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

161–170 of 173 posts

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

#161

Post by hash872 »

sophacles wrote: post #160
hash872 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, all 3 of these sentences are wrong. We do not have a 'balance' presently- the judiciary gets the final word in every situation. Your second sentence is inexplicable- literally no matter what laws the legislature passes, the judiciary can strike them down as 'unconstitutional'. Which is a completely vague term with no real definition. To answer your other response to me- the German judiciary works much f…

You keep saying the judciary gets the final word... but that's not right, no matter how often you repeat it. The judiciary gets the penultimate word. The constitution can be changed, there's an entire procedure for it, perhaps you should propose an amendment.

The US famously has the most difficult-to-alter constitution of any country. There's about 200 countries globally, political scientists generally agree we have the single most-difficult to change one. So sure, it's 'possible' in the same way that I could potentially make an NBA team, sure

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

#162

Post by sophacles »

hash872 wrote: post #161
sophacles wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep saying the judciary gets the final word... but that's not right, no matter how often you repeat it. The judiciary gets the penultimate word. The constitution can be changed, there's an entire procedure for it, perhaps you should propose an amendment.

The US famously has the most difficult-to-alter constitution of any country. There's about 200 countries globally, political scientists generally agree we have the single most-difficult to change one. So sure, it's 'possible' in the same way that I could potentially make an NBA team, sure

Any of the changes you're wishing for and proposing require a change to the constitution though, or worse. Are you suggesting that we should just jump to a straight revolution/civil war rather than try the existing process or changing the wierd cult-like culture that exists around the constitution? How can you know that the same cultish behavior around what the constitution says won't stick around with something new?

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

#163

Post by shadowtree »

triceratops wrote: post #138
shadowtree wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China in 2021 emitted 12,500 Mtons of CO2. The US in 2021 emitted 4,700 Mtons of CO2. The EU in 2021 emitted 2,700 Mtons of CO2. China emitted nearly as much CO2 than the US and EU combined. The US' CO2 output peaked in 2000, with 6000 Mtons, has been steadily declining ever since. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022

Good. Now add up all the emissions from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and tell us.

How is this relevant for policy decisions now? Build a time machine?

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

#164

Post by triceratops »

shadowtree wrote: post #163
triceratops wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. Now add up all the emissions from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and tell us.

How is this relevant for policy decisions now? Build a time machine?

It matters for fairness. You can't get China, or any other country, to agree on low-carbon policy if they think it's unfair to them. So it matters very much that the US and other developed countries do more than China, India or other developing countries. Even if developing countries are currently emitting more carbon than them.

We're not going to get China to agree to meaningfully lower emissions without doing proportionally much more ourselves. That's the reality.

Plus all those historical emissions are still around, heating up the planet, so we still bear responsibility for them. What you're advocating for is making the last guy to use the bathroom clean it up, when in fact many people have been befouling it for weeks before this guy even got there. And we have a pretty good idea of who those other people were and what they did. If the objective is a clean bathroom, I guarantee you pinning it on the last guy will not get it done.

At this point I put anyone who says "But what about China/India/Nigeria?" in the same camp as climate change deniers. It's just a different excuse to pass blame and guarantee nothing gets done, which is the point.

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

#165

Post by phpisthebest »

e40 wrote: post #158
phpisthebest wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I completely disagree that the EPA has been abusive. Proof?? Your comment is a prime example of cherry picking. I gave you concrete examples (fracking), so that you said I was "yelling at the clouds" speaks to your bias.

How about their massive revision of what "Navigable Waters" is

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/25/1178150234/supreme-court-epa-...

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

#166

Post by hash872 »

sophacles wrote: post #162
hash872 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US famously has the most difficult-to-alter constitution of any country. There's about 200 countries globally, political scientists generally agree we have the single most-difficult to change one. So sure, it's 'possible' in the same way that I could potentially make an NBA team, sure

Any of the changes you're wishing for and proposing require a change to the constitution though, or worse. Are you suggesting that we should just jump to a straight revolution/civil war rather than try the existing process or changing the wierd cult-like culture that exists around the constitution? How can you know that the same cultish behavior around what the constitution says won't stick around with something new?

The Supreme Court could at any time remove the ability of individual judges to issue a nationwide injunction against the federal government. Both Thomas and Sotomayor have made rumblings that they're considering it- it's the most nakedly partisan abuse of the judicial system today. More interestingly, Congress could- by the Constitution!- remove the jurisdiction of some courts to hear some cases. You can read more about jurisdiction stripping here- completely legal and as old as the republic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

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

#167

Post by deprecative »

Aachen wrote: post #93
deprecative wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that their parents and grandparents probably are the same folk that ensured a worse quality of life for them I'm going to side with the kids on this one.

To be fair, until about 1990 the problem was virtually unknowable if you weren't a climate scientist working on cutting edge research yourself or were in the board room of the oil company that apparently had this investigated and then chose to make the most of their remaining time. I can't fault two entire generations for greenhouse gas emissions from before then, and after it became common knowledge, I can understan…

To clarify, I wasn't specifically talking about climate change. I was speaking broadly on regressive, rug/ladder pulling policies that put us into the situation we're in now and will likely be until climate change near extincts us.

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

#168

Post by Aachen »

Aachen wrote: post #152
phpisthebest wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what you have personally done that was not "direct financial benefit to" yourself

That's a long list of things which I posted on this account before. Some of the things are taking the bus to work instead of a more convenient car, taking more expensive trains rather than flying, reducing meat consumption when the meat replacements, which should be much cheaper to produce, are often actually more expensive, taking part in protests, exclusively using refilled glass containers (Mehrwegglas) rather tha…

I don't know why I bothered

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

#169

Post by Aachen »

phpisthebest wrote: post #157
Aachen wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using government to artificially inflate prices on what you perceive to be a problem Literally the opposite of what I said > For my entire long long long life, people have been predicting the end of the world I never claimed that either, but at least this time I didn't say the opposite. Some people seem to think it's an extinction threat, but personally I expect civilisation to continue, even if half of us starve a…

>>If you still think we aren't causing climate change, I'm not sure there's a point talking about it. literally not what I said... or even implied >>similar to the end of the Mayan calendar or whatever end of the world events you're talking about I am talking about world ending predictions in the realm of climate change... There have been many, and continue to be many that if we do not "act now" it will be "too late"…

> world ending predictions in the realm of climate change... There have been many, and continue to be many that if we do not "act now" it will be "too late" these claims have been persistent since the 70's at least

Could you be any more specific?

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

#170

Post by shadowtree »

triceratops wrote: post #164
shadowtree wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this relevant for policy decisions now? Build a time machine?

It matters for fairness. You can't get China, or any other country, to agree on low-carbon policy if they think it's unfair to them. So it matters very much that the US and other developed countries do more than China, India or other developing countries. Even if developing countries are currently emitting more carbon than them. We're not going to get China to agree to meaningfully lower emissions without doing propo…

The climate is not about fairness, nature does not care.

We either agree on practical solutions at scale, or we don't.

Social justice is another topic.

Post reply on HN