Category Archives: #SaveMiami

“Politics” & 8 Gutsy Kids

An Update on Florida’s Historic Youth Climate Lawsuit Reynolds v. State of Florida

South Florida and many other places all around this unique, fragile peninsula that is the State of Florida are at dire risk to becoming lost, of becoming extinct and inaccessible, as a result of man-made climate change and its resulting sea rise. Local municipalities are increasingly, openly now acknowledging this reality and their own limitations to save a growing portion of their communities by using words such as “retreat” to describe the reality of our future unless we move quickly to stop the fossil fuel use that’s at the heart of climate change. In fact, local cities, towns and counties all over Florida have begun to publicly discuss that they are fighting a losing battle without help from the State of Florida, America and the world beyond.

And yet, State leaders such as Governor DeSantis, Agriculture Commissioner Fried, CFO Patronis, Attorney General Moody do nothing more than play politics in a process that spins around and around without change while protecting the polluters that are causing and perpetuating the damage. Make no mistake, for generations Florida’s elected officials have been played by industries intent on protecting their profits and in the process use and sell fossil fuels that are the core cause of the problem and until this changes, the damage will only grow worse by the day until the day comes that millions can’t get to their homes, businesses or special places all around us because no one in power truly cared to demand change.

And so as to remove the very politics that are the problem, seven young “gutsy”, as my friend Dick Jacob’s likes to call us, friends of mine and I have done something ridiculous and remarkable by suing the State of Florida and its elected Cabinet.

Ridiculous because we can surely agree that children and young adults should not feel forced to fight so hard for their future and that of future generations by having to file a lawsuit against the very state they live in to demand that their government enforce laws designed to protect them and their environment.

Remarkable because generations of adults before us, much less too many in positions of power today, gladly extend their hands out to the polluters, their lobbyists and the money so as to play THE key role in perpetuating the problem. I mean how else can you explain someone, anyone, supporting the use of something so filthy, that smells so bad and that is so lethal to any living creature as petroleum rather than cry out for a better energy solution in a world that’s now filled with better energy solutions, unless it were greed and politics?

And yet, what does a Judge appointed by one of the all-time climate deniers ever, former governor/now US Senator Rick Scott, conclude when the state not surprisingly asks him to deny our lawsuit?

He suggests we need a political solution.

Of course the abate failure of Florida’s political system, its elected politicians corrupted by political donations and the army of fossil fuel energy and utility industry political lobbyists feverishly working to protect their clients are a large part of the reason why such a fragile place as Florida has such a dire problem. And yet that’s what Judge Carroll suggested we need. More of the same political B.S. that has caused the problem.

Needless to say my friends and I do not agree with the Judge’s view, nor will we allow it to slow our desire to fix the problem. When I first thought to pursue a solution through the court system I knew that the process would be a long one filled with many challenges but I also knew that the stakes were too important to not seek the learned help of our judiciary. I knew that I likely faced years, perhaps decades, of my life pursing a legal remedy, the changes that we need, and thus I remain as dedicated to the cause, perhaps more so, than ever before despite Judge Carroll’s opinion.

With that in mind, I’d like to give you an update on our recent Hearing and next steps; first in a brief video of my own thoughts followed by a guest blog from my friend Dick Jacobs, a Florida lawyer for more than 50 years who will eloquently detail why he feels that the Judge is wrong to think that this is a political issue (it’s not). I’ve ended the post with a video in which many of my co-plaintiff’s share their views and a few thought provoking questions I hope you will consider.

 

After a three-hour “Zoom” video-conference hearing, Judge Carroll said his decision was based on the fact that the kids were asking the court to solve our climate crisis, which is the responsibility of the legislature and the executive branch. Carroll said “This is not a matter for the court. I regret to have to tell you this. I don’t want anyone to thing I am diminishing what [the kids] concerns are. I think they’re legitimate.” The judge said he would write his ruling so that it is ripe for appeal. He wished the children luck.

The legal technicality underlying the Judge’s opinion is known as the “Political Question Doctrine,” which Black’s Law Dictionary defines as “A question that a court will not consider because it involves the exercise of discretionary power by the executive or legislative branch of government.”

Debates as to what the Constitution means, and whether or not there are “political questions,” are not something new. The debates have been around since the days of the Founders. Perhaps the most famous early controversy about the Court’s authority was between John Marshall, appointed as Chief Justice in 1801 by John Adams just before he left office, and our third President Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809). In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, Marshall’s Court opined that the Supreme Court had the right to decide if federal or state laws violated the Constitution. Marbury and subsequent Marshall decisions (his Court decided more than 1,000 cases in his 35 years, with Marshall writing half of the opinions) firmly established the idea that the Federal judiciary system was independent and co-equal in responsibility to the executive and legislative branches. Jefferson disagreed with Marbury and the role of the Court, seeing it as less consequential. Jefferson’s idea was that the Court’s authority to overturn laws conflicted with the peoples’ right to rule. (Jefferson, however, was not faced with the politics of today’s Democracy of Dollars, where the influence of lobbyists, not the people, prevails.)

Over the years the debate about the role of the Supreme Court has continued. Archibald Cox wrote in 1967, in his The Warren Court (the Court when I was in law school, 1964-67):

What role should the judicial branch play in the government of American people? Should the court play an active, creative role in shaping our destiny, equal with the executive and legislative branches? Or should it be characterized by self-restraint, deferring to the legislative branch whenever there is room for policy judgment and leaving new departures to the initiative of others? Under Marshall the court staked an active role in government, building up the power of the federal judiciary in shaping the relationship between the nation and the states according to Marshall’s nationalism. … [In reaction to judicial activism], there developed the theory of judicial self-restraint with which the senior generation of lawyers was generally indoctrinated. The theory sprang from the soil of the old Jeffersonian philosophy…: ‘You must seek correction through the political process, for the judiciary to intervene would be a denial of self-government.’”

As Cox points out, when it comes to fundamental Constitutional, human rights, judicial restraint is too frequently a “no answer,” for the restraint “closes the political process to particular ideas or particular groups, or otherwise distorts its operation. Then the correction must come from outside and no violence is done to the principle of representative government if the court supplies the remedy.”

“Ideally, the federal judicial branch ought not to enlarge its own jurisdiction simply because Congress and the state governments failed to solve the problem confided in them….The ideal remedy is to reform the delinquents. But government is more pragmatic than ideal. In a practical world there is, and I suspect has to be, a good deal of play in the joints. If one arm of government cannot or will not solve an insistent problem, the pressure falls on another.”

Examples:

• Our Constitutional right to “privacy,” always important, but more important in this age of electronic intrusions, was found by the Warren Court in the “penumbra” of rights surrounding the Constitution, not in the Constitution itself. The late Justice Scalia has written that because the words aren’t in the Constitution, we have no Constitutional right of privacy. I am sure very few of us would agree with Scalia. I discuss the issue in detail in an earlier blog: Belief Checker.

• Florida’s Constitution, Article II, Section 7(b), adopted in 1996, provides: “Those in the Everglades Agricultural Area who cause water pollution within the Everglades Protection Area or the Everglades Agricultural Area shall be primarily responsible for paying the costs of the abatement of that pollution.” The Florida Supreme Court opined that the provision is not “self-executing” and requires legislative action to be enforceable. With the exception of a 2020 bill dealing with algae pollution of Florida’s waters, the Florida legislature has never acted, and taxpayers, not the polluters, are stuck with the cost.

• Floridians amended Florida’s Constitution to restore felons’ voting rights. The Florida legislature passed a law that prohibited voting by felons unless all their applicable court costs were first paid. The law was challenged in the Federal Court as being unconstitutional. The judge withheld action while the legislature was in session so that it would have time to act; when the legislature didn’t act, the judge ruled: “[T]his order holds that the State can condition voting on payment of fines and restitution that a person is able to pay but cannot condition voting on payment of amounts a person is unable to pay or on payment of taxes, even those labeled fees or costs.” The judge also said:

“Why is it that all the Republicans voted ‘yes’ and all the Democrats voted ‘no’? That is not a coincidence. It would be stunning if somebody told me that they did not realize that African-Americans tend to vote Democratic more than Republican.”

The judge did it right: he waited for legislative action; when none came, the political issue was subordinated to fundamental rights and the wish of the people, reflected in a Constitutional Amendment overwhelmingly approved.

The assumption of the Defendants in Reynolds v. State, the case of the 8 Gutsy Kids, is that even with the evidence presented about climate change and its harm and dangers to the Kids (essentially confirmed by the Judge in his remarks), the Legislature has the right to ignore the evidence, or decide that other matters weigh against addressing the evidence. That position assumes that our children have absolutely no fundamental or constitutional right to life and liberty – and to a climate system that is not polluted with the effects of CO2. From one of the Defendant’s briefs:

“Moreover, even with compelling evidence that there is anthropogenic climate change, the Legislature may decide that other matters, such as employment opportunities, resource development, or power generation, should be weighed against the evidence.”

After an intense study of the Political Question Doctrine, I conclude:

The political questions that should be addressed by our judicial system include at least individual rights that are Constitutional, fundamental, inherent to life itself, and are not addressed by, or are abused by, the legislature or executive branches.

