April 28, 2025 • 40 mins
As federal environmental protections face weakening, a grassroots movement is gaining strength across the U.S., focusing on environmental rights rather than policy adjustments. Maya van Rossum, environmental attorney and founder of the Green Amendments For The Generations movement, returns to Sustainability in Your Ear to discuss that states' response to cuts to federal environmental regulations. Maya explains how state-level constitutional amendments are redefining environmental protection as an inalienable right, akin to freedom of speech. She outlines the importance of constitutional change for achieving genuine environmental justice, the necessary steps for mobilizing community support, and how rights-based environmental movements are establishing sustainable, community-driven strategies for a healthier future.
For over a decade, Maya has spearheaded this initiative, successfully passing Green Amendments in Pennsylvania, Montana, and New York. Currently, more than 20 states, including Oregon, are contemplating similar amendments. The discussion also addresses the recent rally at the Oregon state capitol, which showcased the momentum behind the Right to a Healthy Environment Amendment (SJR28) and signifies the evolving role of grassroots environmental advocacy. Unlike typical legislation that can be reversed with changing political climates, Green Amendments establish essential protections for clean air, water, and climate at the constitutional level. This framework provides citizens and communities with a robust legal foundation to challenge polluters and safeguard the environment for future generations, particularly during periods of political regression. For more information about the Green Amendment movement and to track developments nationwide, visit forthegenerations.org
For over a decade, Maya has spearheaded this initiative, successfully passing Green Amendments in Pennsylvania, Montana, and New York. Currently, more than 20 states, including Oregon, are contemplating similar amendments. The discussion also addresses the recent rally at the Oregon state capitol, which showcased the momentum behind the Right to a Healthy Environment Amendment (SJR28) and signifies the evolving role of grassroots environmental advocacy. Unlike typical legislation that can be reversed with changing political climates, Green Amendments establish essential protections for clean air, water, and climate at the constitutional level. This framework provides citizens and communities with a robust legal foundation to challenge polluters and safeguard the environment for future generations, particularly during periods of political regression. For more information about the Green Amendment movement and to track developments nationwide, visit forthegenerations.org
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Hello, good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you
are on this beautiful planet of ours, Welcome to Sustainability
in your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating
the transition to a sustainable carbon neutral society, and I'm
your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation of today.
As always, it will be an important one. With environmental
(00:29):
protections under attack at the federal level, a quiet but
powerful movement continues to gain momentum and states across the country.
The Green Amendments for the Generations reframes environmental protection not
as a policy debate, but as a constitutional right, and
I'm pleased to welcome back to the show. Maya Van
Rossen a veteran environmental activist, attorney and the founder of
(00:51):
the Green Amendments for the Generation's movement. For over a decade,
Maya has championed the idea that clean air, clean water,
a safe climate, and healthy ecosystems should be recognized as
inalienable rights on par with free speech, property, and due process.
Her work has led to constitutional green amendments passing in Pennsylvania, Montana,
(01:12):
and New York, with twenty more states actively considering similar proposals.
In today's conversation, we're going to explore the growing momentum
behind the Oregon Right to a Healthy Environment Amendment, also
known as SJAR twenty eight, which included Maya's attendance at
a recent rally at the state capitol, and I want
to learn what it reveals about the future of grassroots
(01:33):
environmental advocacy that that continues under the Trump administration. We're
also going to dig into the broader implications of state
level constitutional protections, how communities can fight back against environmental injustice,
and the suppression of climate legislation by the federal government.
All of this during these politically regressive times. We want
to know what it takes and what it truly means
(01:55):
to build a lasting environmental legacy for future generations. You
can learn more about Maya's work and the national movement
at for the Generations dot org. For the Generations is
all one word, no space, no dash, for the Generations
dot org. We'll get to the conversation right after a
quick commercial break. Welcome back to the show, Maya. How
(02:21):
you doing well?
Speaker 2 (02:24):
How I'm doing is an interesting question, but I'm really
happy to be back on the show.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Thank you. I appreciate it, and I know that feeling
it's a very strange time. Let's start with a little
bit of history to set the stage for this conversation
about the need for states to step in regarding environmental regulation.
Three states of past Green Amendment. What lessons have you
learned from those victories that you're applying in other states today?
Speaker 2 (02:48):
So the lessons are twofold. First, and I think most
important is that giving people a constitutional right to a clean,
safe and healthy environment is meaningful and important because there
are many places and spaces where are environmental laws, if
applied exactly as written, are resulting in really in some cases,
(03:12):
devastating harm for people where they're drinking water contaminated with
serious contaminants, having health consequences, where they're breathing air that's
causing asthma attacks on heart attacks and contributing to ADHD
and Alzheimer's. Right, where we've got soils that are contaminated
with dangerous toxins that are having implications for groundwater and
(03:34):
food growth, and much much more. Right, so we know
that when the laws are implemented exactly as written, often
they're protective and beneficial, and all too often they are not,
and so ensuring people have this overarching right to a clean,
safe and healthy environment that they can turn to in
(03:57):
order to the way I view it, in order to
empower their government officials to put in place appropriate level
protections is good and valuable, and it is working as design.
We don't have people overreaching, bringing frivolous lawsuits and frivolous claims.
We have people turning to the Constitution and government officials
(04:18):
turning to the Constitution when it's appropriate and meaningful. The
second lesson really just reaffirms me, you know, my early
and initial analysis on the most beneficial Green Amendment language
and criteria. So when we look, for example, at Pennsylvania, Montana,
(04:39):
and the State of New York, none of the three
of them specifically reference climate as an entitlement right a
safe and stable climate as an entitlement of the people.
And so as a result, when Our Children's Trust bought
that we're wonderfully successful held the Montana case defending the
right of youth to a safe climate system. They had
(05:01):
to spend about half of their trial time proving that
a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment included
the right to a safe and stable climate system.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
You know.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
And so by explicitly including the term climate right, we
negate the need to spend all that time, money, and
resources on proving that point right. And the same thing
has happened in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in ongoing litigation
right now, also involving issues that include the climate. So
it's value added to specifically mention climate in green amendment proposals.
(05:37):
It's value added to specifically mention that these amendments are
what we call self executing, meaning that they have legal
life and enforceability just in their own right. The right
to clean water is enforceable in its own right, even
if the laws as written or applied, you know, don't
ensure the protection of that right. So again, and it's
(06:00):
just overarching. It's a validation for the criteria that I
initially identified and the importance of being really clear about
what a clean, safe and healthy environment includes in terms
of a constitutional right.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
So one of the things that I want to dig
into a little bit is most rights are related to
what we can do and what we have access to.
You also call for thriving ecosystems in biodiversity, which is
a little bit abstract from the individual. Why is it
important for us to factor that in.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Well, I mean, you know, healthy ecosystems contribute to the
quality of lives of people in many many ways. For example,
a thriving and health healthy forest ecosystem or wetland's ecosystem
helps ensure good quality water, helps protect people from flooding
and flood damages, and so and just contributes to our
(06:50):
quality of life, contributes to the health, the ensures a
healthful environment that contributes to clean there and psychological and
educational benefits from the environment. So it is important that
we are holistic in the environmental protection that we secure
(07:12):
through our constitutional entitlement, because every facet of a healthy
environment or a degraded environment has direct implications on people.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
So what you're saying is that this is analogous to
the pursuit of happiness. Happiness being an abstraction a biodiverse,
vibrant ecosystem is Oh, I see.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
You're you know, you're really talking about the terminology what
you know, sort of well, but I would you know.
