Kristian Jacob Abad Lora JD-I May 30, 2014

Assignment #3 in Public International Law

Atty. Judiel M. Pareja University of Cebu

Attaining Environmental Justice
A Film Review on Steven Soderberghs Erin Brockovich
in the Context of International Environmental Law

Steven Soderberghs Erin Brockovich is a film that accounts the two-year period of the life of Erin
Brockovich as a legal clerk and environmental activist a period when, according to Erin, people began
respecting her. Such phase of her life commenced with her, getting injured after a vehicular accident with
a doctor which led to her acquaintance with Ed Masry, her lawyer and would-be partner in an
environmental suit which is the subject of the film.
Desperately needing a job to support her children after they lost their tort case, Erin pleaded from
Ed to have her hired in his law firm. Ed hired her and handed her the files of a civil case where Pacific
Gas and Electric (PG&E) was offering to buy the house of Donna Jensen in Hinkley, California. From the
files, she saw Donnas medical records. Interested, Erin went to Donnas house and talked with her.
Donna related that PG&E has been providing medical assistance to her who had several tumors, her
husband who was having a Hodgkins disease and her daughter who was suffering from leukemia. Erin
began investigating and found pieces of evidence that would show that the groundwater in Hinkley is
seriously contaminated with carcinogenic hexavalent chromium. Meanwhile, PG&E has told the residents
beforehand that they were using safe chromium to prevent corrosion when water is used to cool down
the machines used in the factory
Researching further, Erin visited more Hinkley residents and found similar cases of tumors and
other health problems. Donnas claim for indemnity from PG&E evolved into a huge class suit, involving
around 600 residents of Hinkley as plaintiffs whom Erin has persuaded to pursue the company. In the
course of their struggle, a man, one night, approached Erin and introduced himself as an employee of
PG&E, together with his cousin who died from a poison. He revealed that he was tasked to destroy
PG&Es documents but he did not. Instead, he gave the documents to Erin which would prove that the
companys headquarters knew all the time that the groundwater in Hinkley was contaminated with
hexavalent chromium but did nothing about it.
The Hinkley residents won the case and the judge ordered PG&E to clean up the polluted area, to
stop using hexavalent chromium and to pay around $300 million dollars as a settlement to be distributed
to the plaintiffs, which is said to be the largest in a direct-action lawsuit in the history of United States.
1

In the context of international environmental law, the story of Erin and of the Hinkley residents
evolves around the legal issue of whether or not PG&E was, indeed, liable to pay indemnity to the
residents.
Pieces of evidence gathered corroborate and altogether point to the PG&Es usage of hexavalent
chromium as the cause of the contamination of the groundwater in Hinkley. This was aggravated by
PG&Es bad faith when it has known of the contamination for 22 years but has kept it as a secret and has
not done anything about in addition to its act of deceiving the Hinkley residents when it told them that they
were using safe chromium.
Such acts of PG&E are in violation of some inter-connected principles of international
environmental law, namely: the principle of sustainable development, the principle of intergenerational
equity, the integration principle, the precautionary principle and the principle of prevention.
The principle of sustainable development commonly refers to that development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
2

This principle is closely related to the principle of intergenerational equity which refers to the right of future
generations to enjoy a fair level of the common patrimony.
3

In the case of PG&E, it is clear that it has violated the two aforementioned principles of
international environmental law. The contamination of the groundwater has deprived the future
generations of Hinkley to enjoy a clean and safe groundwater. The contamination has also affected the
livelihood of the residents. Thus, it has compromised the ability not just of the present generation but also
of the future generations to meet their needs. In fact, many children got ill, including Donnas daughter
who died of leukemia in the middle of their legal struggle against PG&E.
PG&E has also violated another principle closely-linked to the principle of sustainable
development the integration principle. The 1992 Rio Declaration
4
provides that in order to achieve
sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development
process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.

1
Anderson, et. al. v. Pacific Gas and Electric
2
Brundtland Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987)
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/d/d7/Our-common-future.pdf>
3
N Robinson, Training Manual on International Environmental Law (2006) United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) 26.
4
Principle 4, 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I) / 31 ILM
874 (1992).
PG&E apparently did not integrate environmental and health protection in its policies and
operations. For one, it deliberately used hexavalent chromium despite its harmful effects to the
environment and to health. It did not even take measures to prevent leakage of the hexavalent chromium,
at the very least, which is also a violation of another international environmental law principle the
principle of prevention. The film pointed out the fact that PG&E knowingly did not add liner to the pools at
their plant to keep the flow-off water safe and to prevent leakage.
PG&E cannot validly raise the defense of uncertainty as to the effects of their acts. Under the
precautionary principle incorporated in the 1992 Rio Declaration,
5
Where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-
effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
Moreover, PG&E is liable to indemnify the affected residents under the polluter pays principle.
This principle provides that whoever is responsible for damage to the environment should bear the costs
associated with it.
6
Under this principle, environmental costs of economic activities, including the cost of
preventing potential harm, should be internalized rather than imposed upon society at large.
7

Hence, for violating the said principles of international environmental law, the judge was correct in
holding PG&E accountable and liable to pay the Hinkley residents damages. On the other hand, it is
noteworthy to say that the story of Erin and the Hinkley residents is an exemplification of environmental
justice. Yet, their story also tells the world that achieving environmental justice needs courage, boldness,
perseverance amid challenges, and collective effort.

5
Principle 15, 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I) / 31 ILM
874 (1992).
6
Taking Action, The United Nations Environmental Programme
7
N Robinson, above n 3, 33.