Posted on March 19, 2018 by ACOEL Admin

The American College of Environmental Lawyers announces its annual Stephen E. Herrmann Environmental Writing Award for the 2017-18 academic year.  The Herrmann Award is a stipend of $3,500 to the author of the winning submission (whether an article, note, case comment or essay) and $500 to the submitting law journal. The winner of this year’s Herrmann Award will be invited to present his or her submission to the Fellows at the 2018 ACOEL Annual Meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

We urge College members – particularly our members in academia – to spread the word on this opportunity.  In addition to the amount of the award, those interested should know the following:

  • Submitting Candidate Notes/Articles:  Student-edited law journals or equivalent publications published by accredited U.S. law schools are eligible to submit annually a single student authored candidate article, note, case comment or essay selected for its ability to promote understanding of legal issues in the broad field of environmental law, including natural resources law and/or environmental or resources aspects of energy law.

  • Evaluation Criteria:  The prize will be awarded to the author of a student article, note, case comment or essay published by the submitting law journal during the current academic year, or scheduled for publication in the next academic year, that in the judgment of the ACOEL best presents a current topic within the broad field of environmental law.  Submissions will be judged based on originality, quality of research, presentation and writing, and significance of contribution to the field of environmental law.  Entries will be judged by the ACOEL Stephen E. Herrmann Award Committee.

  • Submission Logistics:  Those interested in participating should email one electronic copy of their submissions to the Stephen E. Herrmann Environmental Writing Award, ACOEL, using same as the email “Subject” line, c/o J.B. Ruhl and Mary Ellen Ternes with the email addresses below.  Entries must be received no later than June 10, 2018.  Each entrant should include with the entry a cover letter or e-mail message stating the name of the submitting law journal, email address(es) of author (with post-graduation email address(es) if applicable), year of author’s graduation, and a statement that the submission was not written as part of paid employment.

Anyone having questions about the award or process for submitting a piece for consideration should contact J.B. Ruhl (jb.ruhl@Law.Vanderbilt.Edu) or Mary Ellen Ternes ( To ensure a prompt response, please reference the Stephen E. Hermann Environmental Writing Award in your communication.

Federal Common Law Controls California Climate Actions: Never a Dull Moment

Posted on March 12, 2018 by Seth Jaffe

Earlier this week, Judge William Alsup denied a motion by Oakland and San Francisco to remand their public nuisance claims against some of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers to state court.  However, I’m not sure that this is a victory for the oil companies.  This might be more of a “be careful what you wish for” scenario.

After the Supreme Court decision in AEP v. Connecticut and subsequent decisions, such as Native Village of Kivalina, it seemed pretty clear that the federal Clean Air Act had displaced federal common law, leaving only potential state law claims in its place.

Judge Alsup had a different idea.  The cities’ claims were only brought against fossil fuel producers, not electric generators.  The claims were based on the allegations concerning the companies’ conduct in selling fossil fuels into the stream of commerce, while at the same time allegedly making misrepresentations concerning the risks of climate change.

Judge Alsup concluded that this was a distinction with a difference.  The Clean Air Act displaces federal common law regulating operations that emit GHGs.  The Clean Air Act, however, does not regulate the sale of fossil fuels.  Thus, it does not displace the type of public nuisance action at issue in this case.  (Of course, this leads to the odd result that the companies’ sale of fossil fuels is subject to public nuisance claims, even though methane emissions from oil wells and refineries are not, because those are subject to regulation under the CAA!)

Having made this critical distinction, the rest of the decision was relatively easy.  As Judge Alsup noted:

If ever a problem cried out for a uniform and comprehensive solution, it is the geophysical problem described by the complaints, a problem centuries in the making. The range of consequences is likewise universal. Taking the complaints at face value, the scope of the worldwide predicament demands the most comprehensive view available, which in our American court system means our federal courts and our federal common law. A patchwork of fifty different answers to the same fundamental global issue would be unworkable. This is not to say that the ultimate answer under our federal common law will favor judicial relief. But it is to say that the extent of any judicial relief should be uniform across our nation.

I’m not sure that Judge Alsup is right, though I appreciate his creativity.  And if appellate courts decide he is right, the defendants may come to regret removing the action from state courts.