The truth is, you know, you're raising the question about
a thriving ecosystem that that is somehow subjective terminology. But
the truth is there is science that helps inform what
is considered a thriving ecosystem, a self susceeing the ecosystem,
(07:53):
what is healthy biodiversity. There's a lot of science that
helps inform that definition and interpretation. And also I'll just
let you know, right you know, while you're raising questions
right now, you know, diving into what does it mean
to have a thriving ecosystem, the opposition uses that exact
same point to say, well, clean water, clean air, that's
(08:17):
very subjective, what does that mean? And so you know,
the truth is it. You know, for people who really
appreciate and embrace the values and importance of a clean,
safe and healthy environment, understand that these terms are one
informed by science, but two are also in the first instance,
across the board going to be informed by the same
(08:39):
democratic process that informs what it means to be free
from an unreasonable search or seizure. That term unreasonable, the
term thriving ecosystems, the term clean water in the first instance,
are all defined by the legislative process, the regulatory process.
They're then informed about by how the executive branch interprets
(09:01):
and applies, you know, the laws that have been created
by the legislative branch, and when necessary, when people can demonstrate,
or sometimes local or state government officials can demonstrate that
the application of those definitions and those expressions through legislation
and regulation result in a problematic outcome in terms of
(09:25):
environmental rights, then the judiciary the courts get involved to say, yes,
the legislature, the executive branch, they got it right and
all is fine, or except for the people who brought
the challenge and we're not victorious. Or the judiciary says,
you know what, the legislative branch to the executive branch,
they miss the mark. They need to go back and
fix the They need to go back and reconsider and
(09:47):
fix the problem. And that's the way our democracy works
for all constitutional entitlements and terms in all Bill of
Rights provisions, same thing happened at preem amendments.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Absolutely all makes sense to me. But here's the thing.
The Trump administration, despite claiming that state should have the
ability to determine their policies regarding to abortion and other
conservative issues, is actively working to undermine state climate legislation.
Is that illegal and not just hypocritical?
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Well, right, it's going to depend how they do it. It's right,
I mean, you know, my belief is that and I
think that that other legal minds agree that the way
the Trump administration has crafted these executive orders, where for example,
he's ordering the Attorney General's office to go after, dismantle, undermine,
override all state protections when it comes to climate when
(10:40):
it comes to environmental justice, when it comes to other
related social issues. That you know, when you just look
at that executive order on its face, right, that is
not that that does not have the effect and cannot
have the effect of stripping away those protections. Now, what
we will have to see is, you know, what does
the Attorney General do with this order and how do
(11:02):
they try to implement it. But I think you know,
when it comes to environmental protection laws and when it
comes to states' rights in the United States of America,
there is a lot of respect and there for the
importance and the power of the state to ensure best
protections for communities and the environment. And I do not
(11:25):
think that these executive orders, you know, so so lightly
unravel that really, I mean, it's really an unraveling of
our entire democracy when it comes to the environment in
states rights. And I don't think that you know that
that Donald Trump is going to have the kind of
success in this arena that he imagines.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Well, and if you pull the thread of one aspect
of democracy, you ultimately unravel the entire sweater of democracy.
And that's the thing that I find so concerning about
what we're doing. But let me let's go to the
federal level for a moment. Following the inauguration, the e
PA announced what it described as the biggest the regulatory
action in US history. What are some of the most
dangerous consequences of those rollbacks of EPA monitoring and regulation
(12:09):
of pollution and other aspects of environmental degradation.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
So, under US environmental protection law, there's always been this
healthy respect for division of labor between the federal government
and the state government. And essentially, you know, the federal
government would put in place the base level protections people
were entitled to. We the people needed when it comes
(12:35):
to water and air and ecosystems and soils and species
and you know, everything that we've been you know that
we've been talking about. And so the federal government sort
of puts in place the floor what's the bare minimum
people are entitled to in terms of environmental protection? And
then to some degree, right, the states can take up well,
(12:58):
then the states sometimes implement that federal law and implement
that base level of protection. But across the board, the
states are allowed to do better, They're allowed to go higher.
They put in place their own the standards that best
apply federal law in the context of their state, or
they pass state laws that are complementary and often more protective,
(13:24):
but they can't go below the floor. And there are
many times and spaces life with regards to wetlands protection
and certain aspects of water quality, where the states say,
you know what, the federal government's got it right, We're
just going to rely on what the federal government has
put in place. But all the way around, the stripping
(13:45):
away of that basic federal the federal protection for that
bare minimum in terms of environmental protection that people are
entitled to, has the ramification of unraveling the entire system.
If states have depended upon the federal standards that were
(14:07):
put in place entirely for pollution protection or ecosystem protection,
well then suddenly those protections are gone for that state,
and the states suddenly are going to have to scramble
to put in place the state laws to protect those
critical aspects of the environment. Also, if the states have
put in place their own state laws and you have
(14:29):
a stripping away of that federal minimum, then if you
happen to have in place in a state a legislative
body and a governor that do not understand the power
and importance of protecting our environment, for our healthy lives,
for our economies, for every aspect of our lives, then
(14:49):
what we might see is states quickly posturing themselves to
reduce their state level protections to below whatever that federal flow.
So the stripping away of the federal bare minimum has
really serious ramifications across the board for everybody nationwide when
it comes to again just being able to trust that
(15:12):
the water coming out of their faucet isn't filled with
toxins for example.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Yeah, it's the unraveling of the sweater again, just a
different facet of the same problem, which is you take
it apart, the minimum standards at the federal level, and
everybody else either follows or takes a stamp. Is there
an example of a state with a green amendment Montana
and New York, Pennsylvania pushing back and Pennsylvania pushing back
(15:39):
against what's going on now? Based on their Green Amendment.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
We haven't seen that as of this time. I think
it's still early days. You know, what we are seeing
in those states is either we're seeing local and state
governments just relying on the constitution for ensuring better protections
or community doing that. But we haven't seen the state
(16:06):
governments lieseing their language to directly head on take on
the Trump administration. And that's really not the appropriate use
of the Green Amendment language.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
In the first instance.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
The Green Amendment language is about ensuring when those state governments,
when the local governments within a Green Amendment state are
are undertaking their own governmental actions decisions, that they are
ensuring their actions and decisions comply with their constitutional obligations
and ensure the constitutional environmental rights of the people. It's
(16:41):
not about taking that state constitutional language truck and trying
to challenge what's happening at the federal level. In fact,
it's one of the reasons why we need the federal
Green Amendment.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
But isn't it absolutely we do need the federal amendment.
But isn't it also the case that if a state
sees federal protections falling below their standards, that they can
say our standards are the basis for contesting the changes
at the federal level, which they're relying on. Because we
are a federal system rather than fifty separate states working
(17:15):
in isolation.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
I think it's a little bit different than the way
the way I hear you framing it is that the
states are going to go take on the federal government
and say you're violating our constitution with your executive orders
and your actions. But really it is about when the
(17:36):
state is acting to ensure that they are implementing. So
if you have, for example, I mean, it's all a
little bit complicated right between federal law and state law.
But you know, under the Federal Clean Water Act, there's
if there's a if there is a federal project, then
(17:58):
that federal project has to comply has to get what's
called a state for a one certification. That for a
one certification requires that federal government action to comply with
standards the state has put in place. So what I
would say to you is those standards that the state
has put in place has to comply with the Federal
(18:20):
Clean Water Act standards, but also because their state level
standards would have to comply with the state's constitutional obligation
if there is a green amendment in that state, and
then when the state applies those state standards to that
federal project, they have to ensure that federal project complies
with those standards, which necessarily requires complying with the Constitution.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
So it's still about the state implementing the amendment through
its actions and activities and ensuring compliance, whether it's a
private entity or a governmental entity that has to comply
with those standards. It's not about taking those standards and
wholesale bringing litigation against Again, this unraveling of standards. It's
(19:09):
a little bit complicated, but hopefully that helps.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
It does, and of course attorney generals across the country
are banding together at the state level to do some
of these kinds of cases. But let me ask this,
with twenty states considering green amendments, are you seeing some
momentum in red states where support is continued is growing?
