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. "
establish the facts of your standing (Score:4, Insightful)
Case dismissed.
You cannot sue for something that has not yet happened. Period.
kids are worried ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Gee, that's shocking. My uncle in the mid 1960s was worried about The Bomb, and kids in my era fretted over ecological disaster.
Neither happened.
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not sue over out-of-control deficit spending? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a bigger threat to their future well-being.
Ask the Greeks how well out-of-control spending works when you run out of other people's money to spend.
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:2, Insightful)
And therefore nothing bad ever will. Right?
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or the ecological disasters like the garbage islands in each major ocean and the continued clear-cutting of thrid-world countries, to name a few?
Long term thought does not seem to be something you're capable of, and is a handicap for most people. We weren't programmed to think long term so it literally is a difficult concept for some people.
Re:The sad things is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:5, Insightful)
and there are actual damages that can be sued for
Actual damages caused by the defendant? The US federal government is out there in the artic with hair dryers melting polar ice to raise sea level which explicitly injured the plaintiff?
Re:Why not sue over out-of-control deficit spendin (Score:5, Insightful)
Well no, the Greeks and everybody else can tell creditors to stick it up their collective asses. Ultimately, the economy of the whole world may fail, but it won't endanger our biotope. Screwing up the weather however can't be undone.
Remember, debt is an artificial human construct. Global warning (if/when it happens) is reality. You can't dismiss reality.
Re:The sad things is... (Score:1, Insightful)
How can you claim the moral high ground yelling from the gutter like that? These kids are being used as political tools in an election year.
Re:The sad things is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense (Score:1, Insightful)
Attempted [something] is illegal in many cases. And Guantanamo is full of people who were only planning something. Finally, neglect can definitely be a reason for a lawsuit.
This is a case where those in power neglect to act, and are therefore guilty of attempted climate change. Case accepted.
Re:what exactly do they want done... (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful what you ask for. (Score:5, Insightful)
The social controls required for the US to reduce its emissions meaningfully must result in an eco-police state with massive Federal micromanagement.
Other countries can and will take every advantage of this. So would I.
Re:Hippies strike again (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, none of the Tenets of AGW have been "proven false". You get modded down for being a trolling doucebag. Given that even the "sceptical scientists" hired by the Koch brother to "once and for pove that global warming isn't happening" found that, actually, yes global warming is happening at pretty much exactly the rate the "alarmists" have been saying, you're just delusional.
Every major sceintific organization in the world accepts that global warming is occuring, the past decade was the warmest on record. What could possibly make you believe that it had proven false?
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:3, Insightful)
a fair amount of people that, it seems, are hostile towards green initiatives solely because "fuck you"
Could it be that they're tired rightly or wrongly of Big Government (from the Federal level thru State, County, City and Homeowners Association) telling them how to live?
Did all those lessons not get passed on from the WWII generation or what?
No, apparently they didn't. From the "Greatest" Generation directly to the "Me" Generation is stunning. I blame "The Greatest Generation", TV and 1960s Progressivism (the results of which are still being felt in society).
Progressivism because (1) flag burning and riots and meeting with the North Vietnamese in Cuba tends to transmit to everyone else, no matter what your pious words are, that you hate your country, thus breaking societal cohesion and (2) TV and movies -- of which all/majority of the writer were Progressive -- starting in the 1970s coarsening the culture with ever increasing amounts of foul language in movies and TV while eliminating cultural norms like good manners: children saying Please, Thank You, Sir & Ma'am, thus destroying the social lubricant and lastly (3) the belief that nationalism is a Bad Thing, and therefore nations are a Bad Thing; thus people claiming to be "citizens of the world" and welcoming large-scale illegal immigration.
Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (Score:4, Insightful)
DOD, and the US Navy in particular, have considered climate change to be a major national security issue for several years.
Precisely why this lawsuit is teaching these kids a very bad lesson.
If these kids are concerned about the climate's future, shouldn't they be studying ways to better predict and manage the climate? Winning the argument in a courtroom matters about as much as winning a debate tournament. Doing research and finding ways to get results could save countless lives.
The Navy should be handing out research grants left and right (if it isn't doing so already) for research on climate management. If all the artic sea ice thawed, it would radically change the face of naval warfare for the US, and not for the better...
