High School Students Sue Federal Gov't Over Global Warming 491
Hugh Pickens writes "Katherine Ellison reports in the Atlantic that a group of high school students is suing the federal government in U.S. District Court claiming the risks of climate change — dangerous storms, heat waves, rising sea levels, and food-supply disruptions — will threaten their generation absent a major turnabout in global energy policy. 'I think a lot of young people realize that this is an urgent time, and that we're not going to solve this problem just by riding our bikes more,' says 18-year-old Alec Loorz, one of the plaintiffs represented, pro bono, by the Burlingame, California, law firm of former U.S. Republican congressman Paul 'Pete' McCloskey. While skeptics may view the case as little more than a publicity stunt, its implications have been serious enough to attract the time and resources of major industry leaders." (Read more, below.)
Pickens continues: "Last month, Judge Wilkins granted a motion to intervene in the case by the National Association of Manufacturers who says the plaintiffs lack standing because their injuries are too speculative and not likely to be reduced by the relief sought. 'At issue is whether a small group of individuals and environmental organizations can dictate through private tort litigation the economic, energy, and environmental policies of the entire nation,' wrote NAM spokesman Jeff Ostermeyer. The plaintiffs contend that they have standing to sue under the 'public trust doctrine,' a legal theory that in past years has helped protect waterways and wildlife. While the adults continue their argument, Loorz says kids his age are much more worried about climate change than many of their parents might imagine. "
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:5, Informative)
YOU, as the plaintiff, have to show that YOU have actual standing by showing that YOU have sustained damages from the direct action or inaction of whomever you are suing.
This isn't about whether climate change is occurring or not occurring. Its about legal procedures and rules.
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:3, Informative)
People file injunctions against doing things that hasn't happened yet ALL the time... what are you talking about?
want to build a prison? a highway? a dam?
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:2, Informative)
no it was called greenland because it was green. we've even found evidence of farming there.
around the year 1000ad there was a warming trend called the Medieval Warming something. forgot the name. there was another one around the time of the Pax Romana. the Medieval warming trend coincides with the crusades because there were so many people in europe that everyone started fighting each other for land and so the Church found the perfect excuse with the crusades and helping the Byzantines
the Little Ice Age ended in the early 1800's. Right around the time all these scary temperature records start that show the world is warming. of course it's warming, we're coming out of a small ice age that lasted a few hundred years
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:4, Informative)
Are you serious? (Score:5, Informative)
[Citation needed]
Seriously, if you believe that China and India are trying to get the US to "come to the table" on this, you're swallowing a ridiculous narrative, again put forth typically by AGW proponents who see the US as the villain here, instead of seeing things as they really are — namely, things like the fact that China is set to emit 50% more greenhouse gases than the US by 2015 [scientificamerican.com].
Note: It doesn't matter that China has more people in the context of the climate change argument! If you identify some level x of greenhouse emissions as being a "bad" thing, then China emitting far more than the US is an extremely bad thing in terms of the effects that it would cause. You can argue that the US may be in a position to make the most impact, but with China set to significantly outpace the US in emissions and oil consumption, I think you need to take a look at what value the US taking a disproportionate hit in emissions control — and the dramatic impact that would have on our economy — would actually do for climate change that would be positive.
Put it another way: do you think that the evidence supports that China (or India, or any other developing economies) would be a better steward of this responsibility?
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:4, Informative)
YOU, as the plaintiff, have to show that YOU have actual standing by showing that YOU have sustained damages from the direct action or inaction of whomever you are suing.
Actually, you don't: Public trust doctrine. [wikipedia.org] It's in TFA.
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:3, Informative)
no it was called greenland because it was green.
No, it was called Greenland as a marketing ploy. Greenland: [wikipedia.org]
"The name Greenland comes from the early Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set out in ships to find a land rumored to lie to the northwest. After settling there, he named the land Grønland ("Greenland"), supposedly in the hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers."
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the climate.
The legal issue isn't regulating the climate, but regulating CO2 emissions, and the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that Federal regulation of emissions is constitutional. [wikipedia.org]
So we can sue about (Score:2, Informative)
- Social Security; being bankrtupted by government inaction AND actions.
- Failure to enforce immigration law, with measurable damages done to citizens and legal immigrants alike.
And shall we go on?
Or, we could take a more lengthy but direct approach. Vote them all out until they get it.
Pah! Crazy talk!
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Informative)
And again, I have to ask, if the Necessary and Proper and General Welfare clauses override the 10'th, then what does the 10th Amendment mean?
Um, it means what it means. Here's the text:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That amendment is orthogonal to the Necessary and Proper clause, or the General Welfare clause. Congress has the power to pass laws which are necessary and proper, or promote the general welfare; and powers not delegated to Congress are reserved to the State or to the People. Similarly, Congress has the power to coin money, and other powers are for the states and people. What's the conflict there? There is no conflict.
I'm more interested in this:
So are you saying that the freedom of the press only applies to actual presses? Does free speech only apply to words coming out of your mouth? Does the right to bear arms mean that you are allowed to own arms from bears?
No! Thank you for understanding; that is exactly what I am not saying. I am saying that Congress has the print to "print" money on paper, even though the Constitution only gives it the right to "coin" money. I am saying that Congress has the right to authorize an Air Force, even though the Constitution only gives it the right to form Armies and Navies. I am saying the Congress has the power to designate an official flag, even though nothing in the Constitution says anything close to that at all. You seem to understand this point generally, yet you still retreat to the position that "if it's not explicitly laid out in the Constitution, it's unconstitutional." That position is untenable.
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:3, Informative)
Actually acid rain is a big problem in the Adirondacks. Feel free to try again.
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Informative)
There just is no mandate for the EPA to regulate CO2 at this time.
Sorry but you are wrong. In Massachusetts v. EPA [wikipedia.org] the Supreme Court rendered their decision on April 2, 2007. They found:
Greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency may regulate their emission