When Alaska was first considered for statehood, many feared “Seward’s Folly” would become a net drain on U.S. resources because it would never produce enough revenue to properly serve its residents. All of that changed, of course, with the discovery of large oil and gas reserves within the state’s borders. While there have been periodic attempts to diversify the state’s economy away from energy, the truth is that Alaska today is more dependent than ever on the money generated by the energy industry.

The parallel to Saudi Arabia is striking. Alaska has reinvented itself from a poor and isolated subsistence economy into a petro-giant with shiny new buildings and revenue streams generated from natural resource extraction and exploitation (even though much of these revenue windfalls are collected elsewhere and do not benefit the state.)   And just like Saudi Arabia, Alaska has failed to fully develop its human capital, depending instead on the “easy money” generated by fossil-fuel deposits and other exploitable resources. Hollywood and Jack London may like to paint Alaska as the last frontier for self-sufficiency, but the sobering truth about modern Alaska is that the state relies on buried resources rather than its human ingenuity.

Alaska’s other great resource – a unique and pristine natural environment unlike any in the world – is facing new pressures from the effects of climate change. As glaciers wither and permafrost warms, Alaskans have boxed themselves into a corner. At a time when hard choices must be made in the name of environmental preservation, the state knows it must put the interests of energy exploration and exploitation above all others. Without the energy industry, Alaska would falter or fail – and every Alaskan politician understands and subscribes to this point of view.

It is probably unfair to fault modern Alaska for past decisions that have fostered the state’s addiction to the “easy” money generated by the energy industry. At the same time, it is equally unfair for the rest of these United States to continue to feed the cravings of our northernmost citizens. At stake, quite literally, are the environment, national security and economy of these United States. Rather than expanding our nation’s dependence on a resource that will become increasingly scarce, we must focus on increased conservation and cost-effective alternative sources of energy. Fossil fuels will necessarily remain part of our mix for years to come, but an energy perspective that hinges only on continued drilling cannot promote sustainable long-term policy. The bottom line is clear: we must start now if we are to change our energy direction away from the planet’s steadily decreasing supply of fossil fuels.

Governor Palin may have energy experience, but it is simply the wrong kind of experience for a leader charged with securing a prosperous future for our nation as a whole. As hard as it may be for Alaskans (and, by extension, their governor) to swallow, we must find a way to end our dependence on fossil fuels and pursue policies to promote the energy independence that will ensure the continued prosperity of all 50 states.

(Note: this opinion editorial first appeared in JURIST. -VF)

The limited CO2 caps announced yesterday would apply only to one sector of the economy – electricity generation – and would leaving the rest of the U.S. economy free to continue releasing untold quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The target reductions outlined by President Bush fall well below what is necessary to meet the U.S. share of worldwide cutbacks that even the most conservative scientists deem necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change in the long term. 

In other parts of the world, this “new” U.S. policy that doesn’t come close to meeting the U.S. need for reductions and only ensures that developing countries, such as India and China, will resist   binding reductions in CO2 emissions.   And while President Bush emphasized the role that new technologies can play in reducing emissions, he fails to promote the strong economic incentives that could spur the development and acceptance of these low-carbon technologies.

The program outlined in the Rose Garden would have represented a welcome “start” if it were announced in 2001; today, however, it constitutes a step backward. Over the last 18 months, academics, scientists and business interests have cooperated with Congress in a meaningful and focused debate aimed at controlling climate change. Many of these discussions centered on the critical need to hold developing countries accountable for their emissions, and on the equally critical need to mitigate the economic impact that CO2 controls might have on U.S. businesses and the people they employ.  

The good news is that these efforts have generated real progress, and each of the three candidates to become the next U.S. president has indicated his or her support for a comprehensive bill that would be in line with international expectations.

