Heartening. Please keep up coverage of this case as it proceeds.
37
I am reading a lot of ignorance in the comments. Like my SIL (Prof. Wood) states in her book, public trust implications have moved the needle regularly in our history. It is perhaps the most conservative of values to hold individual rights and access to shared resources to a high level. Mining, shipping, mineral rights; the actual mission of the BLM attest to this American value. Would you argue that the few western ports should have remained railroad property?
3
I pray these young people prevail in their efforts. This issue absolutely does need to be dragged into the courts and given a national platform. It is appalling and criminal what the Trump administration is doing, kow-towing to the oil and coal lobby and putting the future of this entire planet at risk. Lest we forget, the USA remains the foremost emitter of CO2 on the planet! Therefore the government is entirely obligated to turn this situation around and foster an environment where renewable energy can thrive and prosper. The technology already exists! Solar, wind and other sources of green energy are already as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuels. We simply need the political will to help speed up the transition. The fate of our planet -- and yes, our children! -- depends on it.
25
@Mark Crozier My mistake, it appears China has now surpassed the US in CO2 emissions. But world still needs the US to take the lead on this matter. In fact one suspects that the Chinese may even be doing more at this stage... at least from a government perspective. Never in my wildest dreams would I have ever thought the Chinese would lead the US in environmental progress.
5
When Chief Justice Roberts was in Minnesota, he said, “We do not serve one party or one interest. We serve one nation.” After this stay was granted to the Trump administration (which a lower court judge agreed, the lawsuit could go forward) and their ruling earlier this month, that blocked US Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross having to testify in a lawsuit on a citizenship question Ross wants to place on the US Census, (also requested by the Trump Administration), it sure seems like the Supreme Court is serving one party and the interests of this administration. They are doing the bidding of the political party the majority on the court represents instead of the “one nation”. We don’t need another wing of politics in this country. Especially, a wing we have no power to vote out, who are making political decisions from the bench. The actions of this court has greatly diminished the trust Americans have in our judicial system. We have enough dysfunction in the other two branches. We need to re-examine this institution. We should look at term limits and how these justices are appointed, and maybe judicial elections. If we really want to reduce the size of government, maybe we should look at abolishing the Supreme Court and letting the lower court decisions stand. We should not be able to tell what political party the Justices hearing a case before them belongs to. When you have to go through a political system to be appointed, you are going to get a political court.
13
You cannot mention this lawsuit too often or talk about it too much.
It represents, like the Parkland youth, the best of which we are capable. No matter if it gets quashed by the (no longer supreme) Supremes (degraded by Koch-Federalist operative Kavanaugh, who never met profitable toxic waste he didn't like), this line of action and energizing people who represent our future is our finest hope.
Apathy and despair are laziness in disguise. This lawsuit it the polar opposite: effective action by caring and careful people. They may not make it this time but we must prevail.
For "No Ordinary Lawsuit" podcast, rallies this weekend (Oct 28-29), how to help, etc.: https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/
20
While I do appreciate the sentiment, I hope for the precedent setting that this does get thrown out. The concept that one can use the courts to force the legislature to pass laws is extremely troubling to anyone who believes in the separation of Powers as set out in the Constitution.
4
@mikecody
hmmm ... separation of powers like Trumpistan and the supine Republicans and the ultra-corporate Supreme Court?
Do you, or do you not, want a liveable future.
If anyone can bypass the rapid degradation of our earth for short-term profit, I'm for it.
What's happening to our planet is the terrible precedent, and we will not survive it without positive action. There comes a time, as we have in the 20th century, where protections mean pushing.
It's not polite, letting our world go to hell in a handbasket.
20
Sad that it falls on the small shoulders of children to have to go as far as suing their elders in order to save their own future. Isn't this a big part of what it means to be a parent or a grandparent - a duty to safeguard and secure the future for your children and grandchildren? I'd go so far as to say that this is fundamentally part of what makes us human. Now, tell me again which side has lost their way? Which side is playing identity politics? To be so blinded by an identity, one that connects them to their echo chamber of misguided friends, their ingroup, as to make what is so clearly a false narrative, one that is going to cost us and all of life on this planet so much, to make that so important a part of who they are that they are willing to sacrifice the very future of their kids? People - you need to wake up and find a new identity. Perhaps reviving the basic human one you once had, the one that put the importance of the lives of the next generation if not above your own, at least alongside it is a good place to start.
17
"Under Donald Trump - the American Dream has - become a nightmare"
7
Our government is so incapable we need creative legal means to enforce a livable environment. Make it so.
10
From the article: "The young plaintiffs have demanded, among other things, that the courts force the government to 'implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions' in an effort to 'stabilize the climate system.'”
This sounds like the purview of both the legislative and the executive branches, whose representatives are chosen by the votes of our entire population.
Allowing these children, fronting for their environmental activist and advocate parents, to bypass the will of the electorate is not legal and should be thrown out of the legal system.
6
Follow the money, on both sides.
I sense the altruism is not as strong as most NYT readers would want.
Remember, it is always about the money. Both sides.
4
A court should not be deciding Government policy; that is not their role. Furthermore, even the IPCC has abandoned the Paris Agreement arguing that it would still lead to a net 52-57 Billion GTons of CO2 even if everyone abided by its clauses. Instead the IPCC (despite CO2 rising from 15 Billion GTons in 1970 to around 45 B. GTons now) wants the world to spend $900 Billion per year to reduce CO2 emissions down to about 25 B. GTons by 2030 and net of zero CO2 emissions by 2040 (latest 2055) while also converting 8 Million Square kilometres of pasture land to growing energy crops. Meanwhile millions would die from other causes (malaria, HIV etc) because of the funds diverted to meet that $900 Billion requirement. The variations in the IPCC "requirements" over the years does make me wonder.
1
Someone trying to hijack the legal system to make law.
The effects of climate change are uncertain. It's not like a hog farm emitting stinks or polluting a stream, for which there exist legal remedies because the harm is known. It's up to the political process (Congress) to balance the various interests involved (users of energy, people living on coastal islands, farmers wanting longer growing seasons...) and decide what, if any, laws are needed.
Never trust anyone who thinks he has a sacred mission.
7
If you want policy change, you lobby Congress. There is no possible workable remedy a court can issue. If plaintiff’s win, will the court order the EPA to make rules? What if the court doesn’t like those rules? Will the court write rules? Will the court order Congress to pass certain laws? It’s ridiculous. The case should be dismissed.
4
@AB
It's like the courts ordering school busing for "desegregation", mostly in Northern cities where there never was segregation. The results were destroyed school systems.
2
@AB You think the oil, gas and coal industry doesn't lobby Congress? Who can compete with the billions they spend to influence government? You think the Trump campaign didn't take money from Big Oil and Coal? They can outspend just about anyone, so the dice is always loaded in their favour.
8
Wonderful. I wish Ms. Olson the very best.
But let's be clear. The ONLY thing that truly makes a difference is voting for the right politicians who make the laws and generally appoint the judges.
November 6 is two weeks away.
Are you ready?
23
Ms. Olson is a hero. We need to have new categories of "climate criminals," the same as we have for "war criminals" and individuals guilty of "hate crimes."
23
This suit is laughable in the extreme! Why any court would entertain such stupidity is beyond me. Show me the damages and I"ll show you a lawsuit, here there are none. Must be the full employment act for judges. We have the longest lived population in our countries history and the air and water is cleaner than it has been since the nation industrialized. Also, pollution, which is at the root of this "issue" is mostly a 3rd world problem and we can't sue them to change it. Seems like Trump has been the most sued President in recent memory, this effort will fail just like the others because their is no climate change that can be mediated by the hand of the President. Good luck. Google the list of scientists that agree with the climate change "deniers", it's a long list of contrarians.
