We are going to be looking at and wire mental legal doctrine, more broadly its social philosophical, kind of issues to grapple with. We also talked at the beginning of the semester, about how society deals with times of aggregate. The big pitchers the effects of large numbers of individual personal disputes on the big picture. And we will be dealing in talking about aggregates a little bit today. The class will lead to a couple of Big Questions big question number one, how much can we regulate in the interest of protecting the environment, big question number two who actually gets to advocate on behalf of the environment, or governmental issues. Those are the two things we are going to be focusing on all right, im going to begin today on talk about environmental change in u. S. History, including what was and what was not instinctive about the consciousness we refer to as environmentalism. When it came onto the scene in the mid 20th century. And let me introduce you to problems. And here we go, a prologue about the environment or a, house has how they had previously refer to it as changes in the land, in any way environmental change has been a constant in our life, early european settlers who settle the part of north america known as new england were amazed by the plant life and the abundance found there. One observer compared to austrian spawning grounds, pressing up the Shallow Waters, so you could swim. Another columnist speculated they could maybe walk across streams on the backs of the fish. The same went for water fowl, if i should tell you one man wrote the killed 100 geese in a week and it might be counted as impossible but europeans visiting the new world said there was villages teaming with fresh vegetables and Indigenous People who are healthy and will fade. They were the product of when nature was possible in the early depiction of what we now know is native americans roasting the abundant fish spewed with their kind of muscular bodies and frames exposed. Now in recent years historians and others have questions questioned if some of these reports this kind of image that the american, filled with bountiful plant and animal life for themselves kind of products of history we now another early american column colonists and native american populations have been america cases decimated by disease they had been introduced to the americas the caribbean or metric or mexico may years before european colonists had come to north america. The theory is this is a vast abundance and kind of a product of rapid natural restocking. And the indigenous didnt just people had been decimated by other causes. So the whats going on now is the vast changes that you beans human beings have caused going back to the beginning of the species. But the thing is you have to start somewhere. One of the things about starting a new contacts, if you can start telling a story about the hand how the land had changed, how the environment changed in each region, and as you start Going Forward right. We know quite a bit about the very environments, and the future of the United States of america, more generally. And run through a few of the major changes right now. First off imagine its abstract as you go long so force was cleared for farms, stumps pulled out, rock plowed out, wildlife native wildlife got replaced with domestic animals. Mostly imported from europe. European pigs and cows. Replacing native deer, for elk. You begin to see changes at the land that way in much of the northern United States. Beaver were hunted, nearly to local extinction. During the u. S. Colonial period. Not only took one element of native wildlife out of the picture, but it meant that beavers stop building beaver dams. And stopped flooding the landscape, with water as they periodically set up to hunt for fish. You have a drying out of the land. As well as its being turned from forced into agriculture. You have water, they had once flowed very slowly, down to the atlantic ocean, increasingly rushing through rapid moving streams and rivers, toward the final destination. Its a land around it has now dried out. Many of the fish i mentioned a few minutes ago gradually die out, the habitat destruction, manmade dams, walking past or through overfishing, destroying the ability of fish to reproduce. You start seeing, among different areas, broad changes to the local environment. Again these changes to the land, were not without their contributions to humanity, it is also a newlynew england along some of these same moving fastmoving rivers and streams that they started the Industrial Revolution. By figuring out how to turn cotton into fabric at high speed. This was one step towards the United States emerging as a Global Economic power. As well as how we come to buy and enjoy various different things. And of course the Industrial Revolution caused many more changes to the land. As we search for coal and oil eventually, to fire up factories and power trucks, which to crisscross the landscape, with highways. Now at various points in our history, at very points from perhaps the semi mythical, time to a more present time, so americans came to question the ecological habitants, from all vince put all this production. In the late 19th and early eight early 20th century, many citizens supported president roosevelt, because he worried that United States was using up all its non Renewable Resources to quickly, conservationists, people as they became known, work to set aside forests, mountains full of minerals for use by future generations as well as to prefer preserve some beautiful locations and parks during the new deal response to the Great Depression in the 1930s president franklin roosevelt, people working for him they tried to restore the planet by hiring the unemployed for various conservation programs. Planting trees trying to mitigate the horrible dust balls the cover the great plains at that time. A crucial moment came in the 1960s, which saw the rise of modern environmentalism. Over the course of that decade, americans found themselves galvanized, with ecological issues. On a number of different fronts. Some of those were intellectual, Rachel Carson her book silent spring, on the account of how chemical pesticides had worked their way up the food chain. And could potentially be fatal to birds and fish, and then it was an inspiration that made americans question, the type of pesticides, that theyre pumping into their environment. Certain public events, Massive Oil Spill in california, santa barbara, and then it washing up on the california coast our previous pristine beaches, the keyhole the river in cleveland, decades of accumulative pollution, got peoples attention. We generally tend to think of water is something that is used to put out fires, but not something that seems to can bust. It raised these questions, about what exactly have people been putting there and whatever damage are they potentially doing. And the evidence that americans are just spoiling nature or the natural world, was becoming kind of an overflowing sewer, was not limited to oil events and river fires, other americans in the suburbs allow their own kind of personal waste to come bubbling back into their lives. Septic systems overtaxed septic systems. You these type of tanks that many suburban houses put in the backyard, which when flushed, where everything that came down the toilet right, set and percolated for a moment, before percolating and we were going in the groundwater, and sometimes it started preparing percolating back up through the grass, and communities, were too many septic tanks were placed together, without adequate place for water to dissipate. Suburban homeowners started turning on the tap of their sink, and stop losses of something that look like white beer, which you see over here, that is tap water that has been sufficiently polluted with detergents. And released back into wells and water supply. You get this kind of frothy detergent when on a glass of water all right. These combined experience sometime of them they were public sometime personal sometimes its electoral arguments coming out of everyday life help to begin to develop a different moment of consciousness and that was once placed on the earth and for more than the conservation its had a future generations earlier environmentals began asking people to think about and the effects of their actions on the health of the planet in general. What one dog goes through a could not be completely forgotten. The earth no longer had an limitless capacity to swallow up and take care of whatever we no longer needed. Environmentalists began asking americans to see the world in ecological terms. That is to see, how many different plants and animals, sustain one another. Produce this sort of complicated web of life. They asked people to say the earth ecologically and see their own actions to be something that could be impacting the ecosystem, and ultimately disrupt a habitat. Environmentalists also began to argue that National Community and while things are protecting further our is worth protecting for their own sake. Not only simply for their future harvest on behalf of humanity. While contravention is trying to scientifically manage for us, in order to make sure that we could spend the timber harvest over several generations. To keep old forest wild, to keep them safe from any future developments. To keep them safe from future degeneration. Not save them for them. By the late 1960s and into the 1970s, you have a bipartisan era where this new consciousness begins to show itself, in major legislation. Legislation passed by Democratic Congress is, and often in mostly signed by president s. You have the National Environmental policy act of 1969, the first day which is the first celebration of the environment in 1970. This endangered species act of 1973, other bills to clean up rivers, reduce air pollution, designed to Environmental Protection agency comes twice in this period. I can environmentalism gets embraced congressman people like john sailor, and senator john hice from the republican side. Just a lot of production action, yet, for all of its early bipartisan appeal, environmental consciousness could be in some ways was an uneasy fit for certain elements of the u. S. Political system. Especially for certain elements of the legal system. Again, the legal system as we talked about previously in this class is based on an Angle American tradition, in which the basic units of society tend to be right spearing individuals. That is most of what we do, in our everyday life, is supposed to be in little interest to the state, so long as what we are doing is not harming anyone. Sorry i jumped ahead, right back. All right, one of the most fundamental realizations that the Environmental Movement was the idea that so many of the things we do in our everyday life how many we run the dishwasher, how many we walked to the Grocery Store took the car. Has potential to harm the world around us. That harm and each particular case could be microscopic, but in aggregate to cumulative effects of millions of dishwasher runs, or day today car trips. Conducted day after day by millions of different people, ultimately night might not. And so environmentalists became paul massive moment in the later 20th century. Course enters start to think how they can square it with the u. S. Legal traditions, and inherited legal doctrines. I want to talk for much of the rest of the class today, but two of the big conflicts, from my perspective, that ensued as a result of this. Okay. One place where environmental is mom was placed an immediate challenge, was with property rights. Especially in the context of real estate. Again the notion the government was trying to release in part to protect private property, went deep into the philosophical tradition that helped and spire americas founding fathers. Its an idea associated with john lock english philosopher, the government exists to protect life liberty and property. Thomas jefferson might have replaced the word property with the pursuit of happiness, in our own declaration of independence. He didnt necessarily mean to change the entire underlying theory, behind their. That is its one of the things that are supposed to separate a society, with purposely limited government with a society from an authoritarian or totalitarian government, is that the government can take your staff. It willynilly is a very serious academic term for the stuff. And this idea was included explicitly in our bill of rights. Including in the end of the fifth amendment. Which concludes nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The government may someday need to not cameraman to build a highway, a flood your farm to build a reservoir. But if in when that happens, they have to pay for the property took and or destroyed. And that payment itself is hot to be at least one significant check on the end of misuse of that power, known as Eminent Domain, since the government have to convince other taxpayers to foot the bill for any sort of acquisition. Now, controversies over proprietary property in the mid 20th century. One of the changes in the chant in the land i did not mention in the lecture, was some of the havoc by pigs, european pigs, on colonial north america. I told you how to get back to the pick obsession. According to english tradition, you can own a pig, and you can let it loose in the woods for john acorns, or other kinds of food it can come up with. But when you introduced european pigs, into north america, especially when you said pays loose to forage and the lines, controlled bayern native american neighbors, all sorts of conflicts tended to ensue. The pace trampled, or devoured gardens of native americans, we did not have the tradition of fencing off property, to keep neighboring swine out. They attacked and devoured Shallow Water oyster beds which provided a source of forage protein for many indigenous tribes. In essence, these disputes rate, led to war. Over actual fighting between neighbors. There could also be imagine in some way as a property crisis. And who was the right to let us let this pick go where. How do you enforce or declare something that is yours and not part of a common trust. There for the taking. How do you claim and try to enforce a Certain Property right . Okay. So these are not by no means particularly new, or original kind of issues. There are issues that go back to the very beginning. Here issues that continue with questions over what schools would say, divert are river for irrigation. The rise of environmentalism creates some of these issues, back on the agenda. And puts them on the agenda in different ways. Again one of the things that happens, what happens when you start thinking like an environmentalist, which is thinking ecologically about the potential were seemingly small actions to disrupt the wider web of relationships, the hold a habitat and hold nature together. One of the things you might start thinking about is how clearing land for construction, might remove the cover and camouflage of small animals need in order to stay safe from predators. Or how flattening the land could make suburban sub developments, could this erupt the runoff patterns that divert that bring rain water into the water table, or to streams or to creeks, and make neighboring properties, that profited messes that isnt profiting at all to flooding. How some large birds of prey, need uninterrupted forced to comfortably hunt for food. And how eliminating in a small part of that area, might turn out to be disastrous for them. Feeling in a swamp, good rob untie region of its most natural needs of restoring water an air quality. That is an all these examples, you might wonder much more than people have done a generation before, about how the things you do have affects that go far beyond the property line. Or the thing that other people do, may have if they have their own private property might have profound effects on you, and you are world where the natural world. Youre hoping to sustain. You might think much more carefully about what people should be able to do, with their stuff. And to what degree you might want to have a say in it. Now its not as if there was already an existing tradition in american law, for people and communities of having an opinion about what other people do with their private property. Back in 1926, there was a case called you click versus ambler. The Supreme Court oked what we now know as zoning. That is telling people, they could construct private housing, or commercial buildings, that they could only be a certain size, what i have to have a certain mix or lack of a mix of commercial and residential kind of use. That you cant put commercial too close to people where people live. For the most part environmentalists began to hope to expand on that principle. To justify more intervention, into private developments. In the interest of better protecting habitats whether the concept of private property that america has inherited, and developed over so many years, was ultimately flexible for that task. As early as 1971, professor sacks, one of the leading minds of the environmentalists movements, as well as the kind of theorist of the law and politics, more generally. Suggested in a article of the american understanding and become so tilted for the rights of property owners, that it would ultimately inhibit any real change to save the planet. American said that we need a new language of public rights, tech could justify the more extensive regulation of private property, needed to protect the environment, but the same power that had protected the prerogatives of individual property owners, and individual people. One of the battlegrounds, for these concepts, battlegrounds over the concept of environmentalism and rates, became the state of california. In the 1970s, the state passed a landmark coastal act, which was designed to protect one of the states best known and most loved assets. Beautiful stringer beaches and cliffs, up and down the pacific coast. From the top of the state, down to the mexican border. From over development, environmental damage, and public exclusion. The coastal act created a new agency, the California Coastal commission, which we can charge of protecting the state speeches. That agency to go hardball approach. With the staff hard charging and revel in being a young naive and proud. He began using his power to project Building Permits for new construction, block potentially damaging construction, or demand homeowners give something up, often a public house on a dry beach, pat on the property to the ocean, in exchange for a building permit. Five correspondents commission working through regulation in this way, and means regulating private property, rather than using Eminent Domain and take it and compensate owners where it what in certain ways a chance to do a big job. There are a number of advantages, of implementing the coastal plan, as the chief planner explained in 1965. Prime among them is the expenditure of large sums of money. As acquisition techniques. It was to get as many concessions as possible, theyre taking property outright, going back to the course of several poppy is not a unitary thing, you can make conditions on the use of private property, the coastal Missile Mission was trying to say lets figure out how many conditions we can put off or put on private property, in the interest of saving the environment and protecting the publics interest and access to Natural Beauty to the Pacific Ocean needless to say the Coastal Commission was not popular with a landowners was in particularly popular with legal scholars and lawyers, conservative legal scholar started to write articles arguing that these new land use regulations were undermining the foundation of a market based Economy Private property right. We could never could know what we could do if we are never quite sure whether we could build on a plot of land, weve got seen pointed out people would never invest money to acquire it in the first place they would not know what their own stuff is worth. All right land is increasingly valued as a priceless resource, the onetime lawyer for reagan, he was defender in the 1970s 19 eighties. No longer is seen as a commodity to be bought sold and use really but respect as a resource to be conserved to manage in the public interest. That was all considered negative connotation there something that should be a commodity to be bought and sold was being transformed, into this public trust in which the government not individual homeowners and contractors and real estate speculators would be in charge of californias future development. Some form of nonprofit legal group, which in the seventies and eighties brought case after case on the California Coastal commission,. No one didnt come close, they just decided that certain acts were not the fifth amendment protections and private property. Is not the case, winding itself through the courts right now, which tends to take a bigger crack at the act itself, and the legal justifications. For coastal land use regulation we will see over next couple of terms, where that ends up going. All right my larger point of this is less about winners or losers, its so much about raising the question that these issues arent necessarily easy. Most of us probably think the government has legitimate right, legitimate right to do something to make sure that make decisions, that are ecologically sensitive, or particular for uniquely beautiful part of our planet, most of us probably want to protect ourselves in some way from the disruption disruptive actions, at the same time many of us like our stuff, wed be frustrated anxious if we invested big money in something and then found the rug being pulled it for us later on my point is that by teaching us. To see and think ecologically, environmentalism gave us things we have to look out for, but in doing so it created a kind of whole new set of political and legal conflicts over which the government ought to be regulating private property and to what ultimately ends and then again happens in part because there is a kind of an easy way, for a legal system and individuals and and seven away by designed to keep private property to figure out, just how the goverment can, or should or should not, be allowed to regulate it okay. Second big issue activism in the courts another big question that comes out of the Environmental Issues in the 1960s. It who gets a crack at environmental