THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 27, 2019 at 11:06 am
Paul Plante says:
We older folks in here are like a bunch of Rip Van Winkles who went to sleep and slept through the end of the Holocene, to wake up finding ourselves instead firmly into the Anthropocene, where everything we once knew about science concerning the earth is no longer true, and according to District Judge Ann Aiken, nominated by Bill Clinton and confirmed by the United States Senate on January 28, 1998, receiving her commission on February 4, 1998, “a climate system capable of sustaining human life” is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, so that if each of us now does not like the climate where we are, as long as we are children, we now have the right to sue the federal government for a new and far better climate which under our Constitution, the federal government has a duty to provide us.
If we are not children, then it is we older folks who are the ones being sued, since the United States Constitution begins with We, the People.
For those unfamiliar with the case, which is still pending in federal court, Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a climate justice-based lawsuit filed in 2015 that has been brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several of its executive branch positions and officers, also formerly including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump.
The plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children’s Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez’s organization Earth Guardians, and on behalf of future generations represented by climatologist James Hansen.
The lawsuit asserts that the government violated the youths’ rights by encouraging and allowing activities that significantly harmed their right to life and liberty, and sought the government to adopt methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The Oregon non-profit organization, Our Children’s Trust, was created by attorney Julia Olson to help formulate legal cases that could be taken against states and the federal government that would charge them with mitigating climate change under the public trust doctrine.
Olson established the non-profit with advice and assistance from Mary Christina Wood, director of the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the University of Oregon, who had been studying the concept of the public trust doctrine and established the idea of “Atmospheric Trust Litigation” to take legal action to make governments responsible for actions related to climate change.
That case was filed in August 2015 with the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, and was assigned to judge Ann Aiken, who was then the chief judge of the court.
The 21 youths, ranging from 8 to 19 at the time of filing, received pro bono representation from Our Children’s Trust, and had support of climatologist James Hansen, acting as a “guardian for future generations” in the case filings.
The youths were selected by Our Children’s Trust as they all were able to demonstrate immediate “concrete injury” due to climate change, such as having their homes wiped out by excessive flooding, rising sea levels, and desertification which were tied to climate change.
The case was filed against President Barack Obama and several agencies within the executive branch, and sought confirmation that their constitutional and public trust rights had been violated by the government’s actions, and sought an order to enjoin the defendants from continued violation of their rights and to develop a plan to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions.
Among their arguments, the youths’ attorneys asserted that the lack of governmental action on climate change discriminated against the youths’ generation, since they would be most impacted by climate change but have no voting rights to influence that.
So there we older folks who slept through the end of the Holocene only to wake up finding ourselves in the Anthropocene have it, and so it is no wonder, based on all of that, that “GRETA FEVER” is sweeping the nation as it is, now that having the climate where you live just the way you want it to be, 24/7/365, is a constitutional right, assuming you are under 18.
And if it were not for the continuing educational efforts of the Cape Charles Mirror with respect to this subject of our responsibility as adults to provide the children of America with a “GOOD ANTHROPOCENE,” which in turn requires a new politics with a new frame of world government in the form of universal social democracy based on the idea that the state should intervene in the economy to promote economic growth and technological progress, a goal of our Democrats and children that has been shared by a wide variety of economic theories and political ideologies to include European social democracies, third-world developmental states, and the East Asian “state developmentalist” models which are known as “state-led developmentalism,” so that we can achieve a “good Anthropocene,” which requires the globalization of modernity, liberal freedoms, material prosperity and the preservation of wild nature emphasizing gradual global improvements in life expectancy, gender equity and declining inter-state violence, we would remain totally ignorant of these important developments with respect to what our Constitution, formed during the Holocene, now means in the Anthropocene.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-212459
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 31, 2019 at 10:38 am
Paul Plante says :
The “GREAT STUPID” that is sweeping this land of ours and turning the minds of the American people into a formless mush is no longer confined to the pages of the pulp fiction rag, The Guardian; it has now been elevated up to and enshrined as LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States of America by judicial decree, and here I am talking about the United States Supreme Court which put its stamp of approval on this following horse**** decided November 2016 that is still pending somewhere in OUR federal court system:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,
Defendants.
AIKEN, Judge:
Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen (“youth plaintiffs”); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations.
Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies.
Plaintiffs allege defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide (“CO;’) produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia.” First. Am. Comp!
Despite that knowledge, plaintiffs assert defendants, “(b)ytheir exercise of sovereign authority over our country’s atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, … permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production,and combustion of fossil fuels, … deliberately allow[ing] atmospheric C02 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history[.]” Id
Although many different entities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, plaintiffs aver defendants bear “a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country” for exposing plaintiffs to the dangers of climate change. Id.
Plaintiffs argue defendants’ actions violate their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.
Plaintiffs assert there is a very short window in which defendants could act to phase out fossil fuel exploitation and avert environmental catastrophe.
They seek ( 1) a declaration their constitutional and public trust rights have been violated and (2) an order enjoining defendants from violating those rights and directing defendants to develop a plan to reduce C02 emissions.
Defendants moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Doc. 27.
Intervenors the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute moved to dismiss on the same grounds. Doc. 19.
After oral argument, Magistrate Judge Coffin issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) and recommended denying the motions to dismiss. Doc. 68.
Judge Coffin then referred the matter to me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Doc. 69.
Defendants and intervenors filed objections (docs. 73 & 74), and on September 13, 2016, this Court heard oral argument.
For the reasons set forth below, I adopt Judge Coffin’s F&R as elaborated in this opinion and deny the motions to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
This is no ordinary lawsuit.
Plaintiffs challenge the policies, acts, and omissions of the President of the United States, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation (“DOT”), the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).
This lawsuit challenges decisions defendants have made across a vast set of topics – decisions like whether and to what extent to regulate C02 emissions from power plants and vehicles, whether to permit fossil fuel extraction and development to take place on federal lands, how much to charge for use of those lands, whether to give tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry, whether to subsidize or directly fund that industry, whether to fund the construction of fossil fuel infrastructure such as natural gas pipelines at home and abroad, whether to permit the export and import of fossil fuels from and to the United States, and whether to authorize new marine coal terminal projects.
Plaintiffs assert defendants’ decisions on these topics have substantially caused the planet to warm and the oceans to rise.
They draw a direct causal line between defendants’ policy choices and floods, food shortages, destruction of property, species extinction, and a host of other harms.
This lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it.
For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.
The questions before the Court are whether defendants are responsible for some of the harm caused by climate change, whether plaintiffs may challenge defendants’ climate change policy in court, and whether this Court can direct defendants to change their policy without running afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-213667
Paul Plante says :
The “GREAT STUPID” that is sweeping this land of ours and turning the minds of the American people into a formless mush is no longer confined to the pages of the pulp fiction rag, The Guardian; it has now been elevated up to and enshrined as LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States of America by judicial decree, and here I am talking about the United States Supreme Court which put its stamp of approval on this following horse**** decided November 2016 that is still pending somewhere in OUR federal court system:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,
Defendants.
AIKEN, Judge:
Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs in this civil rights action are a group of young people between the ages of eight and nineteen (“youth plaintiffs”); Earth Guardians, an association of young environmental activists; and Dr. James Hansen, acting as guardian for future generations.
Plaintiffs filed this action against defendants the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies.
Plaintiffs allege defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide (“CO;’) produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia.” First. Am. Comp!
Despite that knowledge, plaintiffs assert defendants, “(b)ytheir exercise of sovereign authority over our country’s atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, … permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production,and combustion of fossil fuels, … deliberately allow[ing] atmospheric C02 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history[.]” Id
Although many different entities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, plaintiffs aver defendants bear “a higher degree of responsibility than any other individual, entity, or country” for exposing plaintiffs to the dangers of climate change. Id.
Plaintiffs argue defendants’ actions violate their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.
Plaintiffs assert there is a very short window in which defendants could act to phase out fossil fuel exploitation and avert environmental catastrophe.
They seek ( 1) a declaration their constitutional and public trust rights have been violated and (2) an order enjoining defendants from violating those rights and directing defendants to develop a plan to reduce C02 emissions.
Defendants moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Doc. 27.
Intervenors the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute moved to dismiss on the same grounds. Doc. 19.
After oral argument, Magistrate Judge Coffin issued his Findings and Recommendation (“F&R”) and recommended denying the motions to dismiss. Doc. 68.
Judge Coffin then referred the matter to me for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. Doc. 69.
Defendants and intervenors filed objections (docs. 73 & 74), and on September 13, 2016, this Court heard oral argument.
For the reasons set forth below, I adopt Judge Coffin’s F&R as elaborated in this opinion and deny the motions to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
This is no ordinary lawsuit.
Plaintiffs challenge the policies, acts, and omissions of the President of the United States, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Transportation (“DOT”), the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”).
This lawsuit challenges decisions defendants have made across a vast set of topics – decisions like whether and to what extent to regulate C02 emissions from power plants and vehicles, whether to permit fossil fuel extraction and development to take place on federal lands, how much to charge for use of those lands, whether to give tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry, whether to subsidize or directly fund that industry, whether to fund the construction of fossil fuel infrastructure such as natural gas pipelines at home and abroad, whether to permit the export and import of fossil fuels from and to the United States, and whether to authorize new marine coal terminal projects.
Plaintiffs assert defendants’ decisions on these topics have substantially caused the planet to warm and the oceans to rise.
