TRUNITY
  • Home
  • Why Trunity
  • Catalog
  • HMH
  • Log In

 

The Environmental Citizen

 

Reasonable Expectations of Government

1/22/2019

1 Comment

 
​Sustainability Policy and Events
Picture
Orpheus and Eurydice, Peter Paul Rubens (and workshop), c. 1637, Museo del Prado, Madrid, Spain.
On January 9th the Oregon Court of Appeals in Chernaik v Brown [1] rejected the request by plaintiffs for declarations that

 the atmosphere and other natural resources are trust resources that the state has a fiduciary obligation to protect.

​There are two great questions at stake in this case.  One is whether the government has a responsibility to protect that which sustains our life on earth and the other is whether a court must tell the other parts of government to take action.  Influencing how this is answered is how we think about freedom.

The idea that freedom is freedom from a despotic government is part of the founding of this country, but so is the idea that a free people can have a government that protects their interests – the general welfare.   The Preamble to the Constitution says the government was formed to preserve “the blessings of liberty for posterity”.  This cannot now be accomplished without affirmative action.  

When we are attacked, we must defend ourselves.  We are being attacked by the climate.  We started the fight, and it is up to us to end it.  When the very air is threatened, we need government to act.  We need much more rapid uptake of cleaner practices than we are currently managing and there is resistance to change – some justified, some not – that we need held overcoming. 

​The public trust doctrine is a legal concept that says the government has a duty to protect public resources.  But the state argued in this case that it is merely “a means by which to guide state action” and “does not compel any particular state action...”(p. 596).  The court agreed. 

Environmental citizens should take note of this way of thinking and work to promote the recognition that we cannot preserve our freedoms – including freedom from being flooded or burned - if government sits on its hands in the face of the building disaster of climate change impacts.  The court cites the Geer case, which has to do with game.[2]  The words sound like they support the young plaintiffs:[3]

 It is, perhaps, accurate to say that the ownership of the sovereign authority is in trust for all the people of the state; and hence, by implication, it is the duty of the legislature to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust, and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state.

These words are like great Liberty Bells, but the court didn’t hear them ringing.  It said it didn’t mean the government has a duty to act to protect those resources (that it is uniquely in a position to protect, as sovereign), it was just clarifying that states have authority “to qualify and restrict the ownership in game killed within its limits”. 

Imagine that you are the Orpheus of law, and you can sing about justice in a way that turns people’s hearts, and one of your songs is about how Geer was a holding that there are affirmative duties of the state with respect to game, and to any public trust.  Your beloved wife, Eurydice, loves that idea and uses it to litigate on behalf of the children of the world, but then, because the courts are made of stone and remain unmoved, and the indifference of the world tires her, she dies, and now you can’t sing anymore, you can’t advance public interest law.  You have no choice but to go down into hell and try to get Eurydice back. 

Geer was one hundred years ago.  The song of Orpheus today would make clear that the principle applied to game must now be applied to the environment.  We owe that to those who will come, if not to ourselves.      

Courts are in a tough position. They are not supposed to interfere with the legislature’s role in making laws.  But the plaintiffs made it easy in this case.  All they asked was for declarations that action needs to be taken.  It is not unreasonable to ask the court to give general instructions to protect the people while allowing the other branches of government to retain discretion and flexibility.  That’s not usurping the authority of the other branches, that’s the proper check on their failure to act.  It is the court’s proper role to ensure the law serves the people.    

But it only looked back.  It saw that in the past, public trust cases were about the duty to protect “submerged and submersible lands to which Oregon obtained title upon statehood by virtue of its sovereignty”, or game, and even though the legislature could pass laws to protect species from injury or extinction, it had no duty to do so.  The court concluded:

We can find no source under the Oregon conception of the public-trust doctrine for imposing fiduciary duties on the state to affirmatively act to protect public-trust resources from the effects of climate change.

