Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A Washington State Judge has found in favour of petitioners demanding action on Climate Change.
According to The Blaze;
In what environmentalists are calling a “groundbreaking” ruling, a Washington state judge has ruled that state lawmakers have a “constitutional obligation” to the youth of the state to take action on global warming.
Using some alarming language, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis R. Hill issued a ruling in favor of eight youth petitioners in a case against the Washington Department of Ecology, which will require writing carbon emission rules to protect their generation.
The judge’s ruling said the youths “very survival depends upon the will of their elders to act now, decisively and unequivocally, to stem the tide of global warming…before doing so becomes first too costly and then too late.”
The judge determined the state’s public trust doctrine gives the state a “mandatory duty” to act.
“The state has a constitutional obligation to protect the public’s interest in natural resources held in trust for the common benefit of the people,” the ruling said.
Read more: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/11/20/judge-finds-constitutional-obligation-for-state-to-act-on-global-warming/
To me this judgement stinks of judicial overreach – judges are supposed to enforce laws written by elected legislators, not dictate to legislators what laws they should write.
However, even if this judgement is upheld, the outcome might not be quite what activists expect. A strong case could be made that Renewables don’t work, that Renewables will never be a viable replacement for existing fossil fuel based systems.
Lawmakers who attempt to use this judgement to boost state funding for renewables might actually find themselves exposed to future prosecution.
This leaves nuclear power and gas fracking as the proven, carbon friendly alternatives to existing carbon intensive energy systems – neither of which is top of the list of green favourites.
Correction (EW) – “in favour of” is an oversimplification of a complex judgement. The petition to force The Department of Ecology, amongst other things, to adopt explicit GHG limitations was denied. Since The Department of Ecology “has commenced rule making to establish greenhouse emission standards taking into account science as well as economic, social and political considerations, the department cannot be found to be acting arbitrarily or capriciously”.
However, the judgement appears in many ways to be a victory for the plaintiffs. The aspect of the ruling which greens are celebrating, is that the judge found that The Department of Ecology has a constitutional obligation to protect state resources from the effects of Climate Change. Presumably if the Department of Ecology was not already acting to produce rules which limit GHG emissions, the judgement might have gone against them. The Department of Ecology has the right to consider factors other than climate science, but it has a constitutional obligation to protect State resources from the predicted consequences of GHG emissions, such as ocean acidification, damage to fisheries from warmer sea water, and sea level rise.
If trying to make sense of this judgement makes your head hurt, if you are confused about what it means for The Department of Ecology, you’re not alone.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unless the plaintiffs (called “petitioners” by “The Blaze”) in this lawsuit, who soon will be (likely, already have been served with the State of Washington’s appeal, so ARE) “The Respondents” (only on appeal are plaintiffs called “petitioners,” IIRC — on appeal, the State of Wash. will be “The Petitioner”),
will most certainly lose (unless they can forum-pick another climate zealot judge).
There has been no injury. There is not even a reasonable certainty of an imminent injury requiring a declaratory judgment to prevent. Just AGW CO2 blather and speculation. Thus, for lack of standing (need injury to have standing to sue), the case will be dismissed on appeal.
Yes AGW will be on trial. Too funny.
It WOULD be hilarious, for AGW is just a bunch of bloated nonsense based on pseudo-science, AB,
however, the substance of the AGW Cult’s claims about CO2 will not be reached, for there is NO BASIS IN THE LAW for a claim. That is, there is no cause of action for: Something Bad that Might Happen to Me Because Al Gore Said So. Or the like.
I think oil (and coal) companies should be enjoined from selling any products in Washington State until this case is settled.
I like that idea.
The way to hell is paved with good intentions.
Stupid fools who have no idea what in hell they are even doing.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/planetophysical.html
This is what they are doing with our tax dollars and it’s where the money from this extortion scheme will go .
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/rockwell-integrated-space-plan.pdf
Quick!Take out an injunction to stop all gas pumps from delivering gas in Washington state…let’s see how long this nonsense would persist.
Whoa there big fellas… if we are going down the road of giving them what they want… just stop that treatment at the King county boundaries… the rest of the state isn’t on board with that ripe and especially not with the breakfast cereals (Fruit Loops, Dolts and Nuts, Cuckoo Profs, etc) in charge of the most populous county in the state.
They already are trying to ensure that we follow California (the current Governor is a real fanboy of Jerry Brown’s), and this is just another step. Now it looks like the voters will have to get rid of the entire State Supreme court next election as well.
The work is never done…
phil, we can add electricity produced by fossil fuels to your list.
Washington is the most dammed state in the U.S. Start by blowing up all the hydro-power dams so the salmon can freely swim and spawn.
I like the idea of suing to get recycling mandates overturned if the cost outweighs the benefit. Include the impact of that 2nd fleet of garbage trucks spewing CO/particulates/NOx/CO2 to collect all the recyclables of little to no value, such as mixed paper, ferrous metals and glass. Only aluminum cans, plastics and corrugated board (if you can keep it dry) actually would make any sense to recycle and that could be handled through a redemption program, like California and Oregon bottle bills. I say burn or gasify what you can. The stuff is very clean, high in energy value and relatively low ash — perfect for generating heat and energy.
It’s all about gaining mindshare in the court of popular opinion via mainstream media sources. Message a soundbite or headline into as many heads as possible so as to claim the dominate narrative and then carry through with the theatre of “everyone knows that…”.
Won’t the US Government have to go to war with China? Can the lawyers sue China for the effects of their “pollution”?
Janice, I work in a civil defense law firm and I completely agree that damages must be demonstrated for litigation to proceed.
I heard one attorney saying that her friend wanted to sue for misdiagnosis. But she got a second opinion and the diagnosis was correct. The attorney told her — emphatically — that there were no grounds for litigation on the grounds that there was no damage.
Evan
The bar for adverse impact is being pushed lower. I think you’ll begin to see more and more of these cases being pushed under CO2 disparate impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
Wiki does an “okay” job but doesn’t connect the dots. They aren’t ready to lower that boom on the public just yet.
CO2 is a pollutant
I live in a nonattainment zone.
I am a protected class.
My future has been unintentionally impacted by CO2 nonattainment.
Of course only the lawyers make bank, but nobody seems to care about that much.
“My future has been impacted…” — and right about there, the judge would hold up his or her hand and say, “Stop!” And grant the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, or the like). No injury.
There is no causal link that proves (not even in the slightest) that CO2 can cause imminent, measurable, harm to anyone.
LOL, there is more evidence that CO2 causes cooling! (and that is not truly “evidence,” — just showing that their conjecture about CO2 is not only not backed by evidence, their conjecture, since around 1998, has become illogical, to boot!), i.e., CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaa!
What CLOWNS!
#(:))
Re: “disparate impact” — in the U.S., that concept is used mainly (only?) in cases involving employment discrimination and the like. Plaintiffs argue, for instance, that while a job requirement is bona fide, it is not necessary (too high a bar for what it required for the job) AND that that requirement is artificially weeding out minority or female or other protected class (mainly under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its amendments). For instance, if a shipping company required all job applicants to be able to lift 100 lbs. on a regular basis when the job duties never actually made that necessary. Or, if you had to be able to answer “these 10 questions about U.S. History and Geography” when that info. had no relationship to the job (it would weed out, say, a Barry Soetoro, who doesn’t know how many states there are in the United States — which, btw, any child in the U.S. over 7 knows — when he could very nicely flip those burgers).
It sounds, Knute, as though you are using the term “disparate impact” as defined in another country’s jurisprudence.
Janice
As we speak, the US government has already created a database to identify protected classes that would benefit from living in CO2 nonattainment zones. Remember SCOTUS said EPA can regulate traditional polluters for CO2. This translates into coal plants and refineries as targets. Many protected classes live in these adjacent neighborhoods and are being prepped by their local NGOs to identify where the unintentional (disparate) harm has been created in their lives. Major class action law firms and top tier NGOs have access to this public database. Originally meant to be applied to substandard housing, the principle will be applied to CO2 nonattainment zones. You can see how housing and an “atmosphere” that you can’t avoid become related.
Up till now, class action lawsuits have been relatively unsuccessful in suing the above targets for particulate matter and spurious emissions. It’s a layup for them when they start to sue for CO2 nonattainment.
Too make matters more intriguing, the Latino population has large population centers around these zones and recent polls indicate that they are connecting that supporting CO2 regulation is also a tangential way to access a better life. The Democrat strategists are also well aware of this phenom.
When Hillary gets nominated, I think you will see her pick someone with deep ties to the above strategy. It’s no surprise to most at this point that the Latino vote is a big swing vote in this election.
I pick up bits and pieces from unconnected dots.
It’s strategy, so it doesn’t behoove them to come and say hey, guess what we are doing.
Thanks for the affirmation, Evan. Lol, that was an ethical attorney (and most are) — there are some who would have said, “Let’s get a third opinion. I know someone… .”