FERC Diverts the Rubicon

Posted on March 9, 2018 by Eugene Trisko

In the last decade, every aspect of the electric utility business has changed except one.  We’ve experienced a revolution in how and where electricity is generated, consumed, and distributed.  What hasn't kept up are the rules governing the market. They haven’t adapted to changing technologies, fuels or consumer demands, and they are leading us toward a future electric supply mix dominated in many markets by intermittent renewable generation backed up by natural gas power plants.

Hundreds of coal-fueled generating plants have closed over the past several years due to lower natural gas prices and the costs of compliance with EPA's 2012 mercury regulations.  Some nuclear units in competitive power markets also have shut down prematurely, and many more are at risk because they cannot recover their costs under current electricity market rules. Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania have each turned to legislative and regulatory remedies to shore up the economic viability of their nuclear plants.

To help ensure fuel diversity and resilience of the electric power grid, the U.S. Department of Energy transmitted a proposed rule to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in September 2017 to provide full cost recovery for coal and nuclear units operating in competitive power markets. FERC issued the DOE proposed rule in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) on October 10, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 46940).

The basic premise of FERC's Grid Resiliency Pricing Rule was that baseload coal and nuclear units provide unique benefits to the electric grid due to the security of their "on the ground" fuel supplies and their inherent stability and reliability.  Most natural gas generation relies on "just in time" gas deliveries through pipelines, and much of the gas supply is subject to interruptible contracts. Intermittent renewable sources such as wind and solar do not provide the same grid stability as 24/7 baseload power units.

FERC's proposal sought to correct a deficiency in the way that power producers are compensated. Current market rules shortchange baseload generators and overpay variable and marginal producers that piggyback on the reliability, voltage smoothing and other services provided by baseload coal and nuclear plants.  Ensuring fuel diversity in the power generation fleet is an effective way to minimize risks to the electric grid posed by extreme weather events, fuel supply interruptions, terrorist acts, and other unplanned disruptions.

The NOPR generated a firestorm of opposition in comments filed by state regulators, utilities, regional power grid operators, natural gas and renewable energy interests, and environmental advocates. Numerous comments argued that existing market structures were adequate to prevent threats to electric reliability, and that the rule was not based on substantial evidence. Several former FERC chairmen spoke publicly in opposition to the rule for its "interference" with market mechanisms.

Faced with this opposition, a prominent FERC member floated a proposed "interim rule" allowing regional grid operators to provide rate adjustments sufficient to avoid the retirements of additional baseload power units while FERC initiated a longer-term study of grid resilience and electric market design.  But with two new members being added to the Commission in late 2017 following Senate confirmation - including a new Chairman - the interim rule failed to gain traction.

On January 18, FERC rejected the DOE rule in an order calling for the creation of a new docket (No. AD18-7-000) "to holistically examine the resilience of the bulk power system." The new docket will assemble data and analyses by regional grid operators and others "to provide information as to whether FERC and the markets need to take additional action on resilience of the bulk power system." Meanwhile, grid operators such as PJM are considering their own pricing reform measures.

As the NOPR debate was unfolding, the eastern electric grid was challenged by the "Bomb Cyclone" that sent temperatures plunging across the eastern seaboard. New England power generators ran low on natural gas supplies and had to switch to highly-emitting oil generators, nearly exhausting their available "on the ground" oil supplies. Both natural gas and coal units in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions experienced some power interruptions, with gas units experiencing a larger degree of unavailability. With the support of the remaining coal and nuclear baseload fleets, the East Coast and Midwest avoided catastrophic service interruptions.

The question left unanswered by the Bomb Cyclone was how a future eastern grid with much higher dependence on gas and renewable generation, and lower availability of coal and nuclear baseload generation, would perform under similar or more severe conditions. In late February, DOE announced that it will develop a quantitative model for assessing long-term reliability risks based on regional changes in generation portfolios. The DOE modeling effort should provide key inputs to FERC's examination of reliability issues. In its order rejecting the NOPR, FERC "recognize(d) that it must remain vigilant with respect to resilience challenges, because affordable and reliable electricity is vital to the country’s economic and national security."

A long-term reliability study will shed needed light on the multiple risks to electric reliability associated with the loss of coal and nuclear baseload generating plants. Once baseload power resources are shut down, they cannot be reactivated.  Turbines warp under their own weight. Recent FERC projections show the loss of an additional 26,000 Megawatts of coal and nuclear baseload capacity by 2020 (FERC Infrastructure Update, Nov. 2017).

