12 ms·

Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change

149 points by kafkaesq 10y ago

joshmarinacci 10y ago
Hey. I live there! But seriously, this could be a big deal.
tenpies 10y ago
I don't understand US law nearly well enough, but aren't they essentially suing for future damages (e.g. something that hasn't happened yet)? How does this work as anything other than a PR stunt and a trophy-for-everyone move from a judge in Oregon?
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Generally it's hard to pre-emptively sue to prevent the government killing you -- even though in the US the Constitution requires due process before a person can be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" -- because most ways the government has of killing you (guns, bombs, etc.) happen very quickly. In this case the mechanism by which the government is alleged to be killing people is slow-acting enough that the people who claim they will be harmed have time to file a lawsuit.
- wtallis 10y ago
  Is it possible to sue and collect damages for exposure to carcinogens (eg. asbestos) before the cancer manifests? If so, there's a reasonable analogy to be made: once excess CO2 is in the atmosphere, solar radiation will inexorably cause harmful warming. The biggest difference is that carbon sequestration is somewhat imaginable, but still impractical (especially for non-government actors).
mieses 10y ago
Nice idea. Conservative attention seekers could sue over inherited debt.
- ap3 10y ago
  Can we sue the government for not funding Social Security properly thus making future generations work more years?
- croon 10y ago
  I would love that, given it gets resolved which effects stemmed from which president/house/senate. Seeing the circular party occupancy in the US, anything good gives credit to the following elect, and anything bad gives blame to the following elect. Therefor most decisions lean towards short term benefits and long term detriments.
s_m_t 10y ago
I doubt this will get very far. It seems like it would open up a whole can of worms and completely subvert our entire system of law making. >She declared the facts of man-made climate change “undisputed,” and supported the plaintiffs’ challenge to hold national powers accountable for the damages caused by global warming. >Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.” So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back?
- languagewars 10y ago
  > So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back? How does that flow from these quotes? To be equivalent, you would need to prove that the tax rate is so insane that it has a substantial chance of killing you. Equivalent arguments for tax relief are in relation to poverty, medical costs, food and basic necessities, etc and generally win.
  - s_m_t 10y ago
    They do? People have actually sued the government because their taxes were too high for their particular circumstance? I'm not trying to be facetious, I just don't know much about this topic.
    - languagewars 10y ago
      No, the same civil rights allow you to start a process to invalidate a tax completely and they are used that way all the time. Civil rights arguments have everything to do with why your laffer curve isnt optimal and we pay higher set rates so there are things that are completely exempt. Look at state sales tax exemptions as an example of people lowering their effective tax rate, but not the overall tax collected or the average benefit of government. It seems to me like you are trying to warp the discussion into every tool with a visible political outcome being equivalent and open to "democratic" systems. The republic is a tool for a specific purpose that is usually opposite of delivering optimal solutions to the majority. The democratic systems are supposed to deliver what you seem to want until they violate civil rights. If they dont for a reason other than civil rights, then your recourse is to petitition the republic to change the election process. But you cant make the republic actually care about your general tax rates or any other problems it allows the democratic process to handle, it can only make sweeping rules when parties are in violation of the core rules. The argument that the state is killing you is only significant if you can make it rationally, and a 10-99% tax isnt killing you unless it doesnt exclude the poverty level in its gradients and then you dont need to be the one being killed to make the argument. A 99% tax rate that can get 50% of the vote may indicate another failure though.
jakozaur 10y ago
Though I totally agree with cause, I find USA system suing your government/municipal/etc. a weird system. 1. Law works mostly well to enforce current system. E.g. There is law that you have to process my application in 30 days, but it was delayed by year and I lost something because of that. 2. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same. 3. The 2. case is very tricky. No doubt both sides will spend tons on legal fees, but outcome can be very arbitrary, not based on interpretation on current laws/. 4. This system most likely benefit the most lawyers, as the benefit from the ambiguity. Maybe we should accept the fact, that not all conflicts can be solved in court room? E.g. city can pass stupid law that doesn't make sense (e.g. ban AirBnB) and nobody got right to sue because of that. The only exceptions should be conflict with upper law (e.g. no city can ban minority or pass law not to pay federal tax). 5. Some of my misunderstanding is based that I'm used to civil law (we interpret rules passed by some government) vs. common law (law is based on individual cases that have precedential effect on future cases). However, I find that using it on government/state/municipal level is a stretch.
- ryanlol 10y ago
  >2. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same. It's used to contest laws that are believed to possibly be in violation of existing law. >3. The 2. case is very tricky. No doubt both sides will spend tons on legal fees, but outcome can be very arbitrary, not based on interpretation on current laws/. Huh? What's the outcome going to be based on if not on the current law? Unless you're specifically referring to common/civil law difference that makes no sense. >4. This system most likely benefit the most lawyers, as the benefit from the ambiguity. Maybe we should accept the fact, that not all conflicts can be solved in court room? E.g. city can pass stupid law that doesn't make sense (e.g. ban AirBnB) and nobody got right to sue because of that. The only exceptions should be conflict with upper law (e.g. no city can ban minority or pass law not to pay federal tax). It sounds like you're suggesting that cities should have significantly higher legislative powers not restricted by the courts? I must be misunderstanding, but in case I'm not... why?
pdonis 10y ago
What are these kids doing to develop non-CO2-emitting energy sources? Why don't they spend their time and energy on that instead? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that such lawsuits are justified, all they do is suck up resources that could be used for developing energy technologies to fix the problem.
- chrischen 10y ago
  Well that's the point. It's to suck up resources from the government spent on other things, and reallocate it to climate protection.
  - pdonis 10y ago
    > It's to suck up resources from the government Instead of doing productive work themselves? That's what it looks like to me.
- fsloth 10y ago
  See todays Marrakech meeting. Turns out we have most technology solutions available to cut down CO2 considerably and all that is required is policy to implement them. Not research - not even productize - all of the suggested approaches are based on productized approches.
  - pdonis 10y ago
    > See todays Marrakech meeting. Turns out we have most technology solutions available to cut down CO2 considerably and all that is required is policy to implement them. Can you give a reference for this? I'm not finding anything helpful on the conference website.
    - fsloth 10y ago
      Sorry, the references can be found under the title 'nordic green to scale'. e.g. http://www.greentoscale.net/en/events/climate-change/nordic-green-scale-marrakech http://www.greentoscale.net/en/events/climate-change/nordic-...
jasonjei 10y ago
These sorts of lawsuits are going to be necessary with the rise of Trump's EPA--or what should be called Coal Protection Agency. We're about to enter a brave new world of environmental governance, one that is led by a climate change denier and one that believes "global warming" is a Chinese plot to weaken our economy.
- jschwartzi 10y ago
  It's possible that he believes that global warming is a real phenomenon but that our treaties with the rest of the world place us at a major disadvantage.
  - mark_edward 10y ago
    Then why would he say otherwise?
  - mhalle 10y ago
    Modulo the fact that none of Trump's positions appear to be immutable, he has made numerous claims that climate change is a hoax (and also one that places the US at a disadvantage): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/...
  - jasonjei 10y ago
    If he does believe global warming is real, why is he picking Myron Ebell, a Coal lobbyist, to lead the EPA? [0] He was quoted to say: "The whole case for global warming is silly, and I believe the vast majority of scientists thinks it's silly, and therefore I'm a little bit embarrassed that I waste my time on this silly issue." [1] [0] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron-ebell-the-climate-contrarian-leading-trumps-epa-transition/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron-ebell-t... [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=-rSDUsMwakI https://youtube.com/watch?v=-rSDUsMwakI (at 9:13)
  - Daishiman 10y ago
    Can we stop it with the whole thing where people play down the things politicians are explicitly saying that they'll do over and over again?
mzw_mzw 10y ago
What a ridiculous joke. "Kids" aren't suing anyone. Cynical adults who haven't been able to get their way through the democratic system are trying to ram their policy preferences through the courts, and they are abusing innocent children to do it. In a saner world, that judge would have called Child Protective Services.
Loic 10y ago
I am surprised by the very negative ton of the first 10+ comments. These kids are not kids any more. They are between 15 and 20. As a reminder, Lafayette was 16. They see an issue and act on it with the tools they have. When you have an issue with a piece of software, you look at the alternatives and possibly you act on the issue, you fix it. They do what you do as designer/software developer, just in another field. We need more people doing and less people complaining. Some may consider it stupid to sue, but if this is the only solution, why not?
- calibraxis 10y ago
  Evidence that HN is a right-wing capitalist site (like both US political parties): in a discussion of threats to humanity, an apparently highly-rated comment talks about paying too much in taxes. And fears that solutions to global warming will "completely subvert our entire system of law making." (Both of which are good things: not just markets, but the nation state system itself, are exactly what need disrupting. Those who drank the koolaid can't think past tight bounds even when future generations are at stake. Not everyone can escape to billionaire mansion compounds in New Zealand. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-man... )
  - tajen 10y ago
