The more I see how we humans have desecrated, damaged, and destroyed our environment, the more depressed I become. This feeling descends upon me whenever I fill up my car with gasoline or have to throw out a plastic cup that can’t be recycled. It just seems as if nothing we can do, individually, will be enough to reverse the destruction. It’s almost enough to make one want to give up. But now, at long last, there appears to be some new energy appearing in the environmental movement. And rather than happening via protests or public initiatives, it is happening in the courtroom.
Sue the Bastards
In Montana, a group of sixteen young people, represented by Our Children’s Trust, have won a lawsuit against the State of Montana for refusing to consider the impacts of state energy policy on climate change, and violating their rights to a “clean and healthful environment”. This is a landmark event, which will force a large energy-producing state to reconsider its own self-promotion of climate-destroying fossil fuels, and the denial of scientific evidence. This ruling is a landmark for a number of important reasons, as specified by an article in the Washington Post, but here is the gist of it:
It's the first youth-led climate case to go to court (and also to win) in the US;
It’s one of the first to challenge government policy based on conflicts with a state constitution;
The judge agreed that a) the young people had standing to sue, because b) they were injured by the State’s policies, and that c) the State was responsible for harming them.
As the first “win” among climate-related litigation cases in the US, it helps set a precedent for future similar actions.
In fact, the defendant State of Montana did not even try to refute the science behind human-influenced climate change, as the evidence is just too strong. Instead, they chose to argue that Montana’s contribution to overall climate change is just too small to be of any significance. But that argument is all smoke, and doesn’t hold water anymore.
This is not the only attempt to bring climate deniers to justice. But while many of these lawsuits were dismissed before trial, other valid cases are under consideration. In the United States, multiple cities, counties, and states, as well as a group of Pacific coast crab fishermen, have sued over 30 fossil-fuel companies for damages caused by climate-change related disasters. In Puerto Rico, a group of communities have cited racketeering and antitrust laws to file suit against Shell Oil and Exxon Mobil Corp, for deceiving the public by claiming that burning of fossil fuels had no climate impact. According to plaintiffs, Shell and Exxon participated in a fraudulent marketing scheme that lasted for decades, and contributed to increased damage in Puerto Rico from hurricanes associated with climate change.
In another win for the environment and small communities, a German court has ruled that Peruvian plaintiffs can sue the energy giant RWE for damages related to the melting of glaciers that threaten villages in Peru. In this case, the plaintiffs aren’t asking for much – they just want RWE to contribute $20,000 to help mitigate damage caused to the town by flooding due to melting of a nearby glacier. That amount was determined by estimating the cost of mitigation, and the relative contribution of RWE to overall climate change, which was only about 0.5%.
Changing Directions
While the use of lawsuits to request relief from climate-related damage is not a new phenomenon, the fact that more of them are being taken seriously, and some are even being won, is great news. It suggests that we, as a society, are finally recognizing the truth – that we need to adjust our own behavior in order to prevent destroying our home, our environment, and our planet. They also establish that corporations can be held responsible for damages no matter where in the world they occur.
Now, then, perhaps it’s time for a massive environmental lawsuit for the crime of destroying the marine environment and depriving all of us of the right to healthy seas and coasts. But who are the aggrieved parties who would bring such a suit, and who would be the defendants?
A Modest Proposal
As a straw man, I propose that yours truly, the E@L, is a potential plaintiff in such a lawsuit. As such, I claim that the injury I have received is the reduced availability of seafood. I love seafood, in fact it is about the only animal protein that I consume (besides yogurt. And cheese. Especially cheddar. And Roquefort! And gouda. Preferably smoked. But I digress). Besides being tasty, wild seafood is incredibly healthy, full of omega-3 lipids, and does not contain any antibiotics or growth hormones.
When I lived in Alaska, I ate mostly salmon, halibut, and crab, that I either caught myself or obtained from friends. Last year I went back to Alaska, caught a bunch of fish, and shipped 100 lbs of filets home. We have been eating from that supply for a year. Locally, I consume blue crab, oysters, and striped bass (“rockfish” in the Chesapeake region). Climate change threatens to deprive me of this most healthful diet.
Acid Tripping
As part of my “straw-man” proposal, the threat to my food sources that I chose to highlight is ocean acidification (OA). Although this could easily be the subject of a whole column, here it is in a nutshell: Burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, among other things, that is absorbed by the ocean, where it causes seawater to become more acidic. Acidity, measured as pH (the availability of hydrogen ions) has increased from (probably) 8.1 to about 8.0 in the last century, which may not seem like much, but is equivalent to about a 30% increase.
And here’s how it impacts my choice of seafood: Researchers at the University of Washington (my PhD alma mater) found that increased OA decreases the ability of salmon to detect odors associated with predation or danger. That could lead to increased predation and fewer fish returning to their natal streams. Another study at UW (Yes, I’m a proud Husky) found that OA also decreases the ability of Dungeness crabs to detect odors associated with food, potentially leading to decreased reproductive potential of females. And not only does OA cause reduced shell formation in bivalves (oysters, mussels, etc) , but it can also kill oyster larvae grown in hatcheries (which were developed with help from UW fisheries scientists, to complete the trifecta. Go Dawgs!). In fact, a comprehensive ecosystem analysis concluded that crabs, clams, and other benthic invertebrates would be the most likely marine species to suffer from the effects of OA.
Thus, ocean acidification threatens salmon, crab, and oysters, i.e. the very species that I, and many other people, depend on as food sources. And that can be directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels.
As for the defendants, I expect they would be the fossil fuel companies, along with nations whose policies promote oil and gas consumption. And States, and their legislatures.
So, the path is laid out before us. Now we can only hope that someone will step up to the challenge of filing such a lawsuit in the near future. But don’t look at me. I’ll be busy writing this column.