#Are there any government grants available to help businesses with data security compliance? | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

The KCSC sent more than 20K requests to delete posts related to prostitution and porn to Tumblr from January to June 2017.

#Are there any government grants available to help businesses with data security compliance?

daphned1166306 · 6 days

Text

How Accounting Firms Can Help Your Business Navigate Financial Challenges During Economic Downturns

Economic downturns can be challenging for businesses of all sizes. When the economy takes a hit, companies often face financial stress, fluctuating revenue, and uncertain market conditions. In such times, having a trusted partner by your side can make all the difference. Accounting firms in Abu Dhabi are uniquely positioned to provide crucial support during these difficult periods. Here’s how these firms can help your business navigate financial challenges and emerge stronger.

1. Financial Analysis and Forecasting

During an economic downturn, understanding your financial situation is paramount. Accounting firms in Abu Dhabi offer comprehensive financial analysis and forecasting services to help you:

Assess Cash Flow: Accurate cash flow analysis helps you understand your current liquidity position and plan for future cash needs. This is critical for managing day-to-day operations and avoiding liquidity crises.

Develop Financial Projections: By analyzing market trends and your business’s historical data, accounting firms can help you create realistic financial projections. These forecasts assist in budgeting and planning for different scenarios, ensuring you’re prepared for potential fluctuations.

2. Cost Management and Efficiency

Managing costs effectively is crucial when facing economic challenges. Accounting firms in Abu Dhabi can assist with:

Expense Review: Conducting a thorough review of your expenses to identify areas where cost-cutting is possible without compromising essential operations. This might include renegotiating contracts or finding more cost-effective suppliers.

Operational Efficiency: Providing insights into streamlining processes and improving operational efficiency. They can recommend changes that reduce waste and enhance productivity, helping you maintain profitability even in tough times.

3. Strategic Financial Planning

Strategic planning becomes even more important during economic downturns. Accounting firms can help by:

Developing Contingency Plans: Creating contingency plans to prepare for various financial scenarios. This includes strategies for managing reduced revenue, handling increased expenses, and navigating potential financial pitfalls.

Assessing Financial Risks: Identifying and evaluating financial risks specific to your industry and business. Accounting firms help you understand these risks and develop strategies to mitigate them.

4. Tax Planning and Compliance

Economic downturns often lead to changes in tax regulations and policies. Accounting firms in Abu Dhabi provide:

Tax Optimization: Advising on tax strategies to minimize liabilities and maximize deductions. They can help you take advantage of any available tax relief or incentives designed to support businesses during economic hardships.

Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring that your business complies with all relevant tax laws and regulations. This helps avoid penalties and ensures that your financial statements accurately reflect your situation.

5. Access to Financing

Securing financing can be challenging during economic downturns, but accounting firms can assist by:

Preparing Financial Statements: Helping prepare accurate and compelling financial statements required for loan applications or investor pitches. Well-prepared documents increase your chances of securing necessary funding.

Advising on Funding Options: Providing advice on various funding options, including traditional loans, government grants, or alternative financing solutions. They can help you choose the best option based on your business’s needs and situation.

6. Business Valuation

Understanding the value of your business is essential, especially if you’re considering restructuring or seeking investment. Accounting firms offer:

Accurate Valuation Services: Performing detailed business valuations to determine the fair market value of your company. This information is crucial for making informed decisions about selling, merging, or attracting investors.

7. Financial Reporting and Monitoring

Regular financial reporting and monitoring are essential for staying on top of your financial health. Accounting firms in Abu Dhabi provide:

Detailed Reports: Generating regular financial reports to track performance, monitor key metrics, and identify any emerging issues early. Timely reports enable you to make informed decisions and address problems proactively.

Performance Analysis: Analyzing financial performance against industry benchmarks and historical data to gauge your company’s standing and make necessary adjustments.

8. Expert Advice and Support

During uncertain times, having expert advice is invaluable. Accounting firms offer:

Strategic Consultation: Providing expert advice on navigating economic challenges and implementing effective strategies. Their insights can guide you through difficult decisions and help you find opportunities for growth.

Ongoing Support: Offering continuous support and guidance to help you adapt to changing circumstances and maintain financial stability.

Conclusion

Economic downturns present significant challenges, but partnering with a skilled accounting firm in Abu Dhabi can provide the support and expertise needed to navigate these difficulties successfully. From financial analysis and cost management to strategic planning and compliance, accounting firms offer essential services that help businesses stay resilient and thrive despite economic adversity. By leveraging their expertise, you can better manage your financial situation, optimize operations, and position your business for long-term success.

If you’re facing financial challenges and need expert guidance, consider reaching out to a trusted accounting firm in Abu Dhabi. Their professional support can make a crucial difference in steering your business through uncertain times and emerging stronger on the other side.

0 notes

xisosedu-blog · 5 years

Text

Fraud, Deceptions, and Downright Lies About Papua New Quinea Evisa Exposed

https://nl.ivisa.com/papua-new-guinea-e-visa

If that's your instance, you can delight in the simplicity of access to a Thailand visa on arrival also. Visitors might also have to pay a visa fee. So, they receive a business visa, but they are in fact working.

River cruise passengers with itineraries which include other Russian cities will require a visa. If anything you're carrying is deemed a quarantine risk, you will have to pay to get it fumigated, a process which can take several days, and should you get a same-day onward connecting flight, you can kiss your artefacts goodbye. The full day is devoted to the fabulous island of RHODES.

There are a lot of categories based on the aim of your visit. You are likely to also have to fill out a whole lot of forms. Quite frequently, you hear that people are not ready to wait and want someone there now. If money isn't too tight, employing an agent will help you save you a good deal of grief.

The Good, the Bad and Papua New Quinea Evisa In case your application is unsuccessful, the fee isn't refundable. These were developed to boost compliance and efficiency. To begin with, you ought to take care to read all of the guidance and application forms thoroughly before you start your application. In such situations, individuals will want to earn a fresh application.

Life After Papua New Quinea Evisa Papua New Guinea is on that list, meaning its nationals aren't dependent on a Thai diplomatic mission each time they desire to see Thailand. Passport from america of the America is most likely one of the strongest passports on the planet for travelling. Traveling to visa-free nations!

In case you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to speak to us. The interviewer will ask you a succession of questions to ascertain the reason behind your travel.

It's not ideal, which is the reason why you need to be careful. This will be dependent on the purpose and length of the visit (please refer to the proper entry category). Extensions cannot be granted while someone is outside the nation.

The Exchange Visitor (J-1) Visa program offers countless opportunities for global candidates seeking to travel and earn experience in the States. You will get the document above via e-mail, which is the reason why you need to be certain that the address you provide is valid. Visitors can discover an array oftraditional arts and crafts, like paintings and carvings, at quite sensible rates.

Getting the Best Papua New Quinea Evisa In such situations, the Former Entry Permit Holder is going to be given a specified time to depart PNG. Generally speaking, you're going to first have to make an application for a Papua New Guinea work permit.

Tourists can receive a visa at no charge on arrival. It's possible to get your visa upon arrival. If you intend to tour all on your own, a tourist visa is imperative.

| Also, a number of the links above could be advertisements or affiliate links, which means that I'll make a commission (at no extra cost to you) should you opt to click the links and earn a buy. To start with, you should fill in your general information like name, address, passport data, date of arrival in Thailand, etc. Both the letter and invitation needs to be written on the business's letterhead that you're working for.

How to Choose Papua New Quinea Evisa It's also a country of immense beauty and is well suited for an assortment of outdoor pursuits. Remember your choice dictates the price tag. Examine the spelling too.

A yellow fever vaccination certificate is required to get the visa. Before applying, you should ascertain the kind of visa you require. There are two methods to receive a tourist visa.

Life After Papua New Quinea Evisa Nevertheless, visa-on-arrival countries continue to be among the easiest destinations to see, exactly like visa-free nations. Passport from america of the America is most likely one of the strongest passports on the planet for travelling. Traveling to visa-free nations!

All your effort comprises the provision of information. Let's look at them. See here to learn more.

Getting the Best Papua New Quinea Evisa Indian citizens need to make an application for a visa before entering the country of Papua New Guinea. Generally speaking, you're going to first have to make an application for a Papua New Guinea work permit.

Whatever They Told You About Papua New Quinea Evisa Is Dead Wrong...And Here's Why Check with your river cruise line to learn if you're exempt. This includes overstaying a preceding admission by even 1 day. It's a less discovered destination that makes the trip even more adventurous.

There are not any internal borders to negotiate across the Schengen Area, which makes it simple move from 1 country to another. Visitors might also have to pay a visa fee. So, they receive a business visa, but they are in fact working.

Lies You've Been Told About Papua New Quinea Evisa The internet visa application only requires a couple of minutes to finish. In some instances, the entrance requirement isn't even an official visa. A couple of years ago, the Thai government chose to enable the release of visas on arrival for those members of 21 states.

In such situations, new wellness and character checks will be deemed necessary. That whole procedure is spelled out here. The organization offers visa expediting services, together with excellent support support.

| Austrade Port Moresby can offer such a support letter, especially if you are going to Papua New Guinea for the very first time. If you're looking for Papua New Guinea embassy Kathmandu to find some details you're on right location.

What Does Papua New Quinea Evisa Mean? An approved petition must make an application for a short-term employment visa. You may have to get visas or travel authorizations for a few of those nations. At this time there are a lot of distinct forms of visas available that can be gotten at Thai embassies and consulates.

Applicants should know that there's NO period of grace in connection with extensions. Relationships of over 12 months Where the relationship has been around for over 12 months, a Dependent Entry Permit is going to be issued in line with the Principals approved period of stay. After securing your work permit, you're then likely to need to acquire the Work Visa.

Also, a number of the links above could be advertisements or affiliate links, which means that I'll make a commission (at no extra cost to you) should you opt to click the links and earn a buy. You will get the document above via e-mail, which is the reason why you need to be certain that the address you provide is valid. Both the letter and invitation needs to be written on the business's letterhead that you're working for.

The Basic Facts of Papua New Quinea Evisa You should also think about checking with your transport provider or travel company to make certain your passport and other travel documents satisfy their requirements. This is a rather important area of the visa application procedure and it's helpful to understand what things to expect before you attend. As a consequence, you will need to repeat the procedure and pay again. It's essential toensure there are not any errors on the application form since this can cause delays.

You need to get a Papua New Guinea visa so as to go to Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinean citizens wishing to submit an application for a visa must start the process by arranging an appointment with an embassy. It is critical to obey the visa requirements for the Thai eVOA for Papua New Guineans as a way to apply and successfully get the visa.

The End of Papua New Quinea Evisa It's also a country of immense beauty and is well suited for an assortment of outdoor pursuits. Remember your choice dictates the price tag. By way of example, distance learning which demands a time period on the institution's U.S. campus demands an F-1 visa.

New Ideas Into Papua New Quinea Evisa Never Before Revealed There are not any internal borders to negotiate across the Schengen Area, which makes it simple move from 1 country to another. Visitors might also have to pay a visa fee. So, they receive a business visa, but they are in fact working.

Key Pieces of Papua New Quinea Evisa If you're on the planning stage of your journey, here, I'll examine the countries where US citizens don't need a visa to go into the nation. Whether you are in need of a visa as well as a valid passport for your cruise is a frequent question with a rather complicated answer. The internet application process usually means that travelers do not have to attend an embassy or consulate and can apply in just a couple of minutes.

All your effort comprises the provision of information. Let's look at them. If you don't know the address of the court, information can be found on the U.S. Courts website.

1 note · View note

themanojjain · 4 years

Text

The Growing Importance Of Third-Party Due Diligence

Companies often associate with third parties like suppliers, agents, consultants, and contractors. Associating with third parties can help improve the quality of products and services companies offer to their customers, meeting ever-fluctuating demands, and reducing the burden of doing the activities themselves. On the flip side, associating with third parties could also get a company into trouble if they are found dealing with the wrong third party.

In times where merely trusting someone blindly is considered unlikely, third-party due diligence is gaining importance. This due diligence should be conducted before entering into any form of contract or agreement with the third party. Depending on the third party’s country of origin or the type of services they offer, conducting an even more stringent the third party due diligence becomes imperative.

Importance Of Conducting A Third-Party Due DiligenceKnow Who You Are Associating With

Before finalizing any third party, it is important to know who exactly you are dealing with and the type of services they offer. Companies must collect basic information such as registration number, date of incorporation, address, owners/ promoters/ directors of the company, business/industry they operate in, customers, and source of funds. Companies should also go a step ahead and verify if this information is correct and recent as per government records and public filings.

Protect Yourself From Risks

Dealing with third parties can be risky as they might be indulging in money laundering, bribery, corruption, and other unlawful activities. A robust third party due diligence helps the company identify the risks associated with dealing with such third parties and accordingly how to manage these risks should affect business operations.

Protect Your Reputation

They say it takes years to build a brand image and only seconds to lose it. Some third parties have a bad reputation and associating with them could severely affect the strong reputation your company has built over the years. You need to ensure that you are associating with a third party with a good reputation as your customers will be trusting your judgment in dealing with only credible third parties.

Adherence To Regulations

Another reason to conduct during due diligence is to ensure the third party is following the relevant country’s regulations in terms of legality of the business, labor laws and employment, anti-bribery, anti-corruption, and money laundering. Contracting with a third party that employs child labor or exploits their employees by paying less than minimum wages is not a third party you would want to be associated with.

Avoid Dealing With Blacklisted Third Parties & High-Risk Individuals

Before associating with third parties, companies should check if that third party is blacklisted, part of a government sanction list, or law enforcement notices. Further, companies can also cross verify if the owners/ promoters/ directors of the third party are high-risk individuals or politically exposed persons. dealing with such third parties or individuals could affect your company's reputation and business.

Although conducting these checks might be cumbersome, consider it as an investment to protect your company and your brand. For when things go awry with your third party, your company would have to deal with the after-effects.

Implementing A Third Party Due Diligence FrameworkRisk Assessment

After gathering and verifying the third party information, companies need to conduct a risk assessment in order to categorize third parties into Low, High, and Risk ratings. Further, companies also need to consider the third party’s country of origin which could form a deciding factor in whether to associate with them or not.

Monitor Performance

Once the third party has been selected, companies can implement a process to monitor the third party’s performance on a continuous/ regular basis. companies can create an inventory of all their new and existing third parties, whether vendor onboarding has been completed or is up to date, products or services are provided in accordance with the contract at defined rates, and penalties are charged for non-adherence to the timelines or agreement.

Policies And Procedures In Place

Companies also need to have a well-defined framework that includes policies that clearly outline the company’s policy for the third party due diligence, vendor onboarding, and monitoring vendor performance. Companies also need to be document processes that state how the policies need to be implemented and the roles/ responsibilities of the persons involved.

Awareness Among Staff

Creating policies ad procedures is of no use unless the staff is aware of the policies and training on the processes. Periodic and regular training must be provided to employees so that they are well aware of what to check, any specific points to cross verify, and raising concerns on a timely basis to highlight any discrepancies before the third party is finalized and an agreement is signed.

Third-Party Due Diligence & Third-Party Risk Management

Creating a checklist when conducting Third-Party Due Diligence which covers checkpoints on Company information, Financials, Cyber Security Policies and Procedures, Political Connections, Reputation, and BCP/ DR plans would go a long way in understanding the third party before official onboarding them.

What starts out as the third party due diligence initially transforms into third party risk management eventually as once the third party is on board, the company needs to start monitoring the third party performance, managing the risks that are associated with them, ensuring adherence to contractual agreements, conducting audits to ensure compliance to the processes or the requirement for which the third party was hired.

Companies who have outsourced activities to third parties to avail their expertise, save on time, resources, or to assist them with services need to be doubly sure of who they are dealing with. Data breaches caused by third-party firms, business being affected due to the absence of a BCP/DR plan in place at the third party, and simply over-reliance on third parties could bring your business to a standstill in the event of an emergency. Third-party risks, due diligence, and risk management can no longer be taken for granted. It took one pandemic for the world to realize how truly prepared they were for the tough times ahead.

How Riskpro can help you?

Riskpro offers Third-Party Due Diligence, Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) consulting, and TPRM software. For more details or a software demo, contact us at [email protected]

#importance of third party due diligence #due diligence #Third party risk management #risk assessment

0 notes

uhhhcool · 4 years

Text

Neosho Contractor Bond

The below article is an excellent intro to bid bonds. Bid bonds, as you know, are bonds utilized in the building and construction industry. These bonds ensure that if somebody quotes on a project, and is awarded the contract, then they will move forward with performing under the regards to the agreement.

See the below short article for more excellent information. You can see the initial short article here: https://swiftbonds.com/license-permit-bonds/contractor-bond-neosho/

Neosho Contractor Bond

What is a Contractor Bond in Neosho?

A Contractor Bond is a type of license bond. The purpose of the bond is to protect the state or governmental entity for certain things, such as the payment of taxes.

To get this bond, please see our Contractor Bond Application Form. Fill this out and mail to [email protected]

You can also Apply On Line by clicking on this link.

How Much does a Contractor Bond Cost in Neosho?

Just fill out the form below and we’ll have you a quote in a few hours – at the absolute best possible rate.

How do I get a Contractor Bond?

We make it easy to get a Contractor Bond in Neosho. Fill out the form above and we’ll get right on this for you.

How Does this Process Work in Missouri?

Once we get the Contractor Bond application back from you, we process it right away. We typically have an answer within a few hours. Once you get approved, we’ll let you know the exact fee. Then:

You send us the fee

We send you the bond

For certain bonds, we may send you original forms to fill out (depends on the type of bond)

Then we’ll get the Contractor Bond right out to you. Easy.

Neosho Contractor Bond Application Form Fill this out and mail to [email protected]

Apply On Line

Find a Contractor Bond Near Me

We’ll work as hard as possible to get you the bond that you need in Missouri.

Find out more about our Permit and License Bonds

Clear-Cut Guidelines When Looking At Permit Bonds Resolved

License and permit bonds are incredibly required to every business or operation that involves making any amount of profit. Most governments require that you have a permit bond for all your operations that include a consumer. You should get the bond to get the license or permit for your business. The surety bond is a type of an insurance that guarantees the delivery of a service or infrastructure project to customers. In this case, any contractor who is unable to deliver the required project result shall face feasible quandaries. On this article, we discuss the details, which include the importance, and how you can get a permit bond.

Determining License And Permit Bonds

The kind of license and permit surety bond that you’ll need for your company may vary depending on the industry or category of your methods. The difference is the function, and how the bond protects the consumer.

Types of Surety Bonds

You’ll find several kinds of surety bonds, which include:

The principal purpose of license and permit bond is to help the clients recover particular amount of cash in case the contractor is unable to deliver, and also to provide them the right to sue the failing contractor. Should the contractor default, for example, he or she will unquestionably face legal action due to non-compliance in governmental rules and regulations and the mutual agreement into with the customers. As a result, you have to consider not violating any laws for this may result in considerable loss for your company since you need to satisfy the financial damages done by your actions. Remember that governmental laws are always of high importance.

Performance bonds, alternatively, help the customers get insurance. It is necessary for contractors to supply result on the agreed date in cases of infrastructure projects. Portion of the quality services is meeting all specifications requested by the consumer. In case of failure to comply, the client has the right to recover particular amount of the whole project cost through the help of the performance bond. This right and privilege is based on the argument that professional contractors have the skills, tools, and machineries to obtain the job done as prescribed, therefore there is no reason for the contractor to violate rules. But, in some cases, contractors fail to deliver. Nonetheless, the client won’t suffer any loss.

Importance Of License And Permit Bonds

Now that you have learned why you need to get a license and permit bond, the next thing you need to learn is the significance of securing your company with these bonds.

Flawless Systematic Work

According to the requirements of the government, there are specific rules and procedures to be followed in doing a systematic work. Let us take for instance a construction project, the systematic flow of processes are defined in the license bonds. The contractor who is involved to this operation must then follow this system.

Insurance

Permit bonds serve as an insurance to customers who involved specialist help. It implies that the customer will be compensated for a particular proportion of the project should it fail. If a professional does not manage to provide what he or she promises, you will need to sue his or her bond and you are going to get compensation totaling to the bond’s specifications.

Actions Involved In The Application

Following the right processes in acquiring license and permit bond is the easiest method to obtain it. The following are the easy measures that you should follow when obtaining license and permit bond.

The Online Form

If you are applying online, the first thing you have to do is to fill out the form. Using the online platform of an approved forum is perhaps the fastest way to obtain this online application form. This implies that you have to not only choose a platform that has the application form, but also make certain that it has verification. Aside from correctness and completeness, you also need to make sure the truthfulness of the info you put in the form.

Getting A Quote

Next step after submitting the application is the quote, which indicates the amount you have to pay. Remember, the quote is dependent upon the amount of the project you indicated in the application form. So make certain that your figures are correct. The quote only comes after you apply and your application is successful.

Payment

Finally, you have to pay the surety bond after acquiring a quote. Your payment allows you to get the license and permit bond.

While Filling The Form;

When filling out the form, don’t lie. It’s because doing so will simply result in problems, like legal action. The government is cautious while checking this info. So even though you do not have a great credit score, it’s still essential that you provide the correct data to your surety bond.

About The License And Permit Bonds

To understand more about the need and significance of acquiring license and permit bonds, below are a few essential bits of info that you should learn.

For instance, permit and license bonds are worth a particular sum of money. Let us take for example the whole project cost is $500,000. This isn’t the full amount insured to surety bonds. In this case, only a relative portion of the whole project cost is insured with the performance bond. Generally, the amount that a contractor needs to pay money for a performance bond is just about 1% of its insured value.

