Two Arguments Against Environmental Impact Assessment for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Abstract

The paper argues that Climate Impact Assessment (CIA), as promoted by Mayer and others, is not required by international law, both because it makes no sense in itself and because international law has limited the EIA requirement (which CIA purports to extend to the causes of global warming) to transboundary situations only. The paper is an extended version of the actual book chapter.

Keywords: climate change; Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA); Climate Impact Assessment (CIA); Rocky Hill case; market substitution argument; Trail Smelter case; no-harm principle