Judge Orders Dutch Government To Finally Take Action On Climate Promises 242
New submitter Errol backfiring writes: Although the Dutch government has promised to make sure carbon emissions are lowered considerably, they have consistently failed to take action. Dutch climate group Urgenda and Dutch citizens have gone to court to force the government to take action, and the verdict (linked page is in Dutch) is that the government must reduce emissions by at least 25% compared to 1990 leves.
This 25% cut is seen as the minimum effort needed to keep the people safe from climate change dangers. 25% to 40% is the norm in international climate policy. The verdict is also important for similar climate groups in other countries.
This 25% cut is seen as the minimum effort needed to keep the people safe from climate change dangers. 25% to 40% is the norm in international climate policy. The verdict is also important for similar climate groups in other countries.
Now what? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is upside down. The elected government is sovereign, and derives its necessary powers from the consent of the people.
The correct way to change a government's course is by electing new people. Did the people of Holland appoint a judge to overlord the elected government?
Re:Now what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the Dutch government have something similar to the UK Human Rights Act. This makes the rights defined in the European Convention on Human Rights enforceable in the Dutch courts. The parliament could change that law but unless it does the courts can instruct the executive in how to apply the law so as to maintain those rights.
A quick google also suggests that international treaties which the Netherlands has ratified may be directly enforcable in the Dutch courts without needing additional laws to be
Re: (Score:2)
The government is an entity, like a company.
If the current government is not behaving as you expected when you elected it, the only way is to sue them.
Or do you really want to wait for the next ELECTION?
There is no way to vote a government or parliament out of office.
And for starters: the government is not elected by the people. Only the 'head of state' is elected by the parliament, which is elected by the people, and the REST OF THE GOVERNMENT IS APPOINTED BY THE HEAD OF STATE!!!
You con not vote for those
Re: (Score:2)
No, we grew past this idea in Europe after World War II after we found out the hard way that elected governments can do bad things.
The government of the day builds on law created by previous governments, the government is bound by the law as much as anyone, they don't get special status. As such you need someone to hold the government to those laws, and that's what the judiciary is for.
Though it's not really even remotely just a European thing. One might equally ask Americans why a few hundred year old piec
Conservation (Score:2)
One problem I see... (Score:4, Interesting)
...the government can't just wave its arms and say, "Emissions be gone!" So the date gets here and the reduction isn't achieved, the court will do...what, exactly?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hold the members of government in contempt and jail them for failing to follow a court order?
Who would arrest them?
The members of government have their own security services, do you honestly think you could arrest the entire government?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
... they quickly pass a new law empowering a small "council for citizens safety" to make quick decisions. ...
In the Netherlands no law gets passed quickly...
Re: (Score:2)
Shit, I'd better stock up on popcorn!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, in what banana republic do you live?
The United States of America.
Congress has the US Capital Police, one of the few federal police agencies that answers directly to them.
The President has the Secret Service, and of course, he is Commander in Chief of the US Military.
At the end of the day, what the US Marshalls service wants to do isn't the final word. Even the US Capital Police or the Secret Service isn't it.
It always comes down to the military.
So long as you are ok with the other half (Score:2)
That the government, to avoid that, can use force to reduce the numbers. Specifically forcing industry and citizens to produce less CO2. Things like checks to see how much you drive and prison if you go over, forced shutdown of industry, etc.
If you aren't ok with that, then you can't very well say the government should be arrested. After all, they themselves don't produce all the CO2, society at large does. They can't magic it away, meaning the only thing they can do is force citizens to comply.
Re: (Score:2)
It can also employ the carrot rather than the stick. That could include low/no cost loans or grants to install alternative energy solutions, putting up free charging stations for electric cars that use alternative energy, etc.
Only a mental defective defaults to the stick when the carrot will do the job.
Only one problem? (Score:2)
Hold the members of government in contempt and jail them for failing to follow a court order?
