Advocating for the Future
Author
John C. Dernbach - Widener University
Irma Russell - University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
Matt Bogoshian - University of California, Davis
Widener University
University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law
University of California, Davis
Current Issue
Issue
2
Advocating for the Future

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have been in three million years. Human influence on the climate is so great that we are probably moving into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. The effects of climate change — visible only to trained observers and in computer models several decades ago — are now apparent everywhere. And the best available science tells us we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero or below across the globe by 2050, if not earlier, to avoid the worst effects of climate disruption. We have less than thirty years.

In this context, which has no precedent in human history, should lawyers just keep behaving the way we ordinarily behave, counseling clients, drafting legal documents, and litigating cases? Is that good enough? Are we called to do better — to be better?

The severity of climate change effects means that everyone is at risk and everyone should act to combat the threat. While attorneys are not affected more than others, they have the opportunity and, we argue, the responsibility, to confront this existential challenge and help achieve a better future. More than 1.3 million lawyers are licensed to practice in the United States. A fairly small share of these attorneys (about 64,000) identify environmental law as a practice area, according to the Martindale Hubbell directory. What would happen if a larger share of the nation’s million-plus professional counselors takes constructive action to combat climate disruption?

There is widespread recognition that technology developers, political leaders, educators, scientists, corporate leaders, planners, engineers, and activists have important roles to play in addressing climate change. And yet, the crucial role of lawyers is less widely recognized — even among lawyers themselves.

Ultimately, dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and systematic adaptation to climate change are not likely to occur without new and modified laws. Attorneys are needed to advocate, draft, help implement, and counsel clients about the many laws required at the federal, state, and local level. Legal changes are also needed in private law and governance — including supply chain contracts as well as certification, auditing, labeling, and reporting programs. Business clients and others rely on lawyers for advice on legal compliance, risk reduction, and other decisions that significantly affect the atmosphere’s carbon load. Members of the bar are also in positions of influence in their communities. Leadership by every kind of lawyer is needed — including those in private and corporate practice as well as those in non-profit organizations, academia, and government.

The obligation to combat climate change is also based on the lawyer’s responsibility for justice. The first sentence of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct states that an attorney is “a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.” The worst effects of climate change are, and will increasingly be, experienced by those with the least resources and thus among those with the greatest need for legal assistance. As the climate crisis develops, the profoundly negative effects of climate disruption will increasingly challenge the stability of American democracy, the administration of justice, and the legal system that lawyers are sworn to uphold.

Long-standing rules of professional responsibility indicate that attorneys have a duty to explain climate change-related risks and opportunities to their clients. The Model Rules of Professional Conduct state that lawyers “shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social, and political factors that may be relevant to the client’s situation.” All states have adopted this rule. When attorneys conclude that climate change-related risks and opportunities exist, they have a duty to educate their clients about them.

Even though many rightly critique the legal profession as being far too slow in enlisting its members to lead in combating the climate crisis, there are some promising recent signs of progress. In 2019, the ABA’s House of Delegates — its chief policymaking body — adopted a resolution urging lawyers “to advise their clients of the risks and opportunities that climate change provides.” The resolution also urges “lawyers to engage in pro bono activities to aid efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.”

The International Bar Association — the global counterpart to the ABA — adopted a “Statement on the Climate Crisis” in 2020 that builds on the ABA resolution. The IBA statement “urges lawyers, acting in accordance with their professional conduct rules and the rule of law, to consider . . . taking a climate conscious approach to problems encountered in daily legal practice.” This includes “advising clients of the potential risks, liability, and reputational damage arising from activity that negatively contributes to the climate crisis,” as well as acting “on a pro bono, volunteer or reduced fee basis, for those negatively affected by the climate crisis.”

The IBA statement also “urges lawyers, as influential figures and thought leaders within society, to live responsibly in the face of the climate crisis” by reducing “their environmental footprint” in “everyday actions” and by “supporting positive changes in the workplace, including adoption of more sustainable practices, such as greater reliance on electronic file storage facilities and digital technologies, more energy efficient offices, and more climate-friendly travel and procurement choices.”

Importantly, the ABA resolution and the IBA statement support changes in law. The ABA urges all levels of government as well as the private sector “to recognize their obligation to address climate change and take action” to “reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to net zero or below as soon as possible, consistent with the latest peer-reviewed science.” The IBA statement “encourages lawyers to engage with current and future legislative and policymaking efforts to address the climate crisis.”

Likewise, many of the mainstream businesses that attorneys represent are recognizing these realities and urging a better response. For example, in 2019 the Business Roundtable formally recognized that the purpose of corporations includes “embracing sustainable practices across our businesses” and that customers, employees, suppliers, and communities are to be considered essential stakeholders. In 2020, it issued a statement urging deep cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

All of this suggests that professional and business norms are moving toward recognition that lawyers have a responsibility to combat climate disruption. This growing momentum comes from a variety of sources, including client interest in lawyer advisors who have knowledge and capability relating to climate change and sustainability. In addition, market forces are driving down the costs of clean energy and increasing the need for legal help with clean energy projects. Investors are increasing pressure on corporations to disclose the accelerating risks of climate change, and the public is demanding less-harmful consumer products. The election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who campaigned on the most ambitious plan to address climate change yet put forth by any winning presidential ticket, adds to this momentum.

Law students and young lawyers, who want to make a contribution and to work in law offices or other organizations that value their views and aspirations, are an especially important force for recognition of an attorney’s responsibility. In October, an organization created at Yale, Law Students for Climate Accountability, published a first-of-its-kind scorecard on the role of 100 major U.S. law firms in climate change. It analyzed their litigation, transactional, and lobbying work, and assigned each firm a grade from A to F. These 100 firms, the report concluded, worked on 10 times more cases making climate change worse than they did on cases making it better. Only four firms received an A, while 67 received a D or F.

What, then, can attorneys do more of, or do differently, to combat climate change? The following suggestions are addressed to lawyers as professionals, citizens, family members, and members of various communities. These suggestions are illustrative, not exhaustive. They are intended to be both provocative and constructive.

To start, as part of their duty to clients and society, lawyers should work for better governance. It is impossible to address climate disruption and sustainable development unless we govern effectively at the federal, state, local, and international levels as well as in the private sector. Yet the level of partisan rancor and disagreement, particularly at the federal level and increasingly at the state level, makes it harder to address any significant issue effectively.

Better governance starts with adherence to the rule of law as well as the norms and guardrails that keep the machinery of government, commerce, and our legal system running. These norms include mutual respect, a willingness to seriously consider the views of others, respect for facts and science, civil discourse, and a commitment to the common good.

Lawyers should work toward better modeling of norms like these — in both public and private conversations, directly and explicitly emphasizing the importance of adhering to the rule of law and fact-based decisionmaking. They should maintain civil discourse and identify and even challenge those who reject or undermine foundational norms.

In addition to practicing and modeling civility, embracing sustainable development would help attorneys think more fully and clearly about legal options for the best course of action. Sustainable development is a lens or framework that lawyers can use to address nearly any issue, including climate disruption. The lens enables an understanding of the varied and cumulative risks and benefits inherent in a course of action that a client proposes. Rather than limiting the analysis to surface economic factors and clear legal risks, this approach goes deeper to help clients avoid costs and realize benefits. These benefits include opportunities to improve quality of life and combat the climate crisis. Thus, it is clearly advisable that lawyers use the imperatives and facts behind sustainable development to educate their clients and organizational superiors.

When lawyers use sustainable development as a lens or framework, they see a wider range of legal tools to address a particular issue, including but not limited to environmental law. Because environmental law is necessarily and primarily regulatory, it tends to focus on what a client can or cannot do — including what permits are required, and what enforcement options are available. Ironically, many have come to believe that environmental regulation unnecessarily limits freedom. To the contrary, by protecting us from risks to health and other negative effects of pollution, environmental law helps secure the freedom of every citizen to live a long and fruitful life. The wider lens thus incorporates environmental law and is therefore additive because it puts more options and tools on the table — which is essential if we are to effectively address climate change. Sustainable development can redirect law to foster economic development along a new conceptual framework that treats development, equity, and the environment as mutually reinforcing rather than oppositional, supplementing and transforming traditional regulation.

