Latest / EnvironMental with Dandelion / Extractive Tapestry Part 4: How the Judicial System Blocks Sustainability | EnvironMental Podcast
Transcript
- Aub Wallace: Hold on. I'm hidden. Really, really hidden. By myself. There, that's better. Hi Regan. you said that you do this by feeling today I'm feeling very tired. I'm feeling very frustrated by this one. ⁓ yeah. This yeah. ⁓ so imagery Mia That's all I kind of feel is like nyh. Up straight. ⁓ hi. You'd think after like several years of doing this, I would know what I'm doing. ⁓ I don't. I don't. I don't. Okay, hopefully you got something from that. You always do a great job. Don't forget to do like the that we want to test thumbnails. So let's I think I can do that. A really simple one and then a really busy one in this. I'm naming well, I'll write it down, but not very many names because it's really about like the system itself. Yeah, but Clarence Thomas and Justice Alito Justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are fucking problematic. And the and they kinda like several other justices are, but They're gonna go unnamed. ⁓ Maybe they shouldn't. Maybe I should rewrite the script. it's long enough. It's long enough, Ob. Okay. Gonna do it. I'm gonna do it. Let me get my water. Mm. And hopefully like I'm screen sharing, but I think that it goes on two separate things. I tested it before, even though I didn't have like the best intention there, the best like thing there. Thing. ⁓ last time I didn't have the best experience with it. So this time we're gonna just see how it goes. Feeling really tired, not a hundred percent sure this is gonna be this is my best work. ⁓ I feel like I wrote it in a fugue state. ⁓ I feel like this one happened in a Feuque State. So let's go. Imagine spending years building a brand loved by millions. Your brand is fueled by sustainability and activism and unique care for storytelling that is truthful, accessible, and aesthetically loud. You work hard every single day to live your life through your values, taking your well-earned community on the journey with you, sometimes literally, to raise. Millions for environmental nonprofit organizations. Your platform leads you to be invited to stages and events all over the world to share your story and raise awareness for the causes that drive you and fill your heart with joy. And you decide: finally, finally, it's time to take the next step. You are ready to trademark your brand. Build around it to support your community even further and offer a jumping off point for continued advocacy. And on the day you thought would be a shining moment, one of the best days of your life, the world stops. Because you're being sued. And the complaint? It's from a brand you've previously worked with, a brand that claims to have the same values as you do, to spread environmental awareness, take responsibility for their impact, and support grassroots activism. That's actually a quote here. Their lawsuit could effectively put an end to the work you feel like you're just starting. You feel like it's a personal attack on your advocacy and your community. You're afraid and frustrated, and you hate the idea that this whole thing is a waste of time since everybody involved is supposedly working towards the same goal. And unfortunately, the letter of the law as written isn't. On your side, you're looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, wasting time and money that would be so much better spent holding polluters accountable and shifting culture away from the extractive systems it's operating in. This is what's happening right now between climate activist Pattie Gonia and outdoor apparel brand Patagonia. And okay, so in case it isn't obvious, I am team Pattie. Emotionally, in my activism heart, I've been following them for a long time. I love the platform they're creating. Hands down, one of the best. Environmental activists out there right now raising awareness. But the unfortunate truth is that the law isn't in Pattie's favor. The judicial system isn't built for community grassroots activism, it's built for corporations and legal loopholes. That's what I'm talking about today on Environmental with Dandelion. If this is your first time tuning in, hi, hello, good morning. It might not be morning where you are, but it's morning here. I'm Aub, your host and the chief cultivator here at Dandelion. We're a nature-based marketing agency designing an alternative marketing system for the brands whose stories make a difference in the world. And you, honey. You're the eco-curious baddie who has been called an alarmist hippie your whole life. And now that the world is literally burning, like ⁓ my god, so hot outside, the I Told You So doesn't really feel like the flex we thought it would. Right now on Environmental, we are unpacking the who behind the lag in the global sustainability transition. It can be a little scary, but we need to explore how we can outgrow this old paradigm holding us back because I believe that the best way to change an extractive system is to grow its alternatives. Step one is knowing what's going on. Now, the topics I cover in this podcast aren't what the algorithm wants you to know. The suppression, the shadow ban, okay, it's real here, folks. So please help me people power this message by sharing this series and subscribing. to this channel so you don't miss any of these episodes. This is part four of the extractive tapestry series. I gotta tell you, I'm really tired, okay? It like. This is part four of the extractive tapestry series, and I have to tell you, it's exhausting me. Everywhere I turn, I'm like, ⁓ I feel like I'm getting punched in the face. But in this one, we're sharing the who and the how behind the judicial systems unsustainable methods. Kind of. Kind of. So far, I've covered the administration, the technocrats, the military-industrial complex. That one was a woof. If you haven't watched those yet, I do recommend watching them too, because while it doesn't particularly matter what order you watch them in, I do feel more informed as I go through this journey. So I ro watching them in order makes a lot of sense. The research and writing and recording and editing is my honest work. So if you want to dive deeper into any of the information that I share in my episodes, you can always find the link to my resources in my show notes. This is today's, but they all look like this. ⁓ it's a lot, y'all. It is a lot. It's a lot. ⁓ okay. I've said in past episodes that I had intended for this series. Now, I have said in past episodes that I intend for this series to be an international view. But I keep finding myself back in the United States, partly because that is my education in criminal justice and the US government system, ⁓ but also because the conversation needs to be centered there for real change to happen. So today's video essay is also centered around the USA's judicial system. Equal justice under law. Equal justice under law. These are the words written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court building. They express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. Do we think they do that? I did, but let's continue watching. So a little known fact about me is that I actually exturned for the Michigan Court of Appeals when I was in college. I read court cases, the arguments, shared. Conversations and opinions with my judge and her law clerk. I did a lot of fact checking. And I did a lot of fact checking for precedent and potential doors for arguments. I even got to draft an opinion. It was cute. But I told you that ⁓ because that's the lens I'm looking through today. The one that understands how it actually works on the inside and what it means to follow the intent of a law versus the letter of a law. So that I don't really get ahead of myself, I'd like to start this video essay with the US Constitution. Okay. Let's check out these guys. Hmm. The US Constitution was written and signed by these men in 1787, governing 13 states. It wasn't considering the 50, like there was no There was no consideration that they could grow or that there were gonna be 50 states. I'm sure like some people thought about it, but like 50. And it definitely, certainly 100% does not cover different lives or experiences. The colony, the colonists were literally outlaws from their own land stealing new land to create a government devoid of a king. Where they would feel represented and could pursue the life they wanted. To be clear, they were not trying to make a good place. They wanted to make a prosperous place. And we the people meant we the colonists. Anyway, it was these guys. Let's take a look who we have, okay? We've got a wealthy merchant, a merchant, or a merchant. Family of moderate success, Yale educated lawyer. ⁓ here's an attorney. another attorney. a shopkeeping family, a wealthy merchant, another lawyer, another wealthy family. ⁓ look, a wealthy farming family. Like ⁓ w there's wealthy tavern keepers, blacksmiths, doctors, prosperous immigrant family who made money because slavery was a thing. This list goes on and on and on and on and on and on. ⁓ And they're all really proud, and what you see really consistently is wealth, slavery, military. That's what we have. That's where we started, and that's where it continues to go. If you haven't read the Constitution, I'm gonna recommend it for you just so that, yeah, okay. Now the Constitution, here we are. The Constitution and the rules around how these people now the Constitution is actually quite short. ⁓ it creates Congress and the rules around how they are elected. the powers they hold, and there's a lot of information around the impeachment of a president. How laws pass, and who counts as a full person in the eyes of the law in 1787. Okay. Because, you know, slavery was a thing, and slaves didn't count as full as a full person, nor could they have their own vote. But the number of slaves in a colony did hold political weight, which gave rich plantation owners more power in the government, just as It is today I'm not sorry for that. Which gave rich plantation owners more power in the government, rich people holding more power in the in the government. See, it's the same as today. It's the same. So this goes on. The the Constitution goes on to define the executive branch in Article Two. See, there's a lot here. It also states the president, vice president, and all civil office all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for conviction of for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The convicted felon has not been removed from office. Who's upholding the constitution? Mmm. And finally, the const in Article 3, the Constitution defines the do the judicial system. It is the shortest description, and it basically just says, yeah, we have judges too, and they all they have ultimate say in whatever comes before them. Ultimate say. That's what it basically says. Then there are a few more articles here about debt, how to change the constitution. etc. And then there are six then there are twenty-six then there are twenty-six amendments. I wanna go like this. Is the amendment here today? No. As a people, I'm a people. I'm gonna tell you the basics of the rights that you're granted by the Constitution, just so that you know where to look if you come up against this. As a criminal justice graduate, I do feel the need to tell you that it isn't a substitute for reading them, because the Constitution is a bit subjective, but not really very subjective. There are some rights that you have, like the freedom of speech, the right to assemble, the right to petition the government for redress, for grievances. You can ask them to talk to you. The right to bear arms. No soldier can forcibly quarter in your house. That's wild to have to say, but I do think that might be coming up again. You have the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The right against double jeopardy and for a grand jury. You have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against you, to confront your witness, obtain your own witnesses, and you have the right to counsel. You have the right to reasonable bail without excessive fines, and you have to You and no cruel or unusual punishment. The USA does not allow slavery except as a punishment for a crime. Amendment 14 is actually kind of interesting because it says a state can't make a law that deprives someone of life, liberty, or property, or deny equal protection under the law. Native American people living on reservations do not count towards the whole number of persons in each state. And this rule technically only applies to males over 21. So two years after that, they amended the right. They two years after that they amended that right. They amend two years after that, ⁓ they amended and said that the right to vote cannot be denied or changed on account of race or color. Hold on to that one for later. Fifty years after that, they amended the right to vote, saying again, it cannot be saying that it cannot be denied or changed on account of sex. But one could technically argue that Amendment 14 still only prevent still only protects white guys. Your right to vote can also not be revoked for not paying taxes. And you can vote at eighteen now instead of twenty one, but there's still no like word around the white guy thing, you know. I went through this pretty fast, and I didn't share all the amendments here, just the USA citizens' like basic rights. And that's it. Those are the rights granted by the US Constitution. None of them, not a single one, ever even mention the environment or a right to clean air, water, land, or ecosystem. We to this day simply do not have that. And I Can't even say this is an oversight. Because at this point there were 13 states and most of the country hadn't even been explored. It was so abundant. These men couldn't even have imagined the impact of industry, and they definitely couldn't have imagined the internet, AI, or data centers. They like these dude, these dudes were into steam engines and bloodletting, and the first light bulb was a hundred years off. If you asked them, I Pretty much guarantee they would tell you that poisoning the water or the air was impossible and preposterous and obviously not something they would need to make a right for. Just saying. That's what I that's I think they'd be like, hmm, we would never do that. That's preposterous. That's so dumb. I don't know how what they spoke, but in my mind that's how they did it. Let's get Wikipedia up here. I'm a big fan of Wikipedia. Anyway. But the Constitution has but the Constitution has largely been considered a l a living document by the Supreme Court. But the Constitution has largely been considered a living document by the Supreme Court, saying in Trop vs. Dulles that amendments, specifically in that case, the Eighth Amendment about cruel and unusual punishment, that the words are pr are not precise and their scope is not static. So they must draw meanings from evolving standards of decency. The ability to make amendments also means we can change the document. Just like Maya Van Rossom is with Green Amendments for the people, big fan. Okay, I'm a big fan. I've had her on the twice on the show twice. Here's Maya talking about adding a green amendment to a constitution. Mine so. Now, it's pretty clear that we can't just blame a bunch of dead guys from the 1780s for why our wetlands are getting paved over today. When those ancient property first rules, when those when those ancient, I don't want to use the word ancient, because like yeah. When those old property first rules are being interpreted. ⁓ inflection. It's pretty clear we can't just blame a bunch of dead guys from the 1780s for why our wetlands are getting paved over right now when those old property first rules are being interpreted by real living human beings right right now. Right now, actually, a lot of arguments are coming out from the Supreme Court. We have this cultural myth that the Supreme Court justices are neutral. We put them in black robes, we sit them on high benches, and we pretend they just objectively listen to arguments and make choices. Because that's what they're supposed to do. That's what they're supposed to do. But they aren't robots. They are people, and people have friends, and they have social circles, and they are influenced. Like when Clarice Thomas, when Clarence Thomas is taking millions of dollars in luxury trips. From Texas Real Estate Billionaire and Republican mega donor Harlan Crow. Or Samuel Alito is flying on private jets to luxury fishing trips funded by hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer. This isn't illegal. To be clear, this isn't illegal. It's just corruption, but it's not illegal. The Constitution doesn't say anything about who the Supreme Court should be, whether they should be partisan or bipartisan. Or even what would make a good objective judge. They're just appointed. And in the cases of Thomas and Alito, they are groomed for that appointment for a long time. I highly recommend you watch the two videos I shared in my resource document from Redacted History with Andre White. He's amazing. He breaks down the story behind both justices Thomas and Alito in a way that will absolutely leave you floored. And probably pissed off. Arguably, you're gonna be pissed off. You just are. Because but this story, it's not about corruption, because it doesn't have to be. The difference between this story and the ones before is that this one's not about corruption, because it doesn't have to be. The real danger here isn't the lifetime of transactional bribes, it's something a lot subtler. Proximity. Let's look at this photo. If you remember, can I click on this? ⁓ yeah, let's look. Reject them cookies. All right. ⁓ of proximity. If you remember the first thing I said in the first part of this series, it was you are the seven people you surround yourself with most, something along those lines. Well, when you spend your vacations on super yachts and private islands with the exact venture capitalists and corporate titans whose wealth relies on constant wars and unchecked extraction, that lifestyle becomes your normal. You start to see the world from their side, you share their worldview. You genuinely believe that protecting corporate predictability is the ultimate social good and that environmental regulations are just a nuisance. Like they, you know. The the reality is that they don't need to break the law to help big oil. They just interpret that 1787 constitution through the lens of a 2026 billionaire beach party and call it be it being an originalist. This is where the mid-roll add will go. I don't know if it's good. I'm just gonna shove it on in there. Cases in point, but Another existential flaw here is that the courts say whether new laws are constitutional, right? Fine. And they hear cases about the letter of the law. But these laws are made by administrators and a revolving door influenced by capitalism protecting the bottom dollar. Which means that they get to hide behind loopholes, like with Patigonia or In the Chevron V, Louisiana case from April. from April twenty twenty six. Or in the Chevron v. Louisiana case from April twenty twenty six. that's this one. Okay. Here's a story. It's got some background. In 1978, Louisiana passed the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act. The law protects and restores coastal resources and uses sustainable development practices by prohibiting certain uses of Louisiana's coastal zone, including oral oil production without a permit. That's great. Sounds awesome. But The clause to get passed had to grandfather inactivity that started before 1980. In 2013, Palak I don't know, I don't know if I'm gonna say this right. In 2013, Plaque Mines Parish filed several lawsuits against oil and gas companies for unpermitted work and for violating these laws, including Chevron. They won those cases in state court. But Chevron came through. And said because it started working there in World War Two, it was performing a federal service. So this wasn't a state case, it was a federal case. And the Supreme Court agreed. The problem here is that it allows companies to cause environmental harm if they can show that they have any connection to the government. It takes power away from states and communities that are actively dealing with the pollution every day. Now, I couldn't say this better than policy. I couldn't say this better than the Center for. Economic and policy research. This is a really great article. What they wrote is here. The most frustrating aspect of this case is that leaked internal documents have shown that oil companies know their activities in the Gulf have damaged coastal wetlands. The fact is not even being disputed. As long as the activities are legally permissible via federal guidance. The companies are just following orders and making money along the way. ⁓ Guys, the planet is just like a footnote in the money making scheme here. The impacted lives and ecosystems are not even considered. But you know, but you know what? If there but if there was a green amendment in the Constitution. This would likely be a different conversation. I really think so. This isn't the only time in very recent history that the justices protected companies over people, not by a long shot. And do not come for me about how companies are people. Fuck that. Fuck that. Fuck that. In 2023, there was a case. It was called Sackett versus the EPA. Alito penned this really terrible opinion. It totally undercut the Clean Water Act. I don't know if you remember this, but I do. I mean, it was like three years ago. But you know, everything the 24-hour news cycle is ridiculous. The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 by a bipartisan majority. To restore and maintain chemical, physical, and biological hold on. In 2023, there was this case, it's called Sackett versus the EPA. ⁓ Alito penned the Alito penned the decision. ⁓ and it completely undercut the Clean