Re: (Score:3)
Mainly embarrass them publicly. Perhaps as the date gets closer if there is no realistic plan and/or no progress they will start issuing more specific instructions. A bit like the US federal courts when states don't do things they are constitutionally required to -- they start out saying "make it so" and get as detailed as they are forced to.
Re: (Score:2)
There's not much they can do to specifically enforce it, but it probably opens the door for citizens whose property is damaged because of climate related issues to be able to claim compensation from the government I imagine.
If the government hasn't done what it both said and was legally obliged to do, and someone suffers loss as a result then it would seem to be a fairly clear cut case for compensation.
Targets okay, but method usually vague (Score:2)
The issue I generally have with governments defining targets to meet, is that they rarely have an indication of how they plan to achieve these goals. Plucking an election pleasing number is fine, but without a real method it is just meaningless marketing.
Is anyone aware of any document or site that indicates how various countries are planning to meet their targets?
Re:Separation of powers or the rule of law, anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, as another poster said: "cue libertarian outrage" alright.
This isn't pulled out of the court's ass. The Dutch government made promises and then tried to back out of them. Their own court has said, "No, you made binding promises, now keep them." Which is what most contract law is about, and what most sane courts enforce.
Re:Separation of powers or the rule of law, anyone (Score:5, Interesting)
The Dutch government did not make legally enforceable promises to their own people. They made promises to other sovereign states. In other words, it is up to the other parties of the contract (the other countries) to force the Dutch government to follow through on the promises, not some activist judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
Even if they had made the promises to the Dutch people, manifesto commitments aren't generally considered legally enforceable (and shouldn't be, for a whole raft of reasons - possibility of coalitions, practicality (party can't control what the legislature will pass), changing circumstances, the fact there already exists a recourse for grievances (elections and recall petition) etc.).
Hague Time (Score:2)
The Dutch government did not make legally enforceable promises to their own people. They made promises to other sovereign states. In other words, it is up to the other parties of the contract (the other countries) to force the Dutch government to follow through on the promises, not some activist judge.
100% correct. On to the International Court of Justice [wikipedia.org] then... in The Hague. Oh the irony!
Government by the Courts (Score:2)
The Dutch government made promises and then tried to back out of them.
Much as I disapprove of politicians saying one thing and then doing another there are times when it is necessary e.g. if the situation changes or politicians learn the true cost/implication of the promised action. This is why, in a democracy, the people get to decide. If the government can make a good case to the people as to why it cannot fulfill its promise then they can vote it in again, if not they can give someone else a chance.
Given the number of, sometimes contradictory, promises which politician
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and there is the situation where a promise can be made in good faith, but circumstances do not permit it to be fulfilled.
If you have a no new taxes pledge, but some sort of unavoidable issue occurs which costs tons of money to fix, no one should hold you responsible for having to raise taxes. In that case, voiding your earlier promise is the responsible thing to do, even if it makes you look like a bit of a liar.
Obviously, what you *can* do is evaluate a campaign promise based on the actual likelihood
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you just end up with politics of personal popularity with no defining differences in policy between candidates. You will have to wait for the election results to see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to a government where everyone promises the moon to get elected and then does whatever the hell their hidden agenda and under the table deals tells them to do. Somehow that doesn't seem better. Then they retire to a cushy job somewhere when they get voted out. Lather, rinse, repeat endlessly. It also sounds eerily familiar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the time to negotiate that position been before the Dutch signed the treaty?
Which treaty is "the treaty"? None are mentioned! I note that the ordered reductions in emissions are greater than Netherlands's obligations under the Kyoto Treaty (-20% reduction versus the court-ordered -25%).
Wouldn't the time to negotiate that position been before the Dutch signed the treaty? That the Dutch may argue after the fact that "oh wait, we forgot to use this argument for leverage" doesn't absolve them of the commitments they signed up for.
