From floods and fires to droughts and destruction, California has entered a new era of uncertainty. Watching climate change-related disasters ravage the planet, his health and home, Avroh Shah is searching for justice.
As one of 18 plaintiffs in a landmark climate case, Genesis B. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Palo Alto High School sophomore has already dedicated himself to the environment and to the future. His group of plaintiffs are searching to make long-term change to help the environment by forcing the EPA to change its methods.
“Of all the things I’ve done, advocacy-wise, this, by far, has the potential to make the most impact,” Shah said.
This all started at a young age, after spending numerous hours in nature.
“I’ve always felt a strong sense of joy and a connection to the outside world,” Shah said. “It’s generally where I’m happiest. Going camping in Yosemite, or walking in the Baylands with my family. Small things like that really taught me the importance of having an environment and standing up for it when it’s endangered.”
His affinity for nature and his life experiences have led him to pursue climate advocacy, including small, local initiatives and being part of a landmark climate case.
“I’ve always been taught to fight for the things that you love, to protect your home, to keep your home clean,” Shah said. “To me, the earth is our home. We only have one planet at the end of the day. So, I’m just doing that I’ve been taught to do, which is to fight for our home.”
He became one of the first plaintiffs to join Genesis B. v. EPA after getting in contact with Julia Olson, founder of Our Children’s Trust, a non-profit law firm that provides legal support to the plaintiffs of Genesis B. v. EPA.
The Genesis B. v. EPA case documents state the EPA has violated the U.S Constitution by allowing harmful levels of climate pollution to accumulate in the air and using deceptive tactics to make the number of people affected in their reports less than it is in reality. Shah took action by joining the lawsuit.
“I saw a drastic lack of action on the topic locally, and I felt that there’s no point in waiting around for people older than me to take action,” Shah said.
He also joined the case to help children without a voice on a national level since many people, like him, suffer from the impacts of climate change.
“I’m someone who’s a little smoke-sensitive,” Shah said. “There’s various health hazards that come from that. Also, there were some floods that damaged my house and a tree fell on my house.”
According to Climate CaseChart, a database for climate-based litigation, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment by allowing “pollution from the sources it regulates at levels that discriminate against and injure children.” This complaint alleged the EPA knew the impacts of carbon dioxide emission on children’s health, but did not address them directly.
The case also states that besides not acknowledging the health impacts, the EPA uses discounting tactics that put a monetary value on people’s lives.
For example, when the EPA issues permits for projects that could harm the environment, it performs a cost-benefit analysis to decide how many people will be affected if the permit is approved.
The plaintiffs argue it is against their constitutional right to be considered as less than an adult when the EPA does analysis on how many people climate change is affecting.
“What the number [discounting tactics] does is for people who are under 18 it puts that monetary number on their life as less than someone who’s an adult,” Shah said.
After filing suit on Dec. 10, 2023, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was upheld by the judge because of a lack of redressability in the preliminary hearing. Shah said a notable moment in the case was when Chief Legal Counsel Julia Olson addressed the judge’s claim of lack of redressability.
“She said, ‘It’s not just what happens in the past, it’s what happens in the future,’” Shah said. “Because these harms are ongoing, and they’re only going to get worse if we continue to perpetuate the discrimination happening at the EPA. That really stood out to me.”
Since the preliminary ruling, the plaintiffs have amended their complaint after the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss. This is currently being reviewed by Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Shah said if they win the case, the EPA would stop its discounting practices, which would have a long-term impact on the fight for climate change.
“The government has agreed that if we win, they would provide injunctive relief, which means that they would cease their discriminatory discounting practices,” Shah said.
Considering the scale of climate change, having this case is a chance for Shah to make a huge impact.
“You get a lot of wins locally, but when that stretches out, that doesn’t actually do much for the climate,” Shah said. “But if you win at the federal level, especially in a country like the United States, which historically has the highest emission, we can make some real change.”