They draw a direct causal line between defendants’ policy choices and floods, food shortages, destruction of property, species extinction, and a host of other harms.
This lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it.
For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.
The questions before the Court are whether defendants are responsible for some of the harm caused by climate change, whether plaintiffs may challenge defendants’ climate change policy in court, and whether this Court can direct defendants to change their policy without running afoul of the separation of powers doctrine.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-213667
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 31, 2019 at 7:19 pm
Paul Plante says:
Now, let’s be absolutely clear here, people, as to the GAME being played on We, the American People with this above federal court decision which names each and every one of us over the age of 18 as the DEFENDANTS, given that there is no other United States of America to sue than We, the People, this as if we were all a bunch of absolutely witless fools, by the federal court and the Obama administration before Hussein left the White House, to rig a federal lawsuit in such a manner that a federal judge would be forcing us back into the Paris Agreement, because Plaintiffs’ allegation that defendant Obama or the federal government for that matter, had known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia,” is demonstrably FALSE, which is something any high school student with access to GOOGLE could readily prove!
And yet, the Obama administration let that falsehood stand as truth and fact, which means that Obama TOOK A DIVE, and stood by a patent lie which has now been enshrined as LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States of America, so that today, even though we all know it to be PATENTLY FALSE that Obama and the federal government had known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia,” nonetheless, we are now forced by this federal court decision to have to believe a GREAT BIG LIE, which takes us to this from that decision, to wit:
Plaintiffs assert defendants’ decisions on these topics have substantially caused the planet to warm and the oceans to rise.
end quotes
That was a softball pitch that the Obama administration could easily have smacked right out of the stadium with the greatest of ease, because while the allegation can be asserted, there is no way the plaintiff’s could ever prove it with factual evidence, and yet the Obama administration kept the bat on its shoulder and let itself be struck out, but who Hussein SOLD OUT with that failure to stand up to this patent nonsense was US, We, the American People who as a result of Obama TAKING A DIVE have been held responsible for climatic harm done to these children plaintiffs, which takes us next to this:
They draw a direct causal line between defendants’ policy choices and floods, food shortages, destruction of property, species extinction, and a host of other harms.
end quotes
And no, people, the truth is, they really didn’t, because that alleged “direct causal line” does not exist, except in their dreams, so that is pure fantasy thinking and horse****, EXCEPT, the Obama administration laid down and merely whimpered like a whipped cur, and let the lie stand as fact and truth, which takes us to this:
This lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it.
For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.
end quotes
And for the record, those facts in reality are very much in dispute, but because of this federal lawsuit and the duplicity of the Hussein Obama administration, we in the United States of America are now constrained by the federal courts to have to believe a LIE and further, to teach our children and grandchildren that these lies, especially the whopper about the United States Constitution guaranteeing children in America a “healthy climate” as their constitutional right, are really truths, which is patently ridiculous as a friend of mine with five daughters under the age of 18 who were made aware of this lawsuit by their teachers has found out, and now there is a battle royal going on in his house because he only has a quarter-acre lot to begin with, and each of the daughters, not surprisingly, wants a completely different climate from all the others, and to top it off, the kid next door wants another climate indeed, which is driving this poor guy crazy, trying to figure out how the hell you satisfy your battling daughters who want five different climates on a quarter-acre lot.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-213753
Paul Plante says:
Now, let’s be absolutely clear here, people, as to the GAME being played on We, the American People with this above federal court decision which names each and every one of us over the age of 18 as the DEFENDANTS, given that there is no other United States of America to sue than We, the People, this as if we were all a bunch of absolutely witless fools, by the federal court and the Obama administration before Hussein left the White House, to rig a federal lawsuit in such a manner that a federal judge would be forcing us back into the Paris Agreement, because Plaintiffs’ allegation that defendant Obama or the federal government for that matter, had known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia,” is demonstrably FALSE, which is something any high school student with access to GOOGLE could readily prove!
And yet, the Obama administration let that falsehood stand as truth and fact, which means that Obama TOOK A DIVE, and stood by a patent lie which has now been enshrined as LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States of America, so that today, even though we all know it to be PATENTLY FALSE that Obama and the federal government had known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millennia,” nonetheless, we are now forced by this federal court decision to have to believe a GREAT BIG LIE, which takes us to this from that decision, to wit:
Plaintiffs assert defendants’ decisions on these topics have substantially caused the planet to warm and the oceans to rise.
end quotes
That was a softball pitch that the Obama administration could easily have smacked right out of the stadium with the greatest of ease, because while the allegation can be asserted, there is no way the plaintiff’s could ever prove it with factual evidence, and yet the Obama administration kept the bat on its shoulder and let itself be struck out, but who Hussein SOLD OUT with that failure to stand up to this patent nonsense was US, We, the American People who as a result of Obama TAKING A DIVE have been held responsible for climatic harm done to these children plaintiffs, which takes us next to this:
They draw a direct causal line between defendants’ policy choices and floods, food shortages, destruction of property, species extinction, and a host of other harms.
end quotes
And no, people, the truth is, they really didn’t, because that alleged “direct causal line” does not exist, except in their dreams, so that is pure fantasy thinking and horse****, EXCEPT, the Obama administration laid down and merely whimpered like a whipped cur, and let the lie stand as fact and truth, which takes us to this:
This lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or that human activity is driving it.
For the purposes of this motion, those facts are undisputed.
end quotes
And for the record, those facts in reality are very much in dispute, but because of this federal lawsuit and the duplicity of the Hussein Obama administration, we in the United States of America are now constrained by the federal courts to have to believe a LIE and further, to teach our children and grandchildren that these lies, especially the whopper about the United States Constitution guaranteeing children in America a “healthy climate” as their constitutional right, are really truths, which is patently ridiculous as a friend of mine with five daughters under the age of 18 who were made aware of this lawsuit by their teachers has found out, and now there is a battle royal going on in his house because he only has a quarter-acre lot to begin with, and each of the daughters, not surprisingly, wants a completely different climate from all the others, and to top it off, the kid next door wants another climate indeed, which is driving this poor guy crazy, trying to figure out how the hell you satisfy your battling daughters who want five different climates on a quarter-acre lot.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-213753
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE NEW YORK TIMES
"New York to Approve One of the World’s Most Ambitious Climate Plans - The state would pledge to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with all its electricity coming from carbon-free sources."
By Jesse McKinley and Brad Plumer
June 18, 2019
New York lawmakers have agreed to pass a sweeping climate plan that calls for the state to all but eliminate its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, envisioning an era when gas-guzzling cars, oil-burning heaters and furnaces would be phased out, and all of the state’s electricity would come from carbon-free sources.
Under an agreement reached this week between legislative leaders and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act would require the state to slash its planet-warming pollution 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and offset the remaining 15 percent, possibly through measures to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
If the state manages to hit those targets, it would effectively create a so-called net-zero economy, the ultimate goal of environmentalists and others seeking to slow the pace of global warming.
Many Democratic-led states have passed laws designed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, in response to the Trump administration’s sustained efforts to loosen or abandon environmental regulations on power plants and vehicles.
But New York’s bill, which comes amid a number of Democratic presidential candidates proposing net-zero targets for the United States, would set one of the most ambitious climate targets by a legislature anywhere in the world.
“This unquestionably puts New York in a global leadership position,” said Jesse Jenkins, an energy expert and postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University.
The challenges of reaching such goals are daunting.
New York has so far only managed to reduce its emissions 8 percent between 1990 and 2015, according to the most recent state inventory.
“New Yorkers are going to pay a lot for their electricity because of this bill,” said Gavin Donohue, the president of the Independent Power Producers of New York, whose members produce about three-quarters of the state’s electricity.
“There’s no doubt about that.”
There are also numerous questions about whether the energy, real estate and business communities can adapt by 2050, and how much it would cost to do so.
Business groups in the state had derided the bill as impractical and potentially disastrous for companies forced to move to green energy sources.
The bill requires New York to get 70 percent of its electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and hydropower by 2030 and shift entirely to carbon-free power a decade later.
But every corner of the state’s economy would need to become drastically cleaner, including industrial facilities, heating for residential homes and office buildings and the transportation system, including approximately 10 million cars, trucks and buses.
New York currently produces about 60 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources, mostly from hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants, with small amounts of wind and solar power.
To help meet its new targets, the state plans to erect massive offshore wind turbines, ramp up rooftop solar programs and install large new batteries to juggle all that renewable power.
But transportation, which makes up one-third of the state’s emissions, will be tougher to tackle.
The Trump administration is seeking to roll back federal vehicle efficiency rules and prevent states, like New York, from setting their own stricter standards.
And about one-quarter of New York’s emissions come from homes and commercial buildings, which typically burn natural gas or fuel oil for heating.
Most of those systems would need to be revamped to run on carbon-free electricity or renewable gas.
While New York City recently passed a law requiring its biggest skyscrapers to become more energy efficient, the new law could mean retrofitting thousands of buildings statewide.
For building owners to just comply with the city’s law, the estimated cost exceeded $4 billion.
“It’s going to be a major lift,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.
He noted that technology to curb emissions from certain sectors, like cement plants or airplanes, is still in its infancy.
To offset those sources, the state may have to pursue methods to remove carbon from the atmosphere, like tree-planting, wetlands restoration or carbon capture.
