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

91–100 of 173 posts

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

#91

Post by HumblyTossed »

> The state began and rested its defense on the same day, bringing the trial to an unexpectedly early close on June 20. In a pivot from its expected defense disputing the climate science behind the plaintiffs’ case, the state focused instead on arguing that the legislature should weigh in on the contested law, not the judiciary.

Wait until the State starts making changes to make this true. I am glad the youth won... but they only won the battle. The greedy capitalists will win the war by getting people in office to change everything they need so that none of this matters.

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

#92

Post by delecti »

supernova87a wrote: post #73
voisin wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think this law/provision was passed at a time before there was a clear notion of CO2 from burning fossil fuels being connected to climate change, and they were thinking about more traditional pollutants/harms like logging and drilling oil. (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 en…

The connection between atmospheric CO2 and warming was actually identified as early as around the year 1900.

I wasn't around then to have a sense of the broad social awareness of things, but I've gotten the impression that the science was fairly obvious before the 1970s.

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

#93

Post by Aachen »

deprecative wrote: post #13
phpisthebest wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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 understand that society-wide transitions are genuinely hard.

However, I do fault most able-bodied rich people (almost everyone who's reading this is in the world's top 10%) for, after it became known, barely even trying beyond a direct financial benefit to themselves in the short term (like solar panels on an otherwise idle roof which will yield a net profit in a handful of years)

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

#94

Post by ticviking »

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…

The number of grazers that are needed to maintain a prairie or plains ecosystem is far higher than most people assume, and vast spaces in the US are becoming forested because of lack of wildlands management.

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

#95

Post by ticviking »

freedomben wrote: post #52

> 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 attorn…

Any time an activist organization presents evidence that the state doesn't contest I assume the whole case was set up by activists and the lawyers on both sides have an outcome that they both want but that democratic processes like election and debate won't create.

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

#96

Post by tromp »

> Attorneys for the state countered that Montana’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is small. If the law in question were altered or overturned, Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell said, there would be “no meaningful impact or appreciable effect” on the climate.

Of course many laws in many jurisdictions, nationally and internationally, need to be altered to have a meaningful impact. Just like many votes need to be altered to change the outcome of an election.

That's not an argument to leave all these climate affecting laws unaltered. Just like we want every single vote to be counted.

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

#97

Post by hash872 »

ROTMetro wrote: post #83
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.

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 faster with government actions, no reason the American one can't do the same. A lone judge could simply refer possible constitutional violations to the appellate court, which is totally free to issue an emergency declaration while it ponders the issue- courts do that every day

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

#98

Post by Aachen »

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.…

I used to wonder about that as well, but note that the ruling is based on democratically put-in-place legislation. If there weren't a solid basis, you take it to a higher court and get it overturned, or go to your representative and have a different law be democratically put in place

Judges apply laws, they don't cook them up fresh

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

#99

Post by asynchronous »

edgyquant wrote: post #67
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.

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...

People seem to forget hunters and fishers are still the biggest funding source for conservationism and are almost overwhelmingly conservative voters. But no, the people who live deep in urban jungles have the audacity to call them “environment haters”.

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

#100

Post by Aachen »

lostmsu wrote: post #20
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.

There are less severe actions than invading.

And more effective/efficient, if this were a serious discussion of options
Post reply on HN