How to fight climate change — one state constitution at a time | STAFF COMMENTARY - Baltimore Sun

How to fight climate change - one state constitution at a time | STAFF COMMENTARY

Maryland’s constitution covers a lot of territory. The right to a trial by jury is in there. So are the legislative and executive powers. It specifically makes clear that people have a right to participate in the legislative process, that courts can’t silence free speech, that “paupers” ought not be taxed to pay for government and, thanks to some more recent amendments, there’s even language permitting slot machines and legalizing adult use of cannabis. What it does not explicitly guarantee, however, is that future generations will not be forced to inherit a state devastated by climate change. Granted, that circumstance probably did not occur to Marylanders in 1867 when the current state constitution was adopted and society wasn’t emitting greenhouse gases anywhere close to the the scale of today. But why not now?

That question took on a new urgency recently with the surprising success of a lawsuit brought by 16 young climate activists in Montana. On Monday, Aug. 14, a Montana judge ruled that state agencies were in violation of a state constitutional provision that ensures a clean and healthful environment when they approved greater fossil fuel development without considering the climate impact. District Court Judge Kathy Seeley’s logic was sound. The evidence of the harmful effects of climate change are all around, especially this summer with its heatwaves and droughts, deadly wildfires and smoke. Burning coal, including the many tons mined in Montana, is contributing to this circumstance. The stakes are high. “Irreversible climate injuries,” was how Judge Seeley described the consequences of ignoring rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is gradually warming the planet, including Big Sky Country.

The ruling may not stand. The GOP-dominated state has its share of climate change deniers. But giving citizens the tool of a constitutional guarantee of a clean environment — and thus, the right to sue the state when it fails to back that promise — is an increasingly attractive option. Maryland doesn’t have such a legally binding assurance, although some other states, including neighboring Pennsylvania, do. Some lawmakers in the Maryland General Assembly have advocated for a “green amendment” in recent years, a movement spearheaded by the Maryland Campaign for Environmental Human Rights. But the measure hasn’t gained much traction in the State House, in part, because lawmakers were skeptical about moving environmental decisions from regulatory agencies and legislative committees to the courts.

Yet the power of the legal system may prove necessary. It’s one thing to promise greenhouse gas reductions in the future, it’s quite another to make the hard choices to bring them about today. Raising the gas tax so that motorists will be attracted to fuel-efficient cars or public transportation options? Democratic Gov. Wes Moore expressed regret over an increase of less than a nickel this year. Oh, he’s all for supporting the Red Line through Baltimore but his administration hasn’t yet indicated how they’ll pay for a public transit project that could cost billions. And there are plenty of other polluters out there, too, who can claim tougher regulations will cost them jobs. Notice how many people were horrified at the prospect of not being able to buy a gas stove when that idea was floated? How will they react to layoffs or higher prices?

We’re not suggesting a constitutional amendment would be Maryland’s full salvation on the climate front. We are just one state. And even in that context, the details matter. This would not be the be-all, end-all but simply a backstop for when the tough choices need to be made. But if lawmakers are willing to enshrine abortion rights in the constitution — assuming that, as expected, voters give their approval at the ballot box next year— it seems entirely appropriate to guarantee that every man, woman and child living in this state can, if possible, be spared the worst effects of climate change. Or is the abortion rights amendment on the ballot only to improve Democratic voter turnout in a presidential election year?

As committed as Governor Moore appears to be to taking stronger action on climate, it’s entirely possible that some day Maryland will have a governor, a Republican perhaps, who favors killing Baltimore transit projects and widening D.C. area highways. That’s just speculation, but we’ve seen it happen before.

Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.