If the measure becomes law, New York would join California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Washington, who have all passed bills aiming to get 100 percent of their electricity from carbon-free sources — such as wind, solar, hydropower dams and in some cases nuclear power — by midcentury or sooner.
In September, Jerry Brown, then the outgoing governor of California, signed an executive order that set a goal of making the entire state’s economy carbon-neutral by 2045, though that has not been approved by the legislature.
Mr. Donohue, of the Independent Power Producers of New York, said that while the state’s bill had “some laudable goals,” there were not “a lot of details on how to get there.”
The bill, which was expected to come to a vote before the State Senate as early as Tuesday evening, is the latest and perhaps most far-reaching accomplishment for a newly elected Democratic majority in Albany, including a coterie of new progressive lawmakers for whom fighting climate change is a top priority.
The bill had previously passed the Democrat-dominated State Assembly on three occasions before bogging down in the Republican-led Senate.
But November’s blue wave changed the balance of power in Albany, even as climate activists began to demand action at the state level.
“This is going to change the way every New Yorker lives,” said state Senator Todd Kaminsky, the bill’s sponsor in Albany’s upper chamber.
“We are going to be deriving our power from clean energy sources, running our cars on renewable energy and going to work in buildings that do not emit carbon.”
It would also be the first major legislation from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s home state to embrace elements of the Green New Deal, including that plan’s emphasis on using environmental law to help low-income communities.
New York’s bill would funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into economically disadvantaged areas around the state, particularly those that have been devastated by pollution and other industrial byproducts.
For supporters, the bill added a measure of certainty that previous environmental orders by the governor did not.
“They don’t live and die on the whims of an executive,” said Peter M. Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York.
The bill’s passage would be the culmination of several years of activism by groups like New York Renews, a coalition of nearly 200 organizations, which repeatedly rallied in Albany and pushed policymakers to act.
Those officials included Mr. Cuomo, who said earlier this month that he had doubts about climate legislation that “put forward goals and dates that we cannot make.”
In a radio interview on Tuesday, however, Mr. Cuomo called the negotiated bill “the most aggressive climate change program in the United States of America, period.”
“I think climate change is the issue of our lifetime, frankly,” the governor, a third-term Democrat, said.
“And the legacy we leave our children.”
The bill codified several initiatives of Mr. Cuomo’s from earlier this year into law, including greatly increasing New York’s offshore wind goals, solar deployment and energy storage.
Supporters said the mandates handed down would likely require a vast work force to weatherize homes, swap out furnaces and install solar panels, and build wind farms and other clean energy infrastructure.
“This new law will spur the growth of green jobs across the state for decades,” said Julie Tighe, the president of the New York League of Conservation Voters.
But Greg Biryla, the New York director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said the bill offered few details of how small companies, working on small margins, would rejigger their manufacturing and other operations.
“There doesn’t appear to be a fiscal impact statement for something that aims to completely reinvent our state’s economy,” he said, adding it would inevitably lead to companies migrating elsewhere.
“This just makes other states that much more attractive for investment.”
The nuts and bolts of how to implement the plan would be left to a 22-person “climate action council” comprising top state officials, covering an array of topics like health, economic development, energy, labor and the environment, and advised by smaller working groups with expertise in everything from land use to forestry.
The council would be required to issue recommendations for how to meet the goals in two years, after which the state’s regulatory agencies would issue rules to compel industries and residents to meet the standards outlined in the bill.
Alphonso David, the counsel to Mr. Cuomo, said that while the aggressive goals might lead to measures to curb gas-powered cars or inefficient furnaces, there was no knowing how exactly the state would get there.
“There’s new technology we are discovering every single day,” said Mr. David.
“We may be talking about a very different world in terms of how we think about cars, how we think about airplanes and how we think about gasoline.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyre ... es-ny.html
"New York to Approve One of the World’s Most Ambitious Climate Plans - The state would pledge to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with all its electricity coming from carbon-free sources."
By Jesse McKinley and Brad Plumer
June 18, 2019
New York lawmakers have agreed to pass a sweeping climate plan that calls for the state to all but eliminate its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, envisioning an era when gas-guzzling cars, oil-burning heaters and furnaces would be phased out, and all of the state’s electricity would come from carbon-free sources.
Under an agreement reached this week between legislative leaders and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act would require the state to slash its planet-warming pollution 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, and offset the remaining 15 percent, possibly through measures to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
If the state manages to hit those targets, it would effectively create a so-called net-zero economy, the ultimate goal of environmentalists and others seeking to slow the pace of global warming.
Many Democratic-led states have passed laws designed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, in response to the Trump administration’s sustained efforts to loosen or abandon environmental regulations on power plants and vehicles.
But New York’s bill, which comes amid a number of Democratic presidential candidates proposing net-zero targets for the United States, would set one of the most ambitious climate targets by a legislature anywhere in the world.
“This unquestionably puts New York in a global leadership position,” said Jesse Jenkins, an energy expert and postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University.
The challenges of reaching such goals are daunting.
New York has so far only managed to reduce its emissions 8 percent between 1990 and 2015, according to the most recent state inventory.
“New Yorkers are going to pay a lot for their electricity because of this bill,” said Gavin Donohue, the president of the Independent Power Producers of New York, whose members produce about three-quarters of the state’s electricity.
“There’s no doubt about that.”
There are also numerous questions about whether the energy, real estate and business communities can adapt by 2050, and how much it would cost to do so.
Business groups in the state had derided the bill as impractical and potentially disastrous for companies forced to move to green energy sources.
The bill requires New York to get 70 percent of its electricity from renewable sources like wind, solar and hydropower by 2030 and shift entirely to carbon-free power a decade later.
But every corner of the state’s economy would need to become drastically cleaner, including industrial facilities, heating for residential homes and office buildings and the transportation system, including approximately 10 million cars, trucks and buses.
New York currently produces about 60 percent of its electricity from carbon-free sources, mostly from hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants, with small amounts of wind and solar power.
To help meet its new targets, the state plans to erect massive offshore wind turbines, ramp up rooftop solar programs and install large new batteries to juggle all that renewable power.
But transportation, which makes up one-third of the state’s emissions, will be tougher to tackle.
The Trump administration is seeking to roll back federal vehicle efficiency rules and prevent states, like New York, from setting their own stricter standards.
And about one-quarter of New York’s emissions come from homes and commercial buildings, which typically burn natural gas or fuel oil for heating.
Most of those systems would need to be revamped to run on carbon-free electricity or renewable gas.
While New York City recently passed a law requiring its biggest skyscrapers to become more energy efficient, the new law could mean retrofitting thousands of buildings statewide.
For building owners to just comply with the city’s law, the estimated cost exceeded $4 billion.
“It’s going to be a major lift,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.
He noted that technology to curb emissions from certain sectors, like cement plants or airplanes, is still in its infancy.
To offset those sources, the state may have to pursue methods to remove carbon from the atmosphere, like tree-planting, wetlands restoration or carbon capture.
If the measure becomes law, New York would join California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Washington, who have all passed bills aiming to get 100 percent of their electricity from carbon-free sources — such as wind, solar, hydropower dams and in some cases nuclear power — by midcentury or sooner.
In September, Jerry Brown, then the outgoing governor of California, signed an executive order that set a goal of making the entire state’s economy carbon-neutral by 2045, though that has not been approved by the legislature.
Mr. Donohue, of the Independent Power Producers of New York, said that while the state’s bill had “some laudable goals,” there were not “a lot of details on how to get there.”
The bill, which was expected to come to a vote before the State Senate as early as Tuesday evening, is the latest and perhaps most far-reaching accomplishment for a newly elected Democratic majority in Albany, including a coterie of new progressive lawmakers for whom fighting climate change is a top priority.
The bill had previously passed the Democrat-dominated State Assembly on three occasions before bogging down in the Republican-led Senate.
But November’s blue wave changed the balance of power in Albany, even as climate activists began to demand action at the state level.
“This is going to change the way every New Yorker lives,” said state Senator Todd Kaminsky, the bill’s sponsor in Albany’s upper chamber.
“We are going to be deriving our power from clean energy sources, running our cars on renewable energy and going to work in buildings that do not emit carbon.”
It would also be the first major legislation from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s home state to embrace elements of the Green New Deal, including that plan’s emphasis on using environmental law to help low-income communities.
New York’s bill would funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into economically disadvantaged areas around the state, particularly those that have been devastated by pollution and other industrial byproducts.
For supporters, the bill added a measure of certainty that previous environmental orders by the governor did not.
“They don’t live and die on the whims of an executive,” said Peter M. Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York.
The bill’s passage would be the culmination of several years of activism by groups like New York Renews, a coalition of nearly 200 organizations, which repeatedly rallied in Albany and pushed policymakers to act.
Those officials included Mr. Cuomo, who said earlier this month that he had doubts about climate legislation that “put forward goals and dates that we cannot make.”
In a radio interview on Tuesday, however, Mr. Cuomo called the negotiated bill “the most aggressive climate change program in the United States of America, period.”
“I think climate change is the issue of our lifetime, frankly,” the governor, a third-term Democrat, said.
“And the legacy we leave our children.”
The bill codified several initiatives of Mr. Cuomo’s from earlier this year into law, including greatly increasing New York’s offshore wind goals, solar deployment and energy storage.
Supporters said the mandates handed down would likely require a vast work force to weatherize homes, swap out furnaces and install solar panels, and build wind farms and other clean energy infrastructure.
“This new law will spur the growth of green jobs across the state for decades,” said Julie Tighe, the president of the New York League of Conservation Voters.
But Greg Biryla, the New York director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said the bill offered few details of how small companies, working on small margins, would rejigger their manufacturing and other operations.
“There doesn’t appear to be a fiscal impact statement for something that aims to completely reinvent our state’s economy,” he said, adding it would inevitably lead to companies migrating elsewhere.
“This just makes other states that much more attractive for investment.”
The nuts and bolts of how to implement the plan would be left to a 22-person “climate action council” comprising top state officials, covering an array of topics like health, economic development, energy, labor and the environment, and advised by smaller working groups with expertise in everything from land use to forestry.
The council would be required to issue recommendations for how to meet the goals in two years, after which the state’s regulatory agencies would issue rules to compel industries and residents to meet the standards outlined in the bill.
Alphonso David, the counsel to Mr. Cuomo, said that while the aggressive goals might lead to measures to curb gas-powered cars or inefficient furnaces, there was no knowing how exactly the state would get there.
“There’s new technology we are discovering every single day,” said Mr. David.
“We may be talking about a very different world in terms of how we think about cars, how we think about airplanes and how we think about gasoline.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyre ... es-ny.html
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 3, 2020 at 11:15 am
Paul Plante says :
To make the demonstration that the allegation of these children plaintiffs in their first amended complaint that “defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would ‘significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,’” which is a healthy heap of pure horse**** from straight out of the pages of the hysteria-mongering pulp fiction rag The Guardian, sponsors of the long-running “GRETA SHOW,” which pulp-fiction rag proclaimed to the world on February 22, 2004 that “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters,” is patently false, one need do no more than go to the website of the World Meteorological Organization (“WMO”) where one, and this would certainly include not only The Guardian, if it was interested in facts, not hype and hysteria, but high school students, as well, since this is all basic history, readily finds as follows:
Global climate, one scientist recalled, “was considered a very subordinate field compared with synoptic forecasting, atmospheric research, and so forth.”
Some even questioned whether the WMO should continue work in climatology at all.
But in the late 1960s an environmental movement was everywhere on the rise, and officials could no longer ignore global changes.
As a first step, in 1969 the WMO’s Commission for Climatology established a working group on climate forecasts.
Meanwhile the WMO itself passed a resolution calling for global monitoring of climate and atmospheric pollutants, including CO2.
end quotes
Now, given that that federal court decision was written in 2016, more than fifty years earlier that the federal government was alleged to have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,” would be prior to 1966, before anyone knew about CO2, which takes us back to that history, as follows:
Climate was also among the many topics addressed by a Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), established by ICSU officials in 1969 as an international framework for collecting environmental data and for related research.
The SCOPE committee, aware of the CO2 greenhouse problem, promoted the first extensive studies of how carbon passes through bio-geochemical systems.
The first significant conferences where scientists discussed climate change included the topic as just one of several “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution,” to quote the title of a two-day symposium held in Dallas, Texas in 1968.
This path-breaking symposium was followed by a month-long “Study of Critical Environmental Problems” (SCEP) organized at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970.
This led directly to a second, more comprehensive gathering of experts from 14 nations in Stockholm in 1971, funded by an assortment of private and government sources.
The Stockholm meeting focused specifically on climate change — a “Study of Man’s Impact on Climate” (SMIC).
The exhaustive SMIC discussions failed to work out a consensus among scientists who felt greenhouse gases were warming the Earth and those who felt pollution from particles was cooling it.
end quotes
So, if the scientists themselves in 1971, less than 50 years ago, were still arguing about whether greenhouse gases were warming the Earth or whether pollution from particles was cooling it, how is it that the federal court then accepted in 2016 the unsupported and patently false allegation of these children that the United States government and Hussein Obama KNEW that carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia?”
For the answer to that, we need go no further than footnote #3 of that 2016 federal court decision where we find Obama taking his dive, as follows:
Defendants open their Objections to Judge Coffin’s F&R by stating that
“(c)limate change poses a monumental threat to Americans’ health and welfare by driving long-lasting changes in our climate, leading to an array of severe negative effects, which will worsen over time.” Fed. Defs.’ Obj. to F&R 1 (doc. 78).
In the 2015 State of the Union address, defendant President Barack Obama declared “(n)o challenge … poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” President Barack Obama, Remarks in State of the Union Address (Jan. 20, 2015).
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-214456
Paul Plante says :
To make the demonstration that the allegation of these children plaintiffs in their first amended complaint that “defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would ‘significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,’” which is a healthy heap of pure horse**** from straight out of the pages of the hysteria-mongering pulp fiction rag The Guardian, sponsors of the long-running “GRETA SHOW,” which pulp-fiction rag proclaimed to the world on February 22, 2004 that “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters,” is patently false, one need do no more than go to the website of the World Meteorological Organization (“WMO”) where one, and this would certainly include not only The Guardian, if it was interested in facts, not hype and hysteria, but high school students, as well, since this is all basic history, readily finds as follows:
Global climate, one scientist recalled, “was considered a very subordinate field compared with synoptic forecasting, atmospheric research, and so forth.”
Some even questioned whether the WMO should continue work in climatology at all.
But in the late 1960s an environmental movement was everywhere on the rise, and officials could no longer ignore global changes.
As a first step, in 1969 the WMO’s Commission for Climatology established a working group on climate forecasts.
Meanwhile the WMO itself passed a resolution calling for global monitoring of climate and atmospheric pollutants, including CO2.
end quotes
Now, given that that federal court decision was written in 2016, more than fifty years earlier that the federal government was alleged to have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,” would be prior to 1966, before anyone knew about CO2, which takes us back to that history, as follows:
Climate was also among the many topics addressed by a Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), established by ICSU officials in 1969 as an international framework for collecting environmental data and for related research.
The SCOPE committee, aware of the CO2 greenhouse problem, promoted the first extensive studies of how carbon passes through bio-geochemical systems.
The first significant conferences where scientists discussed climate change included the topic as just one of several “Global Effects of Environmental Pollution,” to quote the title of a two-day symposium held in Dallas, Texas in 1968.
This path-breaking symposium was followed by a month-long “Study of Critical Environmental Problems” (SCEP) organized at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1970.
This led directly to a second, more comprehensive gathering of experts from 14 nations in Stockholm in 1971, funded by an assortment of private and government sources.
The Stockholm meeting focused specifically on climate change — a “Study of Man’s Impact on Climate” (SMIC).
The exhaustive SMIC discussions failed to work out a consensus among scientists who felt greenhouse gases were warming the Earth and those who felt pollution from particles was cooling it.
end quotes
So, if the scientists themselves in 1971, less than 50 years ago, were still arguing about whether greenhouse gases were warming the Earth or whether pollution from particles was cooling it, how is it that the federal court then accepted in 2016 the unsupported and patently false allegation of these children that the United States government and Hussein Obama KNEW that carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia?”
For the answer to that, we need go no further than footnote #3 of that 2016 federal court decision where we find Obama taking his dive, as follows:
Defendants open their Objections to Judge Coffin’s F&R by stating that
“(c)limate change poses a monumental threat to Americans’ health and welfare by driving long-lasting changes in our climate, leading to an array of severe negative effects, which will worsen over time.” Fed. Defs.’ Obj. to F&R 1 (doc. 78).
In the 2015 State of the Union address, defendant President Barack Obama declared “(n)o challenge … poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” President Barack Obama, Remarks in State of the Union Address (Jan. 20, 2015).
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-214456
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 6, 2020 at 10:05 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, what does it take, if one is under the age of 18, to get the necessary standing in federal court to file a civil rights lawsuit against the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies alleging that the defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,” and claiming that despite that knowledge, defendants, “(b)y their exercise of sovereign authority over our country’s atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, … permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels, … deliberately allowing atmospheric C02 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history,” which actions by defendants violated their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations?
What harm must be done to these teenagers before finally the courts or somebody will step in to save their future for them?
What type of climatic outrage does it finally take to rouse the federal courts out of their torpor to protect these children from the executive branch of our federal government?
How about this:
II. Standing to Sue
“A threshold question in every federal case is … whether at least one plaintiff has standing.” Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Standing requires a plaintiff to allege “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant [the] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers[.]” Warth v. Seldin, 442 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show (1) she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
A plaintiff must support each element of the standing test “with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.
A Injury in Fact
In an environmental case, a plaintiff cannot demonstrate injury in fact merely by alleging injury to the environment; there must be an allegation that the challenged conduct is harming (or imminently will harm) the plaintiff. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt’l Servs. (I’OC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181 (2000).
Plaintiffs adequately allege injury in fact.
Plaintiff Zealand B. alleges he has been unable to ski during the winter as a result of decreased snowpack. Id p.38.
end quotes
Yes, people, that’s it.
The United States government violated the civil rights of plaintiff Zealand B., who is too young to vote for public officials who would be more protective of his rights to plenty of snow on the mountain of his choice, by pursuing harmful policies that make impossible for him to be able to ski, because of decreased snowpack, instead of ending those harmful policies so the poor kid would be able to go skiing, something that as a child here in the United States of America, he is entitled to, and hence, the United States of America, which happens to be all of us over the age of 18, must be held to account by an unelected federal judge in Oregon who has determined that she has the right to set herself up in a custodianship position over our elected officials who have clearly violated this poor kid’s civil rights by failing to provide him with enough snow to ski on.
