ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

Post by thelivyjr »

VOX

"21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs in the Juliana v. US lawsuit alleged the government violated the rights of young people to a safe climate."


By Umair Irfan

Jan 17, 2020, 4:10 pm EST

A three-judge panel in the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to dismiss the Juliana v. US lawsuit on Friday, a seminal case involving 21 young people who sued the federal government for violating their right to a safe climate.

The decision is a blow to climate activists and shows the limits of the courts’ willingness to assign legal responsibility to the government for the harms caused by greenhouse gases.

The judges all agreed that climate change is an urgent, threatening problem, but ruled that the plaintiffs, who were between the ages of 8 and 19 when the suit was filed, didn’t have standing to sue.

They also said that climate policies must come from the legislative branch.

“The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large,” according to the ruling.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Court Judge Andrew Hurwitz conceded that climate risks are growing and that young people stand to suffer the worst impacts of rising average temperatures, like increasingly destructive floods and fires.

“In the mid-1960s, a popular song warned that we were ‘on the eve of destruction,’” he wrote.

“The plaintiffs in this case have presented compelling evidence that climate change has brought that eve nearer.”

Andrea Rodgers, a senior attorney at Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit backing the youth who filed the lawsuit, described the decision in an email as “unprecedented and contrary to American principles of justice.”

Her organization has vowed to appeal the ruling in the coming weeks.

As politicians have failed to deliver adequate climate policies, courtrooms have emerged as a prominent venue for advancing an agenda to limit emissions, and the Juliana case was one of a number of climate change lawsuits working their way through various US courts.

More than a dozen cities and counties have filed suit against companies like Exxon for the climate-related harms caused by their products.

But the Juliana case stood out among climate lawsuits because it challenged the federal government rather than fossil fuel companies.

Despite proposing a novel legal theory — that a safe climate is a civil right and that the government has violated it through policies like leasing public lands for coal mining — the suit managed to get surprisingly far.

It survived several motions to dismiss and intervention by the US Supreme Court.


But what the plaintiffs wanted — a government plan to phase out fossil fuels and pull greenhouse gases back out of the air — was not something the courts could provide.

“Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power,” Hurwitz wrote.

However, District Court Judge Josephine Staton thought otherwise and did not mince words in her dissent.

“It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses,” she wrote.

“Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.”

The Juliana case has been the highest-profile lawsuit filed by Our Children’s Trust, but the group has also filed similar climate change civil rights suits on behalf of young people in state courts.

While the 9th Circuit ruling was a setback for climate activists, many are undeterred from using the courts to fight climate change and hold polluters accountable.

Recently, some law students have also begun to protest against the law firms representing fossil fuel companies in these climate suits, pressuring firms to drop them as clients and urging classmates not to work for them.

Climate litigation has also emerged as an issue in the 2020 campaign for president.

Many of the Democratic contenders have called for fossil fuel companies to be held liable for climate damages and for sowing disinformation.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has gone as far as to call for criminal prosecution of greenhouse gas emitters.

All the while, more suits and legal complaints are being filed.

On Thursday, a group of four indigenous tribes in Louisiana filed a human rights claim at the United Nations.

They argued that the US government, through its contributions to climate change and its failure to stop it, has violated the rights of these groups, who are seeing lands eroded by rising seas.

So climate change still has many more days in court to come.

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/17/21070810/ ... th-circuit
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 16, 2020 at 6:58 pm

Paul Plante says:

Ah, dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, words cannot express the sheer joy I felt this morning when I sat down with my morning coffee, made by pouring boiling water from a kettle through coffee grounds in a paper filter in a cone above a regular plain old coffee pot for a negligible to zero carbon footprint compared to a latte, and opened up the morning edition of the Cape Charles Mirror to find this quite eloquent dissertation of yours above here on the crimes of your generation, Chas, when it comes to treatment of the environment, the ecology and the climate, and your sincere apology to young Nick and his generation for totally ******* up the world his generation is now stuck with, as follows:

“That said, the legacy of our having done little to nothing to curb an exacerbating climate situation will fall on our children to deal with.”

end quotes

One can feel the pain of your guilt there, Chas, truly so, and what a terrible burden it must be, to know that you are responsible for stealing the childhood of not only Greta Thunberg, but countless millions of children, some or many yet unborn, who are now in the same fix as is Nick, especially when you know that it was your support for Hussein Obama, who was impeached by a federal judge on November 16, 2016 for what I consider to be criminal negligence and high crimes and misdemeanors for which he should have been removed from office in a more perfect world.

So it is good for your immortal soul, Chas, that you are in here unburdening yourself to Nick.

And Chas, when it comes to a total lack of climate justice here in the United States of America, where since 1751, this nation has been spewing gobs of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere in complete and blatant disregard of Greta Thunberg, and Nick’s generation, and a real American people getting a real crappy climate, as a result, consider what these poor people had to go through, to wit:

Floods were a frequent occurrence along the Poesten Kill, as spring run-off annually flooded low-lying fields and the threat of ice dams was ever present.

Major flooding occurred along the Poesten Kill, or on the Hudson at the mouth of the kill, in 1852, 1857 (highest flood ever recorded at Albany, almost twenty-two feet), 1869, 1871, 1874 (when a portion of the Congress Street bridge fell in), 1890, 1891, 1913 (which did a great amount of damage along the Poesten Kill in Troy), 1914, 1918, 1922, 1927, 1936, 1938 (which damaged the mills on the lower Poesten Kill), 1948, 1949, 1955 and 1977.

About 2:00 a.m. on September 18, 1890, the dam at the outlet of Bonesteel Pond in East Poestenkill gave way “and water rushed down through the narrow valley, tearing up trees and carrying away everything standing in its course.”

According to the New York Times, six bridges were destroyed, along with three sawmills and the barns and shed of George Cottrell.

At the hamlet of Barberville, John Randall’s shoe shop was demolished but the water spread out along the flats there, saving the rest of the hamlet from destruction.

At the village of Poestenkill, the streets were flooded and Wheeler’s shoe shop was washed from its foundation.

In Troy, the water “rose alarmingly, but did not flood its banks, even though Bonesteel Pond was completely drained of its water.

John Randall rebuilt his shop at Barberville but less than a year later it was washed away again, this time in a much more destructive storm.

It began the day before when a heavy rain swelled both the Poesten and Wynants Kills.

Already the locals were worried, and the next day, when news of a large storm was received, “several men immediately mounted horses and proceeded to the farm houses on the banks of the creek and gave the alarm.”

By 7:00 p.m., the water had risen considerably and carried away several bridges and sluices, including the iron bridge near Hammond Herrington’s in East Poestenkill.

“Mr. Herrington’s large flats are completely submerged,” the New York Times reported the next day, “completely destroying a large crop of potatoes and almost ruining the flats.”

“A barn occupied by Porter Herrington, who lives in the house, was carried away.”

“The roads are all gullied or washed out so as to be almost impassable, especially on the hills.”

end quotes

And that story of flooding goes on and on up to this present day!

So believe me, Chas, when Nick talks about the streets of Cape Charles flooding that same way, we feel his pain, because that is the history I grew up with, Chas, which gives me a real healthy respect for the power of Mother Nature when she is in a rampage, which happens often enough if you ended up in a place with a real crappy climate compared to that of Monticello or Cape Charles like those poor people of Poestenkill did, all because since 1751, the United States of America spewed tons upon tons of carbon dioxide into the air to cause all of that flooding in Poestenkill to happen the way it did.

And Chas, I am glad you are feeling remorse here, it is good for your soul, but don’t take all the burden of guilt on your shoulders when it is Hussein Obama who is the truly guilty party, that according to a federal court judge who should know what she is talking about when she proclaims Hussein guilty of destroying the ecology with his wanton and wasteful policies that encouraged people to make more carbon dioxide instead of less, and your sin was merely supporting him, perhaps out of ignorance and blind faith and devotion.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-219080
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 17, 2020 at 11:52 am

Paul Plante says :

Chas says:

We boomers (yes, I am one) have been lied to for the past forty/fifty years about the extent of damage carbons produce in the atmosphere.

Who lied to us?

Exxon, Mobil Oil, British Petroleum and the government.

