Caroline Babbitt

Introduction: Observations from Study Abroad in London

During my time in London on the “Law and Policy in London” J-Term study abroad trip with Miami’s political science professors Dr. Matt Arbuckle and Professor Neal Schuett, I was struck by the environmental consciousness that seemed to permeate everyday life, businesses, and political discussions throughout the U.K.. This commitment to sustainability was evident in many sectors, from American, now global, chains like Starbucks and McDonald’s to small, independently owned shops. Single-use plastics were far less prevalent than in the United States, recycling bins were ubiquitous, even in areas surprisingly lacking general waste bins, and even minor inconveniences, such as paying extra for plastic shopping bags, were accepted with little to no complaint. This stood in stark contrast to my experiences in the U.S., where similar measures often spark debate over personal freedom versus governmental overreach.

Navigating London’s public transportation, specifically the underground Tube network, became part of my daily routine. The Tube was not only efficient but also notably cleaner and safer than many systems I’ve used in major U.S. cities, like New York. This ease of mobility, coupled with the city’s environmental initiatives—which we explored in our Sustainable Development course with Dr. Arbuckle—highlighted a collective commitment to the common good that seemed more ingrained in British society.

Personal Liberty vs. Collective Responsibility

The differing perceptions of personal liberty in the U.S. and the U.K. reveal fundamental contrasts in how each society balances individual freedoms with collective well-being. In the U.S., personal liberty is a cornerstone, often prioritized even at the expense of societal responsibility. By contrast, the U.K. embraces a more nuanced balance, particularly in areas like sustainable development and environmental justice. While the U.K.’s approach has proven effective in addressing these challenges, it raises questions about potential infringements on individual freedoms. This tension prompts us to ask: at what point do collective responsibilities justify limiting personal freedoms, and how do legal systems navigate this balance? In the U.S., the protection of personal liberty is non-negotiable, a concept rooted in the nation’s founding ideals. Yet, in the face of environmental crises, the U.S. legal system struggles to reconcile individual rights with the urgent need for collective action, which brings us to the next point: how do legal frameworks in both countries shape their response to environmental issues?

The Role of Common Law in Environmental Justice

The divergence between the U.S. and U.K. in their environmental approaches raises a critical question: does the American emphasis on personal liberty inherently hinder progress on climate action, or does it serve as a necessary check against government overreach in the name of sustainability? The U.S. legal system, deeply embedded in constitutional protections for individual rights, often frames government regulation, particularly in environmental matters, as a potential overreach. As I reflect on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, I see their value in protecting the freedoms I enjoy. Yet, I find myself wishing that more policymakers would embrace the Constitution as a “living document”—a view I hold when considering legal adaptability to modern issues, including climate change.

Landmark cases like Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) highlight the tension between individual rights and environmental regulation in the U.S. The Supreme Court’s ruling that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases was a significant victory for environmental activists, but it also underscored the limits of federal power, especially when state sovereignty and economic freedoms are at stake. On the other hand, R (ClientEarth) v. Secretary of State for the Environment (2015) shows how the U.K.’s legal framework allows for more direct government intervention in environmental matters. In this case, the U.K. government was held accountable for failing to meet air pollution standards, with the judiciary emphasizing collective responsibility over individual freedoms.

Ironically, while the U.K.’s flexible, “living document” approach allows for swift action on climate issues, it also weakens the very concept of constitutional limitations. The U.S. Constitution, though often interpreted as a living document, remains grounded in firm structural limits that guard against unchecked governmental power—a system the American colonies sought to escape from in their rebellion. The U.K.’s legal system, shaped by the fluidity of common law, can act more decisively in response to contemporary environmental challenges, but at the cost of the constraints that define constitutional governance in the U.S. Thus, while the U.K.’s adaptability to environmental justice offers a timely response, it also diminishes the protective structures that safeguard against potential government overreach.

The Intersection of Culture, Identity, and Environmental Policy

Beyond the differences of government and legal systems, comes the examination of  cultural identity and norms in each region. Specifically surrounding personal liberty, impacting both nations’ approach to environmental issues. In the United States, the deep-seated belief in individual rights and skepticism of government intervention often fuels a market-driven approach to climate action. Proponents of this model argue that private innovation and corporate responsibility can address environmental challenges without infringing on personal freedoms. However, this reliance on market forces and resistance to government regulation often leads to stagnation in climate policy, particularly under conservative leadership.

