The basic pillars of the U.S. environmental democracy movement that took root in the 1960s and 1970s are transparency, public participation, and accountability. The implementation of these three principles through various laws and regulations transformed environmental decisionmaking and significantly improved the physical environment. At the same time, however, it arguably added more time, more process, and more cost to the permitting of projects and the decisions of regulators. In response, there has now developed a growing backlash by academics like University of Michigan legal scholar Nicholas Bagley and Stanford political scientist Francis Fukuyama, amplified by such public intellectuals as Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson, and Marc Dunkelman. Whatever one calls these critiques -- Vetocracy, the Abundance Agenda, and Supply-side Progressivism are a few of the catchy labels -- they cohere around the notion that our well-intentioned environmental laws and regulations have created a world of scarcity by hobbling society's ability to build the future we want. To achieve a fully-decarbonized economy and harvest the bountiful amenities that will make our lives better, richer, and easier, the critics argue, we need to unshackle the forces of growth and innovation from "paperwork and procedure and hearings and disclosure demands and lawsuits." But where does that leave the equally powerful ideal of environmental democracy, especially at a time when populism is ascendent on both the left and the right? In this discussion seminar, we will interrogate these ideas and critiques and explore whether and how we might find a viable path forward. Elements used in grading: Full attendance, reading of assigned material, and active participation. Class meets: 5:LAW 30 PM-7:LAW 30 PM on Sept. LAW 14, Sept. LAW 28, Oct. LAW 12, Oct. LAW 26.
1 units · Law Mandatory P/R/F
The basic pillars of the U.S. environmental democracy movement that took root in the 1960s and 1970s are transparency, public participation, and accountability. The implementation of these three principles through various laws and regulations transformed environmental decisionmaking and significantly improved the physical environment. At the same time, however, it arguably added more time, more process, and more cost to the permitting of projects and the decisions of regulators. In response, there has now developed a growing backlash by academics like University of Michigan legal scholar Nicholas Bagley and Stanford political scientist Francis Fukuyama, amplified by such public intellectuals as Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson, and Marc Dunkelman. Whatever one calls these critiques -- Vetocracy, the Abundance Agenda, and Supply-side Progressivism are a few of the catchy labels -- they cohere around the notion that our well-intentioned environmental laws and regulations have created a world of scarcity by hobbling society's ability to build the future we want. To achieve a fully-decarbonized economy and harvest the bountiful amenities that will make our lives better, richer, and easier, the critics argue, we need to unshackle the forces of growth and innovation from "paperwork and procedure and hearings and disclosure demands and lawsuits." But where does that leave the equally powerful ideal of environmental democracy, especially at a time when populism is ascendent on both the left and the right? In this discussion seminar, we will interrogate these ideas and critiques and explore whether and how we might find a viable path forward. Elements used in grading: Full attendance, reading of assigned material, and active participation. Class meets: 5:30 PM-7:30 PM on Sept. 14, Sept. 28, Oct. 12, Oct. 26.
Offered in Autumn 2026 at Stanford University.