As we continue to evolve as a society we are confronted with the pitfalls of humanity. Time goes on and the greed of our human nature is reflected in our need for space, our careless use of resources, and our disregard for future generations. Humans have a hard time contemplating life beyond their very own, which is why as a race we have failed to take necessary environmental precautions. Because we are human, we are often gluttonous and in western culture specifically we have the habit of taking up far more space then we need to live a full life. Tiny homes offer an alternative form of living that is not only economically feasible for a greater number of Americans but is also more environmentally conscious when compared to traditional American living situations. This note will explore the environmental impact of today’s single-family homes compared to tiny homes. To do so one must first discuss the history of zoning and building laws in the United States. Once there is an understanding of how these laws may have impacted the construction of tiny dwellings, this paper will go on to discuss a hypothetical example expressing the advantages of shifting to a tiny lifestyle. Environmental impact will be measured in the form of an ecological footprint calculated in hectares. Then, using data from the US Census Bureau, we will be able to find the potential decrease in carbon waste if new developments were primarily tiny style dwellings. It is the purpose of this analysis to challenge traditional forms of housing and look to more environmentally friendly alternatives. In the end, this note will work to show the positive impact tiny homes can have on our environment.

Since 2017, states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel producers under state law, alleging that they continued producing, selling, and marketing fossil fuels despite knowledge of the harms that fossil fuels caused. The defendants— the world’s largest fossil fuels producers—have held up the litigation around the country by arguing plaintiffs’ claims are not what they purport to be. They argued states and municipalities are attempting to regulate global climate change, an area of a “unique federal interest,” requiring exclusive application of federal common law. Through these arguments, fossil fuel companies attempt to resurrect federal common law, which runs headlong into Supreme Court precedent and the text of the Clean Air Act. Nonetheless, the defendants have found success in some federal courts. For example, the Second Circuit in The New York City v. Chevron first reframed defendants’ state-law claims as claims concerning global greenhouse gas emissions and then erroneously applied federal common law to justify dismissal of New York City’s state-law claims. Such legal analysis erroneously interprets the Supreme Court’s precedent and intrudes on historic powers of state courts. This Article concludes that instead, courts should apply an ordinary preemption analysis under the Clean Air Act