Licensing

From the word itself, “performance” bond, it guarantees that the contractor will carry out or deliver the required project result because they are bonded with a surety. If you are a contractor, you need to as a result comply with this governmental requirement in order to avoid legal cases with your customers.

There are only approved issuing company so do not forget to bear in mind that when acquiring a bond. An ideal way not to make a mistake is by educating yourself with the different kinds of bonds through professional help.

See our Saint Charles Contractor Bond page here.

A Much Deeper Appearance At Bid Bonds in Building And Construction A Quote Bond is a type of surety bond utilized to guarantee that a professional bidding on a project or job will get in into the agreement with the obligee if granted.

A Bid Bond is provided in the quantity of the agreement bid, with the identical requirements as that of a Performance Bond.

All About Quote Bonds in Building The origins of our business was closely linked with the provision of performance bonds to the contracting market. It found that the personal contractor usually was insolvent when the task was awarded, or grew to end up being insolvent earlier than the challenge was completed.

The standing of your surety company is essential, since it ensures you that when you have problems or if even worse includes worst you'll have a trustworthy partner to rely on and get aid from. We work only with A-rated and T-listed companies, probably the most trustworthy corporations in the industry.

Usually no, they are different. However, bid bonds mechanically develop into efficiency bonds in case you are granted the contract.

What Is A Building And Construction Surety Bond? The origins of our business was thoroughly related to the provision of performance bonds to the contracting industry. Even if some jobs do not need expense and performance bonds, you will require to get bonded finally since the majority of public efforts do require the bonds. The longer a little contractor waits to get bonded, the more long lasting it will be because there will not be a observe report of meeting the obligatory requirements for bonding and carrying out bonded work.

It's your pre-authorized bond limits. Bond pressures accept single and mix limits. The only restrict is the greatest bond you may get for one particular task. The aggregate limitation is the entire amount of bonded work readily available you potentially can have without hold-up.

The Value Of Bid Bonds near You Arms, generators, radio towers, tree removal, computer systems, softward, fire alarms, decorative work, scaffolding, water towers, lighting, and resurfacing of existing roads/paved locations. Bid bonds in addition function an additional assurance for job owners that a bidding professional or subcontractor is qualified to execute the job they're bidding on. There are two causes for this.

https://swiftbonds.com/license-permit-bonds/contractor-bond-neosho/

0 notes

delspanda · 4 years

Text

Neosho Contractor Bond

See the below short article for more excellent information. You can see the initial short article here: https://swiftbonds.com/license-permit-bonds/contractor-bond-neosho/

Neosho Contractor Bond

What is a Contractor Bond in Neosho?

A Contractor Bond is a type of license bond. The purpose of the bond is to protect the state or governmental entity for certain things, such as the payment of taxes.

To get this bond, please see our Contractor Bond Application Form. Fill this out and mail to [email protected]

You can also Apply On Line by clicking on this link.

How Much does a Contractor Bond Cost in Neosho?

Just fill out the form below and we’ll have you a quote in a few hours – at the absolute best possible rate.

How do I get a Contractor Bond?

We make it easy to get a Contractor Bond in Neosho. Fill out the form above and we’ll get right on this for you.

How Does this Process Work in Missouri?

Once we get the Contractor Bond application back from you, we process it right away. We typically have an answer within a few hours. Once you get approved, we’ll let you know the exact fee. Then:

You send us the fee

We send you the bond

For certain bonds, we may send you original forms to fill out (depends on the type of bond)

Then we’ll get the Contractor Bond right out to you. Easy.

Neosho Contractor Bond Application Form Fill this out and mail to [email protected]

Apply On Line

Find a Contractor Bond Near Me

We’ll work as hard as possible to get you the bond that you need in Missouri.

Find out more about our Permit and License Bonds

Clear-Cut Guidelines When Looking At Permit Bonds Resolved

Determining License And Permit Bonds

Types of Surety Bonds

You’ll find several kinds of surety bonds, which include:

Importance Of License And Permit Bonds

Now that you have learned why you need to get a license and permit bond, the next thing you need to learn is the significance of securing your company with these bonds.

Flawless Systematic Work

Insurance

Actions Involved In The Application

The Online Form

Getting A Quote

Payment

Finally, you have to pay the surety bond after acquiring a quote. Your payment allows you to get the license and permit bond.

While Filling The Form;

About The License And Permit Bonds

To understand more about the need and significance of acquiring license and permit bonds, below are a few essential bits of info that you should learn.

Licensing

See our Saint Charles Contractor Bond page here.

A Bid Bond is provided in the quantity of the agreement bid, with the identical requirements as that of a Performance Bond.

Usually no, they are different. However, bid bonds mechanically develop into efficiency bonds in case you are granted the contract.

https://swiftbonds.com/license-permit-bonds/contractor-bond-neosho/

0 notes

aestheticsharry · 4 years

Text

Neosho Contractor Bond

See the below short article for more excellent information. You can see the initial short article here: https://swiftbonds.com/license-permit-bonds/contractor-bond-neosho/

Neosho Contractor Bond

What is a Contractor Bond in Neosho?

A Contractor Bond is a type of license bond. The purpose of the bond is to protect the state or governmental entity for certain things, such as the payment of taxes.

To get this bond, please see our Contractor Bond Application Form. Fill this out and mail to [email protected]

You can also Apply On Line by clicking on this link.

How Much does a Contractor Bond Cost in Neosho?

Just fill out the form below and we’ll have you a quote in a few hours – at the absolute best possible rate.

How do I get a Contractor Bond?

We make it easy to get a Contractor Bond in Neosho. Fill out the form above and we’ll get right on this for you.

How Does this Process Work in Missouri?

Once we get the Contractor Bond application back from you, we process it right away. We typically have an answer within a few hours. Once you get approved, we’ll let you know the exact fee. Then:

You send us the fee

We send you the bond

For certain bonds, we may send you original forms to fill out (depends on the type of bond)

Then we’ll get the Contractor Bond right out to you. Easy.

Neosho Contractor Bond Application Form Fill this out and mail to [email protected]

Apply On Line

Find a Contractor Bond Near Me

We’ll work as hard as possible to get you the bond that you need in Missouri.

Find out more about our Permit and License Bonds

Clear-Cut Guidelines When Looking At Permit Bonds Resolved

Determining License And Permit Bonds

Types of Surety Bonds

You’ll find several kinds of surety bonds, which include:

Importance Of License And Permit Bonds

Now that you have learned why you need to get a license and permit bond, the next thing you need to learn is the significance of securing your company with these bonds.

Flawless Systematic Work

Insurance

Actions Involved In The Application

The Online Form

Getting A Quote

Payment

Finally, you have to pay the surety bond after acquiring a quote. Your payment allows you to get the license and permit bond.

While Filling The Form;

About The License And Permit Bonds

To understand more about the need and significance of acquiring license and permit bonds, below are a few essential bits of info that you should learn.

Licensing

See our Saint Charles Contractor Bond page here.

A Bid Bond is provided in the quantity of the agreement bid, with the identical requirements as that of a Performance Bond.

Usually no, they are different. However, bid bonds mechanically develop into efficiency bonds in case you are granted the contract.

https://swiftbonds.com/license-permit-bonds/contractor-bond-neosho/

0 notes

georgewagner · 4 years

Text

Tipped for success: 5 learnings for one-person businesses

If you’re self-employed or a small business owner, you have to take on multiple roles to make sure everything runs smoothly. From doing tax returns to attracting new customers through marketing, you become a master of all trades!

To help lighten the load, here are some of the tools, tips and tricks that enable small businesses to thrive. Implement these into your business’ plans and processes if you haven’t already, to set yourself up for success.

Use apps

You may often find yourself working on the go. There are thousands of mobile apps that will not only allow you to do this, but that will also streamline the way you complete your tasks.

For example, a task manager app on your smartphone will help you to focus on the most important jobs of the day, whilst accounting apps will help you to keep track of your daily expenses – this is especially useful for maintaining compliance with the government’s compulsory Making Tax Digital service.

Other types of app that you may want to check out include:

Office software apps, such as Microsoft 365 for Microsoft Word or Excel.

Cloud storage apps, like Google Drive, iCloud and Dropbox, which allow you to store your documents in secure online data centres which can be accessed from anywhere.

Time tracking apps, to identify how you’re spending your time – some break down where you spend your time by website/app, whereas others send you notifications if you spend too much time on one activity.

Automate admin

Did you know that micro businesses spend ten weeks just on financial admin every year, according to research by Starling Bank?

If you’re currently taking the traditional paper invoice route, you may want to consider moving to an online invoicing system. ‘E-invoicing’ speeds up the whole process, allows you to track the payment status and creates a secure audit trail – meaning you won’t have to search through piles of paperwork to sort out your tax return. It’s better for the environment, too! Check out our 5 simple tips for speedier invoicing for more helpful suggestions.

It’s also useful to keep a balance sheet (a financial statement of your assets, liabilities and capital) and have a profit and loss account (a financial statement summarising your revenues, costs and expenses).

There are more tools to help you save time on other areas of admin. With a Rated People account, you’ll have access to our Lead Tracker feature. It’s your one-stop-shop which organises your work, allowing you to see all the details of your customer job leads at a glance, as well as showing you how much value each lead is bringing in.

Strengthen your stock

In the peak of the coronavirus (or COVID-19) lockdown, lots of builders’ merchants were either closed completely, or only offering online orders (if you could get a slot!). So, it’s a good idea to stock up on the key materials that you wouldn’t be able to work without, especially with demand for home improvement work currently increasing.

There’s no need to overstock on everything, though. As a one-person business, you’ll likely have a tight monthly budget, so don’t tie up your cash in excess inventory.

You can keep track of how much stock you’ve got available by creating a simple inventory spreadsheet. Create a table which shows how much you’ve got of each product, then set up a reminder on your phone to check your stock levels every couple of weeks or months (how often depends on how large your inventory is). This will help you to recognise when you need to top up certain products or equipment before you go right down to the wire.

Find out which builders’ merchants are open to tradespeople on our Trade Advice Centre.

Find your USP

A unique selling proposition (USP) is a feature of your business that makes it better than the competition. For example, Nike’s USP is that it offers the best shoes for athletes and people who want to excel in fitness.

Now that lockdown’s easing and government initiatives such as the Green Homes Grant have been recently announced, thousands of people are searching each week for tradespeople to complete jobs in their homes.

Once you have your USP, you’ll become more confident and focused on delivering the service that these potential customers need and want. It will also help you to attract new customers, as they’ll know exactly what you can offer them and why they should work with you.

You can find your USP by:

1. Comparing yourself to your competitors

Start off by listing the features and benefits of your service or product. Then, identify the aspects of your service or product that your competitors can’t easily copy. Next, you should identify the features of your business that you want to improve.

For example, if you’re a decorator who creates bespoke murals, that’s something that could be unique to your business. However, if you know that this makes your product more expensive than your competitors’, then you won’t want to focus on price in your USP.

2. Putting yourself in your customer’s shoes

Apart from your product or service, think about what your customer is looking for from your business. This could be reliability, good customer service or convenience, for example.

3. Translating your USP into a short phrase

Once you’ve identified your key benefits and your customers’ needs, you can create a short sentence to summarise them.

An example of a USP:

Made-to-order, creative murals that are handcrafted by a family run decorating business – for homeowners that want more than your regular paint job.

You can share your USP on your social media platforms, website and directories. If you have a Rated People account, then it’s a good idea to include your USP in your company description – it’s one of the first things a potential customer will see! Find out how to update this section of your profile in our ‘Update your Rated People profile’ video.

Maintain your mental health

Lots of small business owners have been working overtime to make sure that their businesses can survive the coronavirus pandemic. However, it’s important that you also focus on taking care of your mental health. As well as being essential for your own wellbeing, it will help you to be better prepared to face any business challenges.

The Federation of Small Businesses and the Self-Employed (FSB) suggests that you stay connected:

With other small businesses – The self-employed and small businesses are in the same boat at the moment. You can exchange ideas with them, and they could have creative ideas to grow your business that you haven’t yet thought of.

With associations that can help – Industry associations, such as the National Federation of Builders, offer advice and support. Some of these have groups that you can join to connect with similar businesses.

It’s also important that you know how to disconnect from work. Set up a dedicated workspace that you can sit down at to complete your admin tasks – even if it’s just a table in your living room. This will help you to separate home from work, as you’ll be able to move away from your workspace when the workday’s over. If you find that the current news makes you feel anxious, try taking regular breaks from news platforms or social media too.

For more information on government grants, loans and other support for the self-employed and small businesses affected by COVID-19, visit the Rated People Trade Advice Centre.

The post Tipped for success: 5 learnings for one-person businesses appeared first on Rated People Blog.

Tipped for success: 5 learnings for one-person businesses published first on https://fanseeaus.tumblr.com/

0 notes

fey-caress · 4 years

Text

Equity CrowdFunding (ECF) in Malaysia

This post first appeared on Equity CrowdFunding (ECF) in Malaysia For Startup Investments check out https://www.nexea.co

Update June 28, 2019: Added an update on the equity crowdfunding scene of 2019 below. Enjoy!

What Is Equity Crowdfunding (ECF)?

Equity Crowdfunding is a method for Startups and Small & Medium Enterprises (SMEs) or Businesses to raise funds via the general public, a.k.a. Retail Investors. Retail Investors develop operational strategies for the company using his extensive experience in operational management. He designs and implements training processes to ensure a high level of efficiency in the workshops for deals on ECF platforms to Invest in businesses in exchange for Equity.

These businesses are generally high risk, high return investment alternative to other Investment instruments like Stocks, Bonds, Mutual Funds or Trust Funds, or even Fixed Deposits. Startups generally have a 25% yearly average return, however, it also comes with a high risk of >90% mortality rate.

Of course, the 25% return is after even the failures of those startups, as the successful Startups are able to provide more than 5X or if you are lucky, more than 30X returns on your investment.

Startup Investment is a numbers and skills game – the numbers being you have to invest in enough Startups (we generally assume >20) and the skills being able to spot the right Startups to invest in.

How Does Equity Crowdfunding Work?

The Steps to participate in Equity Crowdfunding for Investors is shown above.

For Startups, here’s what you can expect when raising funds via Equity Crowdfunding

Prepare to go public (or semi-public). Your business will now have shareholders from the outside. Having a good shareholders agreement will help in the future.

Be prepared to show your numbers on the platform. Members of the platform can view the information to evaluate your company. This is to help them make a decision for investment purposes. So, the numbers should look good!

The Securities Commission of Malaysia has allowed ECF operators to charge a certain percentage (%) on the amount raised. For example, if you raise RM3m, the ECF operator will charge 7% (RM210k) as their fee. This goes to pay for their operational costs in running the ECF platform. This is standard in the ECF industry.

Prepare to publicise the offering. Having a media strategy is important to get a maximum benefit from ECF funding publicity.

Prepare your FFF (Friends, Family & Fools). Letting them know before you go live is important to help you boost your initial fundraiser. This will help you get the rest of your money. If a deal is only 5% funded for the first 2 weeks, that is not a good sign. Feel free to include current shareholders.

Prepare a fundraising video. This is important to engage and to educate your target investors on why they should invest in your company. It is important to help them understand your business so that they feel comfortable to invest in your company.

Some equity crowdfunding platforms also charge other fees to cover costs such as due diligence before approving Startups to be able to list on the platform for fundraising. This is to ensure the quality of deals on their platforms.

Who is the Top Crowdfunding Platform in Malaysia?

The Track Record of Equity Crowdfunding in Malaysia in a year:

All the 6 ECF platforms raised Rm10M in a year of operations, helping the above 14 Startups to get funding. This is a great start for the ECF industry – something that we are very pleased to support. So how can we compare them? Do have a look below.

How Can We Compare the platforms of Equity Crowdfunding in Malaysia?

The answer, as always, is that it depends. Some platforms have their specialities and niches, or strengths;

Propeller Crowd Plus – PCP has a track record of SME companies.

PitchIn – PitchIn has a track record of various types of Startups to date.

Funded By Me – FBM has a track record of deals with companies based in Penang.

Ata Plus – AP has a track record of funding social enterprises.

Crowdo – Crowdo has a track record of Startups and P2P Money Lending.

Eureeca – Most of their track record is from the Middle East & the UK.

If you were to look at all of them, they all have their strengths and track records. It is up to Startup Founders to decide how they would like to benefit from raising funds from an ECF platform. We encourage Startups to talk to all the ECF operators to learn about what intangibles they can provide other than just the money.

Sometimes, they offer connections to the right Investors, or even extra media coverage, or other forms of help.

What Is Equity Crowdfunding in Malaysia an Alternative To (For Startups)?

Where else can startups find investments or funding (i.e. alternatives to equity crowdfunding in Malaysia)?

Pre-Seed & Seed or Early Stage Venture Capital (VCs) typically from RM100k to 3M

Angel Investor Networks or Groups (Not Individual Angel Investors) typically from RM50k to 1M

Government Grants like the Cradle CIP 300 or TERAJU

Government Funds like Cradle Seed Ventures or PlatCom Ventures or others.

Note that although there are alternatives, they can be combined as well, depending on a Startups Fund Raising Strategy.

Pros & Cons of Equity Crowd Funding (ECF)

Pros

ECF is an easy way to get media attention. Having this as part of your media strategy will help.

Engage your customers – why not get your best advocates to be a part of your business? Hopefully, they will join you in promoting it further.

Transparency & Compliance – having a transparent & compliant business is important for long-term success. ECF is a step closer to that. Do expect to report regularly to your investors.

A Strong reach of Retail Investors – there are hundreds of investors on ECF platforms – all of which are a potential your investors! Be prepared to hold annual general meetings.

ECF platforms act as your Investment Advisor – as there is someone to help you through the process.

Cons

Equity crowdfunding is not for every business – the benefits of crowdfunding may not apply to B2B businesses, for example.

Compliance requirements – be prepared to report to your investors, hold annual general meetings and administrative work along with that.

Startups have to be ready to open up their financial numbers to the public – although this is available to members only.

Startups need to be ready to have a larger than the usual number of investors or shareholders. Having additional partners in your business is something that all businesses should think about seriously.

There are costs to equity crowdfunding. Other than fees, it takes time and effort to build up a crowdfunding campaign. Angel investment, for example, is completely free for Startups.

There is a chance that the equity crowdfunding process may fail. This may not reflect well in the market. Your upfront fees may also no be refunded depending on the platform.

Equity Crowdfunding in Malaysia now (2019)

The 7 biggest platforms currently in the Malaysian market are Ata Plus, Crowdo, FundedByMe, Crowdplus.asia, Fundnel, Eureeca and PitchIN. Fundnel is the latest platform that was granted a license.

After it was introduced, 50 SME’s were funded with a collective amount of close to MYR 49 million. Close to 60% of all the investors who contributed to this amount are retail investors. This shows clearly that the general public is interested in this way of investing.

The biggest group of investors of equity crowdfunding in Malaysia is between the 35-45-year-old. They tend to be the people who have enough income to put some aside for investment. Also, they are in the generation where they still are to some extent familiar and comfortable with technology.

After 2017, we saw a decrease in the performance of this industry. The total amount that was raised dropped from 24 million to 15 million and the number of campaigns dropped from 22 to 14. PitchIN owned a 75% market share as they were the most active ones.

If we take a look on cases carried out o PitchIN’s platform, we can highlight some of the most successful campaigns. Commerce.Asian Fundaztic and QEOS LED are good examples. They all clocked in at MYR 3 million. In the case of Fundaztic, it only took 38 minutes to close the round.

Platforms’ market share ( updated March 2019)

PitchIN continues to dominate the market. Currently, more than half of the funds are still raised through their platform.

Ata Plus is moving up since 2017. They made huge improvement regarding their market share. Together with crowdplus.asia they are lining up behind PitchIN.

Meanwhile, players like Eureeca have not seen any activity. Fundnel being the newest entrant have not had any campaigns at the time that the data was compiled.

The other players like Eureeca and Fundnel are showing no activity. Until now, Fundnel did not manage to obtain any market share.

More Resources:

Angel Investment in Malaysia

https://www.nexea.co/startup-grants-malaysia/

https://www.nexea.co/startup-investment-group/

For more, check out NEXEA For Startup Investments check out https://www.nexea.co

source https://www.nexea.co/equity-crowdfunding-ecf-malaysia/

0 notes

safestsephiroth · 7 years

Text

guess who got an email back from his senator?

@consistentcynic

December 5, 2017

Dear Mr. James [last name removed],

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns about the Open Internet Order, often referred to as "net neutrality." My office has heard from other Oklahomans on this issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to address the recent actions taken on net neutrality.

Net neutrality describes the concept that Internet providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally and content providers should not pay for priority access. Since the Internet was developed, the market and consumers have driven innovation and expansion, which has caused the Internet to thrive in a relatively regulation-free environment. However in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a new rule, called the Open Internet Order, which would prevent Internet providers from negotiating priority access agreements and would prohibit them from blocking or discriminating against any lawful content.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in January 2014 that the FCC does not have the right to impose heavy-handed regulations on the Internet under Title I of the Telecommunications Act. The federal government can only regulate public utilities like telephone service and electricity.

On November 10, 2014, President Obama formally announced his support for net neutrality, and he encouraged the FCC to reclassify and regulate the Internet as a Title II utility. A Title II utility under the Communications Act of 1934 is the most heavy-handed version of all Internet regulatory proposals. It was comprised of 16 rule parts, 682 pages, and 987 rule sections. It provided the FCC an enormous amount of power to dictate prices, practices, innovation, and business terms to Internet companies.

