The creation of the Environmental Court has been an uphill slog.
No question – the Climate and Environment Court is useful.
But why?
Is it because it hears important cases and brings awareness?
Or is it just a venue to blow off steam?
And a place where the Elders and wise Judges ruminate on the universe?
IMHO it’s none of the above…
But it is just a cool new tool.
A tech tool if you will.
A tool for clearing the signal from the noise…
A focus lens that allows the discovery of the Truth whatever that may be.
That’s what the Environmental Court is.
Because Truth is built up from EVIDENCE, and evidence is rarely visible with the naked eye in the public debate.
I mean the clear scientific evidence that gets obscured by the ideologies and the petty selfish politicking.
Because new evidence can get uncovered about serious pollution cases, at any time, the Environmental Court is that tool.
Or more mundane matters like the fair usage of public and private forests.
But uncovering real new evidence and discerning signal from the noise, trumps all else…
New evidence like the proper size and dismal effects of the BP spill reflect some of the work of the Environment Court.
And it is the BP oil rig explosion and the underwater oil gusher that built the Environment Court’s emerging DNA. Because this is where the Environmental Court in it’s hearings in NOLA was the very first organization to uncover the huge size of the daily oil spill as it was completely different from the then prevailing orthodox point of view of the BP oil Co and the of the Media and even of the US Coast Guard. Yet the Environmental Court shifted through many days of 24 hr work and scientific testimony hearings to be able to discern the true size of the BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
And for the Environmental Court to then share this new found damning information with the Media was a serious and well thought out decision. A Court decision that was judicial in it’s merits and fully functional for Society. And it was then that we communicated with National Public Radio and then they broke the story of the true size of the Gulf Oil spill.
That is when we scored a decisive victory. We beat back the lies coming out from British Petroleum and the US Coast Guard and the Bureau of Mining and Industry of the United States and pretty much everyone who had an interest in minimizing this disaster. As if we were able to wish away the black tar washing up in the intestines of all the dead species of marine mammals and birds washing onshore in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi. This real oil gusher news shook the world. And it was the Environment Court that did release this first in it’s quiet and thoughtful manner as befitting a wise court with lots of scientific knowledge at it’s disposal. who until then thought it was just a trickle and now knows that the Gulf Disaster is more than 5 Million barrels of oil in the fragile ecosystem.
And it’s because the Environmental Court works well with the Environmental Parliament as when it held hearings to uncover the evidence of the size of the nuclear radiation released from Fukushima in Japan and it’s then that the EC scientific body travelled to Japan and then the EP exposed the size of the Disaster and sent an Open Call to the Japanese government and to the Emperor to call a spade a spade and declare Fukushima a level 7 nuclear disaster. In lengthy private consultations the Japanese government did not agree to declare the real extent of the disaster claiming not wanting to cause panic for the people and they were to stay with their erroneous assessment of a level 5 nuclear disaster. Same like the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor melt down. Only for us this wasn’t the end of the discussion…
And because this was clearly an unfolding worldwide emergency, the Environmental Court immediately thereafter decide to break the story to the news media. And we simply decided to go public with our findings. Therefore the Environmental Parliament held a Press Conference in London and made public the ”EP Open Call” to the government of Japan that previously went unheeded. That was Monday after an agonizing weekend of soul searching, and a Monday full of the Environmental Parliament Board’s general meeting on this issue… Yet come Monday the 4th of April, in the afternoon we had all agreed and held the Press conference in our HQs Kensington – London.
Immediately two things happened. First the awareness level increased around the globe and the pressure came to bear.
