A lot of the climate change news recently — and I note it below — has focused on climate change “mitigation.”  Mitigation is steps that might be taken to slow or to avoid changes in the climate.  Of course, that first requires an identification of causes of climate change.  That runs into an ideological dispute over whether human activities affect the climate and whether we ought to do anything about it in the United States.  That was the nature of the press you surely read around these developments:

But maybe we ought to focus more on adaptation to climate change.  Whether humans caused it or not, the weather seems hotter, colder, drier, floodier, and generally different.  We have a lot of infrastructure that depends on rivers and lakes being where they have been, floods having particular return periods, storms being of only a certain severity.  I consider whether we ought to focus on the somewhat less controversial problem of reinforcing, rebuilding, or reconsidering that infrastructure in my column this month in the Pennsylvania Law WeeklyTo read Adapting to Climate Change, Regardless of Your Viewpoint, 36 Pa. L. Weekly 978 (Oct 22, 2013), click here.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David Mandelbaum David Mandelbaum

David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and…

David G. Mandelbaum represents clients facing problems under environmental laws. He regularly represents clients in lawsuits and also has helped clients achieve satisfactory outcomes through regulatory negotiation or private transactions. A Fellow of the American College of Environmental Lawyers, David teaches Superfund, and Oil and Gas Law in rotation at the Temple University Beasley School of Law as well as an environmental litigation course at Suffolk (Boston) Law School.

Since United States v. Atlas Minerals, the first multi-generator Superfund contribution case to go to trial in 1993, Mr. Mandelbaum has been engaged in matters involving allocation of costs among responsible parties, especially under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).  He has tried large cases and resolved others as lead counsel.  He has written, spoken, and taught extensively on the subject.  More recently he also has been engaged to assist lead counsel from this firm and others:

  • to develop cost allocation methodologies;
  • to craft expert testimony in support of a favored methodology (given a definition of “fairness,” why one methodology better tracks it than another);
  • to develop efficient case management approaches; and to assist private allocation as part of the neutral team.

Concentrations

  • Air, water and waste regulation
  • Superfund and contamination
  • Climate change
  • Oil and gas development
  • Water rights