In a 3-2 decision on February 26, 2015, the FCC announced its approval of the 317-page net neutrality rule that classifies broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) as “common carriers” to be regulated under Title II. The reclassification removed ISPs from the purview of the Federal Trade Commission to the FCC. On June 14, 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for Washington, DC, in a 2-1 vote, upheld the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order. The ruling denied the petitions for review, which effectively sustained the rulemaking.

On March 23, 2017, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 34, legislation to disapprove of the Open Internet Order under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA process allows Congress to act on a joint resolution of disapproval within 60 session days of receiving the final rule. The resolution must be approved by both chambers and signed by the President. Once signed, the measure stops the rule and prevents similar rules from being issued unless Congress enacts a new law. The House passed S.J. Res 34 on March 28, 2017, and President Trump subsequently signed the measure into law on April 3, 2017.

The CRA simply keeps existing consumer protections and regulations under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has been under its purview for nearly two decades. I voted in favor of the CRA because I believe treating ISPs as public utilities will deter new investments in infrastructure, obstruct improvements to existing broadband networks, and discourage new market entrants. While there is broad agreement that ISPs should treat all legal content equally when delivering it to paying customers, achieving an “open Internet” does not necessitate a dramatic increase in new federal regulations.

After seeking public comment, on November 21, 2017, the FCC released a draft Order entitled, “Restoring Internet Freedom” for consideration at the Commission’s December 14, 2017, open meeting. The measure would reverse the 2015 Open Internet Order and return ISPs under the framework of Title 1 of the Communications Act. Mobile broadband would also be returned to the original classification as a private mobile service. The change in classification would return ISPs under the original authority of the FTC to enforce strong consumer protection and regulate broadband privacy.

ISPs would still be subject to transparency and public disclosure requirements on network management practices, performance, and commercial terms to consumers, businesses, and the FCC. Specifically, ISPs would be required to disclose blocking, throttling, prioritization, congestion management, and security practices. For commercial terms, ISPs would be required to disclose terms of service, prices, privacy policies, and options for resolving consumers redress. ISPs must also release the disclosures on publicly, easily accessible websites or make them publicly available via the FCC. The Commission will also review the disclosure to ensure compliance with the transparency rules. Additionally, states are allowed to enforce individual consumer laws and enforcement actions against ISPs that misrepresent themselves to consumers. ISPs still have strong consumer protections to maintain.

It is important to note that the FCC is primarily restricted to jurisdiction granted to the Commission under the Communications Act. The Act does not explicitly give the FCC authority to regulate in areas like pricing and content-management conduct rules. Sweeping regulatory changes should be deliberated by Congress, not by Executive agencies. For those reasons, I support the FCC’s initiative to begin reversing the 2015 Open Internet Order and will continue to monitor the rulemaking process for further developments and assess the need for legislative solutions.

I encourage you to visit the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom page for informational resources and public notices. FCC Chairman Pai also wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the draft order.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Please continue to visit my website and sign up for my e-newsletter to ensure you receive the most up-to-date policy conversations and votes. Please also feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.

5 notes · View notes

newcraigslist · 5 years

Text

New Craigslist

Before perusing best-of-craigslist postings below please note: postings are nominated by craigslist readers, and are not necessarily endorsed by craigslist staff postings may be explicitly sexual, scatological, offensive, graphic, tasteless, and/or not funny if you see copyrighted material not original to craigslist, please let us know if you are under age 18, please use your ‘back’ button and seek parental guidance by continuing you release craigslist from any liability arising from your use of best-of-craigslist

WELCOME TO Newcraigslist. We ( Newcraigslist, Inc.) hope you find it useful. By accessing or otherwise interacting with our servers, services, websites, or any associated content/postings (together, “CL”), you agree to these Terms of Use (“TOU”) (last updated December 29, 2017). You acknowledge and agree CL is a private site owned and operated by newcraigslist, Inc. If you are accessing or using CL on behalf of a business, that business agrees to the TOU. If you do not agree to the TOU, you are not authorized to use CL. We may modify the TOU at any time in our sole discretion. You are responsible for periodically checking for changes and are bound by them if you continue to use CL. Our privacy policy (cl.com/about/privacy.policy), prohibited list (cl.com/about/prohibited), and all other policies, site rules, and agreements referenced below or on CL, are fully incorporated into this TOU, and you agree to them as well.

LICENSE. If you agree to the TOU and (1) are of sufficient age and capacity to use CL and be bound by the TOU, or (2) use CL on behalf of a business, thereby binding that business to the TOU, we grant you a limited, revocable, non-exclusive, non-assignable license to use CL in compliance with the TOU; unlicensed use is unauthorized. You agree not to display, “frame,” make derivative works, distribute, license, or sell, content from CL, excluding postings you create. You grant us a perpetual, irrevocable, unlimited, worldwide, fully paid/sublicensable license to use, copy, display, distribute, and make derivative works from content you post.

USE. Unless licensed by us in a written agreement, you agree not to use or provide software (except general purpose web browsers and email clients) or services that interact or interoperate with CL, e.g. for downloading, uploading, creating/accessing/using an account, posting, flagging, emailing, searching, or mobile use. You agree not to copy/collect CL content via robots, spiders, scripts, scrapers, crawlers, or any automated or manual equivalent (e.g., by hand). Misleading, unsolicited, and/or unlawful postings/communications/accounts are prohibited, as is buying or selling accounts. You agree not to post content that is prohibited by any of CL’s policies or rules referenced above (“Prohibited Content”). You agree not to abuse CL’s flagging or reporting processes. You agree not to collect CL user information or interfere with CL. You agree we may moderate CL access/use in our sole discretion, e.g., by blocking, filtering, re-categorizing, re-ranking, deleting, delaying, holding, omitting, verifying, or terminating your access/license/account. You agree (1) not to bypass said moderation, (2) we are not liable for moderating or not moderating, and (3) nothing we say or do waives our right to moderate, or not.

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. You further agree that if you violate the USE section, or you encourage, support, benefit from, or induce others to do so, you will be jointly and severally liable to us for liquidated damages as follows for: (A) collecting/harvesting CL users’ information, including personal or identifying information - $1 per violation; (B) publishing/misusing personal or identifying information of a third party in connection with your use of CL without that party’s express written consent - $1,000 per violation; © misrepresenting your identity or affiliation to anyone in connection with your use of CL - $1,000 per violation; (D) posting or attempting to post Prohibited Content - $4 per violation; (E) posting or attempting to post Prohibited Content in any paid section of CL - the price per post applicable to that section of CL; (F) sending an unauthorized/unsolicited email to an email address obtained from CL - $25 per violation; (G) using CL user information to make/send an unauthorized/unsolicited text message, call, or communication to a CL user - $500 per text/call/communication; (H) creating a misleading or unlawful CL account or buying/selling a CL account - $4 per violation; (I) abusing or attempting to abuse CL’s flagging or reporting processes - $1 per violation; (J) distributing any software to facilitate violations of the USE Section - $1,000 per violation; (K) aggregating, displaying, copying, duplicating, reproducing, distributing, or exploiting CL content for any purpose without our express written consent - $3,000 for each day you engage in such violations; (L) requesting, viewing, or accessing more than 1,000 pages of CL in any 24-hour period - $0.25 per page during the 24 hour period after the first 1,000 pages; (M) bypassing or attempting to bypass our moderation efforts - $4 per violation. You agree that these amounts are (1) a reasonable estimate of our damages (as actual damages are often difficult to calculate), (2) not a penalty, and (3) not otherwise limiting on our ability to recover under any legal theory or claim, including statutory damages and other equitable relief (e.g., for spam, we can elect between the above liquidated damages or statutory damages under the anti-spam statute). You further agree that repeated violations of the USE section will irreparably harm and entitle us to injunctive or equitable relief, in addition to monetary damages.

FEES. You authorize us to charge your account for CL fees in paid areas (cl.com/about/help/posting_fees). Any tax is additional. Fees are non-refundable, even for posts we remove, delay, omit, re-categorize, re-rank, or otherwise moderate. We may refuse any posting.

DISCLAIMER & LIABILITY. To the full extent permitted by law, newcraigslist, Inc., and its officers, directors, employees, agents, licensors, affiliates, and successors in interest (“CL Entities”) (1) make no promises, warranties, or representations as to CL, including its completeness, accuracy, availability, timeliness, propriety, security or reliability; (2) provide CL on an “AS IS” and “AS AVAILABLE” basis and any risk of using CL is assumed by you; (3) disclaim all warranties, express or implied, including as to accuracy, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and non-infringement; and (4) disclaim any liability or responsibility for acts, omissions, or conduct of you or any party in connection with CL. CL Entities are NOT liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, incidental, special, punitive, or other losses, including lost profits, revenues, data, goodwill, etc., arising from or related to CL, and in no event shall such liability exceed $100 or the amount you paid us in the year preceding such loss. Some jurisdictions restrict or alter these disclaimers and limits, so some may not apply to you.

CLAIMS & INDEMNITY. Any claim, cause of action, demand, or dispute arising from or related to CL (“Claims”) will be governed by the internal laws of California, without regard to conflict of law provisions, except to the extent governed by US federal law. Any Claims will be exclusively resolved by courts in San Francisco, CA (except we may seek preliminary or injunctive relief anywhere). You agree to (1) submit to the personal jurisdiction of courts in San Francisco, CA; (2) indemnify and hold CL Entities harmless from any Claims, losses, liability, or expenses (including attorneys’ fees) that arise from a third party and relate to your use of CL; and (3) be liable and responsible for any Claims we may have against your officers, directors, employees, agents, affiliates, or any other party, directly or indirectly, paid, directed or controlled by you, or acting for your benefit.

TRADEMARKS. newcraigslist, “CL” and the peace symbol logo are registered trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and with multiple trademark offices around the world.

MISC. Users complying with prior written licenses may access CL thereby until authorization is terminated. Otherwise this is the exclusive and entire agreement between us and you, and our actions or silence toward you or anyone else does not waive, modify, or limit the TOU or our ability to enforce it. The USE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, and CLAIMS & INDEMNITY sections survive termination of the TOU, and you will remain bound by those sections. If a TOU term is unenforceable, it shall be limited to the least extent possible and supplemented with a valid provision that best embodies the intent of the parties. The English version of the TOU controls over any translations. If you reasonably believe content infringes your IP rights, see cl.com/about/dmca. Questions? Email [email protected].

0 notes

sisainfosec-blog · 6 years

Text

Getting Ready for Cyber Security

The use of Internet has affected almost all parts of life of an individual. Internet has grown from just a tool to obtain information for a school project to stimulate social and political changes in many parts of the world. The rising growth of social media, online Governance models and Internet of Things clearly indicate that it is just a matter of time before all information is available online in some form or the other.

However, over the time it has been proven that the Internet is vulnerable, vulnerable to human errors, vulnerable to malicious individuals and vulnerable to natural disasters. Focussing on malicious individuals, who are working to improve their skills, scale and determination, it has been realized that something more comprehensive, more than installing firewall and IPS, is required to tackle the challenges posed in front of the society in the manner how the Internet and related services are used.

Cyber security has taken a prominent place in the security world. Cyber security, as per definition from ITU-T, is defined as:

[Cyber security is the collection of tools, policies, security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines, risk management approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance and technologies that can be used to protect the cyber environment and organization and user’s assets. Organization and user’s assets include connected computing devices, personnel, infrastructure, applications, services, telecommunications systems, and the totality of transmitted and/or stored information in the cyber environment.]

Given the nature of how broad the term is, different organizations may associate a slightly different meaning with the term, certain level of flexibility in term’s use is expected.

Guiding principles for Cyber Security:

When moving towards cyber security, the approach should be supported with defined set of principles that can help in management of risks right from identification to mitigation in a manner that is in tune with cost and privacy considerations. The setting of right tune is important due to tightening regulations and cost as any control put in place generating excess data would turn out be drainer in terms of resources and can lead to fines.

The recommended set of guiding principles can be:

Risk based approach: Risk assessment to identify the threats, vulnerabilities and impact to the organization and then coming together to manage the risk by effective set of controls.

Result focussed: Focus must be on the final outcome, irrespective of the means used to reach it, and progress must be measured based on achievement of the desired outcome.

Prioritization: Priority matrix must be developed to prioritize the events and assets. The management approach must be based on priority, handling high priority activities first. The increase in mobility, interoperability, population, complexity and distribution of components has given the attackers a plethora of surface to play with.

Adaptability: The approach or the controls developed as part of cyber security must be applicable to large set of assets and should be adaptable to wide array of sectors.

Privacy and regulatory compliance: The approach to cyber security must respect the privacy of individuals and should support the regulatory requirements.

Internationally influenced: The approach must be influenced with international standards so as to maintain maximum possible acceptability.

Taking a Risk based approach to Cyber Security:

In the current scenario the cyber security guidance available are mostly voluntary but the industry is moving to mandatory compliance at least for critical infrastructure, if not end-to-end. A risk based approach can help address the complexities faced during rollout of the strategy. Risk based approach starts with identifying, analysing and evaluating the risks which require attention. The approach must be holistic in nature to the maximum extent possible to enable all business units take advantage of changing landscape. Let us go through some of the critical areas which need to be made part of cyber security initiative right from the beginning:

Information Risk Management Leadership:

It is important that Board and senior managers support the information security and risk management and may wish to communicate their risk appetite and risk management policy to people associated with the organization to ensure they are aware of organization’s risk boundaries. A lack of effective risk management can lead to increased exposure to risk, missed options, poor return on investment, etc. In order to manage the risks following can be done to promote a risk aware culture:

A governance framework should be developed which consistently supports the risk management culture across the organization and is owned by the Board or senior management.

A major task would be determining the risk appetite of the organization so that the business decisions are guided within risk boundaries.

Board discussions agenda should include information risk to the organization. Risk assessment reports must be regularly reviewed and contacts with outside authorities should be maintained in order to get better insight on emerging risks.

Appropriate standards must be referred to build a life cycle approach to risk management, which can help in continual improvement, along with roll out of corporate risk management policy.

Network Security:

Internet and other untrusted networks expose corporate networks threats that aim to compromise CIA of the systems and the information. It is to be noted that protection is required against internal threats as well. Failing to secure the network properly can lead to leakage of sensitive information, malware infection, exploitation of vulnerable applications and systems, etc. Following activities can help to reduce the risk:

ll the traffic should be inspected and filtered at the network perimeter to ensure only business supporting traffic is being allowed. Firewall must be installed between untrusted network and internal network with only authorized ports and protocol allowed and default deny-all setting in place.

Direct connectivity between internal network and untrusted network should not be allowed. Network isolation must be employed to isolate critical assets and easily manage the large environment. Wireless networks must be secured and Network Address Translation must be used to protect internal IP addresses from exposure.

Secure Configuration:

Creating and enforcing secure baselines for all types of system components and applications can vastly improve the security posture of the IT systems. As a best practice all not necessary functionalities should be disabled or removed which can reduce the exposure of IT systems to variety of threats. Applications and systems which are not hardened will be vulnerable and can result in unauthorized access to systems, exploitation of insecure configuration, increase in security incidents, etc. In order to reduce the incidents due to insecure configuration following steps can be taken:

Policies related to patch management must be enforced to make sure patches are applied within established time frame. Along with patching updated inventories of hardware and software must be in place. Automated tools can be used to capture the details.

Hardening guidelines must be available for all types of systems components, router, firewall, server, workstations or any other. Unnecessary ports and services must be disabled. Change control must be in place for any changes to be effected in any system or application. User rights must be limited with respect to the ability to make changes in the components.

Regular vulnerability scans and penetration testing must be conducted and any loop holes identified must be fixed in within a defined time frame. The team must maintain awareness regarding recent threat landscape as well.

Identity and Access Management:

Organizations need to understand the privileges required by the users, and whether it is at all required, to carry out their daily tasks. The principle of granting only privileges that are required to carry out daily jobs is termed as ‘Least Privilege’. Failure to manage privileges effectively can result in misuse of privileges, increased attacker capability and privilege creep, etc. Following methods can help in reducing the number of incidents due privilege misuse:

Policies and procedures for identification and access control must be established providing guidance on password selection, complexity and life cycle along with roles and responsibilities.

Procedure must be established for review of user accounts right from creation till deletion. Also, periodic reconciliation process must be set up to identify any dormant or test accounts and should be removed.

The number of privilege accounts must be controlled in the system components. Privilege accounts should not be used for day to day activities. Normal users should be provided privileges based on the Principle of Least Privilege.

Access to audit logs must be controlled and users must be monitored during their daily activities, specifically while carrying out sensitive tasks.

Incident Management:

At some point in time all organizations have faced certain types of incidents and will continue to face new incidents. Therefore, it is worthwhile investing in an efficient incident management procedure to better manage the incidents and reduce any financial impact. Failure to implement incident management procedure can lead to major and long term disruptions and legal and regulatory non-compliance. The type of incidents will vary based on the type of business and a risk based approach will be more suitable considering the following points:

Organization should establish and maintain organization-wide incident management plan approved and supported by senior management. The plan must be mature enough to be able to manage a wide variety of incidents.

Roles and responsibilities must be clearly outlined and appropriate training must be provided to the personnel so as to handle wide variety of incidents efficiently.

The incident management plan should be tested on a regular basis and learning must be incorporated to improve the plans. Business continuity and Disaster recovery should also be included and appropriate back-ups must be maintained to counter any incident which results in loss of data.

In case of incidents it might be required to inform large number of people including clients, vendors, law enforcement, etc. Appropriate responsibilities must be documented as to who, what and how to inform the interested parties about the incident.

Root cause analysis must be performed for all incidents and learning should be used to enhance the plan for future. If required the incidents should be reported to law enforcements and user awareness should be carried out to eliminate the possibilities of re-occurrences.

Virus and Malware Prevention:

Connecting to untrusted networks exposes the systems to viruses and malware. Such infections can lead to business disruptions, information leakage and even legal sanctions. Common mediums of such infection include E-mail, uncontrolled Internet access and removable media. Following can be considered to reduce virus and malware risks:

Relevant policies and procedures addressing viruses and malware must be established and communicated within the organization. Users must be educated regarding the use of e-mail attachments and removable media on the corporate systems.

Anti-virus and Anti-malware defence must be established and all systems must be regularly scanned. All electronic data exchange must be scanned for malicious content.

Content filtering should be carried out by firewalls to prevent movement of malicious code from untrusted network to internal network. If possible, suspected content should be quarantined for further analysis.

Logging and Monitoring:

Logging and monitoring allow timely detection of attacks and can help in incorporating procedures that can help prevent future attacks. Monitoring ensures that systems are being used in conformation with established policies. It is to be documented as to what actions are to be logged and what will be the monitoring procedure. Failure to monitor the systems can lead to non-compliance as well as diminished ability to detect and react to the attacks. A consistent and documented approach needs to be put in place, which can include the following:

Appropriate policies must be put in place and should be aligned with incident management policy. It should be ensured that all network and host systems are monitored by some automated solution and should have the capability to detect attacks through the use of signatures or heuristics.

All network traffic movement, inside or outside, must be monitored for any malicious activity. Along with it should be able to identify the subject, the activity that triggered the alert and the object.

The monitoring solution should be customized to capture appropriate logs and events that fulfil the requirement of monitoring. Inappropriate collection could result in legal and regulatory breach and could turn out to be costly in terms of management.

To the extent possible it should be ensured that all logs and events are collected and stored at a central repository and enough space is available for the storage for a certain period. Above all it must be ensured that all devices are synced to central time source so that all logs and events are accurately time stamped to support investigations or legal actions.

Removable Media Controls:

Lack of removable media controls can lead information theft, malware infection and above all loss of reputation. It is better to disable any usage of removable media unless some business requires it specifically and the approval should be based on risk assessment. In order to manage the risks from removable media following can be considered:

Policies and procedures should be implemented to control the usage of removable media. The usage should be limited to users, systems and type of data that can be moved on to removable media.

All removable media should be inventoried and users should not be allowed to their own media. All removable media should be scanned before it is used for data transfer and anti-virus solution must be deployed on all hosts.

Removable media reuse and disposal procedures must be put in place to ensure that older data is not accessible. Industry accepted deletion and wiping techniques should be employed for securely deleting the data.

The removable media must be hardened as per hardening guidelines and appropriate monitoring should be in place to detect any unauthorized use. If required, encryption can be used to protect the information present in the removable media.

Home and Mobile Working:

Mobile technology has made huge strides in the daily life of individuals. More and more people are using mobile devices for work related activities. It has resulted in the extension of corporate security boundaries. It is required that organizations maintain relevant policies and procedures to control the usage of mobile devices and layout plans for management of any compromise that might occur. The risks can be like theft of mobile device, shoulder surfing in public, insecure configuration leading to loss of data, etc. Following can be implemented to reduce the risks associated with mobile devices:

If the organization allows the use mobile devices then secure baseline must be documented and implemented on all devices. Also, all users must be trained in the manner as to how to use their devices securely in public areas or any other place.

The amount of corporate data present in the mobile devices should be kept at minimum to what is required to complete the activity. Also, the connectivity to corporate network from untrusted networks, like public Wi-Fi, must be protected by use of VPN to protect the data transmitted.

Users must be instructed to report any or all incidents related to mobile devices at the earliest and corporate incident management plan must be extended to mobile device incidents.

User Education and Awareness:

It is evident that large numbers of incidents are caused by unintentional acts of users. It is important that the users are aware of their responsibilities towards the usage of corporate resources. Lack of awareness can result in unacceptable usage of company resources, use of removable media and personal devices can introduce malware, users not reporting incidents on time or not at all, etc. To reduce the risks following steps can be taken:

An acceptable usage policy shall be present and must be communicated to all the users.

All new joiners should go through security training at the time of joining and annual training sessions must be held for all the users, informing them of the new trends in the security field.