Water Act. I don't know if you remember that. I remember it, but like the 24-hour news cycle makes everything crazy, and this shit goes under the water, literally in this case. ⁓ And this shit goes like unnoticed. These sweeping changes, ⁓ my god, they go, they just they don't even it's like they don't even matter and people don't even know what's happening until shit like this happened. Okay, here's the backstory. Here's here's the story. The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972 by a bipartisan majority to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. Of the nation's waters. Previous definitions put forth by the Supreme Court included significant nexus and tributaries and wetlands, along with hydrologic nexuses, because like water is hugely connected underground, you know, groundwater. Groundwater. But groundwater isn't covered in the Clear Act Clean Water Act after the 2023 Sackett case. The Act was gutted by the Supreme Court, who ruled that in order to be considered the nation's waters, it had to be navigable and indistinguishably in the indistinguishably, indistinguishably part of a body of water that itself constitutes waters under the Clean Water Act. That's confusing ⁓ to say. But basically it means they have to be. You have to see that it's connected to a river. You have to be able to see it. Groundwater doesn't even exist even though it like it's what you and I drink every day. According to the Chicago Law Review, this not only eliminates protections for 50 to 80% of the streams and wetlands in the United States, but it makes the protections of the nation's waters practically impossible because while polluting the national waters is still illegal, dumping dumping in the wetlands and streams, if you can't see that they're connected to the nation's waters, is no longer regulated. And just in case you were wondering about this, nope, upstream or downstream dumping from a project doesn't matter if it's in a different county. So even if you can see it, if it's in a different county, doesn't frickin' matter. Okay? Doesn't frickin' matter. Because last year in 2025, the seven-county infrastructure coalition versus Eagle County. case it I like, I need to start again. Like, this is dense. Because last year's 2025 Seven County Infrastructure Coalition versus Eagle County case eroded our clean water even further when the Supreme Court ruled that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 doesn't require a governmental agency to consider the environmental effects of upstream and downstream projects. That are separated in time or place. What the actual fuck is happening? What what is this? ⁓ in case that was really dense, because for me it was really dense, it was hard to get through it. These between these three cases, local environmental harm. Okay. So in case that was just really dense because it was really dense and legal, ease is hard, just is intentionally hard. Between these three cases, local environmental harm is prosecutable locally if it's done by a federal. ⁓ isn't. So in case that was challenging to to understand the implications of where we are, because it's hard for me and it took a long time to like wrap my head around it. Between these three cases, local environmental harm is not prosecutable locally if it's done by a federal company. Groundwater and wetlands aren't protected from dumping. And if you are doing business on a tributary, you can just dump your shit the next county over. We're doomed. No big deal, MBD. You know, but at least the people in impacted communities can vote to chip. ⁓ Never mind, because Louisiana didn't just lose the case between state and federal actors for their coastlines, the state was also intentionally gerrymandered, and the citizens lost voting rights too. And this one. Okay. This also has a background. This happened this year in April, but it has a background. So it's been common. Alright, in April the Voting Rights Act was basically gutted, but this has, and I'm gonna cover that, but this has a background too, because in 2019, Rucho vs. Common Cause held that while partisan gerrymandering might be unjust, it is a political question. And federal courts have no power to decide what political when political gerrymandering has gone too far. I mean. I mean, really? Because I don't see how this is beyond the scope of the Supreme Court, y'all. I you But okay, they made the choice not to make the choice until now. Until now, because in April of this year, it got worse. So much worse. All right. With Louisiana v. Callus or Klays K I don't know. Sorry about the names. In the 2026 decision of Louisiana versus Cale Calais, let's go with Louisiana versus Calais, the Supreme Court ruled that political cherry that political gerrymandering is actually totally fine. Totally fine. Totally fine. Parties now have to prove the legislature had racial intent, meaning that if they say they're making a political motivated Politically motivated change to a part of the state that has mostly black voters, it's fine, just as long as they're not caught on tape saying, Yeah, we just want to change the black vote. Like, because remember in the constitution, making it harder to be to vote based on your race or color is not legal anymore. ⁓ but if you lie and say that it's for politics, that's fine. That's just fine. Okay. The court the court basically was just like, okay We're gonna look at the 14th Amendment. Remember the one with the white guys? And they're gonna and they ba and they