Goodbye Abbey, hello intersectional environmentalism

Sarah Krakoff recently posted a critical take on Edward Abbey on Environmental Law Prof Blog. Some highlights:

Abbey’s love-letters to Utah’s red-rock country spawned generations of canyoneering backpackers, and still serve as the heart of aesthetic and political defenses of desert wilderness. Ever since, Abbey has been attacked and defended. Was he racist, misogynist, and anti-immigration? He was. His views of Black and Brown people were deplorable, and his descriptions of women were retrograde. And yet, his defenders inevitably retort, we need his irascible, cranky, and irrepressible voice today more than ever.  

But do we? I have come to (re)bury Edward Abbey, not to praise him. (Abbey died in 1989 at the age of 62; he was buried illegally on public lands.) Or more accurately, to make a pitch for putting Abbey in his place and moving on. That place should be in the context of what it means to protect those same dramatic and soul-stirring landscapes without perpetuating an alienating version of what it means to be “truly wild,” or “truly radical,” or “truly environmentalist.” The problem with re-lionizing Abbey in 2018 is not just that he was sexist, racist, and xenophobic. But also that those views were sewn into his brand of so-called radicalism. They constituted the lenses through which he saw the landscape he aimed to protect.

What Abbey saw were beautiful empty places where white men (quite specifically) could be free and wild. Their version of wilderness preservation, even supplemented by the occasional nod to the evils of growth-dependent and extraction-based economies, was oblivious to the structures that enabled their seemingly unmediated encounters with the desert. Those structures included brutal and unscrupulous campaigns to dispossess Native people of most of southeast Utah. They included the failure of post-Civil War efforts to democratize homesteading by including eligible African Americans eager to flee the South. And they included, time and again, the cultural acceptability of exploiting women, both by treating them as fungible sex toys and by relying on them to mind the homestead and raise the young’uns. Abbey’s version of radical environmentalism assumes away all of the inequalities baked into his ability to be a free man in canyon country. Abbey also managed to alienate lots of white men while he was at it. He scorned ordinary work as part of his critique of corporate and industrial interests and romanticized manual labor even while he railed against ranchers and farmers in his midst.

Public trust and public access

A while back we noted an H-Environment roundtable on Andrew Kahrl's The Land Was Ours: African American Beaches from Jim Crow to the Sunbelt South. Now Kahrl has turned his attention to the North in Free the Beaches: The Story of Ned Coll and the Battle for America’s Most Exclusive Shoreline (Yale UP, 2018), and Law & History Review has a review by Deborah Dinner. Dinner writes:

On July 4, 1974, a daring, no-holds-barred activist named Ned Coll launched an amphibian assault on an exclusive Beach Club in Madison, Connecticut. Coll’s comrades included more than fifty children from nearby Hartford’s poor, majority African-American housing projects. The children, their mothers, and staff members of Revitalization Corps, an advocacy organization dedicated to racial equality and justice for the poor, were clothed in bathing suits and armed only with laughter, songs, and excitement. Yet the affluent white parents on the beach saw the newcomers’ entry as an ambush and quickly retreated, children in tow, to their private club. The episode constituted one highlight of Coll’s campaign to win public access to the beaches along the shoreline of a state plagued by extreme wealth inequality.

A somewhat obscure common law doctrine—newly and hotly contested in the 1970s—rested at the heart of Coll’s creative protest of the Madison Beach Club. The public trust doctrine...

The California ascendancy: Explaining world leadership in environmental law and policy

[A guest book review from Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith:]

In the newest addition to the Studies in American Politics series from Princeton University Press, David Vogel in California Greenin’: How the Golden State Became an Environmental Leader (Princeton UP, 2018) asks how it is that California has had such success in protecting its environment and has become a world leader in making and implementing environmental policy and law.

Vogel sketches boldly on a large canvas:

This book describes what is in many respects a remarkable success story. It demonstrates how a state government has been able to overcome substantial obstacles and enact a wide range of regulations that have made measurable - though admittedly uneven – progress in protecting its environment and improving the quality of life of its residents. Although California has often seemed on the verge of ecological (as well as economic) catastrophe, it has proven remarkably resilient. The state’s ability to remain the most important source of environmental policy innovation in the United States over so many decades and across such a diverse range of policy areas is a significant accomplishment.  It is worth understanding why and how this particular state came to play such an important leadership role in this area, as well as the broader policy implications of such leadership [p. 6]. 

One of those implications, Vogel writes, is that the story of California’s ascendancy holds lessons for the world:

What happens in California…has a global impact.  During the 1980s, the relative stringency of California’s vehicle emissions standards was an important reason why Germany chose to support the adoption of similar standards by the European Economic Community… More recently, according to…a Nobel Prize-winning scientist from Mexico, “the rest of the global economy is looking to California, as one of the world’s largest economies, to take the lead” in addressing the risks of global climate change.  The state has come to play an increasingly active international role [p. 8, citations omitted].

When it comes to explaining how and why California has become such a successful and resilient law and policy leader Vogel focuses on three factors he considers to be interconnected in varying ways at different times in the state’s history, depending on the issues being addressed.  

One is the political mobilization of California’s citizens, most especially in the late 1960s and 1970s.  A second is the support for environmental policy initiatives provided at critical moments by least some important segments of an often divided business community.  And a third is the growth over time of the state’s capacity to design and implement programs of resource management and environmental regulation, in some cases in state agencies recognized as world leaders in the work they do [1].

This is obviously a provocative thesis and it may well keep students of the history of California environmental law and policy busy for some time to come.  But it also and immediately raises the question of why, if the story of California’s ascendancy, which on Vogel’s telling has its roots in the late nineteenth century, is so remarkable and potentially so influential, the story hasn’t been told before now.  

The answer is that the story has been told, at least in part, twice before, although Vogel chooses not to engage seriously with either prior account [2]. 

Water rights in the Mexican Supreme Court

Peter Reich recently posted an English-language abstract for his "Water Rights in the Mexican Supreme Court during the Postrevolutionary Era: 1918-1946":

This book chapter analyzes the Supreme Court of Mexico’s development of a “national waters” jurisprudence after the 1910-1920 Mexican Revolution through judicial review of amparo cases (challenges to official action). Although the Constitution of 1917 generally defined bodies of water within the country’s boundaries as property of the nation, the Court had to apply this provision to specific disputes between state or local bureaucrats and particular landholders for access control. Competition over springs, storm water, groundwater, drinking water, and infrastructure, as well as problems unique to communal resource ownership and petroleum exploitation, raised questions about how much the government could limit individual uses on behalf of the public. The author concludes that despite the dramatic ideological conflicts of the postrevolutionary period, the Supreme Court usually decided cases according to traditional property and evidence concepts regardless of political trends.

The full book chapter is in Spanish, but Reich is at work on a revised English version. We'll keep you updated.

Now published - The Tragedy of the Commons at 50: Context, Precedents, and Afterlife

Last June we held a conference at TAU Law to explore the history of commons thought: The Tragedy of the Commons at 50: Context, Precedents, and Afterlife. I'm happy to report that the papers have now been published in the latest issue of Theoretical Inquiries in Law, edited by Carol Rose and myself, available here. I'll post more on the individual articles later; in the meantime here's the table of contents (the issue also has a couple of additional unrelated articles not listed below):

The Banality of the Commons: Efficiency Arguments Against Common Ownership Before Hardin
Stuart Banner

Before the Tragedy of the Commons: Early Modern Economic Considerations of the Public Use of Natural Resources
Nathaniel Wolloch

Commons and Environmental Regulation in History: The Water Commons Beyond Property and Sovereignty Alice Ingold

Cold-War Commons: Tragedy, Critique, and the Future of the Illiberal Problem Space
Monica Eppinger

The “Commons” Discourse on Marine Fisheries Resources: Another Antecedent to Hardin’s “Tragedy”
Harry N. Scheiber

Savagery, Civilization, and Property: Theories of Societal Evolution and Commons Theory
David B. Schorr

Historicizing Elinor Ostrom: Urban Politics, International Development and Expertise in the U.S. Context (1970-1990)
Fabien Locher

Indigenous Peoples, Political Economists and the Tragedy of the Commons
Michel Morin

Commons and Cognition
Carol M. Rose

Confronting Hardin: Trends and Approaches to the Commons in Historiography
Giacomo Bonan

Give Us Back Our Tragedy: Nonrivalry in Intellectual Property Law and Policy
Oren Bracha

Re-romanticizing Commons and Community in Israeli Discourse: Social, Economic, and Political Motives
Amnon Lehavi

Garrett Hardin

Protection for polluters

“Roast Yard no. 2” in Copper Cliff (c. 1903),
providing a good idea of the damage the heap roasting inflicted on the local environment
(City of Greater Sudbury Heritage Images, Copper Cliff Museum Collection, CC0115)

Mark Kuhlberg and Scott Miller recently published "'Protection to the Sulphur-Smoke Tort-feasors': The Tragedy of Pollution in Sudbury, Ontario, the World’s Nickel Capital, 1884–1927" in the Canadian Historical Review. First, the abstract:

While there are many tales of mining companies polluting the Canadian communities in which they have operated, Sudbury’s early history stands out. It is arguably the most extreme example of an industry dictating to government how the latter dealt with the local pollution problem–in this case, sulphur dioxide emissions. The capstone achievement was the creation of an extrajudicial solution to the problem that permanently suspended the legal rights of residents seeking redress for their grievances. Moreover, the Ontario government was duplicitous in this affair–namely, by zealously luring settlers to the region in an effort to develop farming there even though it was acutely aware of the local pollution problem. Finally, this story is truly tragic because the pollution need never have happened to the extent that it did. The provincial politicians knew full well that the means existed–within a short jaunt of Sudbury no less–to mitigate the problem, but the politicians refused to force the mining firms to adopt them. Retelling Sudbury’s story thus highlights how the Ontario government’s decision to grant the mining firms practical impunity to pollute the local environment–both human and non-human–was a matter of political choice.