And what happens if Netherlands happens to sign a trade agreement treaty that gives US corporations extraordinary power over internal Netherlands affairs? Is it still "doesn't absolve them of the commitments"? Or are onerous and/or fraudulent treaty conditions only a problem when you don't like them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In no sane system does a court have the ability to pull legal obligations out of its arse, as it seems to have done here.
This is indeed a bad precedent. Judges should stick to judging, rather than usurping the responsibilities of the legislature. If this is not overturned by a higher court, the result will be further politicization of the judiciary, erosion of their independence, and ultimately a reduction in their power to perform their legitimate duties.
Breach of contract? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This would be a great precident too, if the courts could be used to actually force politican to uphold campaign promises.
No, it would lead politicians to give even vaguer statements of their proposed policies than they do now, so as to avoid saying anything that could legally be construed as a promise. It would also probably lead to politicians using more "weasel words", like "I want to cut taxes during my first term in office.' That's not a PROMISE to cut taxes, though it kind of sounds like a promise; it's expressing a DESIRE to cut taxes.
There's also the problem that a person can make a promise that he or she cannot fulfil
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would lead politicians to give even vaguer statements of their proposed policies than they do now, so as to avoid saying anything that could legally be construed as a promise.
I am not seeing a problem.
It would also probably lead to politicians using more "weasel words", like "I want to cut taxes during my first term in office.' That's not a PROMISE to cut taxes, though it kind of sounds like a promise; it's expressing a DESIRE to cut taxes.
And then people will say "but he didn't promise".
There's also the problem that a person can make a promise that he or she cannot fulfill.
Then they deserve to be punished for that, the lying shitsacks.
Could the courts force Congress to uphold the presidential candidate's promise? Neither of those seem palatable.
Neither of what? You offered no options, only asked questions. I guess your closing sentence is correct, though; I can't swallow either of your stupid questions. You seem to want to be lied to.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would lead politicians to give even vaguer statements
I am not seeing a problem.
The real problem is when candidates make clear and unambiguous promises, then get elected, and now those promises have the full force of law, completely bypassing the legislative process, including debate and due consideration.
Giving campaign promises the force of law is the dumbest idea I have heard all day.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving campaign promises the force of law is the dumbest idea I have heard all day.
You still haven't heard it, jackass. The idea is to hold politicians responsible for their promises. Personally, I think any politician who makes a promise they later can't keep should be immediately booted out, and a new election should be held. Because fuck that shit. Liars should be held accountable. I'm not interested in paying these fucks to lie to me.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the line? Do I promise no new taxes and then suddenly have to fight off an invasion. What do I do then? Or perhaps I have to get clever and not raise taxes and instead order confiscations of property. After all... that's not a tax, right?
The fact is, you're not supposed to elect people based on promises. You're supposed to elect them based on their knowledge and wisdom and let them make the best decisions they can without promises. Certainly look at their past activities, but I'd prefer it if
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer it if politicians submitted essays with their analysis of certain issues for evaluation
They do. They are called "white papers" or "position papers". They are available for download from most campaign websites. But there is a big problem: Nobody reads them.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving campaign promises the force of law is the dumbest idea I have heard all day.
I agree. Having courts step in to decide the appropriate level of response to a technological issue is even dumber. Either the defendant(s) are or are not following the contracts or laws. Making up a contract or law that the defendants should have to obey and filling in the blanks as to technical details is right out.
You still haven't heard it, jackass. The idea is to hold politicians responsible for their promises.
Now he's just heard it -- from you.
Personally, I think any politician who makes a promise they later can't keep should be immediately booted out,
And just what will authorize this politician to be "booted out"? Could that require, perhaps, a LAW? And thus his campaign promise is being enforced by forc
Re: (Score:2)
How about these: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. The average family will save $2,500 per year. It won't add a dime to the deficit.
