211 / Environmental Law

Just to be clear, since I have recently mentioned "environmental law," there are two "flavors," or "types" of "environmental attorneys." Type One usually works for citizen groups, environmental organizations, and sometimes individuals, with the objective (usually) of stopping developments that do not meet high environmental standards, or preventing actions of all kinds that have adverse environmental impacts.

Type Two, the other type of "environmental attorney," tends to work for the corporations and the developers who are being opposed by the first type. Type Two environmental attorneys, in other words, work to get approval for developments and activities, and to deal with the requirements and constraints of environmental laws and regulations as they do so.

Both types are called "environmental attorneys," and both types belong to the Environmental Law Section of the California State Bar.

In my "two world" view, the Type One environmental attorney is on the side of the world of Nature, and the Type Two environmental attorney is on the side of human activities that build a "human world" within the frame that the world of Nature has provided.

If you ever need an "environmental attorney," you should check the attorney's client list before you sign a retainer! Make sure you get the flavor of "environmental attorney" you want.

210 / DeathTweet

#DeathTweet is a pretty intimidating title for a book. The book itself, though, is quite accessible, at least partly because each Chapter seems to meet the 140-character cutoff established by Twitter. I recommend it.

I don't know much about Twitter, but I do happen to know the author of this book, Timothy Tosta. Tosta grew up in Santa Cruz, and has gone on to become what the book jacket describes as "one of California's leading land use and environmental attorneys." I have run across him in that capacity.

Timothy Tosta's book isn't about law, environmental or otherwise. As Willie Brown says (in his 140-character or less introduction), #DeathTweet is about life itself. To quote the book jacket again, #DeathTweet intends to inform the reader on how to achieve "a Well-Lived Life through 140 perspectives on Death and its Teachings."

Tosta has done some serious thinking about this topic, based on some serious experience. I recommend his book because I agree with him that thinking about death, in fact, can help us to live a better life.

Death is a primary representative of the world of Nature, the world we do not create, the world upon which "our life" is ultimately based. Most immediately, we live not in the world of Nature, but in a world of our own creation.

Knowing, and appreciating, and celebrating the framework within which we create can help give glory to our work!

209 / And Another Proposition

Assembly Bill 32, usually called "AB 32," is the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006."

It is my contention that the "legislative process" is a good model for understanding how human beings create new realities, and AB 32 is a perfect example of how that legislative process works.

The bill is revolutionary in its implications, but very simple in its its structure. [Incidentally, the structure of AB 32 is very similar to the structure of Measure J, adopted by the people of Santa Cruz County as a referendum measure in 1978. The implementation of Measure J very much created a new reality in Santa Cruz County, with respect to its future growth and development, just as AB 32 seeks to create a new economic and social reality in California as a whole].

AB 32 begins with a set of easily-understood "findings," outlining the current situation, and stating why global warming is such a challenge to the world, and to California. Then, after a section defining terms, and a section assigning responsibility to the Air Resources Board for carrying out the requirements contained in the bill, AB 32 states the proposed "solution" to the problem outlined in the "findings." The operative language is, again, very simple:

STATEWIDE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS LIMIT

By January 1, 2008, the state board shall, after one or more public workshops, with public notice, and an opportunity for all interested parties to comment, determine what the statewide greenhouse gas emissions level was in 1990, and approve in a public hearing, a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, to be achieved by 2020.

Basically, the above one-sentence statement is AB 32. This is the "idea" or "legislative decision" that the State adopted as its goal, when the Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, AB 32. Paraphrased, the goal is that the state of California shall take actions to "roll back" greenhouse gas emission levels in California, to ensure that greenhouse gas emission levels in the year 2020 will be equivalent to greenhouse gas emission levels during the year 1990.

AB 32 goes on to establish time lines, and to give procedural guidance to the Air Resources Board, but the essence of the "law" and the "legislative decision" made by enacting AB 32, is that California has decided to "roll back" greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, and to accomplish that by the year 2020. The Air Resources Board is to figure out how to do that specifically, and then to promulgate rules and programs that will ensure that the state does in fact accomplish the goal.

The "goal" of AB 32 is exactly like a doctor's prescription. The "law" doesn't tell us what will inevitably happen (so it's not like "laws" in the world of nature); instead, the "law" tells us what we want to do. If we actually do it, the world will be changed.

Because "law" in the human world is the way human beings exercise their freedom, human laws can always be changed.

Proposition 23, on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California, would essentially "repeal" AB 32 (though that's not the way the sponsors of the initiative put it).

Who are the sponsors of the initiative? A bunch of oil companies. I am strongly recommending a "No" vote on Proposition 23. Read the "findings" in AB 32. If you think they're accurate, and that global warming poses a massive challenge to the continued existence of human civilization as we know it, you'll vote "No," too.