Organization should promote incident reporting culture along with the security culture, users must be confident while reporting the incident without any fear. In – addition, disciplinary process must be in place for users misusing the resources.

Source: https://www.sisainfosec.com/americas/blogs/getting-ready-for-cyber-security/

#risk management #cybersecurity

0 notes

marketresearchnewsworld-blog · 4 years

Text

Extended-Release Drugs Market – Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast 2014 – 2024

As per the research conducted by Fast. MR, the report titled “Extended-Release Drugs Market By Dosage Form (Tablet, Capsule and Injection), By Distribution Channel (Hospital Pharmacies, Retail Pharmacies and Online Pharmacies) and By Region (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, Middle East and Africa) – Global Market Size, Development, Growth and Demand Forecast, 2014-2024” provides current as well as future analysis of the market by evaluating the major applications, advantages, trends, and challenges. The report dives deeper to produce useful insights into Extended-Release Drugs Market such as major global regions and key competitors and strategies that can be used for the entry-level player too.

Overview

Extended-release drugs offer some potential advantages over other medicines, as it reduces the frequency of dosing by modifying the rate of drug absorption. Thus, extended-release drugs enable higher doses to be given less frequently with less fluctuation in blood concentrations and also results in improved patient compliance. According to National Center for Biotechnology Information, 2018, chronic diseases are among the most prevalent and costly health conditions in the U.S. Nearly half (approximately 45%, or 133 million) of all Americans suffer from at least one chronic disease and the number is growing. Chronic diseases, including cancer, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, heart disease, respiratory diseases, arthritis, obesity, and oral diseases, have remained the top chronic diseases during the past decade. Thus, the introduction of novel drugs to meet the demand of the population living with chronic diseases is expected to propel the market growth.

Get Latest Sample for Extended-Release Drugs Market @ https://www.fastmr.com/request-s/97

An increase in the prevalence of HIV infections is expected to propel the extended-release drugs market growth.

The pharmaceutical industry has experienced losing the patents of several blockbuster drugs from past years, which results in dipping their revenue. Thus, pharmaceutical manufacturers are focusing on extending their patent lives through the development of new formulation technologies, which can enhance their product efficacy, patient compliance, rather than launching new chemical entities (NCEs). Such formulation technologies involve complex dosage forms such as transdermal, transmucosal, and other novel formulations for oral delivery.

For instance in September 2018, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. launched generic version of Cialis (tadalafil extended-release tablets) for sexual dysfunction treatment in the U.S. Teva has secured fist-to-file status for generic Cialis which will grant them 180 days of market exclusivity for Cialis in U.S., thus, extended exclusivity enable the company to leverage the profits from Cialis. However, several other generics makers, including Aurobindo, Watson, and Sun Pharma, are also looking to launch the generic version of Cialis after Teva's exclusivity period ends, which will contribute to the extended-release drugs market growth.

The funding for pharmaceutical research and development has doubled in the past 20 years, which accelerates the growth of the novel extended-release drug delivery systems. In September 2019, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories launched 150 mg dosage strength of bupropion hydrochloride extended-release tablets indicated as an aid to smoking cessation treatment in U.S. The bupropion hydrochloride extended-release tablets is a generic version of Zyban extended-release tablets (by GSK).

On the flip side, the cost of extended-release drug hampers the market growth to some extent. Namenda extended-release drugs cost around US$ 494 for 7mg, which made it difficult for the affected population to purchase.

Extended-Release Drugs Market Regional Analysis

Based on the region, North America is expected to show a leading position in the extended-release drugs market. This is owing to an increasing focus on innovation and the development of novel therapeutics. In February 2018, Lupin Limited launched Ranolazine extended-release (E.R.) tablets in strengths of 500 mg and 1,000 mg, indicated for the treatment of chronic angina, in the U.S. market. Ranolazine is a generic version of Gilead Sciences' Ranexa ER tablets. Such launch of generics with high quality and at low prices will bring significant savings to U.S. consumers.

The Asia Pacific also contributes remarkable growth in extended-release drugs market owing to increasing the prevalence of chronic diseases such as cancer, COPD, diabetes, etc. and significant measures by the government to support research and development of novel drugs in the market.

In April 2018, the China Drug Administration (CDA) released a draft guideline wherein they proposed additional data exclusivity periods for orphan drugs, pediatric drugs, therapeutic biological products, and first generics. They also offered that the data exclusivity period is available to new drugs filed in China within one year after approval in the E.U., U.S., or Japan. Such guidelines aim to encourage pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to conduct clinical trials in China.

Key players operating in the extended-release drugs markets include Pfizer, Mallinckrodt, Lupin Limited, Actavis, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma, Lannett Company, Inc., Lavipharm Labs, Mylan Technologies, DURECT Corporation, Aveva, Watson, Impax, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy and others.

Extended-Release Drugs Market-Taxonomy

By Dosage Form

-Tablet

-Capsule

-Injection

By Distribution Channel

-Hospital Pharmacies

-Retail Pharmacies

-Online Pharmacies

By Region

-North America

-Europe

-Asia Pacific

-Latin America

-Middle East and Africa

Access Complete Extended-Release Drugs Market Report @ https://www.fastmr.com/report/97/extended-release-drugs-market

About US:

FAST.MR is a global market research and business-consulting organization that aims to provide a deep market insight to our clients, which helps them in better decision making in the dynamic environment. We have a team of highly qualified personnel that studies the market in depth to provide our clients with better strategies to stand out in the market.

Our report covers current market status, opportunities available in the market, growth plans, and emerging trends in order to cater to the evolving needs of the customers. We help businesses around the globe with operational improvements, technologies, emerging market trends which in-depth boost the company’s growth in the future. The reports prepared by us are customized according to the client’s needs. We inculcate high morale and ethics while preparing our report which helps in building long term relationships with our clients.

Jason Lee

150 State Street, Albany,

New York, USA 12207

+1 (518) 300-1215

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.fastmr.com

#Extended-Release Drugs Market #Extended-Release Drugs Market size #Extended-Release Drugs Market share #Extended-Release Drugs Market news #Extended-Release Drugs Market forecast #Extended-Release Drugs Market future #Extended-Release Drugs Market growth

0 notes

endenogatai · 5 years

Text

Europe sets out plan to boost data reuse and regulate “high risk” AIs

European Union lawmakers have set out a first bundle of proposals for a new digital strategy for the bloc, one that’s intended to drive digitalization across all industries and sectors — and enable what Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has described as ‘A Europe fit for the Digital Age‘.

It could also be summed up as a ‘scramble for AI’, with the Commission keen to rub out barriers to the pooling of massive European data sets in order to power a new generation of data-driven services as a strategy to boost regional competitiveness vs China and the U.S.

Pushing for the EU to achieve technological sovereignty is key plank of von der Leyen’s digital policy plan for the 27-Member State bloc.

Presenting the latest on her digital strategy to press in Brussels today, she said: “We want the digital transformation to power our economy and we want to find European solutions in the digital age.”

The top-line proposals are:

Rules for “high risk” AI systems such as in health, policing, or transport requiring such systems are “transparent, traceable and guarantee human oversight”

A requirement that unbiased data is used to train high-risk systems so that they “perform properly, and to ensure respect of fundamental rights, in particular non-discrimination”

Consumer protection rules so authorities can “test and certify” data used by algorithms in a similar way to existing rules that allow for checks to be made on products such as cosmetics, cars or toys

A “broad debate” on the circumstances where use of remote use of biometric identification could be justified

A voluntary labelling scheme for lower risk AI applications

Proposing the creation of an EU governance structure to ensure a framework for compliance with the rules and avoid fragmentation across the bloc

Data

A regulatory framework covering data governance, access and reuse between businesses, between businesses and government, and within administrations to create incentives for data sharing, which the Commission says will establish “practical, fair and clear rules on data access and use, which comply with European values and rights such as personal data protection, consumer protection and competition rules”

A push to make public sector data more widely available by opening up “high-value datasets” to enable their reuse to foster innovation

Support for cloud infrastructure platforms and systems to support the data reuse goals. The Commission says it will contribute to investments in European High Impact projects on European data spaces and trustworthy and energy efficient cloud infrastructures

Sectoral specific actions to build European data spaces that focus on specific areas such as industrial manufacturing, the green deal, mobility or health

The full data strategy proposal can be found here.

While the Commission’s white paper on AI “excellence and trust” is here.

Next steps will see the Commission taking feedback on the plan — as it kicks off public consultation on both proposals.

A final draft is slated by the end of the year after which the various EU institutions will have their chance to chip into (or chip away at) the plan. So how much policy survives for the long haul remains to be seen.

Tech for good

At a press conference following von der Leyen’s statement Margrethe Vestager, the Commission EVP who heads up digital policy, and Thierry Breton, commissioner for the internal market, went into some of the detail around the Commission’s grand plan for “shaping Europe’s digital future”.

The digital policy package is meant to define how we shape Europe’s digital future “in a way that serves us all”, said Vestager.

The strategy aims to unlock access to “more data and good quality data” to fuel innovation and underpin better public services, she added.

The Commission’s digital EVP Margrethe Vestager discussing the AI whitepaper

Collectively, the package is about embracing the possibilities AI create while managing the risks, she also said, adding that: “The point obviously is to create trust, rather than fear.”

She noted that the two policy pieces being unveiled by the Commission today, on AI and data, form part of a more wide-ranging digital and industrial strategy whole with additional proposals still to be set out.

“The picture that will come when we have assembled the puzzle should illustrate three objectives,” she said. “First that technology should world for people and not the other way round; it is first and foremost about purpose The development, the deployment, the uptake of technology must work in the same direction to make a real positive difference in our daily lives.

“Second that we want a fair and competitive economy — a full Single Market where companies of all sizes can compete on equal terms, where the road from garage to scale up is as short as possible. But it also means an economy where the market power held by a few incumbents cannot be used to block competition. It also means an economy were consumers can take it for granted that their rights are being respected and profits are being taxed where they are made”

Thirdly, she said the Commission plan would support “an open, democratic and sustainable society”.

“This means a society where citizens can control the data that they provide, where digit platforms are accountable for the contents that they feature… This is a fundamental thing — that while we use new digital tools, use AI as a tool, that we build a society based on our fundamental rights,” she added, trailing a forthcoming democracy action plan.

Digital technologies must also actively enable the green transition, said Vestager — pointing to the Commission’s pledge to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Digital, satellite, GPS and sensor data would be crucial to this goal, she suggested.

“More than ever a green transition and digital transition goes hand in hand.”

On the data package Breton said the Commission will launch a European and industrial cloud platform alliance to drive interest in building the next gen platforms he said would be needed to enable massive big data sharing across the EU — tapping into 5G and edge computing.

“We want to mobilize up to €2BN in order to create and mobilize this alliance,” he said. “In order to run this data you need to have specific platforms… Most of this data will be created locally and processed locally — thanks to 5G critical network deployments but also locally to edge devices. By 2030 we expect on the planet to have 500BN connected devices… and of course all the devices will exchange information extremely quickly. And here of course we need to have specific mini cloud or edge devices to store this data and to interact locally with the AI applications embedded on top of this.

“And believe me the requirement for these platforms are not at all the requirements that you see on the personal b2c platform… And then we need of course security and cyber security everywhere. You need of course latencies. You need to react in terms of millisecond — not tenths of a second. And that’s a totally different infrastructure.”

“We have everything in Europe to win this battle,” he added. “Because no one has expertise of this battle and the foundation — industrial base — than us. And that’s why we say that maybe the winner of tomorrow will not be the winner of today or yesterday.”

Trustworthy artificial intelligence

On AI Vestager said the major point of the plan is “to build trust” — by using a dual push to create what she called “an ecosystem of excellence” and another focused on trust.

The first piece includes a push by the Commission to stimulate funding, including in R&D and support for research such as by bolstering skills. “We need a lot of people to be able to work with AI,” she noted, saying it would be essential for small and medium sized businesses to be “invited in”.

On trust the plan aims to use risk to determine how much regulation is involved, with the most stringent rules being placed on what it dubs “high risk” AI systems. “That could be when AI tackles fundamental values, it could be life or death situation, any situation that could cause material or immaterial harm or expose us to discrimination,” said Vestager.

To scope this the Commission approach will focus on sectors where such risks might apply — such as energy and recruitment.

If an AI product or service is identified as posing a risk then the proposal is for an enforcement mechanism to test that the product is safe before it is put into use. These proposed “conformity assessments” for high risk AI systems include a number of obligations Vestager said are based on suggestions by the EU’s High Level Expert Group on AI — which put out a slate of AI policy recommendations last year.

The four requirements attached to this bit of the proposals are: 1) that AI systems should be trained using data that “respects European values and rules” and that a record of such data is kept; 2) that an AI system should provide “clear information to users about its purpose, its capabilities but also its limits” and that it be clear to users when they are interacting with an AI rather than a human; 3) AI systems must be “technically robust and accurate in order to be trustworthy”; and 4) they should always ensure “an appropriate level of human involvement and oversight”.

Obviously there are big questions about how such broad-brush requirements will be measured and stood up (as well as actively enforced) in practice.

If an AI product or service is not identified as high risk Vestager noted there would still be regulatory requirements in play — such as the need for developers to comply with existing EU data protection rules.

In her press statement, Commission president von der Leyen highlighted a number of examples of how AI might power a range of benefits for society — from “better and earlier” diagnosis of diseases like cancer to helping with her parallel push for the bloc to be carbon neutral by 2050, such as by enabling precision farming and smart heating — emphasizing that such applications rely on access to big data.

Artificial intelligence is about big data,” she said. “Data, data and again data. And we all know that the more data we have the smarter our algorithms. This is a very simple equation. Therefore it is so important to have access to data that are out there. This is why we want to give our businesses but also the researchers and the public services better access to data.”

“The majority of data we collect today are never ever used even once. And this is not at all sustainable,” she added. “In these data we collect that are out there lies an enormous amount of precious ideas, potential innovation, untapped potential we have to unleash — and therefore we follow the principal that in Europe we have to offer data spaces where you can not only store your data but also share with others. And therefore we want to create European data spaces where businesses, governments and researchers can not only store their data but also have access to other data they need for their innovation.”

She too impressed the need for AI regulation, including to guard against the risk of biased algorithms — saying “we want citizens to trust the new technology”. “We want the application of these new technologies to deserve the trust of our citizens. This is why we are promoting a responsible, human centric approach to artificial intelligence,” she added.

She said the planned restrictions on high risk AI would apply in fields such as healthcare, recruitment, transportation, policing and law enforcement — and potentially others.

“We will be particularly careful with sectors where essential human interests and rights are at stake,” she said. “Artificial intelligence must serve people. And therefore artificial intelligence must always comply with people’s rights. This is why a person must always be in control of critical decisions and so called ‘high risk AI’ — this is AI that potentially interferes with people’s rights — have to be tested and certified before they reach our single market.”

“Today’s message is that artificial intelligence is a huge opportunity in Europe, for Europe. We do have a lot but we have to unleash this potential that is out there. We want this innovation in Europe,” von der Leyen added. “We want to encourage our businesses, our researchers, the innovators, the entrepreneurs, to develop artificial intelligence and we want to encourage our citizens to feel confident to use it in Europe.”

Towards a rights-respecting common data space

The European Commission has been working on building what it dubs a “data economy” for several years at this point, plugging into its existing Digital Single Market strategy for boosting regional competitiveness.

Its aim is to remove barriers to the sharing of non-personal data within the single market. The Commission has previously worked on regulation to ban most data localization, as well as setting out measures to encourage the reuse of public sector data and open up access to scientific data.

Healthcare data sharing has also been in its sights, with policies to foster interoperability around electronic health records, and it’s been pushing for more private sector data sharing — both b2b and business-to-government.

“Every organisation should be able to store and process data anywhere in the European Union,” it wrote in 2018. It has also called the plan a “common European data space“. Aka “a seamless digital area with the scale that will enable the development of new products and services based on data”.

The focus on freeing up the flow of non-personal data is intended to complement the bloc’s long-standing rules on protecting personal data. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in 2018, has reinforced EU citizens’ rights around the processing of their personal information — updating and bolstering prior data protection rules.

The Commission views GDPR as a major success story by merit of how it’s exported conversations about EU digital standards to a global audience.

But it’s fair to say that back home enforcement of the GDPR remains a work in progress, some 21 months in — with many major cross-border complaints attached to how tech and adtech giants are processing people’s data still sitting on the desk of the Irish Data Protection Commission where multinationals tend to locate their EU HQ as a result of favorable corporate tax arrangements.

The Commission’s simultaneous push to encourage the development of AI arguably risks heaping further pressure on the GDPR — as both private and public sectors have been quick to see model-making value locked up in citizens’ data.

Already across Europe there are multiple examples of companies and/or state authorities working on building personal data-fuelled diagnostic AIs for healthcare; using machine learning for risk scoring of benefits claimants; and applying facial recognition as a security aid for law enforcement, to give three examples.

There has also been controversy fast following such developments. Including around issues such as proportionality and the question of consent to legally process people’s data — both under GDPR and in light of EU fundamental privacy rights as well as those set out in the European Convention of Human Rights.

Only this month a Dutch court ordered the state to cease use of a blackbox algorithm for assessing the fraud risk of benefits claimants on human rights grounds — objecting to a lack of transparency around how the system functions and therefore also “insufficient” controllability.

The von der Leyen Commission, which took up its five-year mandate in December, is alive to rights concerns about how AI is being applied, even as it has made it clear it intends to supercharge the bloc’s ability to leverage data and machine learning technologies — eyeing economic gains.

Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, visiting the AI Intelligence Center in Brussels (via the EC’s EbS Live AudioVisual Service)

The Commission president committed to publishing proposals to regulate AI within the first 100 days — saying she wants a European framework to steer application to ensure powerful learning technologies are used ethically and for the public good.

But a leaked draft of the plan to regulate AI last month suggested it would step back from imposing even a temporary ban on the use of facial recognition technology — leaning instead towards tweaks to existing rules and sector/app specific risk-assessments and requirements.

It’s clear there are competing views at the top of the Commission on how much policy intervention is needed on the tech sector.

Breton has previously voiced opposition to regulating AI — telling the EU parliament just before he was confirmed in post that he “won’t be the voice of regulating AI“.

While Vestager has been steady in her public backing for a framework to govern how AI is applied, talking at her hearing before the EU parliament of the importance of people’s trust and Europe having its own flavor of AI that must “serve humans” and have “a purpose” .

“I don’t think that we can be world leaders without ethical guidelines,” she said then. “I think we will lose it if we just say no let’s do as they do in the rest of the world — let’s pool all the data from everyone, no matter where it comes from, and let’s just invest all our money.”

At the same time Vestager signalled a willingness to be pragmatic in the scope of the rules and how they would be devised — emphasizing the need for speed and agreeing the Commission would need to be “very careful not to over-regulate”, suggesting she’d accept a core minimum to get rules up and running.

Today’s proposal steers away from more stringent AI rules — such as a ban on facial recognition in public places. On biometric AI technologies Vestager described some existing uses as “harmless” during today’s press conference — such as unlocking a phone or for automatic border gates — whereas she stressed the difference in terms of rights risks related to the use of remote biometric identification tech such as facial recognition.

“With this white paper the Commission is launching a debate on the specific circumstance — if any — which might justify the use of such technologies in public space,” she said, putting some emphasis on the word ‘any’.

The Commission is encouraging EU citizens to put questions about the digital strategy for Vestager to answer tomorrow, in a live Q&A at 17.45 CET on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn — using the hashtag #DigitalEU

Do you want to know more on the EU’s digital strategy? Use #DigitalEU to share your questions and we will ask them to Margrethe Vestager this Thursday. pic.twitter.com/I90hCR6Gcz

— European Commission (@EU_Commission) February 18, 2020

Platform liability

There is more to come from the Commission on the digital policy front — with a Digital Services Act in the works to update pan-EU liability rules around Internet platforms.

That proposal is slated to be presented later this year and both commissioners said today that details remain to be worked out. The possibility that the Commission will propose rules to more tightly regulate online content platforms already has content farming adtech giants like Facebook cranking up their spin cycles.

During today’s press conference Breton said he would always push for what he dubbed “shared governance” but he warned several times that if platforms don’t agree an acceptable way forward “we will have to regulate” — saying it’s not up for European society to adapt to the platforms but for them to adapt to the EU.

“We will do this within the next eight months. It’s for sure. And everybody knows the rules,” he said. “Of course we’re entering here into dialogues with these platforms and like with any dialogue we don’t know exactly yet what will be the outcome. We may find at the end of the day a good coherent joint strategy which will fulfil our requirements… regarding the responsibilities of the platform. And by the way this is why personally when I meet with them I will always prefer a shared governance. But we have been extremely clear if it doesn’t work then we will have to regulate.”

