Young Climate Activists Sue Obama Over Climate Change Inaction (cnn.com)

EmagGeek writes A recent lawsuit against Obama alleges he has a legal duty to act against climate change, and young climate activists, including 15-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh, are taking him to task on it. CNN reports: "Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh became a climate change activist at age 6 when he saw an environmental documentary. He asked his mom to find a way for him to speak at a rally. Now 15, the long-haired, hip-hop-savvy Coloradan is one of 21 young activists joining climate scientist James Hansen in suing the Obama administration for failing to ditch fossil fuels. 'It's basically a bunch of kids saying you're not doing your job,' he told me here at the U.N. COP21 climate change summit in Paris. 'You're failing, you know. F-minus. We're holding you accountable for your lack of action.'"

Comments

15 years old?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?

Re:15 years old?

[ganjadude]

they see all these kids in college acting like fools, taking over, yelling at teachers, having no respect for any one or any thing, and they think they can join in on the "fun"

this kid should be laughed at, and nothing more

Re:15 years old?

[presidenteloco]

"If you have (or are getting) a STEM degree, you are likely to get shunned" (by environmentalists)

Rubbish.
Most environmental concern is BASED on the findings of science,
whereas lack of environmental concern is based on either ignorance or selfish greed.

Re:15 years old?

[Trailer Trash]

I see this and his age, and I can only think, "does he realize that, while Obama can make some action, the majority of such a thing has to come from Congress?"

I can only see him as being a brat trying to make a name for himself targeting a well targeted person.

The biggest thing on his table politically about climate change recently, might have been Keystone, which he didn't let go through

WTF does the Keystone pipeline have to do with climate change? The Canadians are selling the oil to China, anyway, it'll just take a different route.

So tired of this mindless repetition of "facts" from partisans on both sides.

Re:15 years old?

[Waffle Iron]

People with an agenda don't want to be bothered with pesky issues like reality.

As your posts nicely demonstrate.

Re:15 years old?

[NotDrWho]

Because he's an ACTIVIST!!!

Or more accurately, he's like 99.99% of activists out there--in that he wants someone else to fix the problem while he pats himself on the back for making no real sacrifice whatsoever.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

The solutions proposed are not, however, based in reality...

We aren't all going to stop driving gas powered cars, turn off our AC, or move into 1,000 sqft houses.

All things that we'd have to do, and do rather quickly, to "solve" the problem.

The truth is, we're going to go barreling past 2 degrees C, and probably past 3 degrees C.

We'd be far better off to just prepare for that, rather than make a vain attempt to stop it.

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

WTF does the Keystone pipeline have to do with climate change? The Canadians are selling the oil to China, anyway, it'll just take a different route.

Nothing, it actually just means that MORE oil will be burned moving the Canadian oil, rather than less.

Stopping the pipeline actually HARMS the environment.

Re:15 years old?

[GameboyRMH]

At 15 years old he'll have to live most of his life with the effects of climate change, unlike the mostly old-fart climate conspiracy theorists who don't care what happens after they die.

Re:15 years old?

[mspohr]

Here's something that's real that you can do with only a minor inconvenience...
You could stop eating meat. It would improve your health and help the environment. Eating meat has the environmental impact equivalent to all of the driving you do.
www.cowspiracy.com

Re:15 years old?

[Solandri]

Most environmental concern is BASED on the findings of science,
whereas lack of environmental concern is based on either ignorance or selfish greed.

Your statements and his are not mutually exclusive. The bulk of people who are environmentalists or who think climate change is bunk form their positions on these issues for philosophical or economic reasons, not rational reasons. I'm an engineer and I spend a lot of time "educating" them. If you don't know the difference between kilowatts and kilowatt-hours (as most of these people don't), you have no business trying to influence energy policy. It's completely obvious you're basing your opinion on things other than facts.

The environmental scientists who research this stuff do so with a fairly neutral approach. A lot of engineers are environmentally conscientious as well because it correlates with energy efficiency, and engineers love optimizing for efficiency. But they're realistic about it. That's why such a large segment of slashdot readers are both pro-environment and pro-nuclear. They're realistic enough to realize that although nuclear has its drawbacks, the drawbacks of opposing it resulting in continued use of coal and oil are much, much worse (because wind and solar technologies are not yet capable of taking over base load, and probably won't be for another 20 years). Go ahead. Ask anyone who's pro-solar how many square meters of solar panels they'll need on average to charge their EV every night (using batteries as interim storage). Most of them have no clue, and wouldn't even know how to start figuring it out. Heck, most of them don't even have the faintest concept of how big a solar panel it takes to light a light bulb. How can you compare a technology to alternatives and come to a decision to advocate it if you don't even understand these basic things?