4
Where can I go to sue young people for their stupid actions like swallowing tide tablets and tattooing their faces? As a baby boomer, I shouldn't be required to pay for their self inflicted hospital visits and inability to find meaningful employment.
2
Said another greedy Boomer who helped dig the gigantic hole we are stuck in.
17
Beyond silly at so many levels.
First , the judicial branch can't compel the administration to take action. It can strike down actions and rule them unconstitutional but for the judicial branch to have the power to compel executive action on a given issue is a slippery slope that would almost certainly create havoc.
Second, as noted, the litigants have no standing. They have not been harmed nor is there any reason to suspect that they will be -- a leftist fantasy.
Third -- fighting climate change isn't a US issue (if you believe in the CC dogma). In fact, the US's CO22 omissions are declining and are essentially back to being flat with where they were in 1990. We are only 5% of the global population and even a significant reduction in per capita emissions will be nothing much more than rounding error in the totality of global emissions. It is the emerging economies that are the issue (which the Paris accord let off the hook).
Finally presumably the plaintiffs would have to proof that the globe is warming, and any half way decent scientist would destroy that argument in a nano second. Why you ask? Because the global data set on which we base the notion that we are undergoing abnormal warming is full of holes. It is based on nothing more than guesses, estimates and adjustments. There was essentially no global network of ground stations worth anything until perhaps maybe the 1960s, but it is still very sketchy. And proving future harm. What kind of harm?
2
The difference between CO2 (the only driver of "climate change" according to climate-change-alarmists) today and CO2 before Trump was elected is (guesstimate because no one has actual valid data) 6 ppm (2016 marked as year officially CO2 passed 400ppm, 2018 August estimate 406 ppm).
The wildfire "season lengthened by climate change" didn't happen under Trump's watch. You're not intelligent to believe so. Ending the commitment to the 2015 Paris treaty didn't create the wildfires. You're not intelligent to believe so.
In truth, the National Forestry Service has a year-by-year account of wildfires across the US; the Canadians have their own account. Both are showing incidences of wildfire occurrences as stable or decreasing. You're not intelligent to believe otherwise.
Here's a clue that you don't fully get: Climate Changes All The Time. Here's another: CO2 is an insignificant gas that cannot compete against H2O when it comes to absorbing black-body thermal radiation. You're not intelligent to believe otherwise.
1
This is a nice effort to satisfy partisan political desire to get the hated Trump. But if the concern was really to prevent global warming, then it is completely misdirected.
Everyone should do their part to reduce emissions in order to prevent the global warming. But the sad fact is that even if the US and Europe emitted absolutely nothing, China will soon be emitting enough all by itself to cause devastating global warming. Unfortunately, our fate is not in our hands. Our fate is in China's hands. But China is determined to continue its behavior that will end in disaster.
China puts on a great PR campaign touting its solar energy projects etc. But China overtook the US in 2005 as the world's largest CO2 emitter, now emitting more than twice as much CO2 as the US. China emits 30% of all CO2 emitted in the entire world, yet produces only 18% of the world's goods and services. It is that statistic that reveals how filthy is China's behavior. China uses 50% of the entire world's coal consumption. Almost 50% of China's electricity is produced by burning coal. And instead of retiring coal generation plants, China builds more coal plants to replaced the ones that age out.
The Paris Climate Accord was a negotiation triumph for China. Under the Paris Accord, climate disaster is assured rather than prevented. The Paris Accord gave the world's stamp of approval to China's plan to continue increasing its CO2 emissions by another 25% by 2030.
2
John, Thank you so much for covering this. I'll echo another and ask you to please cover climate change and this case, every day. Everything Trump says or tweets isn't news. It's propaganda. The danger of climate change and the refusal of our leaders to even admit it's a real problem, let alone take the hard but necessary steps to try to fight it -- this is news. Real news. News that could make a significant, life-saving difference.
Not only that, but climate change could be the "enemy" we need to begin to see each other as fellow citizens again. Sad but true that it often takes a common enemy to rebuild in a crisis time such as the one we're in. I wish it weren't the case, but it's basic psychology, proven again and again by history.
We have the resources to deal with our crises; we just don't have the political will. That could be up to you. Environment (and k-12 education) issues should be on your front page, each day; it should be one of the top categories when you scroll down below. You aren't just responders; you are agenda-setters. Please, help set the agenda. Our leaders are completely unable to function productively right now. Thank you for your work!
30
@Ali
"We have the resources to deal with our crises; we just don't have the political will."
I wish you were correct, but you are not. Even if the US and Europe reduced our emissions to absolutely zero, climate change will occur because ot the world's largest emitter, China. And under the terrible Paris Climate Accord, the world stupidly gave approval to China's plan to further increase their CO2 emissions by 25% by 2030.
The US and Europe should do our part. But the fate of the world is in China's hands and China is determined to behave in a manner that will make continuing global warming certain.
@Ali Thank you for the kind words about the story. I do not consider myself an agenda setter, but I do believe that covering the news is important, and I'm lucky to be able to do it.
7
@John Schwartz Thanks very much for your response! I hear you that as a journalist you don't see yourself as an agenda setter but rather a reporter. (With all the criticism about media bias I'm sure even the term seems toxic!)
This may be beyond what you want to respond to, but I'm curious how we separate these ideas: agenda setting and reporting the news, especially in today's world.
Whatever journalists decide to cover and however they cover it affects the national discourse and thus our shared agenda, yes? And from our founding the press has been protected as an essential pillar holding up our ability to peacefully self-govern. Further, it seems that this current crisis of leadership, polarization, etc., has in significant part arisen directly out of changes in media, broadly speaking -- partisan cable news, talk radio, the internet, "reality" TV, streaming services, and especially social media and YouTube. These changes in media have drastically, rapidly changed the way societies around the world are functioning or rather, dysfunctioning. It feels as though our human brains and our shared institutions may be quite literally incapable of functioning in an era of so much rapid-fire information overload, misunderstandings, and self-selected bubbles.
When government can't function, adults are acting like angry toddlers, the few social bonds we had have frayed, and an existential climate change crisis is upon us, is covering the news enough?
Thank you again.
Long before I got that far in the article I reckoned that the infamous "standing" would get them.
(a legal formula requiring plaintiffs to show that, among other things, they have suffered a concrete, particular injury because of the actions of the defendant)
Among the "other things" must surely be that the plaintiffs should not be any "little people" who have the nerve to expect relief.
1
I hope the young people aren't disillusioned and crushed when this case reaches the Republican controlled Supreme Court and is dismissed. I hope they get angry and focused and continue to fight.
25
Oh, I don’t think all “older people” think the environmental problem is someone else’s problem at all. Certainly not this one, and I guess that disproves the thesis. I’d gladly add my name to the list of plaintiffs and I am 69 years old. I know a whole lot of others my age who feel exactly the same. The Trumps of this world are a different animal and there are a whole lot of youth supporting their idiocy.
29
It may be worth updating the article to note SCOTUS' ruling staying the case. In sum, the matter isn't going to trial as originally scheduled. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101918zr1_086c.pdf
1
Apologies to all. The article indeed references the recent order.
1
"And a child shall lead them..."
13
Even Mohammed bin Salman is pushing new clean energy at the conferences being held now. How stupid is Trump?
12
Is she suing the continent of Africa; and large parts of Central America as well, for turbo-charged population growth? As serious as global warming is, wondering why environmental groups and environmental attorneys choose to continue to ignore the elephant in the room of global population growth? Was she also planning to sue the Hillary Clinton administration? Because all reports, even before the 2016 election, even before pulling out of the Paris Agreement, stated that global warming was here to stay and policies supported by Hillary were not going to make a dent.
I wish the environmental movement would stop focusing on global warming to the exclusion of all else, including sprawl, ecosystem and habitat protection, zoning, headwaters, and most importantly of all, population growth.
4
Yes, overpopulation is a problem. Is it only up to environmental groups to challenge the Trump cuts to funding for international groups that provide family planning and abortions? How about letting your representatives know that you oppose this policy?
7
@GRH What an unbalanced screed based on being repelled by the thought of black and brown people reproducing?
3
Maybe they're already doing this but Ms. Olson should hit up some public health schools: there are people there doing research and showing the impact of climate change on health.
Last year the entire theme of the American Public Health Association conference was effects of climate change on health. Also, as noted in the article, "damage" can also mean property damage so if rising waters lead to housing issues, yes, that is harm.
8
The concept of an inter-generational reading of the Constitution is fascinating. From my perspective, the central question in this case has nothing to do with climate change. The argument is merely pretext. Allow me to explain.
In essence, the children are asking: Does the Constitution require public servants to act in the best interest of all citizens both in the future as well as the present? Common sense would suggest the answer is yes.
However, Levi Draheim's is not properly represented if government policy allows his home to sink before he is legally allowed to vote. By ignoring the risk to his property and person, the Trump administration is in fact violating his constitutional rights. They have a legal responsibility to protect his future as much as possible.
Think of it this way: Most political minds knew the US was on a collision course with Japan shortly after the Washington Naval Treaty was signed. If they had done nothing to prevent and prepare for the eventuality of war, the public representatives should have been held legally liable for the resulting deaths that occurred. Since we could reliably foresee war as inevitable eventually, the representatives should have been held legally accountable in the present rather than the future.
In other words: History shouldn't be the judge when harmful outcomes are self-evident. A judge wouldn't put a child in the custody of a negligent parent. Why should civil courts treat the White House any different?
7
@Andy
We knew or should have known that in 1922 war with Japan was going to happen in 1941? WOW. Why don't you give us a list of sure fire stocks we can by now, since it's so obvious. Hard to believe people think this way, must be a never Trumper!
@Andy
Self-evident only in hindsight.
The same is true here: The consequences of warming are uncertain.
Some things are not in our power to change: Chinese coal burning, cancer...you should not be demanding that the government change things beyond its power.
Thank you so much, Ms. Olson, for your efforts on this critical issue.
We already know that deniers of the climate change are a huge problem, and most of them knowingly ignore it and are driven by greed.
Equally problematic and frustrating is people's indifference and ignorance of its significance. I talked with people around me, and many people do not really know about the recent UN report on the climate change. They are too busy or too focused on their daily activities to open their eyes to the reality. While they are trying hard to raise and give good education to their kids, the future for their kids would not be guaranteed if we do not protect our only planet.
Please wake up, learn, and VOTE for our next generation!!
14
@old lady
Thank you so much for your wisdom as many of the comments convey a lack of knowledge about climate change. The warming of the earth is in direct proportion to the actions of humans, which unfortunately are more motivated by money, political clout and resistance to turning the mirror around to see what impact every individual is having on these changes. There are many dots to connect. Significant gas emissions are the result of the daily slaughter of animals whose consumption was long ago proven to be direct causes of disease; not to mention the acres of food grown for these animals that destroys forest and enough food to certainly feed the hungry in this country. While many do not want to make the connection, if one does their research, the simplest way to impact climate change is from veganism which also happens to be a way of eating that promotes health, not disease. Leave the milk of the cows where it was intended for the calves that are birthed to them rather than on the grocery shelf. Our culture doesn't want to go behind the scenes and see the reality of industrial farming. As the old phrase goes, "The Truth Can Set You Free."
2
I have been wondering for some time now whether we could sue to the government over climate change and how to do it. I am ecstatic about this news.
And for those of you who think there are no answers, take 2 hours and watch one of the most inspiring documentaries on just how people are working to save our planet.
You will be amazed and proud of the people featured in it and their solutions.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/decoding-the-weather-machine/
7
A crime against humanity.
3
Not that I'm a big apologist for Gov't or supporter of T...
But what law was violated... and how do you sue for inaction where there's no clear action or standard...
How 'bout sue all the gilded for driving their 8-10cyl. limos to red carpet events... and then turn around and lobby against fracking...
Could they be sued for hypocrisy...? :))
Oh, wait, you can't... they're in the same political camp.... :))
5
May she persist.
8
That we have to fight a legal battle to keep a livable Earth means something is just terribly, terribly wrong with our systems. I'm behind these brilliant, young people but am not sure this is the right way to change a defective system.
9
Silliness like this is exactly why nominating new Supreme Court has become such a battle royale. We elect 2 of the three branches of government. Issues like how to deal with climate change should be handled by those elected representatives. Nine justices or worse sometimes just one should not be playing King Solomon trying to figure out the great issues of our time. It is anti-democratic and needs to stop.
5
it is not the job of elected officials to provide relief in the face of a cognizable harm that has occurred or is occurring. That is exactly what the justice system is for. Our air and water and earth are being poisoned by unchecked emissions, and if the federal government does nothing about it, indeed encourages it, then they are complicit in a tort. there should be damages, and there should be injunctive relief. that doesn't require the making of new laws or the enforcement of existing laws, it requires the judicial role: recognizing when the law has been broken in the harming of Americans, the young most of all.
5
@Alex
Except that the damages are speculative. Take a hurricane. Even the climate alarmists admit that no particular hurricane can be attributed to warming (and there is some controversy about whether warming increases the rate of hurricanes at all).
ach of the following facts completely dispels the nonsense of global warming:
-Glaciers were Already Retreating Before 1900
-Ice ages have been coming and going for eons.
-The last 20 years have shown zero warming.
-Man produces less than 1/2 of 1 percent of C02 on the planet.
-It was warmer in the 15th century than it is now.
-The greatest warming in the 20th century was between 1935 and 1950.
-NASA confirms – Sea levels FALLING across the planet in 2016 and 2017.
-NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18
-Scientists have been caught manipulating and hiding data.
-None, NONE, of their prior predictions have come true.
I'm embarrassed for those who still believe.
2
@George Orwell - Approximately 20 years ago I sat in my living room and watched a list of climate predictions roll across my TV screen. Every single one of them has come true.
6
@George Orwell. Maybe you should be embarrassed. Looking at the NASA global climate change website I see a graph showing, with small dips and rises, an average 1degree rise since ~1940. Another example. NOAA says sea levels have risen ~2.6" since 1993 and continue to rise at 1/8"/yr. nasa confirms a 2.7" rise in the last 25 yrs. some of this is due to thermal expansion, but this just confirms the oceans are warmer. The rest is melting glaciers. color me skeptical of your numbers and alleged sources.
5
@George Orwell
None of that is true, but I have work to do and can't post a detail summary for each one of the crazy claims you post. Thankfully, NASA, has easy to read and comprehensive summaries that contradict your source-less claims.
From: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
"In just the last century, global sea level rose 8 inches, however is accelerating slightly every year".
Again, from http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
"Since the late 19th century the planet average surface temperature has risen 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit.... most of the warming has occurred in the past 35 years, with 5 of the warmest years in record occurring since 2010. 2016 is the warmest year in record, with 8 out of 12 months being the warmest in record for that particular month."
10
It is imperative that this case be won. The children deserve a livable climate. What are the alternatives? There is no planet B!
11
What Olson is doing is true patriotism. I support her 100%.
28
I am encouraged by Ms. Olson's ethics, logic and grit. The precedent that she is setting here needs to be set, as Global Warming continues to create floods and fires more damaging than anything this Planet has yet experienced.
Best of all, she and her plaintiffs are 100% correct. "Our" Government is either doing nothing about it, or they're doing the wrong thing. "Our" EPA is a joke.
"Our" Supreme Court is a stacked deck, but if Ms. Olson's case gets that far, that of itself will make a positive difference. This is Right Action, and makes me even more proud to live in Oregon.
Good luck, Ms. Olson.
21
From what I understand of the law (I'm not an attorney), it is necessary to prove that a crime has been committed in order for plaintiff(s) to bring suit against a defendant(s).
The need for showing an intentional role on the part of the (defendant) U.S. government in preventing the crime of violation of the plaintiffs' rights to "life, liberty, and property," will be unprecedented. It seems that the legal question would be: can a suit be brought for neglecting to prevent a crime from occurring?
But, so is the situation in which we find ourselves unprecedented: this particular crime cannot be allowed to take place at any time, because if it does, it'll be too late to find any remedies against its devastation.
Perhaps Julia Olson will want to "call as a witness" both the 2015 Paris Climate Accord (of which this nation is still a bona fide signator until 2020, despite the Trump Administration's call to pull out--perhaps evidence for showing wanton neglect?), along with the recent 2018 United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predictions: sea level rise, global median temperature rise, coral reef destruction, wildfires of year-round occurrence, drought, disruption of agricultural practices, and so forth--all unprecedented.
It seems that the particular injury for "standing to sue" would rest on proving that the U.S. government had failed in meeting certain future events from occurring=neglect in remedying predictable life-threatening circumstances.
3
Hi, @Cate -- I wrote the story, and I have a law degree, though I do not practice law. This is a civil case, not a criminal case, so no crime needs to be proved.
27
@John Schwartz: Thank you, Mr. Schwartz, for the clarification between criminal and civil cases. That explains a lot of the approach being taken by Julia Olson. Let's hope her ideas for bringing this matter to court will prevail and the case will be heard.
@Cate
A tort, not a crime.
I don't think that this case will get remotely even near the Supreme Court, and even if it does... well let's just say as a non-layering individual who knows next to nothing about the law, I think its legal base is shaky at best, and with the Supreme Court we have, yeah...
But if it somehow gets to the SC, the hooplah it creates might just be worth it.
3
We can do some good as individuals, but only collectively can we truly account for and adjust for our costs on tomorrow. The justice system should serve our needs to adjust the balance that is heavily skewed to the demands of living today by so grossly discounting the future. The young should have their voice in exercising their rights against existential threats posed by our errant ways of using the atmosphere and the oceans as our global dumps with no accountability.
4
This will not be a victory. Nobody is going to get a victory claiming a future potential harm to all of Earth that is only a prediction, with a large margin of error and zero understanding of what the future holds or how it impacts them.
For example, these kids could become rich and powerful because of climate change and their solutions/remediations, and of course kids in Russia may see a vast improvement in their lives due to the changes. Absurd notion to use a court to protect a non-existent right for a forecasted, possible issue that will happen unless if nothing changes in the future over what we have today.
4
@David
Your argument is ridiculous and demonstrates a basic lack of understanding not just of climate science but also of rights. But you do accurately a certain American mindset: just pretend that we don't know what will happen with climate change and then when that doesn't work claim that it will all turn out all right, just by itself. Talk of magical thinking...
9
@David David, there is harm already today. Look at the effects of the 1 in 500 year hurricanes that happen yearly. Look at Florida flooding. Look at the California wild fires. These events have now good data to show that they were dramatically exacerbated by climate change. today. now.
3
Use a similar approach for Gun Control.
Let us debunk the ideas that no taxes and no regulations are the ultimate liberating goal.
Nothing in Excess as Socrates would say.
11
@BG Wouldn't gun control be an excess, if you say that all must have no/fewer guns without respect to whether the gun owner is misusing the tool or not?
Tyrants are bad even if they pretend to be virtuous.
1
@David
Here we go again with the slippery slope argument.
Gun control does not mean NO GUN and you know it.
High school and college Constitution students are watching this case, law students are watching. Practicing attorneys are watching. What message is the Supreme Court going to send to our future leaders who have studied and understand our nation's laws? This case should be allowed to proceed.
12
@thoughtful I don't think it should be proceed, but if it does, it will not end well for students and those who think forecasts of problems for some while benefits for others is a legal issue.
2
@thoughtful. Just what the country needs. Another lawyer full employment act law suit.
1
@David So what kind of issue is it, Mr. Kirkland? You seem to dislike the idea of thinking of the future, but you forecast that it won't end well for the students.
I hope you have a 401k. If it's adequate for your old age, it means you thought about your future and addressed it. If it is inadequate, it means you didn't take the time and effort to address the problem. Which scenario would you prefer?
I have just turned 70 which means I will not live long enough to see the worst ravages of climate change that I know are coming. My concern is for the generation of children I see going to school or playing soccer at a local field. I wonder if they know that the world they live in is doomed and that they will deal with far more hardship than their parents ever did. I also wonder about powerful politicians who are climate change deniers and obstructionists like McConnell and most other Republicans. Are they so dense that they can’t see the obvious changes in the environment and don’t see that the massive migration caravans of the immigrants they fear so much are ultimately driven by climate change. Or do they care so little about their children and grandchildren that they would willingly sacrifice their future for short term gains in wealth and political power. Any legal effort to expose what is happening to the world no matter how long the odds is worth pursuing. Ms. Olson gives me hope because she proves that there are still people out there who are willing to try a creative new approach to publicly exposing the existential peril which we have created for our children and grandchildren.
57
@JS
Agreed. We have class, racial, gender conflict based on self interest, but also an all encompassing current vs future generational conflict. As this legal argument rightly argues, policies that favor the interests of current holders of power over those who will inherent their consequences should be open to vigorous debate and scrutiny. And I would extend the domain of plaintiffs to the 'unborn,' the entire global population that is yet to be but will inherit the consequences of our collective actions today.
1
@JS Yes, McConnell and his buddies definitely are willing to sacrifice our children's and grandchildren's health and access to food and safety for their personal gain and power. At 71, I look back and realize now how lucky I was with just the basic needs of shelter, food, health care, education and safety. I suppose that I took these things for granted. Now that I volunteer to help support our vulnerable elderly and children, I see how their basic needs are not being met, and their futures don't look as bright as they should. I am so ashamed and embarrassed by the actions of the Trump Administration and the Congress.
8
@JS You are just one of a long line of people from the earliest records who claim the world is coming to an end, and every one of them has been wrong because they pretend to know the future when the proof is they do not.
You do not "know" any particular result in the future; it's just a forecast subject to change based on the reality of what happens in the future (which you don't know), how climate actually changes (could be worse or better), and what remediation may be put into place (which you don't know).
2
Kudos to you Ms Olson, for defending Mother Earth from savages 'a la Trump', intent in 'sawing the brach they sit on', disregarding cjimate change and it's awful consequences. How can we help?
7
Thank goodness for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. We're protected from expensive nonsense like this for the foreseeable future.
Let the wheels spin in the sand for a few years, with money time and effort wasted. It ain't going anywhere for the next few decades.
5
@Philboyd - Right, who wants clean air and water?
5
The founders understood the notion of future security:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The time is upon us when any political failure to act to prevent climate change can be fairly deemed to be a crime against humanity.
The anti-fact climate change denialist despots in the GOP and the ignorant baboon-for-President in the White House need to be despatched to the wilderness before it really is too late for humanity.
Every parent considering voting for Trump and the GOP should ask themselves why they bothered to have children and why they would choose to condemn their own children and grand-children to a life of deprivation and suffering caused by human-induced climate change.
15
The Davids vs Goliath.
2
Glad to see the lawsuit. Not sure what the reporter meant about the "soaring" courthouse. On the heels of "soaring" arguments it was starting to make me a bit queasy.
7
@couldabin -- hi, it's John, and I wrote the story. It's an amazing courthouse of a modern design that some people have called deconstructivist, but I'm not sure what that means. But I sure don't need the echo of "soaring" that you picked up, so I'll make a change. Thanks!
11
@John Schwartz I just wanted to thank you (and @couldabin) for the very civil exchange. Too often, readers mask sarcastic and flippant remarks as constructive criticism. Both of you explained your thoughts like adults. Kudos!
