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

81–90 of 173 posts

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

#81

Post by Aachen »

Aerroon wrote: post #64
lame-robot-hoax wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

Why are you so eager to live at the cost of earth's future? Even if food prices were to double (I don't see why it would, unless you measure it only by specific high-impact products such as authentic lamb) to transition away from the destruction of the habitat we depend on (planet A), that seems like a better option than continuing on a path to reversal of what we've achieved in the last century (from 60% in extreme poverty to 10%, despite going from 2 to 8 billion inhabitants)

I understand change is scary, or maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that. Either way, I would suggest to look at the options for the future and see that we have good alternatives for most things already. Change doesn't have to be scary and I only care what people do after having had a chance to learn what impact their choices have

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

#82

Post by phpisthebest »

e40 wrote: post #68
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.

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

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 as no longer caring about balancing public liberty, property rights, or economic interests in their zealous often extremist pursuit of regulatory control over all aspects of anything remotely connected to their purview.

In short the EPA like most federal agencies routinely abuse their authority, invent new authority from thin air, and over all make the lives of every day people miserable who just want to build a home, a business or simply live their lives.

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

#83

Post by ROTMetro »

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.…

And that is why we have a balance. The legislature can change the law to be more explicit if they don't like the judicial interpretation. Our system ONLY works if judges have this power.

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

#84

Post by undersuit »

shadowtree wrote: post #19

From a logical perspective, Montana now needs to declare war on China and India. The US' CO2 emissions have been falling for a long time, now at levels of the 1950s. Pritzker's nuclear ban also means Montana invading a fellow state.

Montana can start at home. Our government recently approved Northwest Energy's purchase of a coal plant after Washington and Oregon companies divested because of climate policies from their home states.

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

#85

Post by ROTMetro »

hash872 wrote: post #59
Supermancho wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Our court system is already constitutionally violatingly too slow (but we overlook it because who cares about the constitution nowadays) but yes lets change cases to have 15 judges that ought to be a workable solution. Or wait, we can have an appeals court (that normally has three judges hear an appeal) that though slow at least moves. I can't imagine if the courts were 15 times slower (because the judges were all on one case). I can't imagine every po-dunk jurisdiction that can barely justify 1 judge having 15.

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

#86

Post by Sakos »

supernova87a wrote: post #72
quercusa wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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?

This is the important question. The constitution is very vague on this, how would it be enforced? You might as well invoke the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and ask the courts to rule on this. I am not sure this ruling will withstand scrutiny. (my other comment in this story)

This isn't something impossible to do. It's something that builds over time with precedence with cases like this. Just because the law isn't 100% explicit about everything that is or isn't allowed doesn't mean it's a bad law or too vague. Being vague is a feature, because who knows how things will change tomorrow or next year or in a decade. The spirit of the law is explicit, everything else needs to be decided by voters and the justice system as the law is tested over time.

I swear, all I see is people throwing up their hands and saying "but it'd never work!" It's worked repeatedly, or nobody would've ever bothered with a constitution.

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

#87

Post by worik »

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.

Myexperience is the opposite. Both my memory and my observation

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

#88

Post by worik »

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.

Burn tomorrow for cake today

Priceless

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

#89

Post by Aachen »

Aerroon wrote: post #70
satvikpendem wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 problem for the vast majority of people's supplies and thus emissions.

Believing that a majority of others aren't as benevolent as oneself is the only bar to that being possible. Took me a bit to find it again, but I think the technical term for this is worst-motive fallacy: "participants significantly expected the [other] to pursue a worse course of action than they would prefer themselves" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620954492

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

#90

Post by worik »

Aachen wrote: post #81
Aerroon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

Why are you so eager to live at the cost of earth's future? Even if food prices were to double (I don't see why it would, unless you measure it only by specific high-impact products such as authentic lamb) to transition away from the destruction of the habitat we depend on (planet A), that seems like a better option than continuing on a path to reversal of what we've achieved in the last century (from 60% in extreme…

> maybe you've done a lot of environmental harm in the past and don't want to acknowledge that.

Very unhelpful

Personal attacks like this make things harder for everybody

We must be kind, to make things better

Post reply on HN