Changes in Environmental Law and Policy During the Trump Administration (Life In The Law)

Welcome to Life in the Law on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm your host, Jay Fidell. This show is changes in environmental law and policy during the Trump administration. How have those changes affected the country and Hawaii. Our guests for the show are from the William S. Richardson School of Law and Professor Richard Walgrov and Professor Lucy Brown. Welcome to the show you guys. >> Thanks very much. >> Thank you. >> Federal environmental policy is not abstract. It lands on your street. Ultimately, Hawaii's fight over various oil plants show that when Washington overrides um state clean air plans, local communities wind up absorbing the pollution, the health costs, and the legal bills. Whatever side of the dere deregulation debate you're on, the lesson is the same. Don't assume federal rules are permanent or that state protections are automatic. Track your state's implementation plans. follow the current challenges uh and hold utilities accountable when they walk back their own retirement commitments. Local vigilant matters more, not less right now. Richard, let me start with you. Are we paying attention to the environment nationally? What have the major developments been? >> Uh it's a fascinating question about whether we are paying attention and you know the who's the we certainly the the three of us on today are are doing our best to pay attention. The challenge I think for the country at large and you know challenge for lots of folks is there's so much of this sort of disruption and um unevenness in federal policy these days that it's hard to keep track of everything all at once. And so I I think maybe what you're hinting at is that some of the things that happened like this week's repeal of greenhouse gas regulations for power plants across the country, uh they don't necessarily make it into everybody's news cycle because you're folks are paying attention to the price of diesel or problems with the immigration policy or you know sort of list where the news cycle's headed on a particular day. I'm paying attention. >> Okay. Yeah, we're paying attention. Lucy, is the is the media paying attention? Well, not as much as I think any of us would like, especially on climate change. I think given all of the current distractions, the media's really dropped the ball on, uh, accurate and timely reporting of climate change issues. So, I'd like to see a lot more of it and I'm happy we're having this conversation today. >> Yeah. Good. So, um, what should the federal government do after Trump I I guess I should say app prey Trump? Uh, Richard, uh, what what what if you had control of both houses, if you had the presidency, maybe we should make you president. You're probably old enough. Um, what should the federal federal government do at Prey Trump? I think, you know, if if I was in charge and could wave a magic wand and adopt policy, of course, there'd be a number of specific policies I would aim for. But you know what? I think the federal government needs a big dose of at the moment is something that's more foundational, which is let's just get back to talking about the truth. Let's be honest brokers of the facts. Uh when we can have a shared sense of what the what the facts are on the ground, then I think we can have more robust debates about how to address them from a policy standpoint. that that would be my my wish and hope for you know a new federal government at some point is to stop lying to the American public. You know, the thing is you say uh that you if you were in charge, but the fact is that there are a lot of people in this country who just don't believe in don't believe it anymore. Uh that the Trump administration has convinced them it's not important and to some extent the media has convinced them that it's not on the list of priorities. Um and that that means that they would pretty much turn their attention to other things and maybe oppose u you know reverting uh environmental laws and policies back to the way they might have been before. What are your thoughts about the the you know the feeling in the country, the sentiment in the country about the environment? Do they get the message? >> I think if you went to a place like Flint, Michigan, where you've got kids who are being poisoned by lead in the water, uh folks are paying attention, right? And I don't think anybody's been convinced by any political rhetoric that it's okay to to poison folks in the water that we drink and and do our dishes with. Uh the question you might be asking is for those of us who are lucky enough to not be facing the crisis in this moment, are are we um are we pay do we care, right? Does does the media do the politicians, do our educational institutions, etc. uh do enough to make it make it so that we remember the reason for environmental regulation which is in a broad term um is to really protect folks public protect their health right to keep us all living the lives that that we we're we are guaranteed to live under things like the the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. uh there's a lot more work to be done there because I think you're hinting at and I I agree with you that there's been some success from this campaign of misinformation that's being waged in various sectors to distract folks from that core reality that everybody wants healthy drinking water. We want to have food to eat. We want to have air we can breathe. Uh these are not questionable things, right? Everybody wants those things. Uh and we've we've just been distracted as you put it with with a web of lies. You know, Lucy, we're coming on to Christmas now. So, we have to think of Charles