The Japanese government lost it’s usual composure and reserve and instead threatened us with closure, censure and major lawsuits and all kinds of retribution, like not ever allowing us back into the country and threatening our staff there etc. And admittedly this was over the top for them too; but you can understand a bit of a knee-jerk reaction that ensued from them… having so much on their plate. And they wouldn’t budge and acknowledge anything yet. Still they were rolling merrily around the idea that a Level 5 nuclear disaster was all that Fukushima ever was. And thy went on defending this in the global Press and even inside Japan and claimed the exclusion zone was all adequate and the people beyond that immediate zone should just stay home and everything would be fine…
Yet a week later – a sea change occurred – and the Japanese Government heeded the ”Environmental Parliament Open Call” and declared Fukushima nuclear disaster a level 7 radiation event and started trickling out the evidence about radiation victims and the real size of emissions into the sea, the earth and the atmosphere. Why the sea change one wonders…
Because when this ”Japan Open Call” became public knowledge and the resultant nuclear fallout cloud was seen by the people of the Northern Hemisphere — this was perceived as a real threat to the security of other nations too. Enter the Americans, stage right. Because of course — You know we complained to anyone affected and — the first to respond where the Americans. SInce the US people are rightfully rather sensitive to the nuclear radiation issue, and since their milk supply and the food chain were affected in a very real and measurable way by the radiation particles, the public demanded explanations. And all things being equal, on that side of the Pacific – Public Health is a real concern.
Because of it the US got into the act and brought the necessary ”Force Majeur” through the power of the State Department which forced the reluctant Japanese government to accede to our reasonable suggestions. Therefore a week later after the EP ”Open Call” to the PM Kan and Emperor Akihito, they increased the nuclear disaster level to the highest — Level 7. This happened on April 11th, and before the announcement at 7pm Japan time and their Prime news time, they visited us in our morning in Brussels and told us that the Fukushima will be declared a Level 7 nuclear disaster. This is when they patched relationships with us, and made their public announcement and although this was downplayed i the news, it is truly a Big freaking deal. And it is big deal because the people now know what Fukushima is all about. Fast forward another week, and that is two weeks after our ”Environmental Parliament Open Call to the Japanese Government” and the nation agreed to close the Fukushima nuclear plant for good and to do this on a specific timetable. And most importantly, they agreed to cover it up and encapsulate it in a mountain of substances and concrete. And we know that they will do this. Albeit slowly. Because they want to do this after they remove the ”reachable” fissionable material from the storage pools and from some of the reactors. And this is really tricky to do. And then, they will encase the reactors in a sarcophagus of shorts.
So as we see without any coercion of criminality and without any recriminations and more primitive forms of Justice, the Environmental Court managed to have it’s findings validated by proper action on the ground. These two demands that were the key demands of EC, as proper science and evidence from the facts of the Fukushima nuclear explosions and from the radiation measurements on the ground demanded — were finally met. And the EC as well as the EP offered those two issues as keys to solving the disaster in their Open Call to the Japanese Kantai, the national Diet, the people of Japan, their Emperor and other national leaders, well before going public with the ”OPEN CALL.”
Diplomacy works sometimes and sometimes does not… But the truth about Peoples lives always has priority and that wisdom prevails.
That’s Leadership and that’s the real good news… but that’s not the whole story.
Now something the EP has also consistently asked for is proper timing. Because the entombment of the Fukishima Daiichi plant – entombment in silica sand, piritium, glass, boric acid and then concrete and lead – has to happen immediately. We believe that in order to stop the radiation particles release and related emissions we need to act ASAP and on a much faster and expedited timetable, than Tokyo Electric Ppwer Company has set out, for the entombment of the whole of the nuclear reactors. Of course we want this to happen after the hasty removal of the stored fissionable material and some cores – if possible. But we must hassle because we simply don’t have the time nor the appetite to absorb much more of the released radiation that is now found all over the world…
By the way — have you taken your iodine tablets?
It would be good to do so especially if you have little children. I mean give it to the children, because it protects their thyroid from cancers caused by the irradiated iodine in the atmosphere now.
Therefore the Environmental Court uncovers evidence judiciously. And that evidence as administered by the judges cautiously, it can be a very powerful medium — same as truth often tends to be.
And then the EC decides what and if it releases – and if it does so – it goes through the Parliament which adds a second layer of Executive means in order to ACT. Of course only if it seems fit to act. And the EP acts quietly at first, in accord with diplomacy and the rules of protocol and observance of the three Ps. Pride, prestige and power of national and international institutions. And we work hard at it to create awareness quietly. Quietly at first, but if this channel doesn’t work and the EP CALL is not heeded, then the ultimate power rests with the people. Then we use our own atomic weapon, and it’s what we call an ”Open Call” to the government and the people — to put the issue in perspective and the perpetrators on notice.