In one way, however, President Bush does not disappoint. His hubris in assuming that the world will listen to him "no matter what," and his belief that he is always right, were very evident in his pronouncement. However, just as in other issues in this administration, he is in for a rude surprise. For years, President Bush has declined to be a part of any collaborative process on addressing climate change.  When it became clear in the last year that businesses (even Republican-leaning businesses) needed "certainty" and were prepared to accept a cap-and-trade bill, this president still wouldn’t play. Because of that, the bill we ultimately get may be harder on particular industries than would have otherwise occurred. It is a sure bet that if President Bush had indicated the possibility of signing a mandatory cap-and-trade bill two years ago, the allocations would almost assuredly have been given way (as they were with SO2) instead of auctioned, the position favored by environmentalists and a position to which most bills are now moving.

Either the President has so isolated himself from public and business opinion on this issue that he doesn’t realize this proposal will go nowhere, or he is intentionally trying to “gum up the works” by slowing down the march towards a thoughtful bill. Whatever the motivation, the only conclusion to draw from his statements in the Rose Garden is that it is time for him to step aside. If he wishes to be remembered for his support of a thoughtful and fair bill on climate change, he can simply sign one of the existing proposals currently before the Congress. His choices were to lead, follow, or get out of the way – and he clearly failed to make the proper choice.     

            Two private equity firms – Texas Pacific Group and Kohlberg Kravis Roberts – have proposed to buy the giant Texas utility, TXU Corporation.  When completed, the $45 billion purchase would be the largest leveraged buyout in U.S. history.  But aside from price, the consummated deal would make history because of the role that environmentalism played in completing it.  In future years, the TXU buyout could be seen as the “poster child” for business transactions that prove we can protect the environment without hurting either the economy or our lifestyle.

           TXU has long been the bane of Texas environmentalists, most recently for its proposal to build 11 new coal-fired power plants statewide without the controls needed to curtail carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas widely seen as the chief culprit in global warming. Houston and Dallas, the two largest cities in the state, joined with other municipal governments and environmental organizations to fight Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s plan to fast-track approvals for these new power plants. The consortium opposing the plants scored a significant victory when a state court in Austin ruled that Gov. Perry did not have the power to accelerate the approvals process, and the stage appeared set for years of courtroom battles and substantial legal costs before either side would prevail.

            That’s when the power of the private sector changed everything. The equity firms recognized that TXU’s plan to build these plants was unpopular and depressing the utility’s share price, and might result in large costs if the federal government moved to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. When the equity firms said they would abandon TXU’s plans to build eight of the 11 plants and commit to broad environmental remediation at the remaining three, environmentalists gained something that even years of litigation might not have provided. In short, market forces had gift-wrapped a business deal that appealed to both environmentalists and industrialists alike.

            Slowly, quietly, many large corporations are making serious changes in how they do business – and the net effect bodes well for the future. Shareholders and the general public have shown how they can hurt the bottom line of any company that commits “environmental harms.” At the same time, education campaigns have raised awareness in large companies about how environmental impacts, such as climate change, are bad for business as well as society overall.

Lloyd’s of London, one of the original companies in the London Climate Change Partnership that was launched five years ago, has implemented guidelines for lending and insurance in the developing world that take account of how potential transactions could affect global climate change. Goldman Sachs, which has made a point of doing business in a “greener” fashion, may have been instrumental in the environmental deal associated with the proposed TXU buyout.

            All of this is excellent news for the environment and for the public. Though government has a clear role in setting and enforcing environmental standards, the TXU buyout and other high-profile corporate commitments show that much can be accomplished through partnerships and collaborations that yield as many dividends for environmentalists as they do for corporations. Harnessing the power of capitalism to assist in environmental protection won’t work in every situation – but when it does work, the public sector gains a powerful tool to protect and enhance the environment.

            Who knows? With a few more deals like the TXU buyout, we just might be able to save Mother Earth – and read about the news in corporate annual reports.  