Nice to hear you have a job in a firm with competent attorneys with personal integrity. You fit right in.
It seems that Washington State is a breeding ground for activist judges who speak a different version of the English language; including the “Webster’s” subspecies of that language.
Many years ago, one such judge from his ivory tower of Babellian gobbledegook, decreed that ‘ subsistence fishing in (their) traditional places, by their traditional means ‘ ; which seems to have been to hang over a waterfall with a woven straw basket held out to catch an occasional salmon that might leap out of the water into the basket, could be extrapolated to stretching a gill net all the way across the same river at a place where it would entrap and kill every single fish that swam up the river, so they could be loaded into the back of a truck and hauled into town to sell to anyone else who wanted to buy them. Thereby transmogrifying ” subsistence fishing ” into capitalist fishmongering for profit.
Been so long ago that I can’t recall the details; nor can I confirm that there is actually a word ” transmogrifying ” but it exactly fits the situation.
g
The petition was in fact denied
The plantifs called it a victory bit they lost all the same.
Cultural Marxism is speading into the judicial system?
The courts are in the same hands as the people who own the politicians. See the Powell Memo for example. This is perfectly in line with a string of planned agendas which amount to a tag and release program along with the creation of new class of royalty. For example, anyone paying attention can see they are working for a long term plan to put taxation on miles instead of at the the pump. This is part of that plan.
This is being forwarded under the guise that electric cars don’t pay road taxes. The Insurance companies are pushing this agenda because this way they can keep tabs on your reported driving habits and how many miles you are really driving, but the real motive is to put in place a means to constrict travel and to keep tabs on every single vehicle.
The main thing is that they are using the courts to write the laws and thereby going over the tops of the people without a public mandate. This is all being carefully worked by vested interests.
“Pleeaze Bre’r Greenie ,don’t throw us in that brier patch!!”
The law of unintended consequences is operable here…
Janice, don’t count on it. Look back over he years since Jan 2009 and see how many things that “couldn’t happen” and “couldn’t stand” once they happened, have indeed come to pass and become permanent.
Good point Janice. I also noticed this:
So, is the ‘constitutional obligation’ also to protect the yet to be born?
As an aside, The Blaze should get a better editor, or one who knows how to use the plural possessive. (…the YOUTHS’ very survival)
Hi, Harry,
That clause of the Wash. State Constitution has historically been applied to manage such natural resources as Washington’s vast public lands forests (Douglas Fir, mainly). Logging proceeds have been used mainly to fund public schools.
Wish Wash. St. Constitution did a much better job at protecting the unborn… . Alas, abortion is still legal in Wash.. 🙁
Enjoy that fun grandson of yours!
Janice
{Mod — this is my third attempt to reply to Harry — please delete the other two if they show up as sometimes happens… THANKS!}
Hi, Harry,
Thank you.
That clause of the Wash. State Constitution has historically been applied to manage such natural resources as Washington’s vast public lands forests (Douglas Fir, mainly). Logging proceeds have been used mainly to fund public schools.
Wish Wash. St. Constitution did a much better job at protecting the unborn… . Alas, ab0rtion is still legal in Wash.. 🙁
Enjoy that fun grandson of yours!
Janice
Petitioners and Respondent. The case is a petition for review under Washington’s Administrative Procedure Act. See the decision here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/290594934/Washington-State-Global-Warming-Ruling
Thank you, Mr. Joachim. 🙂
The legislature is under no obligation to impose a massive fraud on the citizens because a politically motivated judge says so.
Ok so that sounds very lawyerly, but if they lack standing, they should not have won in the first place.
Have got to remember that courts act not on right or wrong, but who argues the better/more compelling case.
In other words, be prepared to hear/read more this horse hockey…
RHS, you make a good point, that the law, as best argued, does not always guarantee a right or just result. I have, however, a bit more confidence in the justice system as a whole (yes, even now). Unless there is out and out disregard for long-settled jurisprudence (as was done by the activist judge in Seattle), the law of Civil Procedure requires an injury recognized by the law to seek redress in the courts of Washington (and of the U.S.).
Most judges (yes, still “most,”) will not let a party waste the court’s time with purely political or philosophical or merely speculative issues. Judicial resources are stretched so thin that any wasting of a judges (or justice’s) time on issues with NO genuine basis in the law (nor fact, here, either!), are simply not tolerated.