FERC's "holistic" assessment of the long-term risks confronted by our rapidly changing power generation industry cannot be completed soon enough. While the Commission's study process has avoided any hard decisions on reforming market pricing rules for the time being, the ongoing trend of baseload capacity retirements is likely to continue for the indefinite future.


The writer is an adviser to labor unions concerned about electric reliability and fuel diversity issues.

The Struggle Between Conservation and Exploitation in Napa Valley

Posted on March 8, 2018 by Ridgway Hall

Book Review

Your favorite wine regions? Napa Valley is probably somewhere on your list. Ever since at least 1976, when Napa chardonnay and cabernet sauvignon won a blind taste testing in Paris, Napa’s vineyards have been producing large quantities of these and other wines, and business has been booming. The number of wineries in the roughly 25-mile-long Napa Valley, once just a handful, is now over 400. This is because the climate, soil and weather are uniquely suited to the production of wine grapes. In 1968, recognizing the importance of protecting the character of the valley, the county established the first agricultural preserve in the country, restricting the land use to farming and related activities.

But bucolic places where money can be made are attractive. Located northwest of San Francisco between two sets of mountains and bisected by the Napa River, Napa Valley has experienced rapid development and new building. This has resulted in habitat destruction, such as the cutting of thousands of century-old oaks, erosion, and pollution of the river (once home to salmon and steelhead, but no more) and the traffic, noise and dust of construction. Development is proceeding at a rate that threatens to destroy the natural beauty of the area that brought people there in the first place.  Not surprisingly, there has been pushback from conservationists and other residents who are not part of the wine industry.

This struggle between developers and those who want to preserve the valley’s pastoral charm is the subject of an excellent new book by James Conaway entitled Napa at Last Light: America’s Eden in an Age of Calamity (Simon & Schuster, 352 pages, $26). (Disclosure: I read and provided comments on an early draft of the book). This is the third book in a trilogy which began in 1990 with Conaway’s Napa: The Story of an American Eden, a New York Times best seller describing the 19th century origins of winemaking in the Napa Valley and its rediscovery starting in the 1960s.  This was followed in 2003 with The Far Side of Eden: New Money, Old Land and the Battle for Napa Valley.  It described the growing conflicts between winery owners, some of them by now-absentee corporations and investors eager to reap profits, and the local citizens and environmentalists who were becoming increasingly upset by the destructive results.

Napa at Last Light recaps the past and then brings this struggle current, including a hotly contested vote on a proposed woodland protection ordinance on the county ballot for June.  Conaway has traveled throughout the Napa region for more than 30 years getting to know the people, their values and concerns. As a result, the book is far more than just a chronology of events.  You get to know several generations of grape growers and winemakers along with the county officials and a variety of other residents and their families, the circumstances that brought them there, their hopes for the future and their interactions.  You meet winery owners who care a lot about preservation, have donated funds to protect fragile land and carried out streambank restoration efforts.

What is going on in the Napa Valley is a microcosm of conflicts over land use that are being played out across the country. The corrosive influence of money, and the power and abuses it brings, is never far from the surface. Nor is the philosophic struggle between those who believe they should be able to do whatever they want with their land, and those who believe they are part of a community in which what one person does with his or her land may adversely affect others.  It’s freedom vs regulation. Napa at Last Light is a timely and thoughtful portrayal of critical issues we are familiar with and will be dealing with for the foreseeable future. It’s also a great read.


Note: Ridge Hall has written a more extensive review of this book in the March-April issue of The Environmental Forum published by the Environmental Law Institute.

Takings Math for Dummies: When 1+1=1

Posted on March 7, 2018 by Mary K. Ryan

One benefit of preparing an annual review of last year’s important cases, as I just did for MCLE, is that you may have missed a significant case when it came out. That’s why I’m writing now about Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1645, decided on June 5, 2017. Murr, which incorporates the mathematical conundrum in the title, expands the Supreme Court’s regulatory takings jurisprudence by asking a preliminary question—what parcel or parcels of land are at issue? The Court held that this question must be answered before reaching the ad hoc case-by-case analysis established by Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, and Palazzolo v. Rhode Island which examines the economic impact of the challenged regulation, the investment-backed expectations of the landowner, and the character of the government action.