In contrast, the U.K.’s more recent embrace of environmental activism, fueled in part by the social and political shifts following Brexit, suggests a different cultural orientation. While historically less vocal on environmental matters, the U.K. has seen a surge in grassroots movements demanding urgent climate action. This activism, however, has not been without its own tensions, particularly as conservative leaders like Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak attempt to balance environmental commitments with economic and political realities. The shifting dynamic of U.K. politics, especially in the post-E.U. era, raises questions about whether such activism will lead to lasting change or be co-opted by political pragmatism.

As both the U.S. and the U.K. navigate their environmental challenges under conservative leadership, the question arises: does the American emphasis on personal liberty hinder climate action, or does it serve as a necessary safeguard against government overreach? In contrast, the U.K.’s growing activism, fueled by post-Brexit shifts in political and social dynamics, presents a different challenge: can this momentum overcome the inertia of a more centralized, bureaucratic governance system to achieve the ambitious environmental goals the U.K. has set?

An example of the U.K.’s ambitious environmental goal is its Climate Change Act of 2008, which made the U.K. the first country in the world to set legally binding carbon reduction targets. The goal was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. This ambitious commitment was further solidified in 2019 when the U.K. became the first major economy to legislate for net-zero emissions by 2050.

Such a goal would likely face significant hurdles in the U.S. due to political polarization, emphasis on market freedom, and decentralized government, to name just a few. The deeply polarized political climate, only enhanced following the inauguration of Donald Trump in January, has solidified climate change as a partisan issue. This has led conservative leaders and large segments of the population to continue rejecting ambitious climate targets like the U.K.’s due to concerns about economic costs and market stagnation.

Furthermore, industries that would be most affected by ambitious climate goals, such as fossil fuels and automotive manufacturing, possess significant lobbying power that would pose a formidable obstacle if the U.S. were to pursue a goal similar to the U.K.’s Climate Change Act of 2008. Companies like General Motors and Ford, along with organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are prime examples of this influence. This highlights how U.S. industry and governance are intertwined, creating a foundation for resistance to climate change initiatives and environmental activism—a resistance deeply ingrained in the functioning of our political system.

Additionally, the setup of our government can’t be left out of this conversation. In the U.S., many environmental regulations are determined at the state level, not by the federal government. Comparatively, every borough in London is, in part, responsible for their own initiatives in sustainable development. This looks more grassroots than the 2008 Act; for example, many boroughs of London have localized initiatives to bring more greenspace into the central London areas. This is mainly due to a scarcity of ground material that can absorb the amount of rain the city receives. During my study abroad, I was able to attend a sustainability walking tour of London that showcased the introduction of more moss and grass to counteract this issue. Similar activism is seen in the States, though not federally. For example, states like California have been proactive in setting their own climate goals.

Ohio: A Local Example of Environmental Responsibility and Market Freedom

Ohio has undertaken several initiatives to address environmental concerns and set climate goals, reflecting a nuanced approach to balancing personal liberty with collective responsibility.

Having spent my entire life in Ohio living in both urban areas like Akron and more rural regions like Chillicothe and attending college in Oxford, Ohio, I’ve seen how geography shapes attitudes toward environmentalism in ways that defy typical partisan divides. Urban centers, though often more politically blue, are also deeply tied to industry; Akron’s historic reliance on rubber manufacturing being a prime example, creating a tension between economic dependence on industry and environmental consciousness. Meanwhile, rural communities, though often associated with a strong emphasis on personal liberty, have a direct stake in environmental health, as many livelihoods depend on agriculture and natural resources. Ohio’s environmental policies reflect these competing yet overlapping priorities, seeking a balance between individual freedoms and collective responsibility.

Despite this tension, institutions in Ohio have been leaders, making strides in addressing climate change at their jurisdiction level, but state action still operates within the bounds of its economic and political realities. A notable example of this is Miami University’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, which is designed to reduce the university’s carbon footprint and increase sustainability in campus operations. As a student here in Oxford, I’ve seen firsthand how initiatives like their addition of electric vehicle charging stations, energy conservation practices, and campus-wide efforts to reduce waste contribute to a more eco-conscious community. While Oxford’s actions are promising, the state’s overall environmental policy remains cautious and conservative; this is largely due to the fact that Oxford is a blue bubble in a red state. Ohio’s reluctance to implement bolder, more comprehensive measures is indicative of the broader American pattern, where personal liberties and economic concerns often overshadow the urgency of climate action—especially here, where the balancing act between progress and preserving freedoms remains central to the political discourse.