Re:15 years old?

[FlyHelicopters]

You saying we can, and actually being able to do it, are two different things.

A whole lot of people still drive 10 year old cars, a whole lot of people are not going to put solar up, and a whole lot of people aren't going to move.

Our way of life using the energy we use, from the sources we use, isn't sustainable long term, but it can't be changed in the short term either.

Will it change? Yes.

Will it change in the timeframe required to hold global average temp below the 2 degree level? No.

That is really the key. It'll change over time, but not fast enough to matter. We passed the point of no return decades ago, we're just coasting now.

We'd have to cut 75% of the total energy use in the US, tomorrow, to actually stop the climb of CO2. For many reasons, that just isn't going to happen.

Re:15 years old?

[nightfire-unique]

Not that I agree or disagree, but I've heard this argument advanced: by building a pipeline, you increase overall production cost efficiency; the supply and demand curve meet at a lower pricepoint, and oil is consumed at a higher rate.

Re:15 years old?

[GodelEscherBlecch]

Whenever the stark reality of data flies in the face of warmists agenda they get hostile and to ad hominem.

That was quite masterful the way you used satire to demonstrate the same logical fallacy you were decrying. And with a dash of strawman thrown in, too - are you a former Colbert writer?

I also love the way you use ridiculous hyperbole to lampoon the layman who thinks he knows so much about such a vastly complicated issue that he is fully confident in calling it black or white, and calling anybody an idiot who does not agree with the stark color of his vehemently stated but argumentatively void comments.

The more I read your post, the more I think you might just be this century's Voltaire - a true master. I mean you lit this fucker up like a winning bingo card:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...

I'm truly impressed. A+.

Re:15 years old?

[riverat1]

If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?

Maybe if you only look at the atmosphere. But if you look at the oceans they have continued to warm without pause and over 90% of the climate warming is going into the oceans anyway. But you're going to have to retire that "no significant warming" meme after the end of this year because 2015 is going to blow the old records out of the water.

Re:15 years old?

[GameboyRMH]

Well good news! People don't eat uranium, carbon fiber or semiconductor materials, so my plan won't starve people! I was thinking about nuclear, wind and solar rather than running the planet on ethanol. You know what will starve people though? The droughts and floods that come with climate change. Those and other natural disasters HURT PEOPLE.

Re:15 years old?

[Xyrus]

The solutions proposed are not, however, based in reality...

We aren't all going to stop driving gas powered cars, turn off our AC, or move into 1,000 sqft houses.

All things that we'd have to do, and do rather quickly, to "solve" the problem.

The truth is, we're going to go barreling past 2 degrees C, and probably past 3 degrees C.

We'd be far better off to just prepare for that, rather than make a vain attempt to stop it.

Oh, they're realistic. But in order to pull that off we'd actually have give a shit about the future. We'd have to step out of our greed fueled little lives and put a concerted effort into making the world a better place. That simply will not happen because we're too damn stupid and greedy. As long as we can keep kicking the can down the road, we will. As long as someone stands to profit from the status quo, it will be maintained. This is how humanity has operated throughout history, and the so-called "modern age" is no different.

Why the hell do you think Exxon et al. deliberately ignored and buried the science from their own research departments? Because the cost of snow jobbing the public was a lot less then proposing and implementing actions to address the issues. A few million to the same propoganda firms that held up action on smoking, asbestos, leaded gasoline, etc.? Pssh. Pennies, but more than effective to keep the profits rolling in. Pay for the FUD, stall any meaningful action, and you can keep the profit gravy train running for another few decades. And by the time even the biggest idiots in the public finally realize there is a problem, the solution will be so painful to the general public that they'd never sign on to it.

Mission accomplished.

Now here we are, some 35 years later and NOW the problem is "too big/unrealistic to solve". Well no fucking shit. If we had started taking actions 35 years ago then we wouldn't be in this situation. It's like a doctor saying you have the beginning stages of cancer then waiting until you have stage 4 cancer to do anything about it.

Now the only "realistic" course of action is adaptation. Oddly, no one wants to pay for that. Not like we could if we even wanted too considering we've spent the past 35 years paying trillions to maintain our addiction to the economical morphine known as oil. These "climate conferences" and such? Worthless. With the global economy the way it is, all the unrest, and the big bad boogeyman of terrorism no one is going to make any serious commitments to doing anything.

As always, nothing meaningful will be done until the shit really hits the fan. By then it will be far too late, of course. If we don't destroy ourselves in resource wars, we might end up learning a valuable lesson.

Re:15 years old?

[ganjadude]

have you seen the demands? they dont even make sense

one of them was along the lines of. "have a group for black sudents... and if there already is one give it more money"

now... i dont know about you, but if you dont know if there is a group or not... how can you even make demands when you have no clue what you are talking about?

Re:15 years old?

[NoOneInParticular]

Ever heard of a country called the Netherlands? Size of Maryland, population 17 million, one of the densest in the world? Also happens to be consistently it the top-3 of agricultural exporters in the world, and most of that stuff is grown in the middle of the densest part of that country. Feeding 17 million people, with enough to spare to feed half of Germany.

Re: 15 years old?

[DigiShaman]

Of course he is, as they should be conflated. Nitrogen fertilizer production is tied directly to natural gas. Take away natural gas production and billions will starve!!!

http://grist.org/article/2010-...

Re:15 years old?

[sabbede]

More important (legally), is the question of whether a 15 year old has standing (stake in or harm from a law or action), or if there is a case/controversy and that it can be remedied by some action from the courts and the courts have jurisdiction to do so.

Here, there is no real controversy as the Administration agrees with the plaintiff and wants to do more. Nor is this an issue in which the court can involve itself: The Administration does not have the authority to do any more than it already is (and even that is in question elsewhere), anything more would have to go through Congress and necessarially involve political issues. So, in the end, it's a political question in which no court can or will involve itself.

His case will be tossed rather quickly. Even if he can show harm, is allowed to file suit (only 15 after all), and takes it to a court that can issue a writ of mandamus to the White House, the courts will say, "That's not up to us, take it to Congress or the voters."

Re:Who cares

[avandesande]

He's hip hop savy. That makes it important.

Not doing his job?

[fahrbot-bot]

Hmm... I checked The Constitution and it doesn't say anything about it being the President's job to "ditch fossil fuels". Heck, it doesn't even mention "climate change". Perhaps this kid should take a Civics / Government class and learn that it's Congress that passes these things called "laws"...

Re:Not doing his job?

[Major Blud]

Not to mention that I'm sure we can find over a dozen activities this kid takes part in that negatively impact the climate.

Re:Not doing his job?

[Trailer Trash]

Not to mention that I'm sure we can find over a dozen activities this kid takes part in that negatively impact the climate.

Let me help you:

"Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh... hip-hop-savvy Coloradan...,' he told me here at the U.N. COP21 climate change summit in Paris.

I'm guessing he didn't row a boat to Europe.

Re:Not doing his job?

[fahrbot-bot]

You are correct that somebody needs a civics lesson, to learn whose job the U.S. Constitution says is to "recommend to [Congress'] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient".

Ya, I know that and Obama has "recommended" many things to Congress during his term. How'd that work out for him with this Congress filled with people that don't want to say anything but "no" and, apparently, do little else? In any case, as I said, it's the job of Congress to actually pass laws. Perhaps, *someone* needs a lesson in "reading".

Re:Not doing his job?

[LynnwoodRooster]

I would proffer it's even more important for Congress to know when it should NOT pass laws... Often the proper answer is "no", especially when it comes to political winds and short term trends.

Re:Not doing his job?

[fahrbot-bot]

instead of spouting typical "literal reading" ignorance

(a) You chastise me about that then provide cut/pasted excerpts from the Constitution - which is *literally* a literal reading? Talk about irony. (b) I know all that, and it was mentioned by another poster (to which I replied as in (c)), so you're late and short. (c) Doesn't change my point that Congress passes the laws in this country - treaties and "recommendations" to Congress not withstanding. (d) You're (obviously) a pedantic dumb-ass.

Cheers, have a nice day! :-)

This is great news!

[timholman]

Now that the precedent has been set, I'm looking forward to suing all of these students twenty years from now for their terrible career choices which have made them unemployable, thus depriving me of the tax revenue needed to support my Social Security and Medicare.

Idiot

[MBGMorden]

I guess he hasn't gotten to the class in school yet explaining that the Executive branch can't enact laws . . .

Re:Idiot

[rmdingler]

He doesn't care. This is attention-seeking behavior.

He's fifteen. The long hair, the hip hop activism, and the impossible suit are means to an end for him.

He's probably getting laid for this shit.

Re: Idiot

[erapert]

Gee whiz, you don't suppose that all those crazy right wingers nattering on about "limited government" and other such foolish notions might have something of a point do you?

Re:Idiot

[CaptainLard]

He's probably getting laid for this shit.

Perhaps we can all learn something from him after all....

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

This kid started giving speeches and organizing rallies at 6. He's the creation of an adult. It took a while to figure out who, because they changed his name from Roske-Martinez to something Aztec. His mother is executive director of Earth Guardians and her name is Tamara Roske. If you Google her, you can see she's the activist behind all of this. Oh, and she wants you to pay for his high technology. Maybe they should get him some more vegetable scraps for his compost pile instead.

No standing

[selectspec]

In order to prove standing, he will have to prove that he's sustained damages. He will find that hard to do. The kid might as well sue for having his financial future mortgaged to a hilt while he is at it. At least in that case, he could document how he is being royally screwed.

 

James Hanson

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the same James Hanson who warned us in Jan 2009 that there were "only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world"? That if we fail, all will be lost? Because we busted that deadline in Jan 2014. And the world hasn't exactly ended yet.

Climate Cultism

[Anonymous Coward]

James Hansen should be immediately separated from these children.

The man is an absolute climate lunatic.

Re:Our descent into the bowels of fascism and deca

[DarkOx]

You sue the executive because he could be liable for malfeasance ( failing to do their duty). If there is some law under which it could be shown he had some specific obligation.

You can imagine some sufficiently twisted expansionist interpretation of exist environmental regulation where that might be possible. Its hard on the other hand at least for me as a lay person see how you could make a claim against the legislative body, they have powers but they don't really have much of anything in the way of legally defined duties.

Personally I hope they win at least the first round. I don't agree with what their goals, I think Obama and his EPA have already grossly over stepped and acted in excess of their authority. On the other hand they are going to continue to imagine new executive powers and playing King until something like this comes along and shows them it can bite them in the ass.

If a law suit like this can go forward brought by the general public than plenty of other suites could too. I can't wait until Joe Sixpack is able to sue the president for not deporting illegals as required for example; or for failing to defend the Constitution of the United States because he fought a foreign conflict without a Congressional declaration of war...

Oh the possibilities to restore checks on executive power.

He should get his day in court...

[jmr0ec]

... Just as soon as he shows us all HIS plan to ditch all fossil fuel use, without a negative energy balance at any time, will all the math shown, and the most pessimistic assumptions you can make about renewable availability and construction/maintenance energy costs baked in. After that, I want him to figure out how to PAY for it. Then I want him to take a good look at what goes into all those 'Green' technologies. A solar panel is energy intensive to make, and requires some toxic materials.

So what has he done?

[sbaker]

According to https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene..., since Obama took office:

* The EPA released the Clean Power Plan — the first-ever carbon pollution standards for existing power plants,
* The U.S. increased solar electricity generation by more than ten-fold, and tripled electricity production from wind power.
* The DOI has approved over 50 wind, solar, and geothermal utility-scale projects on public or tribal lands.
* Obama put forth initiatives to help develop principles for establishing energy corridors; encourage the use of designated energy corridors in western states; expedite the review of transmission projects in non-western states; and improve the overall transmission siting
* Created the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
* Proposed the toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in U.S. history
* Finalized the first-ever fuel economy standards for commercial trucks, vans, and buses for model years 2014-2018.
* The EPA proposed two new rules in 2014 under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program to curb HFC's.
* Released a Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions that builds on progress to date and takes steps to further cut methane emissions from landfills, coal mining, agriculture, and oil and gas systems.
* Committed to deploying 3 gigawatts of renewable energy on military installations, including solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal, by 2025.
* Directed federal agencies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as building energy use and fuel consumption by 28 percent by 2020 and increase deployment of renewable energy. ...and on and on.

What's the common thread here? Well, things Obama *can* do (EPA regulations, federal programs) he did - what required House & Senate to write laws, he made proposals - largely in agreement of the relevant industry groups...but if no laws are written as a result of all this work - is that Obama's fault?

Re:Ahh to be young again....

[KGIII]

At his age, I had all the answers. I was also witty, insightful, and never wrong. Oh, I was devilishly handsome and my philosophical works were fantastic and original. So, you do have a point.

Also, I was wrong. Well, except for the devilishly handsome bit.

James Hansen is a becoming shameful

[BCGlorfindel]

I get how as a scientist watching things you want to push people to action. That being said, James Hansen has gone a little overboard IMHO and into the realm of damaging the credibility of scientists in general be politicizing things himself. He's written things like:
Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years
This despite the IPCC estimates that gain/loss in glaciers will be regionally dependant on precipitation changes(and this based on admittedly poorly modelled precipitation).