And no, I am not making that up!
Those words are straight from the Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division in KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants., Aiken, Judge, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, decided November 2016, wherein Judge Aiken stated as follows:
“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”
end quotes
Said another way based on this decision, the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life for a teenager who wants to be able to ski whenever and wherever with plenty of snow just like he likes it always waiting for him is now fundamental to a free and ordered society, and it is therefore the obligation of the United States government to provide that climate for that child instead of violating his civil rights by denying him that climate.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-215462
Paul Plante says :
So, what does it take, if one is under the age of 18, to get the necessary standing in federal court to file a civil rights lawsuit against the United States, President Barack Obama, and numerous executive agencies alleging that the defendants have known for more than fifty years that the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels was destabilizing the climate system in a way that would “significantly endanger plaintiffs, with the damage persisting for millenia,” and claiming that despite that knowledge, defendants, “(b)y their exercise of sovereign authority over our country’s atmosphere and fossil fuel resources, … permitted, encouraged, and otherwise enabled continued exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels, … deliberately allowing atmospheric C02 concentrations to escalate to levels unprecedented in human history,” which actions by defendants violated their substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and that defendants have violated their obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations?
What harm must be done to these teenagers before finally the courts or somebody will step in to save their future for them?
What type of climatic outrage does it finally take to rouse the federal courts out of their torpor to protect these children from the executive branch of our federal government?
How about this:
II. Standing to Sue
“A threshold question in every federal case is … whether at least one plaintiff has standing.” Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Standing requires a plaintiff to allege “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant [the] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers[.]” Warth v. Seldin, 442 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show (1) she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
A plaintiff must support each element of the standing test “with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.
A Injury in Fact
In an environmental case, a plaintiff cannot demonstrate injury in fact merely by alleging injury to the environment; there must be an allegation that the challenged conduct is harming (or imminently will harm) the plaintiff. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt’l Servs. (I’OC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181 (2000).
Plaintiffs adequately allege injury in fact.
Plaintiff Zealand B. alleges he has been unable to ski during the winter as a result of decreased snowpack. Id p.38.
end quotes
Yes, people, that’s it.
The United States government violated the civil rights of plaintiff Zealand B., who is too young to vote for public officials who would be more protective of his rights to plenty of snow on the mountain of his choice, by pursuing harmful policies that make impossible for him to be able to ski, because of decreased snowpack, instead of ending those harmful policies so the poor kid would be able to go skiing, something that as a child here in the United States of America, he is entitled to, and hence, the United States of America, which happens to be all of us over the age of 18, must be held to account by an unelected federal judge in Oregon who has determined that she has the right to set herself up in a custodianship position over our elected officials who have clearly violated this poor kid’s civil rights by failing to provide him with enough snow to ski on.
And no, I am not making that up!
Those words are straight from the Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division in KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants., Aiken, Judge, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, decided November 2016, wherein Judge Aiken stated as follows:
“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgment,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”
end quotes
Said another way based on this decision, the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life for a teenager who wants to be able to ski whenever and wherever with plenty of snow just like he likes it always waiting for him is now fundamental to a free and ordered society, and it is therefore the obligation of the United States government to provide that climate for that child instead of violating his civil rights by denying him that climate.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-215462
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 7, 2020 at 11:50 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, staying for the moment with this 54 page Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division in KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Aiken, Judge, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, decided November 2016, Judge Aiken stated further with respect to what these children were alleging in their civil rights lawsuit against the United States of America, which happens to be all of us over the age of 18 who are citizens of this nation, to wit:
Plaintiffs (the children) allege that “(a)cting with full appreciation of the consequences of their acts, Defendants knowingly caused, and continue to cause, dangerous interference with our atmosphere and climate system.” First Am. Compl. ii 85.
They allege this danger stems, “in substantial part, [from] Defendants’ historic and continuing permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuel extraction, production, transportation, and utilization.” Id. ii 279.
Plaintiffs allege defendants acted “with full appreciation” of the consequences of their acts, id. iiii 278-79, specifically “[harm to] Plaintiffs’ dignity, including their capacity to provide for their basic human needs, safely raise families, practice their religious and spiritual beliefs, maintain their bodily integrity, and lead lives with access to clean air, water, shelter, and food.” Id. ii 283.
In the face of these risks, plaintiffs allege defendants “have had longstanding, actual knowledge of the serious risks of harm and have failed to take necessary steps to address and ameliorate the known, serious risk to which they have exposed Plaintiffs.” Id. if 285.
In sum: plaintiffs allege defendants played a unique and central role in the creation of our current climate crisis; that they contributed to the crisis with full knowledge of the significant and unreasonable risks posed by climate change; and that the Due Process Clause therefore imposes a special duty on defendants to use their statutory and regulatory authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, plaintiffs have adequately alleged a danger creation claim.
At the motion to dismiss stage, I am bound to accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true.
Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants played a significant role in creating the current climate crisis, that defendants acted with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions, and that defendants have failed to correct or mitigate the harms they helped create in deliberate indifference to the injuries caused by climate change.
They may therefore proceed with their substantive due process challenge to defendants’ failure to adequately regulate CO2 emissions.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-215770
Paul Plante says :
So, staying for the moment with this 54 page Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division in KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Aiken, Judge, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, decided November 2016, Judge Aiken stated further with respect to what these children were alleging in their civil rights lawsuit against the United States of America, which happens to be all of us over the age of 18 who are citizens of this nation, to wit:
Plaintiffs (the children) allege that “(a)cting with full appreciation of the consequences of their acts, Defendants knowingly caused, and continue to cause, dangerous interference with our atmosphere and climate system.” First Am. Compl. ii 85.
They allege this danger stems, “in substantial part, [from] Defendants’ historic and continuing permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing of fossil fuel extraction, production, transportation, and utilization.” Id. ii 279.
Plaintiffs allege defendants acted “with full appreciation” of the consequences of their acts, id. iiii 278-79, specifically “[harm to] Plaintiffs’ dignity, including their capacity to provide for their basic human needs, safely raise families, practice their religious and spiritual beliefs, maintain their bodily integrity, and lead lives with access to clean air, water, shelter, and food.” Id. ii 283.
In the face of these risks, plaintiffs allege defendants “have had longstanding, actual knowledge of the serious risks of harm and have failed to take necessary steps to address and ameliorate the known, serious risk to which they have exposed Plaintiffs.” Id. if 285.
In sum: plaintiffs allege defendants played a unique and central role in the creation of our current climate crisis; that they contributed to the crisis with full knowledge of the significant and unreasonable risks posed by climate change; and that the Due Process Clause therefore imposes a special duty on defendants to use their statutory and regulatory authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Accepting the allegations of the complaint as true, plaintiffs have adequately alleged a danger creation claim.
At the motion to dismiss stage, I am bound to accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true.
Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants played a significant role in creating the current climate crisis, that defendants acted with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions, and that defendants have failed to correct or mitigate the harms they helped create in deliberate indifference to the injuries caused by climate change.
They may therefore proceed with their substantive due process challenge to defendants’ failure to adequately regulate CO2 emissions.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-215770
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 9, 2020 at 7:27 pm
Paul Plante says :
Staying for the moment with this 54 page Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division in KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Aiken, Judge, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, decided November 2016, which decision, actually written not by the unelected federal judge, but according to footnote 1 was a creation out of whole cloth by student externs who worked on each stage of the preparation of the opinion, from initial background research to final copy edits, with Judge Aiken formally acknowledging the real authors of the decision as Daniel Bodden (University of Kentucky), Elizabeth Jacklin (University of Oregon School of Law), Ann Richan Metler (Willamette University College of Law), James Mullins (University of Washington School of Law), Jessy R. Nations (University of Washington School of Law), Lydeah Negro (Lewis & Clark Law School), and Eleanor J. Vincent (University of Oregon School of Law), is a clear case of application of the liberal “living constitution” interpretation in action, in that like a new island emerging from the sea, or a new star appearing in the firmament above our heads, a brand new Constitutional right which has never existed prior to this has been created, to the detriment of us older people in this country who now stand accused of aiding Barack Hussein Obama to willfully violate that new Constitutional right for those under the age of 18 in the United States of America, as an American citizen born after WWII, who today is a grandfather, I find this following statement from that decision to be incredible not only in the fact that these children suing Hussein Obama for gross negligence which borders on criminal conduct on his part and the type of misdemeanors and high crimes that would constitute impeachable offenses were they committed by someone else who are obviously quite confused as to when the United States of America did or did not exist as a legal entity are making it, but that it managed to sail right by Obama’s lawyers, who never challenged it, perhaps like Obama not knowing any better, leaving the falsehoods to stand as fact, to twist and warp the minds of young people in America today by giving them a false history of our nation, to wit:
Plaintiffs allege that over the 263 years between 1751 and 2014, the United States produced more than twenty-five percent of global C02 emissions. First Am. Compl. para.151.
end quotes
Now, because they are children who are not responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law, they can allege and assert that blatant falsehood with impunity, and the federal court let them do just that, which takes us to this:
Plaintiffs do not object to the government’s role in producing any pollution or in causing any climate change; rather, they assert the government has caused pollution and climate change on a catastrophic level, and that if the government’s actions continue unchecked, they will permanently and irreversibly damage plaintiffs’ property, their economic livelihood, their recreational opportunities, their health, and ultimately their (and their children’s) ability to live long, healthy lives.