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe part of the attitude comes from the hypocrisy of many of the people telling everyone else they should drive smaller cars and turn down their thermostat, while they themselves lead lavish, jet-setter lifestyles of opulent luxury. Kind of hard to take seriously when someone says, "Hey, you can't expect to keep using all that fossil fuel. We'll talk more when we get back from our Hawaiian vacation and our teen gets back from her spring break in Cancun."
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is about adults exploiting clueless kids for their own crusade. This is the reality TV version of "Think of the children."
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they should file suit about the $14trn of boomer debt that their generation will have to service for the rest of their lives?
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about missing the point.
No, he got the point. He was accusing you of being disingenuous because there's a trend of people just like you claiming "we don't know" and therefore "we shouldn't do anything". Of course, they're the exact same people who said "I have proof it's not happening! ...but I left it in my other pants" and "Don't believe the scientists they're all religious fools!". The way you phrased your questions made it obvious that you were only asking them for rhetorical purposes. It certainly looked like you'd already decided what the answers are and were indicating you had no interest in anything that might contradict your views. I would suggest using questions that less obviously one-sided next time. If you don't phrase them in a way that dictates the answer, most people won't assume you're an idiot with an agenda.
"How much does human activity play a part in this?"
Over the last decade it's about 108% human causes. Natural causes have had a net negative effect, and so the human effect has had to overcome a natural cooling trend and warming has continued warming at a slightly slower pace. Surface temperatures appear to have been mostly stable because most of the warming is currently being pushed into the ocean (which continues to warm). This is because the last decade has been dominated by La Nina events. If you look at trends lines categorized by ENSO state [skepticalscience.com] (El Nino, La Nina or neutral) much of the short term noise is cancelled out of the resulting graphs showing a clear rising trend in temperatures.
It's that if the issue requires a global response — whatever the cause — then it necessarily must be a global response, not just First World nations sacrificing their entire economic and energy base, thus removing any influence they may have over the issue, leaving "China and India" to create that "world of shit" to which you refer even more quickly.
Of course, there are other options besides "do nothing" and "stop doing anything". A measured response might include, for example, imposing a carbon tax, and then taxing imports at the same rate. That would allow for reductions in emissions without allowing China and India to swamp America with "cheap shit" that breaks the rules.
Publicity Stunt (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL
"I watched An Inconvenient Truth 2x in one night, that made me an environmental activist at 12."
Aside from a host of Constitutional issues (I'm pretty certain that the court can't order the Executive branch to sign, nor the Legislative branch to approve, treaties), at a certain point isn't it parents' job to protect their kids from being used like this?
We all know this will chew its way through the courts. A liberal judge will agree, an appellate court will overturn, the 9th Circuit (of course) will support, and it will go to the Supremes. These kids will become famous as "the face of activism of their generation".
Do you think they're serious? Well they sure do:
LOL, wow, I'm convinced. He's even given up video games to pursue this. Well, ok; not "given up", just refocused.
You know why this is a publicity stunt?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/ [usdebtclock.org]
$15 trillion.
$50k per citizen
$140k per taxpayer.
These kids (and the gray eminences using them for publicity) are taking something that - even if it's happening, the human input is not nearly as well-proved as the Faithful would like us to believe - as a critical and *immediate* threat, while ignoring the real critical and immediate threat (but the approach of which would threaten the freedom of action of their own political sponsors).
This is the equivalent of complaining to your neighbor about his dog crapping in your yard, while your house is burning down. It's either a publicity stunt or simply screwed-up priorities...either way it's a gross waste of time and resources. But hey, it's all about filling up the news cycle, not really about constructive actions anyway.
This bit is chilling:
Leni Riefenstahl is absolutely laughing her ass off. Well played, Herr Gore. Well played.
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Attempted [something] is illegal in many cases. And Guantanamo is full of people who were only planning something. Finally, neglect can definitely be a reason for a lawsuit.
This is a case where those in power neglect to act, and are therefore guilty of attempted climate change. Case accepted.
Conspiracy (planning) can be a crime. However, the US Government is conspiring to warm the planet so claiming a conspiracy isn't going to work.