The World Meteorological Organization (“WMO”) responds:

A breakthrough came in 1997 when John Browne, chief executive of oil giant BP Amoco, declared that global warming really might come to pass, and industry should prepare to deal with it.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-219080
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 17, 2020 at 9:43 pm

Paul Plante says :

And seriously, dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, speaking from the perspective of one of those swine before whom pearls have now been tossed, in the end, it was your generation that lied to itself.

And yes, Chas, Nick is indeed well-informed in ways we never were because the knowledge simply did not exist, such as 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 Cape Charles, Northampton County and the Commonwealth of Virginia take immediate action to have it be otherwise, which is what Nick’s letter starting this thread is all about, and yes, Chas, I do agree with you here that it is the voice of the youth that have to wrest this looming catastrophe from the grip of the old monied guard in places like Cape Charles, and the way to do that is through civil rights litigation charging Cape Charles with failing to protect Nick’s constitutional right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life, which climate system is fundamental to a free and ordered society, because, Chas, just as marriage is the “foundation of the family,” a stable climate system is quite literally the foundation “of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

What we now know, Chas Cornweller, this thanks to a courageous federal judge in Oregon in 2016 who had the guts and grit to stand up to a tyrant like Hussein Obama and face him down, and this is monstrous in the extreme, is that while president, Hussein Obama violated the due process rights of children like Nick by directly causing atmospheric CO2 to rise to levels that dangerously interfere with a stable climate system required alike by our nation and people like Nick and Greta Thunberg, knowingly endangering their health and welfare by approving and promoting fossil fuel development, including exploration, extraction, production, transportation, importation, exportation, and combustion, and, after knowingly creating this dangerous situation for children like Nick, who is quite correct when he says above that he as a young person who has done nothing to create this problem will be dealing with climate change’s growing effects for the rest of his life. continued to knowingly enhance that danger by allowing fossil fuel production, consumption, and combustion at dangerous levels.

And by extension, Chas, the Commonwealth of Virginia also knowingly enhanced the danger by allowing fossil fuel consumption and combustion at dangerous levels, as did Northampton County, and especially Cape Charles, which has knowingly enhanced the danger to Nick specifically by allowing fossil fuel consumption and combustion at dangerous levels by encouraging all these big tour boats we see in the picture postcards rich folks who have the bucks to move to a garden spot like Cape Charles send to the folks back home with the slogan “WISH YOU WERE HERE” emblazoned on it to come to Cape Charles to pollute Nick’s air with gobs of carbon dioxide.

What is clearly needed is a civil rights lawsuit against Cape Charles asking the Court to order Cape Charles to cease their authorizing and subsidizing of fossil fuels and, instead, move to swiftly phase out C02 emissions, as well as take such other action necessary to ensure that atmospheric C02 is no more concentrated than 350 ppm by 2100, including to develop a local plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that local plan so as to stabilize the climate system.

Are you against that, Chas?

Afterall, Chas, think about this: over the 263 years between 1751 and 2014, the United States produced more than twenty-five percent of global CO2 emissions, and being a thriving sea port during that time, Cape Charles shares a lot of the responsibility for that, so isn’t it finally time they were held to account?

What say you, Chas Cornweller?

The candid world waits with bated breath for your answer.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-219080
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 18, 2020 at 9:22 pm

Paul Plante says :

Third, the panel held that plaintiffs’ claimed injuries were not redressable by an Article III court.

Specifically, the panel held that it was beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan where any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches.

The panel reluctantly concluded that the plaintiffs’ case must be made to the political branches or to the electorate at large.

end quotes

Those words are from the majority Decision of the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit in the matter of Juliana at al. v. United States et al., filed January 17, 2020, effectively, for the moment, anyway, shutting down that insane idea that has been drilled into the heads of these gullible children being exploited by these lawyers that a federal judge actually has the power to not only control the earth’s many micro-climates, itself an absurd idea, but further, to grant them as individuals the climate they want, when and where they want it, which is even more absurd.

But as we can see from the VOX article entitled “21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs in the Juliana v. US lawsuit alleged the government violated the rights of young people to a safe climate” by Umair Irfan on Jan. 17, 2020, the insanity is far from over, to wit:

Andrea Rodgers, a senior attorney at Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit backing the youth who filed the lawsuit, described the decision in an email as “unprecedented and contrary to American principles of justice.”