How many deaths or cancer cases from CO2 pollution are permissible before a political question about our climate system is no longer a political question?

Nor should the legislature or executive branch be entitled to decide that it’s okay to continue to pollute our waters or soil with chemicals that destroy the ability of life to obtain clean water and food.

How many people are permitted to die or become diseased from lead poisoning before the right to pollute with lead poison is no longer a political question?

Nor should the legislature or executive branch be entitled to take action – or ignore taking action – that causes vast portions of the entire state to be submerged under rising seas.

How many people must lose their homes, their businesses or their lives – or how many communities must lose their tax base based on sunken lands, fleeing tourists, and flooded businesses that no longer operate – because of rising seas before rising seas is no longer a political question?

The fact that the Gutsy Kids claim to a stable climate system isn’t word-specific in the Constitution, or requires executive or legislative action to fill in the details of implementation, doesn’t mean a righteous claim to a stable climate system does not exist, or that the Court cannot act. Like the right to privacy, the unspecified rights to a stable climate system lie in implication of the words of the Constitution and, like privacy, are in its penumbra. The Court can act as it did in Brown V. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, where the Court took charge in declaring what the Constitution required and ordered the political branches to reform policies that had championed discriminatory education of black children and other minorities.

Either we have fundamental rights or we don’t. For those fundamental rights the legislature does not have the right to compromise or destroy or limit them; the Executive Branch does not have rule-making authority to deprive us of those rights. Those rights clearly have political implications but are not political questions which courts cannot hear and resolve when the legislature and executive branch are engaged in damaging action or inaction. They are absolute, essential for life itself.

Take Article II, Section 7(a) of the Florida Constitution: “It shall be the policy of the state to conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty. Adequate provision shall be made by law for the abatement of air and water pollution and of excessive and unnecessary noise and for the conservation and protection of natural resources.”

Now, 7(a) is a statement of pure policy, and it obviously require legislative action. However, this policy speaks of “shall” – requiring positive action. That means something is to be done within the boundaries of its expressed concern by the Florida legislature; yet there has been totally inadequate legislative action. Should not the citizens of Florida, who enacted the Constitution for their benefit, have the right to petition the judiciary to order the legislative branch to perform its constitutional duties? Listen to the 3-minute video introducing this blog. That is a prime concern of the Gutsy Kids.

To breathe life into the Constitution, inaction – a “no” answer- should not be constitutional when the Constitution uses “shall.”

Inaction is anti-shall action and should not be permitted.

Jane Goodall’s statement, “We are each difference makers and we have to decide what kind of a difference we want to make” reminds me of the fact that doing nothing is a form of difference making.

There is no reason for the Court to hide behind a political question argument when faced with these sorts of questions about human rights. What is called for is action consistent with the mandate of the Constitution. Doing nothing is not Constitutionally permissible.

CLICK ON THE PHOTO BELOW TO LINK TO OUR 3-MINUTE VIDEO ABOUT WHAT EIGHT GUTSY KIDS ARE DOING AND WHY.

Dick Jacobs 

www.theglobalnaturalist.com

National Geographic: Fighting For Their Future

D National Geographic

Like my father before me, and his father before him, I‘ve grown up in what I would call a National Geographic household. Every month, year after year, decade after decade, dating to near the start of the last century, the magazine arrives in the mail with great fanfare as my entire family riffles through its pages and is transported all over the globe to learn about the wonders of nature, world cultures and some of the most profound issues of our time.

In fact, I honestly can’t imagine a more important publication or group of artists and story tellers than the people at “Nat Geo” and for that reason I am increadibly honored to have their amazing work cross my path once again by being featured in the April issue on climate change.

I first had the honor of working with the National Geographic Society when they televised the Emmy Award winning Years of Living Dangerously series in a piece that Jack Black hosted entitled Gathering Storm: Saving Miami (you can stream that and the other incredible episodes by clicking here).

I am still not sure it was a coincidence that on a family trip during the summer of 2015 to visit Washington DC’s Smithsonian Museums that our hotel was next door to, you guessed it, The National Geographic Society. It will not surprise you that we revised our plans and spent one entire morning walking through the building, enjoying an exhibit on monster river fish and another on anthropological archaeology. And as wonderful as the inside was, one of the billboards on the outside made the experience extra worthwhile.

