Creating a climate of change on environment
Healthy environment should be a constitutional right for all of us
We are grateful for The Baltimore Sun’s recent editorial (“How to fight climate change — one state constitution at a time,” Aug. 24) explaining why a constitutional right to a healthful environment would be valuable for Maryland.
While the right to a healthful environment and a stable climate for both present and future generations should be nonnegotiable, political exigencies can prevent even the most committed of politicians from fulfilling their promises or pursuing the goals they know are right. Sometimes, therefore, as the editorial states, when the political structure falters, “the power of the legal system may prove necessary” to ensure such protection.
A constitutional amendment enabling individuals to sue for that protection would be invaluable. More than a dozen states are now considering creating constitutional amendments for environmental rights. Maryland can be the next one to ratify this fundamental protection.
— Nina Beth Cardin, Baltimore
The writer is director of the Maryland Campaign for Environmental Human Rights.
Lawyers are ill-equipped to set climate policy
The Baltimore Sun Editorial Board has suggested a state constitutional amendment as a way to stop climate change (“How to fight climate change — one state constitution at a time,” Aug. 24). I’ll admit the idea has some appeal. However, the problem is both too simple and too complex for that to be the answer.
The problem is simple because it is, quite simply, a matter of math. The problem is complex because few know how to do it. Attorneys and judges are not the folks who have those skills. During World War II, coal miners went on strike over conditions and wages. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, needing coal for the war effort, threatened to send in the U.S. Army to solve the problem. Legendary United Mine Workers union President John L. Lewis bristled. “You can’t mine coal with bayonets.”
Lewis was correct. It would not be possible to stop a strike with force and still keep the coal coming. Similarly, neither judges nor attorneys have the tools to stop greenhouse gas emissions. Laws to stop emissions would have to be much more specific to be effective and enforceable by court procedures. Additionally, court procedures are notoriously slow. That is why you don’t send attorneys to stop violent crimes in progress. Very simply, they do not have the requisite skills. Expertise matters.
On the other hand, the math is simple. You can get to net zero by using only clean energy. You can reduce the amount of energy you need to produce by using all energy as efficiently as possible. Expertise already exists in both energy production and energy efficiency. It is time to bring these experts into the discussion in a meaningful way. The meaningful way to bring them into the discussion is with a bidding process. What business is willing to guarantee it will produce clean energy 24/7 in what timeline and at what price? What business will guarantee to reduce energy use in what sector, in what timeline and at what price? If there are other restrictions
the state wants to apply? Transmission or storage costs? These matters can be made part of the bidding process. Once the bids are on the table, those advocates for a clean energy economy will have something tangible to evaluate. Once people can see the technologies and the costs, it becomes possible to make informed decisions.
In John Ford’s film adaptation of “The Grapes of Wrath,” a farmer about to be evicted pulled a gun on the bulldozer operator threatening to level his house. The operator said simply, “Shooting me won’t stop anything. The banker will just send another.” “Well then, I’ll shoot the banker.” “That won’t work, either. The board of directors will just hire another banker.” Frustrated, the farmer screamed. “Well, who do I shoot, then?”
A constitutional amendment would pose the same problem. People and companies would still emit greenhouse gas. The lawyers would not know who to sue to stop it. Suing everybody would not be feasible.
Instead, we need a plan by people with the expertise to make it reality. Bidding would accomplish that. Only then, only if someone failed to fulfill a contractual obligation or deliberately put forth a fraudulent plan could the lawyers have an impact. As is said in most of life, “Put up or shut up.” Let money talk. Until then, there is no point in bringing in the lawyers.
— Bill Temmink, Joppa