Dickens uh and the Christmas Carol. We have to think of the ghost of Christmas future. So, suppose we do nothing. Suppose all of the advocacy that we can think of and the advocacy we can teach our students about just goes nowhere. What happens to the country? What happens to our individual quality of life all around the country and perhaps the world? What happens? Well, I think it's no secret that we are barreling towards a very different world. Um, in the next few generations, the UN environmental program just announced that we are quickly going to pass the goal of limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. If we don't change course within the next few years, which we're not, it's going to be a very different world. I think it's going to be one that is um defined by a lot of suffering and conflict and disarray. And it's very frustrating that we have the tools, the knowledge to change the course of this direction and yet we're our our decision makers, our leaders are refusing to do so. And I think that I I generally take a long view on this moment in time. I think it's a dark moment, especially in environmental law. But I think that is everything is temporary in a democratic system and one with checks and balances. And even our constitution uh is our supposedly most enduring foundational legal document is subject to different interpretations and changes all the time based on the makeup of the court. So, I think that right now it's really about ensuring that individuals and our communities on a grassroots level is is using their voice, is telling people what they want. Uh, I'm not convinced that what the federal government is doing right now is what the majority of Americans want. >> Um, Richard, what about the state government? You know, the state government, we should be more sensitive somehow in Hawaii, don't you think? And are we more sensitive? Are we paying attention locally? Is Governor Green doing enough? Uh how is it going here? We we have serious uh uh problems with climate change and sea level rise. Chip Fletcher over at So West, you know, talks about what would happen to Wik. It's already happening. And and you can spend millions on trying to hold the sea back and and preserve the shoreline. It's a cautionary tale for the future. What can we do? What are we doing? Is it enough? You're >> right, Lucy. Was that eight questions in one? >> You You pick the question you like best and go for it. >> Love it. Okay, I'll do that. There is no doubt that Hawaii provides uh a unique context, right? I there let me give you a very simple simple idea. I think it's true that um you know in in Hawaii folks tend to be outside and so we see the natural environment in a way that perhaps you don't always see if you're cooped up inside for for half of the year. Um, and that's reflected in a whole bunch of different ways, right? You know, I think it's embedded in some of the philosophies that have endured in Hawaii since time in memorial. I think it's embedded in our laws, right? I think one of the things that uh lawyers know about environmental law in Hawaii is it's easier to get an audience before the courts when you have a a claim that relates to environmental law. So, all that still exists in Hawaii. I don't think that any of that has been eroded with this push um that we've seen from the federal government. But that's not to say it's a panacea and there there are no mistakes being made. I am very disturbed that much of what I'm hearing and seeing from the green administration on energy policy. uh specifically with the the push to borrow billions to to invest in liqufied natural gas which is just another fossil fuel that the rationale there feels much like the Trump admissions uh Trump administration's rationale for um you know forcing power coal fired power plants to stay on the idea of futility that though this is the only choice we have which is it's just bogus it's not true um the idea that it'll save money well I the smart folks who do that sort of analys is say at the you know the University of Hawaii for example they've come out with pretty a pretty robust set of numbers that say uh liqufied natural gas won't save us any money. So that's just one of many examples where I think you're absolutely right that uh we you know we are continuing to work on these issues here in Hawaii as much as folks are working on them elsewhere and there are some there there are some instances where I don't think we're doing a much better job in the Trump administration to be brutally honest. >> Wow that's important. So, Richard, why why did you go into environmental law? That was a a firm decision. You've been doing it for a long time and something had to drive you to do that. What was it? >> We can all tell our Genesis story in a lot of different ways. Uh, the simplest answer here is that I was a I was a science student. I was studying oceanography at the University of Hawaii and my research related to climate change and I was frustrated that the scientific research wasn't making its way into the rules that we all abide by. In other words, laws and policies. And that got me thinking about, well, how could I have a bigger influence on on pushing some of this kind of the facts, the objective facts into the the decision-m sphere? And environmental law seemed like one way to do it. It's not the only way to do it. We have community community advocates. We've got great scientists. You mentioned Chip Fletcher who I think is fantastic at laying out some of the objective realities of all this. But for me that was one environmental law was one way to do it. It's one piece of the puzzle. >> Uh how about you Lucy? Why did you get into it? Was it because you took one of the classes from