Speaker 2 (19:32):
We are, I mean, we're seeing you know, truthfully, I
always talk about the green amendments and environmental protections as being,
you know, a non partisan issue, and I think that
that really is being born out when we look at
the growth of the green amendment movement. We're not just
seeing green amendment proposals, and places like Hawaii and Washington,
right and Maine and Vermont, we're seeing green amendments. You know,
(19:55):
in places like Kentucky and Tennessee. We're about to see
a green amendment proposal in North Carolina. There's activism happening
in the state of Georgia. There's a petition initiative drive
for a Florida version of a green amendment advancing in Florida.
There's an Iowa green amendment proposal. And in a lot
(20:16):
of these states, you know, there is a great focus,
for example, in Michigan and North Carolina. There's a great
focus in Kentucky in making sure that when the amendment
is first proposed that there is bipartisan sponsorship of them.
So we're having, you know, both sides of the political
(20:39):
isle coming together in the proposal of this constitutional entitlement
of the people right from the get go. And it's
really a beautiful thing. And I you know, and I'm
sometimes there are requests for the more conservative side of
the aisle to make language modifications, and when I look
at those language modifications, they are in no way, shape
(20:59):
or form seating to undermine the values are the power
of the amendment. They're actually seeking to offer clarity or
even add additional elements, like I just recently saw a
proposal from the more conservative side of the aisle to
add protection of coastal landscapes, you know, because that was
something important to that particular state, and people will see
(21:20):
that coming forth in the near future. But it's really
this is definitely not a part of an issue, and
I think that's being borne out by how the movement
is advancing and growing.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
That's a very encouraging thing to hear. Fascinating conversation. Let's
take a quick commercial break. We're going to be right
back now. Let's get back to the discussion with the
founder of the Green Amendments movement, Maya van Rossaman. We're
talking about the importance of activism on behalf of environmental
(21:52):
rights and regulation. Maya. Here in Oregon where I live,
the Oregon Green Amendment is under consideration under a rally
in the Senate hearing recently. How did it go?
Speaker 2 (22:03):
It was a beautiful thing. So in Oregon, the Green
Amendment is called the Oregon Right to a Healthy Environment.
It's being advanced primarily by Senator Golden and Representative Gamba
and by a great coalition called OSARAH, the Oregon Coalition
for the Environmental Rights Amendment. I think it's called, and
which I am a part, so so I have that
(22:24):
in my brain and it's you know, the hearing was
really incredible. We had there were so many people turning
out to testify in support of the amendment that they
had to have an overflow room and testifiers had to
be brought from the overflow room into the main room.
And then afterwards there was a great gathering, a great
(22:45):
rally outside of the Capitol building where people of all ages, races, backgrounds,
and interests came to speak in support of the amendment.
And I'll tell you the handful of folks that spoke
against the amendment, either we're putting forth total you know,
misrepresentations of what the amendment is or what the amendment does,
(23:09):
or putting forth species arguments that simply aren't aren't born.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Out, which we could talk about, well, for instance, what
kinds of what kind of misdirection are you hearing from
the other from the opposition when you're talking about it
green Amendment.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Oh, you're so kind, right, you and I are being
so kind with our words misdirection, mischaracterizations. Sometimes it's that,
and sometimes it's out and outlies. But here are the
kinds of things that we hear overall, including what we
you know, what we heard at the hearing in Oregon.
One is that it's going that that passage of this
amendment is going to result in a an onslaught of
(23:51):
frivolous litigation. Right frivolous litigation is litigation that does not
have right sound grounding and factor law. And if it's
brought for before a court, they you know, they get
tossed out because it's frivolous. It doesn't have the kind
of foundation it needs to be to pursue. Frivolous litigation
simply doesn't happen in the constitutional Green Amendment context. We
(24:14):
have not seen a single frivolous lawsuit brought or dismissed
in Pennsylvania, Montana, or New York period. And number two,
you know there there are prohibitions on frivolous litigation that
exists for lawyers. You know, writ large, if a lawyer
pursues or files a frivolous lawsuit, they can be subject
(24:35):
to sanctions, the reputation is damaged. They could even lose
their their license. So frivolous lawsuits, particularly in the constitutional context,
you know, writ large, is not really a thing. But
it's not happened at all in the Green Amendment context.
And yet, no matter how many times I prove that point,
that is a talking point the opposition comes up with
(24:57):
because it's easy to say. The other thing that we
heard was that this amendment is going to result in
lawsuits against farmers or developers to stop their particular projects.
That's not how a green amendment works. It's a constitutional entitlement.
The Green Amendment is about holding government accountable to protect
the environmental rights of the people and ensure natural resources
(25:19):
protection that advances through the generations. So when there are
whether it's advocacy challenges or legal challenges, those challenges are
against government action. You do not see legal challenges against
you know, neighbor against neighbor, or neighbor against farmer. It's
(25:40):
simply not how the constitution works. An interesting one I
do have to say this that I hear We did
not hear it in this particular hearing, but I hear
it a lot from the opposition, which is that a
green amendment is undemocratic, which of course to which I respond,
there is nothing more democratic than are you saying our
(26:01):
constitutional right, right and opportunity for the for we the
people to amend our constitution using the constitutional process to
ensure protection of inalienable human rights. So you don't get
more democratic than that.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Well, the grassroots movement that you described, O, Sarah, the
Oregon Coalition for Environmental Rights Amendment played this important role
in moving the bill forward. How do you see that
as a model for other states to catalyze activism on
behalf of the environment.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
I mean, the truth is, this is how it happens,
how the green Amendment movement happens in every state.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
It's really a combination of grassroots activism and organizing and
education and movement building and legislative champions that believe in
the power and importance of constitutional environmental rights protection and
the bringing together of the two. Right that we do
not have the grassroots activists and our legislative champions operating
(27:03):
in separate silos. That they are connecting as appropriate. So
for example, if there is going to be a proposed
language change by a legislative champion, you know, across the
board in the states where I'm working, something I'm very
very clear with the legislative champions, you have to bring
it back to the group, bring it back to the
you know, to come have a conversation with me and
(27:25):
our grassroots activists. Let's talk about that modification. What does
it mean for the strength and the interpretation and the
application of the amendment. Is it a total undermining and unraveling.
Is it a strengthening? Is it sort of benign? And
we have that conversation. The only times we'd have problems
is if we have a legislative champion that sort of
(27:47):
goes off on their own and does their own thing
without checking back or our grassroots activists to that. But
you know, I think that the way I have approached
my Green Amendment movement is to be very very clear,
this is a collaborative effort, and we need collaboration amongst
communities and environmental and grassroots and environmental justice and social
(28:10):
justice organizations, and we need collaboration amongst our legislative champions,
and the two have to come together and collaborate with
one another. The only time we have problems is when, again,
you know, people are not coming back checking in and
just sort of going off and doing their own thing.