    But there's a third explanation that doesn't imply it's right-wing capitalism: Maybe paying more taxes still doesn't solve global warming? A problem when I discuss global warming with colleagues is that they attempt to put me in one side (deniers) or the other (social-ecology), both of which don't match my views (In my case, I think tying social with ecology hurts both results, but the comment you're talking about has other ideas). So instead of judging and classifying this person, please dig into their logic and provide them with sources.
  - forgetsusername 10y ago
    >Evidence that HN is a right-wing capitalist site You read a different HN than I do.
- 10y ago
eggy 10y ago
I am glad kids are taking action rather than just complaining, however, people can take personal action. The money for any pay out from a suit will most likely come from their future social benefits rather than the industries they are suing. Some personal choices to take action on: Buy local produce, and let your local supermarket or grocer know this. Educate others. It saves on all of the transport emissions from air or truck freight of goods. Cut back on electrical, and gas usage. Most homes I have visited in the US have multiple TVs, each family member has more than two computers, or smartphones and tablets. Car pool. Buy economy cars, not SUVs. Walk. Run. Cycle to work. Americans can sure use the exercise and diet changes. (DISCLAIMER: I am an American, born and raised). I was working physically 9-11 hours a day in Las Vegas, and cycling 6 miles to and from the construction site each day. Obese co-workers called me crazy. Then before Christmas 2009, I gave CPR to a 35 year old man with two kids and new born baby on the site, but he died before he hit the ground from a massive coronary. He had just arrived to work with Dunkin Donuts coffee and donuts in a bag and dropped. He stopped taking his heart medication his wife said. After being in SE Asia for 8 years, and returning to the US, my perception of just how obese Americans have become is striking. I have been living in the rice fields of East Java, so it is even more stark. I am a libertarian and mainly capitalist, so I don't wish any of this forced on anyone through legislation, and people are free to continue in their ways; I am just presenting some perceptions that might make people think twice about their lifestyles. They can choose what they want, but their are consequences locally and globally. For me, I have not felt healthier, and less stressed, and I will take these tools, perceptions and lifestyle choices back with me to the US. I went vegetarian 3 years ago, haven't drank alcohol in 7 years, and I run and exercise everyday. I know it might be harder when I get back, but I have built a solid foundation to continue there anyways. Big country-wide, policy changes need to be thought out economically, since we can only throw so much money and manpower at a particular solution. Some of the more rational choices may seem to go against feelings, and unfortunately, those who want the vote, vote for what makes people feel happier, not what's probably best for them and the country as a whole.
- tajen 10y ago
  > people can take personal action They can, but it won't help. Just watch Mythbusters to understand that things you don't consume will be consumed by someone else. When we need to divide our emissions by 10, people who make an effort won't offset people who don't. Carpooling won't help enough. Economy cars won't help. Renewable heating won't help. Wind turbines won't help. All of that together will never even divide your consumption by 2, plus since we save money by using less energy, we have more money available that we spend on other carbon-emitting products. We need everyone to take action, so that the ecologist worker isn't disadvantaged in his life compared to the meat/petrol/flight/wasteful worker. Let's look at the numbers: - Nature absorbs 3GtC per year [1] (Giga-tons of carbon. 1t of Carbon = 3.7t of CO2). - We'll be 9 billion people on Earth in 2050, so each human can emit 0.333tC per year (or 1.23t of CO2). The argument that some (USA) consume more than others (Philippines) is offset by the facts that the development of most poor countries is soaring (hear: China will access the consumer market just like USA) and the poor also use inefficient and polluting processes. - So our goal is 1.23t of CO2 (=0.333t of carbon) per person per year. We emit 22t of CO2 per year in USA, 9t in France, 5.5t in Romania and 4t in China. You can calculate the rate for yourself [3]. And that's only to come back to nature-reasonable footprints. If we want to offset the carbon that's already in the air, we need to make even more effort. So the effort in every industrialized country is to divide our emissions by ~10, which is unreachable by simple personal action. [1] https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/quota_GHG.html https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/... [2] http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_footprint_of_nations/ http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_fo... [3] http://www.carbonindependent.org/ http://www.carbonindependent.org/ - Carbon footprint calculator Since you too believe in the power of markets, a huge tax on carbon will advantage those who emit fewer CO2 and will be much easier to manage for corporations than any regulation. It has to be offset by lowering other taxes, so we don't increase the global tax pressure on the economy. It just has to be high enough so that all the cost of global warming weighs on CO2 emitters only, which probably means some types of jobs (e.g. half of car factories) belong to the past. But it's either that, or a global warming that creates such pressure on our civilizations that we might live in endless wars.
skoczymroczny 10y ago
If they want to sue someone, they'd have to definitely prove it exists and is human caused, this could be interesting.
woliveirajr 10y ago
It makes me worry when people think that "Government" is something unrelated to people, like it was an alien structure that just arrived in his country. In democracies, I mean. Because, you know, it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives.
