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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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, 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: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.
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
Re: (Score:3)
It is also about willful negligence. Once you start down that path, a few things change a bit. Much like my first response to you...there's a potential path they might just be on wherein they COULD sue. Since you missed the little detail about suing over something before it happens in the context of the Constitutionality of a given law, there's a clear indication that you're not 100% correct and shouldn't be modded "informative" like you have.
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:4)
Wow. Then if these kids had decided to sue over the national debt and its future burden on them, they'd have blown the Government out of the water entirely.
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.
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.
We have this thing called free speech (Score:3)
You don't like it, fuck you.
While above I did mention too damn bad if the majority doesn't agree with you, that doesn't extend to constitutional rights such as free speech. However, there is no constitutional right to the reduction of carbon emissions, so you're left with the will of the majority.
Change it through the proper channels. If you can't, don't be a whiny brat and try to circumvent the system to impose your minority will on the majority by getting five guys in robes to agree with you. Yes, whiny b
Re: (Score:3)
That does happen, but I purposely try to avoid it. For example, allowing copyright term extensions to stand. I disagree, as do most on Slashdot. But I won't call them activist judges. IMHO, they deferred too much to Congress and not enough to the Constitution. That's not activist, they just didn't do their job.
Activist is putting your personal ideals or agenda before the Constitution. For example, Scalia has repeat
Re: (Score:3)
If they are minors, then they are not using anything in theory; it's all their legal guardians' doing.
Re: (Score:3)
The Federal Government has the power to determine where your power comes from? How so? Most of the power plants in the U.S. are privately owned as well as the transmission lines. If anything, they come under the local government's control with respect to rates, but they cannot tell the power companies where to get their power.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually acid rain is a big problem in the Adirondacks. Feel free to try again.
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest cause of forests being killed is people clearing them for farmland. That's by far humanity's biggest impact on the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
That is absolutely one of the biggest environmental problems affecting rainforests in unregulated areas. As for U.S. forests, they've been battling acid rain in upstate New York my entire life. It was mostly contained to New York but it was starting to creep into Vermont before tougher environmental regulations made things get better for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
You're wanting to do away with the way our legal systems works....just to plow climate change through?
Wow...really....wow.....
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean "plow climate change through"? The climate is changing. Period. If we can't address that fact through our legal system, that means our legal system is well and truly broken and needs a serious redesign.
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:establish the facts of your standing (Score:5, Informative)
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Climate denialists often complain that the word "denialist" has a lot of association with holocaust denial.
And then, on top of their overarching global conspiracy theory about a certain class of people out to control the world who must be stopped, they venture into historical revisionism. LOL you can't make this shit up! XD
Re:establish the facts of your standing (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously dude, the name Greenland has nothing to do with the actual climate. There are serveral theories about the name but none are that it was a green place a 1000 years ago.
Of course, when you tell someone that they will be travelling with you to a place that is barren, cold and inhospitable you may have trouble convincing even a Viking to come with you. So instead, Erik (according to popular legend) called the island Greenland and instead painted the island as being a wonderful place to settle.
Source: http://ancientstandard.com/2010/12/17/how-greenland-got-its-name/ [ancientstandard.com]
Re: (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 en
Re: (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: (Score:3)
Wouldn't surprise me if the relevant climatologists were willing to testify pro bono on this one, and the perhaps all the necessary scientific studies have been done. There's been a lot of studies, the predicted outcomes are still a pretty wide range -- if there's a 5% chance of a not-that-bad outcome, does the suit go forward? What if there's a 5% chance of a really terrible outcome? Whether those studies convince the court is another matter, and our legal system seems to underperform in the face of sta
Re: (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?
Are you sure about that? (Score:3)
You cannot sue for something that has not yet happened. Period.
I've heard of somthing called "injunctive relief." I've also heard of courts issuing "protective orders."
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: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.
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.
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]
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
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shall I go on making fun of that stupid, stupid point of view?
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
Once upon a time, paper money was issued by banks.
Oddly enough, it still is, technically. That's why it says "Federal Reserve Note" on every bill.
Note, by the by, that arguing "it's perfectly okay when the Congress ignores the Constitution, because the Congress ignores the Constitution all the time" isn't all that useful when they decide to ignore it to your detriment a bit down the road.
Do remember that the Constitution was meant to be a LIMITER on the power of the Federal Government, not an enabler.
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: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.
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
And therefore nothing bad ever will. Right?