But in every state, it is always the where we
(28:33):
have the greatest success is where we have you know,
both of these these entities. Sometimes it starts with the legislators,
you know, like Senator Golden and I worked on the
Oregon Green Amendment several years ago, but it was when
the Osarah Coalition came together that it got real power,
strength and movement. Sometimes, and this happens across the board,
(28:54):
and sometimes in other states, it's the grassroots activists that
start the call for a green amendment, like that's what
we're seeing, for example in Michigan, and you know what
we saw have seen in North Carolina. And then the
legislative champions get inspired and they come on board. So
so let me.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
You were very kind to come on and tell us
about your attendance and observations at the Hell versus Montana
court case, which was a historic win in the first
under a green amendment.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
No, no, no, it was not.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
I'm sorry it was it.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
It was not the first victory under a green amendment.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
I thought it was.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
No. No, we have had you know, the there have
been multiple victories in Pennsylvania, in Montana. You know, now
we're starting to see things happening in New York where
it's very fresh. But there have been multiple victories utilizing
green Amendment language to secure important constitutional protections, Like in
(29:54):
twenty thirteen, the whole founding of the Green Amendment movement
was my in my ro it is a Delaware river
keeper utilizing Pennsylvania's Green Amendment to challenge and defeat a
devastatingly pro fossil fuel fracking law that was going to
have devastating consequences. What was so important about the Healthy
(30:14):
Montana case was this was the first case in the
in the purely climate context, right, So we had the
fuel victory, but this was the amendment where our Children's
Trust came forth and said the right to a clean
and healthful environment includes the right to a safe and
stable climate, and was victorious improving that point and then
(30:36):
challenging government action that would unravel and undermine that.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Oh that's great, thank you for the clarification. So that's
the question, though, is what has happened in Montana.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
As a result, you know, So I we're starting to
we're seeing that play out. I mean, the Healthy Montana victory.
After I attended that trial, right, the case got appealed
and it had to go all the way up to
the Supreme Court. So I think at this point we're
probably less than a year out. We have seen some
(31:06):
on the anti environment conservative side say, see, you know this,
we shouldn't have this amendment, but we have not actually seen,
you know, a rollback of the Amendment. What I don't
know what it's going to take time to bear out
is in fact, how this clarification, this interpretation and application
of the right to a clean and healthful environment starts
(31:30):
to play out in government decision making, because that's the
goal of the amendment. Right. The goal of the Amendment
is more protective decisions in the first instance by our
government officials. Litigation is the last step, and it doesn't
happen all that often. But we can see, I mean,
I can tell you in other states we are seeing
(31:50):
legislation advanced, like in Pennsylvania with regards to forever chemicals
in New York more recently in the fossil fuel climate context,
we've seen at the local level in terms of natural
open space protection, we have seen government officials rely on
(32:11):
the Amendment to advance protective legislation, regulations, or decision outcomes,
like in the case of protecting a piece of natural
open space that would have devastated a critical old growth
forest in a community. The amendment was a core to
(32:32):
saying yes to ensuring the protection of that open space
versus its decimation for an unnecessary development project.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
I'm curious what gives you hope right now amidst all
of these federal rollbacks, the changing climate, which is so
starkly obvious. Now, where are you seeing the seeds of
a reinvigorated environmental movement after all of that has happened?
You know?
Speaker 2 (32:57):
For me, I just see how many people are turning
out to become part of the green Amendment movement. I
mean the calls I'm getting from activists, from community members,
from legislators, from just individuals who say, you know, I
heard this great conversation you had with Mitch on Earth
nine one one. How do I become involved in my state?
(33:19):
I mean, that's what's happening. It's happened in multiple states.
It's happening right now in Georgia. In Georgia, there's one
guy who said, Man, I read your book, Maya, I
heard you know, and then I followed up and heard
you on a podcast. How do we make this happen
in Georgia, and he's going like gangbusters, you know, doing
that work, and we see that happening in state after state.
(33:40):
In fact, my biggest, you know, my biggest problem, which
is a problem for environmentalists across the board, is getting
the resources necessary to make sure that I can fully
respond to every request for assistance that that's coming my way.
The truth is I do fully respond to every request
(34:00):
for assistance, but it sure would be helpful if there
were more resources to accomplish that.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
Well, let me that's a great way to finish this
conversation is how do listeners get involved both with the
Green Amendments movement and in their local states. What's your advice?
Speaker 2 (34:15):
Yeah, so, if you go to www dot Green Amendment
dot org, there is a page for active States. If
you go you if there's something happening in your state,
you can click on there and you will be taken
either to a full website or a page that lets
you know what's happening, okay, or to that active states page.
(34:36):
And you don't see your state there, but you want
to become involved, then literally give me a phone call
or send me an email and I'll start to work
with you to figure out how to get involved, you know,
and people Involvement means a lot of different things for
different people. Sometimes it is just making that donation, which
is critically important. Sometimes it's writing, you know, a letter
(34:59):
or a letter to the editor. Sometimes it's coming out
to that hearing when it's happening, or it's joining the
weekly strategy discussions that are happening in many states, you know,
joining myself, joining you know, other activists in that state
to talk through education, organizing strategy. But there's a place
(35:21):
in a space for everyone. It's just a matter of
what's happening in your state now. If the Green Amendment
movement's not your thing, and I will tell you, you know,
the Green Amendment movement, in my experience, I've been an
environmental activists and attorney for over thirty years, this is
the most powerful, transformational, successful movement in terms of really
(35:42):
changing the landscape, in terms of securing meaningful environmental protection
that has happened in this nation since you know, the seventies,
when we had passage of the iconic laws like NIPA,
Clean Water, Clean Air Act, all of which are being
rolled back now. A Green amendment a constitutional entitlement does
not get rolled back as easily as a piece of legislation,
(36:03):
which makes it even more transformational. But if it's not
your thing, right, but you want to get involved in
environmental activism, truly, truly, it's a matter of you do
a Google search, find your local environmental organization and see
what they're doing, and start to get involved. Find the
organization working on the kind of environmental issue you care about, water, air, plants, animals,
(36:27):
right ecosystems, and then just dive in, you know, dive
in with that organization and start to work with them,
and you will, you know, embark on your environmental journey
that will take you to beautiful places wherever you.
Speaker 1 (36:42):
End up and exercise our democratic muscle, which we really need.
May I hope we get the phones ringing off the
hook for you. Thanks so much for your time today.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Thank you, Mitch. I appreciate you so so much.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
You've been listening to my conversation with Maya Van Rossum,
founder of the Green Amendments Movement and a nationwide advocate
for environmental protection and preservation. You can find more about
Maya and join the movement at for the Generations dot org.
For the generations is all one word, no space, no
dash for the generations dot org. You know, it's a
(37:22):
very strange time in the United States. In late twenty
twenty four, the Pew Research Center found that sixty four
percent of Americans already reported that their community is adversely
impacted by climate change, and sixty nine percent of respondents
to the same poll said that business is not doing
enough to reduce their environmental impact. Yet in the first
few months of twenty twenty five, after an historically narrow
(37:46):
election victory, the Trump administration has gutted environmental protections along
with much else, and is attempting to make climate related
language and investments not quite illegal, but certainly a lot
less attractive to pursue. So right now today, in this
eleventh hour, as we pass the precipice of one point
five degrees celsius warming, we need to be talking a
(38:08):
lot more. Pew also found that eighty eight percent of
Democrats and seventy three percent of Republicans expressed frustration with
the level of political disagreement over climate change. The only
small d Democratic response to this is, again, more conversation.
We need to be talking as a society, as a nation,
a vibrant polity is fueled by discussion, not existential attacks
(38:31):
on any outpost of climate awareness, and Maya's campaign to
bring environmental rights to state and federal constitutions is an
important opportunity for the states in particular to carve out
a new path to do what we mean when we
talk about the States being fifty laboratories of democracy. They
can use green amendments, even just the discussion about them,
(38:52):
to open a dialogue about climate change, the state of nature,
and the rights of future generations to a clean environment.
Regardless of side of this debate you're on, agreeing to
talk is better than demanding the other side shut up.
As Maya suggested, now is the time for citizens, legislators,
and state governments to speak up to offer ways to
(39:13):
change the trajectory of global warming, and we can connect.
We can reduce the frequency and severity of wildfire and
drought over the long term by taking action today. Maya's
not kidding. If you call her, she will help organize
a green amendment effort in your state, if it's not
already one of the twenty states like Oregon that have
floated a bill to provide environmental rights that will help
(39:35):
future generations. Visit forthgenerations dot org to learn more and
take action. Let's start this conversation across the no man's
land that has become American politics, particularly American climate politics.