Richard Walro and decided that was where you wanted to go? Now he's shaking his head. No. >> No. We we just missed each other. We just missed each other when I was in law school. Um I grew up here in Hawaii. I'm from Hono now on the island of Hawaii and my family's been here for four generations. I grew up on a farm. I grew up outside every day of my life. And I also was raised in in and around Native Hawaiian culture and really believe and feel the values of kana and doing what is pono. And to me the most natural place to fulfill that responsibility is in environmental protection. So that is why I studied uh environmental law and then I was lucky enough to learn from some amazing environmental lawyers like Denise Antelini, David Foreman, Kapua Sprro and they just um you know solidified that I was in the right place for me. So suppose I register for your course, Lucy, and uh I walk into the classroom on day one. What's the curriculum like? What do you tell them about what you're going to cover in that semester? >> Well, it depends on the course, but I would say my bread and butter is environmental litigation. So before starting as a professor here, I was an honors attorney at the US Department of Justice in the Environment and Natural Resources Division for 6 years, which is recently been renamed the Energy and Natural Resources Division, which I take serious issue with. Uh needless to say, uh I I love teaching this environmental litigation class. And so I like to start the class by grounding in the fact that we are all living and existing in a place that was illegally overthrown. Um and we have a duty and a responsibility to care for this place. And one way we can do that is through exercising environmental law in a respectful way and practicing with integrity. And then I try to uh describe how exciting and fun and challenging and interesting being an environmental lawyer really is, especially if you're doing litigation, which is can be very dynamic and the facts are always incredibly complicated and and interesting. So, I like to ground my class there uh and then get into the nitty-gritty of the Clean Water Act. >> So, you're mostly on the federal side. I mean, if if you have your pres your you know, your preference on what to cover, would you cover federal or state >> in my class or in this conversation >> A and B? >> I clerked in Hawaii, so I have some foundational Hawaii knowledge, but I I practice in federal environmental law primarily, so that's more of my wheelhouse. I since joining the faculty here, it's given me a great opportunity to tap back into what is going on here in Hawaii at the state and local level and which has been really fulfilling and gratifying for me. So, it's fun sort of to bring my two worlds together, my practice experience in federal law and um apply it to sort of the state level. >> What about these cases where the attorney general of Hawaii joins other attorneys general and other states on environmental issues? Are you following that? Is it happening? >> I am following that and it is happening and I love that it's happening. Or at the very least, I know that our attorney general is challenging certain Trump administr uh Trump administration decisions like EPA's partial disapproval of the regional Hayes state implementation plan. And I think it's incredibly important for states to stand up for themselves and for their people. And I do think that um our attorney general's office is is doing a good job of that. So, Richard, suppose I snuck into the back of your class. I'd be I'd be wearing a uh team hat some kind and and and dark glasses and I'd be sitting in the last row. Now, I would ask you if I could audit the class. That's what I would do. Um, but what what what would it be like in your class? And uh what what what's your curriculum or your favorite curriculum if I if I can? you were asking early Jay if earlier Jay if um you know folks across the country are are paying attention to these issues and so I think what you'd find is that no matter what class you snuck into uh part of what we have to do is to figure out what are the issues and how do we pay better attention to them and so I I it doesn't really matter whether you came to my environmental law course which is designed for professional law students or you came to a session we do with students from the the Leeward side over the summer. Um we we start out by just trying to get get our hands on what is environmental policy in the law school. We talk about some economic theory early on. We try to understand, you know, what are the arguments that folks have used over over time to get us to where we are in their policym decisions and then eventually we make our way into doing the same thing. We'll get to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act etc. eventually. I also uh in very intentionally we we are always at Richardson trying to think about the obligation that many of our graduates have um to the place they grew up or the place that they've decided to live and where they'll work. And so we try to mirror each of those federal legal regimes with how has Hawaii navigated similar topics. Uh this is the way the federal system is supposed to work, right? Each each state is sort of a mini laboratory in making its own decisions and the differences between Hawaii's law and federal law very often teach you a lot about the the room in between to argue in favor of of one side or the other of an issue. >> Do you teach them how to deal with the media? Do you teach them h how to give testimony on a given bill one way or the other in the legislature? You do you teach them how to argue in court one way or the other on environmental issues and do you teach them to protect the environment