Re: (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: (Score:3)
Refuting histrionics with histrionics does your case no good.
"...Or the ecological disasters like the garbage islands in each major ocean ..."
Garbage islands? Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch [wikipedia.org]
We're talking about a density of 5kg per square kilometer, of pieces that are mostly too small to be seen.
If that's an "island", Hawaii would be what, a Neutron Star?
The plastic particulates are a concern, and should be reduced. Claiming it's an ISLAND just makes you look like a Chicken
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:5, Funny)
You're an idiot and are detrimental to your own point. I do believe World War 2 happened before the 1960s.
Sources?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm staring at your response, "Sources?", and thinking this has got to be either the greatest dig ever at legions of Slashdot users who respond to every point by insisting on a citation, or it has to be the greatest fail I've ever seen.
Honestly, I'm not sure which it is.
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the fact that the latter could be combated with just a modicum of giving a shit adds more insult to injury.
There wasn't a fucking thing Joe Blow could do about The Bomb back during the height of the Cold-War, but something as simple as not generating extraneous waste gets the most ridiculous resistance out of people these days. I have known people that chose not to recycle because "fuck it." Until gas prices got insane, I knew people that would drive 2 blocks away to the corner store to get a candy bar rather than walk. Even something as simple as turning the thermostat up during the summer and down during the winter by a few degrees would result in enormous savings in fossil fuels, but again, there is an insane number of people out there that don't give a single fuck about the environment and a fair amount of people that, it seems, are hostile towards green initiatives solely because "fuck you", like the aforementioned people that refuse to recycle.
It's funny, but 70 years ago American society embraced rationing to support the war effort and beat the Axis, but trying to get society as a whole to embrace green technology is an exercise in futility, and many of these people are the children of those that grew up in that time period in the first place. Did all those lessons not get passed on from the WWII generation or what?
Re: (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 eve
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: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:kids are worried ... (Score:5, Interesting)
hostile towards green initiatives solely because "fuck you"
I'm hostile toward them because I'm too smart. Most (all?) of those initiatives are meaningless feel good frippery with no real world effect, or NEGATIVE real world effect. They require stupid people. Not gonna work on me.
Example, the people who just don't give a F about recycling at the office. We are pure, refined evil, right? Where I work, they purchased extra recycling trash cans and distributed them all over and the idiots blathered on about how we're all going to save the planet by sorting our trash, printed posters hanging everywhere. No one, including myself, noticed we still only have one trash dumpster, not a trash dumpster and a recycling dumpster, how... interesting. As a tech guy I work odd hours, and I get to see the illegal alien cleaning crew pushing a big rolling trash collector around the office and dumping both trash and recycling into the same rolling collector, and that collector dumps mixed trash and recyclables into the same dumpster, and odd mornings that I'm here early I see that dumpster emptied into one trash truck. I know they're not sorting at the landfill, either. So the idiots think they're saving the world, but I know the real world effect is we turned a lot of crude oil into plastic recycling cans, waste lots of money buying those cans, waste time and money proselytizing to people, waste valuable time and money sorting trash that is going to be commingled by the cleaning crew anyway, and finally waste time emptying twice as many trash cans. What a huge amount of environmental damage to fool people into thinking they're preventing environmental damage. I'm sure some minor drone got a nice promotion out of it. So, yeah, I'm one of the insane number of "F you" people who throws my empty soda cans into the regular trash can because apparently I don't want to save the planet.
I have special knowledge about the recyclables/trash issue because of weird working hours. I would assume the same scammers running the same psychological confidence scam in other areas are also not doing anything useful for the environment. Maybe accidentally once in a while they occasionally do something useful by mistake, but on average the environment would be better served by those kind of folks if they merely piled up cash in my backyard and set it on fire. So, yeah, in general, F those people and their goals, they're all scammers.
What does work is financial. So I'm painting my house.. I could use oil and have to buy "bad for the environment" mineral oil solvent to clean the brushes, or I could use latex paint and clean the brushes with practically free water... Thats how I save the environment from hydrocarbon vapor / ozone pollution, by saving money. The actual cost of gasoline is about $8/gallon and thats what it should be at the pump, instead of being cheaper and the balance paid by "stealth" taxation. Higher gas prices would fix a lot of environmental problems.
Re: (Score:3)
But your saving the world by saving money won't work- at some threshold your little philosophy about gasoline raises the prices on everything by stealth taxation the other way.
You're no better than the scammers you call out and you claim what you claim just so you can feel good about the other.
