Children Can Now Sue The US Government Over Climate Change (vice.com)

"America's children have officially won the right to sue their government over global warming," reports Motherboard. An anonymous reader quotes their article: Thursday, a lawsuit filed by 21 youth plaintiffs was ruled valid by U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon. A group of citizens, whose ages range from nine to twenty, charged President Obama, the fossil fuel industry, and other federal agencies with violating their constitutional rights by declining to take action against climate change. "Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environmental law, and the world has suffered for it," wrote Judge Aiken in her ruling. [PDF]
Several groups -- including the U.S. government and the American Petroleum Institute -- had asked the judge to throw out the case, but the judge ruled instead that climate change would "threaten plaintiffs' fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty," calling man-made climate change an "undisputed" fact. In a related story, Slashdot reader devinp shares a new study which suggests "Global changes in temperature due to human-induced climate change have already impacted every aspect of life on Earth from genes to entire ecosystems, with increasingly unpredictable consequences for humans."

Comments

have to prove damage

[phantomfive]

I would think it would be hard for anyone to prove that they've been damaged by global warming.

Also, there is the legal principle of sovereign immunity: The King Can do No Wrong. If memory serves, victims of radiation from nuclear tests in Nevada sued the government, and lost based on that principle. If victims of nuclear fallout can't win the case, I can't imagine these people will.

But anyway the case should be an entertainment. Bring out the popcorn!

Re:have to prove damage

[Orgasmatron]

Sadly, the government can waive immunity. And then there is the sue&settle technique where an agency partners up with an activist group and together they come up with a plan where the activist group sues the agency, then the agency settles. The settlement then becomes a court order to do or not do something that Congress never would have agreed to.

Re:have to prove damage

[JaredOfEuropa]

It's an interesting case. Moreso because the government isn't really "declining to take action against climate change", is it? At least the current administration acknowledges hat AGW is a problem, and they have some policies to address it. The real question is: what should they be doing, and are they doing enough? There was a similar case here in the Netherlands, where an environmental group sued the government and won. In that case the judges simply said: "government must abide by the treaties they signed, including the Kyoto one", noting that the country wasn't meeting the agreed emission goals. But in this case, I don't think a judge could have ordered the government to sign and ratify the treaty in the first place, merely to uphold the agreements therein.

In this case, what could a judge order the government to do? Reduce emissions by X? Build N wind farms? Sign some treaties? I imagine that a settlement would boil down to whatever gets negotiated between gov't and environmentalists, but... wouldn't it be a funny-as-hell joke on the plaintiffs if a judge ordered the government to fund 20 new nuclear power plants to help meet CO2 reduction goals?

The Dutch ruling has similar interesting side effects: it turns out there are many other treaties and agreements not being kept, and apparently we can now have the court force the government to respect those treaties. For example, the rule ("recommendation") in the NATO treaty about military spending, and the subsequent 2014 agreement of the "freeloading countries" to increase spending and at least approach the minimum agreed amount. Not quite what those environmentalists were after...

Re:have to prove damage

[CrimsonAvenger]

The real question is: what should they be doing, and are they doing enough?

They should be mass-producing a standardized nuclear reactor design to replace every coal-fired plant (and then every gas-fired plant). And no, they're not doing enough.

Constitutional rights

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I guess I have to go back and read them again.

I don't remember a constitutional right about climate change.

Re:Constitutional rights

[phantomfive]

.....rights to life and liberty
Those are what the judge was referring to.

Re:Constitutional rights

[William Baric]

That's an extremely broad interpretation of rights to life and liberty. What's next? Americans suing the US government for not having done enough research to find a cure for cancer?

Re:Constitutional rights

[Anubis IV]

Generally your rights get infringed before you have standing to sue. Last I checked, everyone is still alive and free, so I don't think those are the constitutional rights they think they've had infringed. For that matter, I'd be hard pressed to name any. As much as I think climate change is a topic that needs addressing, unless they can cite specific harm that they personally have already suffered, I don't know how this case wasn't thrown out for a blatant lack of standing.

Re:Constitutional rights

[thegarbz]

That's an extremely broad interpretation of rights to life and liberty. What's next? Americans suing the US government for not having done enough research to find a cure for cancer?

Indeed I would hope that if the US government put as little effort into cancer as they did into climate change that they would also get sued for this.

It sounds ridiculous, but this is not the first government to be sued by it's citizens for not doing enough about climate change https://www.theguardian.com/en...