end quotes
Nowhere is there any proof to support these wild and sensational and extravagant charges that the federal government has caused “climate change on a catastrophic level,” but since these are children, and the purpose of this case was to create a whole new family of constitutional rights for children in America, the enforcement of which will keep swarms of lawyers in bidness for years to come, vindicating the civil rights of new generations of American children when they look out the window and see a climate out there that they don’t like, which is a sure sign the federal government is guilty of failing to protect them, that incredible claim was allowed by the Court and the Obama administration to sail right through, as was this:
Plaintiffs allege defendants have violated their due process rights by “directly caus[ing] atmospheric C02 to rise to levels that dangerously interfere with a stable climate system required alike by our nation and Plaintiffs[,]” First Am. Compl. ~ 279; “knowingly endanger[ing] Plaintiffs’ health and welfare by approving and promoting fossil fuel development, including exploration, extraction, production, transportation, importation, exportation, and combustion,” id. ~ 280; and, “(a)fter knowingly creating this dangerous situation for Plaintiffs, … continu[ing] to knowingly enhance that danger by allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion at dangerous levels,” id. ~ 284.
end quotes
Except according to a 2007 scientific paper by James “Jimmy” Hansen, who was a part of this lawsuit as a guardian for future generations of American children, the conclusion was that CO2 levels above 450 ppm were considered dangerous.
And according to a NASA article entitled “A Year in the Life of Carbon Dioxide” September 6, 2014 – September 6, 2015, we are not at or near that level, nor is that carbon dioxide uniformly distributed or at a constant level, to wit:
Since the beginning of the industrial age, the global concentration of CO2 has increased from roughly an average of 280 parts per million to an average of 400 parts per million.
One recognizable pattern over the year is the annual uptake and release of carbon as each hemisphere passes through the seasons.
In the winter, carbon dioxide levels are at their peak in the northern hemisphere, when there is little plant or phytoplankton growth to offset emissions from human activities and natural sources.
At the same time, CO2 concentrations drop in the southern hemisphere, which is bathed in summer sunlight and heat.
The pattern reverses as the hemispheres change seasons.
According to the new measurements, atmospheric CO2 changes by 8 to 12 parts per million (2 to 3 percent) from winter through the “spring drawdown” in the northern hemisphere.
Over the course of a year, it is also clear that CO2 levels are generally higher over the northern hemisphere — where there are more people and more emissions — than in the southern hemisphere.
Both phenomena are well known to scientists, but OCO-2 now lets us see those patterns more clearly.
end quotes
But notwithstanding, these are children making these claims, afterall, so we should not be bullying them by actually demanding some objective proof of their assertions in their complaint which allege that “(t)he present level of C02 and its warming, both realized and latent, are already in the zone of danger,” and “our country is now in a period of carbon overshoot, with early consequences that are already threatening and that will, in the short term, rise to unbearable unless Defendants take immediate action[.],” especially when those assertions by the children are totally refuted by actual scientific evidence, and here, I point to a paper entitled “NASA Releases New CO2 Data, Refutes Conventional Wisdom – Analyses of a set of NASA data shows that water vapor greatly amplifies global warming, and carbon dioxide doesn’t mix in the atmosphere as quickly as assumed” by Ucilia Wang dated December 15, 2009, which gives us some real science, as follows:
SAN FRANCISCO — NASA has released the first-ever set of carbon dioxide data based only on daily observations by a satellite instrument, a new tool that will help researchers study climate change and improve weather predictions.
The data came from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) that NASA launched aboard its Aqua spacecraft in 2002.
Since then, AIRS has amassed information about carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, methane and temperatures in the mid-troposphere (see multimedia presentations).
The mid-troposphere is about three to seven miles above the Earth’s surface.
For carbon dioxide, AIRS measures and tracks its concentration and movement as it moves across the globe.
Observation data is critical for scientists to validate their models or adjust them to better predict the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the weather and climate.
The data have already refuted a long-held belief that carbon dioxide is evenly distributed and do so fairly quickly in the atmosphere once it rises from the ground, said Moustafa Chahine, the science team leader of the AIRS project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco Tuesday.
“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the mid-troposphere,” Chahine said.
“You can see the jet stream splitting the carbon dioxide clump.”
AIRS data shows instead that carbon dioxide, which has seen its rate of increase accelerating from 1 part per million in 1955 to 2 parts per million today, would require about two to three years before it blends in, he said.
The atmosphere currently has about 400 parts per million.
How well and how quickly carbon dioxide blends in is important for understanding how much and how long carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere and affects the climate before some of it is scooped up by Earth’s natural scrubbers, such as the ocean.
And by extension, that knowledge would be crucial in determining what humans must do to minimize their emissions or use technologies to capture and sequester their carbon dioxide pollution before it escapes into the atmosphere.
Chahine said several climate models have assumed an even distribution because researchers didn’t have adequate data to show how the carbon dioxide is vertically transported through the atmosphere.
“The data we have now will help researchers improve their models’ vertical transport,” Chahine said.
end quotes
But, hey, people, these are children, so really, should we expect them to know any of these things?
For if they did, and if the Obama administration had bothered to challenge them they wouldn’t have this federal lawsuit in their favor, and so, they would be deprived of this new civil right in America for children under the age of 18, and what a shame that would be, alright!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-216337
Paul Plante says :
Staying for the moment with this 54 page Decision and Order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division in KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Aiken, Judge, Case No. 6:15-cv-01517-TC, decided November 2016, which decision, actually written not by the unelected federal judge, but according to footnote 1 was a creation out of whole cloth by student externs who worked on each stage of the preparation of the opinion, from initial background research to final copy edits, with Judge Aiken formally acknowledging the real authors of the decision as Daniel Bodden (University of Kentucky), Elizabeth Jacklin (University of Oregon School of Law), Ann Richan Metler (Willamette University College of Law), James Mullins (University of Washington School of Law), Jessy R. Nations (University of Washington School of Law), Lydeah Negro (Lewis & Clark Law School), and Eleanor J. Vincent (University of Oregon School of Law), is a clear case of application of the liberal “living constitution” interpretation in action, in that like a new island emerging from the sea, or a new star appearing in the firmament above our heads, a brand new Constitutional right which has never existed prior to this has been created, to the detriment of us older people in this country who now stand accused of aiding Barack Hussein Obama to willfully violate that new Constitutional right for those under the age of 18 in the United States of America, as an American citizen born after WWII, who today is a grandfather, I find this following statement from that decision to be incredible not only in the fact that these children suing Hussein Obama for gross negligence which borders on criminal conduct on his part and the type of misdemeanors and high crimes that would constitute impeachable offenses were they committed by someone else who are obviously quite confused as to when the United States of America did or did not exist as a legal entity are making it, but that it managed to sail right by Obama’s lawyers, who never challenged it, perhaps like Obama not knowing any better, leaving the falsehoods to stand as fact, to twist and warp the minds of young people in America today by giving them a false history of our nation, to wit:
Plaintiffs allege that over the 263 years between 1751 and 2014, the United States produced more than twenty-five percent of global C02 emissions. First Am. Compl. para.151.
end quotes
Now, because they are children who are not responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law, they can allege and assert that blatant falsehood with impunity, and the federal court let them do just that, which takes us to this:
Plaintiffs do not object to the government’s role in producing any pollution or in causing any climate change; rather, they assert the government has caused pollution and climate change on a catastrophic level, and that if the government’s actions continue unchecked, they will permanently and irreversibly damage plaintiffs’ property, their economic livelihood, their recreational opportunities, their health, and ultimately their (and their children’s) ability to live long, healthy lives.
end quotes
Nowhere is there any proof to support these wild and sensational and extravagant charges that the federal government has caused “climate change on a catastrophic level,” but since these are children, and the purpose of this case was to create a whole new family of constitutional rights for children in America, the enforcement of which will keep swarms of lawyers in bidness for years to come, vindicating the civil rights of new generations of American children when they look out the window and see a climate out there that they don’t like, which is a sure sign the federal government is guilty of failing to protect them, that incredible claim was allowed by the Court and the Obama administration to sail right through, as was this:
Plaintiffs allege defendants have violated their due process rights by “directly caus[ing] atmospheric C02 to rise to levels that dangerously interfere with a stable climate system required alike by our nation and Plaintiffs[,]” First Am. Compl. ~ 279; “knowingly endanger[ing] Plaintiffs’ health and welfare by approving and promoting fossil fuel development, including exploration, extraction, production, transportation, importation, exportation, and combustion,” id. ~ 280; and, “(a)fter knowingly creating this dangerous situation for Plaintiffs, … continu[ing] to knowingly enhance that danger by allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion at dangerous levels,” id. ~ 284.
end quotes
Except according to a 2007 scientific paper by James “Jimmy” Hansen, who was a part of this lawsuit as a guardian for future generations of American children, the conclusion was that CO2 levels above 450 ppm were considered dangerous.
And according to a NASA article entitled “A Year in the Life of Carbon Dioxide” September 6, 2014 – September 6, 2015, we are not at or near that level, nor is that carbon dioxide uniformly distributed or at a constant level, to wit:
Since the beginning of the industrial age, the global concentration of CO2 has increased from roughly an average of 280 parts per million to an average of 400 parts per million.