And would you take a moment to share this episode
of Sustainability in your Ear with a friend right now,
to start a discussion with them. We've got more than
(39:56):
five hundred shows to share with your friends, and so
there's something to talk about with almost anybody. Writing a
review on your favorite podcast platform will help your neighbors
find us. Folks, you are the amplifiers that can spread
more ideas to create less waste. So please tell your friends, family, coworkers,
the people you meet on the street that they can
find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible or whatever
(40:17):
purveyor of podcast goodness they prefer. Thank you, folks for
your support. I'm Metracliffe. This is Sustainability in Your Ear
and we will be back with another innovator interview soon.
In the meantime, take care of yourself, take care of
one another, and let's all take care of this beautiful
planet of ours. Have a green day.
Hello, good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you
are on this beautiful planet of ours, Welcome to Sustainability
in your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating
the transition to a sustainable carbon neutral society, and I'm
your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation of today.
As always, it will be an important one. With environmental
(00:29):
protections under attack at the federal level, a quiet but
powerful movement continues to gain momentum and states across the country.
The Green Amendments for the Generations reframes environmental protection not
as a policy debate, but as a constitutional right, and
I'm pleased to welcome back to the show. Maya Van
Rossen a veteran environmental activist, attorney and the founder of
(00:51):
the Green Amendments for the Generation's movement. For over a decade,
Maya has championed the idea that clean air, clean water,
a safe climate, and healthy ecosystems should be recognized as
inalienable rights on par with free speech, property, and due process.
Her work has led to constitutional green amendments passing in Pennsylvania, Montana,
(01:12):
and New York, with twenty more states actively considering similar proposals.
In today's conversation, we're going to explore the growing momentum
behind the Oregon Right to a Healthy Environment Amendment, also
known as SJAR twenty eight, which included Maya's attendance at
a recent rally at the state capitol, and I want
to learn what it reveals about the future of grassroots
(01:33):
environmental advocacy that that continues under the Trump administration. We're
also going to dig into the broader implications of state
level constitutional protections, how communities can fight back against environmental injustice,
and the suppression of climate legislation by the federal government.
All of this during these politically regressive times. We want
to know what it takes and what it truly means
(01:55):
to build a lasting environmental legacy for future generations. You
can learn more about Maya's work and the national movement
at for the Generations dot org. For the Generations is
all one word, no space, no dash, for the Generations
dot org. We'll get to the conversation right after a
quick commercial break. Welcome back to the show, Maya. How
(02:21):
you doing well?
Speaker 2 (02:24):
How I'm doing is an interesting question, but I'm really
happy to be back on the show.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
Thank you. I appreciate it, and I know that feeling
it's a very strange time. Let's start with a little
bit of history to set the stage for this conversation
about the need for states to step in regarding environmental regulation.
Three states of past Green Amendment. What lessons have you
learned from those victories that you're applying in other states today?
Speaker 2 (02:48):
So the lessons are twofold. First, and I think most
important is that giving people a constitutional right to a clean,
safe and healthy environment is meaningful and important because there
are many places and spaces where are environmental laws, if
applied exactly as written, are resulting in really in some cases,
(03:12):
devastating harm for people where they're drinking water contaminated with
serious contaminants, having health consequences, where they're breathing air that's
causing asthma attacks on heart attacks and contributing to ADHD
and Alzheimer's. Right, where we've got soils that are contaminated
with dangerous toxins that are having implications for groundwater and
(03:34):
food growth, and much much more. Right, so we know
that when the laws are implemented exactly as written, often
they're protective and beneficial, and all too often they are not,
and so ensuring people have this overarching right to a clean,
safe and healthy environment that they can turn to in
(03:57):
order to the way I view it, in order to
empower their government officials to put in place appropriate level
protections is good and valuable, and it is working as design.
We don't have people overreaching, bringing frivolous lawsuits and frivolous claims.
We have people turning to the Constitution and government officials
(04:18):
turning to the Constitution when it's appropriate and meaningful. The
second lesson really just reaffirms me, you know, my early
and initial analysis on the most beneficial Green Amendment language
and criteria. So when we look, for example, at Pennsylvania, Montana,
(04:39):
and the State of New York, none of the three
of them specifically reference climate as an entitlement right a
safe and stable climate as an entitlement of the people.
And so as a result, when Our Children's Trust bought
that we're wonderfully successful held the Montana case defending the
right of youth to a safe climate system. They had
(05:01):
to spend about half of their trial time proving that
a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment included
the right to a safe and stable climate system.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
You know.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
And so by explicitly including the term climate right, we
negate the need to spend all that time, money, and
resources on proving that point right. And the same thing
has happened in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in ongoing litigation
right now, also involving issues that include the climate. So
it's value added to specifically mention climate in green amendment proposals.
(05:37):
It's value added to specifically mention that these amendments are
what we call self executing, meaning that they have legal
life and enforceability just in their own right. The right
to clean water is enforceable in its own right, even
if the laws as written or applied, you know, don't
ensure the protection of that right. So again, and it's
(06:00):
just overarching. It's a validation for the criteria that I
initially identified and the importance of being really clear about
what a clean, safe and healthy environment includes in terms
of a constitutional right.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
So one of the things that I want to dig
into a little bit is most rights are related to
what we can do and what we have access to.
You also call for thriving ecosystems in biodiversity, which is
a little bit abstract from the individual. Why is it
important for us to factor that in.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
Well, I mean, you know, healthy ecosystems contribute to the
quality of lives of people in many many ways. For example,
a thriving and health healthy forest ecosystem or wetland's ecosystem
helps ensure good quality water, helps protect people from flooding
and flood damages, and so and just contributes to our
(06:50):
quality of life, contributes to the health, the ensures a
healthful environment that contributes to clean there and psychological and
educational benefits from the environment. So it is important that
we are holistic in the environmental protection that we secure
(07:12):
through our constitutional entitlement, because every facet of a healthy
environment or a degraded environment has direct implications on people.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
So what you're saying is that this is analogous to
the pursuit of happiness. Happiness being an abstraction a biodiverse,
vibrant ecosystem is Oh, I see.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
You're you know, you're really talking about the terminology what
you know, sort of well, but I would you know.
The truth is, you know, you're raising the question about
a thriving ecosystem that that is somehow subjective terminology. But
the truth is there is science that helps inform what
is considered a thriving ecosystem, a self susceeing the ecosystem,
(07:53):
what is healthy biodiversity. There's a lot of science that
helps inform that definition and interpretation. And also I'll just
let you know, right you know, while you're raising questions
right now, you know, diving into what does it mean
to have a thriving ecosystem, the opposition uses that exact
same point to say, well, clean water, clean air, that's
(08:17):
very subjective, what does that mean? And so you know,
the truth is it. You know, for people who really
appreciate and embrace the values and importance of a clean,
safe and healthy environment, understand that these terms are one
informed by science, but two are also in the first instance,
across the board going to be informed by the same
(08:39):
democratic process that informs what it means to be free
from an unreasonable search or seizure. That term unreasonable, the
term thriving ecosystems, the term clean water in the first instance,
are all defined by the legislative process, the regulatory process.
They're then informed about by how the executive branch interprets
(09:01):
and applies, you know, the laws that have been created
by the legislative branch, and when necessary, when people can demonstrate,
or sometimes local or state government officials can demonstrate that
the application of those definitions and those expressions through legislation
and regulation result in a problematic outcome in terms of
(09:25):
environmental rights, then the judiciary the courts get involved to say, yes,
the legislature, the executive branch, they got it right and
all is fine, or except for the people who brought
the challenge and we're not victorious. Or the judiciary says,
you know what, the legislative branch to the executive branch,
they miss the mark. They need to go back and
fix the They need to go back and reconsider and
(09:47):
fix the problem. And that's the way our democracy works
for all constitutional entitlements and terms in all Bill of
Rights provisions, same thing happened at preem amendments.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Absolutely all makes sense to me. But here's the thing.
