Nothing like a little courtroom drama when the fate of the planet is on the line. For the past few days, the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to hear arguments in the case Massachusetts vs. EPA. The case is layered like the best parfait, but one of the key issues at stake is standing. In other words, is global warming a threat to the plaintiffs, will cutting certain emissions (like those from automobiles) make any difference, and should the EPA be forced to order these cuts. So far, it’s unclear where the court will come down. Justice Scalia explained (read the next lines in your best cranky Supreme Court Judge voice): “You have to show the harm is imminent . . . I mean, when is the cataclysm?” How about last year when Katrina slammed into New Orleans, or right now as Indians struggle with record monsoons and Arctic villagers are relocating because of melting ice? No matter the final conclusion of the case, the current debate at the supreme court raises an interesting question for activists: should we be talking more about the ”gloom and doom” along with pushing solutions?
It’s clear that just preaching the doomsday won’t cut it. But, perhaps some of us have gone to far with “positive messaging?” Now that global warming is more in the mainstream, maybe there is more space for us as young people to begin to do more to articulate, well, how f%$@! we are because of global warming. It’s important, of course, to emphasize that global warming is threatening all members of society (and that includes the non-human members as well). The EJ community, in particular, has done an incredible job of documenting how global warming and bad energy policies are impacting all generations in communities around the world, especially in already disadvantaged locations. Young people, however, seem to have a special role to play. In many ways, to borrow a phrase from a fellow activist Ken Ward, we may be “the last generation.”
Not the last generation on earth – - no doubt society will keep the babies coming until the very end. But maybe the last generation to see winter in Vermont (as I write, a slow drizzle has replaced the usual December snow), the last U.S. generation to grow up in a time of relative economic prosperity, or the last generation to live in a world not plagued by higher levels of disease. And in the face of all this, we’re getting royally screwed by our governments. The Stern Report recently re-emphasized that the impact of global warming on the world economy will be like that of the Great Depression, World War I, and WWI . . . combined. Guess who’s going to be paying for all of this out of pocket?
This past Labor Day, May Boeve, Jared Duvall, and I stood on stage with about forty other young people, ages five to twenty-five. We had just completed a walk across the state of Vermont to demand action on global warming and were addressing nearly two thousand people and every Vermont candidate for political office. I started the speech with the usual upbeat tempo: “Go into any classroom in Vermont and you’ll be filled with hope by the articulate, committed, and visionary young people you’ll meet there!” There were good-hearted cheers. Then came May’s turn. Instead of the usual positive rhetoric, May turned and looked at the crowd of young people standing on the stage and, with tears in her eyes, turned back to the assembled crowd and said simply: “These are the stakes.”
It was a tactic Lois Gibbs had used while fighting for Love Canal. As it had been in Gibbs’ experience, the response in Vermont was thunderous. People came up to us afterwards and thanked us for dramatizing what this issue was all about, while on-stage, the republican candidate for U.S. House called the speech one of the most moving public displays she had ever seen.
So while it’s important to “accentuate the positive,” let’s not forget the power of showing people what’s at stake. As legislators start negotiating piss-poor climate legislation, it’s time to say loud and clearly: “This generation isn’t going to accept any excuses or half-assed attempts. We need a solution now.” Because as we all know, the cataclysm is already upon us in many ways. And while we keep the faith that things we’ll eventually get better, sometimes it’s important to remember how bad things are now.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Nice post. I read that whole court transcription. It was fascinating.
Some fun highlights (Mr. Garre = EPA guy):
p 37
JUSTICE SOUTER: Why is that showing — and I agree with, by the way, with the Chief’s suggestion a moment ago, life is not, or physics are not so simple as to assume that there’s going to be a be a direct two and a half percent reduction of coastline for a two and a half percent reduction from the 6 percent.
But isn’t it intuitively reasonable to suppose that with some reduction of the greenhouse gases, there will be some reduction of the ensuing damage or the ensuing climate change which causes the damage? Isn’t that fair?
MR. GARRE: I don’t think that it is fair, Your Honor. I don’t want to pretend to be an expert on global climate change. But the one thing I can say is from the materials I looked at is that this an extraordinarily complex area of science. I’m not aware of any studies available that would suggest that the regulation of that minuscule fraction of greenhouse gas emissions would have any effect whatsoever on the global — -
JUSTICE SOUTER: But do you have any –
JUSTICE BREYER: Suppose others cooperate? Suppose…before you know it, they decide any one of 15 things, each of which has an impact, and lo and behold, Cape Cod is saved. Now why is it unreasonable? Why is it unreasonable to go to an agency and say now you do your part, which is 6 percent, and now we’re going to go to a different agency like NHTSA and we’re going to ask them too, and we’re going to go to your electricity regulation program, and coal. And there are like not a million things that have to be done, maybe there are only seven. But by the time we get those seven things done, we’ll make a big difference. Now what is it in the law that says that somehow a person cannot go to an agency and say we want you to do your part? Would you be up here saying the same thing if we’re trying to regulate child pornography, and it turns out that anyone with a computer can get pornography elsewhere? I don’t think so.
…
JUSTICE BREYER: So they couldn’t have gone in and asked for ozone regulations, because that requires other countries? Or what about dumping heavy metals in the sea, and as the sea gets polluted because of what other countries do, but EPA tried to regulate that. Acid rain they tried to regulate. You’re saying there is no standing to ask for any of that.
p 42
I got the impression that Congress thought that the administrator had a duty to make a judgment when there was enough evidence out there that people were concerned about it and so forth, that there would
be a duty there, but you think not?
MR. GARRE: That’s not the agency’s interpretation.
p 51
MR. GARRE:I think the agency’s conclusion was Congress had not authorized it to undertake the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to address global climate change and that, even if it had, that authority should not be exercised.
The mere fact that this case is currently being heard before the Supreme Court is in itself a landmark. Unfortunately (but predictably), the mainstream media hasn’t picked up on this case, and its highly unlikely that they will.
Despite the landmark nature of the case, I am not sure how much of an impact the ruling will have either way. The debate in the Court isn’t about the veracity of the scientific consensus on the link between CO2 and global warming, but is instead a nuanced argument about the meaning of “air pollution” in the Clean Air Act of 1970.
Considering this legislation was written long before global warming was a pressing political issue, it is no surprise that the debate in the Supreme Court is one of semantics. The implications are clear: we need a Global Warming Act of 200x, one that addresses the nearly indisputible relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Legislation that treats carbon not as an enemy or a friend, but as a natural resource subject to best management practices, much in the same way we view the management of our water and soil resources. Such legislation must take into account the latent economic potential of a carbon management services sector, thereby allowing innovation and market forces to flourish within the context of a favorable legal and political climate.
I agree with you, Jamie, that perhaps we have not been expressing the urgency and enormity of situation we are in. This weekend I attended a Focus the Nation planning meeting (designed to plan simultaneous events around the country to engage the public and polticians in discourse on global warming) where Gary Braasch presented a selection of his photographs documenting the impact of global warming on ecosystems, communities, and natural cycles.
What I realized as I was watching and listening throughout the day, is that this is not some science-fiction post-apocalyptic fantasy we are discussing. This is real life. This is our world at stake.
Global warming is so vast that it is incredibly difficult to imagine what our world would be like if we don’t take enough action. And yet all those sci-fi novels have provided glimspes of what might happen. I have been working on climate issues for several years now, I understand what’s going on and what is at stake, but on Saturday it became profoundly real for me.
We need to make sure that the public understands that this is not just a theory or a possibility. They need to understand what is happening and what is likely to continue to happen before things improve. This is real and it is scary. But it is not inevitable yet. We must take action to ensure that.