I would not be surprised to hear of an award of attorney’s fees and costs to the State (by the appeals court). This lawsuit is THAT frivolous (“frivolous” is a fairly high standard, i.e., the court errs on the side of access to the court and tends to not hold a lawsuit “frivolous” unless blatantly so). In my opinion, the attorneys for the “youths” are very close to, if not over, the line of unethical behavior for filing such a clownish, clearly unfounded in any legal cause of action, lawsuit. They would not likely be disbarred for such a stunt, but could easily be reprimanded.
Turning said lawyers into martyrs for the climate cause. It is a win, win, situation, no mattet the outcome.
How is it not an “injury” to be forced to pay taxes, fees, and costs, in accordance with judicial edicts that are not “settled” in terms of validated, actual, history and science, as compared to holistic claims and uncertain propaganda?
Dear Lance,
I have a feeling I am missing your point, but, here goes: filing a lawsuit that a judge rules “frivolous,” then, claiming that one was “injured” by the judge’s imposing fees and costs (not sure where the “taxes” would come in there) is likely even too far a reach for those “youths'” attorneys. Lol, I can hear it now: “SO! Therefore, your honor, we HAVE been injured, and, thus, have standing.”
Still no legal cause of action, no “injury” creating standing to sue.
Sorry if I missed your point. I tried.
Janice
P.S. If you mean we, the taxpayers are the injured parties, then, I agree that we are injured in the non-technical (legal) sense, yes. All we can do is vote out the legislators who vote for those injurious, confiscatory, taxes and bad-science regs.. And I’m sure you know that… just venting, huh? Well, good for you. Helps one cope.
This is cultural Marxism making show and mock trials.
Lance, if courts were libel for their decisions I suppose the ruling based on protecting the Ca. smelt fish which forced the state to send millions of acre feet of water into the ocean, (when the true cause of the reduction of Ca. smelt with the government, importing game fish which ate the smelt, and then importing Asian smelt, who also ate the Ca.smelt) would make the court liable for billions of dollars in lost water, lost farms, lost employment etc…
Of course we, the actual tax payers, are the funders of the court, and judges are apparently not personally responsible for their rulings. So voting, and perhaps tar and feathers, are our only option.
PLUS, this is Washington State, fairly likely you could get all the judges you want, all the politicians, and all the citizens to uphold whatever bizarre self defeating self flagellating idea you can imagine.
Minimum tooth fairy donations for one !!!
Washington was once a great state, but now it’s like California. Public brainwashing from the public indoctrination system has successfully created an entire society of brainless who cannot connect one bit of information to the next. In short they dispense with history as not applied here, and live in a delusional state
of fantasy where they seek an idealism while their own leaders destroy the rule of law and murder innocent people for corporate gain in far away lands, and they do this while idiots wave flags and say support our troops. These people even support torture, so now the US has joined the ranks of all of histories worst nations and empires. Makes me proud to be an American.
Nuh uh uh! Most of Washington is east of the Cascades, and is conservative. Only the population density of the Seattle metro area tilts the votes to favor the mental disorder which is called liberalism.
Isn’t WA part of the federal 9th circuit?
@ur momisugly MarkW — that is correct; Wash. St. is in the 9th Circuit of the Federal District Court
“This leaves nuclear power and gas fracking as the proven, carbon friendly alternatives to existing carbon intensive energy systems – neither of which is top of the list of green favourites …”.
Over 70% of Washington State electricity comes from hydro.
Greenies are against hydro.
Greenies are against anything that works. They are for all that does not work and is massively expensive.
They sure do grow ’em stupid in Washington…
They grow them stupider ever year here and elsewhere in corporate controlled public education systems.
This is what every controlled society does. The communists, the nazi’s, religious organizations, and what you get are fanatics who know what’s best for the world. At least until the bombs begin to rain down on them.
Corporate controlled?????
Are you really as delusional as your posts make you sound?
They import stupid as well.
Seattle is insane. They would commit mass suicide if the far-left greenies said is would be good for the environment. Come to think about it, it would free-up a lot of nice real-estate for people who would appreciate it.
A very bad idea.
There’s a reason that in the most litigious nation on Earth there haven’t been endless lawsuits brought against Big Oil, Big Auto and Heaven knows who else by every special interest group that the legal “profession” can incite to sue all and sundry.
Read the late and much missed Michael Crichton’s excellent novel “State of Fear”.
Oh yes I am sure that the Washington State Constitution was written so that we don’t step over the line with our size 14 carbon dioxide footprints. If this is the case then I’m assuming that there’s going to be a court ruling on high sodium and running with scissors too! Think of the children.
