Sunday, January 19, 2014

Green Guilt: Profiting from Disaster

Contemplating the most recent environmental catastrophe in West Virginia (see, e.g., Ann Moore, West Virginia chemical spill triggers tap water ban, Reuters, Jan. 10, 2014), I can’t help but think how this misfortune is going to cause a spike in work for some of those working in the legal environmental field. Selling environmental services surely will become just a little bit easier in West Virginia and elsewhere, and an environmental lawyer would wisely be reminding clients that now might be a good time to do a bit of proactive self-examination.  As much as we might not want to be, we are a reactive society, and a “don’t let what happened to them happen to you” warning would be one well-heeded.

Even so, I can’t help but feel guilt about making money when others have been so directly harmed. Is a spike in work stemming from an environmental calamity wrong? Should it be?

I first started contemplating this notion (or, rather, feeling guilty) early in my career when I was working on Superfund issues and frequently heard the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act described as a ‘lawyers’ relief act.’ Lots of firms had a very healthy Superfund business going on in the ’80s as companies bickered about cleaning up previously contaminated sites.  Many have criticized the impact of the law on the economy, but I can’t help but notice how much of the environment was cleaned up even as lawyers and others earned a living dickering over the details.

I was more conflicted then than I am now. There are many actors in the environmental field. We each have our roles. Some can afford to work pro bono a lot. Some cannot. Some clients are far more easily persuaded to take more environmentally responsible actions after a catastrophe has occurred. Some lawyers, and government types, and judges hold those responsible for environmental disasters accountable. Some people will be harmed and not sufficiently compensated. But some clients who might not have taken action otherwise may take preventive measures now that will decrease the chance of an environmental disaster in the future. That’s really what so many of are working for. 

Environmental disasters in all likelihood will always happen. We need to learn from them and decrease the odds that similar disasters will occur in the future. There’s nothing wrong with working toward that goal. What’s unfortunate is that clients might be more inspired to take action when some major misfortune has recently taken place.

—Lori Tripoli

No comments:

Post a Comment