THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 28, 2019 at 7:24 pm
Paul Plante says :
And I am not sure about anyone else in here, but where I am sitting up here in the cheap seats, with this open letter to Senator Lewis and Representative Bloxom, and by extension the Commonwealth of Virginia, its citizens, the County of Northampton in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Town of Cape Charles in the County of Northampton in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am seeing what very well could be the carefully-crafted and well-thought-out opening shot in what would be a real doozy of a federal civil rights lawsuit against the United States government, the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Northampton and the Town of Cape Charles for failing to take prudent and prompt and proper action to keep older people from burning though not only their rightful carbon allowance, but the carbon allowance of as-of-yet unborn children and Greta Thunberg and by extension those children citizens of the United States who reside in Cape Charles in Northampton County in the Commonwealth of Virginia, this based on this finding of federal district court judge Ann Aiken in Juliana v. U.S., 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
Based on that recent multiple car crash here in the Commonwealth caused by icy roads, for example, which alone is grounds for a federal civil rights lawsuit in the light of the above ruling of Judge Aiken in Juliana that the right of children to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society, given that as the crashes actually happened, which is how I and the rest of the candid world know they happened, making the national news as they did, and as the cause was ice which in a civilized climate should not have been allowed to be there in the first place, clearly a case can be made there alone that the Commonwealth of Virginia is failing in its clear duty to the children of the Commonwealth to provide them with a climate system capable of sustaining human life, said climate system being fundamental to a free and ordered society, which it clearly is not when you have a huge tangle of wrecked cars on a highway in the Commonwealth of Virginia that is the subject of national news coverage, the lousy climate the Commonwealth of Virginia was sticking its citizens with, because a lot of hoggish older folks, the Holocene generation, were chewing through the carbon budget of the Anthropocene generation without any thought to the fact that they were stealing the childhood of Greta Thunberg, and the children of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the County of Northampton and the Town of Cape Charles, by extension, and hey, maybe that is really what it takes to get this carbon pollution problem under some type of government control, before every last gigaton of carbon credits that were to be for the unborn children of the Commonwealth of Virginia get used up today by old people in Cape Charles who want to live large with no thoughts about the future of young people like Greta Thunberg, is a massive civil rights lawsuit against the Commonwealth and the County of Northampton and the Town of Cape Charles, especially, for allowing that to happen without putting curbs on older people to keep them within their carbon allotment, so there is some left for the children of the future.
If so, from my perspective as one who has sued unresponsive and uncaring government many times on what in reality are civil rights matters related to protection of public health, I would say that this certainly is a very good start to a protracted federal civil rights suit along the lines of Juliana v. U.S. now that Judge Aiken has made that ruling that she has no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society – putting elected officials on public notice that something is now seriously wrong with the climate of the Commonwealth of Virginia that these elected officials are responsible for, and then giving them an opportunity to fix the problem, before any civil rights litigation commences.
In that sense, I have to say this is very well-done, very well-worded and quite professionally crafted, which must stand as a tribute to the University of Virginia degree program in Global Environments and Sustainability. which makes it quite to the point, so there can be no mistaking the fact that action by these elected officials is expected to be forthcoming!
And again, thanks to the good offices of the Cape Charles Mirror for making us all in America aware of this development, which may well end up in the United States Supreme Court some day as a test case, and hopefully, as this story progresses, the Mirror will continue to keep We, the American People who depend on the Mirror to keep us up to date on reality on further developments, specifically how Senator Lewis and Representative Bloxom respond.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/a ... te-change/
ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
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: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
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: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
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: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
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: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 4, 2020 at 7:37 pm
Paul Plante says :
So, recapping events here for those who like it kept real simple, and who doesn’t, actually, on February 22, 2004, despite there being no rational basis to support the wild and extravagant charges, The Guardian, a Brit publication that relies on sensationalism and hysteria-mongering to sell newspapers, stated thusly:
“Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.”
end quotes
That. of course, is something that The Guardian made up out of thin air mixed with a generous amount of pot smoke from some really good weed being imported into Jolly Olde from Afghanistan, because good old freedom of the press in the United States of America grants The Guardian a license to lie and distort; but nonetheless, eleven years later, in his Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address on January 20, 2015, Hussein Obama, himself an oily and slick Marxist committed to the socialist state here in the United States of America who knows full well the value of hysterical propaganda from The Guardian in inflicting mind-numbing fear on the population at large, and especially the children which makes them tractable and easy to fleece, jumped right on that hysteria-mongering by The Guardian, and he made it part of his address to the nation, as follows:
And no challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. (Applause.)
2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.
Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does: 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.
end quotes
What Hussein fails to mention, and this comes from him being slick and oily, a real smooth operator as the polished Marxists usually are, the glib tongue, is that those records don’t go back all that far, and they certainly do not make a trend, but like The Guardian, as United States president, Hussein Obama himself had a license to spew all the horse**** in the world and never be held to account, which takes us back to 2015, as follows:
I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act.
Well, I’m not a scientist, either.
But you know what, I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and at NOAA, and at our major universities.
And the best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we don’t act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration and conflict and hunger around the globe.
The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security.
We should act like it. (Applause.)
And that’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy to the way we use it.
That’s why we’ve set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history.
And that’s why I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts.
I am determined to make sure that American leadership drives international action. (Applause.)
In Beijing, we made a historic announcement: The United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution.
And China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions.
And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that this year the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.
end quotes
And thereafter, in November of 2016, based on the assertions of Hussein Obama in his January 20, 2015 SOTU that if we don’t act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration and conflict and hunger around the globe, which sensationalist assertions by Obama were lifted pretty much word for word from The Guardian article in 2004 and subsequent sensationalist progeny, because no responsible scientists are making such hysterical and sensationalist claims, nor is there evidence to support those claims made by the oily and slick Hussein, nor does either The Guardian or Obama require proof to make an assertion, the federal district court in Oregon ruled thusly, which shows the power of persistent political lies here in the United States of America, a truth a committed Marxist like Hussein Obama knows all too well, to wit:
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 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)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 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.
end quotes
Yes, indeed, people, the power of lies, because none of that is based on science, which does not make hysterical and sensationalist predictions!
Pretty incredible from my perspective, but such it is, and even though the world has not yet ended as The Guardian said it would, unfazed by that, they have merely moved the end date out a couple of years to keep the hysteria-mongering and sensationalism going, because it sells newspapers and is good for Democrat party politics in this country.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-214800
Paul Plante says :
So, recapping events here for those who like it kept real simple, and who doesn’t, actually, on February 22, 2004, despite there being no rational basis to support the wild and extravagant charges, The Guardian, a Brit publication that relies on sensationalism and hysteria-mongering to sell newspapers, stated thusly:
“Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.”
end quotes
That. of course, is something that The Guardian made up out of thin air mixed with a generous amount of pot smoke from some really good weed being imported into Jolly Olde from Afghanistan, because good old freedom of the press in the United States of America grants The Guardian a license to lie and distort; but nonetheless, eleven years later, in his Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address on January 20, 2015, Hussein Obama, himself an oily and slick Marxist committed to the socialist state here in the United States of America who knows full well the value of hysterical propaganda from The Guardian in inflicting mind-numbing fear on the population at large, and especially the children which makes them tractable and easy to fleece, jumped right on that hysteria-mongering by The Guardian, and he made it part of his address to the nation, as follows:
And no challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. (Applause.)
2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.
Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does: 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.
end quotes
What Hussein fails to mention, and this comes from him being slick and oily, a real smooth operator as the polished Marxists usually are, the glib tongue, is that those records don’t go back all that far, and they certainly do not make a trend, but like The Guardian, as United States president, Hussein Obama himself had a license to spew all the horse**** in the world and never be held to account, which takes us back to 2015, as follows:
I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists; that we don’t have enough information to act.
Well, I’m not a scientist, either.
But you know what, I know a lot of really good scientists at NASA, and at NOAA, and at our major universities.
And the best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we don’t act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration and conflict and hunger around the globe.
The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security.
We should act like it. (Applause.)
And that’s why, over the past six years, we’ve done more than ever to combat climate change, from the way we produce energy to the way we use it.
That’s why we’ve set aside more public lands and waters than any administration in history.
And that’s why I will not let this Congress endanger the health of our children by turning back the clock on our efforts.
I am determined to make sure that American leadership drives international action. (Applause.)
In Beijing, we made a historic announcement: The United States will double the pace at which we cut carbon pollution.
And China committed, for the first time, to limiting their emissions.
And because the world’s two largest economies came together, other nations are now stepping up, and offering hope that this year the world will finally reach an agreement to protect the one planet we’ve got.
end quotes
And thereafter, in November of 2016, based on the assertions of Hussein Obama in his January 20, 2015 SOTU that if we don’t act forcefully, we’ll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration and conflict and hunger around the globe, which sensationalist assertions by Obama were lifted pretty much word for word from The Guardian article in 2004 and subsequent sensationalist progeny, because no responsible scientists are making such hysterical and sensationalist claims, nor is there evidence to support those claims made by the oily and slick Hussein, nor does either The Guardian or Obama require proof to make an assertion, the federal district court in Oregon ruled thusly, which shows the power of persistent political lies here in the United States of America, a truth a committed Marxist like Hussein Obama knows all too well, to wit:
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 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)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 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.
end quotes
Yes, indeed, people, the power of lies, because none of that is based on science, which does not make hysterical and sensationalist predictions!
Pretty incredible from my perspective, but such it is, and even though the world has not yet ended as The Guardian said it would, unfazed by that, they have merely moved the end date out a couple of years to keep the hysteria-mongering and sensationalism going, because it sells newspapers and is good for Democrat party politics in this country.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-214800
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 5, 2020 at 11:38 pm
Paul Plante says :
And continuing this truly bizarre story of how lies become truth by being told over and over again, totally undeterred by the fact that what was predicted by The Guardian on February 22, 2004, despite there being no rational basis to support the wild and extravagant charges, that “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters,” at the conclusion of its article “When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez met Greta Thunberg: ‘Hope is contagious’ – One is America’s youngest-ever congresswoman, the other a Swedish schoolgirl. Two of the most powerful voices on the climate speak for the first time” by Emma Brockes on 29 Jun 2019, this is what The Guardian had to tell us American people, as if we were all totally stupid, and it was our bestest friend ever, to wit:
America faces an epic choice…
… in the coming year, and the results will define the country for a generation.
These are perilous times.
Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth.
This US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour.
Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace.
Truth is being chased away.
But with your help we can continue to put it center stage.
It will be a defining year and we’re asking for your help as we prepare for 2020.
Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media’s tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform the American public in 2020.
The need for a robust, independent press has never been greater, and with your help we can continue to provide fact-based reporting that offers public scrutiny and oversight.
“America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness.”
“Many vital aspects of American public life are in play – the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth inequality, Big Tech and much more.”
“The stakes could hardly be higher.”
“As that choice nears, the Guardian, as it has done for 200 years, and with your continued support, will continue to argue for the values we hold dear – facts, science, diversity, equality and fairness.”
– US editor, John Mulholland
end quotes
My response as an American citizen would be that if The Guardian really is so concerned about lying in American media being so commonplace as it is, especially with respect to this subject of “climate change,” which is spawning its own tsunami of blatant lies and untruths and hysteria-mongering, then it is The Guardian that should stop lying to us and distorting truth and facts, which would be a real good start to putting and end to that real serious problem we all face today – the lies and untruths and distortions rags and hysteria-mongerers like The Guardian are feeding us on this subject of climate change.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-215164
Paul Plante says :
And continuing this truly bizarre story of how lies become truth by being told over and over again, totally undeterred by the fact that what was predicted by The Guardian on February 22, 2004, despite there being no rational basis to support the wild and extravagant charges, that “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters,” at the conclusion of its article “When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez met Greta Thunberg: ‘Hope is contagious’ – One is America’s youngest-ever congresswoman, the other a Swedish schoolgirl. Two of the most powerful voices on the climate speak for the first time” by Emma Brockes on 29 Jun 2019, this is what The Guardian had to tell us American people, as if we were all totally stupid, and it was our bestest friend ever, to wit:
America faces an epic choice…
… in the coming year, and the results will define the country for a generation.
These are perilous times.
Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth.
This US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour.
Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace.
Truth is being chased away.
But with your help we can continue to put it center stage.
It will be a defining year and we’re asking for your help as we prepare for 2020.
Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media’s tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform the American public in 2020.
The need for a robust, independent press has never been greater, and with your help we can continue to provide fact-based reporting that offers public scrutiny and oversight.
“America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness.”
“Many vital aspects of American public life are in play – the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth inequality, Big Tech and much more.”
“The stakes could hardly be higher.”
“As that choice nears, the Guardian, as it has done for 200 years, and with your continued support, will continue to argue for the values we hold dear – facts, science, diversity, equality and fairness.”
– US editor, John Mulholland
end quotes
My response as an American citizen would be that if The Guardian really is so concerned about lying in American media being so commonplace as it is, especially with respect to this subject of “climate change,” which is spawning its own tsunami of blatant lies and untruths and hysteria-mongering, then it is The Guardian that should stop lying to us and distorting truth and facts, which would be a real good start to putting and end to that real serious problem we all face today – the lies and untruths and distortions rags and hysteria-mongerers like The Guardian are feeding us on this subject of climate change.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-215164
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
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: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 8, 2020 at 8:53 pm
Paul Plante says :
And what we are witnessing here 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, is a clear case 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 come into existence, 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, to wit:
A. Infringement of a Fundamental Right
When a plaintiff challenges affirmative government action under the due process clause, the threshold inquiry is the applicable level of judicial scrutiny. Witt v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 813 (9th Cir. 2008).
The default level of scrutiny is rational basis, which requires a reviewing court to uphold the challenged governmental action so long as it “implements a rational means of achieving a legitimate governmental end[.]” Kim v. United States, 121F.3d1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted).
When the government infringes a “fundamental right,” however, a reviewing court applies strict scrutiny. Witt, 527 F.3d at 817.
Substantive due process “forbids the government to infringe certain ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993) (emphasis in original).
Resolution of this part of the motions to dismiss therefore hinges on whether plaintiffs have alleged infringement of a fundamental right.
Fundamental liberty rights include both rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution and rights and liberties which are either (1) “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” or (2) “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742, 767(2010).
The Supreme Court has cautioned that federal courts must “exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field, lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into” judicial policy preferences. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
This does not mean that “new” fundamental rights are out of bounds, though.
When the Supreme Court broke new legal ground by recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote that:
“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.”
“The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights … did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”
“When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2598 (2015).
Thus, “(t)he identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution … [that] has not been reduced to any formula.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).
In determining whether a right is fundamental, courts must exercise “reasoned judgment,” keeping in mind that “(h)istory and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.” Id.
The genius of the Constitution is that its text allows “future generations [to] protect … the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” Id.
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-53 (1973), the Court exhaustively chronicled the jurisprudential history of the fundamental right to privacy – another right not mentioned in the text of the Constitution.
Roe’s central holding rests on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 153.
But the Court also found “roots” of the right to privacy in the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, and the Ninth Amendment. Id. at 152.
Similarly, in Obergefell, the Court’s recognition of a fundamental right to marry was grounded in an understanding of marriage as a right underlying and supporting other vital liberties. See 135 S. Ct. at 2599 (“(I)t would be contradictory to recognize a right to privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is at the foundation of the family in our society.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); id. at 2601 (“(M)arriage is a keystone of our social order.”).
Exercising my “reasoned judgment,” id at 2598, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.
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.” Id (quoting Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888)); cf Minors Oposa v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Envt’l & Natural Res., G.R. No. 101083, 33 I.L.M. 173, 187-88 (S.C., Jul. 30, 1993) (Phil.) (without “a balanced and healthful ecology,” future generations “stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.”).
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.
Echoing Obergefell’s reasoning, plaintiffs allege a stable climate system is a necessary condition to exercising other rights to life, liberty, and property.
In this opinion, this Court simply holds that where a complaint alleges governmental action is affirmatively and substantially damaging the climate system in a way that will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet’s ecosystem, it states a claim for a due process violation.
To hold otherwise would be to say that the Constitution affords no protection against a government’s knowing decision to poison the air its citizens breathe or the water its citizens drink.
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged infringement of a fundamental right.
end quotes
And thus, like gay marriage in America, a new Constitutional right for those under 18 who are demanding the federal government provide them with the climate they demand, when they demand it, has been created by this unelected federal judge appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton.
And based on that newly created Constitutional right for those under 18 here in the United States of America, according to Judge Aiken, the Plaintiffs ask this Court to “order Defendants to cease their permitting, 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 national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system.”
In other words, according to this federal judge, not only has a new Constitutional right been established, but at the same time, a new Constitutional duty has been imposed on the federal government, that duty being to provide the children of America with the climate each of them feels they are entitled to, when they want it, which takes us back to these words from the judge, as follows:
Plaintiffs have alleged a causal relationship between their injuries and defendants’ conduct.
At this stage, I am bound to accept those allegations as true.
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
Yes, people, not only has our Constitution been changed by judicial decree, but our history has been, as well, given that according to this federal court judge, and she would know our nation’s history better than any of the rest of us, the United States of America have been in existence since 1751, not 1776 as we older people in this nation previously thought, and you know?
Why not have it be 1751 instead of 1776?