– sarcasm?
When you go on a tour or the harbor in Seattle, one of the standard lines of the narrators is to point out that in one of the downtown Seattle high-rises there are more lawyers than in the entire nation of Japan.
Can’t really check on that (too many lawyers in Seattle to count) as the story is so good it has to be true (I heard that from Michael Mann…) but it would go along way to explaining why King County (where Seattle resides) is the way it is.
So, the kids (as a front for someone else) sue the State to, essentially, make more rules; the State “defends” against the suit; the State has to (gets to) make more rules.
If I sue my neighbor for adverse position of a portion of his property; I give my neighbor some money; he doesn’t defend against the suit and he loses; I get the property; we don’t have to go through the expensive & time consuming regulatory processes of the property adjustment; everyone is happy. Except it is fraud.
“… even if this judgment is upheld ….” It can only be upheld if it is challenged, otherwise it will just stand as is. Will the State of Washington challenge the decision, or is it like the example with my neighbor.
No kidding, what a farce. Yea, pay no attention to the fact that the dirt ball we live on is following a Star speeding through the Galaxy and is ploughing up a pile of plasma in front of it which is responsible for almost all of which is now happening and which will continue to happen. So instead of helping by recognizing reality, these fools have probably made it possible for the powers that be to basically tax us while we all slowly die for reasons which have nothing to do with humans.
This understanding of the state of our planets trajectory around the galaxy has been understood for a very long time. Pretty much everything which is being done is a consequence of this knowledge. The powers that be don’t expect most of us to survive and they did not want to be in the same boat we are soon to be in.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/global/planetophysical.html
http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/rockwell-integrated-space-plan.pdf
The EPA is famous for getting people to sue it, and then deliberately losing so that it can get judges to order it to do things it can’t get congress to authorize.
The legislature can ignore it because a judge cannot tell a elected legislature what to do, especially on something so insanely stupid as this.
Won’t be the first time that a judge is an idiot. Just look at our POTUS…
“To me this judgement stinks of judicial overreach – judges are supposed to enforce laws written by elected legislators, not dictate to legislators what laws they should write.”
I’ve been watching this case. It’s a setup. A test. The US Supreme Court made CO2 a pollutant and it’s only been a matter of time that a lower court case used it for “da peoples”.
Class action lawsuits are the cherry on the cake for the CAGWistas. This is where the lawyers make bank and all the hard work laying the foundation for the next cottage industry takes hold.
Get mad bro.
I saw that part of the Constitution, right between the Separation of Church and State clause and the Good and Plenty clause.
Just like the Constitutional Right to a Telephone.
Oh, but what if it turns out that plant food isn’t really the problem? Don’t worry, they will just pass another law.
That’s just it, they declare they fixed it and pat themselves on the back
I don’t think you read the order very carefully. The judge DENIED the petition.
The Department has started rule-making based on the Governor’s orders. It’s not too late for them to consider the science (but I don’t expect them to). Washington is too close to California for them not to follow the greens — hook, line, and sinker.
Too close to Oregon too. This whole part of the country is batshit crazy. Oregon getting ready to pass a $1.50/gal carbon tax on gas. Insanity.
I just topped off the tank @ur momisugly $1.57/gal. A significant portion of that amount is already taxes.
Here in Australia we pay ~AU$1.30/ltr, with lots of taxes albeit the “cahbohn tax” is gone. Times that by 5 to get a gallon (Or is that 4.5 for a US gallon? *shrugs*).
Totally wrong. 4.5ltr to imperial gallon. 3.7 to US. I should have checked.
It’s not insane if you are getting the money. sarc
Laugh out loud…well that will help the economy huh? See they don’t care about the people. It isn’t the people doing this, it’s the lies and liars on the mainstream who are convincing the willfully ignorant and dragging our entire nation in to another depression, and who profits in a depressed state?
The judge as much as declared that the state must regulate in this area. The fact that the state had already started these regulations is the only reason why the plaintiffs lost.
Should the state abandon said regulations, or if the regulations do not come up to the plaintiffs standards, they will be back in court with the full support of this judge.
Something is very odd. Here’s is the headline on the local komo news dot com:
“Judge denies Wash. state kids’ petition on climate change”
Because:
But she said the Washington Department of Ecology is already working on meeting that obligation by writing new rules for greenhouse gas emissions ordered by the governor.
Thanks, John F. Hultquist (and Martin Mayer, above) for clarifying what actually happened.