Her organization has vowed to appeal the ruling in the coming weeks.

end quotes

Which itself is an incredibly stupid or naïve statement, given that the “American principles of justice” do not guarantee to children the climate they want, when they want it, nor do American principles of justice have any control whatsoever over the microclimates of the earth, which aren’t stable and never really have been.

As the climate expert H.H. Lamb stated in the seminal Climate, History and the Modern World, 2d. edition:

Most generations of mankind in most parts of the world have regarded climate as an unreliable, shifting, fluctuating thing, sometimes offering briefly unforeseen opportunities but at other times bringing disaster by famine, flood, drought or disease — not to mention frost, snow and icy winds.

end quotes

But today, we have these lawyers convincing children that now, it really doesn’t have to be that way, and the reason it was that way was because of all the carbon dioxide emitted by the United States of America since 1751.

Today, according to the crap these lawyers are jamming into the heads of these gullible children, the federal judges in America have the power to not only make the earth and its climate come to heel on command, but further, to make it lie down and do tricks, as well.

What horse****, but then, we are dealing with lawyers here, and that is their product they have for sale to the unsuspecting and gullible in the world.

As to what “climate” actually is, Lamb defines it thusly:

By climate we mean the total experience of the weather at any place over some specific period of time.

end quotes

That is what climate is and that is all that climate is, so when we hear of federal judges controlling the climate for these children, they are actually going to take control of the total experience of weather at any place over some specific period of time, that being at least the lifetime of these children, and who, besides The Guardian and these lawyers believes that?

And then in that same VOX article, we have this:

However, District Court Judge Josephine Staton thought otherwise and did not mince words in her dissent.

“It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses,” she wrote.

“Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.”

end quotes

And speaking of irony, that statement about the government not only bluntly insisting, but actually having the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation brings us back in time to the Cape Charles Mirror thread “Op-Ed: Should Sonia Sotomayor resign in disgrace?” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... -disgrace/ where we find clearly stated the source of the absolute and unreviewable power of the government to destroy the Nation – it comes from federal judges like Sonia Sotomayor who are put in office by politicians like Hussein Obama to protect that corrupt power by crushing citizens like myself who would dare to challenge it with facts, not hysteria as was the case here.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-220077
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 19, 2020 at 2:07 pm

Paul Plante says :

Point I is that this “climate change” hysteria, which started out as “global warming” until that slogan lost traction when the world started cooling instead, necessitating another slogan, has been a huge boon for the lawyer’s trade, which always has a lot of mouths to feed, as law school mills like Harvard continue to turn out swarms of new lawyers and lawyerettes to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

Point II is that this “climate change” hysteria, for hysteria it most certainly is, by design, since we need a real “crisis” to make us so scared we can’t think straight, which makes us far easier to manipulate and fleece, has been a real financial boon to money-hungry universities seeking to boost their profits by creating whole new departments to deal with “climate justice,” a meaningless term that can mean whatever you need it to mean at the moment.

Point III is that this “climate change” hysteria has opened up a whole new job market for all the new Ph.D.’s in “climate science,” another meaningless term, since climate is merely the weather, which non-Ph.D.’s have been studying since at least the 1600’s, who would otherwise be flipping burgers at McDonald’s while feverishly trying to pay off the exorbitant bill for their worthless degrees in “climate science” and “climate justice” which only have value if there is a “crisis” for them to “solve.”

So the “climate crisis” has been good for the U.S. economy by creating a lot of work for people who would otherwise be on the dole somewhere, and that in turn is great for the U.S. GDP!

So, if you are one of those lawyers, or lawyerettes or Ph.D.’s reaping a financial windfall from this “climate crisis,” it’s a win-win-win for you all the way around!

As for the rest of us, the beat goes on.

As for me, it was 8 degrees above the Fahrenheit zero the last couple of days, which sounded awful cold, so I made it quite a bit warmer by averaging the temperature here with the temperature in Death Valley and the temperature in Key West, Florida, and by God, I almost had it warm enough here to go swimming, if only I had an axe to cut through the ice with to actually get at the water, which still thought it was below freezing.

Oh, well.