Growing up near Akron—a city rooted in the success of the rubber industry—I’ve seen firsthand how Ohio balances environmental responsibility with the desire to protect personal and market liberty. Many Ohioans see government intervention in climate matters as overreach, preferring market-driven solutions that allow for individual freedom. This mindset is reflected not just in larger industrial sectors but also in everyday life. While there is a growing awareness of environmental issues, particularly among younger generations like mine, the emphasis on personal freedom and the potential economic costs of strict regulations make it challenging to implement far-reaching climate measures.

Comparing Ohio to the U.K., where climate action has permeated both the social and political spheres, it’s clear that our culture places a greater emphasis on individual rights and economic flexibility. An Ohioan on the Fourth of July, empowered by hot dogs and fireworks, reflects the stubborn streak of Americanism that often frames environmentalism as unpatriotic. This perception is rooted in the belief that environmental actions, like giving up a plastic straw, come with personal sacrifices and inconveniences to individual freedom — as President Trump famously pointed out, banning plastic straws is a “disaster.” This tension between personal liberty and environmental responsibility shapes how Ohioans engage with climate activism and underscores the difficulty of translating climate urgency into effective policy changes.

Trump’s Environmental Legacy: Past Actions and Future Impact

With President Trump now back in office as of January 2025, it’s clear that the U.S. will continue to prioritize personal freedoms and economic concerns over bold climate action. During his first term, his administration rolled back numerous environmental protections, such as withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and dismantling the Clean Power Plan. Trump’s administration justified these actions on the grounds of protecting American businesses and limiting governmental interference. In his second term, this deregulatory approach is set to persist, with a focus on safeguarding industries like fossil fuels and manufacturing at the expense of environmental sustainability. Since taking office, Trump has already begun to roll back energy efficiency standards for light bulbs and water-using appliances, aiming to reduce costs for consumers at the expense of long-term energy savings and emissions reductions.

A specific example of Trump’s disregard for environmental measures came in 2019 when he signed an executive order promoting the use of plastic straws, reversing bans in various states and municipalities. This order encapsulated his administration’s broader philosophy: small-scale environmental actions, such as banning plastic straws, are viewed as unnecessary infringements on individual freedoms. For many Americans, environmental measures, no matter how minor, are seen as government overreach, interfering with personal rights and conveniences. This stance reinforces the tension between personal liberty and environmental responsibility. More recently, his administration has also taken steps to revoke the International Climate Finance Plan and terminate all U.S. financial commitments to international climate change efforts according to an executive order released on January 20, 2025.

Under President Trump’s leadership, it is clear that policies will continue to prioritize economic freedoms over environmental action. His connections to industries like oil, coal, and manufacturing, which benefit from deregulation, will ensure that climate change remains a secondary concern.

The Balance of Liberty and Responsibility in Climate Action

As both the U.S. and the U.K. navigate their environmental challenges under conservative leadership, the question arises: does the American emphasis on personal liberty hinder climate action, or does it serve as a necessary safeguard against government overreach? In contrast, the U.K.’s growing activism—fueled by post-Brexit shifts in political and social dynamics—presents a different challenge: can this momentum overcome the inertia of a more centralized, bureaucratic governance system to achieve the ambitious environmental goals the U.K. has set?

The U.K.’s commitment to sustainability, exemplified by its 2008 Climate Change Act and recent net-zero pledges, showcases the potential for effective policy in a society willing to embrace collective responsibility. However, the success of such initiatives is dependent on political will and public support, which remain in constant tension with economic realities.

In the U.S., the ongoing prioritization of personal liberties, economic freedom, and market-driven solutions poses a formidable obstacle to substantive climate action. Under the leadership of President Trump, the U.S. has taken steps to roll back environmental protections, viewing such measures as encroachments on personal freedoms and economic growth. This resistance to government intervention creates a standoff between the need for urgent climate action and the belief in individual autonomy.

For Ohio, where I’ve seen firsthand the tension between environmental responsibility and market-driven values, this struggle is particularly pronounced. The state’s commitment to economic freedom often leads to a resistance to stringent environmental regulations, even as younger generations increasingly demand change.

Ultimately, both the U.S. and the U.K. are grappling with how to balance personal liberty and collective responsibility in the face of climate change. While the U.K.’s legal and social approach leans toward greater government oversight, the U.S. remains locked in a battle between market forces and the protection of individual rights. As the world moves toward increasingly dire environmental realities, these competing cultural and political forces will continue to shape the effectiveness of climate policies in both countries.