208 / Two Propositions

In connection with the General Election to be held on November 2nd of this year, California voters will be asked to make decisions on Proposition 25 and Proposition 26. These two measures raise a fundamental question about what "democracy" means in the State of California.

Many people think that "democracy" is the same thing as "majority rule." In California, however, any piece of legislation that requires the expenditure of money, and that pretty much means any piece of legislation that is significant, must be passed by a 2/3 vote.

The California requirement for a 2/3 vote for money bills does not establish minority "rule," since a minority cannot pass anything. It does, however, eliminate "majority rule." Whether this is a good thing, vis a vis the state budget, is going to be decided by the people's vote on Proposition 25. Proposition 25 would not eliminate the 2/3 vote requirement for bills that "raise taxes," but it would eliminate the need for a 2/3 vote (and restore a majority vote requirement) for the state budget bill, which appropriates and expends money. Again, under existing law, any bill that spends money, including the budget bill, requires a 2/3 or supermajority vote.

Proposition 26 would take the state in the absolute opposite direction. Currently, the State Constitution allows certain revenue raising measures to be approved by a majority vote of the voters themselves. Proposition 26 would eliminate this possibility, as an attempt to close what some see as the last "loophole" in the state's basic commitment to a system of government in which a minority can prevent the majority from passing any law that either raises or spends money.

To summarize, the November 2nd election will let Californians decide if they think that "majority rule" is a necessary ingredient for "democracy."

Some, and I count myself among them, believe that it is, and that California's current status as a "failed state" comes largely from its unwillingness to let the majority decide what the government should do. What happens if the government can't act to do what the majority of the people want? How legitimate is government then? The current crisis in California government demonstrates the consequences of letting a minority veto what the majority wants to do. The government can't address the fiscal and other problems of the state, and the people lose all respect for governmental institutions and the processes of government itself.

Will the state start turning in a different direction in November, with respect to what "democracy" means in California?

Maybe.

If you think that would be a good idea, it's a "Yes" vote on Proposition 25. And a "No" vote on Proposition 26.

207 / Where We Want To Go

We construct the human world that we most immediately inhabit by beginning with an "idea" about what we want to do (or "where we want to go," as we often put it, colloquially).

We then follow that "idea" with practical actions based upon it. Our "theory," in other words, gives rise to "practice," and the outcome of our efforts is the reality we construct through our actions.

We are not always immediately successful in "realizing" our initial idea, but if we keep trying to accomplish in practice what we envision in theory, we often succeed, or at least come close.

Once we actually "get there," of course, where we thought we wanted to go, we may find that our "idea" about the reality we have been striving to achieve was mistaken, and we then plot a new course, based on a new idea.

This basic process, moving from theory to practice, applies to individual actions, and to collective actions. In the arena of collective action, particularly, I think it's clear that this process can very appropriately be compared to the legislative process.

In November, California voters will have an opportunity to make decisions on several ballot measures that raise fundamental questions about political theory (about where we want to go as a state). A preview of the various measures is available on the website maintained by Secretary of State Debra Bowen.

206 / Theory And Practice

"Practice" is what we "do."

"Theory" is what we "think."

If the human world that we create is, as I contend, a world that is unconstrained by any inevitable "reality," and is in fact best understood as "possibility," then our success in this world comes from making sure that our "practice" is driven by our "theory."

In other words, we need to make sure that we "make things happen," and don't just let things "happen to us."

205 / Reading The Polls

I tend to have a love-hate relationship with The New York Times' columnist Thomas L. Friedman. Such a "smart guy," but one of the pundit hawks who flacked for the war in Iraq, in the name of a United States "manifest destiny" gone global.

At any rate, Friedman's column in today's San Jose Mercury News is headlined, "Messing With Mother Nature," and it meets with my approval. Friedman agrees with my analysis that not paying attention to the laws of Nature will result in a catastrophe in the world in which we most immediately live, that human world we create ourselves.

The phrase in his column I best liked, actually, was a shot at our President for "spending more time reading the polls than changing the polls."

Scientific polling does, pretty accurately, tell you what people are thinking right now. But so what? The question for political leaders is not what are people thinking, but what should people be thinking?

In our world, as opposed to what happens in the world of Nature, "laws" are not "descriptions" of reality, defining what is and must be. In our world, the "laws" are "prescriptions" about what we want to exist.

The laws we enact in the "political" world, which is our human creation, establish reality within that world. "Scientific" polling (and the phrase is accurate) is not really pertinent to that endeavor. While it is good to know where we are now, in terms of what people think, let's remember what Karl Marx said. You don't have to be a "communist" to understand the validity of his insight. The point isn't to "interpret" the world, but to "change it."