or to protect the client? I'm sorry I keep asking you these these multi-art questions. I apologize. >> Uh yes yes yes and it depends I think is the series of answers there. So uh law students but again I think this is something we do at all levels. I used to be a high school teacher and so I you know I love connecting with younger students and I love connecting with with my colleagues who you know all of us are really just older students if we think about it. Um we we do have to think about how advocates whether they're licensed attorneys or not um make their point in in multiple contexts. And so at law school it's very easy to to fall into the trap of thinking it's just about litigating and just about going to court. That's important. That's why it's so valuable to have Lucy on the on the faculty because of her experience in that particular realm. I did a fair bit of legislative advocacy but before I joined the faculty and so I do have components of that in my course and the legislative process is not like the the process in front of a judge. It's very different and the the way you craft your arguments is very different and so I think there's value in having students think about that. At the end of the day though, you know what I think everybody needs to do who's an advocate in any context is they have to figure out how we all talk to each other and how, you know, how do we talk to the how do we talk to everyone about these issues? This none of this needs to be shrouded behind this this cloud of of jargon. We need to be able to speak about these things in plain terms because environmental law matters to people, right? It matters to me what I put into my body. my my son, I I couldn't think of a more important goal in my life to make sure that he stays healthy, you know, as long as I'm here on Earth. That's what everybody cares about. Those are universal values. And so, if we can figure out how to talk to those folks, I think judges and legislators will listen just the same. Uh we do have to advocate for clients, that's a really important part of our professional obligation. Here's the the beauty of teaching environmental law. far more often than not, our clients are invested in protecting the communities around them in the same ways that I've just described. And so there is not a a tension between protecting the environment and serving the client very often. >> How about you, Lucy? What what do you what do you want to get them to do? And do you go out into the community, Lucy, um, and talk to people? Do you talk to the kids because the kids are so impressionable? Uh, and try to get them to pay attention. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh so as I do have a litigation background so I will say I feel more comfortable sort of uh teaching in that space and in my environmental litigation seminar we do go to federal court and argue before a federal district judge a motion for summary judgement and we have smaller advocacy opportunities in class as well and I have always been passionate about making sure that the next generation that's coming up is feels empowered to use their voice not just in the context of environmental law but in general. And that has sort of been a through line since I was a law student. I helped with uh the Richardson summer law and justice program which invites high school students to basically attend law school for two weeks over the summer and it concludes in a mock trial. Uh and I'm still involved in all sorts of mock trial stuff. Uh, I really love I I love uh kind of bringing together kids and education and litigation, but I also wanted to touch on your question about, you know, the fact that we do have ethical obligations to our clients. And I at DOJ, I primarily defended federal agency decisions. So, I wasn't in the role of um uh the plaintiff or I wasn't prosecuting environmental crimes. is I was defending agency actions and I think that really gave me a different perspective um on the important and challenging role that agencies play in helping our society function. Uh so in my my sort of perspective in class is that even if you want to go into private practice, it's it's it's about having integrity and being able to counsel your clients with the best to the best of your abilities. And so it doesn't necessarily mean that you're out there doing the most environmentally protective thing at all times. It's about being honest about the law, being truthful with your client, um and giving sound advice. You know, suppose you're not supposed to hear the answer to this, Richard. I'll just This is just between Lucy and me, okay? Um, suppose the EPA or the Department of Justice approached you and tried to poach you back in, okay, into into the federal government as it exists today? Uh, what would your reaction be? What would you say to them? My reaction would be that I am a very lucky person that got to do not one but two of their dream jobs and I've entered a new chapter in my life and this is my my next dream job and I'm so grateful for that. >> That's a very diplomatic answer. Um my answer might not be exactly as as diplomatic as yours. Well, I still have friends on the inside and I just want to say I think there are still a lot of really hardworking, smart, dedicated people in the federal government and they are they are under extreme pressure and working incredibly hard to hold hold it together. >> Yeah, sure. Uh let me let me go to let me go to uh some of these energy questions. you know, um, you know, when when you talk about coal anywhere in the world, I get a rash. It it appears on my arms at first and then my whole body turns into a rash over coal. And yet we still have coal. Um, and when I, you know, hear about oil, I get a