Next time, I’ll have to find even more hot places to average our temperature with, and I can probably get it up to where it is actually quite balmy, in my mind, anyway.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-220440
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 19, 2020 at 6:47 pm

Paul Plante says :

Speaking of the “climate crisis,” which crisis was invented by lawyers as a new wide-open field of litigation, being a windfall for the lawyer’s trade, which can only make money by sowing turmoil and discord and then milking the turmoil for profit as is the case here, despite these law firms calling themselves “not-for-profits,” we need go no further than the list of lawyers involved in Juliana v. Hussein Obama and the USA case just decided by the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 17 January 2020 where Judge Hurwitz, Circuit Judge, wrote as follows:

The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.”

The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek — an order requiring the government to develop a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.”

Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power.

Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.

end quotes

COUNSEL

Jeffrey Bossert Clark (argued), Assistant Attorney General; Andrew C. Mergen, Sommer H. Engels, and Robert J. Lundman, Attorneys; Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellants.

Julia A. Olson (argued), Wild Earth Advocates, Eugene, Oregon; Philip L. Gregory, Gregory Law Group, Redwood City, California; Andrew K. Rodgers, Law Offices of Andrea K. Rodgers, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Theodore Hadzi-Antich and Ryan D. Walters, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Austin, Texas, for Amici Curiae Nuckels Oil Co., Inc. DBA Merit Oil Company; Libety Packing Company, LLC; Western States Trucking Association; and National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

Richard K. Eichstaedt, University Legal Assistance, Spokane, Washington, for Amici Curiae Eco-Justice Ministries; Interfaith Moral Action on Climate; General Synod of the United Church of Christ; Temple Beth Israel of Eugene, Oregon; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; Leadership Counsel of the Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary of Monroe, Michigan; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas’ Institute Leadership Team; GreenFaith; Leadership Team of the Sisters of Providence of Saint-Mary-of-the-Woods Indiana; Leadership Conference of Women Religious; Climate Change Task Force of the Sisters of Providence of Saint Mary-of-the-Woods; Quaker Earthcare Witness; Colorado Interfaith Power and Light; and the Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces.

Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler, Law Office of Dr. Curtis FJ Doebbler, San Antonio, Texas; D. Inder Comar, Comar LLP, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae International Lawyers for International Law.

Wendy B. Jacobs, Director; Shaun A. Goho, Deputy Director; Emmett Environmental Law & Policy Clinic, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts; for Amici Curiae Public Health Experts, Public Health Organizations, and Doctors.

David Bookbinder, Niskanen Center, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Niskanen Center.

Courtney B. Johnson, Crag Law Center, Portland, Oregon, for Amici Curiae League of Women Voters of the United States and League of Women Voters of Oregon.

Oday Salim, Environmental Law & Sustainability Clinic; Julian D. Mortensen and David M. Uhlmann, Professors; Alexander Chafetz, law student; University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan; for Amicus Curiae Sunrise Movement Education Fund.

Zachary B. Corrigan, Food & Water Watch, Inc., Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Food & Water Watch, Inc.; Friends of the Earth – US; and Greenpeace, Inc.

Patti Goldman, Earthjustice, Seattle, Washington; Sarah H. Burt, Earthjustice, San Francisco, California; for Amici Curiae EarthRights International, Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and Union of Concerned Scientists.

David Hunter and William John Snape III, American University, Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae International Environmental Law and Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide—US.

Timothy M. Bechtold, Bechtold Law Firm PLLC, Missoula, Montana, for Amici Curiae Members of the United States Congress.

Rachael Paschal Osborn, Vashon, Washington, for Amici Curiae Environmental History Professors.

Thomas J. Beers, Beers Law Offices, Seeley Lake, Montana; Irma S. Russell, Professor, and Edward A. Smith, Missouri Chair in Law, the Constitution, and Society, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, Kansas City, Missouri; W. Warren H. Binford Professor or Law & Director, Clinical Law Program, Willamette University, Salem, Oregon; for Amicus Curiae Zero Hour on Behalf of Approximately 32,340 Children and Young People.

Helen H. Kang, Environmental Law and Justice Clinic, Golden Gate University School of Law, San Francisco, California; James R. May and Erin Daly, Dignity Rights Project, Delaware Law School, Wilmington, Delaware; for Amici Curiae Law Professors.