Internal market commissioner, Thierry Breton

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425 https://ift.tt/2SJJo2h via IFTTT

#IFTTT #RSSMix.com Mix ID 8204425

0 notes

bluewatsons · 5 years

Text

Margaret Rosso Grossman, Climate Change and the Individual, 66 Am J Comparative Law 345 (2018)

Introduction

“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present.”1 Atmospheric and ocean temperatures are rising, “[p]recipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing.”2 The 2017 Climate Science Special Report describes the current state of scientific knowledge about U.S. and global climate change. The report concludes that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation.”3

Global data show that 2016 was the warmest year on record and the third consecutive year for record global average surface temperatures.4 In the continental United States, 2016 was the second warmest year on record, after 2012, with higher than average precipitation and fifteen climate-related disasters including drought, wildfire, floods, and severe storms, which caused losses of more than $1 billion.5

The emission of greenhouses gases (GHGs),6 which move about in the atmosphere, is a major cause of global climate change. GHGs absorb terrestrial radiation that leaves the Earth’s surface. Although GHGs “create the natural heat-trapping properties of the atmosphere” and are “necessary to life as we know it,” high concentrations of GHGs cause an increase in the Earth’s absorption of energy and the resulting increase in temperature referred to as global warming.7

Recent research identifies deadly effects of climate change, “one of the biggest global threats to human health of the 21st century.”8 If global GHG emissions are not reduced, heat waves will affect 74% of the world’s population by 2100. Even with drastic GHG reductions, almost half of humans will face deadly heat.9 In Europe, increasing temperatures will result in weather disasters, especially heat waves and coastal flooding, and a sharp increase in climate-related deaths by 2100.10 By 2050, climate change may affect nutrition in developing countries as rising temperatures reduce availability of plant proteins.11

Although a number of U.S. statutes govern human activities related to climate change, no comprehensive climate change legislation exists.12 Federal programs (including the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan13), as well as regional, state, and local initiatives, promised to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. Recent developments, however, have diluted federal efforts.14 For example, in March 2017, President Trump revoked significant Obama-administration climate change policies, including the Climate Action Plan and related strategies.15 This revocation and others that followed are likely to result in increased emissions and a failure to meet climate targets (e.g., energy efficiency, methane emissions).16

Significantly, in June 2017, the United States announced its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,17 a decision that triggered international condemnation, as well as criticism from state and local governments and large corporations in the United States. In August 2017, the United States notified the United Nations of its intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as the United States is eligible, unless it “identifies suitable terms for reengagement.”18 The U.S. withdrawal was characterized as a “severe backwards move and an abrogation of its responsibility as the world’s second largest emitter . . . when more, not less, commitment is needed from all governments to avert the worst impacts of climate change.”19 Despite this withdrawal, however, the United States could meet its Paris goals through the efforts of cities, states, and businesses.20

The global crisis of climate change has affected the practice of law.21 Indeed, in recent years, climate change has engendered “a rapidly building wave of litigation” in the United States.22 Although the judiciary is “a latecomer to the crisis that has worsened in the hands of the legislative and executive branches,”23 litigation can play a role in forcing government regulatory action and perhaps in providing remedies for harm from GHG emissions. As commentators observed, “[t]he president might root out climate policy from executive branch decision-making, but he cannot unilaterally remove the issue from judicial consideration.”24

This Report, guided by a questionnaire prepared for the Twentieth General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, addresses the topic of climate change lawsuits and the individual. The questionnaire focuses on lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs against public and private actors to achieve mitigation of climate change or adaptation to its effects. It does not focus on legal persons, such as corporations and other legal entities. Of the hundreds of climate change cases filed in the United States, only a small number involve individual plaintiffs. Other cases involve environmental organizations that sue on behalf of their members, demanding mitigation or adaptation and sometimes damages for injury. To provide background, this Report first reviews possible causes of action to remedy climate change. It raises a number of difficult issues faced by plaintiffs in climate change litigation. The Report then reviews a number of cases brought by individual plaintiffs and environmental organizations against public and private actors.

I. Climate Change Causes of Action: A Brief Overview

Climate change litigation, defined broadly, is “any piece of federal, state, tribal, or local administrative or judicial litigation in which the party filings or tribunal decisions directly and expressly raise an issue of fact or law regarding the substance or policy of climate change causes and impacts.”25 An empirical study identified 201 U.S. agency proceedings and court cases involving climate change up to 2010.26 Two types of issues were predominant: government agency responsibility to restrict GHG emission by rule or permit and government compliance with statutory requirements for environmental impact assessment in decisions to approve GHG sources.27 Most climate change litigation asked courts to decide “whether and how administrative agencies must take climate change into account in decisionmaking under existing statutes.”28

The “wave of litigation” continued, and by April 2018, a database of U.S. climate change litigation listed 857 “cases,” broadly defined.29 This database, linking to more than 3,094 documents, collects a wide variety of court cases, administrative actions, petitions for rulemaking, and other matters related to climate change. In some of the court cases in the database, climate change is not the main focus of the litigation. Claims represented in these cases arose under federal and state statutes, the Constitution, common law, public trust, securities and financial regulation, and trade agreements; a few cases involved climate change protesters and scientists.30

A. Regulatory Litigation

A significant number of U.S. climate change cases are based on federal statutes and regulations, and many seek judicial review of administrative decisions. Both industry and environmentalists have sued. Industry cases often challenge government regulatory environmental standards. Suits by environmentalists often seek more stringent regulation for mitigation or adaptation. Under the Clean Air Act, for example, environmentalist suits include petitions to require agency rulemaking or other climate-related action and various challenges to administrative actions such as the granting of permits. Other cases challenge agency decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act31 and other federal laws for failure to consider GHG emissions and the impact of climate change. Some of these climate change lawsuits have led to stricter regulation—for example, EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions after Massachusetts v. EPA.32

State law claims, too, challenge administrative decisions, with environmental plaintiffs often seeking stronger regulation or challenging permits. Even more state law cases allege inadequate consideration of GHG emissions and climate change under state environmental impact laws. Cases that challenge inadequate adaptation measures sometimes rely on statutory and regulatory requirements or, in local cases, on local government ordinances.

B. Common Law

Although climate change litigation based on various federal and state statutes has predominated, a few plaintiffs have brought common law causes of action, albeit with little success.33 Most are tort claims for damages, and scholars have expressed views on the most effective causes of action in climate change lawsuits. Nuisance and negligence offer some possibility for success, with trespass and civil conspiracy considered less helpful. Strict liability is another possible remedy,34 and some cases rely on public trust.

Nuisance law, with its focus on unreasonable injury, may be effective for some climate change claims.35 Public nuisance lawsuits are appropriate to abate “an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.”36American Electric Power, Co. v. Connecticut,37 however, limited federal common law public nuisance claims in areas governed by statute, holding that “the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants.”38 Common law nuisance claims based on state common law may continue to be viable.39

Relatively few plaintiffs have sued in negligence, but some commentators see negligence as the most appropriate tort cause of action.40 Typical requirements for a prima facie case in negligence—duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages—raise significant challenges in cases against GHG emitters, especially in proving that emissions breached a duty to plaintiffs and that defendant’s emissions caused plaintiff’s injury. Negligence may be more successful in adaptation cases against local governments or property developers, but proving that the defendant’s alleged negligence, rather than an extreme precipitation event, was proximate cause of plaintiff’s harm may be difficult.41

Despite the existence of some climate change tort cases, tort law may not be an effective means to mitigate or adapt to climate change. As one influential scholar insisted, “climate change ill fits the existing tort paradigm.”42 Specifically, this scholar explained:

Diffuse and disparate in origin, lagged and latticed in effect, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions represent the paradigmatic anti-tort, a collective action problem so pervasive and so complicated as to render at once both all of us and none of us responsible. Thus, courts will have ample reason—not to mention doctrinal weaponry—to prevent climate change tort suits from reaching a jury.43

Others agree that tort law is intended to solve private and local disputes, rather than big societal problems:

Climate change and other so-called “collective action” problems simply cannot be addressed through the common-law tort system. That system was developed to address essentially private disputes, involving lines of fault and causation running directly between discrete parties. It was never intended, and cannot reasonably be applied, to allow a judge or jury to assess and allocate liability for any and all societal concerns.44

Legislatures, instead of courts, have “the authority and the capacity to consider and develop responses to [climate change], and only after a regulatory architecture has been established can judges and juries properly (and constitutionally) play a role.”45

C. Public Trust

Beginning around 2011, plaintiffs have filed a number of cases relying, at least in part, on the public trust doctrine.46 Some are part of a global campaign, the Atmospheric Trust Litigation, connected with a nonprofit, Our Children’s Trust.47 Public trust, with roots in Roman and English law, requires governments to protect certain natural resources, “the gifts of nature’s bounty,” for present and future generations.48 Although the precise source of public trust in U.S. law is hard to identify, the doctrine is an ancient attribute of federal and state sovereignty with constitutional force.49

Plaintiffs (primarily young people) in recent public trust litigation insist that the government owes a fiduciary obligation to its citizen beneficiaries to protect public trust assets, including the atmosphere and water bodies affected by GHG emissions. State public trust law is evolving and may help to address climate change. A few courts have recognized the atmosphere as a public trust asset, and a few decisions have resulted in a court-ordered state GHG rulemaking.50 Sixteen states have ecological public trusts; five have indicated that their doctrines are evolutionary, responding to changing environmental circumstances; and two have explicitly extended public trust to the atmosphere.51 It is possible, therefore, that adaptation to climate change could “become an official state duty, geared to protecting as much of the public interest in and rights to natural resources and ecosystems as possible in light of climate change impacts.”52

Some scholars urge the use of judicial restraint to limit climate change litigation, relying perhaps on standing and the political question doctrine.53 Climate change, it is argued, is “a massive global and undifferentiated problem is one that must be addressed by the political branches of government—Congress and the EPA—and ultimately by international bodies.”54 Nonetheless, litigants have turned to the courts for relief from harm caused by GHG emissions.

II. Significant Issues in Climate Change Litigation

Courts, in general, accept the science of climate change55 and conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others that anthropogenic emissions of GHGs are a major cause of climate change.56 The majority opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA, decided in 2007, illustrates:

A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a “greenhouse gas.”57

Despite judicial acceptance of the science, climate change litigation raises a number of issues. Some arise in nearly all climate change litigation; others apply to specific types of lawsuits, depending on the cause of action and the parties. The following discussion focuses on major issues common to cases brought to mitigate or abate the effects of climate change. It does not attempt to identify every possible defense or obstacle facing plaintiffs in climate change cases.58

A. Standing

Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution,59 which limits federal judicial authority to cases and controversies, plaintiffs who sue in federal court must have standing to sue; state courts also require standing. The doctrine of standing helps to ensure that the plaintiff has a personal stake in the controversy and that issues will be resolved in a “proper adversarial presentation.”60

The U.S. Supreme Court articulated the elements of standing in an environmental law decision:

[T]o satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.61

The injury required for standing is injury to the plaintiff, rather than to the environment.62 Only one plaintiff must have standing to invoke the jurisdiction of the court,63 and the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the elements of standing.64

Nongovernmental and other organizations often bring climate change lawsuits on behalf of their members. These associations, the Supreme Court noted, have standing if “members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, the interests at stake are germane to the organization’s purpose, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.”65

The plaintiff’s injury in fact must be particularized and imminent. The Supreme Court noted that “[b]y particularized, we mean that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.”66 Some scholars have noted that plaintiffs must allege harms that are more than “generalized grievances shared by all citizens.”67 On a global scale, however, climate change “defies any notion of particularized injury.”68 The fact that harms from climate change are widespread may lead courts to conclude that those harms are generalized grievances, but in a leading standing decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court indicated that widely shared risks do not minimize the plaintiff’s interest in the outcome of litigation.69

The plaintiff’s injury must be “fairly traceable” to defendant’s action. That is, the plaintiff must identify a causal connection between defendant’s behavior and injury caused by climate change. Given the nature of GHGs, plaintiffs are unlikely to identify a direct causal connection to a source of emissions.70 As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit indicated, the analysis of traceability in climate change cases might use “the standard by which a public nuisance action imposes liability on contributors to an indivisible harm,”71 a standard short of scientific certainty or proof of proximate cause, thus allowing “a substantial likelihood of causal contribution [to satisfy] the test of traceability” for standing.72

Redressability can also pose difficulties for plaintiffs: “If redressability requires successful elimination of the entire climate change problem, then no plausible suit could ever clear the standing hurdle.”73 Focus on redressing the harm suffered by the plaintiff makes satisfying this element more likely. As the Supreme Court noted in Massachusetts, climate change has enormous consequences; the plaintiff must allege that the requested remedy would slow or reduce global warming, but not that a favorable decision can relieve every injury.74

Two types of climate change cases illustrate issues of standing. One involves a challenge to government failure to consider the impacts of climate change in making decisions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),75 the Endangered Species Act (ESA),76 or other statutes. The other involves claims that the Clean Air Act77 or other statutes require the government to take more regulatory action to mitigate climate change.78

Some federal statutes, most prominently the NEPA,79 require the government to assess the environmental impacts of certain actions that affect the environment. Some courts denied standing to petitioners who challenged government failure to consider climate change in environmental assessments, in part because the effects of a proposed project were remote, rather than actual and imminent, and because their alleged harm (increased global temperature) was not particularized.80 More recently, in WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell,81 the D.C. Circuit granted standing to plaintiffs who established “that consideration of climate change would have impacted the decision that allegedly harms them, even if the harm is not itself related to climate change.”82 Plaintiffs’ aesthetic and recreational interests supported standing, and their challenge to the failure to consider climate change could be litigated along with other issues in the case.83 Indeed when plaintiffs allege that their procedural rights are violated (e.g., failure to consider climate change in a decision that results in harm to environmental interests), they may “tend to fare better when they can articulate an underlying injury for standing purposes that is not itself climate based.”84

Standing is relevant when a plaintiff challenges the government’s failure to regulate GHG emissions under federal pollution control statutes. Standing was a threshold issue in Massachusetts v. EPA.85 States, local governments, and private organizations alleged that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had “abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide” from new motor vehicles.86 Petitioners asked the Supreme Court to determine whether the EPA had statutory authority to regulate GHG emissions and whether the EPA’s reasons for failing to regulate were consistent with the CAA. In its standing determination, the Court recognized that GHG emissions caused widespread harm, but held that the state of Massachusetts satisfied the constitutional requirements for standing. Massachusetts, as landowner and parens patriae for its citizens, faced injury from the risk of rising sea levels that could swallow coastal land. In terms of causation, carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles contributed significantly to GHG concentrations. The regulation of those carbon dioxide emissions would help to redress the injury suffered by Massachusetts and its citizens.87

The Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts was solicitous of states as plaintiffs, but some argue that the decision “weakened the traditional requirements for Article III standing,”88 especially causation and redressability. As one scholar suggested, private plaintiffs could cite the Court’s reasoning to support standing in similar cases involving injury from rising sea levels due to climate change, but subsequent cases have been “confusing” on standing.89 Nonetheless, standing decisions are difficult (and “often logically suspect”) in cases where the claim is that “a government action or inaction permits or leaves unregulated some activity” that contributes to climate change and its harm.90

B. The Political Question Doctrine

The political question doctrine is, in a sense, a separation of powers issue, which applies in a federal law context. That is, it holds that certain types of issues are “committed to an elected branch of government and thus should not be heard in federal court.”91 The political question doctrine might be considered an aspect of prudential standing, beyond the requirements for Article III standing, that can “ensure respect for the separation of powers.”92

In Baker v. Carr, a leading political question decision, the Supreme Court articulated six attributes of a nonjusticiable political question and indicated that only if one of those attributes is “inextricable” from the dispute should the court dismiss the case as a political question.93 The Court indicated that cases that involve political actions or issues are not normally nonjusticiable political questions. Indeed, few Supreme Court cases have been found to present political questions.94

In the climate change context, the political question doctrine was analyzed in trial and appellate decisions in Connecticut v. American Electric Power, a case involving federal common law nuisance claims seeking abatement of carbon dioxide emissions from electric power corporations. The federal district court in New York noted that climate change was “patently political” and “transcendently legislative.” It focused especially on a Baker v. Carr attribute, “the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion,” and determined that it needed a legislative policy determination before it could decide the global warming complaints. The district court therefore dismissed the case as raising nonjusticiable political questions.95 On appeal, the Second Circuit applied the Baker v. Carr factors, analyzing each factor in detail, and concluding that none of the factors applied. The dispute was not inherently political, and the court could hear a public nuisance suit. Therefore, the Second Circuit reversed.96 The Supreme Court granted certiorari, but did not reach the political question issue. Instead, the Court held that the Clean Air Act, which authorizes the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, displaced plaintiffs’ federal common law nuisance claims.97

In a more recent case alleging violation of constitutional and public trust rights, a federal district court analyzed plaintiffs’ claims in light of the six criteria in Baker v. Carr. The court concluded that the case did not raise a nonjusticiable political question, but involved a determination of whether plaintiffs’ constitutional rights had been violated. The court acknowledged, however, that if plaintiffs prevail, a remedy would have to be crafted carefully to avoid separation of powers issues.98

Some scholars urge the use of judicial restraint, using standing and the political question doctrine, to dismiss tort litigation in the context of climate change.99 But the political question doctrine does not apply often, and others believe that it was not intended to apply to nonconstitutional issues or, if it applies, should not preclude review of common law claims. That is, “courts should not hide from these issues behind the veil of the political question doctrine.”100

C. Displacement

The doctrine of displacement, a separation of powers issue between the judicial and legislative branches,101 has prevented the resolution of some prominent climate change cases based on federal common law. A leading displacement decision is American Electric Power, Co. v. Connecticut (AEP),102 a federal common law public nuisance claim for injunctive relief, alleging that GHG emissions from power companies contributed to global warming. Federal common law applies only when Congress had not regulated, and Massachusetts v. EPA103 had held that the CAA authorized federal regulation of GHG emissions. The EPA had issued its “endangerment” finding104 and had begun the regulatory process. Therefore, the Court held “that the Clean Air Act and the EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants.”105 The test for displacement of federal common law is “whether the statute ‘speak[s] directly to [the] question’ at issue.”106 Congressional delegation of authority to the EPA to regulate (or not to regulate) emissions displaced federal common law, even before the EPA promulgated regulations. The court stated clearly, however, that “EPA’s judgment . . . would not escape judicial review” through administrative law challenges in the federal courts.107

Although plaintiffs in AEP v. Connecticut sought injunctive relief, later cases indicated that displacement does not depend on the type of remedy. For example, Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil108 was a federal public nuisance claim against energy producers for money damages brought by an Alaskan village threatened by erosion from storm waves and surges attributed to global warming. Although federal common law nuisance could apply to transboundary pollution, the Ninth Circuit stated that common law “is subject to the paramount authority of Congress,”109 and that displacement of the common law right of action displaces all its remedies. Therefore, the court held, “AEP extinguished Kivalina’s federal common law public nuisance damage action,” just as it had extinguished the abatement actions at issue in AEP.110 The court’s conclusion was not affected by the fact that Kivalina sought damages for harms that occurred before the EPA established GHG standards. Congressional empowerment of the EPA triggered displacement, which applies even if the executive branch has not yet acted under its congressional authority.

AEP v. Connecticut focused on federal common law, but did not reach the plaintiff’s state law claims. The Court noted, however, that “the availability . . . of a state lawsuit depends, inter alia, on the preemptive effect of the federal” CAA.111 Preemption requires a “clear and manifest [congressional] purpose”112 and is generally disfavored. Nonetheless, the complications of climate change cases mean that the EPA can more efficiently regulate GHG emissions.113

Recent cases allege harm to public trust assets, including the atmosphere and territorial seas. Public trust claims were not at issue in AEP v. Connecticut, and so far, the displacement doctrine has not been applied to public trust claims. Characterized as substantive due process claims, these public trust rights, which predate and are secured by the Constitution, are unique because the government obligation to protect the trust property “cannot be legislated away.”114

D. Causation and Problems of Proof

As a threshold determination, standing requires a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury, which must be “fairly traceable” to defendant’s action.115 On the merits, however, proof of causation may be a significant barrier to recovery, particularly in tort cases claiming damages for injuries caused by climate change. Plaintiffs must generally prove the connection between the defendant’s GHG emissions and plaintiff’s harm, as well as the extent of defendant’s contribution to that harm.

The nature of climate change raises significant evidentiary problems. GHGs come from many sources; some have persisted in the atmosphere, and others are present-day emissions. Some emissions come directly from industry; others, less direct, come when many individuals burn fossil fuels. In fact, “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change describes the key causal mechanism of climate change as ‘well-mixed greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere. Such mixing obscures particular contributions and makes attribution of harm difficult. Yet the law generally assigns liability only when particular contributions can be related to particular effects.”116

Therefore, plaintiffs in climate change cases will face “enormous difficulties” in proving causation, especially “that emissions from a particular site, or group of sites, actually made their way into the atmosphere, and once there contributed to climate change, which then caused a specific event . . . and that provable damages ensued.”117 A 2017 international study asserted that “no court has yet found that particular GHG emissions relate causally to particular adverse climate change impacts for the purpose of establishing liability.”118 Moreover, plaintiffs face the additional burden of proving that defendant’s GHG emissions were a substantial factor in their particularized damages.119 Apportionment of damages among numerous sources of GHGs will raise particular challenges.120

Some tort causes of action (negligence, negligent nuisance) require proof that the defendant’s actions were unreasonable. Defendants who operated under a valid government permit or whose GHG emissions were not regulated may have acted reasonably. Moreover, in negligence cases, plaintiffs may not meet the requirement of proximate cause if, for example, flood damage was caused by extreme rainfall, rather than breach of duty by the defendant.121 Intentional torts (intentional nuisance, trespass) require proof that the defendant knew of the resulting harm or was “substantially certain” that harm would result from the defendant’s actions.122

When plaintiffs claim damages from climate change, difficulties in proving causation and other issues and in collecting a substantial portion of damages mean that the “financial viability of these cases from a plaintiff’s perspective in many instances is highly questionable.”123

Problems of proof faced by climate change plaintiffs are often due to “gaps or uncertainties in relevant climate science,” in part because scientific studies have focused on large-scale effects, rather than more local impacts.124 Advances in scientific research may make proof of causation easier, allowing plaintiffs to identify defendants and to apportion their responsibility more accurately.125 An article published in 2014, for example, noted that climate change is the result of historic emissions and traced emissions to major carbon producers. The study, based on records from 1854 to 2010, found that 63% of cumulative global emissions of industrial CO2 and methane originated from ninety international “carbon major” entities (companies, state-owned enterprises, and nations).126 For some cases, studies like this could make apportionment of damages easier.