Murr involved the owners of two adjacent waterfront properties on the St. Croix River in Wisconsin which, given their location, were subject to numerous regulations, including a one acre buildable lot requirement. The properties lost their original grandfathered protection from that regulation when they were put into common ownership. The county denied requests for variances and the owners filed a regulatory takings claim, which they lost at the state level.

In a 5-3 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court developed a new, three-factor test for determining the “denominator” in the regulatory takings analysis—in other words, the unit of property against which a court must assess the effects of the challenged governmental action. First, courts must assess the treatment of the land under state and local law, in particular how state law bounds and divides the land. Second, courts must look at the physical characteristics of the landowner’s property, e.g., whether the land is subject to further environmental or land use regulations due to the nature of the land or adjacent natural resources. Third, courts must consider the value of the property under the challenged regulation. Under this test, there was no regulatory taking. The Court rejected the bright line tests offered by the state (state law controls) and the landowners (lot lines define the relevant parcel) as too easily subject to manipulation. The Court defined the relevant parcel as a single combined lot based on several factors:  (1) that merger as a result of common ownership is a reasonable and usual zoning and land use control and there was a voluntary merger; (2) riverside property is often subject to restrictions on development; and (3) treatment as one lot did not substantially diminish the value of the land without the regulation.    

Murr may be an example where the “no harm, no foul” rule led to the right result. But generally speaking, the government’s defenses just got better, and the landowner’s burden tougher, in regulatory takings cases. And while there were three dissenters (Justice Gorsuch did not participate in the case), without two more votes, Murr will be the law for the foreseeable future.

The Power of Pension Funds: How to Win Friends and Influence Others

Posted on March 6, 2018 by Gail Port

While both tout their desire to reduce the State’s carbon footprint and address climate change,  New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli have  their differences when it comes to  New York State pension fund’s fossil fuel investments.   

The New York state pension fund (known as the New York State Common Retirement Fund) is the third largest pension fund in the United States, with an audited value as of March 2017 of $192.4 billion in assets.  The pension fund holds and invests assets of over one million state and local government employees, retirees, and beneficiaries. At issue are holdings of at least 50 oil and gas companies with significant carbon-intensive operations.  Comptroller DiNapoli is the sole trustee of the pension fund, and is advised by several independent advisory committees.

DiNapoli is under pressure from Cuomo, State Senator Liz Krueger, and certain environmental groups to divest the pension fund from fossil-fuel investments.  DiNapoli has pushed back on immediate divestment on several grounds, most importantly, that as a fiduciary his first priority is to earn a good return for the approximately 1.1 million New Yorkers who rely on the state pension system for their retirement security.  While recognizing that the effects of climate change represent a systemic risk to the returns of the pension fund, the economy and the welfare of the people of the State, DiNapoli believes that he can be more effective in managing those systemic climate change risks by the use of the significant power of the pension fund to influence the policies of oil and gas companies.  That includes shareholder activism (i.e., filing shareholder resolutions), voting proxies, investor collaborations and corporate engagement programs.

On the latter point, Comptroller DiNapoli has cited ExxonMobil’s agreement to implement a shareholder proposal, co-filed by the state pension fund and the Church of England, which caused ExxonMobil to agree to assess how it might be impacted by the Paris Agreement goals to reduce global warming. Duke Energy has responded to a similar shareholder resolution seeking to require it to analyze how the Paris Agreement will impact its business and plans to produce a climate risk assessment in the first quarter of 2018. DiNapoli asserts that because these oil and gas companies will not go out of business as a consequence of divestment of the pension fund’s holdings, he can be more effective by having a seat at the table as a shareholder to influence companies’ actions and disclosures.  Critics of this view, including State Senator Krueger, believe the shareholder influence is limited and that divestment sends a stronger message than does the Comptroller’s more nuanced and varied approach. 

Another investment strategy recently employed by the Comptroller was to double the pension fund’s investment-- to $4 billion-- in a low-emissions index designed by Goldman Sachs Asset Management.  That index is more geared toward stocks, such as Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp., than higher carbon-emitters, such as ExxonMobil and Chevron.  DiNapoli has said that since 2016 the Goldman Sachs designed index has delivered returns comparable to the Russell 1000, thereby yielding strong investment returns with the benefit of significantly reducing the carbon footprint associated with that investment.