How do lawyers acquire the skill, expertise, and knowledge to communicate sustainability choices to clients? A starting point is understanding what their clients do, what they want, and what they need. Counselors who do this work listen carefully to clients and learn the essentials of their clients’ business and long-term goals and interests. They use their research and analytical skills to identify sustainability practices and principles that serve client needs and interests, flag negative effects as well as potential opportunities, and articulate legal options that incorporate sustainability principles. As time passes, and lawyers accumulate experience on these matters, they often find that new clients seek them out.

Lawyers can exercise such “thought leadership” without having decades of experience. Leadership, says James Strock, the first secretary of California’s Environmental Protection Agency, is about “inspir[ing] others to alter their thoughts and actions, in alignment with an empowering vision.” Many law students and younger lawyers aspire to make a difference in some leadership capacity. In the fall of 2020, more than 300 students signed up for a class called “Lawyers as Leaders” at Georgetown University Law Center — the most popular class in the school’s 150-year history.

Attorneys must seriously consider working for, and supporting, legal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change in their personal and professional capacities. One opportunity grows out of the comprehensive description and analysis of some 1,500 recommended legal tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States, which was published by ELI Press in 2019, with Michael B. Gerrard and John C. Dernbach as editors. Federal, state, and local governments, and the private sector, need to adopt and implement such tools if we are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero or below by 2050.

The next stage of this project is drafting these recommendations as model laws that can be proposed, adopted, and implemented in various jurisdictions. More than twenty law firms as well as individual attorneys, law professors, and others are participating in this project on a pro bono basis. These model laws, in turn, are posted (with other resources) on a website created for that purpose, https://lpdd.org.

A striking aspect of this project is the participation of lawyers at all stages of their careers. Many retired attorneys, some of whom have not previously worked in environmental or energy law, including a judge and a recording industry lawyer, help manage this project. First-year associates at law firms also participate, helping to draft model laws pro bono. The project is an excellent example of an opportunity for lawyers to establish their careers along the path of thought leadership in addressing climate change. At some law schools, including Widener Commonwealth, Denver, and Vermont, students can take classes in which they draft model climate change and sustainability laws for local and state governments.

In addition to drafting model laws, another opportunity to make a difference is getting these or other proposed laws adopted. The Legal Pathways project is active in this as well. This work involves outreach to interested organizations, individuals, legislators, legislative staff, and media. And while Congress is obviously important, so are state legislatures and local governments. In fact, local government is a particularly important avenue for combating climate change and enhancing sustainability because local governments deal with the increasing number of climate-change-induced severe weather events; the need to repurpose commercial property as more people work and shop from home; and growing demand for walkable downtowns, mixed-use neighborhoods, and charging infrastructure for electric vehicles.

An important and sensitive issue is whether, when, and how lawyers should make the case for such actions in moral or ethical terms. To be sure, there are risks of an initial adverse reaction; clients and organizational superiors may have different views. Still, attorneys who listen carefully to their clients or superiors, and who develop good and trusting relationships with them, can carry out their duty to advise by identifying and connecting with specific values to help them maximize enlightened self-interest. Counselors who limit their arguments to law or include only economic, technological, or scientific analysis ignore the persuasive power of widely held ethical and moral norms. Principles such as intergenerational equity that are at the core of sustainable development have dramatic emotional and intellectual power when taken seriously. Pope Francis I explains intergenerational equity in a way that resonates within the Catholic religion as well as other faiths and philosophical traditions:

“Once we start to think about the kind of world we are leaving to future generations, we look at things differently,” the pontiff says. “We realize that the world is a gift which we have freely received and must share with others. Since the world has been given to us, we can no longer view reality in a purely utilitarian way, in which efficiency and productivity are entirely geared to our individual benefit.”

Other widely held values include the injunction to do no harm. Professor Victor Flatt, who teaches at the University of Houston Law Center, summarizes the moral norm underlying environmental law in this way: “no person should be allowed to harm another person for profit or benefit.” Additional powerful norms — many held by some traditional conservatives — include national security, conservation, prudent stewardship, accountability for the consequences of one’s actions, and the precautionary approach. Separately and together they can also help pave the way for political consensus.

Lawyers should consider building such principles into their explanation of various climate change options to clients, and in their advocacy on behalf of clients as well as to their organizational superiors. Again, context and audience matter, and sensitivity and mutual trust are required. Ultimately, clients have the final word, but many care about these principles. (For example, they care deeply about their own children.) Decisions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster sustainability are more likely when decisionmakers understand the relationship between their choices and the principles they hold close.

When members of the bar engage politically, they should include people with different perspectives, building alliances based on a shared understanding of the common good. Sustainable development should be capable of bridging the partisan divide, and there is evidence that it is already working, even where the term is not used. Because sustainable development seeks to further environmental protection, equity, and economic development at the same time, it requires the active and constructive participation of business — something that many in the business community recognize and appreciate. In fact, much environmental lawmaking over the past several decades has been directed at environmentally sustainable economic development. Statutes that require or encourage increased use of clean energy can be understood as climate change laws, but they can also be understood as economic development laws. These laws not only foster business growth, they create well-paying jobs.

Today, lawyers must also “walk the talk” on reduced greenhouse gas emissions and sustainable development. It is one thing to persuade clients and others to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and yet it is quite another to do it in one’s own office and at home. Such actions have both persuasive power and reputational benefit.

Attorneys, law firms, businesses, and organizations of all types should consider participating in one or more of the many efforts for walking the talk that already exist. For example, the Law Firm Sustainability Network, a nonprofit organization made up of firms as well as legal departments of major corporations, has launched the American Legal Industry Sustainability Standards, “a self-assessment tool that measures law firms’ implementation of environmentally friendly practices that promote energy efficiency, conservation of energy and resources, recycling, and related measures.” The organization also fosters information sharing on best practices.

The ABA Section on Environment, Energy, and Resources has partnered with LFSN to foster awareness of the standards and programs. The California Lawyers Association offers a set of model law office sustainability guidelines for reduced paper and energy use as well as purchase of more sustainable products and services. In 2018, Lawyers for a Sustainable Economy, a partnership among 14 large private firms, Stanford Law School, and Stanford’s Precourt Institute for Energy, “committed to delivering $23 million worth of free legal services by the end of 2020 to advance sustainability in energy, transportation, and land use.” For lawyers, walking the talk also means making similar efforts at home and through other organizations, and considering climate change and sustainable development in supporting political candidates and community initiatives.

Bar associations can do more to advance this work through resolutions, educational programming, organizing, and advocacy — at the international, national, state, and local levels. In 2009, the Oregon State Bar Association created the Sustainable Future Section — “the first state bar association section devoted to the relationship between sustainability and law.” Organizing and advocacy to accelerate the transition to a decarbonized and sustainable world would be particularly valuable leadership contributions.

Finally, lawyers should spread the word and organize others in ways appropriate to their circumstances. The challenges of climate change and sustainability are considerable, and so are the opportunities. But there is a finite and rapidly closing window for effectively addressing these issues. Like all professionals and all people, attorneys have a responsibility to preserve our planet and our quality of life. In our specific professional roles and, more broadly, as lawyers, we have a special responsibility for the quality of justice and the public good. We need to talk about these issues and how to address them, and encourage other lawyers of all races and backgrounds to participate. We also need to share legal tools and approaches that work, and support each other in doing so. It is not enough to do these things in our work or at home; we should step up our engagement with others.

On December 24, 1968, in lunar orbit, Apollo 8 astronaut William Anders photographed the Earth roughly 240,000 miles away. The picture, dubbed “Earthrise,” shows the grey lifeless Moon in the foreground with the Earth above and behind it — blue and green and alive and surrounded by dark space. More than fifty years later, Earth is still the only place we know where life exists. Notwithstanding remarkable success in implementing environmental laws, we face an existential threat from climate disruption. What will we as lawyers do, or do more of, or do differently, in response? TEF

LEAD FEATURE Attorneys in our varied roles need to step up and address the climate crisis for the sake of every person and for the public good. All lawyers must be sustainability lawyers now.