- lemming 10y ago
  What they haven't had recently is the option to vote in anyone who'll take climate change very seriously.
  - vixen99 10y ago
    Many (actually millions of) people take it very seriously, particularly those who thanks to de-industrialisation, will likely lose their jobs, sink back into poverty or give up hope of rising out of it and of course those in northern hemisphere who suffer massively or die from not being able to warm themselves. Doubtless you think the alternative is armageddon. I get that. But when people read that the <official> estimates of global temperature reduction are of an order too little to detect in return for massive global pain by those least able to avoid it (with consequent enrichment by some of the rest of us), one wonders why the case made for that scenario is not more persuasive to people like Judith Curry for instance (and many other well informed authorities). As a specific recent example: to suggest she'd risk the future of mankind on Earth for the chance of preferment in Trump's administration, as has been suggested is beyond satire.
- amelius 10y ago
  > Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives. So not much incentive for long-term policies.
- privong 10y ago
  > it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives. You're correct if the government rules/laws are all made by the representatives. But a substantial amount of regulation is established or defined in detail by non-elected government employees. So, in many cases, waiting for a change in representatives won't change the status quo. This is in large part due to Congress abdicating their rule-making role and handing it to the executive branch. Sure, electing the "right" set of congresspeople should fix that, but it hasn't, and it's been on a downward trend of the past decade or two? One example is the NSA surveillance. You should be able to sue the government to stop it if you think it's unconstitutional. We've now 2 congressional elections since the first Snowden revelations and congress still seems to be generally in support of the surveillance. So citizens need another avenue to protect themselves from laws and regulations which they feel to violate their rights.
WalterBright 10y ago
A carbon tax initiative was on the ballot in (very blue) Washington State, but sadly went down in flames. Which is strange considering how blue the state is. A carbon tax is one of the best ways to address CO2 pollution.
- tajen 10y ago
  This. A carbon tax avoids creating a million regulations for every place where we could save energy, because companies who spend too much carbon will just have fewer money to keep going, and you'd just have to compare the price of things to know which ones are less ecologic. Besides, the tax can be used for ecologic projects, or can be used to reduce other taxes. But every time I try to explain it in France, I'm answered "But you don't realize! Poor people won't be able to afford a car or meat and they'll be the first ones to go bankrupt!". Which is why I say: Fusionning socialism and ecology in France, where all ecologist groups are leftish, badly hurts their work. A right-wing ecology who isn't adverse to capitalism would come up with a CO2 tax with success and actually do something against global warming.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    > Poor people won't be able to afford a car or meat and they'll be the first ones to go bankrupt A good solution to that would be to payout all of the proceeds of the carbon tax split evenly between everyone. That way people with below average carbon emissions will actually end up with more money than they had before, though they would still be incentivized to emit less.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      The idea was to couple it with a sales tax reduction, and sales tax is usually characterized as regressive (disproportionately affecting the poor).
- joegosse 10y ago
  The initiative wasn't so simple. In addition to the carbon tax, it included a reduction in the state sales tax, with the net result being an overall reduction in tax revenue for the state. With social services and education already underfunded (at least in people's minds), this was a difficult tradeoff to make. My sense was that the initiative was formulated to appeal to two different groups of voters but in doing so ended up alienating both.
amelius 10y ago
I also like the approach of Polly Higgins, who is trying to make the Earth a legal entity with her own fundamental rights, which can be defended in a court of law [1]. [1] http://pollyhiggins.com/ http://pollyhiggins.com/
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  Since the Earth is a nonsentient ball of rock and dirt, who will be given the unaccountable political power to represent it in the legal system? Whaaaaaaat? Higgins, and people who agree with her political views, will be given that power? Smack my head, what are the odds!
slicktux 10y ago
Just being critical here: This still seems like a valid statement: "Their opposition was based on a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.”" It seems like the new judge ruled for it because, “[their] action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.”, emphasis on constitutional right to life and liberty. Although that may be true, I am having trouble seeing as to how this may pertain solely to the Federal Government; It is possible to amend the constitution with an environmental specific amendment, but it would have to go through the legislative branch; I see nothing wrong with that. But looking at article 1 section 8 of the constitution, I do not see as to how this solely pertains to the Federal Government alone? Keep in mind that this country is a democratic republic and not a democracy; the federal government should be subject to the states rule, not an entity on its own.

