18 March—Back in 1971, the constitution of Pennsylvania was amended by the addition of Section 27: “Natural resources and the public estate. The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic [sic] values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustees of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

Then, in 1972, the brand new constitution of Montana contained this article: “Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. (3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.”

Half a century later, in 2022, the New York State constitution was amended: “Article I Section 19. Environmental rights. Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” Short and to the point.

Those are at present the only so-called Green Amendments to state constitutions, even though Montana’s is actually an article.

So just last month, seven activist Democrat representatives in the Connecticut General Assembly—David Michel, Josh Elliott, Eleni Kavros DeGraw, Geraldo Reyes, Aundre Baumgardner, Mary Mushinsky, and Robyn Porter (the usual suspects, bless ‘em)—introduced House Joint Resolution 37, “Resolution Proposing An Amendment To The State Constitution To Provide For An Environmental Rights Amendment.” It was rushed to a perfunctory public hearing ten days later. (Not that legislative public hearings are ever anything but perfunctory.)

If it should make it to the state Constitution, Connecticut’s Green Amendment would be added to the Bill of Rights as Section 21. This is it, in all its glorious de rigueur equity:

“Each person of the state of Connecticut shall have an individual right to clean and healthy air, water, soil and environment; a stable climate; and self–sustaining ecosystems; for the benefit of public health, safety and the general welfare. The state shall not infringe upon these rights. The state shall protect these rights equitably for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, tribal membership status, gender, socioeconomics or geography. The state, municipalities, and any political subdivision thereof, shall serve as trustee of the natural resources of Connecticut, among them being its waters, air, flora, fauna, soils, and climate; and shall conserve, protect, and maintain these resources for the benefit of all people, including present and future generations. The rights stated in this section are inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible, are among those rights reserved to the people, and are equivalent with all other inalienable rights. The provisions of this amendment are self–executing.”

Green Amendments sound absolutely, fantastically, idyllically Utopian. That’s because they are. Now, I’m an inveterate tree hugger and would really love to see the whole world a friendlier and better place for all its flora and fauna, including people, politicians, and other vermin.

Connecticut’s proposed Green Amendment, however, is nothing but a progressive manifesto disturbingly redolent of Congressbrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator John Markey’s ludicrous Green New Deal.

Realistically, since it’s explicitly “self-executing,” Connecticut’s Green Amendment promises to be really green for a new breed of ambulance chasers just waiting to plunder the deep pockets of the state and municipalities when they fail (for whatever reasons) to “protect these rights equitably for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, tribal membership status, gender, socioeconomics, or geography.”

Talk about an open-door policy for litigators. Self-executing, simply put, means that parties can challenge actions without being granted further or specific authority by legislatures, claims commissioners, or other regulatory entities. The litigation would be permitted even where plaintiffs previously hadn’t had legal bases or the projects had previously been permitted by state or local agencies. So much for grandfathering and the good old days.

Take the individual, inalienable rights to clean and healthy air and a stable climate, for instance. Suffice to say, even considering federal legislation that purports to protect states from their environmentally sinning neighbors, Connecticut doesn’t exist in an enclosed ecosystem, insulated and isolated from the rest of the country, let alone the world. So what do the proponents of the Green Amendment expect the state and its municipalities to do about it—not only to protect the people who live here, but also to protect themselves from predatory litigation?

And that’s only for starters . . .