And mind You this is a very powerful combination, that often leads to positive outcomes without recrimination & condemnation, without animosity, and without the trivialities of a regular court, and certainly without personalizing disputes. And it rarely gets to get this far because at the highest level people are reasonable and the countries have their own institutions to deal with it.
Now that’s an evolved sense of justice… The power of suggestion. You’ll be surprised how often people want to do the right thing if asked politely.
It’s called behaviour modification and it’s done politely…
But You’ve got to have the stick too. Because if all else fails we can always call the cavalry – the Americans that is – as they will eventually do the right thing, especially if you can show it to be in their own self interest…
as the Fukushima case clearly demonstrates.
Therefore, the Environmental Court adjudicates disputes, arbitrates on agreements, formalizes interpretation of treaties, multilateral and bilateral agreements and existing laws as they apply to the Environment, Climate and the Peoples of today.
The Environment Court [EC] generally offers Justice for the Environment and the people. It will safely render it’s opinions so other courts can have a precedent and a rule setting. Because the EC can render friendly judgements or interpretations that will give the lay of the land to contesting parties. Ordinarily the Court can access about 3,500 various global laws that aren’t in the books of any particular nation, yet exist as part of the heredity of the court as a global institution. This body of law is codified and available to all as an open source registry for the Environmental agreements already in existence around the world some of them bilateral agreements and some multilateral agreements…
The EC wants to open source this knowledge so every country will have a method of dispute resolution or a name them and shame them institution that other local courts can use as a scientific council, since the EC is supported by a large scientific legal body.
What the Environment Court doesn’t do is punish states, transnational corporations or people who violate agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, which currently lacks an enforcement mechanism. And it isn’t a colonial style court centralized in a developed world location to render judgement to the natives across the globe. It is not a tribunal. Not a hanging court either. However, even this court can become such a tribunal if that would be required in a future time at a specific location and meeting the need within the United Nations Charter of Human Rights. This can be empowered by local legislation and for a specific task and issue adjudication.
Yet for the time being the Environmental Court is a simple arbitration body and an administrative court that resolves disputes over parties that both agree for the EC to mediate and it also tackles environmental transborder issues, and works over major pollution issues, over climate NGOs vs states and/or polluters issues, over communities’ rights against polluter rights, over Standing of claimants issues and vice versa, over Economic Climate Justice matters, over Management of Climate Fund outlays, over Human Rights in relation to Environment issues, over biodiversity, over fresh water access, over clean air, over food production and agriculture affected by Climate Change, over endangered habitats and species and ultimately over human health.
Yet ultimately, the wealthy countries are the main supporter of the Environmental Court as they are also the driver of climate change and recognize their responsibility. But on the other end of the spectrum, we have the poorest countries that want us to come into existence because they feel they will be the greatest beneficiaries of Climate Justice.
Therefore we think it best, if we called for restorative justice instead of anything that connotes criminality. We are not nor will ever be a criminal court. There are plenty of other courts for this. And there is plenty of legislation that covers these issues as we will see.
We are simply interested in Justice for a future fair for all, and we can do this through restorative justice and commonsense agreements like the Adaptation and Mitigation Fund, financed by 0.1 – 0.2% of the Gross Domestic Product of developed nations to assist third world and developing countries in dealing with the impacts of climate change.
Because, we could be reasonable enough to use the Environmental Court to make sure that the flow of capital gets motivated properly and oversee those that administer the capital flows justly.
And it is reasonable to assume that issues will arise over natural resources and sharing of these increasingly scarce goods. To avoid the tragedy of the Commons, we will offer interpretation of human rights issues for the Environment and a good example is the issue of Water as a human right. Now that is a brand new Human Right and we don’t yet know what it means. We can’t yet tell how local governments will interpret this.
Yet we are willing and we will examine it this October 15th in Nepal where we hold a Conference for this issue with the UN to figure out what can be legal standing for access to fresh water as a human right. Join us in Kathmandu under the Himalay glacier, the Life giver for most of Asia…. to interpret this new found human right. And join us in the struggle to found two more core human rights: The right to clean air and the right to clean food… But that’s another story. Right?