If you were familiar with my posting history, you'd know I'm already not a fan of Obama[care]... which is actually the GOP health plan. The Dems originally promoted single-payer health care. What we have now is plan B. Should have listened when plan A came along.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the more appropriate way to deal with this "real problem" is for candidates to stop giving promises that they know (or should know) they cannot fulfill?
Re: (Score:2)
From how I am understanding it, the government promised to make changes, and quite possibly was elected at least partially because of their promises. If so, that could possibly be construed as entering into a (verbal) contract, which when they fail to carry out these promises would bring them into the jurisdiction of the courts as breach of contract? This would be a great precident too, if the courts could be used to actually force politican to uphold campaign promises.
How exactly would a court force the government to do this?
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly would a court force the government to do this?
Individual civil sanctions just like with any other contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Individual civil sanctions just like with any other contract.
Against whom?
Re: (Score:2)
"From how I am understanding it, the government promised to make changes, and quite possibly was elected at least partially because of their promises."
Nail 'em for "false advertising"!
Re:Separation of powers or the rule of law, anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, given how much of Holland is below sea level (26% [holland.com]) ... you can kind of see that they might give a damn about rising sea levels.
Since when the hell is it shocking that a government has an "independent legal obligation towards their citizens".
As opposed to, what, an independent legal obligation to its fucking corporations?
This isn't an authoritarian dictatorship, it's a rejection of the stupid idea that government doesn't owe a duty of care and concern for its citizens. That's kind of the purpose of governments, despite all the delusional rantings to the contrary we see around here.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, given how much of Holland is below sea level (26% [holland.com]) ... you can kind of see that they might give a damn about rising sea levels.
Problem is: It's not the Dutch CO2 that's going to sink them. SO long as the USA, et. al. keep on producing CO@ at the current rate it won;t make a damn bit of difference what they do in a small country like that.
Small ? (Score:2)
Our government basically has a lot invested in doing nothing, so this was a good decision. The liberal conservatives immediately shrugged and said they wouldn't change a thing, but a precedent has been set. Maybe some good will come from this after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not, but in this ruling the court explicitly pointed out that it will not allow the government to hide behind the inaction of other countries.
Even though that actively harms the country in question? I think historians will find it remarkable how much harm the developed world will do to itself over the next few decades due to issues like this and destructive, Orwellian policies which break the societies they allege to help.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that things a lefty court might think are obligations are not necessarily things taxpayers can actually afford to do.
Re: (Score:2)
a lefty court might think
The court didn't specify a policy or a remedy, so it is hard to see how you would consider this a 'lefty' judiciary. You can't assume that just because the court accepts the science that they are 'lefty'. It is not universal that conservatives reject science or that those on the left accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
Delusion is thinking there's an infinite amount of other people's money available for your pet projects.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you think I'm a repub. I'd terminate all corporate welfare instantly if it was up to me. And let the banks die when they screw up.
Re: (Score:2)
Delusion is also the big fucking lie which is globalization and trickle down economics.
A delusion which has saved more people from poverty than anything you will ever come up with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If eliminating serious, measurable threats to the global environment
Like poverty, misuse of resources, habitat destruction, human corruption, and overpopulation? Oh wait, those are insignificant compared to the destructive power of the Earth warmed by 2 C over a century./sarc
My view is that if you deal with the five problems I mentioned, then AGW is just a bother, even if the ice caps melt over the next few thousand years. But if you deal with AGW by making the above problems worse, which is the current strategy (minus the pink-hooved unicorns who will keep that from hap
Re: (Score:2)
Since when the hell is it shocking that a government has an "independent legal obligation towards their citizens".
It's not. When that "independent legal obligation to their citizens" is laid out (specifically) in statute (and is only used to interfere with statutes (as opposed to the executive) when it is a law of appropriate authority (ie. constitution)). But when a court uses the term "independent legal obligation towards their citizens" to mean "there's no basis in law so we made one up", that's a problem.
You have that backwards (Score:2)
You know, given how much of Holland is below sea level (26%) ... you can kind of see that they might give a damn about rising sea levels.
If anyone on earth doesn't give a damn what sea levels are, and can engineer to work around them - it is the Dutch. We are currently talking about around two feet over 200 years, hardly an issue for existing systems they have in place, much less whatever technology is to be had over 200 years time...
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone on earth doesn't give a damn what sea levels are, and can engineer to work around them - it is the Dutch.
Just because it can be done doesn't mean it will not be costly. Sea level rise is expected to cost the Dutch more than €100 billion (US$144 bn) [wikipedia.org], through the year 2100 just to take adaptive measures, such as broadening coastal dunes and strengthening sea and river dikes.
Re: (Score:2)
See level has been rising for 100's of years.
for hundreds of years prior to 1800 sea level was falling. Now it is going up quite fast and accelerating: 20th-Century sea-level rise on the U.S. Atlantic coast is faster than at any time in the past two millennia." [realclimate.org]
Meeting the goal (Score:2, Insightful)
Well the first action the government needs to take, is to make sure it meets part of the 25% goal by shutting down power and heat to the judges home, and it goes without saying confiscate any cars he may have,
Re:Separation of powers or the rule of law, anyone (Score:4, Interesting)
In no sane system does a court have the ability to pull legal obligations out of its arse, as it seems to have done here.
In no sane economic system is anyone permitted to push the cost of cleaning up after them onto the rest of the world, but that's what we have here (on Earth.)
This is a very bad day for the Dutch people.
Why, because it's been determined that their government is beholden to them?
They are now officially an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by Judge Hans Hofhuis.
That is slightly funny, but nowhere near the truth. I smirked but did not lol, so you don't actually deserve even a +1 funny.
Re: (Score:2)
In no sane economic system is anyone permitted to push the cost of cleaning up after them onto the rest of the world, but that's what we have here (on Earth.)
I didn't say otherwise. If legislation doesn't do that, then legislation is the way to fix it. Not the court. But hey, attacking reasonable arguments about the separation of powers and governance systems is much more difficult that just pretending I said something I didn't about how we aught to deal with pollution.
Why, because it's been determined that their government is beholden to them?
No, because it's been determined that their government is beholden to a judge and a lobby group with expensive lawyers. If the plaintiff was McEvil Multinational inc., rather than Hippies.org, I'm
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say otherwise. If legislation doesn't do that, then legislation is the way to fix it.
The government already agreed to do these things, and now isn't doing them. When they signed the agreement, didn't it effectively become law? I know every country works differently, but generally speaking, countries are required to follow their agreements.
Re: (Score:2)
Not speaking for the Dutch in particular, but in general, no, agreements with other nations do not have the force of law until appropriate enabling legislation is enacted.
Re:Separation of powers or the rule of law, anyone (Score:5, Informative)
Nothing was pulled from the court's rectum. The ruling is based on Dutch human rights legislation, which implements the European Convention on Human Rights that they signed up to, and so which likely can apply in other European countries too.
The argument is that severe climate change will harm many people, violating their human rights. It's similar to how severe pollution by the state would violate their human rights, only over a longer period. Since the state must consider the human rights of all human beings (it's not like the US where only US citizens count, European human rights are universal) it must act to avoid violating those rights by altering the climate beyond a certain level.
Re:Separation of powers or the rule of law, anyone (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the court says that: 1) Article 21 of the Dutch constitution requires the government to protect the environment; and 2) the government has signed treaties (which are legally binding) committing the Netherlands to reducing CO2 emissions. So arguably the court is just telling the government to obey the law. Which is not on the face of it unreasonable.
Now, it may not be a great idea if courts start setting specific emission targets, but the 25% is actually the bottom end of what the IPCC considers necessary. (The plaintiffs demanded 40%.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The court has made its decision, now they may enforce it.
