Damages, Injunctions, and Climate Justice: A Reply to Jonathan Zasloff
Kirsten H. Engel
University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law
March 1, 2011
UCLA Law Review Discourse, Vol. 58, p. 189, 2011
Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 10-40
This short essay responds to a 2007 article by Professor Jonathan Zasloff previously published in the UCLA Law Review. It argues that Zasloff's proposal that U.S. plaintiffs sue to recover climate damages from U.S. defendants will result in overcompensating U.S. plaintiffs to the potential detriment of persons in the rest of the whose claim to damages from U.S. defendant emitters is even stronger than that of U.S. plaintiffs. Hence, the essay argues that climate damages are best left to an international institution capable of adjudicating the competing claims of the world's population to climate damages. Nevertheless, the essay also argues that a carbon tax - Zasloff's proposed standard for the award of climate damages -- could supply courts with the missing metric for determining the appropriate level by which defendants should be required to abate their emissions.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 19
Keywords: Climate Change, Damages, Injunctions, Nuisance, Litigation, Environmental Justice, Carbon Tax
JEL Classification: K13, K32, K41Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: November 5, 2010 ; Last revised: March 4, 2011
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.406 seconds