So. The judge did what she HAD to do (per Washington law), but tried to have her cake and eat it too by claiming she was doing it for a completely bogus reason (climate change is being addressed — as if that is a real problem that need addressing, lol).
**********************
Yes, indeed, as others have pointed out, there are a TON of ignorant, highly gullible, 3rd generation hippies in Washington. Case in point: Some friends went to a waterfront restaurant about 4 summers ago. They were told that their favorite dessert was no longer on the menu due to the Communist State of Seattle’s “anti trans fats” regulations. About 2 blocks down from the restaurant the neo-hippies were holding their city-approved “Hempfest,” smoking dope in a roped off area…. because….. ? Because! It was so healthy, lol.
****************
John lives on the saner side of the Cascade Mountains.
What’s so funny is that these people like to think they are hip! Really they have become their parents and are being lead by the nose to do the dirty work of the very corporation they think they are opposing, and doing it in such a way that it is “we the people” whom are to pay for the very things which their corporate masters have now gotten these gullible fools to do on their behalf.
Retards.
If you consider that most of the “hippies” are self medicating for PTSD quite a lot of things they do make perfect sense.
Gambeir, in your world, where ever it may be.
Everything bad that happens is caused by a corporation somewhere???
Somebody needs to actually fact check stuff before posting it, it devalues the site.
http://www.sj-r.com/article/ZZ/20151120/NEWS/311209909/16946/NEWS
The long and short of it: no ruling to worry about – just knee jerk journalism.
With regret, Mike +1
It was in the linked decision, and they do appear to be petitioners etc…..
A lot of wasted vitriol.
I agree about the fact checking, Mike, but, my own comments on this thread aside, I think that in spite of the mistake about the judge’s ruling, the discussion of this frivolous lawsuit’s being brought at all and of the judge’s AGW fantasy-based reasoning elicited many worthwhile comments.
Indeed Janice, and the “progressives” made progress with their insanity, and this will just encourage them to continue this approach.
I believe the judge made it clear that had the state not been working on such regulations, the judge was prepared to order the state to do so.
Mike,
Sorry but you are wrong.
The climate kooks are applying the principle of incrementalism. That they got anything that can be used as precedent is all they need.
The next case will ratchet the climate madness a bit further. And the case after than and after that.
You are ignoring the track record of how extremists creep in.
I have read through the various corrections being applied to this story, both here and other sites, they all strike me as “we were wrong, but we are really right if the evil so-and so’s ….” . This is the same kind of reasoning that this site routinely skewers warmers with.
Blogs make mistakes, this story is one of them, lets just admit it and move on.
Small correction – “This is the same kind of reasoning that this site routinely skewers warmers FOR.”, not with.
So, the kids (as a front for some other group) sue the State, demanding that the State make more rules; the State “defends” against the suit and loses; the State gets to make new rules. All parties involved are happy.
I sue my neighbor for adverse possession of a portion of his property; I also give him an appropriate amount of “consideration”; he does not defend the suit and I win; we don’t have to go through the expensive and cumbersome regulatory process of changing property line(s); everybody is happy; except it is fraud.
The judgment can only be upheld if it challenged/appealed, Otherwise it will just stand. Will the State effectively appeal, or is it like the deal with my neighbor?
I’m not surprised. After all the rain and river flooding and snow it has recently received, Washington state still thinks it is in the grips of historic extreme drought.
No problem, remove all the mobile phones , computers , cars, public transport , bicycles etc, since they all use by-products of oil.
Oh and you can’t build solar or wind turbines, since they too use oil and coal in the construction phase…
As a matter of fact, I wonder if using this ruling, you could force the ones who brought the case to give up all their modern conveniences ?
It would be funny watching these idiots trying to live with stone age conditions. (No fire that would burn wood and emit CO2.)
Not too surprising. King County, WA has become the the premiere “progressive” (it’s not), San Francisco, cesspool of WA state. The plague spreads.
Quite. I live in King County and hate every minute of it.
The people here are beyond arrogant and self-aggrandizing. They forget that outside the westernmost quarter of their county, the state actually is quite conservative/libertarian. Oregon suffers the same fate with Portland.
They, with the help of the Californians moving here, are ruining a once great part of the country. I hang my head in shame and continue to plot getting out of here.
Seattleites are indeed a plague, plain and simple.
I’m beginning to think that people’s votes should be weighted according to the amount of land they own. All one has to do is look at a color map of a state or the entire U.S. after an election to see that the majority of counties are “colored republican.” Only around the big cities is it “colored democrat.”