The Trump administration, despite claiming that state should have the
ability to determine their policies regarding to abortion and other
conservative issues, is actively working to undermine state climate legislation.
Is that illegal and not just hypocritical?
Speaker 2 (10:17):
Well, right, it's going to depend how they do it. It's right,
I mean, you know, my belief is that and I
think that that other legal minds agree that the way
the Trump administration has crafted these executive orders, where for example,
he's ordering the Attorney General's office to go after, dismantle, undermine,
override all state protections when it comes to climate when
(10:40):
it comes to environmental justice, when it comes to other
related social issues. That you know, when you just look
at that executive order on its face, right, that is
not that that does not have the effect and cannot
have the effect of stripping away those protections. Now, what
we will have to see is, you know, what does
the Attorney General do with this order and how do
(11:02):
they try to implement it. But I think you know,
when it comes to environmental protection laws and when it
comes to states' rights in the United States of America,
there is a lot of respect and there for the
importance and the power of the state to ensure best
protections for communities and the environment. And I do not
(11:25):
think that these executive orders, you know, so so lightly
unravel that really, I mean, it's really an unraveling of
our entire democracy when it comes to the environment in
states rights. And I don't think that you know that
that Donald Trump is going to have the kind of
success in this arena that he imagines.
Speaker 1 (11:46):
Well, and if you pull the thread of one aspect
of democracy, you ultimately unravel the entire sweater of democracy.
And that's the thing that I find so concerning about
what we're doing. But let me let's go to the
federal level for a moment. Following the inauguration, the e
PA announced what it described as the biggest the regulatory
action in US history. What are some of the most
dangerous consequences of those rollbacks of EPA monitoring and regulation
(12:09):
of pollution and other aspects of environmental degradation.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
So, under US environmental protection law, there's always been this
healthy respect for division of labor between the federal government
and the state government. And essentially, you know, the federal
government would put in place the base level protections people
were entitled to. We the people needed when it comes
(12:35):
to water and air and ecosystems and soils and species
and you know, everything that we've been you know that
we've been talking about. And so the federal government sort
of puts in place the floor what's the bare minimum
people are entitled to in terms of environmental protection? And
then to some degree, right, the states can take up well,
(12:58):
then the states sometimes implement that federal law and implement
that base level of protection. But across the board, the
states are allowed to do better, They're allowed to go higher.
They put in place their own the standards that best
apply federal law in the context of their state, or
they pass state laws that are complementary and often more protective,
(13:24):
but they can't go below the floor. And there are
many times and spaces life with regards to wetlands protection
and certain aspects of water quality, where the states say,
you know what, the federal government's got it right, We're
just going to rely on what the federal government has
put in place. But all the way around, the stripping
(13:45):
away of that basic federal the federal protection for that
bare minimum in terms of environmental protection that people are
entitled to, has the ramification of unraveling the entire system.
If states have depended upon the federal standards that were
(14:07):
put in place entirely for pollution protection or ecosystem protection,
well then suddenly those protections are gone for that state,
and the states suddenly are going to have to scramble
to put in place the state laws to protect those
critical aspects of the environment. Also, if the states have
put in place their own state laws and you have
(14:29):
a stripping away of that federal minimum, then if you
happen to have in place in a state a legislative
body and a governor that do not understand the power
and importance of protecting our environment, for our healthy lives,
for our economies, for every aspect of our lives, then
(14:49):
what we might see is states quickly posturing themselves to
reduce their state level protections to below whatever that federal flow.
So the stripping away of the federal bare minimum has
really serious ramifications across the board for everybody nationwide when
it comes to again just being able to trust that
(15:12):
the water coming out of their faucet isn't filled with
toxins for example.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Yeah, it's the unraveling of the sweater again, just a
different facet of the same problem, which is you take
it apart, the minimum standards at the federal level, and
everybody else either follows or takes a stamp. Is there
an example of a state with a green amendment Montana
and New York, Pennsylvania pushing back and Pennsylvania pushing back
(15:39):
against what's going on now? Based on their Green Amendment.
Speaker 2 (15:44):
We haven't seen that as of this time. I think
it's still early days. You know, what we are seeing
in those states is either we're seeing local and state
governments just relying on the constitution for ensuring better protections
or community doing that. But we haven't seen the state
(16:06):
governments lieseing their language to directly head on take on
the Trump administration. And that's really not the appropriate use
of the Green Amendment language.
Speaker 1 (16:17):
In the first instance.
Speaker 2 (16:18):
The Green Amendment language is about ensuring when those state governments,
when the local governments within a Green Amendment state are
are undertaking their own governmental actions decisions, that they are
ensuring their actions and decisions comply with their constitutional obligations
and ensure the constitutional environmental rights of the people. It's
(16:41):
not about taking that state constitutional language truck and trying
to challenge what's happening at the federal level. In fact,
it's one of the reasons why we need the federal
Green Amendment.
Speaker 1 (16:53):
But isn't it absolutely we do need the federal amendment.
But isn't it also the case that if a state
sees federal protections falling below their standards, that they can
say our standards are the basis for contesting the changes
at the federal level, which they're relying on. Because we
are a federal system rather than fifty separate states working
(17:15):
in isolation.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
I think it's a little bit different than the way
the way I hear you framing it is that the
states are going to go take on the federal government
and say you're violating our constitution with your executive orders
and your actions. But really it is about when the
(17:36):
state is acting to ensure that they are implementing. So
if you have, for example, I mean, it's all a
little bit complicated right between federal law and state law.
But you know, under the Federal Clean Water Act, there's
if there's a if there is a federal project, then
(17:58):
that federal project has to comply has to get what's
called a state for a one certification. That for a
one certification requires that federal government action to comply with
standards the state has put in place. So what I
would say to you is those standards that the state
has put in place has to comply with the Federal
(18:20):
Clean Water Act standards, but also because their state level
standards would have to comply with the state's constitutional obligation
if there is a green amendment in that state, and
then when the state applies those state standards to that
federal project, they have to ensure that federal project complies
with those standards, which necessarily requires complying with the Constitution.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Right.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
So it's still about the state implementing the amendment through
its actions and activities and ensuring compliance, whether it's a
private entity or a governmental entity that has to comply
with those standards. It's not about taking those standards and
wholesale bringing litigation against Again, this unraveling of standards. It's
(19:09):
a little bit complicated, but hopefully that helps.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
It does, and of course attorney generals across the country
are banding together at the state level to do some
of these kinds of cases. But let me ask this,
with twenty states considering green amendments, are you seeing some
momentum in red states where support is continued is growing?
Speaker 2 (19:32):
We are, I mean, we're seeing you know, truthfully, I
always talk about the green amendments and environmental protections as being,
you know, a non partisan issue, and I think that
that really is being born out when we look at
the growth of the green amendment movement. We're not just
seeing green amendment proposals, and places like Hawaii and Washington,
right and Maine and Vermont, we're seeing green amendments. You know,
(19:55):
in places like Kentucky and Tennessee. We're about to see
a green amendment proposal in North Carolina. There's activism happening
in the state of Georgia. There's a petition initiative drive
for a Florida version of a green amendment advancing in Florida.
There's an Iowa green amendment proposal. And in a lot
(20:16):
of these states, you know, there is a great focus,
for example, in Michigan and North Carolina. There's a great
focus in Kentucky in making sure that when the amendment
is first proposed that there is bipartisan sponsorship of them.