149 points by kafkaesq 10y ago

Hey. I live there! But seriously, this could be a big deal.

I don't understand US law nearly well enough, but aren't they essentially suing for future damages (e.g. something that hasn't happened yet)? How does this work as anything other than a PR stunt and a trophy-for-everyone move from a judge in Oregon?

ubernostrum 10y ago
Generally it's hard to pre-emptively sue to prevent the government killing you -- even though in the US the Constitution requires due process before a person can be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" -- because most ways the government has of killing you (guns, bombs, etc.) happen very quickly. In this case the mechanism by which the government is alleged to be killing people is slow-acting enough that the people who claim they will be harmed have time to file a lawsuit.
wtallis 10y ago
Is it possible to sue and collect damages for exposure to carcinogens (eg. asbestos) before the cancer manifests? If so, there's a reasonable analogy to be made: once excess CO2 is in the atmosphere, solar radiation will inexorably cause harmful warming. The biggest difference is that carbon sequestration is somewhat imaginable, but still impractical (especially for non-government actors).

mieses 10y ago

Nice idea. Conservative attention seekers could sue over inherited debt.

ap3 10y ago
Can we sue the government for not funding Social Security properly thus making future generations work more years?
croon 10y ago
I would love that, given it gets resolved which effects stemmed from which president/house/senate. Seeing the circular party occupancy in the US, anything good gives credit to the following elect, and anything bad gives blame to the following elect. Therefor most decisions lean towards short term benefits and long term detriments.

s_m_t 10y ago

I doubt this will get very far. It seems like it would open up a whole can of worms and completely subvert our entire system of law making. >She declared the facts of man-made climate change “undisputed,” and supported the plaintiffs’ challenge to hold national powers accountable for the damages caused by global warming. >Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.” So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back?

languagewars 10y ago
> So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back? How does that flow from these quotes? To be equivalent, you would need to prove that the tax rate is so insane that it has a substantial chance of killing you. Equivalent arguments for tax relief are in relation to poverty, medical costs, food and basic necessities, etc and generally win.
- s_m_t 10y ago
  They do? People have actually sued the government because their taxes were too high for their particular circumstance? I'm not trying to be facetious, I just don't know much about this topic.
  - languagewars 10y ago
    No, the same civil rights allow you to start a process to invalidate a tax completely and they are used that way all the time. Civil rights arguments have everything to do with why your laffer curve isnt optimal and we pay higher set rates so there are things that are completely exempt. Look at state sales tax exemptions as an example of people lowering their effective tax rate, but not the overall tax collected or the average benefit of government. It seems to me like you are trying to warp the discussion into every tool with a visible political outcome being equivalent and open to "democratic" systems. The republic is a tool for a specific purpose that is usually opposite of delivering optimal solutions to the majority. The democratic systems are supposed to deliver what you seem to want until they violate civil rights. If they dont for a reason other than civil rights, then your recourse is to petitition the republic to change the election process. But you cant make the republic actually care about your general tax rates or any other problems it allows the democratic process to handle, it can only make sweeping rules when parties are in violation of the core rules. The argument that the state is killing you is only significant if you can make it rationally, and a 10-99% tax isnt killing you unless it doesnt exclude the poverty level in its gradients and then you dont need to be the one being killed to make the argument. A 99% tax rate that can get 50% of the vote may indicate another failure though.

jakozaur 10y ago

Though I totally agree with cause, I find USA system suing your government/municipal/etc. a weird system. 1. Law works mostly well to enforce current system. E.g. There is law that you have to process my application in 30 days, but it was delayed by year and I lost something because of that. 2. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same. 3. The 2. case is very tricky. No doubt both sides will spend tons on legal fees, but outcome can be very arbitrary, not based on interpretation on current laws/. 4. This system most likely benefit the most lawyers, as the benefit from the ambiguity. Maybe we should accept the fact, that not all conflicts can be solved in court room? E.g. city can pass stupid law that doesn't make sense (e.g. ban AirBnB) and nobody got right to sue because of that. The only exceptions should be conflict with upper law (e.g. no city can ban minority or pass law not to pay federal tax). 5. Some of my misunderstanding is based that I'm used to civil law (we interpret rules passed by some government) vs. common law (law is based on individual cases that have precedential effect on future cases). However, I find that using it on government/state/municipal level is a stretch.

