THEY KNEW

A real-life legal document that, absent the requisite love story, could be a James Grisham whodunit.

Acting as an expert witness, former government official Speth provides a background chronicle for the constitutional case called Juliana v. United States (2015), which “is no ordinary lawsuit.” The case holds that the government has known since at least the early 1960s that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide causes climate change. In almost every administration, environmental scientists and federal officials have issued relevant reports, and Congress has mulled over them, so that any protestation of ignorance (no excuse in any event) is simply not true. Moreover, in Juliana, the plaintiffs are young people who “are especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.” Some children mentioned in the case live in places such as Hawaii, where storm patterns are intensifying in strength; some have had to abandon their homes in low-lying coastal areas in the face of rising sea levels. Speth, who co-founded the National Resources Defense Council, convincingly establishes that the government knew long in advance that these eventualities were likely to occur: He recounts that Daniel Patrick Moynihan told Richard Nixon in 1969 that the trends in rising temperatures were likely to raise sea levels by 10 feet. Wedded to the fossil-fuel economy, however, several administrations simply tucked the reports into a desk drawer. Others, particularly the one headed by Donald Trump, seemingly took delight in contravening any efforts at conservation and instead opened federal lands to further extraction. Ronald Reagan’s government essentially did the same while George H.W. Bush, despite talking a good game, helped weaken international conventions so that they contained no binding targets. Not surprisingly, Barack Obama “did more than any other president to address [climate change].” Though the case was dismissed in 2020, the Juliana argument is convincing, and even if an appeal is denied, it makes for eye-opening reading.

A rousing condemnation of a system bent on short-term gain against long-term health.