As for the US government not acting when it has the power to act, I would disagree with the "has the power" part. All a lawyer would have to do is read the 10th Amendment and ask where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the climate.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me to see an Obama appointed lawyer going before the judge and saying "We got nothin'" to throw the case. Of course, even if the government were to lose, it is not within the power of the judiciary to create policy. That's the job of Congress. But can a judge claim that Congress must pass a law that does something specific? Of course, I wouldn't say so. That's the same thing as the court writing the law, but I've seen stranger things.
Victims of Poor Civics Education (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the use of government resources would shift from making and enforcing policy to defending policy in court. This would mean that the government would become ineffective, while still costing the same or more in both money and lost liberty to maintain it.
Second, the opportunities for malicious mischief abound. I don't like the administration, so I will sue over every policy they try to implement. Even long-standing policy would be subject to suit. Fundraising will be good and easy.
Legislatures and executive departments would become subordinate to courts, and judges could impose policy at whim, to a greater degree than they did at the height of judicial activism.
For these reasons, it strikes me as a terrible idea to even attempt this. The suit should certainly be dismissed, and I wouldn't object to fining the adults involved for wasting the court's time. This is abuse of the system as it is, and would be utterly destructive of the courts and the law if allowed to proceed.
Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now China, India, and Europe are trying to get the USA to play along on this issue. Or at least come to the table.
There is a MUCH bigger problem here. So we pass a law... whats the result?
China: lower levels simply ignore it, higher levels pay a bribe and ignore it.
India: Not quite as corrupt, but pretty much it'll be ignored.
Europe: Move the polluting industry to the EU member state promising the most lax enforcement or a tax break making up for the costs. OR simply move to China. Some net effect but lots of social upheaval.
USA: lower levels will have to follow it and/or go out of business, higher levels pay a bribe (re-election donation) and ignore it.
Coming to the table seems pointless... so our big polluters will ignore whatever's being done, and the small polluters will simply close shop and pollute even more in China...
Re:what exactly do they want done... (Score:5, Insightful)
Odd, isn't it. (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes to a presumption that IN THE FUTURE there will be a pension crisis, there is work done NOW to "solve" it for the current to-be-retired generation, decreasing benefit and increasing charges for the next generation. No proof, no standing, nothing at all needed, just the fearful statement "pension crisis looms". Yet when it comes to the pension of the next generation, which WILL be removed by the collapse of a society that can have retired old people drawing down a wage, where the costs of paying for avoiding that catastrophe will fall on the shoulders of the current-to-be-retired group, suddenly it's all "prove it! prove you have standing!".
Guess what: they are alive now, these kids. Unless you deliberately kill them off, they will inherit the country you leave behind.
THAT is their standing.
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you have cause and effect reversed. If there was such great social cohesion, then where did these society-destroying people come from? Where did the riots come from?
Social change had already happened. The societal cohesion you talk about was already gone, and had perhaps been a faÃade in the first place - Middletown pressured everyone into behaving 'properly', but that everyone really was like that doesn't necessarily follow.
You can't have perfect social cohesion and riots at the same time. Some liked the old order and some didn't, and both groups were citizens. Both groups were also equally led by leaders and ideologies - there wasn't one group which "followed its heart" and another that was brainwashed by media.
Re:what exactly do they want done... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh awesome are we just inventing scenarios to fit our preconceptions now? Sweet let me try.
Scenario 1) do nothing. Result $11ty Billion in hole results in 1B deaths
Scenario 2) Social engineering in the form of, say, a tax, just like so many other taxes. Result $3 million in net costs plus a free unicorn.
Holy shit! Given my scenarios it is super duper clear that we should pass that tax right away!
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah! How dare those bastards have more money than me!
Re:Hippies strike again (Score:4, Insightful)
Every major sceintific organization in the world accepts that global warming is occuring, the past decade was the warmest on record. What could possibly make you believe that it had proven false?
But that does not mean it is anthropogenic. Considering the fact that there was a mini ice age during the medieval period, and that the climate of the earth has always been changing, the question becomes if humans are contributing, how much are we contributing to it, and whether or not what we do to "fix" it will have an effect and what type of effect it would have. Anyone that is saying the world isn't warming has their head in the sand. Anyone saying humans are the ones doing it all and are going to destroyed the world have a very delusional view of the place and significance of humanity in the history and evolution of the planet.