similar reaction. You know, there was this thing called the energy policy energy policy forum back in the years, you know, and it sort of went went over the side for a while. I understand that it's coming back, but I'll believe that when I see it. Um, what about that? Where is Hawaii, Richard? Um, on energy, on renewable energy, uh, and what are we going to do to, you know, get away from oil? I >> think like the entire world, where Hawaii is is in the middle of a pretty stark transition and a transition that feels fast to some folks and far too slow to other folks, but a transition nonetheless. And it's a transition away from the old way of doing things, which was you would go down, you would send folks down to the ground to, you know, spend their lungs on digging up a resource. You'd figure out how to get it above the ground. Incredible technological achievement, incredible human achievement. You'd ship it halfway around the world. You'd burn it. You'd pretend like that had no effect on anybody. And then you'd get what we all want out of the end is we you get a hot shower and a cold beer. um we're going away from that model to a model that says we can have energy solutions that are much more um they're more localized so they they're tailored to what we need in a particular place. You know, we we don't have to do a whole lot of heating here in Hawaii, but we do have to cool ourselves down quite a bit. And so our energy resources in a modern sense are more responsive to these these localized needs. And every place is going through that. That's the challenge actually. This transition is not a one-sizefits-all type of solution. and it's different in in different places. Um, so in Hawaii, we are working on that and I think that a lot of folks would say we did a great job early on at setting out targets that seemed like they were uh reasonably consistent with what an objective view of the dangers of things like climate change pose for us and the economic impacts of relying on a global energy system that is, you know, ripe for disruption the moment somebody wants to attack a country in the Middle East, for example. Um so we we are are good at setting we we've done a good job at setting our targets to get away from that. The implementation is turning out to be a little bit rocky. That's nothing new. Uh we are going through our second round now on this liqufied natural gas debate that happened during the Governor Eay administration and in in my view the sort of voice of reason came out there and said this would be an expensive boondoggle and governor Eay eventually uh rejected the proposal to use liqufied natural gas. we see the exact same proposal coming up again. And so I one other element of the sort of where are we is that we're a little bit in some senses we're stuck on a treadmill or we can't keep having debates about the same issue over and over and over again and eventually we have to figure out you know what what are the the right choices for the moment. Um it it's hard to say where it all nobody's got crystal ball. I don't know where it'll all end up, but I I have to say that the air is sucked out of the room right now on energy in Hawaii on this liqufied natural gas debate because it means a whole bunch of smart folks aren't thinking about how do we use some of our local energy resources, right? How do we use the sun here more effectively? How do we use the wind, the waves, those sorts of things that that we have that we don't have to rely upon um you know, somebody in the Middle East to send to us? It's very ironic, you know, that we have this war and and the straight of hormuz and all this and shortages, big shortages in in oil and natural gas and everything and and it raises the price and we haven't really prepared for that. We could have we could have solar energy like like Kawaii, right, has a lot of solar energy. We don't have quite as much as solar energy in Aahu and the other islands. Um we could have been independent. Uh, and I and I wonder what your thought is about the policy that could be adopted going forward to avoid being held hostage to this energy dependence when we could be because of our environment. We could be energy independent. It's ironic, but can it be fixed? >> I'm of the view on these policy questions. There's usually no such thing as an intractable problem. So, so yes, it can be fixed. Uh but it can't be fixed with a magic wand that says there's one policy that will rule them all. It you know the policy really is a thousand bricks that we build up to create a good foundation and then and folks go from there. Um you probably know Jay that back during the oil shocks of the 1970s that I think it was under Governor Aroshi's direction the state came up with a plan to wean itself off of fossil fuels because the economic implications seemed so severe at the time. uh one policy component is that we can't forget this is the the treadmill point again but I just think it's it's worth repeating one more time. We can't forget that we have seen these risks coming and we just ignored them for a while. Uh why did we ignore them? Well, we ignore them maybe out of ease, right? It's easy to keep doing the same thing as opposed to to find some way to progress in a productive way. Uh I think that there was a dose of misinformation. We have the climate lawsuits happening right now in in Hawaii and elsewhere which seek to hold industry accountable for hiding the ball in some senses. Um the allegations there that oil oil products were deceptively marketed to the public and they didn't know about some of these environmental risks to go alongside the economic risks that I just mentioned. Um so that I think that's a policy component too, accountability. And then the last policy component that that goes into all of this is I we have we have a target. We know the state has actually already decided we'd like to be energy independent. Uh at some point we have to stop asking ourselves whether that makes sense and we have to make sure that the question is really focused on how do we do it. And I I just have to say I think there are too many folks out there who still questioning whether it makes sense. And that's everybody's right to question it. Uh but as a state it's it means that we're just going to we'll be doing the status quo, right? We we're neither side of a debate that says should we use fossil fuels or not. We'll lose if we just keep saying well we're going to do nothing. We'll sit where we are today. >> Oh yeah. I so agree with you. Absolutely. You know Lucy that you know there's something happening in the in the federal system that is very troubling. It's the the pay to fasttrack phenomenon. Um if if a given uh energy producer say oil for example uh who who had been favored which had been favored by the one big beautiful bill I call it the ugly bill um you know where a a given oil company can pay uh to fasttrack permitting uh uh and um you know overtake any any objection on the environmental issues. Um this is this is very troubling and what you know what what is the law about that? Is this one big beautiful bill the law is that we have to suffer through this and let the big boys pay off the government in order to get fasttrack permitting? >> Unfortunately it is the law now. Uh, but I do want to flip flip the premise on its head a little bit and maybe view this as an opportunity for renewable energy projects to capitalize on this moment by taking advantage of the fasttrack process. Um, and I think this raises sort of an important question more generally that we are sort of entering a new phase of environmental law where we renewable energy should be the absolute priority. um to curb the effects of climate change. And so I think this prompts a bigger conversation about the level of environmental review and public participation that we want to be involved in renewable energy. I think we can all agree that more robust public participation is a net positive for good decisionm. I do think that we are sort of entering a new era of climate change where we need to think critically about how and to what extent and when we have this public participation. So I agree fundamentally that the one big ugly bill act is horrible. Um and I don't agree that NEPA review should be expedited for people who can just afford to expedite it. But I think it does open up a conversation about potential NEPA reform and how we could um make it a more efficient and effective law. >> Yeah. And Richard uh to you um the whole thing about regulation, you know, we have the federal government which is like deregulating so many policies and regulations uh in the energy field. I mean, they're really committed under Trump to deregulate everything and and to let the the big boys, the oligarchs of energy, um, take take charge. Um, how can the state avoid the effect of that here? Is there a way to avoid that here or do we have to go along with it? I'm I'm going to pull a Lucy Brown and maybe uh challenge the premise a little bit before I answer the precise question, Jay, and and say I don't believe that the push is for deregulation at large in the energy space, for example. Uh here's what I'm thinking. Well, yeah, we may see efforts like this week's effort to repeal all the greenhouse gas uh emission standards for coal power plants. Um, and we can see that as a deregulatory effort, and that's the way it was justified in the administration's proposal. Um, at the same time, you have the same administration paying a billion dollars to to make a wind farm go away. Um, that doesn't seem like der that seems like active interference by the government. This idea of we're going to have a free market and just let the market decide. That's not happening. That that is complete farce. Um, and that's just one of, you know, dozens, hundreds, thousands of examples we might go through if we had time today. So, so rather than thinking of it as deregulation, what we're what we're looking at as we're looking at at it as a way dying industries are being propped up. And how do we avoid that? How do we how do we avoid the effects of dying industries being propped up by administration that blatantly asked before this last election cycle for a billion dollars in donations so that the oil industry could be favored? How do we avoid the effects of that? Well, let's let's stop participating the oil industry market. That that's my answer to that. the the markets that are being propped up, the industries are being propped up in a way that seems like it's, you know, purely a pay-to-play exercise or at at the very least, you know, a twisting of of a view on on the potential benefits of deregulation. Uh we let's not get involved. We can make our own decisions about resources that are used here in in the state. And that's another good reason to to come up with policies that for forever more will give a little bit of home control over these questions. local resources just means we're not at at the whim of somebody in Washington DC or Tehran. >> Amen to that. Um, so what about going to the Supreme Court? You know, you know, for example, gun control, right? Hawaii had a very upstart gun control relative to the federal government um statute and and then that was bashed not too long ago. It was a it was a great approach. Um, what what about the Hawaii taking a position that effectively it knows is inconsistent with federal policy, bad federal policy today? Is that something that we can and should do? Richard, >> very