say, well, you know, it doesn't explicitly stop politicians from playing dirty political games. So that's allowed. Like it doesn't stop politicians from helping white dudes reach prosperity, is what that feels like. Cause that was the 14th Amendment. The other amendments about race and sex. were different amendments, okay? Those they were different from each other. And okay, it's stressful. And you know what? This year the power plays giving the executive branch more power. They just keep on keeping on, y'all, because we're getting a barrage of opinions right now as the Supreme Court finishes their like judicial year. And the Trump v. Slaughter case has me like I don't want to say shocked, but I it's a little shocking, it's a little upsetting. You know what it like. Фан іт фундаментали It like it it like fundamentally affected my understanding of how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate. It makes all of these, they make me wonder whether equal justice under law even fucking applies anymore. Like, I don't know. I don't know. But this one, like they all shook me. Like they're all, they're all horrible. I don't see equal justice at all in any of these. But this one shooketh. I feel shooketh. Because the executive branch is legally clearing the deck of anyone who protects consumers from big capital. And it's a lot deeper than that. So in March, I always gotta give you the backstory because you know, actually if something reaches the Supreme Court case, there's a lot of backstory. So I try I'm trying to do it fast for you, but you know. It's hard. Last year, in March of twenty twenty five, do you remember this? President Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, who was the head of the Federal Trade Commission, citing that she was inconsistent with administrative policies. All right. Okay, this was technically illegal under the precedent of Humphreys Executor versus the United States, a 1935 case that set a precedent limiting the president's power over independent agencies. That's 91 years of cases built on this precedent that could now be overturned. This ruling, this ruling totally destroyed that precedent. With Chief Justice John Roberts writing, although it's up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom hold on. I need some time. But pull my shirt down, have a drink of water. This ruling totally destroyed that precedent. With Chief Justice John Roberts writing, although it's up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the president would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the president's powers. Subordinates who exercise the president's power are subject to removal by him. Then and only then can they remain accountable to the president and the president to the people. My fucking god, what is this? I wouldn't say that the president, current president of the United States, is accountable to anyone. this is basically like if the president of Tamach are the Beby. To work with someone he doesn't like very much, he can just like say goodbye. And he can put yes man in a place, which is what he's which is what's happening. You see it, right? In this situation, you are looking at an absolute takeover of the FTC, whose only job is to protect Americans from anti competitive, unfair, and deceptive business practices. ⁓ and the Supreme Court gave the keys to a piss poor businessman who is besties. Who have their fingers and all the consumer product pies who call the ESG their enemy and will not let you promote sustainable companies through ads, you can pretty much guarantee that sustainable products are gonna be shadow banned at least. And of course, of course, like this isn't just one case. This isn't just one thing. This has much larger implications because even though it's just about the FTC, the Supreme Court sets the highest precedent. This ruling can be used for dozens of agencies throughout the USA. Remember the previous precedent was set in 1935. That's ninety one years of precedent that can now be overturned and changed. I hate this. I hate this. This is what a continued takeover of democracy looks like. And honestly, we need international help. Somebody needs to come over here. C somebody somebody needs to go to the United States and completely intervene because your rights are up next. I've been covering I've been covering the Greenpeace versus international wow. Wow, let's talk international. I've been covering the Greenpeace versus energy transfer case since last year when it went international. Here's the general backstory. I know we got a lot of backstory today. In 2016, the company energy transfer wanted to put a pipeline through Native American state of sacred space. You know, you remember the Dakota Access Pipeline? It was huge news back when like huge news was actual a thing, actually a thing for more than a day. Thousands of people flocked to North Dakota to protest. The pipeline and Greenpeace was sort of at the forefront. They were very heavily supported. ⁓ spider, hello spider. After years of failed attempts, Energy Transfer finally found a court that would take their case against Screenpeace for defamation, and they won. Kind of, it's like still being litigated, blah, blah, blah. I think I might have them backwards. Okay. No, all right. Then Greenpeace sued internationally saying that energy transfer, that the energy transfer suit is a slap case. SLAPP cases are abusive lawsuits where corporations use their power to suppress free speech. There's this a really good