Young Americans lead the way in climate court case
Federal judge throws out claim the government is not to blame for dangerous levels of climatechange causing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Much has been made in recent weeks of the gun reform advocacy of the school shooting survivors in Parkland, Florida.
A development in a California lawsuit this week serves as a reminder that young people in the US aren’t just taking on the government over gun reform, they are also confronting it over climate change.
In 2015, 21 plaintiffs aged 10 to 21 filed a law suit in Oregon federal court against the Obama administration.
The case, Julian v US, alleged the US government violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property by causing or contributing to dangerous levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the pollutant that scientific consensus holds responsible for climate change.
This week, an appeals court ruled against the government in its attempt to have the case thrown out.
Specifically, the administration argued the plaintiffs had not established that the government caused the plaintiffs’ harm, that the plaintiffs had no constitutional "right" to an atmosphere with stable C02 levels, that any harm the plaintiffs had suffered wasn’t personal or individual (so not a proper basis for a law suit), and that the plaintiffs hadn’t shown any causation between government action (or inaction) and C02 levels.
The government also argued that its burden relating to "discovery" (the provision to the opposing party of documents and materials relevant to the case) was too high because plaintiffs sought sensitive government documents reaching as far back as the Lyndon Johnson administration.
Because the government lost all of these arguments, the case now returns to the lower court where a trial date will eventually be set.
The lawsuit is the first of its kind. It alleges deliberate indifference over a period of 50 years by the President, the Department of State, the Environmental Protection Agency and various other agencies and individuals, for knowing that rising carbon dioxide levels were having a deleterious effect on air, water, and climate, and doing nothing to curb them.
It is comprehensive, and it is damning.
The teens cite a 1965 report acknowledging that protecting the land, water and air of the United States is the responsibility of the federal government.
They then point to a 1990 report showing that the government knew then, nearly 30 years ago, that C02 levels in the atmosphere had to be stabilised because of its warming effect, and that a swift transition away from fossil fuels was necessary.
Essentially, the plaintiffs allege that the government had all the information it needed at its fingertips – most of which it commissioned – to determine that preserving America’s air, water, and land required the phase-out of carbon pollution.
Instead, they argue, the government continued to permit, authorise, and subsidise the extraction, development, consumption and export of fossil fuels.
They seek immediate action by the government to halt these actions.
They argue that by 2100, at which time many of them will still be alive, they will have to live in a climate that is no longer conducive to their survival because of acidic oceans, droughts, forest fires, sea level rise, salinification of fresh water aquifers, and frequent hurricanes and floods.
They want the court to force the government to prepare a consumption-based inventory of US carbon dioxide emissions, implement a national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions, and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.
For the incredibly troubling tale of indifference woven by the plaintiffs, their chances of success are fairly low. The current administration – which took over the legal defence from the Obama administration – has claimed that case is based on "utterly unprecedented legal theories." The administration is right. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a guarantee to clean air or water, and never has a lawsuit sought to punish and halt government policymaking stretching back five decades.
That said, this lawsuit may move the needle somewhat in broadening the way Americans view their rights against government. It may also inspire other young people, both in the US and abroad, to take a stand to protect the Earth for their children’s children, even if it’s a long shot.
Here’s hoping it does.