In the story of Orpheus and Eurydice, they succeed in convincing the rulers of hell to let Eurydice go back.  There’s hope even in seemingly impossible tasks.  But Eurydice does not escape from death -  Orpheus has been told he may not look at her while she is dead, yet when he emerged, he looked back, and she had not yet come out of the land of death with him, and so she never did.  The court made a poetically startling comment:

Plaintiffs assert that the doctrine also encompasses all “essential natural resources,” including, among other things, the waters of the state, fish and wildlife, and the atmosphere. Because we do not reach the merits of that argument as unnecessary to our disposition, we proceed in this opinion to refer to “public-trust resources” in the abstract, without identifying the resources that the term necessarily encompasses.

The method of adjudication may have made this necessary.  But climate change cannot be considered abstract: it is horrifyingly concrete.  People in Paradise were killed.  The people of Kivalina, Alaska, and hundreds of villages like it on the coast, are losing their towns.  Vanuatu is losing a nation.  Ice sheets are melting.  We need courts that will do the work of reaching the merits of the argument, because this is not an abstract idea.  Ironically, we can be grateful to the court for articulating the plaintiff’s case succinctly and powerfully:

Essentially, plaintiffs argue that inherent in the public-trust doctrine is a state obligation to protect public-trust resources from substantial impairment— whatever the source of that impairment—and that we should not be constrained from applying the public-trust doctrine in a manner that upholds that principle simply because our prior case law was based on fact patterns that are not readily translatable to the issue now before the court. Plaintiffs assert that adhering to the trial court’s narrow view of the public-trust doctrine renders it meaningless in the face of the existential threats to our state’s resources from climate change.

These points can and must be raised again.  They didn’t sway this court, but the argument is sound.  Courts are to settle controversies, as this one, between the youth of the world and insufficiently responsible adults, when the legislature and executive do not do so.  Oregon has taken action, but is it sufficient in the face of this pressing public need?  That should be the question that the court addresses, so that government in a democratic republic will be representative and agent of the people.  It is a power of the third branch to make new law when it needs to be made.  This is derivative of the common law, the body of custom and understanding that underlies a thousand years of case law, where judges made changes and the law evolved.  It is also to be found in the Constitution, where the courts are seen as resolving controversies.  Guided by awareness of their place in the system, they are to do what’s necessary.

The idea of responsibility, which is in the precedents cited, needs nurturing.  The needs today are of the nature that they cannot be ignored: nature will keep reminding us of them.  The simple fact, which the judicial eye should see, is that we can’t sit back and watch the storms build, the forests burn.  One can argue that Oregon has taken some action and courts should not interfere.  But the court only looked backward, and when you look forward, as young people do, you see an emergency. 

More demand for law that works to protect us and the planet will help create the law we need, and in our freedom have the right to create.  The right to freedom from planetary damage is universal, so there can be universal demand for it.  Courts and legislatures and executives should find ways to recognize this right and make the motors of government move.  Citizens should keep asking for this as the act of a free people, seeking freedom from danger and the thralldom of pollution.  The court in this case did not take the action needed, but witnesses can apprehend and spread the idea that it should have.

Climate Liability News https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2019/01/10/oregon-state-youth-climate-juliana/  reported that

Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, which supports this and other youth-led climate change suits, said the young plaintiffs plan to appeal. “The court’s decision is a real abdication of the authority and the trustee obligation of the state and it strips citizens of really important rights,” Olson said at a live-streamed press conference. 

Olson said she thought the state Supreme Court would be eager to reverse the “misunderstanding of the law” and we can hope those judges will find a way to free the hands of government from the self-binding we have witnessed with such disappointment.

Everyone loved Orpheus.  Everyone loved his music.  Perhaps the beauty of the song of the idea of the atmospheric public trust and its promise of sense and care will keep it alive.  Today, Eurydice is ailing, and if she should die, we should go down into hell to find her and bring her back, because she belongs up here, singing of justice.  We will then, I hope, think of a modern Orpheus – Bob Dylan – and how he admonished: Don’t Look Back.

