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. "

Comments

Re:establish the facts of your standing

[LifesABeach]

Doesn't the U.S.Government have to agree it can be sued? As for Tort Law, one can easily show Negalgence in such things as the BP/Gulf Desaster(this one is easy). One need only look at the Acid Rains that are killing the forests. The allowing of "Fracking" which is not only causing contamination of water supplies, but introducing carcanagenic compounds littertraly under ones home. Allowing the Faceless ones to "cut corners" in Nuclear Energy design. And the list just goes on and on.

This looks like a learning issue, I think I'll ask my eldest, an Enviornmental Admin. Major to file a "Friend of the Court" brief.

And maybe one can the see the true colors of Mit Romney by asking what he thinks; SNAP.

Not concerned

[Curunir_wolf]

Loorz says kids his age are much more worried about climate change than many of their parents might imagine.

Sounds like Loorz has been well indoctrinated by his teachers. Because his assertion is demonstrably false. Unless my "many" he means "a few of us brainwashed cloistered kids".

Re:what exactly do they want done...

[ArcherB]

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.

I don't mean to sound rude, but your argument is a lose-lose. First, it's called the "broken window fallacy", only your claiming to create jobs by reinforcing the window that hasn't been broken yet. Next, even if we were to grant your argument that using huge collective projects would improve the economy, wouldn't picking up coastal cities and relocating them to higher elevations do a much better job than whatever you would plan to prevent the warming to begin with.