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

Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 173 posts

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#111

Post by e40 »

cooper_ganglia wrote: post #104
edgyquant wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wasn’t a switch. The Republican Party is still very much pro-conservationist. You are spewing talking points from their political enemies. https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/republicans-deliver...

I would consider myself pretty centrist, but I thought HN was a good place to get away from the thoughtless political vitriol that exists everywhere else. For a forum that's usually very well spoken, it's wild to see how quick people are to make claims about people and things they know nothing about. Political polarization really is going to destroy this country, damn.

Hmm. I looked for vitrol in the comment chain above you and found none. Perhaps you are the one bringing that attitude.

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#112

Post by Swenrekcah »

kredd wrote: post #50
mikestew wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the word you're looking for is "conservationism". The definition of conservatism has not changed. In fact, the wikipedia article for conservation calls out the ambiguity, right at the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_movement

He was referring to the political right in the states. Historically speaking, in 70s/80s, even Nixon, passed laws for conserving the nature, protectionism and etc. At some point there was a switch into “nah, screw the environment” to align with the voter base.

I think it’s more likely the case that the voter base behaviour has been rather successfully aligned with corporate interests.

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#114

Post by Aerroon »

Aachen wrote: post #89
Aerroon wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but will those companies actually stay in a place like Montana or would they just go... elsewhere? Rural areas aren't the most attractive places for business.

If you can have such laws and judgements, why couldn't other places? As more and more places outlaw bad practices, one could subsequently argue, it becomes increasingly lucrative to facilitate cheap fossil fuel usage. But look at how easy it is to do international trade with Russia before and after 2022: we can choose our partners and, while we can't force them, we can stop business from moving there, solving the pro…

>If you can have such laws and judgements, why couldn't other places?

Of course you can, but the playing field isn't level to begin with. Over the past century we've seen an increasing amount of urbanization happen. This causes issues such as constantly increasing housing prices, which make it into a good investment, which leads to more increases in housing prices. If you remove the reason for businesses to be in Montana, then some of them just won't be in Montana. They'll go where every other business is congregating to, because why wouldn't they?

Just look at the economic outcomes of "coal country". What you'll see is poverty. Climate action is important, but I have serious doubts on whether the people involved understand the kind of economic impact these decisions can have on the future of their state/city. Maybe they're rich enough that it won't affect them, but it's going to affect many.

You could say that "Oh, people will account for this and make sure that the poor people aren't affected," but then you look at eastern and western Kentucky. When the coal mines stopped hiring as many, the towns started dying out. What's left behind is poverty (by US standards).

I do think more needs to be done to stop climate change, but I would like to see people at least acknowledge the impacts it's going to have as a start.

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#115

Post by matthewdgreen »

supernova87a wrote: post #73
voisin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is sad that this kind of language would never be approved in today’s political climate. The GOP passed some historic environmental bills in the past and today it is unthinkable that they would even consider it.

I think this law/provision was passed at a time before there was a clear notion of CO2 from burning fossil fuels being connected to climate change, and they were thinking about more traditional pollutants/harms like logging and drilling oil. (In my opinion) This historic law/provision is not specific enough (or it does not create a novel enough kind of cause of action) for the climate change type of problem, to be en…

If the law had been intended to apply to oil drilling and specific pollutants, it would have named them. Or at least named specific types of pollution. Instead it appears to have been deliberately written broadly to capture a wide variety of forms of environmental degradation, perhaps including some not discovered at the time of writing.

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#116

Post by the_gastropod »

phpisthebest wrote: post #54
sophacles wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The environmental impact if windmills are pretty large. Do you have any citation for this? Any source that hasn't been debunked thoroughly? Has anyone not currently under multiple indictments for fraud ever suggested this in a serious way?

Is Michael Shellenberger currently under "multiple indictments for fraud" please cite those...

First, Shellenberger is not a scientist of any sort. He has a degree in Peace and Global Studies and another in Anthropology. Reading his writing, it's abundantly clear he doesn't understand the science he's writing about (as a hot tip for life: anyone claiming to have a tidy solution to highly complex and uncertain problems is both: probably wrong, and probably selling you something)

Like "Intelligent Design" practitioners, Shellenberger's work is not science. He starts with his conclusion in mind, and cherry-picks supporting evidence for it. And many of the things he cherry-picks are clearly in bad-faith and deliberately misleading. One such example, in his book "Apocalypse Never", he argues that climate change has no impact on fires, stating: "As for the Amazon, The New York Times reported, correctly, that the ‘fires were not caused by climate change.’" He cites this NYTimes article: [1] The entire point of the paragraph he snipped this quote from was the exact opposite. Here's the full quote:

> These fires were not caused by climate change. They were, by and large, set by humans. However, climate change can make fires worse. Fires can burn hotter and spread more quickly under warmer and drier conditions.