Can Biden Get the Job Done?
Author
Jeremy Bernstein - InsideEPA
InsideEPA
Current Issue
Issue
1
Can Biden Get the Job Done?

Joe Biden may not have been the first presidential candidate to have pledged to address climate change and environmental justice, but he is the first to have developed such ambitious plans — and to have made implementing them top-tier priorities. “Our nation is grappling with a pandemic, an economic crisis, powerful calls for racial justice, and the existential threat of climate change,” Biden said shortly after winning the election. “We can’t simply go back to the way things were before. The team being assembled will meet these challenges on Day One and build us back better.” Build us back better has become his slogan and foreshadows both his environmental aspirations and his starting point, with many of the Obama-Biden administration’s achievements undercut or undone and huge challenges like the pandemic, the jobs crisis, crumbling infrastructure, and worsening climate impacts looming.

While his plans may be ambitious, implementing them in the face of a narrowly divided Senate, a resurgent House GOP, and a conservative Supreme Court will almost certainly temper Biden’s options. So too will former President Donald Trump, who, regardless of whether he runs for re-election in 2024, will be tweeting from the sidelines, urging his supporters to defend his deregulatory record.

“One thing is for certain: if Joe Biden shuffles into the White House, he will do so lacking any kind of mandate to make energy more expensive, restrict the use of our domestic natural resources, ban fracking on federal lands, or impose a carbon tax or other restrictive carbon policies on the American public,” says Tom Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, who led Trump’s Energy Department transition team. Still, there may be some smaller-bore options for bipartisan cooperation to address climate change, especially given what some Democrats see as a shift in Republican attitudes. “The folks who used to come to the floor and rail about Chinese hoaxes and fake science — all that has been shut up,” says Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). ”We are just not hearing any of that nonsense any longer.”

Although Congress is unlikely to provide major legislative victories, there is no shortage of regulatory, administrative, and other executive options the incoming administration is considering. But it is not clear whether such actions will satisfy a range of progressive groups, whose leaders are warning that failure to deliver on his campaign promises will lead to a loss of support from many of the youth voters who fueled his campaign. “Joe Biden [is] about to get whiplash from how quickly young people turn back into his harshest critics if he doesn’t deliver on the political mandate this election delivered,” the climate-focused Sunrise Movement said in a statement after Biden’s win. “We showed up to vote Trump out with clearer margins than any generation. We expect results.”

Politics aside, cutting greenhouse gases is widely viewed as an imperative, especially given the effects of Trump rollbacks and the slowdown in constraining emissions. “The impact of the Trump administration on emissions has been significant, but the actual regulatory rollbacks were only part of it,” says Trevor Houser of the Rhodium Group. “The bigger impact was four years of lost federal policy action.”

Entering the White House after the unprecedented deregulatory actions of the Trump administration, Biden will have his work cut out — especially given his primary initial focus on the coronavirus pandemic and its economic fallout. “I expect to see all levers of the federal government mobilized in appropriate ways to at first repeal very pernicious policies of the Trump administration and then set forth an attractive affirmative agenda,” says Ricky Revesz, the Lawrence King professor of law at New York University. But reversing many of Trump’s rollbacks will take years — especially if incoming officials hope to avoid imitating the string of litigation losses racked up by their predecessors’ shoddy rulemaking practices — so Biden is also expected to quickly sign executive orders, step up enforcement actions, and take other steps that can have immediate effects.

Some are also suggesting Biden declare a climate “emergency,” which will authorize use of a range of budget, enforcement, and other tools to address climate change without congressional action. Certainly President Trump made use of this authority in diverting funds from the Pentagon to his border wall.

Much of the agenda will be guided by campaign plans. For example, his initial Plan for a Clean Energy Revolution and Environmental Justice — which was developed by a unity task force Biden created with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) as an alternative to the Green New Deal — promises a range of short- and longer-term actions, including, on Day One rejoining the Paris Agreement, setting an economy-wide target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and a carbon-free power sector by 2035, and rescinding Trump’s deregulatory executive orders. EPA will immediately be ordered to restore “aggressive” methane limits for new and existing oil and gas operations. The agency will have to set “rigorous” fuel economy standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles to eventually achieve zero emissions and require annual fuel-efficiency “improvements” for heavy-duty trucks, the plan says. On public lands, Biden is promising to impose a moratorium on new oil and gas leases, restore the Obama-era moratorium on new coal leasing, reintroduce climate analysis into National Environmental Policy Act reviews, encourage renewable energy projects, and reconsider land management plans. But faced with a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, such rules could face some high hurdles. For example, approaches like the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which sought to regulate greenhouse gases across the power sector, are unlikely to pass muster.

Within his first 100 days as president, Biden also promised to convene a climate world summit to persuade other leaders to “join the United States in making more ambitious national pledges, above and beyond the commitments they have already made.” His related Plan to Secure Environmental Justice and Equitable Economic Opportunity in a Clean Energy Future calls for strengthening the Clinton-era Executive Order 12898. When implemented, this should increase enforcement to protect fence-line and other vulnerable communities, and strengthen environmental monitoring requirements. It will require EPA to create new, real-time notification requirements for communities exposed to facility releases, and ensure neighborhoods are engaged in any remediation planning. And it will set a range of environmental cleanup standards to address widespread contamination from troublesome PFASs —per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

Biden later detailed an even more ambitious climate plan, serving as much to spell out his policy agenda as to unite opposing labor, environmental, and other factions within the Democratic coalition. Framed around a pledge for at least $2 trillion in clean energy-related investments within four years, his subsequent proposal outlines a range of additional commitments. These include building modern infrastructure, long on policymakers’ wish list. Biden also wants to position the auto sector to “win the 21st century” while the nation achieves a “carbon pollution free” power sector by 2035. The proposal would make dramatic investments in energy efficiency in buildings, require a “historic investment” in clean energy innovation, and advance “sustainable agriculture and conservation.”

Although Biden is not expected to target natural gas in the direct way that President Obama’s regulations went after coal, whatever regulatory policies he imposes on methane from the oil and gas sector and emissions standards for new power plants, together with large investments in wind, solar, and other clean renewables, are nevertheless expected to eventually drive natural gas and other fossil fuels out of the market. “De-carbonization isn’t a debate — it’s a fossil-fuel death sentence,” says Kevin Book, managing partner of ClearView Energy Partners, a consulting firm. “It means a resource is going off the grid. That is the inevitable implication.”

To address such far-reaching challenges, Biden is taking a “whole of government” approach, implementing a policy architecture across the federal system while reinventing parts of it too. “From the very beginning of the campaign, when President-elect Biden rolled out his climate plan, he made it clear he sees this as an all-of-government agenda, domestic, economic, foreign policy,” says Stef Feldman, Biden’s campaign policy director. “From the very beginning, when he talked about infrastructure, he talked about making sure that it built in climate change, that we are making our communities more resilient to the effects of climate change.”

EPA and Interior will certainly be mobilized, but so too will Agriculture, Transportation, Treasury, and other departments that can focus on climate change without the need for congressional action. Biden has already made clear, for example, that he will re-orient the Transportation Department to advance deployment of electric vehicles and their charging infrastructure. A post-election discussion with General Motors’ CEO Mary Barra about building 550,000 EV charging stations may already have borne results: days later, the company dropped its support for the Trump administration’s scaled-back fuel economy standards. Biden also has called for climate measures at the Treasury Department that promote carbon reductions through tax, budget, and regulatory policies. Other options include creation of a “carbon bank” under the Agriculture Department’s Commodity Credit Corporation that could pay farmers and other landowners to sequester carbon, and changes to the department’s crop insurance program to develop healthier soils.

Of particular interest are agencies overseeing the financial system, including the Securities & Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve. For example, Biden has already called for the SEC to craft a regulation requiring corporations to disclose climate risks and greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, the Federal Reserve is expected to soon join the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System, the global coalition dedicated to dealing with risks posed by climate change, though membership is conditional on Biden’s return to the Paris Agreement. And the new administration is expected to undo a Labor Department rule restricting environmental, social, and governance investing.

