This week, 13 young Hawaii plaintiffs will file a lawsuit against the state’s Department of Transportation for failing to make real progress in reducing the pollution that contributes to a warming planet. Instead, on the eve of trial, the young men signed a groundbreaking settlement with Hawaii’s governor and launched a new phase in climate litigation.
The resulting agreement will accelerate Hawaii’s progress toward a zero-emission transportation system and could provide a road map for other advocates seeking to make progress on pressing climate goals.
Several states, including Alaska, Florida, Utah and Virginia, are facing similar lawsuits from young people for failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike their red-state counterparts, officials in ocean-blue Hawaii try to take a leadership role on climate issues. They have enacted ambitious laws to mitigate climate change and set long-term goals to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.
In addition to the statewide 2045 carbon neutrality goal, the state Legislature established a 2030 emissions reduction goal specifically aimed at decarbonizing Hawaii’s transportation industry, the largest source of climate emissions. The state’s 2050 Sustainability Plan commits to transitioning the entire state fleet to zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
But ensuring these commitments are delivered is difficult—and made even more difficult by the lack of intermediate targets on the way to achieving distant goals. The Hawaii plaintiffs argue that state officials have neglected their own goals by not taking meaningful steps to reduce climate emissions from transportation sources. As a result, they argue, the state violated its constitutional obligation to protect natural resources from disasters such as climate change and last year’s unprecedented Maui wildfires. Their lawsuit claims the defendants “impaired and violated the youth plaintiffs’ rights to a clean and healthy environment, including the right to a life-sustaining climate system.”
In this way, the focus of the Hawaii lawsuit is not on the overall failure to adopt meaningful climate policy, but on substantive questions about subsequent action. The issue at trial is not whether officials made good laws, but what happened after they made them. This is a deep and important question at a time when climate commitments are proliferating in liberal-leaning states like California, New York and Hawaii.
the result precipitation Answer this question by providing a baseline for a greenhouse gas reduction plan that will be overseen and enforced by the courts until 2045 or until Hawaii reaches its zero-emissions goal, whichever is earlier.
Under the agreement, the state must establish interim decarbonization goals for the transportation industry in 2030, 2035 and 2040; report annually on progress toward those goals; reform elements of the Department of Transportation’s planning and budget to make them consistent with the state’s climate goals; and Spend millions of dollars in the short term on low-carbon infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations and bike lanes. The settlement also creates new leadership positions within the department responsible for combating climate change.
Reconciliation is far from a panacea. For example, it leaves for another day the question of how ambitious Hawaii’s interim decarbonization goals should be.
Still, the deal is groundbreaking in several ways. First, “it shows other governments the benefits of working with young people rather than against them,” said Andrea Rogers of Our Children’s Trust, one of the public interest law firms representing the plaintiffs. “This is the first time the government has decided to do this.”
As their lawsuit points out, the plaintiffs — who include surfers, divers, spearfishermen and regenerative farmers — have suffered from climate anxiety, the disruption of traditional ways of life and, in some cases, the destruction of their homes . They more or less won the justice they sought without even setting foot in court.
Hawaii Gov. Josh Green (yes, Green is his real name!)’s decision to reconcile with young people rather than go to trial sets a new benchmark for what state leaders who take climate change and its consequences seriously can achieve. High standards. This is in stark contrast to climate change deniers, e.g. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.
The results also provide a template for others seeking to secure climate commitments. This can be hard work. As the Hawaiian government insisted before the settlement, long-term climate goals provide little standing for today’s litigants. For example, the 2045 carbon neutrality target fails to clarify which sectors must reduce emissions, by how much and by what date, creating a host of challenges. But the bigger picture question of how to ensure long-term climate goals are realistic could not be more important.
Democratic-controlled states such as California have emerged as climate policy leaders in part by setting ambitious climate goals. Now we have an example of how such lofty promises can be translated into court-enforced action to decarbonize a vital industry.
This case fully recognizes the court’s ability to address climate change. Many defendants facing climate lawsuits — particularly Hawaii officials, including in the early stages of this case — often protest that climate change policy should be set by the Legislature, not judges. The landmark settlement demonstrates that courts can hold policymakers accountable if they fail to live up to their promises.
Cara Horowitz is executive director of the UCLA Emmett Institute for Climate Change and the Environment Law School. Evan George is the institute’s communications director.