The article details the many legal tactics taken by the mining companies to avoid an injunction that might shut down their operations, the most extreme of which was the "extrajudicial solution" mentioned above. Said solution was one which has also reared its head in recent times - compulsory arbitration. The article explains the Ontario Act to Provide Compensation for Damage caused by Sulphur Fumes of 1921 (citations omitted):

FDR and the environment

The Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law recently published an extended review by Michael Blumm of Douglas Brinkley's Rightful Heritage: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Land of America (HarperCollins, 2016). The abstract:

Douglas Brinkley, biographer of Theodore Roosevelt and his environmental legacy, has produced a sequel on his distant cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). In a comprehensive ecobiography, Brinkley shows in some detail how committed an environmentalist FDR was, protecting federal lands, encouraging state conservation efforts, making wildlife protection a national priority, and dedicating the federal government to soil protection and forest replanting. Although FDR’s romance with federal dams undercuts the assertion somewhat, the Brinkley biography successfully shows that FDR has a legitimate claim to being the foremost of environmental American presidents.

The source of disenfranchisement for rural Americans

Slate's Issac Chotiner recently interviewed Eliza Griswold on her new book, Amity and Prosperity: One Family and the Fracturing of America (Macmillan, 2018). In the interview (and presumably the book) Griswold displays a strong historical sensibility about the legal-environmental roots of some of America's (and hence the world's) current predicament. An excerpt:

Isaac Chotiner: What is it that is “fracturing” America?

Eliza Griswold: These days we are hearing so much about this rural/urban divide. What does that really mean? What is the source of disenfranchisement for rural Americans? Much of it stems from natural resources. Rural Americans have paid for the energy appetites of urban Americans for more than a century.

I think a lot people in urban America would hear that and say, “Well, the people who are voting for candidates who are less interested in environmental protections are coming from rural America, and the people who are voting the opposite way are coming from urban America.” What do you say to that?

The urban American understanding of how regulation plays out on the ground in rural America is woefully inadequate. First of all, we don’t understand how for more than a century in many places in Appalachia, rural Americans have had their land ruined, as well as their health and their communities, in a search for the natural resources that feed urban Americans.

On top of that, if you talk to farmers, if you talk to Appalachian farmers … First of all, none of them simply farm, they have two jobs. Often that second job has to do with resources. They are either coal miners or former steelworkers. But how regulation plays out in their life on a daily basis has to do with farming, and farm regulation has driven many small farms out of business.

So, there’s this huge double standard where, if you talk to a pork farmer in Amity, he’s going to tell you that he has to pay $100 every time the vet comes out to take his shots. And that he has to fence his stream and the cows can’t go into the water. And he can’t drive his tractor across the stream either. Yet for more than a century, extractive industry has been able to come in and do whatever it wants to do. Until finally, here’s oil and gas, here are frackers who are actually paying money for mineral leases. Who are urban Americans to come in and wag a finger and say, “You don’t have the right to make any money off your land.” They don’t even understand how regulation practically works on the ground.

The legality and legitimacy of Japanese whaling - Part II

[Second and final part of a guest post by Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith - Part I is here.]

The second point to take away from Arch’s book is that when organized whaling became established in early modern Japan, under the watchful eye of domainal lords (daimyo), who could decide who had jurisdiction over particular whaling areas, or over bodies of whales either washed up on shore or brought to a particular shore for processing, regulation was a way of dealing with the local problems of particular businesses, and of their interrelationships, and of the ways those businesses could benefit the domain through fee exactions, as a kind of tax-like income for the domain. It was not about ensuring the continued availability of whale meat as a food source. Indeed, when it took hold and expanded during the Tokugawa peace, Japanese whaling was not primarily about food. It was about profit and about ensuring the continued supply of a wide range of whale products. Sutter is eloquent on this point:

Workers using windlasses to pull sheets of blubber off a whale for processing in the sheds behind.
Courtesy of the National Diet Library of Japan.

Whale meat, which today sits at the heart of Japanese claims for the (legality and legitimacy of) … whaling’s deep cultural importance, was the least of it. Arch shows that whale meat, either fresh or salted, simply did not travel well and was thus of minor dietary importance during the early modern period. But whale oil served as a vital illuminant, other whale products helped the Japanese fertilize and work their fields, and, in one of this study’s most surprising insights, we learn how whale oil was also widely used as a pesticide that allowed the Japanese to intensify rice culture [p. xi].

And, again, Arch herself is more pointed:

Before Trump

Today's "This Day in Water History" has this:

Judson Harmon, c. 1912

June 11, 1895: First day of tenure of Judson Harmon as U.S. Attorney General. “Harmon issued the most explicit statement of what became known as the American doctrine of absolute sovereignty, that “the rules, principles and precedents of international law impose no liability or obligation upon the United States,” in a case involving a claim by Mexico for damages from diverting the waters of the Rio Grande.” Or, as one source put it: “US Attorney General Judson Harmon tells Mexico that the US will ‘do whatever it pleases’ with water from the Rio Grande.”

Commentary: Even for those days, this was a pretty amazing statement.