[1] 295 Or App 584.
​
[2] Geer v. Connecticut, (161 US 519, (1896)).

[3] See them at https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/oregon/
1 Comment
George Frantz
1/22/2019 08:29:43 am

The Court's narrow parsing of law and the reliance on an old case citation are a cowardly response to an existential threat. If the question was one of industrial pollution, like the Bophal case, in which the release of methyl isocyanate killed almost 2300 people, surely the state would act to protect public health and the environment. But what if they didn't? Could the court require action to protect people from careless or rampant industrialism? What if, instead of poisonous gas, it was an attack of insects, like the Rocky Mountain bark beetle, whose appetite laid waste to millions o9f acres of forests?
The notion that the government has no duty to protect the environment is clearly contradicted by the presence and actions of the US Environmental Protection Agency and the state bodies who operate on a local and regional level. But if they fail to act, or are prevented (as is currently the case, thank you Mr. President), does not the court have the responsibility to protect its citizens?
Courts may argue that the question is political or otherwise out of their hands. That denial does not bear up under scrutiny.
Perhaps we should simply bring to the court a basin and pitcher so that they may wash their hands of this distasteful affair.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    The Environmental Citizen​ is for people who want to help meet the challenge of how to live within the biosphere without harming it, and thus protect ourselves, other living things, future generations, and the source of all wealth and value that we hold dear.  It builds on topics in the text Developing Sustainable Environmental Responsibility but is addressed to anyone interested in what each individual can do on their own, as members of the societies in which they live, and as members of the universal group - the human race.

    Designed to easily be used as classroom resources or to offer people direction, many of the articles within The Environmental Citizen include activities, questions, and recommended readings.

    I welcome your input and ideas.

    Kindly,
    Rick Reibstein

    Resources by Category

    All
    Activities
    Law For Sustainability
    Purpose And Context
    Recommended Reading
    Sustainability Policy & Events


    RSS Feed


    Picture
    Richard Reibstein
    Rick Reibstein teaches environmental law at Boston University and Harvard’s Summer School. He has helped develop toxics use reduction policy and assistance practices for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and has served as an attorney for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  He has trained businesses and governments in developing programs for pollution prevention, compliance assistance and environmental performance improvement.  He initiated the Massachusetts Environmentally Preferable Purchasing program, founded two Business Environmental Networks and is an individual winner of the EPA’s Environmental Merit Award (2000). Reibstein has published in Pollution Prevention Review, the Environmental Law Reporter, the International Journal of Cleaner Production, the Journal of Industrial Ecology, and the Journal of Ecological Economics, as well as producing many reports, guidance and proposals as a state official.

    Sign up to receive
    ​blog posts from
    The Environmental Citizen
    Subscribe
Categories
Activities
For classes, groups, or individuals seeking to manifest more responsibility for all
  1. Activities for the Environmental Citizen
Sustainability Policy & Events
Events relative to hopes for evolving more world-responsible societies.
  1. Losing the Forest for the Trees
  2. The Great Undoing​
  3. Request for Comment: Overwhelmingly Negative Response to Administration's Environmental Plans
  4. Connecting Distributed Leadership
  5. Reasonable Expectations of Government
Recommended Reading
Opening and Grounding Perspective  
  1. Jennet Conant's Man of the Hour
  2. Louis S. Warren's God's Red Son
Purpose and Contextual Management
What are the Transformations We Should Work to Achieve?  How do we transcend our differences to effect commonality?
  1. Where Loyalty Belongs
  2. The Best Bet
  3. Connecting Distributed Leadership
Picture
Developing Sustainable Environmental Responsibility is an active learning, inquiry-based approach to teaching undergraduate and graduate level students the principles and practice of applying sustainable environmental responsibility in their discipline.
Learn more >>
Free evaluation copy for faculty

PRODUCTS

Why Trubooks
Trubook Catalog

Support

Contact
Email Support
© COPYRIGHT 2021. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • Home
  • Why Trunity
  • Catalog
  • HMH
  • Log In