III. The Individual as Plaintiff in Climate Change Litigation

In the United States, individuals have the right to comment on regulatory proposals and participate in administrative agency proceedings. Moreover, many statutes have citizen-suit provisions that allow individuals and others affected by statutory or regulatory violations to sue for violations, sometimes after giving notice to the agency. Plaintiffs must generally meet the threshold requirements discussed above. Few individuals, however, have the resources for costly, protracted litigation against governments or private actors.127 Instead, plaintiffs in climate change litigation tend to be environmental organizations and associations. The following discussion therefore includes some cases brought by environmental organizations.

A. Human Rights and Public Trust

Although climate change threatens people globally and in the United States, few climate change cases in the United States have focused on human rights. In 2005, the Inuit community in Alaska petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, claiming that U.S. failure to control GHGs had violated Inuit human rights. The Commission did not decide the case, but the Inuit petition helped to highlight “the human rights implications of climate change.”128

In recent years, public trust litigation, often in state courts, has raised human rights claims, with mixed success.129 These cases, many brought by young people under the auspices of Our Children’s Trust, allege that public trust requires government action on climate change. Using petitions for rulemaking, often seeking carbon recovery plans, as well as lawsuits, they form “a full-scale, coordinated campaign with multiple suits pending and others teed up in different forums, all connected by a common template of science and law.”130 Most petitions and lawsuits have been unsuccessful, but a few have led to regulatory action.131 Successful atmospheric trust litigation requires the court to recognize its judicial role in enforcing public trust obligations, identifying government obligations to protect the atmosphere as a public trust asset, and crafting remedies that will “ensure that the political branches fulfill their trust obligation.”132

A federal case filed in Oregon illustrates the efforts of individual plaintiffs to gain acceptance of the public trust doctrine in the context of climate change. Plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States133 are twenty-one young people, one adult (guardian for future generations), and Earth Guardians, a youth association with a chapter in Oregon. They sued the United States, the President, and executive agencies, alleging that defendants knew for decades that burning fossil fuels destabilized the climate system, but nonetheless enabled exploitation and use of fossil fuels, allowing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere to escalate.

Because the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly protect the environment, plaintiffs in Juliana alleged that defendants’ actions “violate their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.”134 They sought a declaration that their rights had been violated and an order enjoining continued violation and requiring preparation of a plan to reduce emissions of CO2. Defendants and intervenors moved to dismiss, asserting, among other claims, that the case raised political questions, plaintiffs lacked standing, the federal government is not subject to public trust claims. The judge’s thoughtful opinion affirmed and supplemented the magistrate judge’s denial of the motion to dismiss.

The judge identified the questions at issue: “[W]hether defendants are responsible for some of the harm caused by climate change, whether plaintiffs may challenge defendants’ climate change policy in court, and whether this Court can direct defendants to change their policy without running afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.”135

On the political question issue, the court analyzed the case in light of the Supreme Court criteria136 and concluded that the case did not raise a nonjusticiable political question, but instead involved a determination of “whether defendants have violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”137 Moreover, plaintiffs met constitutional requirements for standing. They alleged particularized and imminent injuries, which are ongoing and likely to recur.138 Plaintiffs’ injuries are fairly traceable to defendant’s actions and are redressable because the relief requested (a remedial plan to phase out emissions and reduce CO2) will help to slow climate change.139

The court then evaluated plaintiffs’ due process and public trust claims. Applying a strict scrutiny standard, because of possible infringement of a fundamental right, the court noted that “the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”140 The court held that “where a complaint alleges governmental action is affirmatively and substantially damaging the climate system in a way that will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet’s ecosystem, it states a claim for a due process violation.”141 The court evaluated the plaintiffs’ claim of harm to public trust assets and held that the doctrine applies to the federal government. Unlike common law nuisance claims, AEP v. Connecticut did not displace public trust, and those claims, characterized as substantive due process claims, can be heard in federal court.142

Perhaps recognizing the novelty of her decision, the judge commented that “[f]ederal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environmental law, and the world has suffered for it.”143 Defendants moved for an interlocutory appeal, but in June 2017, the district court denied defendants’ motion.144 The United States filed a writ of mandamus in the Ninth Circuit, arguing in part, that

[t]he District Court’s rulings in this case show a clear and continuing intent to usurp the power of Congress to determine national policy regarding energy development, use of public lands and environmental protection by constructing out of whole cloth a novel constitutional right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.”145

The Ninth Circuit stayed the district court proceedings until further order and heard oral arguments on December 11, 2017.146

Juliana is the first federal court decision holding that “there might be a constitutional right to a sound environment,” but it seems unlikely, according to a climate law scholar, that the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail.147 Indeed, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit against federal defendants because public trust was a matter of state law.148 Similarly, cases in state courts may be unsuccessful. For example, a New Mexico state court rejected application of the public trust with a separation of powers rationale.149 An individual plaintiff and a conservation organization alleged that the public trust obligated the government to regulate GHG emissions. The New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the state constitution includes a public trust duty to protect natural resources, including the atmosphere, but that public trust arguments “must be raised within the existing constitutional and statutory framework,” rather than by a common law action.150 The Air Quality Control Act addresses regulation of GHGs and allows plaintiffs the right to participate in the administrative process, so courts cannot independently regulate GHG emissions. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment for the state.

B. Mitigation Cases v. Public Actors

Many federal and state cases seek mitigation of climate change. Some (for example, Massachusetts) demand regulatory action; others demand consideration of GHG emissions and climate change in governmental decision making.151 Industry cases against public actors often challenge regulatory measures to mitigate climate change.152

Two state-court cases brought by youth plaintiffs as part of atmospheric trust litigation illustrate individual-plaintiff lawsuits against public actors for mitigation. In both, plaintiffs sought review of environmental agency denials of petitions for rulemaking. In one, the court required GHG regulations; in the other, the trial court required regulations and recognized plaintiff’s public trust and constitutional rights, but its order was reversed on appeal.

In Kain v. Department of Environmental Protection, individual state residents and two associations sought a declaratory judgment or writ of mandamus to require the Department to regulate GHG emissions as required by Massachusetts law.153 After petitioning the Department, which cited regulatory initiatives and asserted that it had complied with the law, state residents sued. The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s claims, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted review and concluded that the Department had not complied with statutory requirements. Therefore, the court required the Department

to promulgate regulations that address multiple sources or categories of sources of greenhouse gas emissions, impose a limit on emissions that may be released, limit the aggregate emissions released from each group of regulated resources or categories of sources, set emission limits for each year, and set limits that decline on an annual basis.154

Foster v. Washington Department of Ecology155 was a public-trust challenge to the Washington Department of Ecology’s denial of a 2014 petition for a rule to propose science-based GHG emission limits to the legislature. In June 2015, the court ordered the Department of Ecology (DOE) to reconsider its denial of plaintiffs’ petition, especially in light of the DOE’s own report, which the court characterized as an “urgent call to action” on climate change, that emphasized the importance of prompt action on climate change, but failed to recommend stricter emission limits.156 In November 2015, the court affirmed the DOE’s second denial of the plaintiffs’ petition because rulemaking had begun, but emphasized the state and DOE duty to protect public trust and other rights under the Washington state constitution.157 In May 2016, however, after the DOE’s rulemaking lagged, the judge ordered the DOE to finalize its rule and make recommendations for GHG emission reductions to the legislature.158 The Department of Ecology appealed this order.159

By the end of 2016, the DOE had issued its GHG rule and recommended GHG emission limitations to the legislature. Nonetheless, in a December 2016 opinion, the trial court judge, sua sponte, granted petitioners leave to amend their complaint to add a complaint for declaratory judgment that that DOE is violating their inalienable constitutional and public-trust rights to a healthy environment. The court retained jurisdiction of the case to give the plaintiffs their day in court.160 In another order, the court took “judicial notice of the fact that federal mechanisms designed to protect the environment are now under siege, more than ever leaving to the States the obligation to protect their citizens under the Public Trust Doctrine.”161 In September 2017, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s May 2016 order as an abuse of discretion.162

The trial court’s approach in Foster is significant because of its recognition of the crisis of climate change, its declaration of public-trust protection of the atmosphere, and its emphasis on the importance of science for rulemaking.163 In Foster, the judge “declared an atmospheric public trust responsibility of constitutional magnitude in a context framed by urgency, severe danger to humanity, and agency recalcitrance.”164

C. Climate Change in Environmental Impact Assessment

1. Federal Law

A significant number of U.S. cases (more than 300) focus on government responsibility to consider the impact of GHG emissions and climate change in decision making. Federal cases rely on the NEPA, the ESA,165 and other statutes; state cases rely on state impact assessment laws. In an analysis of litigation through 2010, researchers found “a fairly well defined case law under NEPA . . . establishing that GHG emissions and climate change impacts are fair game for impact assessment procedures, but that the normal rules apply for determining the level of analysis agencies must provide.”166 Most NEPA claims had been unsuccessful, but some more recent cases have found treatment of climate change in environmental impact statements (EIS) inadequate.167 The Council on Environmental Quality provided guidance for federal agency consideration of GHG emissions and climate change effects under the NEPA.168 A 2017 executive order required that guidance to be withdrawn, but the withdrawal in April 2017 did not change any “legally binding requirement,”169 so the NEPA will continue to require consideration of climate change in environmental assessments and EIS.

Plaintiffs—often environmental advocacy groups acting on behalf of their members—in many of these NEPA cases have sued to force analysis of climate change by federal agencies or to challenge the sufficiency of analysis in an EIS. A few decisions have required consideration of climate change in impact assessment.170 Many others have evaluated agencies’ climate change analysis under a deferential standard of review and found the agency’s analysis adequate.171

For example, a recent NEPA case brought by environmental advocacy organizations on behalf of their individual members is WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Forest Service.172 Petitioners in consolidated cases challenged Forest Service approvals of coal leases, alleging violations of the NEPA and other statutes. Petitioners claimed that the coal leases on federal land in Wyoming had major impacts on CO2 emissions, affected global climate change, and threatened members’ enjoyment of the leased land areas. Members’ documentation of the effects of leases on their use and enjoyment of the areas satisfied standing requirements.173 Nonetheless, the court affirmed the agency decisions. In the EIS prepared for the coal leases, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management “did not ignore the effects of coal combustion, GHGs and climate change” and considered risk of harm.174 Applying a deferential standard of review, the court held that the NEPA analysis was not arbitrary and capricious. This decision, however, has been criticized as portraying “an interpretation of NEPA shorn of its capacity to compel agencies to consider how their decisions impact the energy infrastructure that is at the heart of climate change.”175

Some plaintiffs seeking mitigation of climate change fail to satisfy threshold requirements. In Amigos Bravos v. U.S. BLM,176 for example, citizen environmental groups alleged, among other claims, that BLM approval of gas leases on almost 69,000 acres in New Mexico violated several federal statutes by failing to address climate change, global warming, and GHG emissions. Although environmental groups have standing to sue if their members would have standing, these plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their members suffered injury in fact because they presented no factual support or scientific evidence for their allegations that climate change would impact members’ lives significantly or that climate change would cause imminent harm to the environment in New Mexico, nor did they show that their members used the land subject to BLM leases. Further, plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the BLM’s approval of the leases made a “meaningful contribution” to climate change; therefore the court also concluded that plaintiffs failed to show that their alleged harms were “fairly traceable” to the BLM’s actions. The federal district court therefore dismissed the suit for lack of standing.177

2. State Impact Assessment

Of the many state law impact assessment cases (142, in the Sabin Center Database, with a number filed recently), few have named individual plaintiffs. More typical are cases with associations as plaintiffs. State claims, especially under the California Environmental Quality Act,178 have been more successful than cases under the NEPA.179 In Center for Biological Diversity v. City of Desert Hot Springs,180 for example, a California trial court held that the environmental impact report (EIR) required under California law was inadequate, in part because it failed to determine the effects of a large development project on GHGs or global warming.

Some individual plaintiffs challenged consideration of climate change in assessments of local projects, with mixed success. For example, individual plaintiffs challenged their county’s failure to prepare an EIR (instead of a less detailed statement) for a subdivision intended for agro-industrial development.181 Among plaintiffs’ allegations was the failure to consider the environmental effects of odors and other emissions from livestock facilities, effects on air quality, and increased GHG emissions. After the trial court denied plaintiff’s claims, the appellate court held that county approval of the subdivision was a project under the CEQA and required preparation of an EIR because of impact on traffic at an intersection adjacent to the site, but not because the county’s climate change analysis was deficient.

In another case, an individual and two associations challenged the EIR on San Francisco’s 2005 Bicycle Plan, prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act.182 The trial court ruled that the EIR complied with the Act, but the individual plaintiff appealed the order, alleging that the 2000-page EIR was deficient. The appellate court rejected arguments (among others) that the EIR, which considered GHG emissions, did not adequately consider climate change and other environmental effects of the Bicycle Plan. The court did, however, require revision of the EIR, which failed to comply with a technical requirement of the Act by omitting specific findings of infeasibility, when the City did not adopt measures that might mitigate significant effects on the environment.

D. Adaptation Cases v. Public Actors

Climate change policy and litigation in the United States emphasized mitigation, with less focus on adaptation. More recently, however, adaptation has received more attention, both in policy and litigation. State and local law have been particularly important, especially in the context of climate effects on coastal and other communities.183 A few cases demand injunctions to require adaptation measures; others seek compensation for property damage.184

1. Federal Law

Cases filed after Hurricane Katrina, though not strictly adaptation cases, sought damages for failure of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to adapt to the effects of climate change. The Army Corps’ action in widening the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet shipping channel and moving it closer to levees increased storm surge. That is, the government canal increased the risk of flooding, and the Corps did not act to avoid flooding.185 Plaintiff’s choice of cause of action, however, was critical. Claims alleging negligence were unsuccessful, but some claims alleging temporary takings resulted in Court of Claims decisions for plaintiffs.

In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation addressed tort claims from plaintiffs (some of the more than 400 individuals) who alleged that the Army Corps’ negligent design and failure to maintain the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet contributed to damage from Hurricane Katrina. The district court concluded that the ACE’s failure to maintain and operate the Gulf Outlet properly led to severe flooding.186 The court held, in part, that the discretionary function exception to the federal Tort Claims Act did not apply.187

The Fifth Circuit affirmed most of the district court’s legal conclusions,188 but then granted the government’s petition for rehearing and withdrew its opinion. On rehearing, the same panel held the government was immune from liability under the discretionary function exception to the Tort Claims Act.189 Its decision for the government affected the bellwether plaintiffs whose cases had been litigated, as well as other claimants who alleged negligence.

In other litigation after Hurricane Katrina, the St. Bernard Parish government and individual property owners filed a Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim against the United States.190 Plaintiffs claimed that the Army Corps’ operation of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet had increased storm surge and flooding after Hurricane Katrina and subsequent hurricanes, resulting in temporary taking of their property.

The 2015 Court of Claims liability decision relied on factual determinations in Katrina Canal Breaches, which found that the Army Corps’ negligence in maintaining and operating the Gulf Outlet was a substantial cause of the flooding.191 The court in St. Bernard Parish held that plaintiffs had protected property interests with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and that the severe and foreseeable flooding constituted a temporary taking.192

In 2016, after failure of the parties to settle or mediate, the Court of Claims calculated just compensation for the plaintiffs’ damages.193 Because property was not lost or destroyed, plaintiffs received no compensation for the value of their fee-simple interest. Instead, they received compensation for the value of replacement improvements on the property and for loss of rent as a result of flooding. The judge entered a final partial judgment with just compensation for eleven “trial properties,” certified a class of property owners, and appointed class counsel. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will review the Court of Claims’ decisions.194

As these federal court decisions suggest, “[c]urrent tort doctrine shields the government in most cases from negligence suits related to climate change adaptation,” but government defendants may be more vulnerable to takings claims, which do not require unreasonable government action.195 Takings claims could address the failure to take adaptive measures, taking ineffective measures, or actions that increase property losses. But these actions do not fit “the traditional paradigm of the Takings Clause, wherein the government is held liable for directly causing a loss of property that otherwise would not have happened”; for Takings Clause liability, government actions should be “both the but-for and the proximate cause of property loss.”196 In some instances, however, government failure to prevent property losses—that is, “passive takings”—could lead to liability, and the St Bernard Parish case might support that approach.197

2. State Law

Individual and other plaintiffs can bring adaptation cases against states and local governmental units; negligence, takings, and fraud are possible causes of action. Some experts argue that tort law is appropriate for “adaptation liability,” particularly if plaintiffs can prove that defendants’ actions were unreasonable “in light of the well-established science of climate change” and the expectation that governments will provide adaptive infrastructure.198

Sovereign immunity poses obstacles for state law cases, particularly for fraud and some negligence claims, but is less likely to bar takings claims.199 Although government tort claims acts waive sovereign immunity in some situations (dangerous conditions or failure to maintain public property), sovereign immunity may protect state and local governments from tort liability for actions involving discretionary functions, nonstructural measures, failure to adopt regulations, or failure to provide benefits that states have no duty to provide.200 Despite some immunity for state and local governments, “when governments act as landowners they are subject to liability for impacts from their construction and operation of structural measures.”201

Few adaptation cases involve individual plaintiffs. In a recent New York case, plaintiff homeowners sustained water damage to their property after severe storms in 2011 overwhelmed the sewer system. They sued the City of New York and its Department of Environmental Protection in negligence for failure to maintain sewer lines to prevent flooding. The City claimed that it had no knowledge of maintenance issues or defective conditions. Under New York law, a municipality is immune from negligence for discretionary activities (designing a sewer or drainage system). For ministerial actions (negligent maintenance), liability exists only if the municipality violates a special duty to the plaintiff, beyond the duty to the public. The city owed no special duty to plaintiffs, nor did plaintiffs prove negligence; the “sole proximate cause” of flooding was precipitation. Therefore, the court granted summary judgment to the city and dismissed the case.202 Similarly, in Illinois, plaintiffs sued to recover for flooding of their homes after heavy rainfall. In consolidated cases, the court dismissed claims against Cook County and other government defendants under the public duty rule, which applies to provision of government services owed to the public at large, rather than to individual plaintiffs.203

Individuals are defendants, rather than plaintiffs, in eminent domain, which allows governments to acquire property for projects to adapt to the effects of climate change. In a New Jersey case, the local government took permanent easements over beachfront property to construct a 20-foot dune. The easement covered a quarter of the owners’ property; the dune obstructed their beach view, but offered significant protection to the owners and others in the community. In a dispute over just compensation, a jury awarded the owners $375,000, and an appellate court affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court, reversing, held that just compensation for a partial taking

must be based on a consideration of all relevant, reasonably calculable, and non-conjectural factors that either decrease or increase the value of the remaining property. In a partial-takings case, homeowners are entitled to the fair market value of their loss, not to a windfall, not to a pay out that disregards the home’s enhanced value resulting from a public project.204

Ultimately, the owners settled for $1. Fair-market-value analysis may decrease the cost of adaptation measures, if just compensation for eminent domain considers benefits, as well as losses, from the project to property owners.205

E. Climate Change Cases v. Private Actors

Relatively few individual climate change plaintiffs have sued private actors. Owners of private facilities are not protected by sovereign immunity, but the Clean Air Act displaces some federal common law claims.206 State tort law claims may remain viable, and some argue that tort claims are particularly appropriate, in part because “the primary goals of tort law [are] . . . its ability to resolve disputes between individuals while galvanizing changed behavior amongst communities.”207 Nonetheless, tort cases against private actors have not been particularly successful.208 Impediments to recovery for property damage include proving a breach of duty by past emitters and a causal connection between emissions and harms, as well as the complexity of tort cases.209 Claims against property developers, or perhaps engineers and architects, who should recognize climate change vulnerability of land that they sell or develop, may be less difficult, but others issues—for example, foreseeability of harm from climate change—may pose obstacles to recovery.210

Comer v. Murphy Oil USA was a putative class action lawsuit against a number of energy corporations brought by a dozen individuals who owned coastal property destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs sued for damages under Mississippi common law claims of public and private nuisance, trespass, and negligence, as well as other claims.211 The Fifth Circuit held that the landowners had standing for the tort actions, but not the other claims, and that the tort claims were not barred as a nonjusticiable political question. The opinion was vacated when the court granted rehearing en banc,212 but judicial recusals led to a lack of quorum for the rehearing, and the court did not reinstate the vacated opinion.213

More recently, a pending citizen suit brought by Conservation Law Foundation on behalf of its individual members seeks declarative and injunctive relief and civil penalties. Plaintiffs allege that ExxonMobil’s storage terminal (with toxic and hazardous chemicals) poses a risk to public health and the environment, in part because ExxonMobil failed to adapt to effects of climate change, so a storm surge, sea level rise, or extreme rain could flood the facility.214 In September 2017, the federal district court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss claims for short-term damages, but held that plaintiffs lacked standing for claims for damages not likely to occur until 2050 or 2100.

