Because We Said So

wild animals must be free from violence, and big oil has to stop burning altadena

Related thoughts on injury and responsibility, as they show up in several different discussions this week.

First, the madness of the California state legislature is richly displayed in Senator Scott Wiener’s remarkable new bill that would allow people to sue the oil industry because climate change damaged their property, via “natural catastrophe, including a hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought, or, regardless of cause, a fire, flood, or explosion.”

I hope you caught that “regardless of cause” thing, there at the end. If this bill passes — it won’t, being mostly a theatrical performance, but let’s pretend — Californians will supposedly be able to sue Chevron or ExxonMobil (and so on) because a flood or fire damages their property, which implicates fossil fuel-induced climate change, regardless of the cause of the flood or fire.

1. I threw matches on your couch

2. Climate change

3. Big Oil burned your couch

On the hook: anyone who sold “fossil fuels” in California “since the year 1965,” although a lawsuit has to be brought within three years of the discovery of the damage caused by the fossil fuel’s effect on the climate.

Favorite part, and look at item #2 (click to enlarge):

I’m not a lawyer, but I have doubts about declaring in a law that you can’t question the constitutionality of the law. We had similar legal doctrines on the playground in elementary school, despite which some members of the first-grade community controversially persisted in utilizing the disallowed tag-back.

Wiener’s press release on the bill is…very special. California government knows why the recent fires were so harmful, and none of it involves California government. Sample quote from, please help me, the state senator who represents my district:

“The Eaton Fire destroyed over 9,000 structures in my District, wiping out almost the entire town of Altadena, leaving thousands of my residents calling for justice and accountability,” said Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena). “Our communities have never seen anything like this in urban Los Angeles. The reality is that climate change is here and will continue impacting communities everywhere. What makes this worse is decades ago, Big Oil knew this would be our future, but prioritized lining their own pockets at the expense of our environment and the health of our communities. The Affordable Insurance and Climate Recovery Act will hold the oil industry responsible for the damage it has inflicted, and provide relief for future communities impacted by climate disasters.”

Decades ago, Big Oil knew Altadena would burn, but they did it anyway. Case closed.

I’m also quite fond of the senator’s use of “my residents,” which sounds like she’s buying up dead souls to expand her vassalage. I pay her in grain, of course.

Second, in search of some clarity on a recent topic, today I downloaded the federal lawsuit that led to the settlement which ends most cattle ranching at Point Reyes National Seashore. It’s remarkably complicated, dragging in two federally managed areas and a laundry list of laws. The plaintiffs asked the courts to “adjudge that NPS violated the Point Reyes Act, the Organic Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and/or the Administrative Procedure Act in adopting the Record of Decision, the General Management Plan Amendment, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Point Reyes National Seashore and the Northern District of Golden Gate National Recreation Area.” It’s not easy to unpack all of that, but you can read the whole thing here if you’re both interested in the topic and an enthusiastic masochist:

Pt Reyes Lawsuit

923KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

I missed this detail yesterday, misreading the news stories: The Nature Conservancy, which is providing the cash to pay the ranchers to leave Point Reyes as part of the settlement of the lawsuit, wasn’t one of the plaintiffs. The National Park Service was sued by the Resource Renewal Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Western Watersheds Project. The plaintiffs advance many arguments, but this part caught my eye, for reasons that should be pretty clear:

16. Plaintiffs have members, staff, and supporters who live or work near, and who use and enjoy the public lands and waters of, Point Reyes National Seashore and GGNRA for recreational, conservation, educational, and/or other purposes such as hiking, wildlife viewing, photography, scientific study, swimming, and spiritual renewal. They will continue to visit the Seashore and GGNRA in the future for such purposes and to use and enjoy the natural and scenic beauty of the area. Plaintiffs, as organizations and on behalf of their staff, members, and/or supporters, have an interest in protecting and preserving the resources and public uses of these public lands, and are directly harmed by Defendant’s decisions challenged herein.

17. Defendant’s violations of law have injured and will continue to injure the aesthetic, conservation, scientific, recreational, educational, procedural, and/or other interests of Plaintiffs and their staff, members, and/or supporters. Defendant’s decision to continue and expand commercial livestock ranching harms Plaintiffs’ and their members’ use and enjoyment of Point Reyes and GGNRA. Ranching prevents them and other members of the public from accessing and enjoying parts of these public lands, and impacts adversely their activities where they do occur. These are actual, concrete injuries caused by Defendant’s violations of law, and the judicial relief sought would remedy, in whole or in part, these injuries. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and thus the requested relief is appropriate.

It’s the urban-Lululemon view of nature: I use this nature area for recreational wildlife viewing and spiritual renewal, and seeing cattle destroys my pleasure. See also the reference to the legally impermissible infliction of “unpleasant sights and sounds” on pg. 14. I was being spiritual on my nature hike, but then cows.

Related, this language appears more than once:

The National Park Service isn’t protecting the tule elk, as a wild animal, because it proposes to limit elk to the carrying capacity of the land they occupy - through “lethal control.” It’s a vision of wild animals in which they all properly die of old age, freed from predation: nature without lethality. You can’t kill wild elk, you monsters.

More to come, and I’m planning a trip to Point Reyes.

Finally, on the other end of the clarity spectrum, here’s President Trump’s new executive order on the incompatibility of transgender identity with military service: “The Armed Forces must adhere to high mental and physical health standards to ensure our military can deploy, fight, and win, including in austere conditions and without the benefit of routine medical treatment or special provisions.” The final outcome of the order is up in the air, leaving implementation and some details to the military, but the direction of movement is very clear.

I’ll have much more to say about President Trump’s executive orders as I…catch up to them, and does the man ever sleep? I’m not entirely enthused to see so much social reorganization being managed through the unilateral action of a single elected official, but Donald Trump inherited the same imperial presidency we’ve had for a while. He’s mostly rowing back a boat that was dragged downstream by the same means. So I wish he wasn’t doing all that stuff, and I’m extremely glad he’s doing all that stuff. Maybe you know what I mean.

To be continued.