2
Real change now will have to come from this kind of activism, certainly not from those overfed sheep in D.C.
They see what is happening to them in the name of grotesque and never ending corporate greed.
Outstanding!
18
@Plennie Wingo It will be innovative corporations that get rich solving the problem. That you think government has the solution is pretty funny considering the long history of government and the fact that most real progress occurs among free people, doing free trade, with free inquiry.
@David
As a scholar of trade, I would like to point out a) that trade is never free (either of rules or of costs) and b) that trade has delivered some pretty heavy costs, economic, political, and environmental. Remember, there is no free lunch, except in the fantasy world of "tree traders."
1
@David
Who builds your streets and highways? Who clears the snow and trash? And in Florida, who comes to save people and clear up the mess? It is not 'innovative corporations', it's the government.
My issue with litigation like this is not that I don't believe climate change occurs—rather, it is that the United States is far from the only polluting nation, and a judicial decision here will do little to drive change in China, India, and Russia. To think China wouldn't love if we crippled our economy with environmental regulation while they continue to be responsible for 30% of the world's carbon emissions is asinine.
6
@TJB An excellent argument for inaction across a wide variety of issues! Well done. We may be going over the precipice, but at least China will be with us when we're swept or burnt away!
Seriously, though. What're the odds that if legislation like this passed in the US, it would inspire all our technological and scientific ingenuity to come up with solutions for these problems, solutions we could eventually sell to other markets?
I'm not sure. But I bet those odds are better than our odds of surviving the next 200 years if we continue down our current path. Cause those odds, my friend, are not good.
15
@TJB
China is swiftly moving to renewable energy. A simple Google search will explain what they are doing.
2
Perhaps part of Ms Olson’s argument can be the US commitment to 1992 Earth Summit’s Agenda 21 and the establishment of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Even its weak list of Principles might be useful and so would be the passing of the Earth Charter in 2000 for which a group of us strongly worked during the 1992 conference for adoption. UNESCO was one of the earliest UN organizations to adopt as their ethical framework. An outstanding summary of about a 1000 pages by the Environmental Law Center in Washington DC entitled Stumbling Toward Sustainability might also contain useful information for this important law suit.
Once this suit has engendered its positive results its argument can also be applied to transformative proposals dealing with the looming climate catastrophe such as the one of a carbon-based international monetary system with its monetary carbon standard of specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such needed system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net.
Declared Bill McKibben founder of the global 350ppm movement: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.”
11
if the young people put their phone down on election day and VOTED this lawsuit would be unnecessary. The 20-30 age bracket has the LOWEST voting participation rate yet has the HIGHEST exposure to years of painful living fro climate change.
Vote for the Party that wants to DO something about climate change and not for the Reality TV Party of Fools
24
@Zenster
How do you know that these young people have not voted? It's our older generation that is to blame for climate degradation, not the young. Stop trying to pass the buck.
1
My favourite line from George Orwell’s 1984 was “We’re already dead.”
1
@R. Koreman How is that a favorite line? Doomsayers have been wrong since they began with language.
Time is precious, its truly scary that older people aren't defending the rights of younger generations and future generations to the fruits we've had available during our lifetimes. Its as if we as a species are committing suicide, the oldest are condemning those younger or unborn, the ultimate betrayal to our DNA.
7
@Stephan Or they hope to resolve this to our advantage just as every other major death threat has been previously, and of course many millions (like in Russia) are sure to see benefits from the death you predict hysterically.
@David
If you don't think there's a problem, you can't begin to solve it.
There will be no resolution because of people like you who argue that there is no problem.
I trust the scientists who have done the measurements and run the models and seen them come true more than some random person on the internet saying, "don't worry, be happy".
Giving me hope in a dark time.
16
Best news I've head all day! And as I am sure Trump supports the death penalty, can he be executed if convicted? The earth would breathe a sigh of relief.
9
Way to take a stand and follow a proactive path! Ms. Olson sets a high bar for her ability to committing to a worthwhile cause that will require personal sacrifices in the form of time and money.
6
I really hope that this law suit gets lots of media press. I have two young children and I want them to have at least as clean a world that I had growing up, without having to worry about the effects of climate change. It is so sad that people in general don't make efforts until they have to, typical procrastination; it takes too much money, too much time. Only, once we all see what must be done, it will be too late. If all of us make a lot of effort now, things will be so much better for our little ones.
12
As they drive their Beemers and Benz’s to work from their 6000 square foot home, where their 45 foot Grady White is docked.
5
When there is a sucker, there us some one ready to take their money.
Rules need changing. Throwing a tantrum does not help. But she's right there ready to take their money for a sure loss.
1
And they call the President a huckster showman.
2
What a waste of time and resources.
Good luck.
2
Lead where your elders have failed.
9
Best of luck to all involved!
That said, I would encourage everyone to treat this case as a rallying cry, not a solution. A charge of the courageous against the great wall, in the hope that others will join.
Simply put, this case will not be resolved for 5+ years, if not longer. That, and it has a snowball's chance in hell.
So, for those us on the outside, we can laugh at the futility of the plaintiff's case... or we can answer its call and join the fight. This is a war that needs to be won, not in the courtroom, but in society and the political arena. It needs to be resolved now, not in 5 years.
Do become complacent and treat Juliana v. U.S. as the answer to our problems. Use it to show just how important this issue has become, for all ages.
5
"Prudent men" do not submit themselves voluntarily to government-condoned climate change.
I covered Dutch litigation for the news service ClimateWire in 2013. A case for holding governments accountable successfully put by Dutch lawfirm Paulussen Advocaten on behalf of the Urgenda Foundation. Urgenda’s case is based on a legal standard known as "the Cellar Hatch Criteria," after a landmark 1961 Dutch Supreme Court case brought by a man who fell down an open cellar hatch in a pub. He sued both the Coca Cola delivery man who had left the hatch open and the Coca Cola corporation. The court found in his favor.
"The prudent man” standard is universally accepted as the degree to which an individual assumes responsibility for his own well-being weighed against the degree to which those around him are liable if he comes to harm. In broad legal terms, the prudent man standard tests personal attentiveness to ones own safety against risk of endangerment by another person, business or government. The closest set of laws in the US falls under the category of "Torts." When the Prudent Man standard is applied to climate change, the endangerment becomes glaringly obvious: any government which is not acting to protect its own population from the effects of climate change is in violation. From Wikipedia: "Torts comprise such varied topics as automobile accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability, copyright infringement, and environmental pollution."
13
@j'ecoute But in the U.S. there is a "tort reform" movement that started with the McDonalds coffee burn. If you are not aware of this movement, watch "Hot Coffee" and you'll get a wonderful education. The money flowed in to turn the old woman evil who had 4th degree burns on her inner thighs. She wasn't even driving, something most people don't know. And there had been 107 previous burns and complaints, but all of them settled out of court. This was an 82 year old woman who still worked full-time because she loved her job and was good at it. She didn't need money. Tort reform in the form of protecting corporations through putting caps on judgments, is what ensued. "Hot Coffee" was a real eye-opener for me to the evil seeping into our courts at every level.
2
This is fantastic. But how dare you even remotely suggest that older people feel climate change is somebody else's problem? I am personally offended and offended for all the people I have known for so many years who have been fighting literally to the death, for the environment and the planet on which we stand.
20
@B Doll Thanks for your comment--this is John, and I wrote the story. Thanks to your comment, I changed the language to avoid the implication that all older people (of which I am one) thinks of climate change as someone else's problem.
6
Inspiring and good news. Keep up the fight! If we don't do something about global warming, there won't be much left to tweet about by 2040.
4
Let me see. If they win this lawsuit then judges will force the government to have a certain environmental policy. Maybe the judges will even write the new laws and then act to enforce them.
