On Feb. 7, the Connecticut state legislature’s Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee heard testimony on S.J. 36 — a proposed constitutional amendment that would enshrine a person’s “individual right” to a “safe and stable climate.”
To achieve that end, the “green” amendment, as it is known, would grant the government considerable power to “conserve, manage, protect and maintain” the state’s natural resources. Moreover, it charges the state to “not allow, through government action or inaction, any degradation, diminution or depletion of the natural environment that is avoidable, contributes to significant or widespread environmental harm or results in an unhealthy or unsustainable environment.”
Proponents argue an amendment further solidifies the state’s environmental policies toward reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and combating climate change, while “provid[ing] a tool for people and communities to address existing and newly identified environmental issues,” according to the Connecticut Audubon Society. Opponents, meanwhile, claim its language is too vague and will ignite costly litigation toward the state, towns, and businesses, making the state less economically viable.
“There are no definitions or goals attached to the amendment’s ‘safe and stable climate’ wording, which opens the door to endless lawsuits,” said Carol Platt Liebau, president of Yankee Institute, a free market think tank in Connecticut, who opposed the proposal. “Does it therefore require the banning of all gas-powered cars? Can warring neighbors sue one another for unwanted barbecue smoke in their ‘climate’ or can people, who move next to a transfer station, sue to close it down?”
This is not the first time a similar amendment has been debated by Connecticut’s lawmakers and people. Last time, in 2023, the public hearing was the final act as the resolution died in the Environment Committee.
However, Connecticut’s discourse on exalting a new right — one “equivalent to all other inalienable rights” — is not unique. Currently, Pennsylvania, Montana, and New York have environmental rights enumerated in their state constitutions in 1971, 1972, and 2021, respectively; and there is a growing movement across the United States to adopt and/or advance “green” rights, particularly in Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico, New Jersey, Tennessee and Texas. Beyond the states, activists — like For the Generations — hope that ultimately a “green” amendment is added to the U.S. Constitution. (The organization is celebrating a “National Green Amendment Day” on July 13.)
To be sure, clean air and drinking water are certainly laudable goals, and necessary for life. There is a moral obligation to be responsible stewards for our earthly home. However, enshrining the “green” amendment into state and federal constitutions would have unintended consequences — and not for the better.
‘Going Green’ Ends in the Courts
Throughout the early 20th century, Pennsylvania had a “long and sordid history” of coal mining, oil and gas development.
To prevent further ecological damage, state representative Franklin L. Kury (D-108th) filed the Environmental Rights Amendment on the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970. The proposed amendment swiftly passed both the House and Senate chambers. A year later, when the general populace was asked whether to ratify the amendment, voters overwhelmingly approved by a four-to-one margin. Thus, Pennsylvania became the first U.S. state to adopt environmental rights into a constitution. Montana ratified its own amendment the following year.
Despite the constitutional victories nearly half-a-century prior, the national “green” amendment movement sprouted around the early 2010s — with Pennsylvania serving as its crucible.
In 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a “landmark” decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when it declared unconstitutional portions of Act 13, which expanded natural gas drilling from the Marcellus Shale reservoirs, in light of the Environmental Rights Amendment. With the ruling, David Hess — former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) — reacted that local governments had “broad authority” to create additional regulations for not only the oil and gas industry, but any that may have an environmental impact. The Rutgers Law Review stated the decision “breathed new life” into the amendment.
One of the petitioners on behalf of Robinson Township was Maya van Rossum, leader of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network: an organization dedicated to protecting the Delaware River and its tributaries.
Van Rossum has been an environment advocate for more than 30 years; however, as For the Generations describes, the Robinson Township decision inspired her to write The Green Amendment: The People’s Fight for a Clean, Safe, and Healthy Environment (2017), where she “coined and defined” the green amendment and ignited the movement to ratify similar statutes across the United States. She has been called the “Mother of the Green Amendment.”
“Clean air and a healthy environment are inherent, indefeasible rights that belong to all of us, we the people, by virtue of the fact that we are here on earth,” van Rossum has said when reflecting on her mission. “Every level of government has an obligation — a substantive obligation — to proactively protect our right to pure water, clean air and a healthy environment. These are rights that don’t just belong to the people here today, but they belong to all the future generations yet to come.”
In most cases, the courts have concurred with van Rossum.
In March 2012, the Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation — an activist group — filed a lawsuit against the state government for directing millions of dollars from oil and gas lease revenues toward the General Fund instead of appropriating those funds back to the “preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment,” per the Environmental Rights Amendment. Five years later, the state Supreme Court agreed, establishing a “broad interpretation” of the amendment. As Justice Christine Donohue wrote in the majority opinion, the state government failed to comply with the amendment “find[ing] that the constitutional language controls how the Commonwealth may dispose of any proceeds generated from the sale of its public natural resources” and the state “must at all times fulfill its role as trustee.”
Environmental amendments have also been utilized by young people, who are more prone to “climate anxiety.” If Greta Thunberg, the climate change activist, is any bellwether, the up-and-coming generation inculcated that the “house is on fire.” Indeed, some have bought into the belief that having fewer children is a valiant means to fight climate change.
This sentiment was on display in Montana when the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of 16 youths — ages 2-18 when the lawsuit was filed in 2020. The young plaintiffs sued the state lawmakers and agencies for actions that “exacerbated the harm they were feeling from climate change and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief,” according to Chief Justice Mike McGrath, who delivered the court’s opinion in Held v. Montana in 2024. The young group pled that provisions of Montana’s State Energy Policy Act and the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) violated the state’s environmental rights amendment by promoting the fossil fuel industry and increasing GHG emissions, therefore sacrificing a stable, future climate to benefit industry. Arguing that global warming is a “direct result” of GHG emissions, Chief Justice McGrath “thus affirmed” that the “Montanans’ right to a clean and healthful environment was violated” by state agencies.
New York, which passed its “green” amendment in 2021, has also had its share of environmental suits against the Seneca Meadows landfill’s expansion and the ‘Two Bridges’ construction project, which would create nearly 3,000 housing units in Manhattan. However, no substantial ruling like in the Pennsylvania and Montana courts has yet occurred.
But the U.S. judicial system relies on precedent — and the suits and decisions in states that have ratified a “green” amendment provide a window into the legal quagmire other U.S. states should brace for. As David Flemming, an energy policy expert, pointed out in RealClearEnergy, one’s “nebulous” environmental rights might clash with another’s. For instance:
“As a hypothetical but plausible scenario if the amendment is enacted, Connecticut Resident 1 might enjoy uninhibited views of landscapes and wildlife from her back porch. However, Connecticut Resident 2 could emphasize his “right to a stable climate” as a reason to import solar panels and wind turbines into that pristine landscape. At this point, it would be entirely up to the discretion (and political leanings) of the judge to rule in one resident’s favor.”
Moreover, environmental rights amendments have given the greenlight for activists to bludgeon oil and gas companies with lawsuits, claiming environmental hazards like in Bucks County, Pa. Other industries might not be far behind. The Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA), the state’s largest business organization, emphasized this trepidation, testifying, “[The Green Amendment’s] lack of clarity opens the door for actions that can deliver unintended consequences for businesses operating in Connecticut or looking to expand into Connecticut.”
Yet, even if environmental regulations become more restrictive, that does not necessarily guarantee a better quality of life overall. In fact, the outlook for a viable, affordable future is bleak.
The Economic Impact of “Green”
Connecticut’s “green” amendment — like others states — asserts that an individual is guaranteed a “safe and stable climate.” However, the proposal fails to qualify or quantify when the state will have achieved a “safe and stable” environment.
This should not be disregarded for it has massive financial and environmental implications.
Using Connecticut as an example, if a “safe and stable climate” means reducing GHG emissions and requiring that all energy come from zero carbon sources by 2040, that is already state law. The Constitution State has numerous regulations and agencies to address environmental issues, and Gov. Ned Lamont (D-Conn.) has signed several executive orders related to climate goals throughout his tenure.
Moreover, if we concur that the climate is changing, how can we possibly keep it from changing indefinitely (i.e., stable)? One only needs to look at geological history, from the dinosaurs to man, to see the environment and Earth have, and will, change. Meanwhile, as Connecticut’s governor said earlier this year, “China produces more CO2 emissions in a day than New England does in a year.” How can Connecticut, one of the smaller states in the union, combat against China and other nations polluting at an unrestrained scale?
This is not to say we should do nothing. There are ways to preserve a quality of life that also does not bind Connecticut’s residents and businesses to impossible and costly environmental ambitions that would be further propped by a “green” amendment. However, if Connecticut holds to its current trajectory related to its environmental policies, the state will be inflicting a future of energy instability and exorbitant costs on its residents and businesses.
A joint report compiled by several national and New England think tanks shows that if the region complies with its decarbonization plans, the costs will amount to $815 billion to implement green, renewable energy sources like wind and solar. As an effect, electric bills will increase to nearly $100 per year for the average family, and businesses by more than $5,000 per year.
Additionally, ISO-New England, the region’s grid, may not be able to power homes and businesses within 11 years as demand increases. This would fare worse if the region was solely reliant on wind and solar, since the New England states would have to build the equivalent of 12,000 wind turbines and 129 million solar panels to meet demand.
Beyond the financial burden, the region risks prolonged blackouts. In New England, 87% of households rely on electricity for heat during the cold winter months, whether from natural gas, heating oil, or heat pumps. For vulnerable populations — the elderly, the sick, or those relying on medical devices like dialysis machines — power outages aren’t just inconvenient; they’re life-threatening. A more unreliable grid means more fatalities, especially in the harsh winter months, as is the case in European nations.
But there are more costs. By 2030, Connecticut’s Renewable Portfolio Standard — which requires utilities to buy renewable energy credits (RECs) from renewable sources — will drive up energy prices and lead to economic stagnation if kept intact. As a Yankee Institute report emphasizes, more than $1.5 billion will be lost between income, high prices, and low sales, as well as 1,930 jobs and $337 million in real disposable income.
Connecticut’s environmental goals and energy policies are intrinsically linked. The state must also consider the well-being of its hardworking families and businesses who are already overburdened by some of the highest electricity rates in the nation. One way forward is to construct more small nuclear reactors. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear power is one of the most reliable energy sources in America and it prevents more than 470 million metric tons of carbon from being spewed into the atmosphere every year, which is equivalent to removing 100 million cars off the road. Whether the Connecticut legislature will permit more reactors remains to be seen.
But Connecticut is only a microcosm. States across America must not only consider the economic ramifications of trying to achieve vague climate goals, but the extent of the government’s trustee status to “all of the natural resources” — and how that will impact Americans’ livelihoods. The California wildfires from earlier this year are a prime example. The state’s adherence to environmental ambitions in protecting both the Delta Smelt fish and an endangered shrub prevented filling in reservoirs and improving fire safety. Coupled with a lack of efficient brush management, California’s environmental policies exacerbated the wildfires — and they did not even have a “green” amendment.
Though the wildfires could not have been prevented entirely, it would be foolish to look at California’s policies and not only reckon with the devastating loss of homes and businesses, but, more importantly, human life. After all, don’t humans matter more than fish or shrubs? These stringent environmental policies have consequences — costly ones that not only undermine Americans’ economic future and energy security, but seemingly devalue human life, while claiming to protect peoples’ future.
If implemented in Connecticut, the “green” amendment would compound the state’s strict environmental and energy policies that have burdened its struggling families and businesses, who suffer under one of the worst tax climates in the nation. Worse, the state cannot guarantee a “safe and stable climate” since it is undefined in the proposed amendment’s language.
Make no mistake: successful ratifications across the states, like Connecticut, will only garner support for a national “green” amendment in the U.S. Constitution. However, by enshrining this new “right,” we are neither protecting nor serving the public’s best interests by submitting them to endless litigation, high energy rates, economic stagnation, and energy instability; nor are we protecting the environment to the best of our ability by limiting ourselves to strictly green, renewable energy sources.
Instead, state legislatures, environmentalists, and voters can “have their cake and eat it too” by striving for innovation, inventing cleaner ways to deliver energy to our families and businesses like nuclear energy. We should want a better home for our children, grandchildren and those yet unborn — and we must take our moral obligation to be good stewards of the Earth seriously.
The “green” amendment, however, will only stifle prosperity and leave residents in the literal dark. It’s time to nip this proposal in the bud before it spreads like a weed.