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually the lawyer wouldn't even have to get to the 10th Amendment. He would only have to stop at the necessary and proper clause, or the general welfare clause, way back in the actual text of the Constitution. But, that lawyer would only stop on those clauses if he had ever read it, understood it, understood the hundreds of years of interpretations of it, had any idea how American law worked, and wasn't blindly blathering ideological talking points.
The necessary and proper clause means the Congress may pass any laws that are necessary and proper to fulfill their Constitutional duties. It is not meant to be a blank check that gives the government unlimited power. Can the government deem that eliminating religion or the press is necessary and proper? Of course not, because the First Amendment forbids it. The Amendments override or clarify what is in the original Constitution itself. The 10th Amendment is no different. It means something. If you say that the Necessary and Proper Clause or the General Welfare Clause override the 10th, then why is the 10th Amendment there in the first place?
Speaking of things that are unconstitutional, did you know that the American flag is unconstitutional? It's true! Just look in the Constitution: where does it ever say "Congress shall have the power to designate a flag for the nation"? It's not in there! Thus, the American flag is unconstitutional.
I can't find a law passed by Congress that designates the US flag as the US flag. The flag actually precedes the Constitution. "On June 14, 1777, in order to establish an official flag for the new nation, the Continental Congress passed the first Flag Act: "Resolved, That the flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation.""
Also, the Air Force is unconstitutional: the Constitution only gives power to create armies and navies, and we never passed an amendment allowing an Air Force.
Another one is paper money: the Constitution clearly says Congress has the power to "coin" money, so obviously we all should be carrying around nothing but coins in our pockets.
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?
Shall I go on making fun of that stupid, stupid point of view?
Says the guy that can't distinguish between the letter and intent of laws.
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?
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I'll ask my eldest... to file a "Friend of the Court" brief.
Awesome! I can have *my* eldest file a lawsuit against the plaintiffs, since if they use *any* electricity, fossil fuels, or manufactured products, they are as culpable as anyone else. If they can prove damages against them the same evidence proves they have damaged everyone else. This way we can expedite turning this into the circus side show it's predestined to become. And, if these kids are looking for a 'learning experience' then they can learn how screwed up the legal system is and how much it sucks to have it turned against them.
Re:Uhhh (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Why? Debt can be wiped out trivially. Print the money, absorb the inflation, debt gone. Or, more realistically, print a tiny bit of money, absorb the tiny bit of inflation, debt shrinks to historical levels. You can't print your way out of CO2 emissions.
I personally hope we can get sustained, predictable levels of inflation up to about 4% this coming decade. At 4%, I'd be actually making money on my mortgage, because I am sure my wages will increase apace with inflation.
Re:The sad things is... (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right. It is censorship. Appropriate, measured, reasonable censorship.
You sound like Leon Pennetta. Any means is justified when the cause is just, huh? "Sure, it's droning, carpet bombing and indefinite detention. Appropriate, measured, reasonable droning, carpet bombing and indefinite detention."
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not nearly as sexy as climate change, and doesn't receive nearly the amount of propaganda coverage. So it isn't even on their radar.
Just what I thought -- adults (Score:5, Insightful)
Environmentalist lawyer wants to make a name for herself in pushing her cause, so she recruits some gullible kids to abuse the court system. This will be thrown out quickly, as four already have been. The only question is whether the lawyer will be sanctioned for her frivolous suits.
This country has a built-in method for achieving what they want. It's called electing representatives, senators and a president who will do it. If that doesn't work, then the majority doesn't agree with you -- too damn bad. Despite the modern liberal desire, it is NOT the job of the judiciary to make new laws and regulations.
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:2, Insightful)
As a regular citizen you don't get to control where your power comes from
Yes you do. Buy solar cells and batteries. Put a windmill in your backyard.
Then again, that would require putting some money where your mouth is.
Re:The sad things is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, curse cold hard science, tool of the despot! Soft, warm batshit insanity shall set the people free!
Oh, yes, I see... the prevailing scientific "consensus" should be the only thing that is allowed in a discussion of public policy. Is that your contention? Think carefully about your answer - that has been tried in the past [uncc.edu].
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:1, Insightful)
Please provide some links to this information so that you can enlighten the heathens. Or just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about.