I think someone needs some basic civics lessons.
4
@Michael: "I think someone needs some basic civics lessons."
You don't seem to understand the basis of the suit. The students aren't suing for specific policies. Rather, they are suing to force the government to manage resources so that their right to a livable environment is respected. That is what the Public Trust Doctrine is about. It's not some new-fangled principle—it stretches back to Roman Law.
If they are successful, it will provide a yardstick against which future policies adopted by the U.S. government can be measured.
6
Congratulations to all of them for giving a darn and doing something which is more than what most of us are doing. It might not be the perfect approach but it is an approach. Hopefully this will be one of many catalysts for the rest of us to do something besides drink our coffe out of a biodegradable cup.
18
If president can hire his daughter and son-in-law as high level consultants in the WH for family gain, I don't see why not a group of people can sue him personally for climate change damages. Just be fair.
7
This isn't going to go over well, but last time I checked there are two components to green house gas emissions. One is our lifestyle and the amount of co2/capita we produce. The lawyer and the left are obsessed with this number and rightly so. The other, that is completely ignored by the left, the democrats and the likes of the nyts is the other half of the equation. The other half is the number of people producing the green house gases. Yes, the dreaded "p" word. Population. Example. In my lifetime the population of the U.S. has doubled. This means to have even stayed the same our emissions would have had to have been halved. Another. Since 1980 our per capita co2 emissions have actually gone down by 25%. Unfortunately, our population driven mostly by immigration has...wait for it, gone up 25% negating all that progress. Trump and other have advocated not only enforcing our immigration laws ( you can question some of their motives if you like) but also lowering our immigration numbers including the much loved by the left, illegals. By any rational analysis trump and the anti mass immigration folks (including many environmentalists) are the true "greenies". By decreasing out population mostly thru decreasing immigration we will infact lower our emissions far more than any piece of paper calling for technological fixes that may or may not work. It may not be PC, but it's hard to argue against the numbers.
1
@Al
First, how do you know that the US's 25% population increase since 1980 has mainly been caused by immigration?
Second, if we bar people from entering the US, will those people suddenly stop causing carbon emissions?
3
Good grief the numbers are out there. Look up per capita co2 production. If, for example, you come from Guatemala and move to the USA your foot print will likely go up to our level. This is bad for the environment. We are 5% using 25% of the planets resources . We’re number one so to speak. I thought you people were all about the numbers?!
1
I am 54 but I do not see climate change as "someone else's problem". I don't want coral reefs to die and Antarctica to melt, and all the other ecological changes, even if they don't fully happen until after I am gone. I think the continuity of life is something people look to and cling to as age or debility or sickness and suffering cause them to look for meaning. Now that we no longer have that continuity, heartbreak and despair are the result. My mom, who is 75, is not thinking to herself "glad I'll be out of here by then." Young people are right to demand a healthy world to live in. But the planet and life on earth are more to humanity than just place to live our days and make our livings. This Our World we are talking about and it is a TOTAL disaster for ALL of humanity to realize we humans have fouled our world to the brink of no return. Frankly, rating people's harm according to the number of years an actuarial table shows they should have left is ageist. If a young person has stage 4 cancer, does that mean they don't have standing to sue?
4
It's staggering that well proven science has become a political issue. A few decades ago, we saw what CFC's did the ozone layer, and we stopped using products that released CFC's and reversed the phenomenon. Now we demonize clean energy and sustainable transportation even though they represent extraordinary new markets and jobs, and they happen to better for the environment.
I feel like we live in some bizarro world now. All I know for sure is that excessive amounts of fried food are still not good for me, so ultimately, the world doesn't care if you "believe in" science.
9
Honestly, I prefer to allow events such as recent hurricanes to drive the point of climate change home. We know that hurricanes are most likely to affect southern and coastal states that are predominantly Republican controlled.
I believe that only destructive climate change, like recent hurricane force winds, and devastating flooding, will force republican voters and climate deniers to face the facts and reality of climate change. Only then will honest Republican voters see the lies that they have been fed.
I know that what I propose is heartless and bitter medicine, but the it is the only option we have left. We have already seen that Republicans don’t respond to court decisions against them. Instead they seem to double down every time a court of law goes against them.
6
I hope this case goes to trial. I fear that confirming Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court will tilt the politics of the court to ignoring the merits of this case in favor of protecting trump's policies. (Same may prove to be true of whether or not to allow a deposition of the commerce secretary over the census citizenship question.) So-called moderates like Collins of Maine have a lot more to be accountable for than most people realize. The public trust doctrine may be our only hope to address climate change given that fossil fuel money has bought and paid for Congress and the White House, and now the Courts as well.
28
@Bruce R
It would be foolish to expect the Kavanaugh-Thomas Rape Court to permit this lawsuit to succeed. The SCOTUS no longer defends the Constitution or the rule of law, much less basic human rights.
Nevertheless, Julia Olson is performing an enormous service for humanity. If and when democratic processes and constitutional rule of law ever are restored in America, this case will have cut an important new path towards human justice.
Also, it tells the rest of the world that not all Americans are suicidal capitalist cannibals.
4
I turned 25 on October 5th, a day or two before the UN report came out. My birthday quickly turned from a weekend of celebrating to a weekend of horror at what getting older would mean. I work hard to be as environmentally friendly as possible but as a young person, I have the most to lose. Reasonably, Trump could still be alive in 2040, so he will be witnessing the same effects I will be, and yet him and other governments around the world are not taking this threat seriously.
I'm encouraged by efforts like this and of people like Ms. Olson because in 2040 I'll be 47, and I need to hope that somehow a drastic plan of action will be possible before then. I live on Lake Ontario, a lake where I can look across and see the US. It's the same ecosystem, the same water. Anything that changes there, affects me here. If a court can spark that change, then I'm all for it.
36
One of the (many) problems with a slow-moving global disaster like climate change is that we each have plenty of time to figure out which of The Others to blame. It's the Chinese, oil companies, gov't, (R)egressives - somebody, anybody - but not Me. We mostly peg our own level of consumption as OK, and blame Others who consume more.
Let's divide humans into three groups. 1. Never heard of climate change because they're too busy finding food/water. 2. Heard of climate change but deny it. 3. Know climate change is an anthropogenic disaster, fret about it, but do little to reduce our own carbon footprint.
I've come to believe that Group 3 - "enviros", like me - personifies our climate change dilemma. We lament overconsumption/overpopulation, we know we're in trouble and try to we make ourselves feel good by re-cycling and supporting enviro groups. However, we make few substantive lifestyle changes. We still live in too-big, inefficient houses which we keep too hot/cold; drive urban 4wd SUVs when we could walk, take the bus, stay home; fly to Mexico for long weekends; yada, yada.
Fact is that, on average, we in The Land of The Free (old, white men) consume 5 times our share of global resources. We do need comprehensive, progressive national climate policies to change that, but it ain't happening any time soon. In lieu of that, each of us must weigh the climate-change impacts of every action we take. Change? Or extinction?
48
@Miss Anne Thrope. Hate to spring some facts on you but "white men" only make up 31% of the u.s. population. "Old white men" therefore make up an even smaller %. If you're looking for someone to blame for the mess we find ourselves in it may be time to find a new scape goat. It would seem that all the efforts at ethnic and cultural diversity has given us a population that is just as wasteful as the one that was originally blamed for everything. Straight white men.
1
@Miss Anne Thrope It's not all about personal choices though. Policy plays an enormous role.
For instance, places without sidewalks in areas (e.g. Miami) make it very hard for people who want to walk but do it safely. I tried to walk in Miami but some neighborhoods have no sidewalks, few trees (very hot most of the year), and businesses are scattered. In contrast, my own neighborhood has trees, sidewalks everywhere, and the city hall/ library/ stores are all clustered within a few blocks.
