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
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
Instead of peace signs, they now have law degrees.
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.
On the bright side, they're still young and naive. You can't buy off idealists.
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
It is not censorship when you insist that only scientific conclusions be heard during debates about scientific issues.
Palm trees and 8
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.
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..." one?
Liberty in your lifetime
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.
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 get their interests protected over those of government officials who only have a few years left anyway.
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."
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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."
[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.
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?
Somebody needs to educate these kids on how political change is really achieved in our system of government.
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.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Oh my the irony!
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
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You can't dismiss reality.
You don't watch Fox News, do you.
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
Sounds to me like some nut job teacher pushing their political agenda on their students.
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.
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.
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?
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!
arguing their future is doomed because the government borrows 43 cents of every dollar it spends, and sticks these kids with the debt. Someday that'll be a crime with its own name, like holocaust or genocide. Hollowcost? noun. 1)The fraction of the cost of a government service shifted from the current generation onto future ones. 2) the crime of sticking your kids with debt for your non-asset-creating expenses (i.e., medicare, medicaid, social security, interest on the debt).
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.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Does anyone really believe that these lawyers or any scientist willing to support their cause is really working for free? This has all of the legal ethics that you expect from a class action shake-down, the government will pay the lawyer fees plus expenses. This is just a political scam.
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.
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 meaningless thing to debate.
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.
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 definition of what a fruit is. The fact that you and other self-styled scientists don't understand this distinction only emphasizes how important it is to have people other than you make decisions.
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.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But when I was a kid, the scientific community was in consensus that global cooling was our biggest threat, from pollution. Now it's global warming, and in another generation it'll probably be global cooling again. This isn't a science issue so much as it is a social one. Scientists are just as susceptible or perhaps more so than anyone in being swept away by the inertia of positive bias. It's very difficult to dissent in a community as tightly woven as the science community has become.
Everyone pats one another on the ass to get published and to cite publications while publishing. That trends heavily towards publishing things which are guaranteed to not rock the boat, go against the current trends and to be widely difficult to disprove such as issues as nebulous as global warming. Without any 'causes', what we have are weather patters which are roughly linear going back to the ice ages and which have occurred on uninhabited planets as well.
Despite the obvious explanation that perhaps weather is cyclic, and taking into account man's minority contribution to the organic discharge of carbon on the planet, we have a frantic persuasive group demanding that this be the issue which guides our judgement, not because this issue itself has validity or provability but rather because the tertiary effects of abiding by policies guided by this doctrine will achieve the other desirable outcomes; in this case a moral support of secondary 'green' initiatives.
In that way, and I won't go too far with this parallel, the global warming debate has become a religious issue. Without proof, those who believe in it are fervent and zealous. They see proof in everything, and that reaffirms their faith. They know that if others would convert to their faith, the other problems which plague them such as conservatism of wetlands and undeveloped lands and control of pollution and emissions would also be resolved.
This is not an issue in itself, as it is a banner under which other issues are being brought. That is why the argument itself doesn't appear to make sense to outsiders to the faith, because it isn't and never has been a simple, explicable and provable thing. It's a nebulous accusation that carries the hope of people who have genuine and valid concerns, and are driven to have a cause to unite them.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
There just is no mandate for the EPA to regulate CO2 at this time.
Sorry but you are wrong. In Massachusetts v. EPA 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
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 brat. The majority says "no you can't" you say "but..." And it goes, over and over, "but ... but ... but ... waaaaaaaaaaa I want my way...." At least brats just hold their breath until they pass out, and then they're silent for a while.
While they can be annoying, I don't mind environmentalists peacefully protesting and truthfully advertising, because that's the system at work, trying to convince the people, change their opinion, put the will of the people on their side. I do mind when they clog up the court system with efforts to circumvent the will of the people.