One recognizable pattern over the year is the annual uptake and release of carbon as each hemisphere passes through the seasons.
In the winter, carbon dioxide levels are at their peak in the northern hemisphere, when there is little plant or phytoplankton growth to offset emissions from human activities and natural sources.
At the same time, CO2 concentrations drop in the southern hemisphere, which is bathed in summer sunlight and heat.
The pattern reverses as the hemispheres change seasons.
According to the new measurements, atmospheric CO2 changes by 8 to 12 parts per million (2 to 3 percent) from winter through the “spring drawdown” in the northern hemisphere.
Over the course of a year, it is also clear that CO2 levels are generally higher over the northern hemisphere — where there are more people and more emissions — than in the southern hemisphere.
Both phenomena are well known to scientists, but OCO-2 now lets us see those patterns more clearly.
end quotes
But notwithstanding, these are children making these claims, afterall, so we should not be bullying them by actually demanding some objective proof of their assertions in their complaint which allege that “(t)he present level of C02 and its warming, both realized and latent, are already in the zone of danger,” and “our country is now in a period of carbon overshoot, with early consequences that are already threatening and that will, in the short term, rise to unbearable unless Defendants take immediate action[.],” especially when those assertions by the children are totally refuted by actual scientific evidence, and here, I point to a paper entitled “NASA Releases New CO2 Data, Refutes Conventional Wisdom – Analyses of a set of NASA data shows that water vapor greatly amplifies global warming, and carbon dioxide doesn’t mix in the atmosphere as quickly as assumed” by Ucilia Wang dated December 15, 2009, which gives us some real science, as follows:
SAN FRANCISCO — NASA has released the first-ever set of carbon dioxide data based only on daily observations by a satellite instrument, a new tool that will help researchers study climate change and improve weather predictions.
The data came from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) that NASA launched aboard its Aqua spacecraft in 2002.
Since then, AIRS has amassed information about carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, methane and temperatures in the mid-troposphere (see multimedia presentations).
The mid-troposphere is about three to seven miles above the Earth’s surface.
For carbon dioxide, AIRS measures and tracks its concentration and movement as it moves across the globe.
Observation data is critical for scientists to validate their models or adjust them to better predict the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the weather and climate.
The data have already refuted a long-held belief that carbon dioxide is evenly distributed and do so fairly quickly in the atmosphere once it rises from the ground, said Moustafa Chahine, the science team leader of the AIRS project at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco Tuesday.
“Contrary to the prevailing wisdom, carbon dioxide is not well mixed in the mid-troposphere,” Chahine said.
“You can see the jet stream splitting the carbon dioxide clump.”
AIRS data shows instead that carbon dioxide, which has seen its rate of increase accelerating from 1 part per million in 1955 to 2 parts per million today, would require about two to three years before it blends in, he said.
The atmosphere currently has about 400 parts per million.
How well and how quickly carbon dioxide blends in is important for understanding how much and how long carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere and affects the climate before some of it is scooped up by Earth’s natural scrubbers, such as the ocean.
And by extension, that knowledge would be crucial in determining what humans must do to minimize their emissions or use technologies to capture and sequester their carbon dioxide pollution before it escapes into the atmosphere.
Chahine said several climate models have assumed an even distribution because researchers didn’t have adequate data to show how the carbon dioxide is vertically transported through the atmosphere.
“The data we have now will help researchers improve their models’ vertical transport,” Chahine said.
end quotes
But, hey, people, these are children, so really, should we expect them to know any of these things?
For if they did, and if the Obama administration had bothered to challenge them they wouldn’t have this federal lawsuit in their favor, and so, they would be deprived of this new civil right in America for children under the age of 18, and what a shame that would be, alright!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-216337
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 10, 2020 at 8:01 pm
Paul Plante says :
Not surprisingly, the group behind this KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants lawsuit have a nice, glossy website which starts out as follows:
SECURING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO A SAFE CLIMATE
AND A HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE FOR ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS
donate now
Leading the game-changing, youth-driven, global climate recovery campaign to secure the legal right to a stable climate and healthy atmosphere.
end quotes
Yes, people open up your wallets and pour your hard-earned money into this children’s crusade to secure their constitutional right to a stable climate, and then sit back and wait for it to happen.
And while you are waiting for the federal government to finally get off the pot and provide these children with the stable climate everybody now knows they are entitled to, ask yourself this question of what exactly is a “stable” climate, and exactly how is the federal government going to provide each child in America with the climate they personally feel they are entitled to?
Consider this from that lawsuit, to wit:
II. Standing to Sue
“A threshold question in every federal case is … whether at least one plaintiff has standing.” Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Standing requires a plaintiff to allege “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant [the] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers[.]” Warth v. Seldin, 442 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show (1) she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
A plaintiff must support each element of the standing test “with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.
The most recent allegations of injury appear in the supplemental declaration of plaintiff Jayden F., a thirteen-year-old resident of Rayne, Louisiana.
Jayden alleges that at five o’clock the morning of August 13, 2016, her siblings woke her up. Decl. Jayden F. 5 Sept. 7, 2016 (doc. 78).
She stepped out of bed into ankle-deep water.
By the end of the day, Floodwaters were pouring into our home through every possible opening.
We tried to stop it with towels, blankets, and boards.
The water was flowing down the hallway, into my Mom’s room and my sisters’ room.
The water drenched my living room and began to cover our kitchen floor.
Our toilets, sinks, and bathtubs began to overflow with awful smelling sewage because our town’s sewer system also flooded.
Soon the sewage was everywhere.
We had a stream of sewage and water running through our house. Id p8.
With no shelters available and nowhere else to go, the family remained in the flooded house for weeks. Id p10.
The floodwaters eventually receded, but the damage remains: the carpets are
soaked with sewage water. Id p.12.
The water-logged walls must be torn down to prevent the growth of black mold. Id
The entire family sleeps together in the living room because the bedrooms are uninhabitable. Id p.15.
Jayden alleges the storm that destroyed her home “ordinarily would happen once every 1,000 years, but is happening now as a result of climate change.” Id p.2.
end quotes
And here we are, back to the fact that these are children filing these complaints, not adults, so we cannot hold these children to account for truthfulness as if they are adults, because they are not – they are just children, so if they say without any proof that the storm which destroyed this child’s home “ordinarily would happen once every 1,000 years, but is happening now as a result of climate change,” then like their claim that over the 263 years between 1751 and 2014, the United States produced more than twenty-five percent of global CO2 emissions, we adults simply have to accept it as true, even if all the evidence to the contrary shows it is actually quite false.
Consider the article “Hurricanes: History” by Barbara McCarragher, where we are informed of the following high school history on hurricanes and Louisiana, where this little girl lives in a town called Rayne, a city in Acadia Parish, Louisiana, known as the “Frog Capital of the World,” to wit:
Hurricane Katrina may be the most memorable storm in New Orleans history, but its trajectory across the Pelican State was far from unique.
Louisiana was hit by 49 of the 273 hurricanes that made landfall on the American Atlantic Coast between 1851 and 2004.
On average, one major storm crosses within 100 nautical miles of New Orleans every decade (King, 2006).
end quotes
Notwithstanding, we are to believe that what happened to this poor little girl who happens to live in a federal flood zone never happened before in Louisiana, and despite all the evidence to the contrary, this storm would not have happened but for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because everybody knows these types of serious storms never happened before the United States started pouting all that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
As to Rayne being in a flood zone, a review of federal government records provides as follows:
FEMA
Flood Insurance Study: city of Rayne, Louisiana, Acadia Parish; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, 1980
end quotes
But of course, this little girl is only 13, so she would be totally unaware of something that happened before she was born, especially since it was in the last century way back in 1980.
So, please, people, open your wallets wide and send your hard-earned dollars to Our Children’s Trust, a law firm, of course, so that finally, they can put an end to these hurricanes that have been striking the coast of Louisiana since time immemorial so that finally this little girl can have the stable climate without hurricanes that she was born entitled to as a young American and thanks to your efforts, the world for her can finally be made right:
Reach out to our team in the following ways:
• press@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all media and press inquiries.
• organizing@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all organizing and partnership inquiries.
• development@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all donation and fundraising inquiries.
• info@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all remaining inquiries.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-216749
Paul Plante says :
Not surprisingly, the group behind this KELSEY CASCADIA ROSE JULIANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants lawsuit have a nice, glossy website which starts out as follows:
SECURING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO A SAFE CLIMATE
AND A HEALTHY ATMOSPHERE FOR ALL PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS
donate now
Leading the game-changing, youth-driven, global climate recovery campaign to secure the legal right to a stable climate and healthy atmosphere.
end quotes
Yes, people open up your wallets and pour your hard-earned money into this children’s crusade to secure their constitutional right to a stable climate, and then sit back and wait for it to happen.
And while you are waiting for the federal government to finally get off the pot and provide these children with the stable climate everybody now knows they are entitled to, ask yourself this question of what exactly is a “stable” climate, and exactly how is the federal government going to provide each child in America with the climate they personally feel they are entitled to?
Consider this from that lawsuit, to wit:
II. Standing to Sue
“A threshold question in every federal case is … whether at least one plaintiff has standing.” Thomas v. Mundell, 572 F.3d 756, 760 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Standing requires a plaintiff to allege “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant [the] invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers[.]” Warth v. Seldin, 442 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show (1) she suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
A plaintiff must support each element of the standing test “with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. at 561.