article about this ⁓ from Greenpeace. I really recommend it. SLAPP cases that are won, like the energy transfer versus Greenpeace and North Dakota case, limit your legal ability to protest, which is literally given to you in the First Amendment. And they are actively taking this away from you. Yeah, I mean, you can find you can find anti-protest laws all over the United States right now. That I those laws, those laws are not legal. Those laws are not legal. No one's doing anything about it. So we need international help. With the absolute lawlessness of the USA right now, it's a really good move for Greenpeace to find an international mitigator. While this is really smart, I actually don't know if international accountability is enough. Last year, last summer in 2025, the International Court of Justice, ICJ, made it clear that countries, and they say states here, they that's how they work, need to do the made it clear that countries need to do a lot more to address climate change. And through this court, nations can hold each other accountable for acts against the climate. Awesome. I mean it's really It's really exciting. This is the information about it. But like what does that actually look like? And at this point, why isn't everyone in every nation working to hold the USA accountable? Well, it's actually really hard. Well, actually, it's pretty hard because if that would be like Canada or Mexico or somebody just being like like suing the United States for damages against the climate, which they would have a really good case, but then what? It's really unclear what the punishment would be or what the changes would be considering, you know, we're not following the Paris climate agreement anymore. I'm saying we, but yeah, it's a we. I'm a dual citizen, so sometimes it's hard to be like, ⁓ yeah, I'm a wee. I'm pardon. I'm a we. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The the store this part of the story this part of the international story gets cool. It gets better though, because again, last year, 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a historic advisory opinion, which established that states have a direct human rights obligation to protect people from climate harm. There's always been sort of this like tentative thing where it was like, yeah, well, climate change, it kind of causes a lot of human suffering, blah, blah, blah. But this court actually was like, was like, yeah, man, yeah, man. Like countries that allow their people to be affected by climate change this negatively. Like they are impacting human rights. Like that's a human rights violation. Awesome. It's this is it's it's great. This is a great step towards a green amendment being internationally recognized. But while this is a historic case, it's actually also still conceptual. It says what hasn't worked in the past, but it doesn't lay out how to make it work in the future. It's just Not there yet. And I I think that's changing. This is really hard to do to get people to agree on. I mean, if you watch the cop, any of the cop 20, cop 30, whatever, like this is really, really hard to do. If you watched any of the cops or whatever, you know how challenging it is to get intergovernmental cooperation. So for now it looks like federal and international cases aren't exactly working yet. But what about local cases? I would say that's definitely possible. Okay. So for now it looks like federal and international cases aren't exactly working yet. But I don't think that means that we should just be waiting for them. To catch up in the meantime. Sometimes when I research and write these episodes, I get really scared. This is one of those times because I really feel like the I really feel like the judicial system and the courts are a check in the world that that makes sure that we are taken care of. I feel like that's the goal. And I don't see that happening at All like what do you mean that if it's in another county you can dump businesses can just dump in shit into the water? Like, where is the connection to science? Where is the actual protections around people? Even if we're not talking about the environment because that wasn't written into the constitution, like the job is to protect the people, and even if you are an originalist, you have Have to agree that it's to protect, that the Constitution was written to protect citizens from. From one part of the government taking over the country, and that's not happening here. Not even a little bit. In fact, the opposite is happening. So I get scared. I get heartbroken. I get tired. And sometimes I'm like, fuck this. Maybe I want to give up. Maybe this isn't even worth it. Maybe like maybe I don't care and I should just watch it all burn down because that's what's happening anyway. Maybe I shouldn't be posting on YouTube because it's, you know, it's easy to spiral anyway. It's easy to. Because maybe I shouldn't be posting on YouTube because it is part of the extractive tapestry that I'm trying to get rid of. But I always go back to this idea that if we continue to just happily sit by our ponds if we and we're not available for comment, if like there are so many people out there being like, I want to change the world and I don't know how, or they're like, I don't like the way the world is moving, so I'm just not gonna engage. I'm not gonna engage with social media or share my opinion. If we all do that and we live happily and without comment, like the other side gets to spread their influence all over the place. So for me, in