Toby J. Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for Amici Curiae Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products, Inc.; Royal Blue Organics; Organically Grown Company; Bliss Unlimited, LLC, dba Coconut Bliss; Hummingbird Wholesale; Aspen Skiing Company, LLC; Protect Our Winters; National Ski Areas Association; Snowsports Industries America; and American Sustainable Business Council.

Alejandra Núñez and Andres Restrepo, Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Joanne Spalding, Sierra Club, Oakland, California; for Amicus Curiae Sierra Club.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/e ... ent-220440
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 18, 2020 at 7:42 pm

Paul Plante says:

And as an example of just how absolutely looney, zany and stupidly insane this “climate change” dialogue has become, we need go no further than this following from the VOX article entitled “21 kids sued the government over climate change. A federal court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs in the Juliana v. US lawsuit alleged the government violated the rights of young people to a safe climate” by Umair Irfan on Jan. 17, 2020, to wit:

Climate litigation has also emerged as an issue in the 2020 campaign for president.

Many of the Democratic contenders have called for fossil fuel companies to be held liable for climate damages and for sowing disinformation.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has gone as far as to call for criminal prosecution of greenhouse gas emitters.

end quotes

Yo! Yo! You Go, Bernie!

And since you are a prodigious greenhouse gas emitter yourself, what with both copious amounts of carbon dioxide from yourself and your staff and your political campaign, coupled with all that methane you personally are a big emitter of, make a good example for the rest of us and bring yourself on criminal charges first, and get yourself prosecuted to the fullest degree of the law to show us just how serious you really are.

Everybody who strikes a match is a greenhouse gas emitter.

All those people with their lit Bic lighters at Bernie Sanders Revival Rallies swaying back and forth in ecstasy as Bernie croons to them in dulcet tones are greenhouse gas emitters, because ALL combustion emits greenhouse gasses, including your gas grill or charcoal grill to cook you Mahi-Mahi steaks on.

Dare to combust anything, and you’ll end up doing hard time in Bernie’s world where emitting greenhouse gases, including farts, is a criminal offense.

And what a truly stupid statement that is, people, from somebody who wants to get into the White House to get his socialistic/communistic hands on $16.3 TRILLION in taxpayer funds that he can then squander in the name of climate justice, a contrived term with whatever meaning of the moment grasping hack politicians like Bernie Sanders can give to it.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-212459
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 21, 2020 at 10:46 pm

Paul Plante says :

And speaking of the insanity not only not being over, but instead being accelerated at what might be blinding speed which is going to further warp and twist the minds of America’s youth who are already suffering psychological problems because of all the hype and hysteria about “climate change,” and the end of the world coming, we have this addition to the hysteria from the January 17, 2020 dissent in Juliana v USA of Josephine Laura Staton, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California who obtained a Juris Doctor in 1986 from Harvard Law School and who on February 4, 2010, was nominated to the federal bench by Hussein Obama, a chief defendant in Juliana, to wit:

In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity.

It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses.

Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.

end quotes

When she refers to the “government” there, she is referring to Hussein Obama.

Continuing on with the hysteria that is destroying the minds of America’s children, she states:

My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary.

On a fundamental point, we agree: No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists.

But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.

Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.

So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard.

end quotes

There is where we are, people – it is now a matter of the willful destruction of the United States itself, and nothing less, as we can see by returning to that dissent as follows:

And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress.

Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewide prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province.

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

I. As the majority recognizes, and the government does not contest, carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet. Maj. Op. at 14–15.

end quotes

Now, right there, we in here in the Cape Charles Mirror who are daring to disbelieve any of this, and to question it, have just been made into heretics there, with that statement by this federal judge that carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet.

Whether that is true or not, by judicial decree, it is now true, and woe to us who think or can prove otherwise.

Getting back to that dissent:

According to one of plaintiffs’ experts, the inevitable result, absent immediate action, is “an inhospitable future . . . marked by rising seas, coastal city functionality loss, mass migrations, resource wars, food shortages, heat waves, mega-storms, soil depletion and desiccation, freshwater shortage, public health system collapse, and the extinction of increasing numbers of species.”

Even government scientists project that, given current warming trends, sea levels will rise two feet by 2050, nearly four feet by 2070, over eight feet by 2100, 18 feet by 2150, and over 31 feet by 2200.