The most recent allegations of injury appear in the supplemental declaration of plaintiff Jayden F., a thirteen-year-old resident of Rayne, Louisiana.
Jayden alleges that at five o’clock the morning of August 13, 2016, her siblings woke her up. Decl. Jayden F. 5 Sept. 7, 2016 (doc. 78).
She stepped out of bed into ankle-deep water.
By the end of the day, Floodwaters were pouring into our home through every possible opening.
We tried to stop it with towels, blankets, and boards.
The water was flowing down the hallway, into my Mom’s room and my sisters’ room.
The water drenched my living room and began to cover our kitchen floor.
Our toilets, sinks, and bathtubs began to overflow with awful smelling sewage because our town’s sewer system also flooded.
Soon the sewage was everywhere.
We had a stream of sewage and water running through our house. Id p8.
With no shelters available and nowhere else to go, the family remained in the flooded house for weeks. Id p10.
The floodwaters eventually receded, but the damage remains: the carpets are
soaked with sewage water. Id p.12.
The water-logged walls must be torn down to prevent the growth of black mold. Id
The entire family sleeps together in the living room because the bedrooms are uninhabitable. Id p.15.
Jayden alleges the storm that destroyed her home “ordinarily would happen once every 1,000 years, but is happening now as a result of climate change.” Id p.2.
end quotes
And here we are, back to the fact that these are children filing these complaints, not adults, so we cannot hold these children to account for truthfulness as if they are adults, because they are not – they are just children, so if they say without any proof that the storm which destroyed this child’s home “ordinarily would happen once every 1,000 years, but is happening now as a result of climate change,” then like their claim that over the 263 years between 1751 and 2014, the United States produced more than twenty-five percent of global CO2 emissions, we adults simply have to accept it as true, even if all the evidence to the contrary shows it is actually quite false.
Consider the article “Hurricanes: History” by Barbara McCarragher, where we are informed of the following high school history on hurricanes and Louisiana, where this little girl lives in a town called Rayne, a city in Acadia Parish, Louisiana, known as the “Frog Capital of the World,” to wit:
Hurricane Katrina may be the most memorable storm in New Orleans history, but its trajectory across the Pelican State was far from unique.
Louisiana was hit by 49 of the 273 hurricanes that made landfall on the American Atlantic Coast between 1851 and 2004.
On average, one major storm crosses within 100 nautical miles of New Orleans every decade (King, 2006).
end quotes
Notwithstanding, we are to believe that what happened to this poor little girl who happens to live in a federal flood zone never happened before in Louisiana, and despite all the evidence to the contrary, this storm would not have happened but for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because everybody knows these types of serious storms never happened before the United States started pouting all that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
As to Rayne being in a flood zone, a review of federal government records provides as follows:
FEMA
Flood Insurance Study: city of Rayne, Louisiana, Acadia Parish; Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, 1980
end quotes
But of course, this little girl is only 13, so she would be totally unaware of something that happened before she was born, especially since it was in the last century way back in 1980.
So, please, people, open your wallets wide and send your hard-earned dollars to Our Children’s Trust, a law firm, of course, so that finally, they can put an end to these hurricanes that have been striking the coast of Louisiana since time immemorial so that finally this little girl can have the stable climate without hurricanes that she was born entitled to as a young American and thanks to your efforts, the world for her can finally be made right:
Reach out to our team in the following ways:
• press@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all media and press inquiries.
• organizing@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all organizing and partnership inquiries.
• development@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all donation and fundraising inquiries.
• info@ourchildrenstrust.org – For all remaining inquiries.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-216749
Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 12, 2020 at 1:40 pm
Paul Plante says:
“The temperature became torrid, and on the morning of the 6th of February 1851, the air which blew down from the north resembled the breath of a furnace.”
“A fierce wind arose, gathering strength and velocity from hour to hour, until about noon it blew with the violence of a tornado.”
“By some inexplicable means it wrapped the whole country in a sheet of flame — fierce, awful, and irresistible.”
There we are talking, of course, and I doubt poor little Greta even has a clue, because if it happened before she blessed the earth with her presence, why, it never happened, at all, given that the world was created just for her the day before she was born, about the Black Thursday bushfires which were a devastating series of fires that swept approximately 5 million hectares of the state of Victoria, Australia, on 6 February 1851.
One million sheep, thousands of cattle and countless native animals were lost in that conflagration.
According to Wikipedia, which is intended to help un-confuse poor little ignorant lost souls like Greta Thunberg who apparently prefers ignorance and hysteria-mongering to educating her young self, the Black Thursday bushfires, were caused in part by an intense drought that occurred throughout 1850 when the continent suffered from extreme heat.
On 6 February 1851, a strong furnace-like wind came down from the north and gained power and speed as the hours passed.
The weather reached record extremes.
By eleven it was about 47 °C (117 °F) in the shade.
The air cooled to 43 °C (109 °F) by one o’clock and rose to 45 °C (113 °F) around four o’clock.
end quotes
So is this something new that is happening today?
Going back to Wikipedia for some “science” on the subject to counter little Greta’s hysteria, we have:
Intense bushfires are not uncommon in southern Australia.
The region is one of the three most fire-prone in the world.
Within the last two hundred years, the area has experienced and documented at least twenty-five major fires, beginning with Black Thursday in 1851.
The intensity of these fires is due in part to natural fuels, such as sclerophyll forests in the region.
While adapting to cope with drought and predators, the trees’ leaves turn into prime fuel for fires.
They become tough as protection from dry conditions and to increase the efficiency of nutrient use.
They also develop tough spikes and chemicals to protect themselves from small animals.
The leaves’ tough surface allows them to last longer and build up on the forest floor and the chemical makes them flammable..
The abundance of flammable fuel can cause an inferno with a single spark.
end quotes
WHOA!
Scrub all of that and get it out of the record, lest we upset poor little Greta and the hysteria-mongerers at the New York Times who want us to believe that before little Greta and the Guardian newspaper came along and started warning the world that it was going to come to a fiery end because of feedback loops and carbon overshoot, and forcings, there never was a wildfire in Australia, and but for the carbon pollution the United States of America have been pumping into the earth’s atmosphere since 1751, life there would be serene.
To close, when people ask me why I needed a little Kuboda tractor with a back-hoe, my answer is so I could dig a big enough hole to bury all my engineering books and degrees in, instead of burning them to create more carbon dioxide, because the AGE OF ABJECT IGNORANCE brought forth by little Greta and the Guardian and the New York Times has made them absolutely worthless.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-217293
Paul Plante says:
“The temperature became torrid, and on the morning of the 6th of February 1851, the air which blew down from the north resembled the breath of a furnace.”
“A fierce wind arose, gathering strength and velocity from hour to hour, until about noon it blew with the violence of a tornado.”
“By some inexplicable means it wrapped the whole country in a sheet of flame — fierce, awful, and irresistible.”
There we are talking, of course, and I doubt poor little Greta even has a clue, because if it happened before she blessed the earth with her presence, why, it never happened, at all, given that the world was created just for her the day before she was born, about the Black Thursday bushfires which were a devastating series of fires that swept approximately 5 million hectares of the state of Victoria, Australia, on 6 February 1851.
One million sheep, thousands of cattle and countless native animals were lost in that conflagration.
According to Wikipedia, which is intended to help un-confuse poor little ignorant lost souls like Greta Thunberg who apparently prefers ignorance and hysteria-mongering to educating her young self, the Black Thursday bushfires, were caused in part by an intense drought that occurred throughout 1850 when the continent suffered from extreme heat.
On 6 February 1851, a strong furnace-like wind came down from the north and gained power and speed as the hours passed.
The weather reached record extremes.
By eleven it was about 47 °C (117 °F) in the shade.
The air cooled to 43 °C (109 °F) by one o’clock and rose to 45 °C (113 °F) around four o’clock.
end quotes
So is this something new that is happening today?
Going back to Wikipedia for some “science” on the subject to counter little Greta’s hysteria, we have:
Intense bushfires are not uncommon in southern Australia.
The region is one of the three most fire-prone in the world.
Within the last two hundred years, the area has experienced and documented at least twenty-five major fires, beginning with Black Thursday in 1851.
The intensity of these fires is due in part to natural fuels, such as sclerophyll forests in the region.
While adapting to cope with drought and predators, the trees’ leaves turn into prime fuel for fires.
They become tough as protection from dry conditions and to increase the efficiency of nutrient use.
They also develop tough spikes and chemicals to protect themselves from small animals.
The leaves’ tough surface allows them to last longer and build up on the forest floor and the chemical makes them flammable..
The abundance of flammable fuel can cause an inferno with a single spark.
end quotes
WHOA!
Scrub all of that and get it out of the record, lest we upset poor little Greta and the hysteria-mongerers at the New York Times who want us to believe that before little Greta and the Guardian newspaper came along and started warning the world that it was going to come to a fiery end because of feedback loops and carbon overshoot, and forcings, there never was a wildfire in Australia, and but for the carbon pollution the United States of America have been pumping into the earth’s atmosphere since 1751, life there would be serene.
To close, when people ask me why I needed a little Kuboda tractor with a back-hoe, my answer is so I could dig a big enough hole to bury all my engineering books and degrees in, instead of burning them to create more carbon dioxide, because the AGE OF ABJECT IGNORANCE brought forth by little Greta and the Guardian and the New York Times has made them absolutely worthless.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-217293