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

51–60 of 173 posts

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

#51

Post by justrealist »

dqv wrote: post #33
denimnerd42 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very complicated issue as animal grazing also has tremendous environmental benefits

Wild animal grazing where we're not killing them and breeding more every year has tremendous environmental benefits. Killing them and eating them is not compatible with the environmental benefits of grazing: >Small numbers of grazers may be consistent with healthy ecosystems and have minimal greenhouse gas impact, but only if their populations stay within ecologically defined limits. https://newrepublic.com/article/1…

Taking as a given that we've eliminated 99% of natural predators, there's nothing inherently ecologically wrong with humans eating cattle instead of wolves eating bison.

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

#52

Post by freedomben »

> Across five days of emotional testimony in June, the youths made claims about injuries they have suffered as a result of climate change. A 15-year-old with asthma described himself as “a prisoner in my own home” when isolating with covid during a period of intense wildfire smoke. Rikki Held, the 22-year-old plaintiff for whom the lawsuit is named, detailed how extreme weather has hurt her family’s ranch.

The attorneys for the state apparently did not dispute any of the provided science (which scope I don't know). What I find interesting is, why? Do they accept it? Or did they choose not to to avoid political blowback from challenging the science in court?

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

#53

Post by phpisthebest »

triceratops wrote: post #32
phpisthebest wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> things that's used to stop windmills Why do you hate whales and birds? The environmental impact if windmills are pretty large >The article is that it's over fossil fuels, which sounds like the right target, MT has the largest coal reserves. Pretty sure that is target. The problem here like most of these things is the unintended consequences of these policies. Often they are only concerned with stopping the thing t…

If a windmill can chop up whales the freaking largest mammal on the planet, I wouldn't dare stand in its way. Let us submit to our windmill overlords forthwith.

Sound... not chop up. The sound is the problem

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

#54

Post by phpisthebest »

sophacles wrote: post #42
phpisthebest wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> things that's used to stop windmills Why do you hate whales and birds? The environmental impact if windmills are pretty large >The article is that it's over fossil fuels, which sounds like the right target, MT has the largest coal reserves. Pretty sure that is target. The problem here like most of these things is the unintended consequences of these policies. Often they are only concerned with stopping the thing t…

> 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...

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

#55

Post by polygamous_bat »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #34
Aerroon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would future price increases for all your goods be inspiring for young people? That's what you're going to end up with when you increase costs. People don't choose fossil fuels just because, they're chosen largely for economic reasons.

“Won’t someone think of the costs!” You know prices would be even lower if we let all our rivers and groundwater be polluted, right? Led piping was cheaper than alternatives too. Perhaps lower prices is not the all-important end you assume it to be?

Much easier to ignore the externalities if you know you will be dead by the time the bill comes due. Until them, more widgets for me!

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

#56

Post by voisin »

terminous wrote: post #4

I didn't realize how explicit the Montana state constitution was on this [1], which was rewritten in 1972: Part IX. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. (3) Th…

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.

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

#57

Post by sophacles »

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...

I don't know who that is. Presumably someone you are using as an example of someone who seriously suggests that we should burn more coal to prevent windmills, possibly by some argument about windmills killing birds and whales... an argument that ignores all the birds, whales, humans, and other animals killed by coal.

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

#58

Post by smolder »

pyuser583 wrote: post #18
wunderland wrote: post #2

This is the kind of thing that is inspiring to young people. Not watching a couple of billionaires experience weightlessness for a few minutes.

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.

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

#59

Post by hash872 »

Supermancho wrote: post #39
hash872 wrote: post #29

Unpopular opinion, really strong judicial review like this (1 judge is able to strike down whatever law the legislature of Congress passes based on vague criteria) is basically incompatible with democracy. At a minimum it should take a supermajority of a panel of judges to find a law 'unconstitutional'. It grants absolutely vast, arbitrary power to 1 single official because they happened to have attended law school.…

> At a minimum it should take a supermajority of a panel of judges to find a law 'unconstitutional'. Legal or moral correctness, is not usually limited to a single judicial decision. When it is, it's remarkable enough that we learn about it early in schooling. Just because a Judge ruled to strike down a law, does not impact democracy in any way. It's a legal maneuver that will be challenged both in another legal aren…

>It's a legal maneuver that will be challenged both in another legal arena and in the court of public opinion

It will not be meaningfully challenged in the court of public opinion, which is completely irrelevant to judicial decisions. If it'll be challenged in an appellate court.... why not limit decisions blocking the democratically elected legislature to a full appeals court of 15 judges, as opposed to just 1? One party can always find 1 extremely ideological 'judge' in East Texas to enjoin the entire country.

>These are the social frameworks that exist to protect against arbitrary bad actors and they matter.... Everyone can agree that judges need some leeway in making decisions that are in the best public interest

I do not agree, and you are not considering that the judges themselves may be making ideological policy decisions as opposed to 'the best public interest'. It may interest you to learn that several other developed countries do not have judicial review whatsoever- whatever the legislature passes is the law, full stop. (In Netherlands that's literally in their constitution!)

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

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

#60

Post by jwells89 »

justrealist wrote: post #51
dqv wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wild animal grazing where we're not killing them and breeding more every year has tremendous environmental benefits. Killing them and eating them is not compatible with the environmental benefits of grazing: >Small numbers of grazers may be consistent with healthy ecosystems and have minimal greenhouse gas impact, but only if their populations stay within ecologically defined limits. https://newrepublic.com/article/1…

Taking as a given that we've eliminated 99% of natural predators, there's nothing inherently ecologically wrong with humans eating cattle instead of wolves eating bison.

I believe the distinction here is scale. The rate at which natural predators killed bison is only a small fraction of the rate that cattle are killed for food.

If human livestock consumption were closely matched to natural grazer consumption, essentially acting as a 1:1 replacement, this argument makes more sense. I don’t think that’s been true for at least a century at this point though.

Post reply on HN