There is a movement sweeping state legislatures, from Connecticut to Hawaii, to enact a “green” amendment that would enshrine a person’s “individual right” to a “safe and stable climate.” To be sure, clean air and drinking water are certainly laudable goals, necessary for life. But enshrining the “green” amendment into state and federal constitutions would have unintended—and disastrous—consequences.
The movement for an amendment began gathering momentum after the landmark decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2013). In that ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared unconstitutional portions of Act 13, which expanded natural gas drilling from the Marcellus Shale reservoirs. Since then, activists such as those at For the Generations have argued that a federal amendment, modeled on Pennsylvania’s Constitution, would further strengthen the fight against climate change.
As of now, Pennsylvania, Montana, and New York have environmental rights in their state constitutions, enumerated in 1971, 1972, and 2021, respectively. The Robinson Township ruling gave the green light for activists to bludgeon oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania with lawsuits, claiming environmental hazards. Similarly, in the early 2020s, “youth plaintiffs” in Montana (ages 2-18 when the lawsuit was filed) sued state lawmakers and agencies for actions that “exacerbated the harm they were feeling from climate change and [sought] declaratory and injunctive relief.”
Meanwhile, New York has also had its share of environmental suits against the Seneca Meadows landfill’s expansion and the “Two Bridges” construction project, of which the latter would create nearly 3,000 housing units in Manhattan. However, no substantial ruling like the one in Pennsylvania and Montana has yet occurred in New York courts.
The U.S. judicial system relies on precedent. The suits and decisions in states that have ratified a “green” amendment provide a window into the legal quagmire other U.S. states should brace for. And the language under consideration is nebulous enough that one person’s “environmental rights,” as defined in the state laws, might well clash with another’s—opening the door to endless lawsuits, which would waste time and valuable resources.
Ultimately, the proposed amendment fails to qualify or quantify when a state will have achieved a “safe and stable” environment; and even if environmental regulations become more restrictive, that does not necessarily guarantee a better quality of life overall. In fact, the outlook for a viable, affordable future is bleak.
Using Connecticut as an example, since state lawmakers there are currently debating whether to ratify their own “green” amendment, state residents and businesses will endure a future of energy instability and exorbitant costs if current environmental policies are kept intact.
A joint report compiled by several national and New England think tanks shows that if the region complies with its decarbonization plans, the costs will amount to $815 billion to implement green, renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Meanwhile, ISO-New England, the region’s grid, may not be able to power homes and businesses within 11 years as demand increases. This would fare worse if the region was solely reliant on wind and solar, since the New England states would have to build the equivalent of 12,000 wind turbines and 129 million solar panels to meet demand.
Beyond the financial burden, the region risks prolonged blackouts, which can be life-threatening to vulnerable populations such as the elderly, the sick, or those relying on medical devices like dialysis machines.
Connecticut is only a microcosm. States across America must not only consider the economic ramifications of trying to achieve vague climate goals, but also the extent of the government’s trustee status in relation to “all of the natural resources”—and how that will affect Americans’ livelihoods. For example, during the harrowing California wildfires, legally enshrined environmental ambitions to protect both the Delta Smelt fish and an endangered shrub prevented filling in reservoirs and improving fire safety. Coupled with a lack of efficient brush management, California’s environmental policies exacerbated the wildfires—in a state that does not even have a “green” amendment yet.
These rigorous environmental policies have consequences—costly ones that not only undermine Americans’ economic future and energy security, but also seemingly devalue human life under cover of protecting peoples’ future. Enshrining this new “right” would neither protect nor serve the public’s best interests. It would instead submit them to endless litigation, high energy rates, economic stagnation, and energy instability, all while failing to protect the environment effectively.
Instead, state legislatures, environmentalists, and voters can “have their cake and eat it too” by striving for innovation and funding efforts to invent cleaner ways of delivering energy to our families and businesses. One option would be to invest in nuclear power, which prevents more than 470 million metric tons of carbon from being spewed into the atmosphere every year—equivalent to removing 100 million cars off the road.
Americans should want a better home for our children, our grandchildren, and those yet unborn. The moral obligation to be good stewards of the Earth is a serious one.
The “green” amendment, however, will only stifle prosperity and the pursuit of a healthier environment. It could even, literally, put people in the dark. That is hardly a future worth bequeathing to the generations living now, or those to come.
The American Mind presents a range of perspectives. Views are writers’ own and do not necessarily represent those of The Claremont Institute.
The American Mind is a publication of the Claremont Institute, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, dedicated to restoring the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. Interested in supporting our work? Gifts to the Claremont Institute are tax-deductible.
