Are There Judicial Remedies for Climate Change?

Not yet -- if ever.

In Juliana v. United States (1), it was determined that the judiciary would exceed its constitutional authority were it to order comprehensive plans for addressing climate change.

The lawsuit’s premise was somewhat novel. An environmental group including twenty-one children asserted that they had an implicit constitutional right to a “stable climate system.”

It was stipulated that climate change is a clear and present danger. However, the panel concluded (on a two to one vote) that remedies lie with other branches of government and with the electorate as a whole.

Similar suits remain pending in other parts of the country. I believe that they will trend toward the same result.

I do not see any particular clamor for federal legislation. Executive orders will only nibble at the edges of the problem.

So – how about a constitutional amendment?

Practically speaking, that’s impossible at the present time.

But I note, somewhat wryly, that it’s not without precedent. Ecuador and Bolivia have climate protections enshrined in their constitutions. (2)

I conclude, somewhat glumly, that the only immediate remedy is individual action: millions (no, billions) of us acting in concert every day to minimize human impact on what’s left of our environment.

Sources:

(1) https://casetext.com/case/juliana-v-united-states-6

(2) https://www.rapidtransition.org/stories/the-rights-of-nature-in-bolivia-and-ecuador/

Background:

https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/03/juliana-v-united-states/

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/top-10-environmental-law-decisions-2021

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/17/21070810/climate-change-lawsuit-juliana-vs-us-our-childrens-trust-9th-circuit