Biden’s climate and environmental justice plans provide broad frameworks to address not only adverse environmental effects of climate change and ambient pollution but also a governing agenda across a range of policy areas, including infrastructure, economic development, and finance. “There is no more consequential challenge that we must meet in the next decade than the onrushing climate crisis,” Biden says. “When Donald Trump thinks about climate change, the only word he can muster is ‘hoax.’ When I think about climate change, the word I think of is ‘jobs.’”

To oversee such a wide-ranging agenda, the incoming administration is likely to take a series of steps to restructure the federal government, starting with the White House itself. Biden has already tapped John Kerry, the former secretary of state and architect of the Paris Agreement, to serve as a presidential climate envoy with a seat on the National Security Council. “For the first time ever, there will be a principal on the National Security Council who will make sure climate change is on the agenda in the Situation Room,” Biden says. The new president also plans to create a domestic climate czar to elevate the issue in the White House, along with the creation of a National Climate Council — that is to be co-equal to the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council — that will coordinate actions across federal agencies.

To bolster consideration of environmental justice concerns, Biden has also called for elevating EPA’s National Environmental Justice Advisory Council into a White House office to advise policymakers, and for creating the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council to coordinate government-wide efforts. Both will be reporting to the Council on Environmental Quality. And he promises to “overhaul” EPA’s civil rights office to “ensure it brings justice to frontline communities that experience the worst impacts of climate change and fence-line communities that are located adjacent to pollution sources.” He added, “For too long” the office has “ignored its requirements under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That will end in the Biden administration.”

The president-elect also pledged to “strategically support ongoing plaintiff-driven climate litigation against polluters,” bringing federal resources to the ongoing court battles that teen plaintiffs have been waging against oil and gas companies, but which have become mired in procedural disputes. Such an effort would be aided by his plan to create an Environmental & Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice that would complement the existing Environment and Natural Resources Division.

“This represents a significant escalation in potential liability risk for fossil fuel companies, as not only does the federal government possess greater resources to prosecute such actions, but it is possible that the DOJ may bring enforcement actions under an aggressive theory of liability in addition to the civil tort actions currently prevalent,” says Jacob Hupart, a lawyer who has represented oil and gas companies. And should Biden depart from the Trump administration’s view that such litigation is preempted by federal law, “then the legal position of fossil fuel companies in the existing climate change lawsuits may also be under additional pressure.”

To staff such efforts, Biden has already selected experienced personnel, many with a history of dealing with climate change in the Obama administration. His initial high-level cabinet appointments — including Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen — have lengthy resumes advocating for actions to address climate change. “What I see is a growing recognition on both sides of the aisle that climate change is a very serious concern and that action needs to occur,” says Yellen, the former chair of the Federal Reserve. She has long called for a carbon tax with a dividend paid to taxpayers.

Others have seen the effects of climate change up close. Ron Klain, the new White House chief of staff, led the Obama’s administration’s response to the Ebola outbreak, an experience that made clear the connections between climate change and deadly diseases. “As the Earth’s climate alters, we are seeing changes in where and how humans live; these changes increase the risk that deadly diseases will emerge and spread more rapidly,” Klain wrote in 2017 with Brian Deese, Obama’s former climate advisor, whom Biden has tapped to lead his National Economic Council. “While the interactions between climate change and disease are hard to predict with certainty, the scientific linkages are unmistakable. If we fail to integrate planning for the impact of climate change with planning for the prevention and management of pandemic disease, the consequences will be deadly,” they wrote.

Getting nominees confirmed by the narrowly divided Senate will be a heavy lift for some. Neera Tanden, whom Biden has picked to lead the Office of Management and Budget, is “radioactive,” says Senator John Cornyn (R-TX). But Biden will only be able to make some selections if they can first run the gauntlet of progressive groups over their ties to fossil fuel and other corporate entities. A case in point: Representative Cedric Richmond (D-LA), whom Biden has tapped as a senior advisor and director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, with a broad portfolio that initially will include climate and other issues. Richmond’s appointment “feels like a betrayal,” the Sunrise Movement said after his selection, “because one of President-elect Biden’s very first hires for his new administration has taken more donations from the fossil fuel industry during his congressional career than nearly any other Democrat, cozied up to Big Oil and Gas, and stayed silent and ignored meeting with organizations in his own community while they suffered from toxic pollution and sea-level rise.”

Such criticisms have turned frosty the goodwill that had built up between Biden’s team and Sanders-aligned groups, who face the risk of being tuned out. “They can either continue to just beat the drums on the streets or they can start to leverage the relationship they have. It’s up to them which strategy they adopt,” says one Democrat in touch with Biden’s team.

Such tensions also reflect a stormy debate among Democrats in Congress, where moderates and progressives are arrayed in a circular firing squad over who is to blame for surprising electoral losses that have left Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) with the smallest majority in 18 years and limited legislative prospects. Many moderates blame progressive policies like the Green New Deal and calls to ban fracking for such losses. “We pay the price for these unprofessional and unrealistic comments about a number of issues, whether it is about [defunding] the police or [banning] shale gas,” says Representative Conor Lamb (D-PA), who held onto his gas-heavy district in western Pennsylvania. “Those things aren’t just unpopular, they’re completely unrealistic, and they aren’t going to happen. And they amount to false promises by the people that call for them.”

But progressives, like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), author of the Green New Deal, are promising to continue pushing their agenda through the 2022 mid-term elections, a ballot that has usually seen the president’s party lose seats. Ocasio-Cortez, who co-chaired the Biden-Sanders unity task force on climate change with Kerry, says she expects Biden to make good on his promises. “We’re not going to forget about that agreement, for the sake of an election, are we? What we’re gonna do is that we’re going to organize and demand that this administration — which I believe is decent, and kind, and honorable — keep their promise,” she says. Corralling such a fractured caucus will be a tough road for Pelosi, who has promised an array of climate legislation early in the new Congress, including measures recommitting the United States to the Paris Agreement, and requiring states to account for climate change before implementing federally funded infrastructure projects — and to meet certain greenhouse gas emission goals when they accept the funding.

Still, there may be opportunities for some bipartisan House progress on environmental policy. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI), the lead sponsor of comprehensive bipartisan legislation to regulate PFAS releases under the pollution control statutes, says she plans to re-introduce her bill in January and quickly advance it “to keep the pressure on and signal to the incoming administration that this is a top priority of the Congress. We think this can be a fast environmental win.” Dingell says that she is working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) to quickly advance the legislation. Dingell says she also plans additional PFAS legislation “where possible,” including banning the use of PFAS in food contact containers and cosmetics. But even as she prepares to act, Dingell says that she and her supporters are also working with incoming administration officials to help them “knock out PFAS regulations that won’t require an act of Congress.”

Winning Republican support for such measures may have been possible in the past, when GOP lawmakers from contaminated districts backed Dingell’s legislation, especially given the Trump administration’s reluctance to regulate. But with a Biden administration now expected to do some of the heavy lifting, Republicans may not have the same incentives. “Before people run out and file legislation [to address PFAS] you really want to make sure you’ve got everything, that all the consequences that this could affect, because if you don’t, you can have real serious consequences out there on what you’re doing and what’s happening in the market,” says Bob Latta (R-OH), a top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Prospects for bipartisan agreement on affirmative policies face similar hurdles in the Senate, where key Republican and Democratic leaders of the energy and environment committees hail from fossil-energy states. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY), who is slated to lead the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has promised to keep his state’s abundant coal and gas resources at the center of his agenda. His Democratic counterpart is Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), another fossil-fuel friendly senator who has a mixed environmental record. West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito will lead Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) will serve as her Democratic counterpart.

Despite their home-state biases, these lawmakers have previously cut deals that could provide a model for legislating in the Biden era. Barrasso, Capito, and Carper struck a legislative agreement in 2019 that led to an initial round of regulations on PFAS, such as Toxics Release Inventory reporting requirements and prohibiting future uses of some chemicals that have been phased out. Additional measures could be in the works, especially given that Capito has listed new drinking water standards for the chemicals as a priority.