Re: (Score:2)
How many divisions does the court command?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No such thing, it's been proven to be a hoax (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all about government control and increasing taxation, while giving backhanders to the oligarchs that control the planet.
I can't believe people are falling for it. And as to those "scientists", they cost less than a single lobbyist for a real cause. The govt tells them to keep the story running or they'll lose tenure and grants. You think they care about the people when they have income for life for doing as they're told a few days of the year?
You do realize that a scientist who actually disproves anthropogenic climate change would become filthy rich from the oil companies, right?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
BS. Oil companies fought scientists for years and still are. They want us to do nothing about climate change. Only recently they stopped saying that climate change didn't exist.
Re:No such thing, it's been proven to be a hoax (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a clue - corporations that damned large and powerful have already figured out how to profit from the whole AGW debate no matter which way it ends.
How? Well first off, they know full well that the world's appetite for plastics, kerosene, gasoline, and nearly all of their products will not slacken in the slightest, so they have plenty of time to adapt to any changes that may come. Meanwhile, these same companies are doing what large corporations all around the planet do: they Greenwash [wikipedia.org] the hell out of their image, and pass the costs of doing so onto the consumer. Carbon tax? Hah! They've got that figured out as well, and again, guess who gets to pay for that? (hint: Not Them. It'll be passed on as a cost of doing business.)
To top all that off, you may want to look into who the biggest investors and shareholders in the Green Energy sector actually are... those same petroleum companies are right there, holding stock and encouraging the whole shebang, because they're more than poised to buy up the first one that actually makes enough headway to be a threat (mind you, not to squash the company, but to profit like hell off of it.) I wouldn't be surprised if many of these alternative energy enterprises are owned in whole or in part by a petroleum corporation, with the alt. energy company being a shell or 'independent' division. Again, no conspiracy or tinfoil involved; it's just a bit of pre-positioning for future profits.
You're more than welcome to disagree, but consider that these same corporations are looking decades ahead, and know full well that they have to hedge their bets against diminishing/expensive supply, rising political instabilities (read: Venezuela and the Mideast), and no-longer-rare governmental money-grab attempts. Only a total idiot would run his company any other way.
So tell me - given the fact that the eeevil petroleum corporations are happily and quietly positioned to profit from this thing no matter which way it goes, why do you think they would bother?
Re: (Score:3)
You get basic economics wrong.
A tax is never 100% passed to the consumer, unless the demand elasticity is null. In practice, some part of the tax is absorbed by the seller/producer, and in part by the consumer.
Some of them might invest in green energies, however they will make much more money in the short term (and that's all they care about) if we don't fight climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
You get basic economics wrong. A tax is never 100% passed to the consumer, unless the demand elasticity is null. In practice, some part of the tax is absorbed by the seller/producer, and in part by the consumer.
Every penny of gas taxes legislated by states and local municipalities is paid by the customer -- none of it is paid by the gas company.
I have half a dozen taxes on my phone and cable and electric and water bills that are paid for in full by me without a penny of it being paid by any of the companies involved.
There are about a dozen (guessing) taxes applied to every plane ticket sold in the US. Guess who pays those taxes in full?
I occasionally hear ads from stores who say "buy from us and we'll pay the
Re: (Score:2)
Since they have to charge a lower price to maximize profit while compensating for the tax,
The other examples I listed disprove the claim that companies have to lower prices to "maximize profit". The water rates did not go down here, for example, when taxes were added as line items. The cable bill has never gone down, and certainly not when more taxes were added as line items. My ISP, ditto. My phone bill, ditto. The last hotel room I stayed in gave me the price without taxes, and then added them on after I was standing in the lobby checking in.
And the last airline ticket I priced showed me the
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Gasoline is much more like a utility than a commodity in its demand. There is somewhat of a captive market controlled by an oligopoly. In a normal market what you say is completely true but with oil it becomes distorted.