ryanlol 10y ago
>2. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same. It's used to contest laws that are believed to possibly be in violation of existing law. >3. The 2. case is very tricky. No doubt both sides will spend tons on legal fees, but outcome can be very arbitrary, not based on interpretation on current laws/. Huh? What's the outcome going to be based on if not on the current law? Unless you're specifically referring to common/civil law difference that makes no sense. >4. This system most likely benefit the most lawyers, as the benefit from the ambiguity. Maybe we should accept the fact, that not all conflicts can be solved in court room? E.g. city can pass stupid law that doesn't make sense (e.g. ban AirBnB) and nobody got right to sue because of that. The only exceptions should be conflict with upper law (e.g. no city can ban minority or pass law not to pay federal tax). It sounds like you're suggesting that cities should have significantly higher legislative powers not restricted by the courts? I must be misunderstanding, but in case I'm not... why?

pdonis 10y ago

What are these kids doing to develop non-CO2-emitting energy sources? Why don't they spend their time and energy on that instead? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that such lawsuits are justified, all they do is suck up resources that could be used for developing energy technologies to fix the problem.

chrischen 10y ago
Well that's the point. It's to suck up resources from the government spent on other things, and reallocate it to climate protection.
- pdonis 10y ago
  > It's to suck up resources from the government Instead of doing productive work themselves? That's what it looks like to me.
fsloth 10y ago
See todays Marrakech meeting. Turns out we have most technology solutions available to cut down CO2 considerably and all that is required is policy to implement them. Not research - not even productize - all of the suggested approaches are based on productized approches.
- pdonis 10y ago
  > See todays Marrakech meeting. Turns out we have most technology solutions available to cut down CO2 considerably and all that is required is policy to implement them. Can you give a reference for this? I'm not finding anything helpful on the conference website.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    Sorry, the references can be found under the title 'nordic green to scale'. e.g. http://www.greentoscale.net/en/events/climate-change/nordic-green-scale-marrakech http://www.greentoscale.net/en/events/climate-change/nordic-...

jasonjei 10y ago

These sorts of lawsuits are going to be necessary with the rise of Trump's EPA--or what should be called Coal Protection Agency. We're about to enter a brave new world of environmental governance, one that is led by a climate change denier and one that believes "global warming" is a Chinese plot to weaken our economy.

jschwartzi 10y ago
It's possible that he believes that global warming is a real phenomenon but that our treaties with the rest of the world place us at a major disadvantage.
- mark_edward 10y ago
  Then why would he say otherwise?
- mhalle 10y ago
  Modulo the fact that none of Trump's positions appear to be immutable, he has made numerous claims that climate change is a hoax (and also one that places the US at a disadvantage): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/...
- jasonjei 10y ago
  If he does believe global warming is real, why is he picking Myron Ebell, a Coal lobbyist, to lead the EPA? [0] He was quoted to say: "The whole case for global warming is silly, and I believe the vast majority of scientists thinks it's silly, and therefore I'm a little bit embarrassed that I waste my time on this silly issue." [1] [0] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron-ebell-the-climate-contrarian-leading-trumps-epa-transition/ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron-ebell-t... [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=-rSDUsMwakI https://youtube.com/watch?v=-rSDUsMwakI (at 9:13)
- Daishiman 10y ago
  Can we stop it with the whole thing where people play down the things politicians are explicitly saying that they'll do over and over again?

mzw_mzw 10y ago

What a ridiculous joke. "Kids" aren't suing anyone. Cynical adults who haven't been able to get their way through the democratic system are trying to ram their policy preferences through the courts, and they are abusing innocent children to do it. In a saner world, that judge would have called Child Protective Services.

Loic 10y ago

I am surprised by the very negative ton of the first 10+ comments. These kids are not kids any more. They are between 15 and 20. As a reminder, Lafayette was 16. They see an issue and act on it with the tools they have. When you have an issue with a piece of software, you look at the alternatives and possibly you act on the issue, you fix it. They do what you do as designer/software developer, just in another field. We need more people doing and less people complaining. Some may consider it stupid to sue, but if this is the only solution, why not?

