Harmonizing Regulatory and Litigation Approaches to Climate Change Mitigation: Incorporating Tradable Emissions Offsets into Common Law Remedies
Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 07-10
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 155, p. 1563, 2007
42 Pages Posted: 8 Mar 2007
This article argues that courts should allow defendants, held liable for contributing to the state common law public nuisance of global warming, to comply with a judicial abatement order with the use of emissions offset credits purchased or otherwise obtained from third parties. Such an option would be in contrast to the usual remedy in a public nuisance suit: changes, by the defendant, to its own operations in order to abate its contribution to the public nuisance. In addition to the benefit of cost-effectiveness, I argue that this option could trigger a greenhouse gas emissions trading market. Such a market could function until such time as a federal regulatory program is enacted. Given that the federal program is likely to allow emissions trading, the market would enhance the success of the subsequent regulatory program.
Keywords: climate change, tradable emissions credits, states, litigation, public nuisance, common law, greenhouse gases, utilities, California, federal regulation
JEL Classification: K13, K32
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
By Mark A. Lemley and Carl Shapiro
Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents
By John R. Allison and Mark A. Lemley
By John R. Allison, Mark A. Lemley, ...
Incentives to Challenge and Defend Patents: Why Litigation Won't Reliably Fix Patent Office Errors and Why Administrative Patent Review Might Help
By Joseph Farrell and Robert P. Merges
By Bhaven N. Sampat and Mark A. Lemley
Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations
By Mark A. Lemley and Kimberly A. Moore