IMG_6768

As we walked around the outside of the building to look at the pictures, I was overwhelmed to see that one featured one of my environmental heroes, famed shark scientist and frequent SharkFest National Geographic explorer Dr. Neil Hammerschlag from the University of Miami. Neil was deploying a “critter cam” with a very large tiger shark cruising just below him. That picture, along with the many shark tagging trips I’d taken with him in middle and high school, helped inspire me to apply to his Hammerschlag Shark Research and Conservation Lab here at the University where I have been a proud member for three years, have recently been selected as a Teacher’s Assistant, and have plans to work on a marine microplastic research project with him in Toronto, Canada.

IMG_5806

For the release of Years of Living Dangerously, we hosted an exclusive red carpet premiere here in Miami at the the Tower Theatre in Little Havana. I interviewed many of the characters featured in the episode, as well as many local scientists and politicians so viewers could learn about their work. It was a pleasure to also interview Dr. Hammerschlag and his wife, Dr. Caroline Hammerschlag who was coincidentally my AP Environmental Science teacher at the time. Yeah, you sure could say that billboard on the Society’s offices and his work with Nat Geo and UM have had a life changing impact on me.

NG Teen Service Award

And there was National Geographic once again, in 2017, changing my life by honoring me as an inaugural National Geographic Teen Service Award Winner for my educational work and activism. I am ever so grateful to be selected, much less to be the first, and to use that honor to draw attention to our climate crisis and plight.

And as incredible as being associated with that show or receiving that honor was the magazine is, well, different. It’s an iconic publication that has been sharing thought provoking stories and images with the world since 1888. And, in an increasingly digital world that has seen far too many print publications cease to exist, I am happy to report that over 5.1 million people subscribe to National Geographic today.

And I am also proud, ever so proud, to be associated with the magazine in an article about youth climate activists. People like Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, a plaintiff in the federal lawsuit against our government that seeks climate justice, the counter part to the Florida suit (Reynolds v. State of Florida) that I am leading. Or Rabab Ali, an 11 year old Pakistani woman who has sued her government over the right to have a healthy environment. Or Greta Thunberg whose Friday Climate School Strikes have inspired countless young people to find their voices and demand change. And all the others. I do hope that you will read the feature and, as you do, I hope you will consider finding your voice, raising your hand and standing up for our mutual future before it’s too late.

Allow me to end by thanking a few people who worked to share my story and those of the other people featured in the article.

First, thanks so very much to Laura Parker who wrote the story and is a staff writer at National Geographic where she focuses on climate change and our marine environment. For a college kid like me that’s majoring in Marine Science and minoring in Climate Science and Policy, Laura was a dream to work with. Over the course of months we spent a great deal of time talking about my concerns and the need for action and Laura understood every word. Laura, thank you for sharing with the world that young people are not only seriously concerned, but that our concerns must be taken seriously.

National Geographic is most certainly known for its stunning, award winning pictures and with that in mind I’d like to humbly thank Victoria Will for taking mine for this feature. As she flew into Miami from another assignment in Colorado I was not sure what to expect but over the day we spent together at Miami’s Matheson Hammock Park, a place I learned to swim and have returned to many times to help educate people about our climate change crisis, it was obvious that she and her assistant Savannah Shipman were equal parts professionals and artists.

IMG_8045 IMG_7826 IMG_7728
IMG_8062 IMG_8106

The day started along the Biscayne Bay shoreline, the city of Miami sparkling off in the distance, but soon evolved into the mangrove forests that help make the park so magical and ultimately we waded off into the middle of the same salt water lagoon, dress and all, that as a young child I learned to swim in. Visitors walked the sand beach that surrounds the lagoon and must have wondered what in the world that young woman was doing in a dress with water up to her chest, much less the photographer with one camera after another shooting pictures but I knew I was in great hands. Victoria was incredibly friendly and kind in her comments about my work, its importance, and being involved in this issue. She truly touched my heart. Little did I know that Victoria is a Princeton University graduate “celebrity portraiture” who has photographed some of the most famous people on the planet including Leonardo DiCaprio, Julia Roberts, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, and Selena Gomez to name just a few. To learn more about Victoria’s work please visit www.victoriawill.com and you will see what I mean when I say I am humbled that she graced me, this issue, and story with her artistry.

IMG_6576_2

And finally, a special thanks to everyone at National Geographic. The work you do, the stories you tell and the images you share have long been globally important, but are more important now than ever. In a world that’s often confused or distracted by “reality television” or “alternative facts”, you share the truth in unique and thought provoking ways that truly matter. For what all of you do, much less for the indelible role you have played in my life and that of my family’s for generations, thank you and keep up the most excellent work.

10,800%

Getting 200 of the world’s nations to agree on the steps needed to shift away from mankind’s century-long love affair with fossil fuels to clean, sustainable solutions might be the largest task humanity has ever undertaken together. As hard as I imagine it was to recover from devastating world wars and any number of horrible historic humanitarian crises, these could look small in dollars and the fortitude it will take for the citizens of the world to work together to solve our global climate crisis before it’s too late.