First there is the sunken costs. Someone who pays $20k for a car doesn't have the luxury of abandoning it when oil prices jump. The same is true with home heating and such. Second, even if they could, the alternatives are even more costly and it would seriously disrupt the lifes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean gas stations, not oil companies.
Anyways, what I said applies to every industries, oil included.
Re: (Score:2)
For being a hoax it's amazing how many of the predictions are coming to pass. Rising temperatures, rising sea levels, melting ice, and ocean acidification to name some of the biggies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Temps are not rising, they are flat for the past 15-20 years depending on which temp series you look at.
A rigorous statistical analysis [wordpress.com] shows the trend since 2000 is not significantly different than the trend since 1970.
Sea levels have been rising for hundreds and thousands of years, with no acceleration visible.
Sea level has been rising since the late 1800s but it was remarkably stable for the preceding 2000 years. Here's a paper about it [pnas.org] and the abstract:
We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent sea-level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment. Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia. This rate was initiated between AD 1865 and 1892. Using an extended semiempirical modeling approach, we show that these sea-level changes are consistent with global temperature for at least the past millennium.
Ice melting, not really. Antarctica is at a record high the past few years, and arctic ice has had a nice recover the past 2 years,
Antarctic sea ice is at record highs but the land ice continues to melt and far more land ice has melted than sea ice has formed. Arctic sea ice has come back a bit since an all time record low year in 2012 but it's an example of regression to th
Re: (Score:2)
Here's my anecdote. For the first time in my lifetime I was not able to ski at HooDoo Ski Area on the Santiam Pass in Oregon because of the lack of snow (I've skied there since 1967). That's just another drop in my bucket of anecdotes contradicting the flood of climate science denier bullshit and just as meaningful as yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Did their snow machinery break or something? I'm consistently skiing in areas before the first snowfall of the year because they make the snow.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, as pugnacious as Michael Mann is I suspect he'd like to demonstrate the Buzz Aldrin [wikipedia.org] technique on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Another good angle of attack (Score:2, Insightful)
You wouldn't be able to afford the device you're typing this on if that was the case
Re: (Score:2)
You're just parroting what comapies have always said about everything from anti-lock brakes to air bags ...oh it's too expensive, it will destroy the market,
What you're preaching is the inevitability of market failure- that markets can't build X at a profitable price. Then someone does it or they all get forced to by legislation. Then everyone forgets what businesses were saying about how it can't be done. Then businesses trumpet technology X in their ads as their great technological leap and proof they'r
Re: (Score:2)
The good of the many outweigh the good of one?
Seriously, There would be no cars if that was not true. Life is full of acceptable losses and acceptable risks. You just try to mitigate them as much as possible or practical.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Libertarians believe strongly in contract law. The Dutch government made a contract and has broken it. It's being told to complete its obligations. As a libertarian, I see no issue with the ruling.
The only delusional idiots are those that somehow missed just how strongly libertarians believe in contracts, despite it being emblazoned in just about any article on libertarianism. Well, either you're a delusional idiot, or you can't read. Whichever it is... let us know?
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarians believe strongly in contract law. The Dutch government made a contract and has broken it. It's being told to complete its obligations. As a libertarian, I see no issue with the ruling.
Fair enough... So as a libertarian, what would you have the court do if the government doesn't "do what it is told"?
Court rulings are nice and all, but out here in the real world, what enforcement options does this court have?
Re: (Score:2)
Court rulings are nice and all, but out here in the real world, what enforcement options does this court have?
That depends on what law enforcement in the country will do when push comes to shove. Will they follow the orders of a court? Or will they follow illegal orders from their government? I know which way it would go in this country, but I can't speak for them.
Re: (Score:2)
So as a libertarian, what would you have the court do if the government doesn't "do what it is told
Probably the same thing that would be done against the goverment in a non-libertarian society
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They are 1.8% over 1980 levels, so no progress in principle.
Re: (Score:2)