Kingston, August 31, 2020—Last week, Superior Court
Judge Melissa Darigan dismissed a complaint filed by Nature's
Trust Rhode Island against the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management (DEM). On behalf of 13 young Rhode
Islanders and the Sisters of Mercy Ecology, the group filed suit
after DEM had rejected an attempt that would have forced the
state to address, systematically and meaningfully, the unfolding
climate catastrophe and to take responsibility for its share of
greenhouse gas emissions.
With her decision Judge Darigan
confirmed that all three branches of Rhode Island government
are failing to address the escalating climate emergency of
planet Earth as is their duty under Rhode Island law. Perhaps
the most vivid example of this negligence is Rhode Island
House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello's statement at the beginning
of this year that, "There is nothing that Rhode Island can do
to address climate change."[1]
Alex Duryea, one of the
plaintiffs and a graduate student at the University of Rhode
Island minced no words in response to Judge Darigan's
decision: “I’m really frustrated with the fact that this court
case keeps bouncing around. Nobody is taking responsibility
for ensuring that DEM and the State of Rhode Island are
protecting my right to a future. Do you think I want to be
suing the DEM? I have schoolwork to focus on, but I’m doing
this because I feel like I have no other options at this
point. And even this route is proving to be a dead end because
nobody is willing to actually look at the fact that all these
young people, who should focus on school, and friends, are out
here demanding to HAVE a future. If DEM just took action to
protect future generations, what’s the worst that could
happen? We'd have a safer, cleaner future!”
Martina Muller, a University of Rhode Island Post-Doctoral
Research Fellow in Natural Resource Sciences, concurred and
observed that, "Everyone in our government is pushing the
responsibility to someone else. Every day we waste pointing
fingers and arguing about whose job it is to do something, the
time window of action is shrinking, and the scale of the
response needed to avoid unthinkable climate catastrophe
becomes that much bigger."
Judge Darigan's ruling makes it
clear that the Rhode Island courts shirk their responsibility
to protect the environment. This fits in with a regrettable
national trend that started in the 1970s after the passage of
the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
Almost two years have gone by
since the prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) concluded that "rapid, far-reaching and
unprecedented changes in all aspects of society" were needed
to avoid catastrophic climate change.[2] Judge Darigan's
ruling makes it painfully clear that Rhode Island government
is years behind the scientific consensus. This is all the more
concerning because, according to renowned climate scientist
James Hansen, "the IPCC, almost by its nature, tends to be
5-10 years behind state-of-the-art understanding."[3]
Despite the clear evidence to
the contrary, Judge Darigan's reasoning explicitly denies that
the young plaintiffs have suffered injury "in fact, economic
or otherwise." The ruling is based on an unjust and outdated
interpretation of the law. It flies in the face of common
decency, environmental and climate justice, and the laws of
nature. Most importantly, the ruling ignores the facts of the
case and the trauma suffered already by the plaintiffs.
Stephen Follett, an undergraduate student at the University of
Rhode Island and a plaintiff in the case, grew up in the
coastal village of Snug Harbor in South Kingstown, Rhode
Island. His family and community have suffered in more ways
than economically from the impact of climate change on the
fishing industry for over the last decades. Follett emphasized
that, "The argument that we have not suffered as the result of
the growing impact of climate change is completely unfounded.
The ignorance of this claim is clear in the sight of the ports
in Galilee which remain full of idle fishing vessels, all
docked for one reason: there are no traditional fish left.
These species more traditional to local fisheries, namely cod,
lobster, and tuna, have all fled north to the Gulf of Maine
and the Bay of Fundy due to the warming of local waters. This
has deprived many residents of their livelihood."
Follett saw in his community
that, "These residents were once established and appreciated
contributors to Rhode Island culture. However, with this loss
of livelihood, these wonderful men and women can no longer
afford the time to address government policy and matters with
which they have dealt their whole lives. DEM ignored the
testimony of fishermen about ecological change in the local
waters and called their reports merely anecdotal."
Directly contradicting the
Superior Court decision, Steven concludes that, "A once
vibrant community stripped of its voice through the negligence
of larger monetary influences has caused real suffering for my
family and my community. If Rhode Island is to set this
precedent of inaction in response to climate change and
protecting something so dear to our own local communities, we
may never feel entitled to request the future action of our
fellow states in this Union. Hopefully, one day our leaders
will lead by example rather than through the continuous
obfuscation of accountability."
Nature's Trust Rhode Island is
in the process of considering a legal response to the Superior
Court decision.
[1] Mattiello:
https://youtu.be/E6rg1billzA
Please contact Nature's
Trust Rhode Island to set up interviews with the plaintiffs.
###
--