link to Mitchell home

Volume 36: Issue 3

Environmental Law

Electronic copies of the articles are available below. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat Reader, please click here. If you would like to purchase this issue or subscribe to the William Mitchell Law Review, click here.

Mehmet Konar-Steenberg

Megan J. Hertzler and Mara N. Koeller
Who Pays for Carbon Costs? Uncertainty and Risk in Response to the Current Patchwork of Carbon Regulation for Public Utilities

Elizabeth Burleson
China in Context: Energy, Water, and Climate Cooperation

Andrew Long
Tropical Forest Mitigation Projects and Sustainable Development: Designing U.S. Law for a Supportive Role

Darrell A. Fruth and Joseph A. Ponzi
Adjusting Carbon Management Policies to Encourage Renewable, Net-Negative Projects Such as Biochar Sequestration

Lisa Anne Hamilton
Canary in the Coal Mine: Can the Campaign for Mandatory Climate Risk Disclosure
Withstand the Municipal Bond Market’s Resistance to Regulatory Reform?

Thaddeus R. Lightfoot
Climate Change and Environmental Review: Addressing the Impact of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act

Paula Goodman Maccabee
Mercury, Mining in Minnesota, and Clean Water Act Protection: A Representative Analysis Based on the Proposed Polymet Northmet Project

Collette L. Adkins Giese
Spreading Its Wings: Using the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to Protect Habitat

Jay Krienitz and Susan Damon
“The Rivers Belong to the People!”: The History and Future of Wild and Scenic River Protection in Minnesota

Student Notes and Comments

Micala R. Gordon
It Doesn't Have to End This Way: The Minnesota Supreme Court Declares that the Sentence of Life Without Release as Imposed on a Juvenile is Neither Cruel nor Unusual in State v. Martin

Michael P. Weinbeck
Watching the Watchmen: Lessons for Federal Law Enforcement from America's Cities

Nathan R. O’Tool
Knight and the Two Percent Floor: Still in Search of a Workable Standard to Evaluate the Tax Deductability of Fiduciary Expenses

Devona L. Wells
Why Plaintiffs Should Learn to Love the Stron-Inference Standard for Pleading a Securities Fraud Claim—Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.




Copyright © 2010 William Mitchell Law Review
Member of the National Conference of Law Reviews

*Opinions expressed in the William Mitchell Law Review do not necessarily represent the views of the publication, its editors, William Mitchell College of Law, or any person connected therewith.