Blog

Net zero, or carbon neutral, policies are changing the discussions around reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But, even with the wide adoption of the idea, questions remain. How much does the public understand about net zero? How is the policy defined, and what are its goals? Most significantly, is it addressing climate justice?

This week, the D.C. Circuit hears three cases challenging the use of federal regulations to push adoption of electric vehicles and to allow California to forge a path toward zero-emission cars. If all three cases go badly, the regulatory system would be disabled from playing a role in this area. This would be a huge setback, though there are reasons to think that it would only delay, rather than prevent, the transition to clean cars.

In three weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court starts its 2023 Term. There are two blockbuster cases on the docket. In one case, the issue is whether to overrule the Chevron case, which has been foundational to administrative law for the past four decades. In the other, the issue is agency power to sanction violations of the law. Given the Court’s conservative supermajority, there’s a real threat to the power of agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue regulations and enforce the law.

Picture a food system where the responsibility for environmental disasters related to industrial agriculture no longer falls on the shoulders of taxpayers or small-scale farmers. Instead, it places the onus exactly where it should be — on the corporations and industrial operators who are reaping massive profits from the factory farming model. The tide is turning, and it’s high time for these corporations to take responsibility for the system they've created.

Under the Biden administration, the U.S. regulatory system is experiencing a welcome renaissance, changing the way agencies see their role in society and the relationship between policymaking and public participation. However, the regulatory process is still providing outsized opportunities for large, sophisticated "repeat players" to shape our public protections because of the “two-tiered” nature of public participation that currently exists.

Early on July 28, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released the proposed Phase II revisions of its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The CEQ proposal deftly threads the needle, streamlining the NEPA process while protecting the environment and disadvantaged communities.

Information is vitally important to our daily lives, yet when it comes to the context of an employment relationship, so often that information travels on a one-way street. Employers, through the hiring process, know everything from our basic information to whatever intimate details that may arise in a background check. Yet, the wealth of information that would be important for employees, prospective hires, and the general public rarely flows in the opposite direction.

Too much of the Biden administration's regulatory effort remains focused on reversing Trump administration environmental rulemakings. This defensive unwinding of rollbacks preoccupies progressive reformers at the expense of implementing a broader vision. A recent proposed Endangered Species Act (ESA) rule to restore a “blanket rule” for conserving newly listed threatened species illustrates how the Interior Department can get trapped the anti-regulatory framing of the prior administration.

The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, would significantly change the landscape of unionization, strengthen protections and the bargaining position of workers, and create a better balance in the employer-employee relationship. But as it currently stands, the PRO Act's sponsors have not been able to advance the bill beyond the 60-vote threshold needed to defeat a Senate filibuster. Is there a way forward for the legislation?