So we're having, you know, both sides of the political
(20:39):
isle coming together in the proposal of this constitutional entitlement
of the people right from the get go. And it's
really a beautiful thing. And I you know, and I'm
sometimes there are requests for the more conservative side of
the aisle to make language modifications, and when I look
at those language modifications, they are in no way, shape
(20:59):
or form seating to undermine the values are the power
of the amendment. They're actually seeking to offer clarity or
even add additional elements, like I just recently saw a
proposal from the more conservative side of the aisle to
add protection of coastal landscapes, you know, because that was
something important to that particular state, and people will see
(21:20):
that coming forth in the near future. But it's really
this is definitely not a part of an issue, and
I think that's being borne out by how the movement
is advancing and growing.
Speaker 1 (21:31):
That's a very encouraging thing to hear. Fascinating conversation. Let's
take a quick commercial break. We're going to be right
back now. Let's get back to the discussion with the
founder of the Green Amendments movement, Maya van Rossaman. We're
talking about the importance of activism on behalf of environmental
(21:52):
rights and regulation. Maya. Here in Oregon where I live,
the Oregon Green Amendment is under consideration under a rally
in the Senate hearing recently. How did it go?
Speaker 2 (22:03):
It was a beautiful thing. So in Oregon, the Green
Amendment is called the Oregon Right to a Healthy Environment.
It's being advanced primarily by Senator Golden and Representative Gamba
and by a great coalition called OSARAH, the Oregon Coalition
for the Environmental Rights Amendment. I think it's called, and
which I am a part, so so I have that
(22:24):
in my brain and it's you know, the hearing was
really incredible. We had there were so many people turning
out to testify in support of the amendment that they
had to have an overflow room and testifiers had to
be brought from the overflow room into the main room.
And then afterwards there was a great gathering, a great
(22:45):
rally outside of the Capitol building where people of all ages, races, backgrounds,
and interests came to speak in support of the amendment.
And I'll tell you the handful of folks that spoke
against the amendment, either we're putting forth total you know,
misrepresentations of what the amendment is or what the amendment does,
(23:09):
or putting forth species arguments that simply aren't aren't born.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
Out, which we could talk about, well, for instance, what
kinds of what kind of misdirection are you hearing from
the other from the opposition when you're talking about it
green Amendment.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Oh, you're so kind, right, you and I are being
so kind with our words misdirection, mischaracterizations. Sometimes it's that,
and sometimes it's out and outlies. But here are the
kinds of things that we hear overall, including what we
you know, what we heard at the hearing in Oregon.
One is that it's going that that passage of this
amendment is going to result in a an onslaught of
(23:51):
frivolous litigation. Right frivolous litigation is litigation that does not
have right sound grounding and factor law. And if it's
brought for before a court, they you know, they get
tossed out because it's frivolous. It doesn't have the kind
of foundation it needs to be to pursue. Frivolous litigation
simply doesn't happen in the constitutional Green Amendment context. We
(24:14):
have not seen a single frivolous lawsuit brought or dismissed
in Pennsylvania, Montana, or New York period. And number two,
you know there there are prohibitions on frivolous litigation that
exists for lawyers. You know, writ large, if a lawyer
pursues or files a frivolous lawsuit, they can be subject
(24:35):
to sanctions, the reputation is damaged. They could even lose
their their license. So frivolous lawsuits, particularly in the constitutional context,
you know, writ large, is not really a thing. But
it's not happened at all in the Green Amendment context.
And yet, no matter how many times I prove that point,
that is a talking point the opposition comes up with
(24:57):
because it's easy to say. The other thing that we
heard was that this amendment is going to result in
lawsuits against farmers or developers to stop their particular projects.
That's not how a green amendment works. It's a constitutional entitlement.
The Green Amendment is about holding government accountable to protect
the environmental rights of the people and ensure natural resources
(25:19):
protection that advances through the generations. So when there are
whether it's advocacy challenges or legal challenges, those challenges are
against government action. You do not see legal challenges against
you know, neighbor against neighbor, or neighbor against farmer. It's
(25:40):
simply not how the constitution works. An interesting one I
do have to say this that I hear We did
not hear it in this particular hearing, but I hear
it a lot from the opposition, which is that a
green amendment is undemocratic, which of course to which I respond,
there is nothing more democratic than are you saying our
(26:01):
constitutional right, right and opportunity for the for we the
people to amend our constitution using the constitutional process to
ensure protection of inalienable human rights. So you don't get
more democratic than that.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
Well, the grassroots movement that you described, O, Sarah, the
Oregon Coalition for Environmental Rights Amendment played this important role
in moving the bill forward. How do you see that
as a model for other states to catalyze activism on
behalf of the environment.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
I mean, the truth is, this is how it happens,
how the green Amendment movement happens in every state.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (26:40):
It's really a combination of grassroots activism and organizing and
education and movement building and legislative champions that believe in
the power and importance of constitutional environmental rights protection and
the bringing together of the two. Right that we do
not have the grassroots activists and our legislative champions operating
(27:03):
in separate silos. That they are connecting as appropriate. So
for example, if there is going to be a proposed
language change by a legislative champion, you know, across the
board in the states where I'm working, something I'm very
very clear with the legislative champions, you have to bring
it back to the group, bring it back to the
you know, to come have a conversation with me and
(27:25):
our grassroots activists. Let's talk about that modification. What does
it mean for the strength and the interpretation and the
application of the amendment. Is it a total undermining and unraveling.
Is it a strengthening? Is it sort of benign? And
we have that conversation. The only times we'd have problems
is if we have a legislative champion that sort of
(27:47):
goes off on their own and does their own thing
without checking back or our grassroots activists to that. But
you know, I think that the way I have approached
my Green Amendment movement is to be very very clear,
this is a collaborative effort, and we need collaboration amongst
communities and environmental and grassroots and environmental justice and social
(28:10):
justice organizations, and we need collaboration amongst our legislative champions,
and the two have to come together and collaborate with
one another. The only time we have problems is when, again,
you know, people are not coming back checking in and
just sort of going off and doing their own thing.
But in every state, it is always the where we
(28:33):
have the greatest success is where we have you know,
both of these these entities. Sometimes it starts with the legislators,
you know, like Senator Golden and I worked on the
Oregon Green Amendment several years ago, but it was when
the Osarah Coalition came together that it got real power,
strength and movement. Sometimes, and this happens across the board,
(28:54):
and sometimes in other states, it's the grassroots activists that
start the call for a green amendment, like that's what
we're seeing, for example in Michigan, and you know what
we saw have seen in North Carolina. And then the
legislative champions get inspired and they come on board. So
so let me.
Speaker 1 (29:14):
You were very kind to come on and tell us
about your attendance and observations at the Hell versus Montana
court case, which was a historic win in the first
under a green amendment.
Speaker 2 (29:26):
No, no, no, it was not.
Speaker 1 (29:28):
I'm sorry it was it.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
It was not the first victory under a green amendment.
Speaker 1 (29:32):
I thought it was.
Speaker 2 (29:33):
No. No, we have had you know, the there have
been multiple victories in Pennsylvania, in Montana. You know, now
we're starting to see things happening in New York where
it's very fresh. But there have been multiple victories utilizing
green Amendment language to secure important constitutional protections, Like in
(29:54):
twenty thirteen, the whole founding of the Green Amendment movement
was my in my ro it is a Delaware river
keeper utilizing Pennsylvania's Green Amendment to challenge and defeat a
devastatingly pro fossil fuel fracking law that was going to
have devastating consequences. What was so important about the Healthy
(30:14):
Montana case was this was the first case in the
in the purely climate context, right, So we had the
fuel victory, but this was the amendment where our Children's
Trust came forth and said the right to a clean
and healthful environment includes the right to a safe and
stable climate, and was victorious improving that point and then
(30:36):
challenging government action that would unravel and undermine that.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Oh that's great, thank you for the clarification. So that's
the question, though, is what has happened in Montana.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
As a result, you know, So I we're starting to
we're seeing that play out. I mean, the Healthy Montana victory.
