Children Can Now Sue The US Government Over Climate Change (vice.com) 345
"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."
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."
have to prove damage (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, there is the legal principle of sovereign immunity [wikipedia.org]: 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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
EPA is fishy (Score:2)
Re:have to prove damage (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
It'd take more than 20, but, no that wouldn't be a funny joke, that would be a great move.
Re: (Score:2)
How is US Constitution Upheld? (Score:2)
The settlement then becomes a court order to do or not do something that Congress never would have agreed to.
Actually, the first lawsuit was already won... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://thinkprogress.org/clima... [thinkprogress.org] the exposure—response between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the concentrations used,” [500 ppm - 1500 ppm
If replicated, that sucks lol
Re: (Score:2)
What is going on in your room that you need to monitor CO2 levels? Are you doing a lot of "heavy breathing" or something?
Re: (Score:2)
I have never heard of such a thing before. I have heard of CO poisoning from gas stoves, as in carbon MONOxide, not carbon DIoxide. I have to think that if you are producing that much CO2 from a gas stove then you aren't frying eggs or baking a turkey, you are blowing glass. I know people with gas stoves, I'll have to ask them about the CO2 levels they see.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to work for an electronics manufacturer that used pressurized liquid CO2 to provide cooling for low temperature testing. When it evaporated, the CO2 gas was vented into the room. Concentrations got high enough that the CO2 would react with the water in tears, forming carbonic acid around the eyes. It was somewhat painful, but as far as I know did not cause any damage.
The point is, you don't need a CO2 sensor to detect CO2 levels high enough to cause damage.
Re: (Score:2)
the voting dead (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a lie.
The majority of Americans did not vote. The majority of eligible voters did not vote.
Of those who voted for Presidential Electors, neither Trump nor Clinton received a majority (47.3% and 47.8%, respectively). Of those legally eligible to vote, who voted for Presidential Electors, neither Trump nor Clinton received a majority.
When the Presidential Electors do meet, it is likely that Trump will get at least 54% of the total. And that is the only ele
Re: (Score:2)
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 ha
Constitutional rights (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess I have to go back and read them again.
I don't remember a constitutional right about climate change.
Re:Constitutional rights (Score:5, Informative)
Those are what the judge was referring to.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a valid claim if they can prove they've been damaged by climate change/warming/etc. Therein lies the rub.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a valid claim if they can prove they've been damaged by climate change/warming/etc.
All it says is a right to life, not the right to a comfortable life. Climate change will cause a lot of upheaval that may damage our quality of life but will not actually kill us.
Life, liberty, or waterfront rea) property (Score:2)
The constitutional phrasing is in fact "life, liberty, or property". So if a judge rules as you suggest, the next step is to find owners of waterfront real property and show in court the overwhelming evidence that climate change has shifted the coastline, which in turn reduces the usable area of said property.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitutional rights (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention that this is really a suit being brought by the parents of these youths.....parents who themselves help contribute to global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
You could say the same thing about the commerce clause, but look - it can now be used for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitutional rights (Score:5, Interesting)
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... [theguardian.com]
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: (Score:2)
That's actual pollution, not CO2. I await your reasonable response mentioning that the US Supreme Court had deemed CO2 to be a "pollutant".
Re:Constitutional rights (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
They won't win; however, some points:
The constitution and it's amendments do not enumerate rights; they are not bestowed upon the people. The people already are have their rights which can only be infringed upon; a big distinction. The constitution even makes this point (go look yourself.)
The people can define and demand recognition of any rights they choose.
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 i
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Can I sue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Then go for it. You can sue pretty much anyone for anything. Just don't expect to actually win.
Especially that guy that cut me off in traffic today.
I'm going to sue you for that guy cutting me off in traffic too. I mean it's your fault just as much as it is the government's right?
And the lack of fiber to my door.
Maybe you should actually sue the people who are responsible.
It's unfair and I want a bunch of money because my feelings are hurt.
Not all lawsuits are for money. The lawsuit brought against the Dutch government last year for instance was to force them to implement CO2 reductions. But this is America and dollars and lawsuits rule supreme so everything
National Debt (Score:5, Interesting)
Do children get to sue over the accumulating National Debt they will be saddled with.
WWon't survive 5the new SCOTUS
Re:National Debt (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Do children get to sue over the accumulating National Debt they will be saddled with.
Sure, they might even win, and the government could pay them $X, by means of increasing the national debt by $X. Everyone wins!
Re: (Score:2)
If the climate children win money, it will add to the debt. Then the debt children can sue the climate children.
The Absurdity Continues (Score:2, Funny)
Looking forward to some rational discussion (Score:2)
I expect some coolly rational discussion in a warm friendly atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide makes food plants more efficient. (Score:2, Insightful)
Food plants are now 15% more efficient than 30 years ago. Fewer hungry people! Widely known fact. Search youtube for "earth greening".
Re:Carbon dioxide makes food plants more efficient (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Food has never been a production issue, it has always been a distribution issue.
That's just factually wrong. The main political division in 19th century England was between the food producers and industrialists. Both subscribed to the idea of Malthusian equilibrium. Which essentially viewed starvation as an inevitable form of population control. Food only became plentiful in the 20th century and largely due to the of short-stock wheat invented by Norman Borlaug.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just factually wrong. The main political division in 19th century England was between the food producers and industrialists.
Right. So think about for a moment, politics in England prevented more food from being produced in England. Since this wasn't limiting food production in say China or the US, it is purely an issue of distribution. Just as politics in Africa prevents those starving kids from accessing the surplus food we have here.
Food only became plentiful in the 20th century...
When transport technology made it cheap and easy to distribute. There has always been enough food for survival growing on trees, in the ground, roaming fields, or swimming in the oceans, we've just
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Undisputed science? (Score:5, Insightful)
calling man-made climate change an "undisputed" fact.
I wasn't aware that there was such a thing in empirical science as "undisputed."
Re: (Score:2)
Snarky replies like that is the main reason this is still contested ...
Re: (Score:2)
Helium balloons.
Re: (Score:2)
Helium balloons should be illegal, as it wastes a very precious resource. There is a limited supply of Helium on Earth, and once that's gone there will be nothing holding the planet up.
Weebles wobble (Score:2)
Things fall down. Dispute away.
Weebles wobble [youtube.com] but they don't fall down [youtube.com].
Society is not government (Score:2)
When I normally use the "society is not government" argument it is usually in response to people that say "government should do something" when they really mean "society should do something". Should government pay to educate children? No, because that is not a power granted to the federal government or most state governments. But we still see public schools anyway, funny that people will vote themselves free stuff when they can. Should society pay to educate children? Of course. This can be done many
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're not a "believer" in AGW, then you probably aren't a "believer" in gravity or evolution...or even science.
So if you're going to post the kind of drivel you seem so fond of, at least show the rest of us enough respect to keep it short.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If you're not a "believer" in AGW, then you probably aren't a "believer" in gravity or evolution...or even science.
Tell me something, is it more important to you that I "believe" in AGW as you do or more important that I reduce my CO2 output as you (presumably) do? Think real hard about that.
You tell me I have to do X because it will slow the rise of the oceans, and I'll tell you I don't care because I don't live near any coasts. You tell me to do X to save the polar bears, and I'll tell you I think they are vile creatures that eat cute little baby seals. You tell me to do X because it saves me money, now I'm listeni
Re: (Score:2)
Electric cars suck big time, they cost too much, take to long to charge, and don't go very far.
I see you've never driven one. Electric cars are awesome. Charge time is irrelevant except on road trips, and the road trip problem is not difficult to solve once you have a 300+-mile battery. The only real issue with electric cars is cost. They are expensive because batteries are expensive. With that said, I actually bought my electric car because it was the cheapest option when I got it in 2012. I needed a car for commuting, wanted to buy a new car, and tried to calculate total cost of ownership over the
As a famous man once said... (Score:2)
"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."
Eyes on the prize (Score:2)
Lawyers love to push this kind of insanity in which everyone is guilty or liable for something as it translates into massive profits for themselves.
Lawyers within the US already eat up by far highest percentage of GDP of any other developed country. Obviously being #1 by a sizable margin still isn't enough for them. They always want more.
Re: (Score:3)
Civil suits (Score:3, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] of civil an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We'll be hearing a lot about Clinton for a long time, not just from her supporters but from trump's supporters well.
Any criticism no matter how valid will be met with "But Clinton would have been worse" or something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but one of the Clintons was never indicted.
One of the Clintons hasn't yet been indicted. Plenty of time next year.
Re:This is the exact reason why Trump won (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This is the exact reason why Trump won (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 pers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm so sick of hearing about it, therefore, it doesn't exist"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
So let's sue Trump on his first day as President.
Re:Cure now, Gym later (Score:5, Informative)
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? [publicfina...tional.org]
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.
China, the U.S. factory (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, how about acknowledging that China is already ahead of the USA in investment in renewable energy sources? [publicfina...tional.org]
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 wi
Re: Cure now, Gym later (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Do you have a link for that? I'm only asking because no one knows who that will be, or what they will do, and any guesses on the matter are partisan bullshit.
You mean other than the story that was already posted? [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
And furthermore, the problem stems mostly with developing nations [wordpress.com] and not the industrialized ones.
So the average Chinese person emits about a quarter the greenhouse gases that an American person does, and you're saying they are the problem? That's some awesome cognitive dissonance you got going on there bud...
Re: (Score:2)
And on that point, Obama didn't really do much of anything to help the environment. We haven't reduced carbon output very much, and the amount we did reduce was mostly due to economics and not any particular vision or plan from the president.
He heavily promoted an attempt, namely the cash for clunkers program, though it was a huge waste of government money and even environmentalists weren't pleased with the results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
(That, and it caused the price of used cars to go way up for about a year.)
Re:Cure now, Gym later (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
The atmosphere "cares" only about the total CO2 it gets, not the carbon per capita.
Re: (Score:3)
The atmosphere doesn't "care" about arbitrary divisions of land.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm in the final stages of HIV, so done and done.
Your turn.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the final stages of HIV, so done and done.
I don't know why I typed "HIV" when I have hepatitis-C, not HIV. I think it was because I was thinking of an acquaintance who has HIV when I read the OP.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
US = 4.4 % of world population
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they're suing the wrong people. They should be suing their parents for bringing them into a fucked up world.
If nobody had children then current levels of consumption and carbon release would be fully sustainable. The planet would recover in 3-400 years and non-human lifeforms would flourish.
Maybe I should sue the US government for not legislating against children.
Re: (Score:2)
As one of the people in the 'rational' states, I'm far more scared of what the state and local government is doing than I am of what the President may do.
Re: (Score:2)
How are we going to have a proper civil war unless hoop skirts come back into style?
Re: (Score:2)