I think it ought to be weighted based on how much taxes you pay.
He who pays the piper calls the tune, and all that.
As a side note, voting was originally restricted to land owners, because most taxes were land based.
If the Supreme Court of the United States can declare carbon dioxide a “pollutant”, then the courts can define science any way it wants for political purposes.
Correct me if I’m wrong: I thought the SCOTUS only said that the EPA had the right to declare CO2 a pollutant.
They acknowledged the right of the EPA to regulate it as a pollutant as long as it was a traditional polluter like a coal fired power plant. Restricted its right to regulate the air that comes out of our mouths.
Actually, the supreme court ordered the EPA to make a determination on whether carbon dioxide posed a risk to public health and welfare. Of course atmospheric CO2 is no risk to anyone, but the EPA wasn’t going to say “no” and the only way they could say it was a health hazard was via the climate. It’s like what Murry Salby says about the IPCC – and the EPA apparently took a page from their play book: “The IPCC’s mission is to find and assess the the risk of human-induced climate change. The answer was defined at the outset. That’s not the modus operandi of a scientific body…….If you’re mission is to find human-induced climate change, you better find it. Otherwise you’re not going to be in business very long.” (Don’t know why they didn’t simply talk to the medical community to see what levels were hazardous to human health.)
As 4TaY said “the supreme court ordered the EPA to make a determination on whether carbon dioxide posed a risk to public health and welfare”. That in itself was a bit of a stretch because nothing in the legislation authorizing the EPA or its responsibilities justified that expansion of the definition of a “pollutant”. But that wasn’t unusual for the SCOTUS.
In my mind the most egregious aspect was that EPA then made a mockery of their own determination process (as several whistle blowers have testified) and with only a little hand waving in essence said “If the IPCC says it’s a pollutant, that’s good enough for us!” The circle was now complete. (great example of the logical fault of “begging the question”)
GD
“The circle was now complete. (great example of the logical fault of “begging the question”)”
Thanks for that GD. It is an awesome example as described. Now I have a place to park this BS in my brain when I’m surprised in debate. This is one of the very reasons why I am a fan of this site. You folks know your logical fallacies.
4TY and GD hit the core fallacy: CO2 is a pollutant – because the IPCC said so.
And the IPCC said so because that was its mission. Reinforced by continuous indoctrination
from the liberal media, the public and the courts have now accepted the premise.
Unless it’s knocked over, matters will only get worse. Courts will build subsequent decisions
upon this premise. Investment will be steadily driven out of the hydrocarbon industry,
gravitating to you-know-where, which (because CO2 is a pollutant)
is being sweetened by fat subsidies from John Q Public.
Ah, youth. Please, oh please, act on this spurious environmental BS so I can live a shorter, poorer, more uncomfortable life! Oh please oh please oh please.
Every advanced culture commits suicide.
EVERY ONE. Without fail.
So, another idiot sits on the bench. If only this judge were the only idiot on the bench or in Congress (and for sure in the Presidency) ; we would be in good shape.
The President of the United States is very upset that the price if gasoline is close to $2.00 per gallon. He would like it to be like Europe, where it is 2 to 3 times what it should be. Maybe even more….
I am not sure at all why he thinks this way – any thoughts?
Simple, he is a Shiite muslim that hates America and will do anything to destroy her !!
And climate change is his favorite weapon !!!
Marcus,
I don’t care for Islam and I don’t care for Obama but…
Please…., you have made your point in thread after thread.
I thought he was supposed to be a Reptilian. Maybe I’ve watching the wrong YouTube videos?
jon,
Take another look. Clearly a Shiite Reptilian.
For Christ Sakes, we need a real President. Can’t we just make Jesse Ventura the President for Life and call it a wrap? Don’ t you people think this who we need. I sure don’t see any of the others doing anything right.
Mebbe , mebbe not !! Time will tell !
Any number of promoting the cause reasons will do. How bout Goldman just significantly increased their alternative energy investments. No better way to increase your ROR than to make the competition more expensive.
http://marketrealist.com/2015/09/clean-energy-etfs-overview-recent-trends/
We are witnessing runaway corruption.
Hmm… The end of a warm climate optimum, and corruption has perverted the government and social systems of most of the civilized world to the point of implosion, right before a devastatingly extended cold period.
I’m getting a bit of deja vu here. This would make the third time, right?
