What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close
With rendition switcher

Transcript

Question: Has the court done enough for the Environment?

Laurence Tribe: There’s not that much that a court can do.  I think the Court did the right thing in Massachusetts against EPA when it decided that a state whose coastline was going to be eroded by global warming has enough stake in the outcome so that it should be allowed to go to a federal court and challenge the EPA’s decision not to address the problem.  So courts can nudge government agencies with more relevant expertise.  And I think it was a good thing that the U.S. Supreme Court did; because it’s, generally speaking, moving the direction of shutting the doors of courts, making it harder for people to get into court and move agencies along.  This was a 5-to-4 decision.  It was the only important 5 to 4 decision in which the court this term moved in a slightly liberal direction.  All the others . . . the other 23 5-to-4 decisions were right-leaning decisions with Kennedy in the majority in all 24, including Mass. v. EPA.  But I think although the Court could play in the 1950s, and ‘60s, and ‘70s a role in advancing social justice, I think the steps that are needs to deal with the environment, the global threat of nuclear warfare, require a political leadership and not simply an affirmation of principal, an affirmation of decency and justice.  So I think there is very little that a court can do.  There is a fair amount that the court could do to make things worse I suppose.  It could have decided Mass. v. EPA differently.  It could pay little attention to what’s going on in the rest of the world.

 

Laurence Tribe on the Supre...

Newsletter: Share: