Public Goods, Government Support, and Legal Action for Air Quality and Climate Action

Since the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s, the trajectory of the U.S. federal budget has shifted significantly from provision of public goods to allocation of transfers to select groups, leading to a substantial budgetary and debt crisis. This shift has empowered politicians to master the art of vote-buying through strategic distribution of federal resources to particular voter blocs as a tactic to secure electoral victories. Public goods, by definition, are commodities that are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. National defense, policing, and property rights enforcement are classic examples of genuine public goods that benefit all citizens regardless of their individual contributions. In recent discourse, some have proposed that environmental concerns such as clean air and climate change should be classified as public goods, though this is not universally accepted. It is crucial to distinguish genuine public goods from programs and services that, although beneficial, are ultimately not public in nature, such as entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and various welfare initiatives.

The classification of clean air and climate mitigation as public goods raises complex questions about cost, accountability, and funding. If clean air and climate mitigation are deemed public goods, this would imply a governmental obligation to fund them through the federal budget. However, defining clean air and climate benefits as public goods is contentious because, unlike traditional public goods, they are associated with direct costs rather than being freely available. Past proposals indicate that a market-driven approach may offer these services more efficiently, fueling debates about government involvement in their provision. If left to the private sector, some argue, inadequate levels of such services would be offered due to misallocation or insufficient incentives.

In recent years, there has been a surge in lawsuits aimed at recognizing the right to clean air and climate protections, described as constitutional rights similar to national defense. These lawsuits often seek to compel governments to take action against climate change and ensure a clean environment. The notable case of Juliana v. United States exemplifies this trend, where a group of young plaintiffs argued their rights to a stable climate system had been violated. Despite initial enthusiasm for the legal implications of the case, it faced numerous hurdles within the judicial system, culminating in a dismissal by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This pattern has also been seen in other lawsuits, such as Held v. State of Montana, where state-specific environmental protections were challenged in court, showcasing unique legal angles depending on specific state constitutional provisions.

The legal landscape surrounding claims for clean air and climate mitigation appears increasingly complex, involving both state and federal courts. Other recent cases, such as Genesis B v. the Environmental Protection Agency, also underscore the challenges of pursuing clean air rights through litigation, often met with motions to dismiss on the grounds that no constitutional mandate exists compelling the government to take action against pollution. A notable differentiation in these cases lies in the role of the government as a defendant rather than a plaintiff in suits against oil companies or other commercial entities contributing to climate degradation.

The societal implications of these legal efforts are profound, as they throw into sharp relief the question of responsibility for clean air and climate actions. Many contend that these crucial decisions should reside within legislative bodies, which are better suited to enact comprehensive policies rather than leave such determinations to courts. The ongoing lawsuits underscore a systemic disconnect, as individuals attempt to court judicial recognition of environmental rights while legislative avenues remain largely untapped or politically contentious.

As debates continue over whether clean air and climate mitigation constitute genuine public goods, and consequently, who should bear their costs, it is likely that the judicial system will see a persistent influx of cases seeking clarity on these issues. Whether courts take on the complex accountability of defining such rights remains uncertain, indicating a need for engaged dialogue and policy development to address one of the most pressing issues facing society today—environmental sustainability and the right to a healthy atmosphere. The outcomes of these deliberations could define the role of government in safeguarding environmental rights and establish precedents for future actions concerning public welfare in the context of climate change.