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.
This isn't precisely a statement backed by peer reviewed evidence either...

When people are angry about the science being politicized, it does NOT help for the scientists to go over board politicizing things themselves in the hope of being a counter-balance. It doesn't work between FOX and MSNBC counter balancing each other from Rep-Dem sides of things, and it doesn't work for educating people on the science either. You just get more and more grandiose hyperbole, half truths and flat out propaganda from both sides.

Ah the right wing story progression

[presidenteloco]

It's not happening
It's uncertain
It may be happening but it's not us
Ok it's happening, but it's all those poor people who are trying to catch up with us
Ok it's happening, but there's nothing we can do about it.
Ok it happened, but there was nothing we could have done about it.

Yes. You could have done something. Finding yourself it a hole, you could have stopped digging.
You could have kept your friggin' traps shut with your destructive obstructionist bullshit and got the hell out of the way of the smart and motivated people trying to solve the problem.
You've already cost us 35 years of inaction since the problem was well known in scientific circles to exist.
So I say again, shut up and get out of the way.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[erapert]

So you were screaming at the top of your lungs about this problem forty years ago but nobody listened?
Forty years ago did you put forth a viable solution to the problem?
Have you been living in a carbon-neutral cabin in the woods ever since?
Do you have a car? Do you drive it frequently?
Do you have a computer? (yes, because you're on the internet) Where do you think that computer came from?
Do you have an air conditioner? Do you run it during the summer?
Do you buy food from the super market?
Do you buy clothes from a store?

Basically, unless you're Amish then you're every bit as responsible for "this mess" as the people you're railing against.
So get off your high horse and be reasonable. Your unreasonableness and histrionic screeching is detrimental to your cause.
So, to paraphrase something I read once: Shut up and get out of the way of your own cause.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[FlyHelicopters]

These are not the same things. I get from A to B most of the time on a bike.

I hear lots of people say that, and it sure sounds nice. It isn't very realistic however...

How do I take the kids to school on a bike? How do I go to the grocery store on a bike and bring home enough to feed a family of 5? While it is 30 degrees/100 degrees outside? In the rain?

Once you have a car, you use it, then you move to the suburbs where everything is driving distance, not walking/biking distance.

Buy a compact instead of a pick up. etc. etc.

Ahh, that "minor inconvenience" thing... So you want me to go out and spend money to replace my large vehicle, which carries 7 people and their stuff comfortably, with a Honda Civic that does neither?

And you want everyone else to do that too?

In the end though, the easiest thing is the most logical thing is to massively switch over to hydro and wind (with some solar)

Sure, that is easy to say... but hydro is largely tapped out and there are environmental reasons to not dam every river on Earth.

Wind will grow, but it costs more than coal/natural gas. Yes, yes, I see people post all the time that wind is now *cheap*, but I don't see it. When I pick my power company and my power options, wind always costs more. I have the choice to buy 100% wind power, but it costs about 30% more than coal power does.

And I live in Texas, we are the largest wind producing state in the US. The numbers for solar are even worse. If your plan is to ignore the economics, well, you need to pay a visit to reality land, and see how to pay for it without using other people's money.

There is no excuse not to do these things

Sure there is, they are expensive... time consuming, and ultimately won't change the outcome...

In reading the various posts here, I find that many people have really no idea of the scale of the problem. We either have to end our way of life as we know it, or accept that 2 degrees C increase is going to be passed without a thought and probably 3 degrees within our lifetime. 4 within our children's lifetime, but hopefully we stop it before it gets there.

75% total energy reduction, 90% carbon reduction, in the USA, would be required to stop it. Other nations will have to do less, but still large reductions. This will not happen. The refusal to accept this is harming the cause.

Re:Ah the right wing story progression

[Jack Griffin]

What, so that you can spend a crap load of MY money trying to fix the unfixable?

Sorry, no thanks.

Your choice is spend money or spend more money. There is no option to spend no money.
Another way to look at it is this: Assume Global Warming is complete fiction, but we go with it anyway. We create an entire new clean energy industry, which stimulates the economy, and creates more jobs and therefore more wealth, less poverty, and less crime.
The worst case case is we have less pollution, generate cleaner energy, more efficiently, and create more jobs for more people.
Even hard-core conservatives love creating new jobs. What other plan do you have that could achieve this?

Re: Ah the right wing story progression

[KenHansen]

35 years ago the problem was global cooling, the global warming, now 'climate change'... This has, at best, been a moving target. I wasn't aware 'obstructionist' republicans ran the US (world?) government these past 35 years...