Barrasso and Capito both back legislation that supports carbon capture from coal and other combustion, including tax credits and research, bills that Rhode Island’s Whitehouse also supports. That Democrat is also leading bipartisan measures to reduce emissions across a range of industry sectors, including bills to create voluntary greenhouse gas credit markets for the agriculture and forestry sectors, preserve existing nuclear power plants, encourage low-carbon manufacturing, support carbon capture and sequestration research, and phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons with a high global warming potential.

Another possible area of agreement is including climate provisions in infrastructure spending legislation, an approach that the Senate environment committee has already adopted on a bipartisan basis and is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A bill the committee unanimously approved in 2019 provided $10.8 billion over five years for GHG-reduction measures, including $3 billion in new funding for states to support projects that lower highway-related emissions, as well as additional regulatory and financial incentives for states to conduct emissions planning and lower per-capita emissions. However, the infrastructure bill never came up for a vote on the Senate floor after environmentalists objected to provisions exempting some natural gas projects from NEPA reviews and other permit-streamlining measures.

But with a President Biden in the White House eager to cut deals with Republicans, such compromises may be the bitter pill that Democrats and environmentalists may have to swallow to make some progress on addressing climate change, environmental justice, and other critical issues. TEF

COVER STORY “Build us back better” has become his slogan and foreshadows both his environmental aspirations and his starting point, with many of the Obama-Biden administration’s achievements undercut or undone and huge challenges looming.

Complainant Rights and Civil Rights Act Title VI
Author
Tseming Yang - Santa Clara University
Santa Clara University
Current Issue
Issue
6
Parent Article
Tseming Yang - Santa Clara University

Our Debate asks us to address what can be done to achieve environmental justice in a practical manner at this point in time. My choice would be to provide EJ communities with rights to participate substantively in EPA’s Civil Rights Act Title VI enforcement program, including in claims investigation and internal appeals.

There are of course bolder and farther-reaching steps that could be suggested: legislation reversing the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander v. Sandoval and restoring a private right of action under Title VI; reorientation of our environmental statutes toward sustainability, climate change, and global environmental challenges; and ultimately, incorporation of a rights-based perspective into our environmental law system, one that recognizes that individuals and communities have a right to a clean and healthy environment not subject to discretionary decisions of the government. Short of such radical “best” solutions, however, second-best reforms focused on the Title VI civil rights enforcement processes will go a long way.

Under Title VI recipients of federal funding are prohibited from engaging in discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. EPA’s long-standing implementing regulations prohibit both intentional discrimination as well as disparate-effects discrimination. To ensure that recipients of EPA funding comply with Title VI and the regulations, the agency has instituted an administrative process to investigate and enforce alleged violations.

At present, communities bringing Title VI complaints to EPA have no substantive right to participate in the ensuing investigation and enforcement process. The agency itself has noted that “EPA does not represent the complainants, but rather the interests of the federal government” in that endeavor. As a result, communities are relegated to being mere passive bystanders in a process that directly implicates issues vital to their lives, health, and well-being. Allowing communities to participate as a matter of right, including in appeals within the agency, would significantly enhance their ability to hold the agency accountable for its implementation of federal anti-discrimination mandates.

Undoubtedly, EPA’s implementation and enforcement of Title VI has had a troubled history. In spite of the frustration that just about everybody has experienced with the program, activists and agency officials alike, the program remains crucial to advancing environmental justice. It is one of the few formal mechanisms that brings a civil rights perspective to environmental regulation and thus sits right at the intersection of all that is difficult about environmental justice. And with its coverage of state and local regulators that receive federal funding, principles developed in EPA’s Title VI program directly and indirectly influence environmental justice policy everywhere.

Giving communities a right to shape factual and legal determinations, especially the ability to challenge agency findings that are incorrect, would fundamentally alter the role of complainants. It would force agency officials to explain decisions regarding its investigative processes and enforcement decisions — likely uncomfortable and awkward for decisionmakers, but also not novel. Polluters who are the targets of environmental enforcement processes, as well as EPA funding recipients who may be the subject of a Title VI complaint, all have well-established rights to challenge agency administrative decisions. Putting EJ communities on the same legal footing is long overdue.

Finally, granting complainants a substantive role in EPA’s administrative process would open up a formal channel for exploring what it means for the agency to pursue environmental equity and to prevent discriminatory effects in providing a clean and healthy environment for all. Such a public dialogue has largely been choked off because there have been few opportunities for EJ communities to bring to bear a civil rights perspective on the Title VI program. And with pressure absent to articulate applicable principles, agency officials have had little incentive to tackle the most difficult questions of environmental equity and discrimination — how to ensure that marginalized communities are protected while pursuing other statutory objectives. That has left law and policy on how civil rights laws apply in an environmental context underdeveloped. Instead of shying away from these difficult questions, however, the agency should embrace that challenge.

The late Luke Cole used to write about community empowerment as the touchstone of EJ lawyering, and communities making decisions for themselves as a key tenet of the movement. Regardless of one’s agreement with his prescriptions, his views were based on a fundamental environmental principle that has now emerged widely across the world — regardless of racial, ethnic, or economic marginalization, the right to a clean and healthy environment is inherent to the dignity of all persons and communities. It is not bestowed by the government as a revocable privilege and should be controlled by communities themselves, not by the government or others. According them a substantive role in EPA’s Title VI investigative and enforcement program would be an important step toward that end.

Tseming Yang is professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law.

Hope Is Not Enough. Here Are Four Steps
Author
Gerald Torres - Yale School of the Environment
Yale School of the Environment
Current Issue
Issue
6
Parent Article
Gerald Torres - Yale School of the Environment

Why do the conditions that require an environmental justice movement exist? If you can answer that, you can start to unravel the structure of injustice that plagues American life and begin to imagine how to reengineer environmental protection as if everyone’s health and well-being matters.

The challenge of diagnosing how structural racism has distorted environmental protection and then imagining how you might change already enormously complex environmental regimes is an imposing order. So, what can be done? When we worked on Executive Order 12898, the theory was straightforward. First, identify the characteristics of the communities to be protected. Second, account for cumulative impacts and cross-media environmental burdens. Third, change the decisionmaking apparatus and protocols to integrate serious consideration of how agency choices will affect all communities, but especially identified EJ communities.

Like the National Environmental Policy Act, the idea of the EO was to make every agency whose decisions affected the human environment responsible for the consequences of those decisions. Change what is measured and what is valued, and you will change the decisions that administrators make. The EO was aimed only at the administrative agencies, and it did not have the force of legislation to compel compliance. Yet even the NEPA skeptics have concluded that despite the absence of substantive law, environmental decisionmaking improved. We hoped the same would be true once environmental justice concerns were part of the central desideratum within each agency. The lessons of the intervening years show that hope is not enough.

There is no room to review the substantive statutes systematically, but we can learn from the action at the state level. And because of space limitations, I will not even begin to discuss the overlap of climate justice with environmental justice, but meaningful change must do four things.

First, each agency whose decisions entail environmental effects must account for any disparate impacts on environmental justice communities, by conducting a cross-media and cumulative impact analysis. I am suggesting an environmental justice impact analysis with a fully developed and reviewable record. Each agency must base its review on a consistent definition of what constitutes an environmental justice community. That definition will be informed by clear demographic indices as well as a review of past decisions, so that agencies make choices beginning from a uniform baseline. The creation of this baseline also forms the basis for immediate remediation, since equal treatment cannot start without an accounting of past burdens.

Second, the process for citizen participation must be sufficiently robust to render any decision the equivalent of informed consent. To achieve this, agencies need something like an ombudsman who will police the procedures and make changes where necessary. Of course, based on the analysis undertaken to satisfy the first condition, an agency might exempt certain communities from having to bear any additional environmental burden.

Third, consistent with the material burdens each community (or neighborhood) bears, agencies must construct a system for remediation of existing harms in the best case or compensation where remediation is impossible. Let me describe Texas Governors Ann Richard’s and George W. Bush’s educational reform as an example. Texas had, for many years, lagged behind the nation in math education. One remedy for this was to reward schools that raised the lowest scores, ensuring that all students do better. This change created an incentive to invest in the bottom. The same incentive structure could be devised for agencies to increase the motivation to improve those areas that already bear an unfair share of environmental hazards. The net result is that environmental quality for all is improved, starting where the burden is the heaviest.

Finally, there must be a commitment to invest in EJ communities. Those neighborhoods that are park-poor or where access to green spaces is limited should be lifted to the top of the list when planning for more parks or open space. Research in public health reveals the serious environmental health impacts of diminished access to green spaces. Investment also means attention to the distribution of enforcement dollars, technical assistance to community environmental justice groups, and training to expand the network of citizen enforcers and provide an important adjunct to STEM training in the schools. Agencies should make expanded use of supplemental environmental projects when undertaking enforcement actions. Here, legislative change will undoubtedly be necessary. The scope of permissible SEPs has been too narrow to confront the community definition of environmental injustice.

These four steps are enormously complex and, no doubt, controversial. But, if we are serious about addressing environmental injustice, they are the least we can do. After this minimum is achieved, we will have the capacity to design environmental programs that work for all.

Gerald Torres is professor of environmental justice at the Yale School of the Environment and Yale Law School.

In Puerto Rico, Transform the Electric System
Author
Ruth Santiago - Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc.
Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc.
Current Issue
Issue
6
Parent Article
Ruth Santiago - Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc.

In Puerto Rico, anti-Black racism is structured differently but is no less real than in the continental United States. Predominantly Afro-descendent and low-income communities in Puerto Rico are disproportionately impacted by polluting operations, such as electric power plants, waste dumps, chemical installations, genetic engineering agro-industries, and military bases. Because the archipelago’s population is almost entirely Hispanic/people of color and nearly half of the residents are poor, it could be argued that most of Puerto Rico is impacted by environmental injustice. But it is worse in the largely Afro-descendent municipalities of Guayama and Salinas, where the most contaminating electric power plants are located, more than 50 percent of the population lives in poverty, with older residents becoming an ever-larger proportion of these marginalized communities. This is where change is needed.

The fossil fuel electricity plants in southeastern Puerto Rico generate energy that is mostly transmitted to the north, primarily to the San Juan metropolitan area. Ironically, the residents of Guayama and Salinas who live in the shadows of the most polluting plants do not receive electric service from these installations, but they do receive most of the toxic impacts. In Guayama, the AES coal burning power plant emits pollution into the air, land, and water. The plant’s coal ash waste has contaminated the South Coast Aquifer, the sole source of potable water for tens of thousands of people. Scientific studies show that exposure to small increases in PM2.5 emitted by power plants leads to higher COVID-19 death rates. In other words, the people whose lives are most at risk from COVID-19 are the same frontline communities disproportionately burdened by the pollution generated by fossil-fueled plants.

The archipelago faces an urgent need to phase out fossil-fuel generation, totally avoid the construction of new plants that burn methane revaporized from liquefied natural gas, coal, or oil, decentralize the grid, and achieve the enforcement of land, water, and air quality laws and regulations. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, ongoing seismic activity, and unaddressed socioeconomic disfunction unveiled by Hurricanes Irma and Maria, Puerto Rico must develop a 21st century electric system that empowers communities and provides the resilient and clean energy that the residents of the archipelago need.

The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority must undertake a swift transformation of the electric system to integrate communities and businesses by foregrounding local concerns that align with environmental justice. The high poverty rates in Puerto Rico require the transformation of PREPA to incorporate energy conservation, efficiency, and demand-response programs and renewable energy technologies, primarily roof-top or on-site solar and battery energy storage systems. These alternatives stand in stark contrast to the proposed use of billions of dollars in federal taxpayer funds to rebuild and “harden” the grid, which calls for more central-station fossil generation, especially so-called “natural” methane gas infrastructure that the fossil-fuel industry and the recently signed PREPA-LUMA Energy contract would facilitate.

Instead, the federal government should work with PREPA to initiate a transparent process for procurement of solar equipment and battery storage to be installed and maintained by the dozens of PREPA employees who have been trained in renewable energy technology in conjunction with communities and local contractors to provide for a just transition to a clean energy system.

Federal funding should be earmarked for these types of programs. Hurricanes Irma and Maria and the ongoing seismic events this year demonstrated the importance of decentralizing the power grid. A distributed-generation system centered on on-site solar will be more resilient and will allow for prompt restoration of energy services, thereby saving lives. The We Want Sun (queremossolpr.com) civil society proposal highlights the importance of the PREPA governance and technical transformation that is needed. The implementation of rooftop solar projects can empower communities, add value to homes and other structures, and promote local wealth.

Distributed renewable generation on rooftops creates greater reinvestment in the local economy than utility-scale projects. This approach enables ratepayers to become producers or prosumers of energy, not mere consumers, and allows for control by residents and local communities and businesses, which is particularly important during outages of the main grid. On-site solar enjoys broad support from civil society, contrary to land-based installations that have been the subject of considerable opposition because of competing land-use visions.

Federal funds should not be used for the business-as-usual rebuild of the fossil-based, centralized system or to further top-down decisionmaking that deepens Puerto Rico’s dependence on imported methane LNG and other fossil fuels. This scheme would only exacerbate Puerto Rico’s colonial dependence via increased reliance on methane, spearheaded by New Fortress Energy, whose current and proposed projects include fracking and LNG operations. The more frequent and intense storms brought on by the climate crisis make the transformation of Puerto Rico’s electric system a matter of life and death.

Ruth Santiago is a community lawyer and activist based in Salinas, Puerto Rico. She is a lawyer for Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc.

It All Comes Down to "I Can't Breathe"
Author
Rev. Michael Malcom - The People's Justice Council
The People's Justice Council
Current Issue
Issue
6
Parent Article
Rev. Michael Malcom - The People's Justice Council

Shortly after seeing George Floyd murdered at the hands of someone who swore that they would protect and serve, I sat down to discuss everything that was happening with my two Black sons. I asked them how they were doing with all this. My 21-year-old said, “Daddy, this ain’t nothing new to us!” As I reflected on this, I found myself feeling helpless because he was right, this is not new to our Black experience. Further, I share this same sentiment. I grew up on the eastside of Atlanta in a predominately Black community. My sons also grew up in East Atlanta. Experiencing violence at the hands of police is nothing new, just as experiencing pollution is nothing new.

Redlining segregated the Black population and forced us on undesirable land. This land was located or zoned for polluting industries to co-exist with Black bodies. This same pollution exists today. Long before George Floyd was seen being murdered from a knee on his throat, there was Eric Garner being choked by a police officer’s arm for selling loose cigarettes. Long before Eric Garner was being choked to death on video, he suffered from asthma. One of Eric Garner’s daughters died from an asthma attack after his death. Upon autopsy of George Floyd they found that he had the coronavirus. Asthma, cancer, heart disease, mental illness, and others are terms that I have heard often when dealing with Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor White communities.

I used both men to show that there is a connection between state-sanctioned police violence, pollution, and anti-Black racism. Research has shown that asthma and coronavirus are exacerbated by pollution. Black children are twice as likely to develop asthma as White children. Black families are also 75 percent more likely to live next to a polluting facility that produces hazardous waste. Black people are also three times as likely to experience police violence. In essence, whether it’s a knee to the neck, arms of a police officer gripping your neck like a python grips its prey, smoke stacks bellowing fumes through the day and night creating life-limiting disease, it all comes down to “I can’t breathe.”

The recent uprisings and social unrest are pointing to a society that says it can no longer be sustained like this. We are witnessing a planet that is saying we can no longer be sustained like this. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has informed us that we must limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over background to avoid dangerously destabilizing the environment. The Department of Homeland Security is also saying that White supremacy poses the greatest threat to domestic security. The connections have been made that the industrial pollution that we live with in Black communities are the source of illnesses in our bodies and the illness of the planet. This must end!

To end this, we will need to collectively demand change. The discussions of climate justice, pollution, and racism have been politicized. We have failed to see the moral dimensions. Communities of faith are positioned to lead this change. We have an opportunity to depoliticize the conversation, and place morality at the forefront. We also have an opportunity to center justice and equity in the solutions. Communities of faith can influence the local decisionmakers and mobilize their community to hold them accountable to the communities they serve, as modeled during the civil rights movement.

The law has been used to protect property and the status quo. The law has failed to protect people or the planet. It has always been the demand of the people that forced the law to change. The Civil Rights Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other laws have been created because the people demanded it. The planet is already stating its objections via unprecedented natural disasters. It is time that people stand up and demand change.

Representative A. Donald McEachin (D-VA) and Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) have introduced an environmental justice bill. Additionally, the THRIVE Agenda was just introduced to ensure a just economic recovery for all. And the BREATHE Act has been introduced to redistribute police funding to build and protect instead of policing communities. There are the many developments of the Green New Deal that provide a just and equitable future for all. In addition to this legislation, we need to establish EPA as an independent department. This will ensure that it has a budget and proper staff that can be dedicated to providing equitable protections and access to environmental justice.

Communities of faith can mobilize to make a push for this. We can push for this through our power of influence. Communities of faith can also work with law and policy makers to push for regulations that are based on community-led solutions. Far too often, the regulations that are produced for the people are not regulations by the people. Communities of faith can be educated on environmental justice, anti-racism, and legislative advocacy in order to engage in environmental policy from a community level. We can ensure that my son and no one else will look in the face of obscenity and say, “It ain’t nothing new to us.” We will breathe!

Rev. Michael Malcom is founder and executive director of The People’s Justice Council.

To Advance EJ, Enforce Civil Rights
Author
Marianne Engelman-Lado - Vermont Law School
Vermont Law School
Current Issue
Issue
6
Parent Article
Marianne Engelman-Lado - Vermont Law School

Racial disparities in illness and death due to COVID-19 have laid bare racial inequalties in environmental exposure to pollution. We have learned from recent research and painful experience that the coronavirus is more likely to spread and cause illness and death in areas with greater air pollution. It is high time to listen to residents of environmentally overburdened communities who have asked for decades, why should Black and Brown children grow up with higher asthma rates and shorter life spans? Isn’t this the very essence of a denial of equal protection of the laws?

We are now at an inflection point, and environmental justice groups across the country are demanding change. The EJ agenda includes promising efforts to prevent facility-siting decisions that would exacerbate racial inequalities and, also, target resources to already environmentally overburdened communities. This year New Jersey enacted legislation that will require the state to deny permits that would, “together with other environmental or public health stressors affecting the overburdened community,” contribute to disproportionately high cumulative environmental or public health effects. And at the federal level, the Environmental Justice Act of 2019 and the Environmental Justice for All Act would require permitting decisions to consider cumulative impacts.

It is also high time that we apply civil rights laws to the environmental sector. As a result of the country’s history of segregation, racial disparities are baked into land use. Studies repeatedly show that race is the most salient predictor of the location of polluting facilities and exposure to pollution. The question remains why the passage of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal funds, did so little to disrupt the strong correlations between race, ethnicity, and the risk of increased exposure to pollution.

The answer is relatively straightforward: enforcement largely relies on federal agency action, and from its founding EPA has failed to apply the law in any meaningful way. As a result, prohibitions against discrimination are all but ignored by public and private decisionmakers that are theoretically bound by the law.

An overhaul of federal civil rights enforcement would include a series of executive and legislative actions.

To start, move EPA’s civil rights enforcement office to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and give it the authority to hire attorneys with the independent ability to pursue civil rights enforcement. Currently, the civil rights office takes direction from the Office of the General Counsel, which defends EPA in litigation, a role that conflicts with civil rights enforcement.

The agency must also initiate affirmative compliance work rather than waiting for complaints, and should issue programmatic guidance to clarify obligations under Title VI. The guidance should set forth affirmative requirements for recipients of federal funds — including the collection of data and analysis of whether decisions comply with Title VI and agency regulations.

The guidance should make clear that compliance with environmental law is not a defense to a civil rights claim, reversing the erroneous 1998 Select Steel decision. Finally, EPA’s civil rights office should coordinate with its EJ program and ensure that it incorporates EJ principles into its practice by engaging stakeholder communities in its work. The agency should also open the windows for more transparency and invest sufficient funding in alternative dispute resolution, training for staff and recipients of federal funds, and expanded language-access services.

At the Department of Justice, which is charged with coordinating Title VI enforcement, change requires uniform reporting from all agencies to create transparency and accountability, and coordination between the Civil Rights and the Environmental and Natural Resources divisions to target DOJ enforcement activities to address racial inequalities in environmental exposure to polluting sources.

Finally, Congress should reverse the 2001 Supreme Court ruling in Alexander v. Sandoval, which has prevented aggrieved persons from bringing private claims of discrimination to challenge actions with an unjustified racially disproportionate impact. Sandoval has prevented people living in EJ communities from going to court to enforce the law and created reliance on federal agency enforcement.

Congress should consider legislation to create an independent Title VI enforcement agency, either within DOJ or along the lines of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This entity could delegate responsibility back to agencies that have robust civil rights enforcement capability, but would relieve EPA and other smaller agencies of a job they have never done well.

Ultimately, these reforms would improve environmental protections for all. If pollution is concentrated in disadvantaged communities, and often in populations with the least political and economic power, then for the decisionmakers, pollution is often out of sight, out of mind. Remedying racial disparities creates shared responsibility and, thus, more widely shared incentives for needed change.

Marianne Engelman-Lado directs the EJ Clinic at Vermont Law School.

Your Zip Code Should Not Mean Your Destiny
Author
Melinda Downing - U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
Current Issue
Issue
6
Parent Article
Melinda Downing - U.S. Department of Energy

Experiences as a youth can shape one’s life. Try to imagine waking up one morning to find one’s home full of a foul smell with no explainable source. In my case, our family was troubled whenever we tried to eat or even breathe. As this continued and the years passed, there were losses in my town’s home values, increased unemployment, unexplained illnesses, and increased early death rates. Many of the young, including myself, moved away. Others stayed and watched the town descend.

All this happened without our knowledge or consent. As our town became ill and started dying, we were not prepared to save it. For my part, I became compelled to eradicate such environmental injustice.

Decades later, in communities of color, history continuously repeats itself. Environmental justice communities know that everything bad associated with the environment disproportionately affects their neighborhoods. Without any knowledge of, or say in, the decisions to build industrial plants, discard hazardous waste, or generally destroy the local environment, communities across America are continually faced with environmental problems beyond their ability to understand or to address. Studies prove that we are in an ever-evolving revolution of disparities.

The living conditions in today’s environment for Black and Brown communities — associated with systemic racism and violence, COVID-19, pollution, unemployment, poverty, and lack of health insurance — will linger where we live forever until we take action ourselves. We cannot, we must not, and we will not allow the historical legacies of our ancestors to be no more than our past, but rather, the foundation of our future — to achieve equality for all people. Every day matters; Black and Brown lives matter; all lives matter; and each life lost to racism and injustice is a cost none of us should warrant.

To address the impacts of these issues and to correct this imbalance is not an easy task. This journey can begin by promoting enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with minority populations, low-income populations, American Indian tribes, Alaskan Natives, Latin American populations, and Asian populations. Thus the need for greater public participation and improved research and data collection related to the health among minority populations, and increased collaboration among federal, state, and local government to strengthen existing laws and regulations.

Experience has shown that meaningful and informed participation by all elements of the community, all concerned parties of interest, tends to produce resolutions that are accepted by all parties, easier to implement, sustainable, and more economic than contested resolutions conceived by just some stakeholders. Existing legislation can be the tool that provides the source and support that leads to resolution of these ongoing issues that need to be addressed immediately. To achieve our goal of equality, however, we need better federal policies implementing those laws.

There is no one environmental law that can resolve the discrimination targeting people of color where they live and work. However, collaborative problem solving means that all stakeholders agree to work together with the intent of resolving a particular issue or to solve a particular problem affecting a community.

Marginalized communities are likely to be impacted more severely by climate change, by a poorer location and ability to recover from shocks and less opportunity for mitigation. For example, higher electricity rates in Black and Brown neighborhoods cannot be countered by better insulation or other efficiency measures or installing solar units because these same communities have a preponderance of homes that are rented rather than owned.

