Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
motherboard.vice.com
Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
1–10 of 95 posts
Re: Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
#2Hey. I live there!
But seriously, this could be a big deal.
Re: Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
#3I 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?
Re: Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
#4Nice idea. Conservative attention seekers could sue over inherited debt.
Re: Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
#5Nice idea. Conservative attention seekers could sue over inherited debt.
Can we sue the government for not funding Social Security properly thus making future generations work more years?
Re: Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
#6I 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?
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.
Re: Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
#7I 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?
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).
Re: Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
#8I 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?
Re: Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
#9Though 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.
Re: Kids Win the Right to Sue the US Government Over Climate Change
#10What 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.