calibraxis 10y ago
Evidence that HN is a right-wing capitalist site (like both US political parties): in a discussion of threats to humanity, an apparently highly-rated comment talks about paying too much in taxes. And fears that solutions to global warming will "completely subvert our entire system of law making." (Both of which are good things: not just markets, but the nation state system itself, are exactly what need disrupting. Those who drank the koolaid can't think past tight bounds even when future generations are at stake. Not everyone can escape to billionaire mansion compounds in New Zealand. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-manifest-destiny http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-man... )
- tajen 10y ago
  But there's a third explanation that doesn't imply it's right-wing capitalism: Maybe paying more taxes still doesn't solve global warming? A problem when I discuss global warming with colleagues is that they attempt to put me in one side (deniers) or the other (social-ecology), both of which don't match my views (In my case, I think tying social with ecology hurts both results, but the comment you're talking about has other ideas). So instead of judging and classifying this person, please dig into their logic and provide them with sources.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >Evidence that HN is a right-wing capitalist site You read a different HN than I do.
10y ago

eggy 10y ago

I am glad kids are taking action rather than just complaining, however, people can take personal action. The money for any pay out from a suit will most likely come from their future social benefits rather than the industries they are suing. Some personal choices to take action on: Buy local produce, and let your local supermarket or grocer know this. Educate others. It saves on all of the transport emissions from air or truck freight of goods. Cut back on electrical, and gas usage. Most homes I have visited in the US have multiple TVs, each family member has more than two computers, or smartphones and tablets. Car pool. Buy economy cars, not SUVs. Walk. Run. Cycle to work. Americans can sure use the exercise and diet changes. (DISCLAIMER: I am an American, born and raised). I was working physically 9-11 hours a day in Las Vegas, and cycling 6 miles to and from the construction site each day. Obese co-workers called me crazy. Then before Christmas 2009, I gave CPR to a 35 year old man with two kids and new born baby on the site, but he died before he hit the ground from a massive coronary. He had just arrived to work with Dunkin Donuts coffee and donuts in a bag and dropped. He stopped taking his heart medication his wife said. After being in SE Asia for 8 years, and returning to the US, my perception of just how obese Americans have become is striking. I have been living in the rice fields of East Java, so it is even more stark. I am a libertarian and mainly capitalist, so I don't wish any of this forced on anyone through legislation, and people are free to continue in their ways; I am just presenting some perceptions that might make people think twice about their lifestyles. They can choose what they want, but their are consequences locally and globally. For me, I have not felt healthier, and less stressed, and I will take these tools, perceptions and lifestyle choices back with me to the US. I went vegetarian 3 years ago, haven't drank alcohol in 7 years, and I run and exercise everyday. I know it might be harder when I get back, but I have built a solid foundation to continue there anyways. Big country-wide, policy changes need to be thought out economically, since we can only throw so much money and manpower at a particular solution. Some of the more rational choices may seem to go against feelings, and unfortunately, those who want the vote, vote for what makes people feel happier, not what's probably best for them and the country as a whole.

tajen 10y ago
> people can take personal action They can, but it won't help. Just watch Mythbusters to understand that things you don't consume will be consumed by someone else. When we need to divide our emissions by 10, people who make an effort won't offset people who don't. Carpooling won't help enough. Economy cars won't help. Renewable heating won't help. Wind turbines won't help. All of that together will never even divide your consumption by 2, plus since we save money by using less energy, we have more money available that we spend on other carbon-emitting products. We need everyone to take action, so that the ecologist worker isn't disadvantaged in his life compared to the meat/petrol/flight/wasteful worker. Let's look at the numbers: - Nature absorbs 3GtC per year [1] (Giga-tons of carbon. 1t of Carbon = 3.7t of CO2). - We'll be 9 billion people on Earth in 2050, so each human can emit 0.333tC per year (or 1.23t of CO2). The argument that some (USA) consume more than others (Philippines) is offset by the facts that the development of most poor countries is soaring (hear: China will access the consumer market just like USA) and the poor also use inefficient and polluting processes. - So our goal is 1.23t of CO2 (=0.333t of carbon) per person per year. We emit 22t of CO2 per year in USA, 9t in France, 5.5t in Romania and 4t in China. You can calculate the rate for yourself [3]. And that's only to come back to nature-reasonable footprints. If we want to offset the carbon that's already in the air, we need to make even more effort. So the effort in every industrialized country is to divide our emissions by ~10, which is unreachable by simple personal action. [1] https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/quota_GHG.html https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/... [2] http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_footprint_of_nations/ http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_fo... [3] http://www.carbonindependent.org/ http://www.carbonindependent.org/ - Carbon footprint calculator Since you too believe in the power of markets, a huge tax on carbon will advantage those who emit fewer CO2 and will be much easier to manage for corporations than any regulation. It has to be offset by lowering other taxes, so we don't increase the global tax pressure on the economy. It just has to be high enough so that all the cost of global warming weighs on CO2 emitters only, which probably means some types of jobs (e.g. half of car factories) belong to the past. But it's either that, or a global warming that creates such pressure on our civilizations that we might live in endless wars.

skoczymroczny 10y ago

If they want to sue someone, they'd have to definitely prove it exists and is human caused, this could be interesting.