Daw
It is a little spooky. I’m not a pro, but I follow money trends. Keeps me out of the poor house. RYDEX funds track all the money going in and out of the markets. I use a combination of longer term trend trackers much like you would in science. Since December 2014, money has been moving out of equities. This mimics the pattern right before the housing crash and the internet bubble prior to that.
Other little signs are things like housing having come back.
Birken bags going for 15K a pop with an exclusive waiting list.
Top tier economic circles falling over each other to find new homes for a ROR on fake foundations like CAGW reminds me oh so much about the internet collapse and the housing ruse.
At the same time, money is moving into hard commodities confirming a pattern that is over 50 years old.
It’s not a complicated understanding. Hard commodities are things people always need and so schmart people buy them when nobody wants them. Soros knows this and is buying coal.
I have no idea about climate, but if we are entering a FFC (freezing f—-n cold) phase it would make sense concerning the recent accumulation I see in hard commodities.
Thanks , Knute, those are helpful observations.
My comment was meant to be a reflection on the correlation in ancient history of empires rising and falling, with global temperatures doing similar waxing and then rather suddenly falling.
I was counting the end of the Roman and Medieval Optimums and the concurring collapses as the first two, perhaps someone who studies world history and paleoclimatology could correct me or gift me with a link to learn from.
True to the game plan of CAI and & Co., the dominos are falling over from several directions. If realism is to be salvaged, it will require those in power and those with resources that can compete with the billionaire vested interests to get off their back sides and do something more than symbolic. All of these failures in reason rest upon the scientific merits of AGW, which most readers here know is 99% fluff. Turning around the groundswell of perception, which has been promulgated by advocates and MSM, will require a showdown on the science – which the proponents are then forced to debate, objectively and publically. That would spell the end of this folly, once and for all.
If those in power (now owning a majority in both houses) and with the necessary resources cannot force the proponents’ cards into sunlight, where it can be openly tested, then they deserve to lose this battle.
The defendant here was the Washington State Department of Ecology. How hard did the defendant contest the suit?
Well enough for the Petition to be denied. The court ruled that there was no reason to intervene, since a rule-making was underway under the Governor’s order, and there was no other rationale for judicial action.
What the case does is it connects the dots for the dolts.
I sue you, you do what I want so that I can drop my case or have it denied standing.
You get to be the poster child for saving the world from evil CO2 and you get lots of access to first in line investments from folks like Goldman.
You may even get Marie Harf to help with your PR.
Somebody should sue the EPA for causing undue stress and hardship by falsifying and exaggerating the dangers of Glo.Bull Warming supposedly caused by CO2 ! The real scientific evidence will finally see the light of day ! I’m sure the EPA will call Mr. Mann to be their best witness ! That would be interesting……
I’m going to my safe space now.
i feel microaggressed by your desire to avoid us.
and, i envy your hair bun attachment.
does it come in blond ?
Be sure not to breathe out in that space, you know what will happen to the air!
Folks, this is a test case supported by local NGOs. Another trick to the trade. It’s gaining steam in the US. It’s not a matter of if they win a case, but when. It’s little like skirmishing in war. I poke you here, then there .. see where you are weak. Here’s a helpful little awareness link about other global efforts to do likewise.
http://www.greenbiz.com/article/climate-lawsuits-heat-doing-nothing-becomes-riskier-business
As long as CO2 retains legit status as a pollutant, none of this legal testing will stop. Eventually someone will settle and voila, they get to advance the cause.
This was always the strategy that mattered to the elites and their friends, the attorneys.
…which is why in my earlier post I highlighted the significance of the potentially flawed EPA determination process. Under the current administration, any attempts to contest this have been blocked and Jackson and McCarthy have stonewalled. But the incomplete process remains a fact and the whistle blowers still exist. If by some miracle that determination can be shown to be flawed, the whole house of cards comes down.
GD
Once again, zeroing in on the soft underbelly. Successfully challenging CO2’s standing as a pollutant is the ticket to unraveling this BS. Any 5th grader can see that we were warmer in the past 5000 years and it had NOTHING to do with CO2. How we got from there to here is a testament to the con.
Any engagement in the finer technical discussions on the variables affecting climate change is part of the con. Essentially, if the conman can engage your polite demeanor to take on a discussion of polar bears, ice sheets, rising seas, coral damages, storm frequency, blah blah he is engaging you further and further away from the obvious lie that it was warmer in the past 5000 years without the influence of man.
Torpedo CO2 as a pollutant and you stun them.
There also needs to be an erasure of the greenhouse and hockey stick images in the minds of the general public. Neither is a realistic or succinct analogy.