Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 95 posts

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

#81

Post by bzbarsky »

WalterBright wrote: post #34

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.

I found http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-wash... very helpful in understanding some of what was going on with this ballot initiative, and in particular why the environmentalist establishment opposed it. That opposition explains some of the strange outcome.

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

#82

Post by mzw_mzw »

amelius wrote: post #44

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/

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!

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

#83

Post by WalterBright »

bzbarsky wrote: post #80
joegosse wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?

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).

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

#84

Post by WalterBright »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #70
tajen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 answ…

> 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.

The idea was to couple it with a sales tax reduction, and sales tax is usually characterized as regressive (disproportionately affecting the poor).

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

#85

Post by Daishiman »

jschwartzi wrote: post #61
jasonjei wrote: post #12

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.

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.

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?

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

#86

Post by awful »

croon wrote: post #30
akerro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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…

Government is supposed to be for the people by the people, and protect our common shared interests, as you say, such as resources (public trust, inherited from very old common law). This is the very angle the kids are coming from; and I suggest they will win at some point, maybe not today but soon enough as they represent all people yet to come, and since they are alreay present would have "standing".

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

#87

Post by [deleted] »

stinos wrote: post #47
akerro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I feel your wrath, all your points are things which should be addressed and the amount of people not giving a single f are legion. But saying government didn't create this is too short-sighted: - they at least have a part in it. Just take your 'people who decide to use cars' argument: in countries like Belgium where it is, simply explained, more economical for a company to lease cars and give them to employees than t…

[deleted]

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

#88

Post by eggy »

greeneggs wrote: post #76
eggy wrote: post #21

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 ai…

> 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. This doesn't make much sense intuitively, and a quick Google search seems to confirm that most of the environment impact of produce comes from the growing efficiency and production methods, not from its transportation. Feel-good measures that do very l…

I should have been more clear on what I meant by 'local produce':

Local, or US Feta cheese, not imported from Greece. California pistachios, not Turkish. USA/NJ tomatoes, not from Holland or elsewhere. Farmer's markets.

Every little bit helps, and it is not like you are taking any austerity measure between Greek or US Feta for example. People rely too much on government to legislate intelligence. Emergent properties arise out of local, individual changes in behavior or choices. Yes, government matters, but it does start with individuals.

As far as growing efficiency and production, the US both imports and exports more food than any other country. We are very efficient at growing subsidized crops like corn. Why don't we stop the subsidies and grow more variety with the same efficiency? Less exporting, which is primarily due to an abundance in the US due to subsidies, would certainly trim the carbon footprint. The US exports $149 Trillion worth of food!

Agreed on beef, and all the sugar in the American diet in the form of corn syrup and others.

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

#89

Post by eggy »

tajen wrote: post #55
eggy wrote: post #21

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 ai…

> 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…

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.

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

#90

Post by languagewars »

s_m_t wrote: post #32
languagewars wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

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.

Post reply on HN