order to change the way our culture moves. We have to be able to support each other and we have to s be able to stand up. Against it. Like we we need to share our opinion. We need to use the free speech that we're granted in constitutions around the world. That's what they're for. Free speech exists so that we can democratize, so that we can get together and we can make change in the world. Because otherwise, how do how do we not? How otherwise, how do we make any difference or any positive good in the world at all? For me, that starts with knowing. For me, that starts with knowing what we're up against so that I know what we can do to make a difference. So for this episode, actually, the hero ⁓ that is setting an incredible example is my own aunt, Keasha In her hometown of Benson, Texas. When she saw that an aluminum factory Was moving into her neighborhood across from a school, she jumped into action right along with her community. Together. Together they created and grew a Facebook group and they attended town hall meetings, they got lawyers, excuse me, they got lawyers involved, and they even recalled like three out of four of their own city council because they didn't feel represented in the wake of the aluminum plant dispos in the aluminum plant proposal. They didn't just tell the resident, they like the their City Council just didn't tell the residents of their little Texan town that a smelter was moving in and would poison the air across from their children's school. They fought back against becoming yet another sacrificed city in small-town USA. Honestly, the aluminum plant was like. Not ready. They were not ready for this level. They were not ready for Aunt Keisha. Let me tell you know what? They were not ready for Aunt Keisha. Let me tell you. And to this, I say, hell yes. Thank you for the example. Benson, Texas. Celebrate yourself and we'll celebrate you too. Because it is possible for every single one of us to do this. Yes, it is. It absolutely is possible. So here's what I suggest for how you can fight back locally, because federally it isn't just is just not gonna happen, obviously. For one, know what's happening in your local area. And if you don't like it, get your community get together and work together like the people of Benson, Texas, to oust that shit. Two. If you're in the USA, push for a Green Amendment in your constitution. You can literally just reach out to Maya Van Rossom directly, or you can check her site to find a local chapter. If you're outside of the US, find out what protections you do have and make sure that governments and local businesses are holding up their end of the bargain. Basically, it's up to us to be a freaking watchdog, so let's do it and let's push it, okay? Number three. Check out and if you can, donate to Client Earth. Their mission is to use the power of law to bring systemic change that protects the earth for and with its inhabitants. Client Earth is very cool. Step out and cre yeah, okay. Number four is step out and create good in the world. Just create good and fairness. Normalize goodness, normalize fairness, normalize care and kindness. The only way that we can change the influence and culture of our society is to show up every day as a positive force in the world. I know how that sounds. I know how that sounds, and I know how hard it is, but it is what we have to do. We have to change. Or if we're in bad trouble, guys. Okay, now we take our deep breath. This is the end of the judicial system episode of part four of the extractive tapestry where we talked about the judicial system. I'm not done. I thought this was gonna be an eight part series, but it might be longer. Unfortunately, there's a lot of influence in our world. And in part five, I'm actually talking influencer core. I'm taking extra time. ⁓ yeah. In part five, we're talking influencer core, like the overconsumption baddies, the Sheehan Halls. How does it influence us? How is it impacting the climate? How is it keeping how is it keeping this world unsustainable? Not just ⁓ my intention for that is to answer that question and not just in a way that says like this is what they're doing. And it's like a one-to-one baddie, but how are they actually influencing that that system doesn't change? Because remember, this series is about influence. It's about influence in our society, it's about influence in our economy, in our pol in our politics, in our policy, in our judicial system, in our in the internet, and the way that we communicate with each other. We are being influenced. To stay unsustainable and to turn a blind eye to what will absolutely be an apocalyptic future. I say that with my full chest. I'm not kidding. What's doing that? Why is it doing that? So stay tuned for that episode. ⁓ this one was a little late, later than our normal schedule because I'm taking extra time to research and write this series. So my posting schedule is like kind of off. So it my posting schedule is kind of off right now. ⁓ I can't apologize for it because I want this to be good. I want this to be clear, ⁓ and I want it to be like fully understandable. Even though it's really heavy and dense, I need it to be understandable. So please don't forget to subscribe so that you don't miss the upcoming extractive tapestry episodes. And eventually I'll get back to interviewing incredible people. They're amazing. If no one told you lately, thank you for the work you're doing, especially if that work is on yourself. I will see you next time. Bye. Peep b