislature and the executive get behind an international climate change agreement, there is still the judiciary.\u00a0 The Supreme Court recently granted cert for Bond v. U.S.<\/i><\/a>, which challenges Congressional authority to enact a federal statute enforcing the Chemical Weapons Convention on the grounds that it intrudes on areas of police power reserved to the states. \u00a0The Court found that Ms. Bond lacks standing to bring a claim that applying the chemical weapons treaty to her violated the Tenth Amendment, thus avoiding revisiting Missouri v. Holland<\/i>.\u00a0 However, the Court did certify one question that may have implications for international climate change agreements: \u201cDo the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations?\u201d<\/p>\n

Although Bond<\/i> may not have a direct effect on international climate change negotiations, it could provide some guidance on how to frame the scope of the treaty and the government\u2019s treaty obligations.\u00a0 If an international agreement is reached, the U.S. must promulgate implementing legislation that will pass not only the political process, but also judicial review — it is possible that climate change deniers will try to undermine any climate change agreement in court. \u00a0Bond<\/i>, along with EPA v. EME Homer City Generation<\/i><\/a>,[1]<\/a> will provide some insight into how the Court determines the scope of \u201ctraditional state prerogatives\u201d and how such considerations play out in environmental regulation.<\/p>\n

Meaningful climate change regulation is inevitable; the question is when it will come.\u00a0 Environmentalists must be aware of not only possible political solutions, but also potential fallout of judicial determinations.\u00a0 If an international deal is brokered, it would be counterproductive to provide domestic dissenters with any fodder to challenge it.\u00a0 Hopefully the Court will rule narrowly in Bond<\/i>, and not make any pronouncements that would confuse settled federal authority to regulate interstate pollution.\u00a0 Even if it would be preposterous for domestic dissenters to challenge federal authority on such grounds, the commerce clause challenge to the Affordable Care Act — which many commentators dismissed as irrelevant — cautions against completely ignoring the possibility.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[1]<\/a> Specifically, the Court\u2019s consideration of \u201cwhether states are excused from adopting state implementation plans prohibiting emissions that \u2018contribute significantly\u2019 to air pollution problems in other states until after the EPA has adopted a rule quantifying each state\u2019s inter-state pollution obligations.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Theresa Borden — Oct. 1, 2013 at 3:33pm New legislation to deal with the global problem of climate change […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":164,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[24,45,47,48,107,117,157,228,265],"class_list":["post-1686","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-helr-online","tag-bond-v-us","tag-climate-change","tag-climate-change-legislation","tag-climate-change-litigation","tag-epa-v-homer-city-generation","tag-federalism-concerns","tag-ipcc","tag-scotus","tag-treaty-obgliations"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/seZkUb-bondvus","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1686","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/164"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1686"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1686\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1686"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1686"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/elr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1686"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}