Slashdot Mirror
High School Students Sue Federal Gov't Over Global Warming
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. "
Case dismissed.
You cannot sue for something that has not yet happened. Period.
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
Censorship is nice when it's used on ideas you despise. It's not so great once a new administration flies in and turns the censor ray on you. It's best not to set a precedent.
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.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
It is not censorship when you insist that only scientific conclusions be heard during debates about scientific issues.
Palm trees and 8
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.
Whatever bad scenario you cast in your mind when you contemplate doing something about climate change, keep in mind that doing nothing will cause things to get much, much worst. History shows that humans are able to engage in large collective projects if they have the collective will for it. Also, economy thrives and economic opportunities are plentiful in times of great changes, and the reverse in times of great stagnation. I actually think economy would get a huge boost by steering our societies away from the abyss we are now headed, I see it as a win-win.
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.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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...
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 (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.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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/
$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.
-Styopa
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.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
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...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The broken window fallacy does not extend to necessary maintenance and repair work.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
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.
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!
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.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
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."
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
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.
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.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia