Legal Victory for Climate Change Mitigation
This could be huge. My colleague Brian McGowan sent me this article on the legal aspects of global warming that begins: “In the first lawsuit to involve a planet, a U.S. Federal District Court judge ruled in favor of 21 plaintiffs, ages 8 to 19, on behalf of future generations of Americans in a landmark constitutional climate change case brought against the Federal Government and the Fossil Fuel Industry.
“The lawsuit alleges that the Federal Government is violating the Plaintiffs’ constitutional and public trust rights by promoting the use of fossil fuels. The Complaint explains that, for over fifty years, the United States Government and the Fossil Fuel Industry have known that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels causes global warming and dangerous climate change, and that continuing to burn fossil fuels destabilizes the climate system.”
Interestingly, the case turns on a very specific point: “Global warming may eventually hurt all of us, but it will hurt our children and grandchildren the most, so they have the right to sue.”
The tide is turning; it’s happening on a daily basis. And it’s happening because of people like you, me, and these 21 young people. Another reminder that we have far more power to change the world than we commonly believe.
This will be exceedingly interesting.
Craig,
I wouldn’t be holding any “victory” celebrations quite yet. All this Judge has found is that a constitutional argument may exist for the issues to be heard.
Even then the judgement relies upon some very dubious constitutional principles involving a court ability to interfere on a partisan basis in the legislative process, and more importantly seeks to grant the court power of redress not contained within the constitution and exclusively reserved for the legislative and executive branches.
A courts power of redress must be contained either within the constitution, or within the terms of an actual act. Redress under the common law is very difficult in the USA as several US Supreme Court rulings do not uphold the rights of courts to influence or supplant constitutionally valid legislation.
In a case such as this, the court would be asked to impose a political decision on the executive branch, along with policy not endorsed by any legislation, that’s simply beyond the power of the Judicial branch.
A judge can’t simply decide that because no law exists, he should create one ! That’s a right reserved solely for legislatures.
Judge Thomas Coffin has shown himself to be a very activist judge, whether his more conservative agree with his ruling is a different matter.
I wonder how such a successful case would have an impact on abortion law. It seems in both cases that we are trying to defend the rights of the unborn over those who are here and now.