Does it really make a difference?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-216037
Paul Plante says :
And what we are witnessing here 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, is a clear case 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 come into existence, 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, to wit:
A. Infringement of a Fundamental Right
When a plaintiff challenges affirmative government action under the due process clause, the threshold inquiry is the applicable level of judicial scrutiny. Witt v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 527 F.3d 806, 813 (9th Cir. 2008).
The default level of scrutiny is rational basis, which requires a reviewing court to uphold the challenged governmental action so long as it “implements a rational means of achieving a legitimate governmental end[.]” Kim v. United States, 121F.3d1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks omitted).
When the government infringes a “fundamental right,” however, a reviewing court applies strict scrutiny. Witt, 527 F.3d at 817.
Substantive due process “forbids the government to infringe certain ‘fundamental’ liberty interests at all, no matter what process is provided, unless the infringement is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993) (emphasis in original).
Resolution of this part of the motions to dismiss therefore hinges on whether plaintiffs have alleged infringement of a fundamental right.
Fundamental liberty rights include both rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution and rights and liberties which are either (1) “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” or (2) “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742, 767(2010).
The Supreme Court has cautioned that federal courts must “exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field, lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into” judicial policy preferences. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
This does not mean that “new” fundamental rights are out of bounds, though.
When the Supreme Court broke new legal ground by recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote that:
“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.”
“The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights … did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”
“When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2598 (2015).
Thus, “(t)he identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution … [that] has not been reduced to any formula.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).
In determining whether a right is fundamental, courts must exercise “reasoned judgment,” keeping in mind that “(h)istory and tradition guide and discipline this inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.” Id.
The genius of the Constitution is that its text allows “future generations [to] protect … the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.” Id.
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152-53 (1973), the Court exhaustively chronicled the jurisprudential history of the fundamental right to privacy – another right not mentioned in the text of the Constitution.
Roe’s central holding rests on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 153.
But the Court also found “roots” of the right to privacy in the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, and the Ninth Amendment. Id. at 152.
Similarly, in Obergefell, the Court’s recognition of a fundamental right to marry was grounded in an understanding of marriage as a right underlying and supporting other vital liberties. See 135 S. Ct. at 2599 (“(I)t would be contradictory to recognize a right to privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is at the foundation of the family in our society.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); id. at 2601 (“(M)arriage is a keystone of our social order.”).
Exercising my “reasoned judgment,” id at 2598, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.
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.” Id (quoting Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 211 (1888)); cf Minors Oposa v. Sec’y of the Dep’t of Envt’l & Natural Res., G.R. No. 101083, 33 I.L.M. 173, 187-88 (S.C., Jul. 30, 1993) (Phil.) (without “a balanced and healthful ecology,” future generations “stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life.”).
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.
Echoing Obergefell’s reasoning, plaintiffs allege a stable climate system is a necessary condition to exercising other rights to life, liberty, and property.
In this opinion, this Court simply holds that where a complaint alleges governmental action is affirmatively and substantially damaging the climate system in a way that will cause human deaths, shorten human lifespans, result in widespread damage to property, threaten human food sources, and dramatically alter the planet’s ecosystem, it states a claim for a due process violation.
To hold otherwise would be to say that the Constitution affords no protection against a government’s knowing decision to poison the air its citizens breathe or the water its citizens drink.
Plaintiffs have adequately alleged infringement of a fundamental right.
end quotes
And thus, like gay marriage in America, a new Constitutional right for those under 18 who are demanding the federal government provide them with the climate they demand, when they demand it, has been created by this unelected federal judge appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton.
And based on that newly created Constitutional right for those under 18 here in the United States of America, according to Judge Aiken, the Plaintiffs ask this Court to “order Defendants to cease their permitting, 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 national plan to restore Earth’s energy balance, and implement that national plan so as to stabilize the climate system.”
In other words, according to this federal judge, not only has a new Constitutional right been established, but at the same time, a new Constitutional duty has been imposed on the federal government, that duty being to provide the children of America with the climate each of them feels they are entitled to, when they want it, which takes us back to these words from the judge, as follows:
Plaintiffs have alleged a causal relationship between their injuries and defendants’ conduct.
At this stage, I am bound to accept those allegations as true.
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
Yes, people, not only has our Constitution been changed by judicial decree, but our history has been, as well, given that according to this federal court judge, and she would know our nation’s history better than any of the rest of us, the United States of America have been in existence since 1751, not 1776 as we older people in this nation previously thought, and you know?
Why not have it be 1751 instead of 1776?
Does it really make a difference?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/c ... ent-216037
Re: ON ENVIRONMENTAL HYSTERIA-MONGERING
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