Re: (Score:3)
Heh, awesome recycling story.
I've come to the conclusion that if someone isn't paying you to recycle, then the recycling is probably fake or scammy.
When you keep your aluminum cans and take 'em to the aluminum recyclers and they pay you, that's strong evidence that someone is really going to use the cans, and surely they're paying because it still costs them less to use those cans, than to mine and refine more bauxite. (Although there's always the terrifying prospect that there's some stupid subsidy or ta
Re: (Score:3)
I'm hostile toward them because I'm too smart.
No comment.
I have special knowledge about the recyclables/trash issue because of weird working hours.
OK, I'll comment on this. I'd say you have knowledge of the particular cleaning service that works in your building.
In my town we have separate trucks them come around for recycling. They take the contents of our red bins to a recycling center where the glass and different grades of plastic are separated and ground into feed materials for more stuff. We also have a volunteer led recycling group that organizes regular hazardous waste and large item recycling days that makes it really easy to dea
Re:kids are worried ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well if they gotta be brainwashed, at least Captain Planet and Al Gore got to them before Anthony Watts and the Heartland Institute...better to be brainwashed into what happens to be scientifically supported than into science denial. You can recover from one of those.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Stop saying that there is a mass extinction going on. That's not just a lie, but an absurd lie and one that put actual mass extinction events to shame.
Current extinction rates are pretty hard to meassure. We don't even know for sure how many species there are on earth. Our best guess / estimation is that the present rate of extinction is somewhere between 70 and 700 species per year. The fossil records of the 5 previous mass extinctions suggest that this rate ist comparable to these mass extinction (we don't know the extinction rate of these any better than we can guess the current rate).
Extinction happens every day, for one reason or another. Some we caused, and that's right. but do you really think we're the only species to extinguish one, or two, or a hundred species?
Background extinction happens at rate of 1 to 10 species are year; t
DOD considers climate change a serious threat (Score:5, Interesting)
DOD, and the US Navy in particular, have considered climate change to be a major national security issue for several years. There is no question that "climate change" is occurring. As usual, what is in question is:
— Precisely what part human activity plays in concert with natural global climate cycles, and
— Exactly how much the US and other First World nations should dramatically alter their economies and energy strategies while developing economies and other major economies (such as China and India) do comparatively nothing, absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means
Re: (Score:2)
Your right about the facts, however your wrong in your reasoning about the why. They aren't doing this because they think the sea is going to rise by several meters in the next few years.
It doesn't really matter if climate change is 'real' or 'exaggerated' for their purposes though. All that matters is the popular perception that is value by the masses. If the masses feel that 'climate change' is a reason to pick up pitchforks and rise against the establishment than that is something is of international con
Re: (Score:3)
Think of it this way, one the largest reasons the Americans rebelled against the British was a tax rate that was perceived as significantly too high. That tax rate by the way the way was a fair bit lower than today's tax rate. (The Boston Tea Party was a /Tax Protest/ not an independence rally). This by the way is the source of the name of our modern 'Tea Party' in politics.
The rate of tax wasn't the issue. The issue was being taxed by officials who weren't elected by the taxed citizens. Perhaps you've heard the phrase "no taxation without representation?" I must say, the Tea Party version ("no taxation") reflects rather poorly on the US Education system. I guess "mission accomplished" was referring to the growing masses of ignorant citizens.
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: (Score:3)
Yeah, precisely and it has to be precise or you're not going to believe it right? Because you know full well that there is no such thing as precision in climate science. It's about models and estimates and you right wing idiots are going to refuse to do anything until somehow every molecule of this world can be tracked and we can show that CO2 will cause us problems. Until then, you have a shadow of a doubt that you're clinging to and holding up as evidence that you don't have to do a thing.
Talk about missing the point. The use of the word "precisely" there has nothing to do with what you assume; it's the usage that asks, "How much does human activity play a part in this?" with the natural follow-on, "If human activity isn't really a big part of what's happening with climate cycles [and you can't say that it is or isn't], then we probably shouldn't decimate our economy unnecessarily." It's a key question, and "idiots" like you refuse to acknowledge it.
And what are you going to tell your grandchildren when they inherit a world of shit? That China and India made you do it?
Missing the point — again. (I guess
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.
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: (Score:2)
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...