Although DiNapoli has expressed reservations about allowing pension fund investments to be influenced by political forces, he recently agreed to join forces with Governor Cuomo and others on decarbonization strategies for the pension fund investment portfolio.  While there are no immediate plans to divest the energy holdings of the pension fund, DiNapoli and Cuomo have agreed to create an independent advisory committee to develop a low carbon future roadmap for the fund.  In his January 2018 State of the State Address, Cuomo called for an end to fossil fuel related activities in the pension fund and stated his intent to work with DiNapoli so New York can “put our money where our mouth is.” Cuomo then asked for a round of applause for Comptroller DiNapoli and his efforts.

Regardless of whether DiNapoli takes immediate moves to decarbonize the portfolio, the movement towards divestment is gaining momentum. California ended its pension fund investments in coal companies in 2015 and is facing pressure to decarbonize its portfolio. On January 10, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Comptroller Scott Stringer announced that NYC plans to divest its five pension funds from fossil fuel investments, which will be the largest divestment of any municipality to date. Stringer stated, “[T]his a first-in-the-nation step to protect our future and our planet – for this generation and the next. Safeguarding the retirement of our city’s police officers, teachers, firefighters and city workers is our top priority, and we believe that their financial future is linked to the sustainability of the planet.” De Blasio and Stringer were praised by environmental activists after the announcement and by State Senator Kruger who continued her call for State Comptroller DiNapoli to follow suit with respect to the New York State pension fund investments.

Lots of good intentions, lots of ideas and a bunch of strange bedfellows--only time will tell if these investment (and divestment) initiatives will continue to gain traction and make a difference. And what about us-- shouldn’t we too be employing low-emissions/decarbonization investment strategies with our portfolios?

Border Wall Waivers—A Continuing Problem

Posted on March 5, 2018 by Robert Uram

In January 2017, I warned that it was not too soon to begin thinking about reining in the Trump administration’s ability to use the waiver authority that the Congress adopted in 2005 to carry out its program to build new border facilities.  The 2005 waiver authority allows the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to unilaterally waive the federal government’s obligation to comply with any law that he feels will get in the way of building border walls. The grant of the waiver authority was a mistake. It is an affront to the rule of law, treats the residents of border areas as second-class citizens, and undermines the environmental laws that have been so successful in making America a great place to live.

My warning has not been heeded. The waiver authority issue has been lost in the raucous debate over immigration and border walls. None of the bills that were considered in the Senate during the week of February 12-16 proposed to change or reduce the waiver authority. Republicans in the House are actually seeking to expand the waiver authority. Democrats seem incapable of making the waiver issue a part of the conversation. This is inexcusable.

 Dozens of laws have been waived since 2005. These include waivers of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and laws that protect national parks and wildlife refuges.   The Trump administration continues to assert the right to exercise the 2005 waiver authority including waivers for walls near San Diego and for walls in New Mexico near the Texas Border.  Additional waivers are planned for the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, most likely including a wall through Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge. Established in 1943, the Refuge provides important habitat for more than 400 species of birds and would be devastated by a wall through its boundaries.  

I have practiced environmental law for more than 40 years. I know first hand that the environmental laws are not perfect, but there is no question that they are effective. Our air is cleaner and the water quality in our rivers and streams is vastly better. We are no longer creating toxic wastes sites and old dumps have been remediated. We have protected wildlife and ensured the continued existence of many species that would have been forever lost. We have saved billions of dollars on health problems that have not occurred because we have cleaner air, water, and land.  We have done all of this and have continued to prosper economically.  You only have to read the reports of air and water pollution in countries like China and India to appreciate how much our environmental laws have benefitted us. Application of the full suite of environmental laws to any new border facilities that may be built is needed to ensure that their environmental effects will be properly identified and addressed. 

New border walls and conversion of existing vehicle barriers to border walls will cause local residents grave economic, environmental, and social harm.   Border walls have divided farms and ranches, caused flooding in Texas and Arizona, and destroyed sensitive habitat for endangered species and other wildlife.  More than 90 endangered and threatened species including jaguars, ocelots, snowy plovers, pygmy owls, and the rare Mexican gray wolf use habitats on both sides of the 2,000-mile border. Without the protection of the Endangered Species Act, these species will be much more likely to become extinct.