To put that in perspective, a three-foot sea level rise will make two million American homes uninhabitable; a rise of approximately 20 feet will result in the total loss of Miami, New Orleans, and other coastal cities.

So, as described by plaintiffs’ experts, the injuries experienced by plaintiffs are the first small wave in an oncoming tsunami — now visible on the horizon of the not-so-distant future — that will destroy the United States as we currently know it.

end quotes

So, are we who dare to question then next going to be accused of being for the destruction of the United States as we currently know it?

Will that require us to be punished for thinking heretical thoughts along the lines of that is unscientific bull****?

Will we need re-education at hard labor to correct our flawed thinking?

Getting back to the dissent:

What sets this harm apart from all others is not just its magnitude, but its irreversibility.

The devastation might look and feel somewhat different if future generations could simply pick up the pieces and restore the Nation.

But plaintiffs’ experts speak of a certain level of global warming as “locking in” this catastrophic damage.

Put more starkly by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harold R. Wanless, “(a)tmospheric warming will continue for some 30 years after we stop putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.”

“But that warmed atmosphere will continue warming the ocean for centuries, and the accumulating heat in the oceans will persist for millennia” (emphasis added).

Indeed, another of plaintiffs’ experts echoes, “(t)he fact that GHGs dissipate very slowly from the atmosphere . . . and that the costs of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere through non-biological carbon capture and storage are very high means that the consequences of GHG emissions should be viewed as effectively irreversible” (emphasis added).

In other words, “(g)iven the self-reinforcing nature of climate change,” the tipping point may well have arrived, and we may be rapidly approaching the point of no return.

Despite countless studies over the last half century warning of the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, many of which the government conducted, the government not only failed to act but also “affirmatively promote(d) fossil fuel use in a host of ways.” Maj. Op. at 15.

According to plaintiffs’ evidence, our nation is crumbling — at our government’s own hand — into a wasteland.

In short, the government has directly facilitated an existential crisis to the country’s perpetuity.

end quotes

So, I guess afterall the Guardian was really right – the world is ending.

And the hype and hysteria beat goes on!

Incredible is all I can say.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-221236
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73386
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ON A PLEASANT CLIMATE AS A CIVIL RIGHT

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 22, 2020 at 7:46 pm

Paul Plante says:

And Chas, dude, speaking of the horrendous harm that has been done to Nick and Greta and their generation, who have really gotten a damn poor deal with this run-away climate change that is going to destroy a good chunk of America, including Cape Charles, along with causing the dissolution of the nation itself, on purpose, we find as of 17 January 2020, the news is now out, all over town, and it is not good for Obama at all, nor is it good for his mindless devotees who let him get away with anything he wanted because he was “black,” and so, operated by a “different” set of standards from what the white folks were used to, and no Chas, we are not talking Republican talking points, or mindless raving by Trump; no, quite to the contrary, we are speaking of the pellucid insight into the workings of reality itself when it comes to Washington politics in the January 17, 2020 dissent in Juliana v USA of Josephine Laura Staton, a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California who obtained a Juris Doctor in 1986 from Harvard Law School, to wit:

In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity.

It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses.

Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.

end quotes

So, Chas, when the judge states that the “government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation,” she is referring directly to Hussein Obama, because he is the dude the lawsuit was levied against, the CHIEF PERPETRATOR, and it is his policies that have caused the world Nick is to inherit to be crumbling, and this accordinfg to a federal judge who is as good a Democrat as they come, not some Republican slug or hack whose writings on the subject of Obama you would dismiss out of hand as Republican talking-points, a favorite dodge of yours, by the way, dismiss stuff as being Republican talking-points which makes it of no consequence, except this is a Democrat judge speaking, to wit:

According to plaintiffs’ evidence, our nation is crumbling — at our government’s own hand — into a wasteland.

In short, the government has directly facilitated an existential crisis to the country’s perpetuity.

end quotes

A wasteland, Chas – according to that judge, and she did go to Harvard, that is Obama’s true legacy to the people of America, including those not yet born – a wasteland, so no wonder young people like Nick and Greta Thunberg feel real visceral anger, and my goodness, Chas, how could they not when Barack Hussein Obama destroyed the world before they even had a chance to live in it, and willfully so, as we see in this footnote, to wit:

My asteroid analogy would therefore be more accurate if I posited a scenario in which the government itself accelerated the asteroid towards the earth before shutting down our defenses.

end quotes

And that, my dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller, is MONSTROUS!