law and how. In the ideal world you have textbook the legislative branch has the laws and then they enforce them its Pretty Simple right. But in the real world things are bit more complicated in that sometime in the legislature writes a wall a law and the executive branch may or may not follow the initial text of the law sometimes the executive branch issues an executive order, that is arguably in violation of constitution. Sometimes the executive branch fails for some reason out of choice for sometime incompetence to enforce a law this would be on the books but all of these cases like they have to go to the courts to resign the unlawful laws were demanded the executive branch enforce the law that which seems to be the right and proper way now. American legal doctrine, has a concept of an understanding to see, that helps to explain who can and cannot go to court to resolve a dispute. The basic principle of standing is that only people who have suffered some kind of clear injury or damage, are allowed to file the lawsuit all right. That is if one person beats up another person, only one person or in the case of a fatal beating or their heirs, can go to the courts to get damages back from the other person. Some kind of other third party who does not have an injury, or harm in the case cannot file a lawsuit and tried to reclaim anything right. Fairly simple concept where you need to have some kind of issue at stake right, you cant just file a lawsuit in court hoping to resolve some legal or constitutional question you would like to get settled. You know there is there are legal and constitutional questions that get asked all the time, that sometimes takes a long time for somebody to figure out a case find a client who allow lawyers to litigate the case and ultimately settle them. All right. Now there is a problem in all of this, at least if you are thinking environmentally right, the primary victims of the environmental damage are often not people. They are plants and animals, that is they are not typical clients who can sign on with a lawyer and hire them to represent them, all right which leaves environmental values at a time at a disadvantage in our legal system. And that is if you want to argue that are proposed and for mental regulation like the Timber Industry there will be no shortage of parties with clear legal standing to sue in court but if you want to argue a four Service Policies lead legally destroying for us, you have to figure out who has standing to sue, who is legally authorized to speak for the trees all right. And so lawyers who want to be environmental litigators, have to figure out this question how do i speak for this these trees. How do i represent their interest in court. How can get in their home hold off to the end were gonna have questions again. Again back at the beginning early on in this class i mentioned a famous quote by the regulators and early american Vigilante Group who attacked lawyers as person hungry pat caterpillars right eating out of the bowels of the commonwealth right. And in that particular class i represent get through that famous childrens book. If someone is trying to read from the front row here correctly, we have a parallel for environmental law, in childrens literature as well but its less the hungry caterpillar its this guy doctor, seuss laura acts a book published in 1971, after the National Environmental policy act and the very first birthday two years before the endangered species act all right. It told a story that is probably familiar to many of you from your childhood and or more recent babysitting gigs, with either younger kids right. It tells a story about a character who starts visits a kind of lovely, happy valley and proceeds to cut down trees in order to make a commercial product, i garment which is to be fair Everybody Needs the ones in the process of of the forest in the beginning of his internet and turn aerial activity. He eventually meets a woman creature who does not care for this destruction of the habitat the creature confronts the entrepreneur. Again mister he said i am the law rex i, speak for the trees and again in doctor seuss is story, they dont listen to the law rex, and the trees and his business, and lurks of disappearing. So there are still some trees around at the end the book, but the hope is if we all learn from this that we will do better next time right. Now again this goes back to the question who gives the law wrecks the right to speak for the trees. Again the trees do not hire him, they never put him on retainer, he asserts he has their interest apart but does he really, im stretching here a little bit, he doesnt have a genuine lawsuit. If you represented him in court, he would have to ask and it would probably be legal malpractice if you didnt write . Why do you get to speak for the trees, they did not hire you. What is your claim in court. Are you some rabble rousing thirdparty . Who does not deserve standing in this litigation. And if you if you want to if you need evidence, they want further evidence its possible to imagine the law racks not as a friend of the trees but ultimately has some kind of problematic character, there was somebody actually published a book of counter programming against the law racks. A woman who was involved in the construction, the industry, who created an entire alternative parity story, starring a tree like being called the dark bark. That did not understand civilization was dependent on the wise use of resources, ultimately threatens disaster throughs anti logging activism. And there was power little programming encounter programming and rely far. I