The residents of a small island in Alaska are in danger of losing their livelihood. The winds of climate change threaten to destroy the coast of Kivalina, Alaska, and the inhabitants of the area are reacting in typical American fashion; they are filing a lawsuit.
According to The New York Times, this small island village of only 400 residents may be forced to relocate if high sea winds persist in eroding the shoreline. Historically, the coast sees an accumulation of protective sea ice during colder months to guard the shore from damaging winds. Due to increased temperatures, however, the formation of the ice has diminished, leaving the coast vulnerable to attack during the high wind season. Citing businesses like ExxonMobil as the cause for heightened temperatures, the village plans to hold 24 energy companies accountable for the cost of relocation.
Some would say these Alaskan citizens have joined their former governor in “going rogue” by bringing about such a frivolous lawsuit, but opponents should not be too surprised that this case made it to court, given our nation’s history of filing copious amounts of lawsuits blaming large corporations for endangering citizens’ lives. Take the cases of Jazlyn Bradley and Ashley Pelman for example. These two girls garnered fame back in 2002 after they filed lawsuit against McDonald’s for making them obese by failing to provide appropriate nutrition information for their unhealthy food. Although the case was ultimately thrown out because the judge ruled that it was an individual’s responsibility rather than a company’s to ensure one has proper knowledge of a healthy diet, the lawsuit created quite the stir among the fast food industry.
Despite the failure of the McDonald’s cases, lawsuits of this nature do have the power to drastically change an industry. Some liken this case against oil companies to the fight against Big Tobacco, which forced companies to dole out large sums of cash and held them accountable for the deaths and diseases associated with smoking cigarettes. If this climate suit goes the way of Joe Camel, it could signify major change for the oil industry.
Whether you are a believer in the eminent doom of global warming or a skeptic shaken by the allegations of “Climategate,” the ruling on this case could potentially have lasting effects for how our government deals with carbon emissions. A verdict in favor of the citizens of Kivalina, although unlikely considering the case was initially dismissed and is now in the appeals process, could trigger even more lawsuits and lead to new legislation targeted at reducing emissions.
Is this the best way to spark environmental change? Probably not. Certainly the oil companies themselves are not the only ones responsible for increased carbon emissions. Dozens of other companies pollute heavily by manufacturing products which run on non-renewable energies. At the same time, we as consumers continue to fuel the demand for such commodities by purchasing and using all types of products which are known to harm the environment.
However, with the exception of activist groups and some individuals who are committed to promoting long-term change in the name of preserving our planet, many are simply apathetic about environmental issues until the problem destroys their habitat as with the citizens of Kivalina. In the case of oil companies, there is too much capital invested as well as lucrative profits to be made for them to change their ways purely for humanity’s sake. It is not until a threat (usually in the form of money) shakes up the status quo and forces revolutionary change that large companies start to rethink ways they could better serve the public interest.
What options does one have when no one will listen to your message that a certain behavior is harmful? When it comes to environmental issues, acting as an army of one can prove to be quite difficult. Even if you take care to reduce your carbon footprint by practicing the three R’s whenever possible and biking to work instead of driving, there is no guarantee that your neighbor isn’t thwarting your efforts by driving a gas-guzzling, oil-leaking car from the ’60s or that large manufacturers aren’t pumping all kinds of toxins into the atmosphere.
In an ideal world, we would all be conscious and mindful to the effects our actions have on the environment and would recognize the social implications of our actions for mankind. Yet, the topic of climate change is not immune to the collective action problem nor to the tendency to seek the most profitable option. If reducing carbon emissions is deemed a must, then certain monumental changes need to be made in order to change the institutions that allow environmentally harmful actions to persist. However absurd it may seem to bring about a lawsuit because of the negative effects of bad weather, the ability for this particular case to bring about new legislation, which would force those in violation of new emission standards to be held accountable for their actions, could prove to be a major turning point and catalyst for institutional changes toward greener options.
Holly Hartung ([email protected]) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism.