And because of that, the work that the United Nations is doing to address our climate crisis, including the recent Conference of the Parties (COP) in Madrid, is important for many reasons including:

2019 was the year that the University of Oxford’s Oxford University Press named “climate emergency” as its “word” (phrase) of the year after the use of those two words increased 10,800% between September 2018 and September 2019. Five or six years ago when I began my climate change work here at The Sink or Swim Project many people were unaware that earth was warming, much less the key reasons for these changes and their repercussions. As 2020 begins it’s clear that whether from Oxford University, research by Yale University or other sources, people all over the world now know that we have a problem and are increasingly being subject to its impact.

2019 was also the year that the United Nations issued its most recent forecast on earth’s temperatures and whether our society is doing enough, fast enough, to offset the worst impacts of our climate change crisis. In October, 2019 the IPCC illustrated that we are not making the type of progress needed to sufficiently influence future warming including the 2015 Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. You can review that report by clicking here.

Led by the United States in Paris in 2015, the world’s nations, nearly 200 of them, agreed that society must keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius versus pre-industrial revolution levels and set a goal to work together to keep temperatures from rising no more than 1.5 degrees. The recent United Nations’ report, and the pathetic results from COP 25 in Madrid, again illustrate just how hard it will be to achieve these goals and the importance that the nations of the world have measurable goals and rules needed to attain them if we are to ever solve this crisis.

What was accomplished during two weeks of climate discussions in Madrid?

Not much.

“Once again, no progress has been made to bring countries more in line with the 1.5 degrees target of the Paris Agreement. Very strict rules are an absolute necessity and old untrustworthy CO-2 credits have to be scrapped. That has not happened in Madrid, the summit ended without a deal.”

Bas Eickhout, European Parliament Member

The United States is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world today (and historically has been the largest), yet our current President, calling it a “bad deal,” has announced that our country will withdraw from the Paris Agreement this year. Lacking the United States’ vision, deep engagement and leadership in solving the crisis, the world is a different place today than it was in 2015. Words like “failure” and “disarray” are being used to summarize the outcome in Madrid.

I am disappointed with the results of #COP25. The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on  mitigation, adaptation & finance to tackle the climate crisis. But we must not give up, and I will not give up.

António Guterres, United Nation’s Chairman, December 15, 2019

And while many of the world’s biggest nations – Australia, Brazil and, sadly, the United States – seem intent on “kicking the can down the road” as they say, doing little or consciously overlooking the issue, the people that I talk to at my lectures and other events are intent on learning, are openly wondering about what will happen, craving leadership and increasingly express being worried. I am worried too and the lack of progress at a global meeting on the climate change crisis that draws nearly 200 nations yet gets little done should concern us all.

Speaking of Oxford as I was, the University wrote in November, 2019 that 70% of British citizens live in areas which have already declared a climate emergency.

70% (!).

In one country.

In 2019.

Keeping in mind that the repercussions from our warming climate have only just begun and are about to get far worse without significant action by you and me and our governments, it is not surprising that a recent poll found that 52% of people in the United Kingdom are “very concerned” about climate change. What’s significant about that poll and figure is that just five years ago only 18% were “very concerned”.

People are listening. Reading. Learning.

Sure, the lack of meaningful action in Madrid is disappointing, but there are encouraging signs all around us that a world-wide movement, one often led by the youngest in society, to address this crisis is not only alive and well but growing. Significantly growing. No matter what you hear from politicians in Washington, San Paolo or other places intent on protecting the polluters, don’t overlook the use of the phrase “climate emergency” increasing by 10,800% in a year’s time or that the number of people in an entire country that call themselves “very concerned” about that very same emergency would triple in five years time.

People are starting to see the effects.

They are starting to widely understand that the world must come together to solve this problem.

And we, and by “we” I mean all of us with voices and votes and currency and feelings the world over, are finally on the verge of demanding that all political and business leaders understand the climate emergency and are focused on fixing it.

No more meetings that do nothing. Otherwise those so called “leaders” will need to understand that we will replace them and/or boycott their products and services in favor of those who are serious about solving the issue and that’s not intended as a threat or “big” talk or what-not.

It’s reality.

It’s what 10,800% tells me.

That percentage and these other figures illustrate that we are leaving an era of early education, one of tolerance, and are now entering an era of action because people increasingly know that the “climate emergency” is upon us and that the time to fix the problem has arrived at the dawn of the new decade that is 2020.

1 2 3 16