The mission of the Environmental Court includes interpretation over issues of reduced food security, the loss of water due to retreating glaciers, more frequent and intense “natural” disasters, alternating floods with droughts, an increase in malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases, many more forest fires, many issues of adjudicating disputes over river water sharing in order to avoid water wars, and also dealing with atmospheric issues, energy security issues and agriculture and aquaculture etc.
But in the age of Climate Change, where do you think the Environmental Court stands?
In the sidelines. We are non political. We aren’t even interested in ideologies. Yet we simply cannot support any doctrine except from proper science, human agreements and the Law. Therefore we observe carefully and monitor the situation fully and when we see that we can help with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to a level that will prevent global temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius, we step in and talk. We do this by simply emerging as an arbitrer of justice for the relevant agreements that the world community has arrives at and by justly allocating the tools we all have at our disposal, for mitigation and adaptation when disputes arise and the issue of Justice needs to be raised. Because only when unfettered Justice is offered to the Peoples freely, then the people can act in unison to address these ”Too Big to fail” issues like the greenhouse effect. And because we already have agreements like the Kyoto protocol that have no recourse to an administrative court when disputes arise, we validate the existence of the Environment Court by offering a helping hand.
And as you can see, this isn’t a court looking for work, or seeking to find cases, but rather a Court facing the daunting task of an overwhelming need that this emergent Environmental Court seeks to meet.
What am trying to say here is that we need you help. Can you help? Then step up and let me know…
Raise your hand, please and let me see how many of you… think this is a worthwhile endeavour.
We need help because the issues we are facing are legion. Such as the issue of the so called death of Kyoto Protocol…
Because, even though Kyoto is a voluntary agreement with many signatories — one hundred and ninety one nations to be exact — who have agreed to abide by it’s provisions, most of the 37 main Annex I industrialized countries and top CO2 emitters, now do not want to extend Kyoto. This of course is threatening it’s Life. Yet is this unprovoked action within their rights or is it a diplomatic push and a way out of reasonable obligations?
Under the Kyoto Protocol, the 37, Annex I, developed countries; committed themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse gases (GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by them, and all the other (191 – 37 = 154) member countries gave general emission reduction commitments. Of course the 37 Annex I countries, agreed to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level.
You know the rest of the story… They failed to reduce emissions. They failed Miserably… And now they want to quit on top of it… claiming Kyoto failed. Well let’s not put the buggy before the horse. If they failed to act, and they now want us to throw the baby out with the bathwater — we will not oblige.
Kyoto stands for now till a better successor agreement arises. The operative word here is BETTER. Better in quality and in managing the issues of CO2 reductions, stabilizing global temperature rises and mitigating the warming planet impacts for the bottom of the pyramid.
But the question for the Environmental Court is only this:
Can the Rich Countries abandon Kyoto because of their own failure to meet their commitments?
And can they do this, without the agreement of the other signatories…
And can they do this without a common sense agreement to succeed Kyoto
And if they do this flouting the agreed upon ”law” — where are we heading?
In essence can they default without having to pay a price?
And how can they threaten the stability of life on Earth?
Can they do that?
Why?
But the key question here is: Can they opt out of the automatic extension of Kyoto protocol legally?
The answers to all these questions are complicated but the legal question that matters to the Environmental Court is this: ”Do they have the right to opt out of the automatic Kyoto protocol extension?”
Now that’s another thing You didn’t know existed…. An automatic extension to Kyoto… Yes it exists and all 191 nations have signed on to this even though they might claim Sour Grapes now.
Because make no mistake, buried deep and central, within the agreement that gave rise to the the Kyoto Protocol — as was adopted by COP 3 on the 11th of December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and as it was opened on 16 March 1998 for signature by countries party to then FCCC — lies the provision for automatic extension of the Kyoto Protocol agreement in order to avoid any gaps if the agreement expires without a successor agreement.
How can reasonable nations ruled by the rule of Law, like Canada and Japan and Norway and even Russia… now claim they can walk away from Kyoto willy nilly, even though no successor agreement has been reached?
Methinks this is an issue of Justice.
