Support for compulsory licensing as a means of ensuring the deployment of environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) through the developing world has increasingly gathered strength from various quarters. Supporters of compulsory licensing as a means of EST diffusion through the developing world see the Doha Declaration on the compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals as an appropriate precedent for any future licensing of ESTs. These supporters of compulsory licensing fail to acknowledge that the developing world is deeply divided into technologically proficient countries and the least developed countries, with gradations in between. Based on this division, Neel contends that compulsory licensing is not the appropriate solution because:

i. The market for ESTs is completely different from the market for pharmaceuticals. Therefore compulsory licensing is inappropriate in technologically proficient developing countries.

ii. By contrast, owing to problems in operational capability, compulsory licensing is simply inadequate in the least developed countries.

As an alternative, Neel suggests a solution based on two kinds of subsidy funds. One to fund technology transfers based on a shifting, graduated subsidy adjusted to the needs of the receiving country. The second is a long-term fund aimed at increasing infrastructural capacity in the least developed countries. Neel suggests that this alternative solution adheres more closely to the international regime governing climate change today and respects the sovereign rights of countries under international law.

In anticipation of the U.S. adopting a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases (GHGs), Professor Coplan explores the implications that the public trust doctrine might have on such a program. Rooted in Roman law and the common law, the public trust doctrine declares that certain public resources, such as flowing water, shorelands, and the air, are held by the sovereign in trust for the public benefit and are not susceptible to private ownership.

Coplan suggests that a cap-and-trade program for GHGs can be found to implicate the public trust doctrine, because arguably the atmospheric climate system is a public trust resource and the allocation of tradable emissions rights subjects this resource to private ownership. Under the broadest conception of the public trust doctrine, the government is prohibited from alienating public trust resources; however, Coplan's analysis of U.S. public trust cases suggests that a milder version of the public trust doctrine operates in the U.S. today. Under this milder version, implementing a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases is permissible, but, Coplan argues, sustainability principles implicit in U.S. public trust doctrine require that the cap for such a program be set at or below scientifically proven sustainable limits on GHGs.

Given the uncertain future of international action on climate change following the Copenhagen Accord, it appears that domestic actions within the individual signatories to the Accord will have to take the initiative on international greenhouse gas ("GHG") mitigation. Within the United States, however, such domestic efforts have not fared well legislatively, with several bills currently stuck in various stages of the legislative process.

Hannah Chang offers a way out of this impasse by focusing on the legal options available to the President for enteringinto binding International agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. Relying on the principles  of Presidential power set forth in Justice Jackson's Youngstown opinion, the President's relevant enumerated powers, and the historical practice of executive agreements, she suggests that the President can rely on his independent foreign affairs powers, together with authority derived from existing treaties and congressional delegations, to enter into binding international  agreements that could address certain aspects of the climate change problem even as we wait for domestic climate legislation to be enacted.

The National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") discussing the "reasonably foreseeable" environmental impacts of "major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") prepares EISs for the relicensing and construction of nuclear facilities.  Despite the well documented potential of a terrorist attack on these facilities, the NRC has declined to consider the effects of such an attack when preparing EISs. Further, courts have not provided consistent guidance-circuits are split as to whether, under NEPA, the environmental impacts of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant are not too attenuated from the federal action to be considered EIS.

 In licensing a nuclear facility, does the NRC "cause" the environmental damage that could result from a terrorist attack on the facility? An affirmative conclusion defies intuition but invites another query: in the wake of September 11th, are terrorist attacks so unforeseeable that the NRC should categorically exclude them from an evaluation of reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts?

 This Note argues that under NEPA, the environmental impacts of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant are not too attenuated from federal action and must be considered in an EIS. In Part I, this Note discusses the background and history of NEPA, and how courts have interpreted NEPA's causality requirement. In Part II, this Note examines the recent circuit split in detail. In Part III, this Note argues that the best reading of NEPA requires inclusion of the possible effects of a terrorist attack in an EIS, and concludes that this outcome is consistent with legal precedent, NEPA's intent, and public policy considerations.

The Columbia Journal of Environmental Law is pleased to announce the winners of the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 Publishable Notes Program.

The Columbia Journal of Environmental Law is pleased to announce the 2010–2011 Editorial Board.  Please join us in congratulating our new editors on their selection.  The outgoing editors and staff of CJEL wish them the best of luck and utmost success in their new positions!