in the 1960s and 1970s, as iran to blossom took off and a variety of groups, notice the strategic advantage in nature seem to have in court and took a shot at defending Natural Beauty. They enforce their own environmental laws, or even one of well and placed interest group, one of the government to look away, they tried to block largescale developments that they but were bad to values. The sierra club and the like, were soon joined by a number of antienvironment organizations, that said they did not represent the real interest of trees are nature, but a sort of narrow interest of their allegedly left winging or even radical lawyers and members. The Pacific Legal foundation founded by ronald some berlin was one of those groups. And a lawyer named james what, was another what made a name for himself by suing the but trying to block new fuel emission standards and even suing the federal government for the Property Damage caused by herds of government protected wild horses. It seems similarly appropriate to explain to this board of directors, the publishing pay fees of private land owners who could only watch hopelessly by which are protected as treasures, the same way as cows were protected india well people start. They dont watch one of wants innovations, was trying to use legal ideas, and tactics pioneered by environmentalists against them. And also to try to make his own claim, that he represented the Greater Public interest, the one that was not being presented adequately in court. The average taxpayer, the interest of the average american, in a well functioning capitalist economy. What would later go on to become something of a household name, and a lightning rod for further controversy, when president Ronald Reagan selected him as his first secretary of interior. A move that in certain ways, and did the kind of bipartisan era of action, our Environmental Issues, and started to turn environmentalists into anti environmentalism into former partisan issues. As well as a certain kind of boon to put up cartoonists, who found james watts told bald head, and kind of they could glasses unbelievably tempting to parity cartoonist portrayed watt as a serpent in the guard of any of even. Never mind the apples, lets start doing gastric ling. They they depicted what alongside reagan reagans epa administrator, another product of Rocky Mountains conservative politics as frankenstein and the bride of frankenstein. Also, bonnie and clyde to the american environment. By the way, if the last name is familiar, she has children, one of whom is now in the u. S. Supreme court, justice gorsuch. An artist depiction of the justices mother, a significant political figure in the politics of the 1970s and 1980s in her own right, all right . My favorite, just imagine Ronald Reagan National Forest now the james watt had become secretary of the interior, all right . All right, getting as back from politics for a second here. American courts did eventually come up with a kind of solution to the standing problem, all right . Over a series of cases, i am not going to go into doctrine in excruciating detail. The course did not allow environment organizations to sue on behalf of trees or themselves as membership groups. They did allow membership organizations to sue on behalf of a specific member who liked to hike or swim in the area under contention, so that member, right, the Group Representing that member, right, who would suffer damage by having his favorite hiking path demolished or clearcut for timber, all of a sudden could be a person, right, who could be represented in court according to the, again, the logic of rights bearing individuals, the u. S. Legal system, all right . In some cases Congress Went further than the courts were willing to go and begin to write citizen supervision into certain laws. The endangered species act of 1973 received one such provision which made it for a period an extraordinarily powerful and surprisingly powerful piece of legislation. The is written to allow any citizen of the United States to sue in federal court to block actions that would endanger the habitats of any species on that endangered species list. The idea originally was to protect charismatic megaphone like the american bald eagle or the bison, but they figured out how to utilize this provision to shut down partially completed dam projects they opposed originally for other reasons on behalf of a previously up skier species of of skewer species of freshwater perch. All right . There is a moment in this lecture where people are looking at me and he should maybe go write a book about this, right . I did. Right . Again, it raises, which is not entirely about these issues, but deals with a number of them in a for writing of different ways, right . The one i want to emphasize for this class is not the weeds or details of the doctrines, but this kind of ultimate problem, right . If you have a set of legal institutions we have been examining all semester that are aced in some essential way on rights bearing individuals duking it out with one another in court with the judge sitting there as an impartial, you know, impartial judge of rules, right . You have a potential kind of problem to leave environmental and natural issues at a strategic disadvantage, right . And so part of bringing environmentalism to the courts was figuring out a way to humanize and personalize these issues in ways that may or may not ultimately feel satisfactory to all of us, all right . One final point, right . There is another way, another potential way around this, right . One other option for holding polluters responsible after the