Yes, monstrous, Chas – I can think of no other word for it!

Talk about high crimes against humanity and misdemeanors towards Nick and his generation who are going to have to pay the penalty, there it is in plain sight, and from the pen of a federal judge just five (5) days ago, which takes us back to that decision, as follows:

Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction.

So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard.

end quotes

Plainly stated, dear friend Chas, these aggrieved children whose lives have been turned upside down by the policies of Hussein Obama which are causing the nation to crumble brought suit against Hussein in an attempt to prevent the willful destruction of the nation that Obama was causing as we see by returning to that decision, to wit:

And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress.

As the majority recognizes, and the government does not contest, carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions created by burning fossil fuels are devastating the planet. Maj. Op. at 14–15.

According to one of plaintiffs’ experts, the inevitable result, absent immediate action, is “an inhospitable future . . . marked by rising seas, coastal city functionality loss, mass migrations, resource wars, food shortages, heat waves, mega-storms, soil depletion and desiccation, freshwater shortage, public health system collapse, and the extinction of increasing numbers of species.”

end quotes

And who we all have to thank for that horrible future, Chas, is Barack Hussein Obama, and all I can say is that I hope some young person like Nick with his education can bring Obama up on criminal charges for these crimes of his against humanity, to wit:

Even government scientists project that, given current warming trends, sea levels will rise two feet by 2050, nearly four feet by 2070, over eight feet by 2100, 18 feet by 2150, and over 31 feet by 2200.

To put that in perspective, a three-foot sea level rise will make two million American homes uninhabitable; a rise of approximately 20 feet will result in the total loss of Miami, New Orleans, and other coastal cities.

So, as described by plaintiffs’ experts, the injuries experienced by plaintiffs are the first small wave in an oncoming tsunami — now visible on the horizon of the not-so-distant future — that will destroy the United States as we currently know it.

end quotes

Many of us, Chas, warned over and over that Obama was a Marxist intent on bringing down our Republic so Obama could replace it with a socialist state, and there, we finally have a federal judge confirming what we rational people in this country have known all along, that Obama was intent on destroying the United States as we currently know it, while people like yourself cover up for him and by doing so, cheer him on, which takes us back to the decision as follows:

What sets this harm apart from all others is not just its magnitude, but its irreversibility.

The devastation might look and feel somewhat different if future generations could simply pick up the pieces and restore the Nation.

But plaintiffs’ experts speak of a certain level of global warming as “locking in” this catastrophic damage.

Put more starkly by plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Harold R. Wanless, “(a)tmospheric warming will continue for some 30 years after we stop putting more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.”

“But that warmed atmosphere will continue warming the ocean for centuries, and the accumulating heat in the oceans will persist for millennia” (emphasis added).

Indeed, another of plaintiffs’ experts echoes, “(t)he fact that GHGs dissipate very slowly from the atmosphere . . . and that the costs of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere through non-biological carbon capture and storage are very high means that the consequences of GHG emissions should be viewed as effectively irreversible” (emphasis added).

In other words, “(g)iven the self-reinforcing nature of climate change,” the tipping point may well have arrived, and we may be rapidly approaching the point of no return.

Despite countless studies over the last half century warning of the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, many of which the government conducted, the government not only failed to act but also “affirmatively promote(d) fossil fuel use in a host of ways.” Maj. Op. at 15.

end quotes

Thanks, Obama, for destroying the world before Nick got his chance to enjoy it!

The candid world will certainly remember your name for what you have left the future generations of America which is a great big ******* mess.

And Chas, as the earlier judge pointed out, Obama is impeached and convicted by his own mouth in his 2015 SOTU, so yes, he is the guilty party here, and should be considered so and treated as so by Nick’s generation and all these younger children including my granddaughters who are the parties so callously harmed and deprived of their future by Democrat Barack Hussein Obama whose actions were so reprehensible even another Democrat wouldn’t give him political cover.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... ent-221628
Post Reply