After I attended that trial, right, the case got appealed
and it had to go all the way up to
the Supreme Court. So I think at this point we're
probably less than a year out. We have seen some
(31:06):
on the anti environment conservative side say, see, you know this,
we shouldn't have this amendment, but we have not actually seen,
you know, a rollback of the Amendment. What I don't
know what it's going to take time to bear out
is in fact, how this clarification, this interpretation and application
of the right to a clean and healthful environment starts
(31:30):
to play out in government decision making, because that's the
goal of the amendment. Right. The goal of the Amendment
is more protective decisions in the first instance by our
government officials. Litigation is the last step, and it doesn't
happen all that often. But we can see, I mean,
I can tell you in other states we are seeing
(31:50):
legislation advanced, like in Pennsylvania with regards to forever chemicals
in New York more recently in the fossil fuel climate context,
we've seen at the local level in terms of natural
open space protection, we have seen government officials rely on
(32:11):
the Amendment to advance protective legislation, regulations, or decision outcomes,
like in the case of protecting a piece of natural
open space that would have devastated a critical old growth
forest in a community. The amendment was a core to
(32:32):
saying yes to ensuring the protection of that open space
versus its decimation for an unnecessary development project.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
I'm curious what gives you hope right now amidst all
of these federal rollbacks, the changing climate, which is so
starkly obvious. Now, where are you seeing the seeds of
a reinvigorated environmental movement after all of that has happened?
You know?
Speaker 2 (32:57):
For me, I just see how many people are turning
out to become part of the green Amendment movement. I
mean the calls I'm getting from activists, from community members,
from legislators, from just individuals who say, you know, I
heard this great conversation you had with Mitch on Earth
nine one one. How do I become involved in my state?
(33:19):
I mean, that's what's happening. It's happened in multiple states.
It's happening right now in Georgia. In Georgia, there's one
guy who said, Man, I read your book, Maya, I
heard you know, and then I followed up and heard
you on a podcast. How do we make this happen
in Georgia, and he's going like gangbusters, you know, doing
that work, and we see that happening in state after state.
(33:40):
In fact, my biggest, you know, my biggest problem, which
is a problem for environmentalists across the board, is getting
the resources necessary to make sure that I can fully
respond to every request for assistance that that's coming my way.
The truth is I do fully respond to every request
(34:00):
for assistance, but it sure would be helpful if there
were more resources to accomplish that.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
Well, let me that's a great way to finish this
conversation is how do listeners get involved both with the
Green Amendments movement and in their local states. What's your advice?
Speaker 2 (34:15):
Yeah, so, if you go to www dot Green Amendment
dot org, there is a page for active States. If
you go you if there's something happening in your state,
you can click on there and you will be taken
either to a full website or a page that lets
you know what's happening, okay, or to that active states page.
(34:36):
And you don't see your state there, but you want
to become involved, then literally give me a phone call
or send me an email and I'll start to work
with you to figure out how to get involved, you know,
and people Involvement means a lot of different things for
different people. Sometimes it is just making that donation, which
is critically important. Sometimes it's writing, you know, a letter
(34:59):
or a letter to the editor. Sometimes it's coming out
to that hearing when it's happening, or it's joining the
weekly strategy discussions that are happening in many states, you know,
joining myself, joining you know, other activists in that state
to talk through education, organizing strategy. But there's a place
(35:21):
in a space for everyone. It's just a matter of
what's happening in your state now. If the Green Amendment
movement's not your thing, and I will tell you, you know,
the Green Amendment movement, in my experience, I've been an
environmental activists and attorney for over thirty years, this is
the most powerful, transformational, successful movement in terms of really
(35:42):
changing the landscape, in terms of securing meaningful environmental protection
that has happened in this nation since you know, the seventies,
when we had passage of the iconic laws like NIPA,
Clean Water, Clean Air Act, all of which are being
rolled back now. A Green amendment a constitutional entitlement does
not get rolled back as easily as a piece of legislation,
(36:03):
which makes it even more transformational. But if it's not
your thing, right, but you want to get involved in
environmental activism, truly, truly, it's a matter of you do
a Google search, find your local environmental organization and see
what they're doing, and start to get involved. Find the
organization working on the kind of environmental issue you care about, water, air, plants, animals,
(36:27):
right ecosystems, and then just dive in, you know, dive
in with that organization and start to work with them,
and you will, you know, embark on your environmental journey
that will take you to beautiful places wherever you.
Speaker 1 (36:42):
End up and exercise our democratic muscle, which we really need.
May I hope we get the phones ringing off the
hook for you. Thanks so much for your time today.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Thank you, Mitch. I appreciate you so so much.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
You've been listening to my conversation with Maya Van Rossum,
founder of the Green Amendments Movement and a nationwide advocate
for environmental protection and preservation. You can find more about
Maya and join the movement at for the Generations dot org.
For the generations is all one word, no space, no
dash for the generations dot org. You know, it's a
(37:22):
very strange time in the United States. In late twenty
twenty four, the Pew Research Center found that sixty four
percent of Americans already reported that their community is adversely
impacted by climate change, and sixty nine percent of respondents
to the same poll said that business is not doing
enough to reduce their environmental impact. Yet in the first
few months of twenty twenty five, after an historically narrow
(37:46):
election victory, the Trump administration has gutted environmental protections along
with much else, and is attempting to make climate related
language and investments not quite illegal, but certainly a lot
less attractive to pursue. So right now today, in this
eleventh hour, as we pass the precipice of one point
five degrees celsius warming, we need to be talking a
(38:08):
lot more. Pew also found that eighty eight percent of
Democrats and seventy three percent of Republicans expressed frustration with
the level of political disagreement over climate change. The only
small d Democratic response to this is, again, more conversation.
We need to be talking as a society, as a nation,
a vibrant polity is fueled by discussion, not existential attacks
(38:31):
on any outpost of climate awareness, and Maya's campaign to
bring environmental rights to state and federal constitutions is an
important opportunity for the states in particular to carve out
a new path to do what we mean when we
talk about the States being fifty laboratories of democracy. They
can use green amendments, even just the discussion about them,
(38:52):
to open a dialogue about climate change, the state of nature,
and the rights of future generations to a clean environment.
Regardless of side of this debate you're on, agreeing to
talk is better than demanding the other side shut up.
As Maya suggested, now is the time for citizens, legislators,
and state governments to speak up to offer ways to
(39:13):
change the trajectory of global warming, and we can connect.
We can reduce the frequency and severity of wildfire and
drought over the long term by taking action today. Maya's
not kidding. If you call her, she will help organize
a green amendment effort in your state, if it's not
already one of the twenty states like Oregon that have
floated a bill to provide environmental rights that will help
(39:35):
future generations. Visit forthgenerations dot org to learn more and
take action. Let's start this conversation across the no man's
land that has become American politics, particularly American climate politics.
And would you take a moment to share this episode
of Sustainability in your Ear with a friend right now,
to start a discussion with them. We've got more than
(39:56):
five hundred shows to share with your friends, and so
there's something to talk about with almost anybody. Writing a
review on your favorite podcast platform will help your neighbors
find us. Folks, you are the amplifiers that can spread
more ideas to create less waste. So please tell your friends, family, coworkers,
the people you meet on the street that they can
find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible or whatever
(40:17):
purveyor of podcast goodness they prefer. Thank you, folks for
your support. I'm Metracliffe. This is Sustainability in Your Ear
and we will be back with another innovator interview soon.
In the meantime, take care of yourself, take care of
one another, and let's all take care of this beautiful
planet of ours. Have a green day.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!