
Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change - kafkaesq
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/kids-win-the-right-to-sue-the-us-government-over-climate-change
======
Loic
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?

~~~
akerro
>but if this is the only solution, why not?

It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are
causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars and
get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route anyway,
people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution.

People who don't turn off lights (also TVs, computers) at their homes over
night. I met a lot of them, one of the dumbest excuse was... light bulbs break
if we turn on and off the lights frequently, so they were leaving 3x 100W
lightbulbs overnight, irony, they were working as council of Greenest Capital
of Europe :)))

People who burn coal and wood to heat homes, burn coal = more CO2, burn wood =
less forests.

People who don't recycle stuff - I'll just throw away that TV on a street or
drop from 2nd flow window for fun! Ha! People who buy new phones and computers
because that's a new fashion.

People who eat food that was grown in places were 10years ago we could see
amazon rainforests.

People are too lazy and it's too hard for masses to leave their comfort zones.

~~~
croon
> It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are
> causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars
> and get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route
> anyway, people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution.

This is what's wrong. The government is supposed to be the people. The point
of government is for people to steer people (as a collective) in the right
direction.

~~~
tunap
And yet the true power is the policy makers in governments and board rooms who
have(had?) the ability to incentivize and influence adoption of more
sustainable actions. These people make decisions every single day. Their
primary motivation? Profit for them and theirs. Their business models & the
global economy relies on people consuming & throwing shit away, thus creating
jobs, increasing production and, in turn, infinite quarterly growth... jusy
like a parasitoid or a cancer. The dichotomous messages is what irritates me
to no end with every "don't change habits, buy X to reduce your carbon
footprint" news piece run ad infinum every. single. day.

I don't have the answers and, luckily, I am not a policy maker or <hardware
maker> would be fined for deprecating 2 year old equipment, producers would
account for the residual effects of their products' existence after it's
usefulness expired, etc..

Now everyone run out and get in that Black Friday line to binge buy all those
new XYZs, they're so much newer than the last iterations!

------
woliveirajr
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.

~~~
privong
> 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.

~~~
couchand
I think this is a mischaracterization of the way government operates.
congressional representatives are not "abdictating" any role. They provide
guidance that is all too specific in many cases, because the legal standard
requires it. The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and
priorities, but it is a _good thing_ that the details of implementation are
left to agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical
knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives.

Your example of surveillance is completely misplaced. If, after the Snowden
revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to
be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it.

If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to
address the issue is the courts.

~~~
privong
> The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities,
> but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to
> agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical
> knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives.

This is true, but only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the
interpretation is reasonably unambiguous. Otherwise it effectively allows
agencies to write the law. But, yes, there's a gray area and where that line
is drawn is unclear. But the "we need to pass the law to find out what's in
it" of the Affordable Care Act is probably not how congress should operate.

> If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread
> surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American
> people are fine with it.

This is only accurate if people vote based on single-issues and/or if
surveillance is one of their top few issues. It's entirely possible for people
to be concerned about it but to be more concerned about military policy, the
economy, etc., and to vote on those instead.

> If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to
> address the issue is the courts.

That was exactly the point I was trying to make to the OP commenter. :)

~~~
couchand
"only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation
is reasonably unambiguous"

If this isn't the case a court can strike down the law as ambiguous.

"if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their
top few issues"

... but can't the same thing be said of any particular policy? if this policy
isn't as important as other policies, that's the public deciding that we're
fine with it. you and I as individuals may disagree, but this is the reality
we face. it's simply not going to get fixed through legislative action, until
and unless we are able to reframe the national conversation sufficiently.

~~~
privong
> If this isn't the case a court can strike down the law as ambiguous.

Yea, that's why I was arguing that being able to sue the government is a Good
Thing. I think we're basically in agreement...

~~~
couchand
ah yes, so you were. cheers!

------
eggy
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
> 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/...](https://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/quota_GHG.html)

[2]
[http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_fo...](http://carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/environmental_footprint_of_nations/)

[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.

~~~
eggy
I'll have to review all of it in more detail, but I still believe change
happens at the individual level including not spending the savings on other
carbon-emitting products. It's similar to emergence in self-organized systems.
Great, coordinated actions follow from simple, local rules or behavior or
action.

I fully understand wasted effort, like paper vs. plastic bags (as so aptly
argued in Guesstimation book), when you consume more gas driving to the
supermarket, and if you cut down on frequency of trips you offset the non-
issue of plastic vs. paper.

I do believe in both individual and societal action, however society is
construct of individuals, and ultimately action happens at the individual
level. Law suits seem to be counter to both your argument and mine. I don't
think they accomplish more than my suggestions. I am in great health now, and
I consume half the food I used to, and not the carbon-emitting heavy hitter
like meat and dairy anymore. I am an optimist, and I think if 100 million US
citizens cut their food consumption by quarter or half, it would be a
significant change on quality of life, society and carbon emission.

The power of markets for me is consumer-driven, not government mandated like a
carbon tax. Government cannot legislate intelligence or change, and to look to
government for this is part of the problem in my opinion. People need to take
a look at their lifestyles and choices.

------
s_m_t
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
> 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
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
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.

------
jasonjei
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
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.

~~~
jasonjei
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-t...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/meet-myron-ebell-the-
climate-contrarian-leading-trumps-epa-transition/)

[1]
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=-rSDUsMwakI](https://youtube.com/watch?v=-rSDUsMwakI)
(at 9:13)

------
tenpies
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
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.

------
WalterBright
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.

~~~
joegosse
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.

~~~
bzbarsky
As I understand it, the carbon tax proposal in Washington was supposed to be
revenue-neutral. Do you have a pointer showing it would come out revenue-
negative?

~~~
WalterBright
It was designed to be revenue neutral, but it's a bit hard to predict behavior
changes which will affect the result (and the whole point was to change
behavior).

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

~~~
ap3
Can we sue the government for not funding Social Security properly thus making
future generations work more years?

------
amelius
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
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!

------
jakozaur
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
>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?

------
slicktux
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.

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

------
mzw_mzw
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.

------
joshmarinacci
Hey. I live there!

But seriously, this could be a big deal.

------
pdonis
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.

~~~
fsloth
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
_> 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
Sorry, the references can be found under the title 'nordic green to scale'.
e.g. [http://www.greentoscale.net/en/events/climate-
change/nordic-...](http://www.greentoscale.net/en/events/climate-
change/nordic-green-scale-marrakech)