For public transportation, a personal hobby has been exploring public transit wherever I go. Some areas are excellent while in others a 2 hour train/ bus ride is needed in lieu of a 30-minute drive (not realistic for commuters). In my area, I have buses, trains, subways, and even an international airport within 10 minutes walk or drive.
Finally, you don't list it but the best thing you can do to help the environment is eat less meat, especially beef. I'm not a vegetarian personally but I have cut back on meat for the last few years. In an article listing the most impactful action people can take to help the environment, eating no/ less meat was #1. Cattle emit methane, their food requires fertilizers and lots of water to produce 1 lb. of meat, etc.
3
@ms. How you eat is important. How you breed is critical. The single best thing you can do for the environment is have 2 or less kids.
It's so good to read this. We baby boomers are leaving a mess for future generations. Has any generation in history left such left such life threatening problems for the next generation? We had the cold war and nuclear arms, but those could be controlled by treaty. Climate change takes much more resolve and worldwide cooperation. In the Novus Ordo Seclorum, Forest McDonald writes under English law there was the doctrine of nuisance. Owners of property could not burn, cook or process anything that fouled the air. They could not pollute a stream that endangered wildlife downstream. Since much of our law is based upon English law, do we have any such legal tradition that perhaps has been forgotten?
7
Climate change is the biggest threat we face as a species and as a planet. Our government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, [and] for the people," but it often works in the interests of polluters rather than the people. If our government doesn't start implementing comprehensive environmental policy soon, then it's likely that "the people" shall "perish from the earth.”
23
Congratulations to Julia Olson and the other young people presenting a case for the government to fight climate change.During the midterm elections commentators bemoan the fact that the 18 to 30 age group do not vote in large numbers.It is because young people do not feel that they have a say in political outcomes.This group is already being discouraged because they are challenging the status quo.They are the very citizens who should be the most concerned and engaged.In 2040 when a recent report says the severest effects of climate change will be felt they will be middle aged and having to deal with the dire consequences of inaction.The Trump deniers and the Supreme Court will have passed from the scene.Julia Olson and her plaintiffs deserve support and encouragement.
20
@Janet Michael. Seems young people are going to have to put down there phones, turn off the tv (yes even the kardashians) and maybe read a newspaper to get their info (no FB is not a legitimate news source) and maybe go outside once in awhile. Good luck with that. Our education system has raised several generations who can't make change, don't know what a book is and think ww2 is a video game. I'm not sure they should vote.
2
@Al
Don’t blame our education system for this! It hasn’t “raised several generations”; that’s a parent’s job. If kids have never seen a book and don’t know what World War II is, then they haven’t ever stepped foot in a school!
@Janet Michael
I doubt if that is why young people don't vote. It that were the case, no one would vote. I have voted in every election since I could and have had my candidate lost in almost all. In fact, in most my favored candidate did not even make it to the primary in my late voting commonwealth of PA, so I had NO say in the candidate I would be supporting in the general.
But I vote in every election and primary in the hope my vote will somehow matter, and because I know the one certain way to insure it will not is to not vote.
I believe we all need to stop driving anything that uses fossil fuels, to only accept reusable plastic, to lobby to improve public transport (which is excellent where I live, SEPTA, NJTransit & PATCO), to work to change the legislators and to take offenders to court. All of these. Arguing about whether kids suing is a good idea is absurd, we need every brilliant focused person doing what they do best.
15
Very interesting about the lawsuit. I worry every waking moment about the climate change and the future generations. We have to be vocal about it. In a world of politics and black hole greed for wealth and money, how do we achieve it?
19
However well-meaning these efforts, they should fail for one simple reason - the unelected courts should NOT be making decisions or forcing actions that are in the sole province of the constitutionally set forth legislative and executive branches of government. We are still a republic, not a dictatorship of elites who dictate from on high.
Much was done over the years to enact environmental laws and clear up pollution (I am old enough to remember how bad it was) i the proper way, by elected officials. It is not the place of judges to substitute their own views and judgements in place of the people's elected representatives.
8
@George S
But it IS the sole province of the courts to impel the government to action. That's the whole point of the judicial branch. Sure, they also take care of legal issues between private parties, but the Supreme Court exists as a check to the actions of Congress and the President.
In this case, they would be checking inaction. The Supreme Court doesn't have to issue a ruling like "The Federal Government should end carbon emissions in the U.S. by 2030." It could simply issue the ruling that the Federal Government is constitutionally obligated to provide freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, and property, and that includes taking action to prevent catastrophic climate change that already deprives citizens of life, liberty, and property, and as a result of that obligation, it must take significant action to address climate concerns within XX years.
This isn't judicial overreach; it's the whole purpose of the judiciary.
30
@Fred
No, the “sole province of the courts to impel the government action” is not theirs - that is for the people! The courts are to determine if the actions of government and the laws are consistent with the constitution and to resolve legal disputes, not to force elected officials to act one way or another. Wise or unwise, effective or not, the people and the ballot box are the way to compel government action, absent a clear constitutional mandate, not vaguely massaged notions of how things should be. We’re that the case, the “sole province” then we don’t even need legislators or debate- juts have judges tell us the direction to take and the time frames to do it. That’s a dangerous path.
@George S
Courts frequently impel elected officials to act in some way or other--consistent with laws put in place by elected officials. For example, compelling county clerks to issues same-sex marriage certificates. The officials can decline, of course, and stand in contempt, and at times be jailed. If courts can't compel officials to follow the law, the laws are meaningless.
BTW, many judges ARE elected officials. You may even have the chance to vote for one soon! Or impeach one.
I am inspired and hopeful. I was born in the 1950's and have lived and traveled a world that is so different from the world I now live in. The pristine world that I witnessed is quickly disappearing. That was a time when forests were verdant and drought only happened on occasions. City skies and waterways were being cleaned up after years of neglect and there was hope for a more enlightened population who understood that we have to take care of our home. Trumps America can't see past the noses on their face and have not realized that we live on a planet where everyone does their part in taking care of it. The damage of climate change in the world affects everyone, yes even the most powerful nation in the world. We may be able to blow the whole place up, but we can't survive the aftermath or give our children the same future that older Americans enjoyed.
22
We are going to waste a lot of time and money arguing over this, and then the Supreme Court will (correctly) dismiss the case.
This is a legislative issue.
If people (young or old, green or blue, male or female or other) want something done about climate change, let them elect people to Congress who will pass such a law.
Liberals don't want to go through the hard work of getting laws passed so they stoop to getting individual judges to rule based on emotion.
12
@G. No chance to legislate fixes for climate change-too many members of Congress are financed by oil and gas interests.They have the money and will make certain their dirty energy wins out over green energy.
13
@G. The left is hamstrung by their rigid PC ideals and its killing them at the polls. BHO had 8 years to go back to what used to be democratic core values: labor, the environment (no, not grand standing at Paris, but real accomplishments like the clean air and water acts), a fair tax code, education, and on and on. Instead we got globalism that may get you the Nobel prize (ok that was just for not being bush2) and the love of the euro elites but it also got us trump and his backlash.
1
@G
Really. And how are they to do that when we can not even elect a president by majority of voters, let alone representatives in most districts because they have been gerrymandered beyond recognition -- And I should know because I lived in the infamous 7th District in PA, the MOST gerrymandered district in the country-- and Senate representation is unbelievably skewed so states with almost no population can elect the same number as states with huge population. (The House is skewed also, just not as badly.) And finally, thanks to the corrupt gang of five on the Supreme Court who are no more than puppets to big money, almost all our representatives are bought and sold by big money interests instead of representing the public, and continue to enact laws that are the opposite of what the majority wants.
And every time a "liberal" (AKA a moderate sensible person who can think their way out of a paper bag and believes in facts instead of Fox News lies) gets a law passed, the Russian funded and elected reactionaries and traitors eviscerate it.