He's also just dead wrong about many things in this book. One easy example, he claims that "climate change so far has not resulted in increases in the frequency or intensity of many types of extreme weather". This is comically misinformed. There are countless peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the causal relationship. [2] [3] [4]

Shellenberger has a bad habit of either misunderstanding or purposefully misrepresents actual working scientists, while weirdly masquerading as if he is equally qualified. [5]

Is this criminal fraud? No. But Shellenberger seems like a grifter, selling the Breitbart crowd contrarian takes that they want to hear.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/world/americas/amazon-fir...

[2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920849117

[3] https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/101/3/E303/345043/...

[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-no...

[5] https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-sh...

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#117

Post by pseudalopex »

phpisthebest wrote: post #80
voisin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is sad that this kind of language would never be approved in today’s political climate. The GOP passed some historic environmental bills in the past and today it is unthinkable that they would even consider it.

Because the clear intention of the law is not what the courts are enforcing today. This is common in modern times where by original intent has no bearing to current "modern" interpretation of old laws. Sadly our founders predicted this would happen in away, Jefferson famously wanted all laws even the constitution to have a sunset of 19 years, requiring them to be debated and passed a new every generation.

What is the clear intention of the law?

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#118

Post by phpisthebest »

e40 wrote: post #110
phpisthebest wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe there is any justification for believing the EPA has gone far beyond the original intention for the agency created by Nixon? Do you believe the EPA of today is the same EPA that was founded in those days? or has the remit of the EPA like most federal agencies been expanded to the point of totalitarian control where by in many instances they are a detriment to their own stated goals, and certainly seen…

Relatively speaking, the EPA has pushed (in the wrong direction) the boundaries about 1,000,000x less than corporations have. We have PFAS everywhere (a recent HN article). Look at the list of superfund sites in the US. I think the EPA does far too little to protect us from cancer causing chemicals because politicians allow them to pollute. Fracking's 500 chemicals declared a proprietary: https://www.aafp.org/about/p…

Well that is a prime example of what about ism. I think one can hold the position that the EPA has been both abusive to every day American's when the abuse their authority to prevent home owners from building on their land because there is a beetle some where in the area (yes that is hyperbolic) while at the same time playing liability shield for large corporations that are harming these same home owners.

Yelling at the clouds saying "but what about the corporations" does nothing to refute my original statement

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#119

Post by phpisthebest »

pseudalopex wrote: post #117
phpisthebest wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the clear intention of the law is not what the courts are enforcing today. This is common in modern times where by original intent has no bearing to current "modern" interpretation of old laws. Sadly our founders predicted this would happen in away, Jefferson famously wanted all laws even the constitution to have a sunset of 19 years, requiring them to be debated and passed a new every generation.

What is the clear intention of the law?

Clearly not the abstract "harms" asserted in the case, where by one plaintiff has a medical aliment that was acerbated by COVID and because of that MT did not due enough for climate change.

Also the case was largely about individual "extreme weather" events that have no clear, direct link to MT pollution, and there is zero evidence to suggest that should MT suspend all their pollution today, right now, it would change anything for these young people.

The clear intention of the law was to preserve the land from direct, articulable harm such as chemical dumping, clear cut mining, deforestation, etc etc etc

Re: Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision

#120

Post by pyuser583 »

smolder wrote: post #58
pyuser583 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience is young people are rarely inspired by news stories. Of all news stories, the ones involving court cases are the least inspiring. This isn’t about a disadvantaged person overcoming adversity. It’s a bunch of suits sitting on a room.

You might surprised how a good teacher could inspire hope in teenagers over this, contrary to all the other signals that indicate doom and gloom in their futures. Global warming was already weighing on me in my teens when I'm in my 30s now. It's a much more visible issue now.

A good teacher can make soup exciting. Catching interest is 90% of teaching.

I’m in my 40s, and for a good chunk of my childhood overpopulation and resource scarcity were big fears.

It took me a like time to accept the global warming consensus, because that’s what happens when experts cry wolf.

This looks like an interesting case, but also very specific to Montana.

Post reply on HN