But really I consider climate change secondary now. Climate change hasn't affected me and likely won't directly affect me. However fighting climate change has directly resulted in initiatives that have already made my life better. The air smells cleaner, there's less smog, driving behind cars no longer fills my cabin with horrid smelling fumes, the oil refinery near where I work doesn't smell anywhere near as bad as it used to, there's less diesel dust settling on everything... even to climate deniers I don't see any good reason why we shouldn't continue down this road of stemming pollution.

Re:Constitutional rights

[tsqr]

Then there is the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mission statement part where life and liberty can be pretty miserable and so that last inspirational phrase was included.

That would be the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitutional reference to life and liberty (and property too, but not happiness) is in the 5th Amendment, which prohibits the Federal government from depriving individuals of those things without due process.

Re:Constitutional rights

[thegarbz]

That's actual pollution, not CO2. I await your reasonable response mentioning that the US Supreme Court had deemed CO2 to be a "pollutant".

Sorry forgive me. I completely forgot the only emission from coal fired and oil fired power plants was CO2, and that the massive increase in fuel efficiency and effective burning of engines has only changed the amount of CO2 emissions.

How stupid of me.

Re:This is the exact reason why Trump won

[ArtemaOne]

Are you referring to Trump's 100+ civil suits currently pending?

Can I sue?

[ScentCone]

I want to sue the government over the existence of a large number of things and people that they are allowing to threaten my life and happiness. Especially that guy that cut me off in traffic today. And the lack of fiber to my door. It's unfair and I want a bunch of money because my feelings are hurt. Maybe I'll go out and burn down somebody's business and smash some windows, since protesting is fashionable.

National Debt

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

Do children get to sue over the accumulating National Debt they will be saddled with.

WWon't survive 5the new SCOTUS

Re:National Debt

[penguinoid]

Well, it would certainly be interesting if they passed a law saying that the generation that voted for a bill gets to pay the resulting taxes.

The Absurdity Continues

[pipingguy]

What if they don't get a pony for Christmas? Their favored political party loses an election?

Carbon dioxide makes food plants more efficient.

[jclaer]

Food plants are now 15% more efficient than 30 years ago. Fewer hungry people! Widely known fact. Search youtube for "earth greening".

Re:Cure now, Gym later

[whoever57]

And furthermore, the problem stems mostly with developing nations [wordpress.com] and not the industrialized ones.

How about a graph that shows CO2 emission per person, instead of one that ignored the fact that there are about 4x the number of people in China than the USA?

Also, how about acknowledging that China is already ahead of the USA in investment in renewable energy sources?

So, no the problem isn't actually developing nations, it's the USA. The USA is being left behind and the economy is likely to suffer long term.

Civil suits

[Okian Warrior]

Are you referring to Trump's 100+ civil suits currently pending?

And are those 100+ civil suits against him personally, or against various companies?

Is he innocent until proven guilty? Or are we just assuming here...

Are civil suits the same as felonies? I seem to remember another candidate playing hopscotch with several felonies.

Are civil suits of the same order as rape? I seem to remember another candidate...

Eleven states sued Barak Obama over a single action, 25 states sued him over another, almost triggering a constitutional convention. There's a long line of civil and federal suits as well, not to mention the numerous lawsuits filed against Hillary Clinton, for example from Benghazi family members.

Oh hell, of course. Now I see.

Everything about him is awful in every possible way, but one of the Clintons was never indicted.

Undisputed science?

[elrous0]

calling man-made climate change an "undisputed" fact.

I wasn't aware that there was such a thing in empirical science as "undisputed."

Re:Undisputed science?

[marquisdepolis]

Snarky replies like that is the main reason this is still contested ...

Re:Do the math

[Jzanu]

Wikipedia isn't reliable. Try here a newspaper with editorial staff subject to corrections, or here a christian research organization which confirms an estimated 19.44% chinese population vs global.

China, the U.S. factory

[tfmg_b]

Your parent also did not say a word about the CO2 produced to make goods in China for our country to consume. http://legal-planet.org/2016/0...

Re:This is the exact reason why Trump won

[SensitiveMale]

No, I'm referring safe spaces.
No, I'm referring 63 genders.
No, I'm referring to people being sick and tired of being called racist if they happen to disagree with Obama.
No, I'm referring to people being sick and tired of being called a homophobe if that don't actively support 100% everything that "the right" gay leaders support.
No, I'm referring to people being called a bigot and every other name in the book if they aren't completely caught up with the PC jargon du jour.
No, I'm referring Democrats paying mentally ill homeless people to start fights at Trump events.
No, I'm referring to yearly proclamations of global warming being irreversible in twenty years for the past forty years.
No, I'm referring that there hasn't been any global warming temperature changes in almost twenty years.
No, I'm referring to rioters who can't handle that their candidate lost an election.
No, I'm referring a business that tells his employees to quit if they voted for Trump.
No, I'm referring to Democrat leadership actively favoring a candidate.
No, I'm referring to the DNC chief being forced to step down because of that unethical behavior and then being immediately being hired by the winning candidate.
No, I'm referring to the next DNC chief caught colluding with journalists by passing on a debate question.
No, I'm referring that DBC lying about it and then having proof that Brazille passed multiple debate question to Hillary.

I can keep going on, but I'll stop.
This is why Trump won.

Re:Carbon dioxide makes food plants more efficient

[Gussington]

Food plants are now 15% more efficient than 30 years ago. Fewer hungry people! Widely known fact. Search youtube for "earth greening".

Food has never been a production issue, it has always been a distribution issue.

the voting dead

[harvey the nerd]

I wouldn't be surprised if 10-20 million of Hillary's votes are illegals, 3rd or 30th votes, or the voting dead.

Re:Cure now, Gym later

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, how about acknowledging that China is already ahead of the USA in investment in renewable energy sources?

So, no the problem isn't actually developing nations, it's the USA. The USA is being left behind and the economy is likely to suffer long term.

This is the really big thing. Renewables are a technology / capital problem. The better your wind farm, the more energy it can collect for less materials and less cost. Once it's running the actual energy supply is completely free. Solar panels have little inherent cost (just sand) but a huge manufacturing (purification, fab, ....) / technology cost. The more efficiently you can make them the cheaper your energy. The better your storage system, the more energy you can store during the night and low wind periods, the more you can use all of your available renewable energy. What's really interesting is that there are now several technologies for methane (or even sometimes liquid fuel) from electricity and atmospheric carbon dioxide. If these become practical then soon variability problems in renewable energy supplies will be almost irrelevant and only cost will matter.

Now there's a huge race on; the very best of renewable energy is now becoming competitive on overall energy cost with coal. At the same time, with better weather forecasting, wider distribution and more variety of systems, the match of renewable energy availability to demand is getting to be better than other solutions like nuclear (days required to change output) and coal. At this stage, only the insane would be investing in developing old technology like coal and oil.

When previous energy technologies such a nuclear, or electricity grids were adopted, there were huge government subsidies (nuclear / hydro) or heavy government support (full scale electricity grids) which allowed them to break through from economically. Right now, the subsidies, in terms of providing security for Saudi Arabia and support, in terms of making regulations which make it difficult to connect renewable energy to grids, are going in the other direction and actively blocking renewable. If the USA took leadership now, then ideas like Musk's rooftop solar could put the country back into the lead in energy.

If the USA fossil fuel lobby, allied with with the Chinese solar industry, continue to be able to block renewable development, even, for example managing to kill off Tesla as they seem to have killed off earlier US solar companies like Solyndra then within a few years China, which lacks a big corporate oil/fossil fuel lobby will have an unassailable technological lead. First that will be seen in sales however cheaper energy, in particular energy that comes without needing complex delivery and politics like oil and coal, will have much more of an effect. It will be impossible for the US to threaten to blockade China because their economy will be able to run largely without oil and gas and around internal consumption. That will allow the Chinese to take on much larger political risks than they do already. In the long run, China will likely be able to provide cheaper liquid fuel than US allies like Saudi Arabia. At which point it will be game over.

There is an alternative vision, where the USA would actively invest in renewables and protect or subsidise it's companies just enough to compensate for Chinese dumping. It would still be possible to recapture at least an important position in renewables and with it long term energy independence. In this case the USA could stop subsidising the Saudis and interfering in the (now largely irrelevant) middle east. You can consider this a test for your new government.

Re:Cure now, Gym later

[thegarbz]

And furthermore, the problem stems mostly with developing nations [wordpress.com] and not the industrialized ones.

I notice you linked to a graph that stops at 2010 which conveniently ignores the fact that China has stemmed the rise in emissions in 2011 and actually started reducing their emissions.

So while being dishonest enough to ignore that China has a massively larger population and the emissions per capita are far lower than that of the USA, you additionally cherry pick your data to suit your agenda. You also ignore that China and India are building more clean energy sources than the USA and have signed on to more climate accords faster than the USA has.

All of this leads to your dishonest post being what citizen scientists commonly refer to as a "dick move".

Re:Carbon dioxide makes food plants more efficient

[thegarbz]

Food plants are now 15% more efficient than 30 years ago.

YES!

Fewer hungry people!

YES!

But sadly these two statements have absolutely zero to do with each other. We're currently trending towards a massive reduction in crop yields thanks pissing many years of farming science against the wall in the name of "organics".

Also world hunger is not an issue of crop yield.

Re:This is the exact reason why Trump won

[Cederic]

So you choose to prefer harrasing people (or exposing them to harrassment) who're different from you?

Being exposed to facts is not harassment. Being removed from an echo chamber is not harassment. Being asked to justify the bullshit being spouted is not harassment. Hearing other opinions is not harassment.

There are laws against harassment. Safe spaces are not required, and are very much not safe to many of the people made unwelcome in them.

Re:This is the exact reason why Trump won

[Cederic]

Let's go with one gender, female, because that's what we all actually biologically start out as

No, we start out as male, female or interesting. At least 60 of the 63 genders are fundamentally variations on those three, so trying to define 63 may be useful when exploring sociology and biology but has no place in law or defining who can use a bathroom.

So the logical reaction to being called a racist is to elect an overtly racist leader?

When anything and everything is described as 'racist' the term loses its meaning. When people are told they're racist - even when they're not doing or saying anything racist - then they interpret someone else being described as racist as meaning that person is pretty fucking normal.

Trump may or may not be racist. Many of the people that voted for him may or may not be. All of them have been publicly described using that term, so why should they really care about it?

(see also: Homophobe and bigot)

Re:Cure now, Gym later

[haruchai]

how about acknowledging that China is already ahead of the USA in investment in renewable energy sources?

how about not forgetting how far behind china is compared to the much of the world in so many other aspects of environmental protection, human rights, and everything else?

Things in North Am weren't much better in the 70s so China & India are less than 40 yrs behind; the unknown is how long it'll take them to catch up.
But President Trump will make it easier for them - by making sure we get back to when we were (the) great(est polluters)

Re:MAJORITY does

[pedz]

According to scopes http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/... the electoral college is there so that smaller states do not get swamped out by the bigger states. We forget that we are the United States of America... not the Bickering Citizens of America.

The stories behind the creation of the Constitution are very fascinating and educational. The wisdom demonstrated is amazing. And most of it still applies today.

Seriously, go look at the final maps. Almost the entire middle of the country is Republican. You have the extremely populated east and west coasts that are Democrat. Should they really dictate what the entire country does? The founding fathers believed not.

So far, no one has put forth and passed an amendment to change it. So shut the fuck up.

Also, you are talking about less than 0.5% of the vote difference. As far as popular vote, I'd pretty much call that a tie. It seems very wise to me in that case that an alternative means of picking the winner.

By the way, I did not vote for Trump. I don't understand being upset when someone who you don't really agree with in the first place loses. Next time, try voting for someone instead of against someone else. The external results won't change but your internal peace might..

Re:Cure now, Gym later

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Yep, Myron Ebell doesn't believe in climate change and Mike Pence doesn't believe in evolution. What a fantastic start we're off to.

(Not to mention that proposed Chief of Staff Steve Bannon doesn't believe in equality, Trump himself doesn't believe in the First Amendment, and likely Secretary of the Interior Sarah Palin doesn't believe in vowels or coherent sentences.)

Re:Too late for them.

[BlueStrat]

We may have to eliminate people.

You first. Until then, STFU.

I'm in the final stages of HIV, so done and done.

Your turn.

Re:Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Applehu Akbar]

Since Arizona has had a rainy year, this means we have to tour the country, giving out water to all the drought-stricken areas.

Re:Cure now, Gym later

[Applehu Akbar]

The atmosphere "cares" only about the total CO2 it gets, not the carbon per capita.

Re:Cure now, Gym later

[whoever57]

The atmosphere "cares" only about the total CO2 it gets, not the carbon per capita.

The atmosphere doesn't "care" about arbitrary divisions of land.