Damages, Injunctions, and Climate Justice: A Reply to Jonathan Zasloff

19 Pages Posted: 5 Nov 2010 Last revised: 4 Mar 2011

See all articles by Kirsten H. Engel

Kirsten H. Engel

University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law

Date Written: March 1, 2011

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Climate Change, Damages, Injunctions, Nuisance, Litigation, Environmental Justice, Carbon Tax

JEL Classification: K13, K32, K41

Suggested Citation

Engel, Kirsten H., Damages, Injunctions, and Climate Justice: A Reply to Jonathan Zasloff (March 1, 2011). UCLA Law Review Discourse, Vol. 58, p. 189, 2011; Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 10-40. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1703004

Kirsten H. Engel (Contact Author)

University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 210176
Tucson, AZ 85721-0176
United States
520-621-5444 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
54
Abstract Views
618
rank
375,124
PlumX Metrics