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

61–70 of 173 posts

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

#61

Post by voisin »

supernova87a wrote: post #41

I am very interested to see how this may play out and whether it gets upheld (note this is just a district judge writing a single ruling). Or whether the remedy is either toothless, or unenforceable. Because the major barrier I see is, with the climate change problem in general, no one is able to concretely and incrementally connect someone's (tiny) polluting action to actual harm to someone far down the line. (for l…

> how would a law be enforceable if anyone could be sued for something that minutely adds to climate change, and their stopping their activity would produce no measurable effect on the claimant's outcome?

There is a remoteness doctrine that it can’t be so remote as to minutely add to a harm. And so this would limit claims to only large emitters, and then there would be a measurable impact on the outcome.

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

#63

Post by jacquesm »

stevenwoo wrote: post #38
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…

I post this a lot but it's a relevant but super long read/listen - Piketty at the end of a 45 hour long audiobook (Capital and Ideology with additional web resources - charts and data) concludes we cannot change our course ala the climate/economics without changing the national constitutions of all countries to incorporate some language like this to protect future generations from the current one, current property ow…

Yes, this is fairly obvious. The question is whether or not it will happen on a scale large enough to make a difference. These things are global in nature and you can't really solve global problems with local solutions, though you can create global problems with local activities. The level of coordination required is massive otherwise the hold-outs will be able to reap the advantages of not playing nice.

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

#64

Post by Aerroon »

lame-robot-hoax wrote: post #45
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.

Carbon externalities not being reflected in the price of a good is a bug, not a feature. It’s a market failure that needs to be rectified.

Sure, and it will come at the expense of your economy. Eg would the ranch mentioned in the article be able to survive if it had to account for this?

What will people's reactions be when you double the price of their food or gasoline?

I'd wager one of the reasons why America's economy does so well compared to Europe's is the much cheaper access to energy. For example, Lithuania pays twice the price for gasoline and almost 3 times the price for electricity, meanwhile income in Lithuania is less than half of US incomes.

People take a good economy for granted and are willing to trade it for many things. But then when the trade actually happens they will blame everyone else for the misery that results from it (eg "living wage" people).

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

#65

Post by klardotsh »

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.

to align with the *funding base

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

#66

Post by satvikpendem »

Aerroon wrote: post #27
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.

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.

Like you I also believe that the only way to get companies to listen is through money, not idealism, so by making renewables cheaper than fossil fuels (which thankfully is currently happening), companies will naturally use them over fossil fuels.

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

#67

Post by edgyquant »

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.

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...

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

#68

Post by e40 »

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.

This, exactly. Nixon created the EPA, after all. Now, that org is the incarnation of evil to the right.

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

#69

Post by e40 »

klardotsh wrote: post #65
kredd wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

to align with the *funding base

The voter base is led by the nose by the funding base. For both parties.

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

#70

Post by Aerroon »

satvikpendem wrote: post #66
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.

Like you I also believe that the only way to get companies to listen is through money, not idealism, so by making renewables cheaper than fossil fuels (which thankfully is currently happening), companies will naturally use them over fossil fuels.

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.
Post reply on HN