The measures to aid EJ communities and equip them with the tools and resources to experience the quality of life that every American citizen has the right to enjoy today are simple: empowerment; education; information sharing; and capacity building through technology, workshops, partnerships, and collaboration.

There are a number of other steps that make sense. This includes investing in science and workforce training at historically Black colleges and universities, educational institutions that serve the Latinx community, and tribal colleges and universities. We need to believe in and invest in our young leaders of the next generation.

Communities can also participate in the National Environmental Justice Conference and Training Program and the National Conference on Health Disparities, opportunities for organizing, learning, and networking.

In the 21st century, we must recognize the unique relationship between the quality of our environment, the health of our citizens, and the economic well-being of our nation. We must recognize environmental justice as a concept central to our national environmental policy.

Your zip code should not dictate your environment. Inequality matters. Our actions to eradicate it matter. All our lives matter.

Melinda Downing is the environmental justice program manager at the Department of Energy.

The Debate: Racial Justice Means Environmental Justice
Author
Melinda Downing - U.S. Department of Energy
Marianne Engelman-Lado - Vermont Law School
Rev. Michael Malcom - The People's Justice Council
Ruth Santiago - Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc.
Gerald Torres - Yale School of the Environment
Tseming Yang - Santa Clara University
U.S. Department of Energy
Vermont Law School
The People's Justice Council
Comité Diálogo Ambiental, Inc.
Yale School of the Environment
Santa Clara University
Current Issue
Issue
6
The Debate: Racial Justice Means Environmental Justice

In less than six months, the murder of George Floyd, followed (and preceded) by similar police killings around the country, has moved the issue of racial justice from a long-simmering back burner to the forefront of political concern. Monuments to Confederates have been removed from public squares, the South’s rebel flag has been banned by Nascar, and people have come to recognize that many of the vestiges of slavery and Jim Crow are still present in American society.

As part of this awakening, press accounts of environmental injustices festering in communities around the country for decades have gained a new salience. Indeed, the long-known disparities between the public health of communities of color when compared to the White population’s statistics became even more apparent when a Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study found that people with COVID-19 who live in U.S. regions with higher levels of air pollution are more likely to die from the disease than people who live in less-polluted areas.

In fact, Black, Brown, indigenous, and other people of color communities are experiencing a syndemic, a confluence of unprecedented threats to their lives that include not only the coronavirus pandemic and higher pollution loads, but also the systemic racism and violence revealed by police killings, higher rates of unemployment, and poverty exacerbated by lack of health insurance.

The brutal fact of ethnic disparity in pollution exposure has been known for at least thirty years, when studies first showed that race was a common factor in location of Superfund sites. And over those decades, communities have been demanding justice as all sorts of evidence of environmental racism became apparent in the siting of polluting facilities and intrusive infrastructure like highways that not only divide their neighborhoods but continually bring in thousands of polluting cars. Last year, an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded, “On average, non-Hispanic Whites experience a ‘pollution advantage’: They experience 17 percent less air pollution exposure than is caused by their consumption. Blacks and Hispanics on average bear a ‘pollution burden’ of 56 percent and 63 percent excess exposure, respectively, relative to the exposure caused by their consumption.”

With the ascendancy of the Movement for Black Lives and similar action among the Latinx and Asian populations, the media — and the public at large — are now duly noticing that racial justice includes environmental justice, and that higher loads of pollution are an overwhelming factor in too many communities. But just because the problems are becoming well known doesn’t mean that solutions are obvious. How do we capitalize on heightened public interest in environmental justice to ensure that all people share equally in both the benefits and the burdens of American society?

With the ascendancy of the Movement for Black Lives, the media and the Twitterverse have duly noticed that racial justice includes environmental justice, and that higher loads of pollution are an overwhelming factor in too many communities of color. But just because the problems are becoming well known doesn’t mean that solutions are obvious. How do we capitalize on heightened public interest in environmental justice to ensure that all people share equally in both the benefits and the burdens of American society?

Seeing Supplemental Environmental Projects in Light of the Coronavirus Pandemic
Author
Amanda Leiter - American University
American University
Current Issue
Issue
5
Amanda Leiter

Occasionally, the puzzle pieces of history snap neatly together to make a past policy choice appear prescient. The story of the Volkswagen settlement is one example. In 2016, the Department of Justice and others charged Volkswagen with scheming to defeat EPA and California Air Resources Board emissions testing by installing sophisticated cheating devices in over half a million VWs sold in the United States — and by lying and obstructing justice to advance that plan. The defeat devices, which turned off emissions controls except during testing, enabled VW passenger cars to achieve better gas mileage and driving performance, but turned the cars into the NOx-emissions equivalents of tractor-trailer trucks.

In partial settlement of these charges, VW pledged to create an almost $3 billion environmental mitigation trust to fund NOx-emissions-reduction projects around the country. The aim of the trust is twofold: to mitigate the harmful impacts of VW’s scheme, and to focus those mitigation efforts in communities that face the most serious air pollution threats. Potential beneficiary states, tribes, and territories must propose projects to reduce NOx emissions and indicate how the projects will “impact . . . air quality in areas that bear a disproportionate share of the air pollution burden within [the] jurisdiction.” To identify such areas, beneficiaries may consider either air quality or health metrics.

This arrangement illustrates an approach that federal environmental agencies often use to settle enforcement actions: rather than making an alleged polluter pay a fine into the general treasury, why not encourage investment of a larger sum in environmental improvement projects in the community affected by the emissions violation. In theory, funding these supplemental environmental projects or SEPs enables the offender to improve its public image while also mitigating the harmful effects of its actions on the affected community.

However, SEPs have fallen out of favor with the Trump administration. In a March memorandum, the administration banned them, noting that fines for environmental violations are meant to be paid to the U.S. government, for Congress to allocate as it sees fit. In the administration’s view, allowing a polluter to fund a SEP rather than pay a fine “allocate[s] budgetary discretion to officials who are not specifically designated to make such decisions.”

The general legality and wisdom of SEPs are topics for another day; there may well be situations in which it is unwise or even unlawful for federal officials to negotiate workarounds rather than collecting statutory fines. My sole claim is that sometimes SEPs work uncannily well, and the VW settlement offers a case in point.

In order to complete that particular puzzle, we need two more pieces: the onset of the corona-virus pandemic is the first; the second is a recent study of COVID-19 outcomes that suggests long-term exposure to NOx “may be one of the most important contributors to fatality caused by the . . . virus.” To see the relevance of these events, consider one beneficiary of the VW environmental mitigation trust — my hometown, the District of Columbia. The district plans to invest its $8.125 million in VW trust funds in a few key project areas, including replacement of city buses and trash trucks with low-emission electric and natural gas alternatives, and subsidization of private fleets’ efforts to retrofit diesel vehicles with idling reduction or exhaust control technologies.

The majority of these investments will benefit Washington’s two most polluted wards (out of a total of eight). More than half of the bus stops visited by the new low-emission buses, for instance, will be located in those wards. According to the plan the District submitted to managers of the VW trust, investing the funds in this way will provide a cost-effective means of significantly reducing NOx emissions in D.C. neighborhoods where asthma rates are almost three times higher than in the least-polluted wards, and where (not coincidentally) the median household income is less than half of the district-wide median, and the population is more than 90 percent black — and, importantly, where COVID-19 mortality per capita is almost four times higher than in the city’s wealthiest, whitest, and least-polluted wards.

In short, years before the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, negotiators of the VW settlement reached an agreement under which dollars that could have gone into the general treasury to be allocated by politically hamstrung legislators will instead fund numerous projects to mitigate NOx pollution — the very type of pollution that we’ve since learned may be a leading cause of COVID-19 mortality. And the majority of those funds will be spent in the communities hardest hit by NOx pollution and, now, by the virus. There may be good arguments against the use of SEPs in some cases, but subsequent events make this particular application of the approach seem downright visionary.

Amanda Leiter is senior associate dean for faculty and academic affairs at American University. Email her at leiter@wcl.american.edu.

Seeing Supplemental Environmental Projects in Light of the Coronavirus Pandemic.