Hippies strike again (Score:5, Funny)
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: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: (Score:3)
I agree that any saying global warming is "going to destroy the world" is going way overboard. However, the human influence on the climate can't be denied. According to measurements of natural drivers and anthropogenic ones, humans are causing more than 100% of the observed warming over the past 50 years [skepticalscience.com]. During that time, the natural factors have been net acting in a cooling direction, that means that all of the observed warming is caused by human activity.
So humans are doing it, the solution is a matte
Re: (Score:3)
Many are not arguing whether climate change is happening, but why it is happening and if humans are even making a measurable difference. We can all agree that pollution is an issue, but not everyone agrees that we are the cause of global warming.
Personally, I believe, with the lack of complete and hard facts, we should be making a best attempt to cut back on global warming related pollution, but I do no believe in rash decisions.
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: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: (Score:3)
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
It actually won't. That sort of thing happens all the time, for example, Russia did exactly that in the late 90s. The US did it in the 30s (and in the 70s, really). In the end, people will still want to produce things, and other people will still want to buy things, and bankers and governments will still over-estimate their role in the world economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the fact that most of the world's currency is based on the faith it's users have in it's value, I wouldn't be too sure that other people's money is going to be worth anything once society rolls over and refuses to play their game, and forcing austerity measures on a class of people that had little to do with the shit in the first place is one of the best ways you can make that happen.
Atlas may be shrugging, but Atlas ain't "job creators" and capitalists, Atlas is the mob, and at the end of the day, th
Close, but no cigar. (Score:2)
At issue is whether a small group of individuals and corporations can dictate through political and military influence the economic, energy, and environmental policies of the entire planet.
Accountable (Score:2)
Makes legal sense? Don't know enough to comment BUT I support the principle that political leaders must be accountable for their actions... and ignoring / downplaying global warming is a serious action in my book.
good-thing-they-know-the-whole-script dept (Score:5, Funny)
Is that the "It's the end of the world! We're all going to die!" script or the "Oh, sorry, our predictions were wrong..." [slashdot.org] one?
Re: (Score:3)
Except the predictions that he made about temperature increases are the same predictions made and/or promoted by most "reputable" global warming advocates. But I suppose that now that's no longer supporting the cause he's just some crazy guy not worth listening to.
Bravo! (Score:2)
Bravo!
People looking to the government to lead on acting to protect the environment are going to wait a long time. To call members of Congress and the executive branch "leaders" mis-uses the term in this case.
If we want to change, we are going to have to lead our government. Yeah, they should act in our interests, but they aren't. We can do something about it. If this lawsuit doesn't succeed, the next one will go farther. And the next one farther. Until the kids who are thinking about their lives eventually
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.
How old are they? (Score:2)
If they are below eighteen, they don't have a right to sue. If they are older than that, they are just as responsible as the rest of humanity.
Education failed? (Score:3)
Somebody needs to educate these kids on how political change is really achieved in our system of government.
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.
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.
hmm (Score:3)
I would have thought they'd have a better case... (Score:3)
Re:The sad things is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is not censorship when you insist that only scientific conclusions be heard during debates about scientific issues.
Yea, it is, when you get to decide how "scientific conclusions" is defined.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
On the bright side, they're still young and naive. You can't buy off idealists.
Re: (Score:2)
It's so nice to have integrity,
I'll tell you why.
'Cause if you really have integrity,
It means your price is very high!
-Tom Lehrer "Selling Out"
In other words, sure you can, you just have to raise the amount you're willing to pay. It's sort of like the classic joke of an old fart to a pretty young woman saying "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Well, ok." "Would you sleep with me for five dollars?" "What kind of girl do you take me for?" "We've already established that, we're just haggling ove
Everyone has the right to sue the government (Score:2)
Re:what exactly do they want done... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what exactly do they want done... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what exactly do they want done... (Score:4, Funny)
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: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: (Score:3)
LOL. Dude, "fruit" and "vegetable" don't have the strict definitions, as you imply they do. There is no definition for those words common to science as well as law as well as society. Check out the Venn diagram on the Wiki page for "vegetable".
Whether or not kids should be eating more tomatoes is a question I'm willing to debate, but I'm not willing to concede some dumb talking point about how a tomato should be legally classified. Only deeply misinformed people try to make that talking point. It's a meanin
Re: (Score:3)
No, but the legal system ultimately picks which of multiple competing scientific opinions to believe, as well as resolving what the meaning of terms used in legislation is.
The facts are that the legislators who wrote the original law likely considered a tomato a vegetable, hence that is the meaning that should prevail in a legal context. That doesn't change the botanical definit