Many people forget that in large areas of our country, gays and lesbians can be fired from jobs simply because of their sexual orientation. And though 14 states and most large cities where openly gay persons live (Houston is a notable exception) ostensibly protect the GLBT community from employment discrimination, these local solutions themselves are not sufficient. In 1998, my colleague Marieka Klawitter, a Professor at the University of Washington, and I, did the first statistical study analyzing the effects of non-discrimination clauses on the incomes of census registered gay and lesbian couples. [See Klawitter and Flatt, The Effects of State and Local Anti-Discrimination Policies on Incomes of Same-Sex Couples, 17 Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, No. 4, 658 (1998).] Surprisingly, it appeared that these local and state laws had no statistical impact on the earnings of these census identified couples. This may seem counter to the idea that such laws will help gay and lesbian persons lead better lives. Indeed, much to my dismay, the religious right routinely cites this study for the proposition that non-discrimination laws are un-necessary. But if one doesn’t take pieces of the study out of context, the implication is far different.

Professor Klawitter and I postulated that the real problem is that local laws are ineffective because states and localities do not have the administrative infrastructure and, in the case of cities, penalty power, to effectively enforce the laws. It is one thing to tell the populace that they should not discriminate, and quite another to actually punish them for doing so. Because the federal government is whom we look to for civil rights enforcement, states and localities simply don’t have the resources, or in the case of the cities, the legal power to do much. Despite trying to craft a strong ordinance to protect its citizens from discrimination based on sexual orientation, the City of Atlanta was limited by state law to fine a small amount for a violation and had no personnel to undertake investigations. And even that small penalty provision was challenged by the Druid Hills Country Club.

A similar dynamic was at work in the case of private discrimination based on race. Before the passage of the Civil Rights Laws of 1964, 25 states had laws prohibiting private racial discrimination, yet significant economic gains did not occur for African-Americans until after the prohibition was added to federal law.

The ability to live openly and not lose one’s job is important for anyone, and the GLBT community must strive to accomplish this effectively. 80% of the American public supports these non-discriminatory principles, and the Senate came within one vote of passage several years ago. It is time to try again.

What happened in that race, and what does it mean for our city? Representative Wong was criticized in many issues, including health care, and gay rights, but her positions on those areas did not necessarily differ from that of the Republican state party in general, and Republicans comprise a majority of her district. But her negative vote last year on legislation that attempted to address the City of Houston’s severe toxic air pollution may have cost her.   In 2005, when investigative reports in the Houston Chronicle called attention to Houston’s harmful air quality, the Texas legislature responded by proposing several new laws. Every one of these proposed laws was opposed by Representative Wong. Again, this is not particularly out of step with the state Republican position on the issue, but unlike the others, this may have hit closer to home for residents of the 134^th. The Houston Chronicle focused on this in its endorsement of Ellen Cohen, and I believe this may have provided the traction for Cohen’s victory. It is one thing to have general opinions about the business regulatory environment, and quite another to have concerns over the very air that one breathes. This validates Mayor White’s plan to address the environment despite state inaction, but hopefully this will serve as a wakeup call to the Republicans in the Houston area and force them to work harder on finding bipartisan solutions to Houston’s air toxics problem.

A report from the Houston Endowment and another from the Center for Progressive Reform last month both illuminated problems in the way our current state laws address air toxics. The Houston Endowment report identifies a “road map” for effectively changing our state laws to address these deficiencies. Well-defined standards and stronger enforcement systems are at the top of the list. The report uses the best and most recent studies of health impacts of the most dangerous air toxics to recommend maximum allowable levels of these air pollutants. It also suggests interim standards that could be applied to help alleviate the worst “hot spots”, and identifies suitable standards to be applied over the long term. As a whole, these measures would help protect Texans from health problems caused by the uncontrolled actions of pollution sources.

The report also recommends that pollution sources be responsible for ensuring they are not contributing to an increased risk to the public through regular operations or through occasional “upsets” and fugitive emissions. Industrial plants should be required to monitor their own site boundaries for any violation of new ambient standards, and report these results to the state. (Fenceline Laser Detection devices are a feasible alternative already used at some sites, and the equipment represents a relatively inexpensive means of verifying compliance.)

Other states with far fewer hazardous air pollution issues have successfully amended their laws to lower allowable ambient standards for the worst pollutants, and to require the sources of these toxics to ensure that they are not contributing to an increased health risk. And while it will be harder to achieve the same levels here because we have so many sources, our heightened health risks should spur us to do more, not less.

I hope that Representative Cohen will take the lead on this issue. One thing is certain: every day that we wait for lawmakers to take action endangers our citizens and helps erode the quality of life in our area. New laws could provide important protections – but they will not materialize unless the public demands them.

Victor B. Flatt is the A.L. O’Quinn Chair in Environmental Law at the University of Houston Law Center. He is a member scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform, and was a principal investigator on “The Control of Air Toxics: Toxicology Motivations and Houston Implications,” a report by the Houston Endowment.

By not  requiring  gay “marriage”, the New Jersey justices in the majority appeared to side with the court of public opinion, which still views “marriage” as the preserve of heterosexuals alone. But before damning the New Jersey ruling for what it did not do, it’s worth noting what it managed to accomplish. Life for gay and lesbian couples in the Garden State will now improve because they can receive state benefits that will make it easier to maintain and create the families and raise the children that many of them already have. 

Some gay and lesbian groups have praised the ruling for being fair-minded, logical, and politically savvy. Here’s another view: all of us are fooling ourselves if we pretend the ruling does anything other than continue to put gay and lesbian couples in the back of the bus.

We have been down this road before. From 1896 through 1954, states in this country were allowed to satisfy Constitutional requirements for the equality of African-American citizens as long as they provided an experience equivalent to what was afforded white citizens. Today, we know these “separate provisions” for African-Americans were far from equal, especially in the areas of schools and housing. But even if these parallel worlds had been completely identical, they could never attain true equality.

 The U.S. Supreme Court said as much in Brown v. Board of Education when it exposed separate systems as a way of keeping an “undeserving” group from participating in something enjoyed by the majority. (The logic is simple to follow: if the minority was truly deserving of equality, there would be no reason for a separate system to exist.) In 2004, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts “got it” – and showed it understood the rule of law established in Brown by recognizing that anything less than full marriage equality would be a sham.

Let’s be blunt. The issue we face – then and now – is state-sponsored inequality.   The strongest part of the New Jersey ruling is found in eloquent words from the Chief Justice in dissent: “Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities.” And by declaring gays and lesbians as “distinct,” the justices in the majority clearly imparted the label of inequality. 

If called to defend their ruling, the justices might cite how gay marriage is problematic because it is wrapped in religious connotations of the term. But the answer to that is for the state to make all of its benefits available to “civil unions,” not to deprive gay couples of the ability to have the exact same status that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Maybe it is asking too much from the majority of society for them to relinquish the belief that gay and lesbian couples are somehow not as good as heterosexual couples. But even as we rail against the majority, we deceive ourselves by pretending that civil unions and marriage are the same thing. If self-appointed progressives in our society promote “separate and equal” relationship structures for gay couples, we should expose this position for what it is: a comfortable way to placate the majority’s need to feel both separate and superior.

It might seem disingenuous for a gay law professor to decry the “failings” of the New Jersey court. Perhaps I should hail the fact that a separate and parallel track for gay and lesbian couples, which includes the same legal benefits as marriage, represents remarkable progress considering that only six years have passed since civil unions themselves were considered enormous progress. And perhaps I should take heart that the first gay relationship benefits in Europe got their start in unions separate and distinct from historical marriage, and today we can properly marvel at how far some countries on that continent have progressed. 

But while it is tempting to applaud a system in which gay and lesbian couples appear to be making progress towards equality with heterosexual married couples, I fear the opposite may be true. Once you agree to sit in the back of the bus, it becomes harder to claim the right to change your seating position. 

Is the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling a step forward for gays and lesbians? It clearly aided many existing people and families. But I worry that the court’s decision may ultimately push a step backwards into the grey dimness of “separate but equal.” Only time will tell.

Victor B. Flatt is the A.L.O’Quinn Chair in Environmental Law at the University of Houston Law Center. He is a former national board member of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which brought the New Jersey case.