fact to create deterrence against bad behavior that might help us keep the environment clean in the future was to figure out ways to track down the people who spoiled the environment in the first place and sue them for damages, all right . One of the things that lawyers and legal thinkers and environmentalists are thinking in the 1960s and 1970s is how do we make the polluters pay for everything they have done for generations to us . How do we make them pay for the damage they have done both to the earth, but then ultimate perhaps other human beings, all right . It might seem at first like an unbelievably, something with unbelievable potential, right . The possibility to win restitution for people who had been heard, to punish bad behavior, right . And possibly even to make some lawyers rich along the way, all right . We will return to the promises and pitfalls of that strategy when we come back to class on thursday, all right . Any questions . I lost jordan before he had a chance there, ok. If you have one, raise your hand. You may not have any. I usually interspersed them throughout the class more than we were able to two today able to today. Yeah. I have a comment not question, what were reading a super interesting. Thats good i will be reading and discussing it in more detail, starting on thursday. So im not foreclosing that, without breaking the frame here there are certain things that im permitted to do here, theyre slightly different than we normally do in class. Jeff how do you measure the monetary damage in this case. It seem like its very hard to do. Will you we are getting ahead of ourselves in some ways, but again one of the things, that this year club was trying to do, was prevent damage before it happens. This year club, was saying that there are their forced, that based on our environment, our environmental laws that we should be tempering it, or we need to the losses that, before you do some kind of big projects. You have to produce something which is an Environmental Impact statement. So bring on some scientists, and some engineers and figure out what the bride broader Environmental Impact will be. And in the public, and government can weigh the tradeoffs involved, before it is too late. For you destroyed, before you destroy the natural thing that we dont even know was there. Im there is critics sometimes, which tried to use the same stuff against you. Funny case i just discovered, that this Legal Foundation brought back in the 1970s, we tried to shut down, new Sewage Treatment plants on the ground that a couple species of endangered wildlife were feasting happily, on raw sewage that was being pumped up to the ocean, think it was a great well whale and brown pelican, and that youd be endangering their habitat by diverting the waves. The real work of environmentalists if you try to control environmental damage fourth happens. But youre also looking at private sector sometimes lawyers than rather nonprofits, political kind of people, and trying to find ways that they can both set a precedent, which will help the environment, and prove lucrative in one way or another. And theres a very different set of incentives there. After stylish what those different incentives make possible, and what could also lead people a strike. Anyone else . Sam over there. Going back to the laura metaphor, their case to be made there, for not talking to the trees, but also the aspect of the plot, is like it ruins the habitat of the fish, and the birds, and the idea that the food source thats in the trees, so if there class action for this . Yeah you can actually have talking animals why not, its a stretch, its meant to be a kind of what i mean, its a thought experiment, but its a culture that comes out at a moment when people are actually grappling with these issues more generally. And some again, the lurks was fine, if he can have some rights bearing individual, that if he has an interest in this. And you can say look, i signed a contract with the law rex, to represent my interest. He is my advocate in court and which were events some other, dr. Seuss character, and stop them from coming along and saying no i represent the trees i know the best interest i should be their advocate right. And the way the end of resolving this is by saying coming up with some standards by which natural environmental values can get a hearing in court, in part by going through some person, some human, who has some interest in whose interests are being harmed and that natural stuff, without allowing or figuring out would represent nature in a straightforward way. That kind of those kind of standings in statutory law, and by Supreme Courts that can scale back, as well as expand on environmental standards. Which the Supreme Court has done considerably since the 1970s. It also, and again this is one of my particular obsessions, in part i wrote a book not only about conservative lawyers and legal activism, but on the ways that theyre activism shaped what the regulatory state could or could not do, Going Forward. They ended up opening the court you end up inevitably opening the court so a bunch of different people with different kind of interests. Who then could compete in certain ways, on who really speaks for the public, who really speaks for whom. That can make some litigation seem pretty convoluted and confusing. We open up to courts to people who want to mock up the issue, as much as settle. Anyone else all . Right, thank you very much. Next on lessons in history, teaching a class about southeast immigration to the United States impose reena more
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.