woliveirajr 10y ago

It makes me worry when people think that "Government" is something unrelated to people, like it was an alien structure that just arrived in his country. In democracies, I mean. Because, you know, it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives.

lemming 10y ago
What they haven't had recently is the option to vote in anyone who'll take climate change very seriously.
- vixen99 10y ago
  Many (actually millions of) people take it very seriously, particularly those who thanks to de-industrialisation, will likely lose their jobs, sink back into poverty or give up hope of rising out of it and of course those in northern hemisphere who suffer massively or die from not being able to warm themselves. Doubtless you think the alternative is armageddon. I get that. But when people read that the <official> estimates of global temperature reduction are of an order too little to detect in return for massive global pain by those least able to avoid it (with consequent enrichment by some of the rest of us), one wonders why the case made for that scenario is not more persuasive to people like Judith Curry for instance (and many other well informed authorities). As a specific recent example: to suggest she'd risk the future of mankind on Earth for the chance of preferment in Trump's administration, as has been suggested is beyond satire.
amelius 10y ago
> Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives. So not much incentive for long-term policies.
privong 10y ago
> it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives. You're correct if the government rules/laws are all made by the representatives. But a substantial amount of regulation is established or defined in detail by non-elected government employees. So, in many cases, waiting for a change in representatives won't change the status quo. This is in large part due to Congress abdicating their rule-making role and handing it to the executive branch. Sure, electing the "right" set of congresspeople should fix that, but it hasn't, and it's been on a downward trend of the past decade or two? One example is the NSA surveillance. You should be able to sue the government to stop it if you think it's unconstitutional. We've now 2 congressional elections since the first Snowden revelations and congress still seems to be generally in support of the surveillance. So citizens need another avenue to protect themselves from laws and regulations which they feel to violate their rights.

WalterBright 10y ago

A carbon tax initiative was on the ballot in (very blue) Washington State, but sadly went down in flames. Which is strange considering how blue the state is. A carbon tax is one of the best ways to address CO2 pollution.

tajen 10y ago
This. A carbon tax avoids creating a million regulations for every place where we could save energy, because companies who spend too much carbon will just have fewer money to keep going, and you'd just have to compare the price of things to know which ones are less ecologic. Besides, the tax can be used for ecologic projects, or can be used to reduce other taxes. But every time I try to explain it in France, I'm answered "But you don't realize! Poor people won't be able to afford a car or meat and they'll be the first ones to go bankrupt!". Which is why I say: Fusionning socialism and ecology in France, where all ecologist groups are leftish, badly hurts their work. A right-wing ecology who isn't adverse to capitalism would come up with a CO2 tax with success and actually do something against global warming.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  > Poor people won't be able to afford a car or meat and they'll be the first ones to go bankrupt A good solution to that would be to payout all of the proceeds of the carbon tax split evenly between everyone. That way people with below average carbon emissions will actually end up with more money than they had before, though they would still be incentivized to emit less.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    The idea was to couple it with a sales tax reduction, and sales tax is usually characterized as regressive (disproportionately affecting the poor).
joegosse 10y ago
The initiative wasn't so simple. In addition to the carbon tax, it included a reduction in the state sales tax, with the net result being an overall reduction in tax revenue for the state. With social services and education already underfunded (at least in people's minds), this was a difficult tradeoff to make. My sense was that the initiative was formulated to appeal to two different groups of voters but in doing so ended up alienating both.

amelius 10y ago

I also like the approach of Polly Higgins, who is trying to make the Earth a legal entity with her own fundamental rights, which can be defended in a court of law [1]. [1] http://pollyhiggins.com/ http://pollyhiggins.com/

mzw_mzw 10y ago
Since the Earth is a nonsentient ball of rock and dirt, who will be given the unaccountable political power to represent it in the legal system? Whaaaaaaat? Higgins, and people who agree with her political views, will be given that power? Smack my head, what are the odds!

slicktux 10y ago

Just being critical here: This still seems like a valid statement: "Their opposition was based on a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.”" It seems like the new judge ruled for it because, “[their] action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.”, emphasis on constitutional right to life and liberty. Although that may be true, I am having trouble seeing as to how this may pertain solely to the Federal Government; It is possible to amend the constitution with an environmental specific amendment, but it would have to go through the legislative branch; I see nothing wrong with that. But looking at article 1 section 8 of the constitution, I do not see as to how this solely pertains to the Federal Government alone? Keep in mind that this country is a democratic republic and not a democracy; the federal government should be subject to the states rule, not an entity on its own.