often we talk to students about the evolution of the law, particularly the law as it's crafted by judges or interpreted by judges. We talk about it like it's a conversation because there isn't really just one court that does things. even when the US Supreme Court rules on an issue, that issue is that that ruling is going to be implemented by a thousand courts across the country in the future. Um, and so this conversation that happens between judges uh is is a really fascinating thing to watch and I think it's real. I think the judges listen to each other or, you know, read what the others have written. And so when you get a law in Hawaii and you get decisions perhaps of the Hawaii Supreme Court discussing things like gun control, uh, one of the audience might very well be the justice is sitting on the US Supreme Court. So I actually there is that there is value in that. The law is not static. It's designed to change. And to s to say that the Hawaii adopted a law that is inconsistent with federal law on this issue, I think would be a way of saying it's currently inconsistent at worst, but potentially actually could be the future version if you get a federal court to to to agree. Uh so yeah, I think there is whe whether the issue is gun control or environmental law or whatever whatever it might be that the whole system relies upon local decision-m is doing what's best for people here in white. >> We also yesterday we had the the the good luck of hearing from Justice McKenna. she came to the law school to celebrate state constit constitution day. Um and she talked a lot about sort of the the power in state constitutions and um to the extent possible how the Hawaii Supreme Court will rule on state constitutional grounds if if and when it can instead of federal constitutional grounds. And so we have a really strong constitution here in Hawaii and I think everyone should go read it this weekend. um and particularly on environmental issues and native Hawaiian issues. And so I think I think it's it's unquestionable that the state has the power to implement laws about the forms of energy we want on our grid. Um people are entitled to challenge those laws, but I think it's not a question whether that power exists. And I just wanted to sort of circle back a little bit about um the policy issue that we've been talking about. you know, what policies can we advance to to stand up to what the federal government is doing? And I think a key strategy is not is not only in policy, but also putting um the right people in agency positions that can understand the nuances and really push the state's agenda forward um in a meaningful way. >> Mike Wilson had retired. He reached the retirement age. He was like the environmental judge justice in the Supreme Court. And uh Mark Rectenwald was very environmental as far as I could see uh and he retired. So what do we got left on the Supreme Court uh who are committed environmentalists? Lucy, can you talk about that? >> Sure. Well, I am a a former clerk of Justice Wilson. >> Oh, okay. >> So, uh so yeah, and part of the reason why I wanted to work for him is because of, you know, his work in environmental law and background in that. But I think we still have a really strong Supreme Court that will speak to these issues. Justice Edins in particular, I think, um is will will sort of carry the the battalion on. Um yeah, I I guess that's what I have to say on that. >> Okay. Well, let's talk about the size of the department. If you consider the environmental part of uh William S. Richardson's in a department. Is it a department? And and how big is it? How many how many professors like you guys are specializing in environmental law? Richard, >> I wish the world were quite that simple. Uh but the reality is everybody on the faculty at the law school teaches in multiple areas. So for example, I teach courses on environmental law. I also teach courses on business law. Um those are, you know, two areas in which I practiced and where I think I've got something useful to teach the students. Um but the environmental law program by by the nature of being in Hawaii where environmental law has a pretty I think um serious impact on the way many issues play out even if they're not deemed to be environmental issues. Right? Real estate law is a is a big practice area for our graduates that always implicate some environmental issue. Um, so we've got um we've got three of us who sit in what we call the environmental law program suite and we, you know, we try to manage the program, give our students great opportunities to learn inside the classroom and out about these issues and prepare them for whatever job they'll have, whether it's in government or in private practice or working for public interest organizations. But then we've got other colleagues, our colleagues with Cahulia, the Native Hawaiian law program. They teach courses, for example, on water law because many of those water law issues implicate Native Hawaiian rights. Um, we we've had colleagues that teach in international law and they'll teach our students about international environmental law. Uh, our our colleague uh who teaches real property to the first year law students also has a sort of specialization in uh urban planning and sustainable urban design. And so some of those elements come up in in elective courses for students who wish to take them. So I I can't give you a number and say how many faculty are there, but I can share this number with you. We poll our students per periodically to figure out what they're interested in, what they'd like to do. And a poll of incoming students who a few years ago, uh, first year law students who, you know, didn't yet know a tort from from a contract, uh, we asked them what they're interested in and roughly half of them said they're interested in environmental law. Uh, it's a it's a draw. I think people want to study law at the Richardson School of Law in part because we we by virtue of where we're located, it's it's a field that is always interesting and dynamic and moving. >> Well, that's great to hear. Um, do they line up around the block to get into your classes, Lucy? >> Uh, yes. Um, I'm also teaching CIV Pro, so they don't have a choice in that one. They have to take my class. >> Is environmental law required as part of the curriculum? It's not. Although Justice Wilson would certainly think that climate change law and policy should be required by now. Um, yeah, I think there's a huge demand for environmental law. It's only increasing. I would say more than half of my first year students have expressed an interest in it and uh I think we have a really we have a really strong faculty not only permanent faculty but we have a ton of really exceptional adjuncts and visiting professors that that come and teach. So we're really really lucky in that regard. >> Yeah. The more attention we can pay in Hawaii the better it is. Um I recall the Kahuka wind farm years ago uh where um the developers of that wind farm went to the went to the public and said you know is it okay that we build a wind farm and everybody said oh yeah good idea let's do that you know you have our agreement our ascent we won't oppose you but then people change and the crowd that agreed somehow stopped agreeing and a year or two later uh when the wind farm got further down the permitting process all of a sudden there was the nimi thing and I think you you know we always have that and so the more people that are involved in the issue that can spread the word about the issue the better it is for Hawaii uh if we don't pay attention we get nimi that's my view sorry anyway uh I I want to offer you guys both of you an opportunity to uh give closing comments so that people watching this talk show uh can take away some some wisdom that you might give them. Lucy, let's start with you. What wisdom would you give them about everything we've discussed and more? >> That's a totally specific very narrow question. Uh the the wisdom I would give is that if we care about the place that we're living in, the air that we're breathing, the water that we're swimming in, um and the life that our children and grandchildren are going to inherit, then we need to pay attention to what's going on, not only in the state, but on the federal level. Um elect people that are honest and tell the truth about what's really going on and stand up for what your values are. Um, and get involved as much as you can, as early as you can on projects, especially renewable energy projects, so that agencies have a good sense and the developers have a good sense of what the community concerns are from inception of the project and they can try to mediate those issues before they snowball. That's what I would say, Jay. Yes. Awareness, >> community awareness. Um, Richard, what about you? What what wisdom? Can I use that word? What wisdom would you leave with our viewers today? >> I have to turn to my my colleagues and my students quite often for wisdom. I feel like there isn't much wisdom I can share, but I but maybe I can share caution a caution. The theme that you've set out for us today, Jay, is the sort of are folks paying attention to these issues? And I've I've told you what I think about that. A a risk to paying attention is a sort of a sense of doom and despair, a sense of futility. Uh we I we see that everywhere. Um it's in the argument for LG in Hawaii. It's in the argument to stop regulating greenhouse gas emissions uh by the federal government. This idea that there's nothing we can do. And so if I have a piece of advice that I might share is to tell anybody who tells you something is feudal to go and kick rocks because uh it's a complete lie. It none of this is is futile. Uh if it was, it wouldn't be any sense in any of us spending time on these things. and for for my son and you know his his peers who are going to grow up and then kind of inherent any messes we leave for them. Uh if we can do our best to leave leave leave things a little better than than we found them, we we've done something that's not futile. >> It's so interesting that this area the environmental area is a a kind of um exemplar of what you can do if you want to um if you want to run the wrong way and develop bad policy for the country and for that matter for the world. So, we're not really talking about energy or environment alone. We're talking about national policy, state policy, uh, and whether it serves the the benefit of our future, our children's future. And so, this is only one of so many other things that, uh, will, uh, inform the quality of our lives together on the planet. Well, thank you very much for doing what you do, Richard. Thank you, Lucy, for doing what you do. Uh, we really appreciate you coming on the show, too. I hope we can do it again. I'm Jay Fidel, host of Life in the Law. We've been discussing changes in environmental law and policy during the Trump administration. Thanks to our viewers for watching. We'll see you again soon for the next one here on Think Tech, raising public awareness about the things that count. Aloha. Aloha, Richard. Aloha, Lucy. >> Aloha. >> Thank you very much. Can someone here tell me one way to broaden our knowledge of the law and its proper application in our society? >> How about you, Mr. Miller? >> Yes, professor. We can broaden our knowledge of the state of the law by watching the talk shows on Think Tech Hawaii. >> Good answer, Mr. Miller. You're right. You'll make a fine lawyer.