Birmingham's Triple Bottom Line
Birmingham, Alabama, seeks to create a comprehensive sustainability plan. They risk (further?) violating state law.
Yesterday, the city leaders of Birmingham, Alabama, announced they would “engage with residents, business owners, and community leaders to develop a comprehensive sustainability plan.”
In doing so, they will also have to take great care to avoid (further?) violating Alabama state law.
The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to "Agenda 21," adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama.
-- excerpt from SB477 (2012)That part of Alabama’s SB477 — about not adopting or implementing policy that infringe or restrict property rights without “due process” — is already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments).
And although the Trump Administration has recently been accused of violating due process, there’s no reason to suspect the city of Birmingham will follow the Trump Administration’s lead. The city’s press release even states “Equity and inclusivity will be at the heart of this initiative, ensuring that all residents and community members—especially those in historically underserved communities—help shape sustainability strategies that directly address their needs.” So either the city leaders’ never got — or ignored — Trump’s formal memo about D.E.I., too.
But the Alabama state law also prohibits the city from working with any of the non-governmental or inter-governmental organizations defined in Agenda 21.
Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from those non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.
-- excerpt from SB477 (2012)And that would prohibit the city of Birmingham from, for example, engaging with the USA branch of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI USA). That’s because the ICLEI USA “is the ‘Local Authority Major Group Co-Organizer Partner’ and the ‘Local Government and Municipal Authority Focal Point’ for UNFCCC climate change negotiations” as stated on its website. And the UNFCC — United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — is specifically mentioned in Agenda 21.
So it appears to me the city of Birmingham — as well as the city of Florence, Alabama — are already violating Alabama state law because they are members of ICLEI USA and so in a membership “agreement” prohibited by the Alabama law. Additionally, membership requires the payment of dues, thereby the cities have expended “any sum of money” also prohibited by the Alabama law.
I should mention that I’m not an attorney, judge, Alabama state legislator, or Alabama city official. But if I had to guess at the city leaders’ reasoning for appearing to violate Alabama state law by being a member of ICLEI USA, I gather it has something to do with their desire to associate with an organization that describes itself as “the oldest and largest network of local governments advancing sustainability.” Of course, the freedom to associate is not exactly the same as the freedom of assembly mentioned in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (“peaceably to assemble”). But over sixty years ago the Supreme Court extended its interpretation of the 1st Amendment to explicitly protect “forms of ‘association’ that are not political in the customary sense but pertain to the social, legal, and economic benefit of the members.” And that’s what these cities hope to do by associating with one another in the ICLEI USA network: bring benefits to their cities, or as the city of Birmingham put it, “creating a healthier, more resilient, and economically vibrant future for its residents, business owners, and community leaders.” That describes a combined social, environmental, and economic impact — also referred to as the “triple bottom line.”
Announced only yesterday, Birmingham’s sustainability plans are little more than a fact sheet about what is to come. But I look forward to seeing what “The Magic City” will create, whether in defiance — or with the blessing — of Alabama’s state legislature.
Repeating the question from this previous post about how anti-sustainability measures in the USA are limiting American freedoms — “In your habitat, are there sustainability programs stuck in the transition between ‘Say What?’ and ‘Hell Yes!’?”