• Underfunded and Underappreciated: UNFCCC's Technology Mechanism and the Need for Stable Funding [Article]

  Stephens, Sam (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2023)

  This Article examines the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s (UNFCCC) Technology Mechanism and efforts to improve upon the work it has engaged in over the past decade. Created in 2010, the Technology Mechanism was the culmination of a nearly two decade-effort by the UNFCCC to establish an entity to facilitate the implementation of climate technology in developing countries. Like the UNFCCC, the Technology Mechanism is primarily funded by contributions from developed countries. Since its establishment, the Technology Mechanism has completed hundreds of projects helping developing countries obtain and develop the climate technologies they need to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Despite its successes, developing countries are not where they need to be to adequately mitigate and adapt to climate change, and many have called upon the Technology Mechanism to do more. Criticisms and suggested improvements have spanned from ambitious restructurings of the Technology Mechanism to simply increasing funding to the body. One critical issue the Technology Mechanism has faced is unpredictable and inconsistent funding. Developing countries have frequently advocated for establishing consistent multi-year funding to the Technology Mechanism, and this Article echoes these calls. By providing concrete funding years in advance, the Technology Mechanism will have increased financial stability that can allow for increased planning and help it address other more substantive criticisms. With the establishment of a Joint Work Programme at COP 27 to help coordinate and streamline the work of the Technology Mechanism, improvements are continuing to be made. However, to fully realize these improvements and activate the full potential of the Technology Mechanism, consistent and predictable year-to-year funding is needed.
• Just Transition as Wellbeing: A Capability Approach Framing [Article]

  Majekolagbe, Adebayo (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2023)

  Since its inclusion in the preamble to the Paris Agreement in 2015, just transition has grown to become one of the most engaged subjects in climate change law and governance. The rationale of just transition proponents is simple: the wholesale socio-economic transition that climate change compels is costly, and those costs must be equitably distributed across society. A closer look at this Rawlsian conceptualization of just transition, however, unearths major flaws, including its faulty essentialization of jobs, emphasis on the means of justice rather than ends, and the localization of an intrinsically global phenomenon—climate change. This article addresses these flaws. Rather than the distributive and procedural emphases of ‘traditional’ just transition discourse, it is shown that a capability approach to just transition, which underlines socio-ecological wellbeing as the ultimate objective of just transition, is a more availing theoretical underpinning for just transition. The article highlights the flaws of distribution-centric just transition, draws examples from just transition policies and laws in Canada, the United States, and Australia, and discusses how recent developments in Europe are more aligned with the capability approach described here. The article concludes with a discourse on how international human rights law is a viable, albeit imperfect, vehicle for a well-being-focused iteration of just transition.
• The Troubles with Mill Sites: Resolving Legal and Practical Barriers to Mining on Federal Lands [Note]

  Klouse, Evan (The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ), 2023)

  This Note examines legislative, administrative, and judicial solutions to the problem of properly planning for, classifying, and siting mine waste storage facilities on federal lands. Mill sites, which provide private parties surface access and occupancy rights to federal land for activities ancillary to mining, pose significant practical and legal issues discouraging their use for mine waste storage planning. The first is the occupation issue, characterized at two points: a chicken-and-egg problem in the exploration stages of a mine’s life, wherein a valid mill site must be occupied, even though the federal lands comprising the site cannot be occupied for mining purposes prior to the completion of the Mine Plan of Operations (MPO) review process; then, at the end of the mine life, a mill site featuring waste rock or tailings storage may be a permanent occupation of federal lands, causing both initial regulatory approval and future closure issues. Second, the number of mill sites that a miner may locate in connection with its claims has varied historically, with stricter interpretations resulting in little available real estate for waste disposal. Finally, mill sites must be located on non-mineral land, a status without a clear definition that could vary with time depending on economic conditions. Given the legal and practical issues posed by mill sites—largely dismissed or ignored by the Ninth Circuit—mine planners, government agencies, and the public would benefit from a streamlined solution to mine waste planning. Rising populations and an increasingly technological society make mining just as important today as ever, and interference with the industry’s ability to procure necessary resources is more harmful than helpful to society. Ideally, a waste storage solution would serve to make mine feasibility studies and permitting more efficient, predictable, and reliable while simultaneously upholding American economic and environmental values.
• 

  you are here 2024: mapping all my relations

  School of Geography, Development & Environment, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 2024
• 

  Mineral resources of Greenlee County, Arizona

  Carey, N. J.; Richardson, C. A. (Arizona Geological Survey (Tucson, AZ), 2024)

View more