Private actors may also be defendants in suits by governmental units. In July 2017, three local governments in California sued thirty-seven private oil, gas, and coal companies alleged to be responsible for 20% of pollution from CO2 and methane from 1965 to 2015.215 Causes of action in the complaints include public nuisance, private nuisance, negligence, trespass, and strict liability for failure to warn and design defect. Quoting industry documents showing that since the 1960s defendants knew, but concealed their knowledge, that GHG pollution from fossil fuels affected climate and sea levels, plaintiffs alleged that defendants’ conduct led to continued sea-level rise that injured plaintiffs and their citizens. Plaintiffs’ claims for relief include compensatory and punitive damages, abatement of nuisances, disgorgement of profits, and other costs.216

Individual plaintiffs have claimed climate change fraud, alleging that energy companies have misled investors and the public about the risks of climate change from their activities. A recent case filed in Texas on behalf of investors alleged that ExxonMobil had committed securities fraud by failure to disclose climate-related risks.217

Fraud may become more significant in climate change cases. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) advised companies “to consider climate change and its consequences,” including physical impacts and extreme weather conditions, in disclosure documents.218 Moreover, the SEC and others are investigating misleading statements from energy companies,219 and an environmental organization petitioned for ExxonMobil’s suspension as a government contractor because of its deceptive behavior and “campaign of misinformation” on climate change.220 Recent research concluded that energy companies knew of the risks of climate change, had the opportunity to reduce those risks, but instead acted to misinform the public.221

Conclusion

As the discussion above indicates, climate change litigation raises complex issues, especially for private plaintiffs. Regulatory challenges as well some common law and constitutional claims are possible causes of action, but few plaintiffs have been successful. Moreover, threshold issues, including standing, the political question doctrine, and displacement, sometimes pose obstacles. Proof of causation also raises special difficulties for individual and other plaintiffs. Although U.S. “courts to date have been unwilling to impose civil liability on private entities,” science may help “address some of the causation and apportionment hurdles that have made these cases challenging.”222 Even so, individual plaintiffs may conclude that lawsuits to mitigate or adapt to climate change are not financially viable. Environmental and other nongovernmental organizations, rather than individual plaintiffs, are more likely to have the resources to pursue climate change litigation.

This Report is based on work supported by the USDA, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project No. ILLU-470-348.

Footnotes

1U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM, HIGHLIGHTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN THE UNITED STATES: THE THIRD NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT 2 (Jerry M. Melillo et al. eds., 2014), https://www.globalchange.gov/sites/globalchange/files/NCA3_Highlights_LowRes-small-FINAL_posting.pdf.

2Id. (“Many lines of independent evidence demonstrate that the rapid warming of the past half-century is due primarily to human activities.”).

3 1 U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM (USGCRP), CLIMATE SCIENCE SPECIAL REPORT: FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT 12 (D.J. Wuebbles et al. eds., 2017), https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf.

4NASA Press Release No. 17-006, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (Jan. 18, 2017), https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.

5Am. Meteorological Soc’y, State of the Climate in 2016, 98 BULL. AM. METEOROLOGICAL SOC’Y Si, S175, S178 (Supp. 2017). See U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-17–720, CLIMATE CHANGE: INFORMATION ON POTENTIAL ECONOMIC EFFECTS COULD HELP GUIDE FEDERAL EFFORTS TO REDUCE FISCAL EXPOSURE (2017) (recommending government use of information on economic effects to identify risks and responses to climate change).

6Significant GHGs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), as well as other substances. Although some GHGs occur naturally, human activities produce or sequester additional quantities of these gases and affect atmospheric concentrations. U.S. ENVTL. PROT. AGENCY, EPA 430-P-17-001, INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS 1990–2015, at 1-3 to 1-8 (2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/2017_complete_report.pdf.

7Id. at 1-3.

8Giovanni Forzieri et al., Increasing Risk over Time of Weather-Related Hazards to the European Population: A Data-Driven Prognostic Study, 1 LANCET PLANETARY HEALTH e200, e200 (2017).

9Camilo Mora et al., Global Risk of Deadly Heat, 7 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 501 (2017) (studying “documented lethal heat events”).

10Forzieri et al., supra note 8, at e200; Susanna Ala-Kurikka, EU Scientists Warn of Huge Rise in Climate-Related Deaths, ENDSEUROPE, Aug. 7, 2017. Moreover, research projects a range of temperature increases by 2100 from 2 to 4.9oC, with extremely little chance of meeting Paris Agreement goals. Adrian E. Raftery et al., Less than 2oC Warming by 2100 Unlikely, 7 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE (2017), https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3352.pdf.

11Danielle E. Medek, Joel Schwartz & Samuel S. Myers, Estimated Effects of Future Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Protein Intake and the Risk of Protein Deficiency by Country and Region, 125 ENVTL. HEALTH PERSPECTIVES 087002-1 (2017), doi:10.1289/EHP41.

12For U.S. laws, see MICHAL NACHMANY ET AL., THE GLOBE CLIMATE LEGISLATION STUDY 606–17 (4th ed. 2014), http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Globe2014.pdf; Climate Change Laws of the World, GRANTHAM INST., http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/climate-change-laws-of-the-world/ (last visited Apr. 11, 2018).

13EXEC. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (2013), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf (focusing on reduced carbon emissions, preparation for effects of climate change, and leadership of international efforts).

14See Michael Mehling, A New Direction for US Climate Policy, 11 CARBON & CLIMATE L. REV. 3 (2017); Avi Zevin, United States, 11 CARBON & CLIMATE L. REV. 162 (2017).

15Exec. Order No. 13,783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth, 82 Fed. Reg. 16,093 (Mar. 31, 2017).

16Projected Effect of Trump Administration Policy Changes on US Emissions, CLIMATE ACTION TRACKER, http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa.html (last updated Nov. 6, 2017). Regulatory changes to weaken climate policies will require notice and comment rulemaking.17U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Draft Dec. 1/CP.

17, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (Dec. 12, 2015) (entered into force Nov. 4, 2016); U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Dec. 1/CP.21, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, U.N. Doc. FCCC/CP/2015/10/Add.1 (Jan. 29, 2016). The Paris Agreement includes nationally determined contributions, that is, voluntary pledges to mitigate GHG emissions. It does not establish enforceable GHG limits or causes of action.

18Letter from Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador, to António Guterres, U.N. Secretary General (Aug. 4, 2017), https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CN/2017/CN.464.2017-Eng.pdf. The United States is eligible to withdraw on November 4, 2019, three years after the Agreement entered into force. The United States will continue to provide GHG emissions data to the U.N., as required by the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, U.N. Doc. A/AC.237/18 (Part II)/Add.1 (May 15, 1992).

19Projected Effect of Trump Administration Policy Changes on US Emissions, supra note 16 (rating U.S. climate change efforts as critically insufficient). U.S. ratification in September 2016 promised a reduction of net GHG emissions by 2025 to 26–28% below 2005 levels, a commitment “at the least ambitious end of what would be a fair contribution.” Id.

20U.S. May Meet Emission Goals—Top U.N. Official, EENEWS GREENWIRE (July 3, 2017), https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/03/stories/1060056898.

21See Leah A. Dundon, Climate Science for Lawyers, 31 NAT. RES. & ENV’T 20, 23 (Spring 2017).22David Markell & J.B. Ruhl, An Empirical Assessment of Climate Change in the Courts: A New Jurisprudence or Business as Usual?, 64 FLA. L. REV. 15, 21 (2012).23Mary Christina Wood & Charles W. Woodward IV, Atmospheric Trust Litigation and the Constitutional Right to a Healthy Climate System: Judicial Recognition at Last, 6 WASH. J. ENVTL. L. & POL’Y 634, 643 (2016).24Jim Rubin & Derek Furstenwerth, Trump Seeks to Uproot the Obama Climate Change Agenda, but Can He Succeed?, 48 TRENDS, no. 6, July/Aug. 2017, at 2, 4.

25Markell & Ruhl, supra note 22, at 27.

26Id. at 15.

27Id. at 25.

28Id.

29U.S. Climate Change Litigation, SABIN CTR. FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LAW, http://climatecasechart.com/us-climate-change-litigation/ (updated monthly; numbers from Apr. 11, 2018) [hereinafter SABIN CENTER DATABASE]. This general summary of climate change cases is guided by the Sabin Center Database.

30Id. Cases are listed by category, with some reported in more than one category.

31National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370f.

32549 U.S. 497 (2007), discussed infra Part II.A.

33See generally Emily Hammond & David L. Markell, Civil Remedies, inGLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND U.S. LAW 239 (Michael B. Gerrard & Jody Freeman eds., 2014) (summarizing possible causes of action and obstacles to success).

34See David Weisbach, Negligence, Strict Liability, and Responsibility for Climate Change, 97 IOWA L. REV. 521, 521–27 (2012). Weisbach considered strict liability in the context of past GHG emissions; complex issues include determining sources of emissions in the face of inconsistent data and assigning responsibility for harmful effects.

35See Hammond & Markell, supra note 33 (focusing on nuisance and public trust).

36RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 821B (AM. LAW INST. 1979). A private nuisance is “a nontrespassory invasion of another’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.” Id. § 821D.

37564 U.S. 410 (2011).

38Id. at 424.

39See Maxine Burkett, Litigating Climate Change Adaptation: Theory, Practice, and Corrective (Climate) Justice, 42 ENVTL. L. REP. 11,144, 11,144 (2012) (noting courts’ “skepticism and fatigue with complex climate litigation”).

40Id. at 11,149.

41Id. at 11,150. See, e.g., Wohl v. City of New York, 45 Misc. 3d 1217(A), 2014 WL 6092059 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 22, 2014) (finding proximate cause was extreme precipitation, not the city’s negligence in maintaining sewer lines).

42Douglas A. Kysar, What Climate Change Can Do About Tort Law, 42 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10,739, 10,740 (2012) (suggesting that climate change could trigger an alteration of tort law).

43Id. at 10,739.

44David T. Buente Jr., Quin M. Sorenson & Clayton G. Northouse, A Response to What Climate Change Can Do About Tort Law, 42 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10,749, 10,751 (2012).

45Id. But see ANDREW GAGE & MARGARETHA WEWERINKE-SINGH, TAKING CLIMATE JUSTICE INTO OUR OWN HANDS: A MODEL CLIMATE COMPENSATION ACT (2015), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2906252 (proposing a Model Climate Compensation Act, based on common law principles and intended to facilitate climate change lawsuits in state courts).

46These cases are collected at SABIN CENTER DATABASE, supra note 29. Lawsuits or petitions for rulemaking have been filed in all fifty states.

47See OUR CHILDREN’S TRUST, https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/ (last visited Feb. 19, 2018). Our Children’s Trust and related organizations have filed lawsuits and petitions for administrative rulemaking.

48Joseph L. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective Judicial Intervention, 68 MICH. L. REV. 471, 484 (1970). A leading case is Illinois Cent. R.R., Co. v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892).

49Wood & Woodward, supra note 23, at 650–53.

50E.g., Foster v. Wash. Dep’t of Ecology, No. 14-2-25295-1 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct. June 23, 2015), discussed in Wood & Woodward, supra note 23.

51Robin Kundis Craig, Climate Change, State Public Trust Doctrines, and PPL Montana 8–10 (Univ. of Utah Coll. of Law, Research Paper No. 57, 2014), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2380754.

52Id. at 9.

53E.g., Donald G. Gifford, Climate Change and the Public Law Model of Torts: Reinvigorating Judicial Restraint Doctrines, 62 S.C. L. REV. 201, 240–57 (2010) (focusing on tort lawsuits).

54Id. at 255.

55Michael Gerrard, Court Rulings Accept Climate Science, 250 N.Y.L.J., Sept. 12, 2013.

56Maria L. Banda & Scott Fulton, Litigating Climate Change in National Courts: Recent Trends and Developments in Global Climate Law, 47 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10,121, 10,130 (2017).

57Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 504–05 (2007).

58For a lengthy list of tactical questions and issues in climate change litigation, even when standing, political question, and displacement do not bar a lawsuit, see Michael B. Gerrard, What Litigation of a Climate Nuisance Suit Might Look Like, 121 YALE L.J. ONLINE 135 (2011).

59U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2.

60Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 517.

61Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs.(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992)).

62Id. at 181.

63Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 518.

64Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. As one scholar noted, these elements are ill-defined, leaving room for judges to decide, for example, what is an injury, whether that injury is “fairly traceable” to the defendant’s behavior, and whether the remedy plaintiff seeks is constitutionally adequate. Daniel A. Farber, Standing on Hot Air: American Electric Power and the Bankruptcy of Standing Doctrine, 121 YALE L.J. ONLINE 121, 122 (2011) (referring to the “unpredictability and ideological nature of standing”).

65Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 181.

66Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 n.1.

67See Gifford, supra note 53, at 243, 244 (citing Thomas W. Merrill, Global Warming as a Public Nuisance, 30 COLUM. J. ENVTL. L. 293 (2005)).

68Barry Kellman, Standing to Challenge Climate Change Decisions, 46 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10,116, 10,117 (2016).

69Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 522, cited by Benjamin Ewing & Douglas A. Kysar, Prods and Pleas: Limited Government in an Era of Unlimited Harm, 121 YALE L.J. 352, 389 (2011).

70Ewing & Kysar, supra note 69, at 392.

71Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power, Co., 582 F. 3d 309, 346 (2d Cir. 2009), rev’d on other grounds, 564 U.S. 410 (2011).

72Ewing & Kysar, supra note 69, at 393.

73Id. at 394.

74Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 525.

7542 U.S.C. §§ 4321–4370f.

76Id. §§ 1531–1544.

77Id. §§ 7401–7671q.

78Kellman, supra note 68, at 10,118 (identifying and analyzing two types of cases).

7942 U.S.C. § 4332(C) (requiring an environmental impact statement for “major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”).

80E.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Dep’t of Interior, 563 F.3d 466, 478 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (challenging the agency’s failure to consider climate change in oil and gas leasing decision), cited by Kellman, supra note 68, at 10,118.

81738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (challenging the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)’s failure to consider climate change in a decision to lease federal land for coal mining).

82Kellman, supra note 68, at 10,118.

83Id. at 10,118–19 (citing additional decisions).

84Bruce Myers, John Broderick & Shannon Smyth, Charting an Uncertain Legal Climate: Article III Standing in Lawsuits to Combat Climate Change, 45 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10,509, 10,509 (2015) (providing a chart of cases with results of challenges to standing and indicating that a majority of plaintiffs are NGOs).

85549 U.S. 497 (2007).

86Id. at 505.

87Id. at 522–26.

88Jonathan H. Adler, Warming up to Climate Change Litigation, 93 VA. L. REV. IN BRIEF 63, 66 (2007).

89Kellman, supra note 68, at 10,120.

90Id. at 10,118. See also Myers, Broderick & Smyth, supra note 84, at 10,509.

91James R. May, AEP v. Connecticut and the Future of the Political Question Doctrine, 121 YALE L.J. ONLINE 127, 127 (2011). For a detailed analysis of the political question doctrine in the context of climate change, see Ewing & Kysar, supra note 69, at 380–86.

92Kevin A. Gaynor, Benjamin S. Lippard & Margaret E. Peloso, Challenges Plaintiffs Face in Litigating Federal Common-Law Climate Change Claims, 40 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10,845, 10,847 (2010).

93The Court described the attributes of a political question: [A] textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962) (challenge to legislative reapportionment in Tennessee).

94Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power, Co., 582 F. 3d 309, 321 (2d Cir. 2009). See also Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. 663 F. Supp. 2d 863 (N.D. Cal. 2009); 696 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012) (affirming on displacement grounds), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2390 (2013).

95406 F. Supp. 2d 265, 271 n.6, 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

96Connecticut, 582 F.3d at 321–32. The court indicated that because Congress can displace common law standards, there is “no need for the protections of the political question doctrine.” Id. at 332. The court held that plaintiffs had standing. See also Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, discussed infra text accompanying notes 211–13.

97Am. Elec. Power, Co. v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410, 424 (2011). See infra Part II.C for a discussion of displacement.

98Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1235–42 (D. Or. 2016).

99E.g., Gifford, supra note 53, at 240–57.

100E.g., May, supra note 91, at 132–33 (quotation at 133). See also Ewing & Kysar, supra note 69, at 387.

101See generally John Wood, Easier Said than Done: Displacing Public Nuisance When States Sue for Climate Change Damages, 41 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10,316 (2011); Hari M. Osofsky, AEP v. Connecticut’s Implications for the Future of Climate Change Litigation, 121 YALE L.J. ONLINE 101 (2011).

102AEP, 564 U.S. The Court was evenly decided on the issue of standing, so affirmed the Second Circuit’s exercise of jurisdiction. Id. at 420. Plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring defendants to cap and then reduce CO2 emissions.

103549 U.S. 497 (2007).

104Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Envtl. Prot. Agency Dec. 15, 2009).

105AEP, 564 U.S. at 424.

106Id. (citations omitted).

107Id. at 426.

108696 F. 3d 849 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 2390 (2013).

109Id. at 857.

110Id. (citing Middlesex Cty. Sewerage Auth. v. Nat’l Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1 (1981)).

111AEP, 564 U.S. at 429 (noting that the parties had not briefed the issues of state common law or preemption).

112Id. at 423 (quoting Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, 317 (1981)).

113AEP, 564 U.S. at 428. See generally Jonathan H. Adler, A Tale of Two Climate Cases, 121 YALE L.J. ONLINE 109, 112 (2011).

114Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224, 1260 (2016). See id. at 1255–61 for a more detailed discussion.

115See supra text accompanying notes 61–72. Massachusetts v. EPA did not require a “rigorous step-by-step proof of causal chains” to grant standing. Jacqueline Peel, Issues in Climate Change Litigation, 5 CARBON & CLIMATE L. REV. 15, 19 (2011).

116MICHAEL BURGER & JUSTIN GRUNDLACH, U.N. ENV’T PROGRAMME, THE STATUS OF CLIMATE CHANGE LITIGATION: A GLOBAL REVIEW 20 (2017).

117Ronald G. Peresich, Climate Change Litigation, 45 THE BRIEF 28, 32, (Summer 2016 (analyzing the Comer cases).

118BURGER & GRUNDLACH, supra note 116, at 20.

119Peresich, supra note 117, at 33; Gaynor, Lippard & Peloso, supra note 92, at 10,853–54.

120Gaynor, Lippard & Peloso, supra note 92, at 10,854–56.

121Wohl v. City of New York, 45 Misc. 3d 1217(A), 2014 WL 6092059 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 22, 2014).

122RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 825 (AM. LAW INST. 1979).

123Gaynor, Lippard & Peloso, supra note 92, at 10,857.

124Peel, supra note 115, at 19.

125Banda & Fulton, supra note 56, at 10,130.

126Richard Heede, Tracing Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions to Fossil Fuel and Cement Producers, 1854–2010, 122 CLIMATIC CHANGE 229, 229 (2015). Half of all emissions between 1751 and 2010 occurred since 1986. Id. at 234. One purpose of the study was “to lay the possible groundwork for apportioning responsibility for climate change to the entities that provided the hydrocarbon products to the global economy.” Id. at 230. Some courts have used market share to apportion responsibility for harm, for example, from the synthetic estrogen DES (diethylstilbestrol). Ewing & Kysar, supra note 69, at 350.

127Class action lawsuits do not seem prominent in climate change litigation. A search of the climate change litigation database identified only eight class action cases. SABIN CENTER DATABASE, supra note 29.

128MICHAEL BURGER & JESSICA WENTZ, U.N. ENV’T PROGRAMME, CLIMATE CHANGE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 12 (2015). In human rights cases, as in other climate change cases, evidentiary challenges have prevented success: difficulties of proving causal links between emitters, climate change, and plaintiff’s harm, and absence of GHG standards. Id. at 35.

129But see id. at 23 n.151, suggesting that public trust cases do not raise human rights claims, but that “there is a clear relationship between governments’ public trust obligations—which require the maintenance and preservation of common environmental resources for the benefit of current and future generations—and governments’ human rights obligations.”

130Wood & Woodward, supra note 23, at 648.

131Some are discussed in the context of state lawsuits for mitigation.

132Wood & Woodward, supra note 23, at 656–69 (quotation at 668). Young plaintiffs continue to bring these cases. See, e.g., Sinnok v. Alaska, No. 3AN-17-CI (Alaska Super. Ct. filed Oct. 27, 2017).

133Juliana v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1224 (D. Or. 2016). The adult, James Hansen, is a climate scientist whose recent research, published with fourteen co-authors, quantified the burden of climate change on future generations. James Hansen et al., Young People’s Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions, 8 EARTH SYS. DYNAMICS 577 (2017).

134Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1233.

135Id. at 1234.

136Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962), discussed supra text accompanying note 93.

137Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1241; political question analysis at 1235–42 (noting that a remedy, if plaintiffs prevail, would have to be crafted carefully to avoid separation of powers issues).

138Id. at 1242–44. Injuries included algae blooms in drinking water, wildfires and floods, high temperatures affecting a family orchard, and a disastrous flood that destroyed a home.

139Id. at 1246–47 (stating that the causal link is adequate for pleading, but at trial, causation may be difficult to prove).

140Id. at 1250.

141Id.

142Id. at 1255–61. The court distinguishes PPL Montana, L.L.C. v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576, 603 (2012): “public trust doctrine remains a matter of state law”; “the contours of that public trust do not depend upon the Constitution.” Juliana, 217 F. Supp. 3d at 1272–76.

143Id. at 1262. The court commented: Throughout their objections, defendants and intervenors attempt to subject a lawsuit alleging constitutional injuries to case law governing statutory and common-law environmental claims. They are correct that plaintiffs likely could not obtain the relief they seek through citizen suits brought under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or other environmental laws. But that argument misses the point. This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty. Id. at 1261.

144Order, Juliana v. United States, No. 6:15-CV-01517, 2017 WL 2483705, at *2 (D. Or. June 8, 2017) (agreeing with the magistrate’s May 2017 decision). The magistrate judge granted trade group intervenors’ motions to withdraw.

145Petition for Writ of Mandamus, United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Or., No. 17-71692, 2017 WL 2537433, at *40 (9th Cir. June 9, 2017).

