Reference no: EM131171905

1. Suppose you have inherited a piece of property about two hours from where you live and work, an undeveloped lot on a lake. It is a beautiful spot, and you intend to build a small summer house on it, so you and your family can vacation there. You've been saving up to do this, but after five years has passed, environmentalists discover that your property is part of "critical habitat" for the spotted green-toed guttersnipe, a species of lizard protected under the federal Endangered Species Act. This means you will never be able to build on that land. What is your reaction?

2. In deciding this ExxonMobil case, Judge Armstrong made use of the factual difference between these two scenarios: (1) several companies contribute to the pollution of a stream; (2) several companies contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Do you agree that the distinction between them is significant? Or is this a "distinction without a difference"? In dismissing this case, the court notes the complexities of global warming-its lengthy timeline, its interacting chemical inputs, and its "multitude of alternative culprits," including millions of ordinary consumers. If the U.S. federal court system is not the best place to address this profoundly complicated phenomenon, what is? Why?