71–80 of 173 posts
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…
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…
(The state and) each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. What is the _duty_ of each Montanan to improve the environment? What is the limit of a state in passing laws requiring action to enforce such duty?
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.
(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 enforceable as it gets tested up the judicial chain. (see my other comment in this story)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
very complicated issue as animal grazing also has tremendous environmental benefits
Can you provide some additional citations on this?
where I'm from the drive them down the highway on horseback and load them up on trains and drive them to the slaughterhouse. the land is kept similar to when however many thousands of bison roamed on it. as opposed to the nearby cities whose parks are overgrown with invasive brush or trimmed with petrol tractors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Killing them and eating them is not compatible with the environmental benefits of grazing
which does not attempt to qualify the disagreement at all.
> detailed how extreme weather has hurt her family’s ranch. Animal agriculture is also a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, dead zones, and habitat loss. Her family's ranch my not align with her fight against climate change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Nuclear Energy Advocate / Activist and author... Also has a new Documentary coming out about Wales and Wind.
>Presumably someone you are using as an example of someone who seriously suggests that we should burn more coal
Unlikely, he supports Nuclear as the resolution for Fossil Fuels.
Activist judge rules in favor of activist Youths, propped up by their rich Activist parents, attempting their best Greta Thunberg impression - sent from my iPhone
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…
What's crazy to me is how common this line of thinking was from way back. Thomas Jefferson was borderline obsessed with basically this same concept. There's a really excellent letter from Jefferson to Madison from 1789 describing the importance of usufruct. [1] My favorite chunk of this thing / the meat of the argument: > I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruc…
Reminds me of another famous quote from Jefferson. I wonder if describing things as "self-evident" was a personal favorite idiom of his or if it was just a common phrase back then. It seems like a fairly common phrase to me now, but it's hard to know if that's only because Jefferson popularized it.
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.
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.