Professor Doug Kysar's article outlines an array of doctrinal and conceptual hurdles that climate-change plaintiffs face and notes the way in which tort's focus on short-term solutions—its marginalist bias as Professor Kysar puts it—impairs its ability to address a variety of important issues. He then suggests that while climate change litigation may not succeed at its own goal, it may have the salutary effect of changing tort law for the better. In this Response, the author sketches two problems with this argument. The first concerns Kysar's implicit model of legal change. The second concerns the issue of the institutional competence of the courts to administer the kind of tort law regime that Kysar proposes.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.