Lawsuits now pending before Federal Judge Curiel in San Diego have been the only tangible effort to stopping the use of the 2005 waiver authority. The lawsuits challenge three waivers on a number of grounds, including arguments that the waiver authority has expired, that its use does not apply to the work covered by the waiver, and that the waiver is unconstitutional. Because the Congress has severely restricted judicial review of waivers, these kinds of lawsuits are difficult to win. On February 27, 2018, Judge Curiel rejected the challenge to three waivers.

Judge Curiel’s decision will likely be appealed. But it is more likely than not that litigation will be unable to block waivers. The Congress will have to act to rein in waivers.  A responsible Congress would address this issue decisively and head on. If the waiver remains on the books, it will not only lead to harm to border communities and the environment, it will also be a precedent to excuse compliance with other laws for other reasons. Protecting our legal system should be of bipartisan concern. The Congress is likely to return to the border issue in the weeks ahead. When it does, the Congress should set aside its past mistakes and revoke use of the waiver for any future repair or construction of border facilities of any kind and should decline to repeat its mistake with new, additional executive branch waiver authority.  

If Jimmy Fallon Was an ACOEL Member, Here is What He’d Sing

Posted on March 1, 2018 by Jeff Thaler

While many in Philadelphia were in the streets after the end of Super Bowl LII, and New Englanders promptly went to bed after the last pass hit the Minneapolis turf, the Doppelgänger of a native-born Minnesotan made a national appearance in the middle of that long, cold night.

By now, many have seen the 2018 version of “The Times They Are a-Changin,’” performed by someone born 10 years after the original version was created—one Jimmy Fallon. According to my consultation with Dr. Google, the only time Mr. Fallon has talked about environmental issues was back in May 2016 when he did a segment on Sarah Palin, climate change and climate scientists.

Therefore I think it is time that ACOEL commissioned Mr. Fallon to perform an updated version of that and another Dylan song, ones many of us could probably sing by heart (with a refresher class) even though written in the early ‘60s—that pre-NRDC/CAA/CWA/ESA/et.seq. classic, “Blowin’ in the Wind.” The original lyrics for both songs need to be refreshed, as do all of us who were alive and kicking back then, so here they are:

The Times They Are A-Changin'

Come gather ’round people                                                       

Wherever you roam                                                                           

And admit that the waters                                                               

Around you have grown                                                               `                   

And accept it that soon                                                                     

Under water will be our coast and flood zones                       

If our kids’ future to you is worth savin’                                   

Then you better start swimmin’                                                  

or you’ll sink like a stone                                                              

For climate times they are a-changin’


Come federal and state legislators

Please heed the call

Don’t stand in the doorway

Don’t block up the hall

For those who should be ashamed

Will be those who have stalled

Weather extremes are outside and they’re raging

Floods, fires and storms will break down your walls

For climate times they are a-changin’


Come bloggers, reporters, and skeptics

Throughout the land

Please don't criticize

What you refuse to understand

Rising CO2 levels and temperatures

Are getting beyond our command

Your old fossil-fueled road is

Rapidly agin'.

Please embrace a clean energy new one and

Vote out of office resisting government hands

For climate times they are a-changin'.


Blowin’ in the Wind

How many droughts & fires must the world endure                                  

Before we know they are a warning?

Yes and how many seas must flood our shores                        

Before we seek a solution?                                                           

Yes and how many times must the fake news fly                     

That climatic disruption is not real?                                                

The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind                              

The answer is blowin' in the wind.                                                    


How many years will our beaches and airports exist

Before they are washed into the sea?

Yes and how many years can the glaciers survive

Before they are just memories?

How many heads must be buried in the sand

So that people can deny what should be seen?

The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind

The answer is blowin' in the wind


How many more years must we create greenhouse gases

Such that too many species can’t survive?

Yes and how many times will clean energy projects be held up

Before too many people have died?

How can we power our cars, lights and heat pumps

Without harming the world for our kids?

The answer my friend is blowin' in onshore winds

The answer is blowin' in offshore wind.


So break out your harmonicas and guitars, and we will sing the songs of climate changes while working to change our laws and policies for the benefit of all.