Sometimes the courts are the only way to go.
This is nothing short of inspiring. But young people should not have to shoulder the entire burden of taking on the government with respect to its failures around climate change. Hopefully, with more media coverage of this lawsuit, others will join the fight. Where are the environmental organizations?
31
Another 80 plus who shares your concerns. When my great grand children grow up will there still be clean water, air to breathe ? What about climate change? Whether your efforts work, at least more citizens might wake up before long,
64
I respect the law, but as we see all too clearly under the current administration, what’s legal and what’s right are often two entirely different things. We allow our citizens to cherry-pick science: they are able to demand (and receive) vaccinations, combustion engines, cutting-edge pharmaceuticals, brain surgery, chemotherapy, plastic surgery, cell phones, voice-command appliances. But—they can “opt out” of global warming?? Give me a break. Why should my grandkids inherit a plastic-choked, deforested planet with a fraction of the necessary species, that is trashed and burned because others choose to “not believe” in climate change?
This lawsuit is a start. Those who understand that our human future is inextricably tied to the future of other species and to the protection of our planet must first pursue the available legal channels. That said, I have little optimism about the results. Instead, I predict that in the not-so-distant future, our youth will realize that the only way to overcome the ego and arrogance that comes with such willful ignorance is to create a global, generational movement that makes the 1960’s look like a walk in the park. Personally—I hope I live to see that. It will restore my faith in humanity.
86
@Jennifer Bryant. It is not "others" trashing the planet, it is us. 7.7 billion of us, but mostly westerners and our throw away culture and a population that grows 2-3 million per year in this country and 80 million world wide. Want a better world? Promote family planning everywhere. Adjust the tax system to promote smaller families, reduce our waste, promote a sustainable economy, pay higher taxes to help the third world reduce their populations and obtain sustainable economies and numbers and, least popular of all, close off immigration to the west to less than replacement levels only. None of this will happen, but I don't know of any scientists who think there is any realistic other way. The lawyers will argue back and forth running up the billable hours while the ice caps melt.
16
@Al
Mostly "westerners"? From other news tories in the Times and elsewhere, it seems that in fact most pollution and things like massive ocean trash comes from Asia, not the "west".
Yes!
Thank you Ms. Olson. Thank you Ms. Juliana. I hope you will both, along with many others, be the tip of the spear that pierces the hot air balloon of lies and greed that of this administration and all the previous ones since Jimmy Carter's. The energy industry and our government have known about climate change and its cause for decades. They have done nothing but help increase profits in the short term regardless of the costs in the long term.
46
There is nothing here for any court to even consider this foolish attempt at going around the constitution. If they want action congress is the place for that to happen. This is a waste of time and resources, perhaps these young folks would do something directly or through a charity to reduce their carbon footprint.
9
@vulcanalex
If it comes to it, revolution may be the only answer, especially considering that direct action by the people is where this country got it's start.
5
@vulcanalex
We the people have a lot to get involved. Because we are the ones who are suffering. And frightening to think of the future generations, and we have to fight to sustain ourselves and them. And the other species of the planet.
1
@vulcanalex
and what, precisely, is direct action? and please name a charity that tries to reduce the carbon footprint.
1
Thank you for covering this. Please keep doing so. I’m pretty certain government believes everything is theirs. This kind of suit reminds us all of our rights. I am so heartened to read this.
75
I am a little bit older, 31 years old, but I agree that we have to take actions on every levels of society, as individuals, members of collective, citizens and beings of rights, to face the threats of climate change.
51
@Christine
Yes, And we all have to fight and get involved.
1
Thank you. I didn't know about Our Children's Trust. I just made a donation.
99
We need charges of crimes against humanity brought against men who knowingly spread lies denying climate change, so they can profit financially.
Our descendants will curse us if we do not act to change this and punish the wicked.
147
@Peak Oiler. I think it is far more likely our descendants will curse us for letting the U.S. population grow by 2-3 million per year, when we could have opted for a lower, sustainable number by making a few difficult but necessary choices.
14
@Al
The population of the world has to be controlled on a massive scale.
Petroleum products and plastic have to be totally banned.
Killing the animals has to be stopped.
But how? with a greed for wealth so massive and wanting to control other people's bodies and ideas, the politics of the world is a big hindrance.
I really have to give in to these youngsters for fighting this, and it is not an easy task.
We won’t have descendants.
I am praying for Julia Olson's success. What a wonderful person and lawyer, and what courageous young people. I wish all kids and parents everywhere understood the profound importance of this effort -- there is no Planet B. Break up with your big bank, divest from fossil fuel holdings, elect green candidates, donate to 350.org. This is the most critical issue of our time.
134
What is legal and what is not when it comes to environmental law is apt to depend on the state of the environment. When the court is under water, a more environmentally favorable interpretation of the law can be counted on. Until then, the court is apt to interpret the law in favor of the powerful.
6
@Mark Somehow I greatly disagree, now laws could change the courts don't make the laws. And they are to interpretate them based on well established methods, not that say the 9th circuit actually does their job properly.
4
At 76 years old, I am concerned that I will be leaving my family a much less optimistic future than I received. Every generation has its challenges, some more difficult than others. No one can shoo away the facts and results of climate change. Oh, I forgot, greed is too important to work towards a sustaining energy policy or any other policy that would make sense to help the planet.
Maybe, just maybe, an abstract approach like this lawsuit will open the eyes of the non-believers to possible change.
Personally though, greed has permanaded deep into the 1% and they only want more money, more power and less taxes.
2 weeks away from our country moving backward or moving ahead. I'm voting for a better life on November 6th. Are you?
167
I am pushing 70 and worked in the oil patch for 40 plus years.
So, I know these lawsuit tactics.
Luckily, the courts have consistently ruled that the Congress is where the action is. And with Chevron decision - the courts defer to the executive in absence of a clear congressional intent.
Though I know there is a pending case that matter even nullify the Chevron precedent.
So, go and have it in the courts - lawyers will become richer and nothing more will come out if it.
This tendency to settle policy disputes is the courts is beginning to come to an end. Notice the latest.
The SCOTUS just ruled to stop deposition of the Commerce secretary over the census - basically saying the executive has a wide lattitude in deciding how a census is conducted.
Interestingly, the photo accompanying this story about activists hides how few the protesters are behind outside banners.
That itself is a telling in a northwestern state - on it's size of it's supporters.
And if I were to be bold enough to say - everyone one of these protesters drove a 10 year old vehicle with horrible gas mileage - one in each car.
So much for the environment.
8
@Neil: Hey thanks. My young relations appreciate your cavalier approach to their future. A new Cadillac, at best, gets 23 miles to the gallon. The 15-year-old Saab I drive gets 24. Young people can't afford Cadillacs. Driving an old car does not mean worse gas mileage.
25
@Chip Steiner Who buys or could afford such, my car gets over 30 and it is not that great.
1
@Neil. Of coarse you are correct. The only sustainable way forward is a different lower impact lifestyle, which few Americans have embrassed, and more importantly, fewer Americans. The left talks about the one and actually works for the opposite of the second. Every study the government has ever done has said we need to lower our population mostly thru decreased immigration to get to sustainable population. The left cannot even discuss this. Therefor all of this will amount to nothing.
3
This looks like a longshot, especially with the Roberts Court. OTOH, if she's building a movement and it can get beyond the usual professional middle class that supports environmental issues, then her work might succeed in some of the states. The problem with a legalistic approach is that it turns on technical issues which aren't terribly sexy and the environmental movement has failed miserably in engaging mass grassroots including people most likely affected by climate change, such as the poor and minorities. Oddly, US-based conservation orgs seem more successful at pursuing wholistic approaches in places like Burma or Brazil than in Oregon.
@Rich It's always an uphill battle, but it seems that the Natural Resource Defense Council has had success.
5