146Order, Juliana v. United States, No. 17-71692 (9th Cir. July 25, 2017); Amanda Reilly, 9th Circuit Panel Skeptical of Dismissing Kids’ Suit, E&E NEWS PM, Dec. 11, 2017. On March 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus and refused to dismiss the climate change lawsuit. United States v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Or., No. 17-71692 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018). The trial is scheduled for late October 2018.

147Ciara O’Rourke, The 11-Year-Old Suing Trump Over Climate Change, THE ATLANTIC (Feb. 9, 2017), https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/trump-climate-lawsuit/516054/ (citing Michael Gerrard, who believes that a decision for plaintiffs would not survive Supreme Court review). See generally Michael C. Blumm & Mary Christina Wood, “No Ordinary Lawsuit”: Climate Change, Due Process, and the Public Trust Doctrine, 67 AM. U. L. REV. 1 (2017).

148Alec L. v. Jackson, 863 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2012) (dismissing suit against federal defendants because public trust was a matter of state law), aff’d sub nom., Alec L. v. McCarthy, 561 Fed. App’x 7 (Mem.) (D.C. Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 774 (2014).

149Sanders-Reed v. Martinez, 350 P.3d 1221 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015).

150Id. at 1225.

151Federal common law tort suits filed before 2011 focused on mitigation. Burkett, supra note 39, at 11,145 (referring to “mitigation-oriented carbon torts”).

152These industry lawsuits, many challenging CAA regulations, are collected in the Sabin Center Database. E.g., Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) (challenge to regulation of stationary sources under the CAA).

153Kain v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 49 N.E.3d 1124 (Mass. 2016).

154Id. at 1142. The opinion does not consider public trust.

155Foster v. Washington Dep’t of Ecology, No. 14-2-25295-1 (Wash. Super. Ct. Sept. 15, 2014). The judge issued orders on June 23, 2015; Nov. 19, 2015 (reported at 2015 WL 7721362); May 16, 2016; Dec. 19, 2016; and April 18, 2017. Orders are collected in SABIN CENTER DATABASE, supra note 29. For a detailed discussion of Foster, see Wood & Woodward, supra note 23, at 669–72.

156Order, Foster, No. 14-2-25295-1 (June 23, 2015).

157Order, Foster, 2015 WL 7721362 (Nov. 19, 2015).

158Order, Foster, No. 14-2-25295-1 (May 16, 2016), following an April 29, 2016 ruling from the bench (recognizing “extraordinary circumstances”).

159Foster, No. 14-2-25295-1 (Wash. Ct. App. filed June 15, 2016).

160Foster, No. 14-2-25295-1 (Dec. 19, 2016) (order denying motion for order of contempt and granting sua sponte leave to file amended pleading).

161Foster (Apr. 18, 2017) (order granting petitioner’s motion for leave to file supplemental brief), cited in Blumm & Wood, supra note 147, at 66 n.360.

162Foster, No. 75374-6-1, 2017 WL 3868481 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2017). The trial court had not met the requirements for granting relief under the provision of Washington law on which it relied.

163On Foster’s significance, see Wood & Woodward, supra note 23, at 673–83.

164Id. at 673. See also Martinez v. Colo. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm’n, a rulemaking petition by young plaintiffs who relied in part on public trust and constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals relied on a Colorado statute, and so did not reach the public trust issue. No. 16CA0564, 2017 WL 1089556 (Colo. App. Mar. 23, 2017) (not released for publication as of Oct. 18, 2017), petition for cert. granted, No. 17 SC 297 (Colo. Jan. 29, 2018).

165The ESA requires consideration of climate change, primarily in agency consultations. See David Owen, Endangered Species Act, inGLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND U.S. LAW, supra note 33, at 183, 196. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536(a)(2), 1536(a)(2), (b)(3); citizen-suit provision, § 1540(g). E.g., Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Kempthorne, 506 F. Supp. 2d 322 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (consultation about threatened fish and its habitat must consider climate change), cited in Markell & Ruhl, supra note 22, at 63–64.

166Markell & Ruhl, supra note 22, at 85. The NEPA is procedural and provides public notice of environmental impacts. Unlike many other federal environmental statutes, the NEPA does not have a citizen-suit provision, but litigants can sue under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702, which allows persons adversely affected to seek review of agency action.

167Up until 2010, no court had found an agency analysis of climate change in an EIS to be inadequate. Markell & Ruhl, supra note 22, at 61–62. For a recent analysis, see Michael Burger & Jessica Wentz, Downstream and Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Proper Scope of NEPA Review, 41 HARV. ENVTL. L. REV. 109 (2017).

168Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews, announced at 81 Fed. Reg. 51,866 (Aug. 5, 2016).

169Exec. Order No. 13,783, supra note 15, at 16,094; Council on Environmental Quality, Withdrawal of Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews, 82 Fed. Reg. 16,576 (Apr. 5, 2017).

170E.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., 538 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2008) (requiring agency to consider cumulative impact GHG implications); Mid States Coal. for Progress v. Surface Transp. Bd., 345 F.3d 521 (8th Cir. 2003) (requiring agency to consider air-quality effects and GHG emissions in rail project that would transport coal). See Paul Weiland, Robert Horton & Erik Beck, Environmental Impact Review, inGLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND U.S. LAW, supra note 33, at 153, 160–64 (analyzing case law).

171Weiland, Horton & Beck, supra note 170, at 161. See, e.g., WildEarth Guardians v. Jewell, 738 F.3d 298 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (upholding a BLM decision to lease tracts for coal mining; EIS discussed climate change, but not its global impacts, and followed Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance, so the court upheld it). But see High Country Conservation Advocates v. U.S. Forest Serv., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo. 2014) (EIS rejected for failure to consider impacts of emissions or costs of climate change). For more detail, see Barry Kellman, NEPA Review of Climate Change, 46 ENVTL. L. REP. 10,378, 10,382–83 (2016).

172 120 F. Supp. 3d 1237 (D. Wyo. 2015). Petitioners challenged the actions under the Administrative Procedure Act. The NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act lack citizen-suit provisions.

173Id. at 1257.

174Id. at 1273.

175Kellman, supra note 171, at 10,384. See also Jessica Wentz, Planning for the Effects of Climate Change on Natural Resources, 47 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10,220, 10,223 & n.28 (2017) (stating that courts defer to agency decisions about the scope of climate change review).

176Amigos Bravos v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 816 F. Supp. 2d 1118 (D.N.M. 2011).

177Id. at 1138–39.

178CA PUB. RES. §§ 21,000–21,189.3.

179Markell & Ruhl, supra note 22, at 63 (cases to 2010).

180No. RIC464585, 2008 WL 3996186 (Cal. Super. Ct. Aug. 6, 2008).

181Rominger v. County of Colusa, 229 Cal. App. 4th 690 (2014).

182Anderson v. City & County of San Francisco, No. A129910, 2013 WL 144915 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2013). See also Jones v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 183 Cal. App. 4th 818 (2010) (finding no requirement to allow public comment in final EIR amended to consider GHG emissions).

183Jacqueline Peel & Hari M. Osofsky, Sue to Adapt?, 99 MINN. L. REV. 2177, 2178–79, 2192 (2015). Little adaptation litigation occurred before 2012, although ESA and tort cases had implications for adaptation. Id. at 2192 (citing Markell & Ruhl, supra note 22, at 30–32).

184BURGER & GRUNDLACH, supra note 116, at 22.

185David Dana, Incentivizing Municipalities to Adapt to Climate Change: Takings Liability and FEMA Reform as Possible Solutions, 43 ENVTL. AFFAIRS 281, 290 (2016).

186In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consol. Litig., 647 F. Supp. 2d 644, 679–98 (E.D. La. 2009). A number of opinions decided claims of various plaintiffs.

187 28 U.S.C. § 2674. The discretionary function exception, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), excepts any claim “based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.”

188In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 673 F.3d 381, 399 (5th Cir. 2012) (withdrawn).

189In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 696 F. 3d 436, 454 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied sub nom., Lattimore v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2855 (2013). The Fifth Circuit also held that the government was immune from liability under the Flood Control Act of 1928, 33 U.S.C. § 702c.

190St. Bernard Parish Gov’t v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 687 (2015), originally filed as Tommaseo v. United States. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1491, for damage claims against the United States that are not tort claims; the Tucker Act does not create substantive rights.

191By July 2009, the ACE had closed the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet because of the likelihood of continued flooding. St Bernard Parish, 121 Fed. Cl. at 691. The Fifth Circuit, 696 F.2d 436, 441–43, upheld the District Court’s findings of fact in Katrina Canal Breaches, which assigned causation to the Army Corps of Engineers.

192 121 Fed. Cl. at 746.

193Id. at 707. Recent Supreme Court decisions indicate that governments can be liable for flooding as a temporary taking. E.g., Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012).

194St. Bernard Parish Gov’t v. United States, No. 16–2301 (Fed Cir. Mar. 24, 2017).

195Dana, supra note 185, at 287–88, n.29 (quote on 288).

196Id. at 286.

197Christopher Serkin, Passive Takings: The State’s Affirmative Duty to Protect Property, 113 MICH. L. REV. 345, 389–401 (2014); Dana, supra note 185, at 289–90.

198Burkett, supra note 39, at 11,145, 11,147. Proof of causation may be difficult.

199JENNIFER KLEIN, SABIN CTR. FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LAW, POTENTIAL LIABILITY OF GOVERNMENTS FOR FAILURE TO PREPARE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE (2015), http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2016/06/Klein-2015-08-Liability-US-Gov-Failure-to-Prep-Climate-Change.pdf. On fraud, knowing misrepresentation of information about climate change, see id. at 15–23; on takings, see id. at 23–27. U.S. CONST. amend. XI bars cases against states, but not local governments, in federal courts. KLEIN, supra, at 4.

200Burkett, supra note 39, at 11,153–54.

201Id. at 11,154. See also Maxine Burkett, Duty and Breach in an Era of Uncertainty: Local Government Liability for Failure to Adapt to Climate Change, 20 GEO. MASON L. REV. 775 (2013).

202Wohl v. City of New York, 45 Misc. 3d 1217(A), 2014 WL 6092059 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 22, 2014).

203Tzakis v. Berger Excavating Contractors, Inc., 2009 CH 6159 (Ill. Cir. Ct. 2009). In May 2014, Illinois Farmers Insurance, Co. brought nine class-action lawsuits against municipalities and counties in the Chicago area, after 600 insured homes suffered flood damage in heavy April 2013 storms. The suits alleged that defendants were aware of the effects of climate change, but did not prepare for the heavy rains and floods caused by higher global temperatures. The company withdrew the suits in June 2014. See, e.g., Illinois Farmers Ins., Co. v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi., No. 2014CH06608 (Ill. Cir. Ct. filed Apr. 16, 2014) (dismissed June 4, 2014).

204Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, 70 A.3d 524, 527 (N.J. 2013).

205See Peel & Osofsky, supra note 183, at 2203–05, 2247. See also Stephen R. Miller, The Local Official and Climate Change, 46 ENVTL. L. REP. NEWS & ANALYSIS 10,883, 10,883 (2016). “[E]ven the most aggressive efforts to address climate change have largely ignored land use,” usually the responsibility of local officials. Issues for cities include lack of technical capability, lack of political will, ineffective land use planning and regulatory institutions. Id. at 10,884.

206See, e.g., American Electric Power and Kivalina, discussed supra Part II.C.

207Burkett, supra note 39, at 11,147.

208See, e.g., Pietrangelo v. S&E Customize It Auto Corp., No. SCR 100/13, 39 Misc. 3d 1239(A) (N.Y. Civ. Ct. May 22, 2013). Court dismissed suit against auto bailee for damage after Hurricane Sandy; bailee had no obligation to have insurance, and an “act of God” defense barred the negligence claim.

209Burkett, supra note 39, at 11,150.

210Id. at 11,155–56.

211585 F.3d 855, 859–60 (5th Cir. 2009), vacated, 598 F.3d 208 (2010). Other claims were unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy.

212598 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 2010).

213607 F.3d 1049, 1055 (5th Cir. 2010).

214Conservation Law Found. v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. 1:16-cv-11950, at 49–51 (¶¶ 183–86) (D. Mass. filed Sept. 29, 2016).

215County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., No. 17CIV03222 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 17, 2017); County of Marin v. Chevron Crop., No. CIV1702586 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 7, 2017); City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp., No. C17-01227 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 17, 2017). In August 2017, defendants removed the cases to federal court, and plaintiffs moved to remand. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs’ motion to remand. Removal was not warranted, among other reasons, under federal common law or the doctrine of complete preemption. An appeal is pending. Order Denying Remand, County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., No. 17-cv-04929-VC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018). In re Peabody Energy Corp., No. 16-42529-399 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Dec. 8, 2017), dismissed the cases against Peabody.

216Environmental organizations have suggested that liability may follow from energy companies’ “funding climate denial and disseminating false or misleading information on climate risks.” Kevin LaCroix, Is Climate Change a D&O Insurance Issue?, THE D&O DIARY (June 2, 2014), https://www.dandodiary.com/2014/06/articles/director-and-officer-liability/is-climate-change-a-do-liability-and-insurance-issue/.

217Ramirez v. ExxonMobil Corp., No. 3:16-cv-03111 (N.D. Tex. filed Nov. 7, 2016). Defendant moved to dismiss in September 2017.

218SEC, Commission Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change, 75 Fed. Reg. 6290, 6297 (Feb. 8, 2010). See also SEC, Concept Release, Business and Financial Disclosure Required by Regulation S–K, 81 Fed. Reg. 23,916 (Apr. 22, 2016). See Dundon, supra note 21, at 23. On disclosure requirements, see Matthew Morreale, Corporate Disclosure Considerations Related to Climate Change, in GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND U.S. LAW,supra note 33, at 205.

219Banda & Fulton, supra note 56, at 10,134.

220Petition for Suspension or Debarment, Waterkeeper All., Inc. (Dec. 14, 2016), http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2016/20161214_docket-na_petition.pdf.

221CTR. FOR INT’L ENVTL. LAW, SMOKE & FUMES: THE LEGAL AND EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR HOLDING BIG OIL ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE CLIMATE CRISIS (2017), http://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Smoke-Fumes-FINAL.pdf. See also DAVID ANDERSON, MATT KASPER & DAVID POMERANTZ, ENERGY & POL’Y INST., UTILITIES KNEW: DOCUMENTING ELECTRIC UTILITIES’ EARLY KNOWLEDGE AND ONGOING DECEPTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE FROM 1968–2017 (2017), https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/07/25/document_gw_08.pdf.

#climate change #law #regulation #legislation #litigation #climate litigation #climate legislation #environment #environmental collapse #environmental justice #climate justice #comparative law

0 notes

startupyourbusinessthings-blog · 5 years

Text

STARTUP YOUR BUSINESS

1/ Analyse and Define your Business Idea

Firstly, do you have what you think is a good business idea? Ask yourself is it feasible? You may need to find out if there is a market out there for your product or service. If so you may need to carry out some market research to determine who your competition might be and what are their pricing structures. Also, you should look into ways you can differentiate your products or services from those already in the market place. In today’s busy competitive world you need to be able to stand out against what may be many competitors. This point of difference essential for your market push. Can your product or service be better, cheaper, faster or more efficient than the opposition? Then concentrate on those features Create a list of strengths and weaknesses that may apply to your proposed business so you can determine what to promote and what to overcome

If you would like to discuss your idea initially give us a call 0n 1300 828494 and we will see how one of our associates can help you starting your business.

2/ Market Research

Are there others already doing what you want to start doing? If not do you know the reason why. Have you determined that customers will actually pay for your product or service. You also need to know who will be your customers in your market. To help you make an informed decision source statistics and any other vital information you can locate. Also, determine exactly what your customer’s needs are This sort of information will help you enormously with future marketing. See if you can determine what the strengths and weaknesses of your competition are. If you are able to identify any weakness you can really emphasize your strengths in these areas. Moreover, Source Government publications, trade journals, market reports and association publications for the relevant data.

See a specialist article in our blog section on www.startupyourbusiness.com.au

3/ Determine the Best Business Structure for You – Registrations and Selecting a Business Name

Basically there are four major types of business structures in Australia. Sole Trader( Where a person is solely responsible for everything), a partnership ( an association of people or entities combining to run a business), a Company ( a legal entity separate from its shareholders) or a Trust ( an entity that holds property or income for the benefit of others )

If you want a particular company name you can easily check if it is available by searching on the ASIC website. You may require registered names for parts of your business. These can be registered through ASIC as well. Many people worry about choosing the perfect name.

Don’t worry about this, don’t put the cart before the horse You can start the company in one name and trade in another if that’s what you would like to do.

All Business Owners in Australia have to register before commencing any business activities. So you will need to obtain an Australian Business Number (ABN0, register for GST, obtain a tax file number and register for pay as you go withholding tax,

You should always seek professional advice on determining which structure is best for you This is available in all of our packages. You will receive a 1-hour session with an accountant and a commercial lawyer.

Russell Evans, Asia Pacific Manager of Wolters Kluwer – a worldwide team of tax & accounting, finance, risk & compliance, and legal experts says “The majority of small businesses that do not seek professional advice do so at their peril”. 200 Specialist Small Business Accountants ranked bad business models as the main reason Small to Medium Businesses fail

ATO: https://www.ato.com.au ASIC: https://asic.com.au

4/ Know the laws that apply to your industry, fair trading and contracts:

Depending on your industry there may be a need to obtain the proper permits and licenses that apply. You need to know which laws apply to your bin particular and generally. You can obtain this information from various branches of government- Local, State and Federal. You can also obtain these and background from a commercial lawyer. You should also have a broad understanding of contracts and fair trading laws that apply in your state. You may also need to know how the privacy act applies to your business, Australian consumer laws, unfair dismissal laws and laws applying to employ people. A one-hour session with a Commercial Lawyer is available in all of our packages. If you need more assistance you can arrange a further time directly with our dedicated solicitor to discuss how to start your business.

5/ Be Careful to choose the Right Suppliers/ Associates at the time of starting your business:

Choosing experienced, honest and reliable associates can be as important as selecting the right product or service to sell. It is important that you select the correct Commercial Lawyer, Book Keeper, Accountant, Business Coach, and Insurance Broker. From experience, it is also difficult to know if suppliers such as Web Designers, SEO/Google Ad Words contractors, IT experts, Freight Forwarders and Logo Designers are honest and reliable and provide fair prices for the work they perform. Startup your business has actually dealt with all the providers that we use as part of the packages we have in place.

We recommend them to provide first-class results. It will save you time and money because we have arranged special rates for our clients due to the volume of business we provide for them. If you are looking for a Website Designer, for example, you don’t know if you are receiving fair value and if the site will be finished as you envisage it. Because we have actually used our preferred suppliers we know that you will receive exactly what you expect while starting your business.

6/ Insurance and Business Protection

Insurance may be something that you will get around to doing after you get started. However, purchasing the right insurance for your business is an important step that you need to cover prior to the official launch of your business. Dealing with incidents such as property damage, theft, customer injuries that may occur on your premises, product liability and professional liability are some of the things that need to be covered before you start your business. You will need public liability insurance covering you for third party death or injury., product liability which covers you for legal action taken out as a result of injury, damage or death caused by a failure of one of your products. Professional Indemnity may be needed if you provide professional advice. Management Liability also may be something you need to cover. Another important item to cover may be Intellectual Property rights to your products or new IP. If you intend to export products you need to ensure that your goods will not infringe the IP of other businesses

The Insurance Council of Australia estimates that 70 % of small businesses are uninsured or uninsured It is essential that the cover provided is adequate for your business

Our insurance specialist as part of all packages will provide you with the best offers for the best coverage

7/ Assessing your Finances, Resources to help fund businesses and Government Grants

You need to determine how you are going to cover the costs of establishing your business. Do you have funds set aside or will you need to borrow monies? Experts generally agree that startup businesses often fail because they run out of money too quickly. It may be prudent to overestimate what you will need. There are many sources of funding available in Australia to assist with the creation of a new business. Among these are small business loans, crowdfunding, and, trade equity, Initially you can approach your existing bank for funding. They may require mortgage Security to advance funds. In addition to the established banks, you may like to approach one or more of the new internet banks such as ING, Volt, Xinja or ME Bank and Other sources of monies lend.com.au and Ebroker.com.au

At no cost to you, we have a very experienced Business Finance Broker who can provide you with professional assistance to source your funding. This facility is available as part of all of our packages.

Government Grants for small businesses are generally provided by State or Federal Governments while starting your business. Some of the grants available are Innovation Grants, Tourism Grants, Small Business Entrepreneur Grants, Export and Digital Grants., These are funding sources you should definitely target.

Government Grants: https://www.grants.com.au/

8/ Marketing :

Marketing is a fundamental part of all businesses and every business needs to understand the true worth of marketing. The bottom line of any business is to make money and marketing is the essential channel to do this. It can increase sales, grow businesses and engage customers..6 Key Reasons why marketing is important.

It informs your prospect what your product is and how it can benefit them

It allows smaller businesses to compete with larger operators

Marketing sustains a company by developing relationships with there customers

Customer engagement is essential to any business. You need to develop relationships for ongoing business

Marketing helps sell products and services

It helps to grow and starting your business

Having a website is akin to having a phone number in the pre –www age If you don’t have a website you are not in business. It is vital to the success of a business. We have experts in developing websites, creating SEO and developing Ad Words campaigns and Online strategists and these services are available in our packages. Lastly, Marketing Assistance is available as part of all our packages and it will help to settle and start your business profoundly.

0 notes

Last Seen Blogs

devolve-blog

DEVOLVE

sumistars

OC BLOG

macchiesullapelle

yourresumewriter02

Your Resume Writer