Regulatory co-operation for reducing non-tariff barriers (NTBs) and their use for discriminatory purposes has been identified as one of the three priority areas in the WTO’s annual report by the former Director-General Pascal Lamy. Carving out a separate selection of environmental goods and giving them preferential access is one way of curbing the propensity to adopt NTBs. The publication of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation’s (APEC) list of environmental goods, however, has highlighted the Committee on Trade and Environment-Special Session’s (CTESS) lack of success in evolving a consensus on the issue in the WTO. The trade impact of domestic measures (mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions) undertaken to address climate change have attracted considerable attention in the CTESS, with members highlighting the potential trade-distorting impact of such unilateral measures. Climate change is a global challenge, and until countries participate in evolving an effective multilateral intervention, it is fairly evident that member countries will increasingly explore domestic measures that could range from carbon footprint certifications for products, cap-and-trade emission reduction schemes to indirect support (for example, domestic content requirement) to domestic manufacturing for green economy. Such actions, in turn, make them vulnerable to legal challenges in terms of their trade commitments in the WTO. This is also evident from the concern raised with reference to environmental measures such as bio-fuels, solar panels, energy labelling, and carbon footprints in the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. Environment disputes in the WTO should be seen in this context of evolving disciplines that will shape the exercise of regulatory autonomy in conformity with their WTO commitments.