And there are learned Justices across the globe who concur with me on this. And international lawyers too. And many intelligent nations that know they are adversely affected if we throw away the greatest product of human governance we were ever able to negotiate. What if the US didn’t sign on it. Eventually they will too. Once they see their self interest clearly. And this Kyoto thing, is definitely an issue that the Environmental Court wants to hear provided that we have the two sides agreeing to mediate their dispute. And I can tell You, this is a case we are presently working on as it turns out… But just keep it a secret for the time being. Just amongst ourselves…
That is the great usefulness of the court. The EC can and does administer these international disputes through interpretation of the existing agreements without the heavy hand of clumsy politicking and vote coercion, without the evils of repurposing foreign aid as climate aid and without using food aid as a weapon. Because those methods are curiously colonial and detrimental to real Justice, the Environmental Court wants to use Restorative Justice instead – in order to administer these issues.
All it takes is reasonable and just interpretation of the agreements and issues at hand…
And interpretation of the existing agreements and laws – some of them dating back to Commonwealth days and beyond – or simply by aggregating the voluntary commitments in early environmental treaties and inside the Kyoto, the Copenhagen and Cancun Accord, is what we are talking about. And all this represents a whole load of work and a full body of Law. So we’ve got our work cut out for us, wouldn’t you say?
Yet some issues are far more complex and more immediate without specifics written into the agreements. Take the big picture: A warming atmosphere and a warming planet… can cause death. A projected four degrees of warming will surely cause that…
Because if we want to stop warming temperature increases at two degrees Celsius, we will have to hassle. We’ll need to enforce all existing environmental agreements, reduce emissions and enact new economic and energy regimes in response. Because as it seems now, with our meager response, we’ll be getting at least four degrees of global warming. And that increase in temperatures clearly means a death sentence for agriculture and eventual human habitation to three quarters of Africa, submersion for the small island states, catastrophic change to the Arctic and tremendous disasters for all the vulnerable low lying nations like Bangladesh and Vietnam. Some maybe able to respond and some will not. That is what history teaches us. but we will not escape ourselves the worst negatives. We will experience climate Wars and migrations in our own homes… Yet, maybe we can do somethings as an Environmental Court to stem the tides. Literally to stem the tides, by reinterpreting the existing agreements and economic mitigation and adaptation commitments in light of the reality that the overriding principle for humanity now, is a two degree warming. That is the watershed point. Period.
We also need to have a rethink of our Energy Security. We should view Nuclear Energy in light of the current disaster and look elsewhere. We should not push for only market – based solutions to solving the climate crisis because this is either daft or short sighted. We need to open the discussion to the whole gamut of human governance experience. A Carbon tax, a binding rational emissions reduction for the society and the economy as a whole, a fairer development doctrine, whereby we count the emissions we export etc.
Because as we stand now, either the unregulated free markets will lead us to another crash — million times worse than the economic one — or we will regulate the markets and our economy in a balance with nature and taking account of all the hidden costs as those to the environment are at present, and we get to live with plentiful economic growth and sustainable energy.
Because we need to see the decoupling of the Environment which represents the Global Commons and Human life, and on the other hand, the Economy, which represents simply what we do to earn a living, e means of production. As it turns out, how we manage these two, can fashion our response to Climate Change and allow us to fund and built the projects necessary to protect our Life and the environment without ignoring the structural changes that have to happen in the human behaviour.
Yours,
Pano
PS:
Otherwise, it’s like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for better listening to the band playing sweet songs on a listing boat…
And yes, it’s entertaining and the music makes human misery bearable, but that not what we want. Right?
Because we are engaged in a revolution.
A small step by step revolution – but still a revolution – an evolutionary progress in Human Justice…
And we need that kind of Evolution.
For Justice is part of the human Condition and Civilization far more than anything else.
For ultimately we all live in a Just World.
PS2:
Join at the Imperial College London on May 13th at 10am
PS3:
What is…
environmental
justice?
Join us for an ep.ic
roundtable discussion!
Friday, 13th May 2011
1000-1300
Sir Alexander Fleming Building
Imperial College
Register with ep.iclondon@gmail.com
Or go to facebook @ EP.IC to find out more
A student-organised
debate to hear your opinions!
Environmental Justice
Environmental Court
Brought to you by the Environmental
Parliament Student Team
@Imperial College – EP.IC
