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.
Fire his ass now.
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.”
But it’s never too late. Or it’s only too late until the next big conference.
I’m not an expert on American politics but does this judge have the power to make a ruling on the meaning of the Constitution of the relevant state? The Supreme Court determines the meaning of the US Constitution. Who determines the meaning of a State Constitution? I found this on the internet: “The mission of the Washington Supreme Court is to protect the liberties guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the state of Washington.” Is this judge a member of this Court? If so, can one judge of the Court by himself make a ruling? If not, why’s he making a ruling on the meaning of the Constitution?
There is serious scientific evidence of a coming global cooling. What sayeth the judge?
The judge also has the constitutional obligation to act on FRAUD.
The boot on the neck. Nothing surprising about that. Our green friends have always favored that approach.
And to think that certain “posters” keep complaining whenever the topic of politics comes up.
Judge Hill needs to read the constitution.
The preamble is the only place that mentions our obligation to future generations.
“Justice … Domestic Tranquility … General Welfare … Liberty for us and our posterity.”
Nope, nothing about hide the decline, or, snake oil written by “International Governing Bodies”!
Like the federal constitution, the leftists have used “general welfare” as a wedge to eliminate the rest of the constitution.
According to their reading, anything that they claim is done for the “general welfare” is by definition constitutional. IE, there is no limit on govt power so long as it’s doing what the socialists want.
Another example of taking a phrase (or two words) out of context. (and our blindly repeating those phrases only plays into the Progressives’ game. That’s why I refuse to say Climate Change instead of global warming.)
The US Constitution (as Obama says) is a negative document. It LIMITS the power of the federal government to a constrained set of articulated activities. One of those articulated powers is taxation, and “general welfare” described HOW proceeds from taxation could be applied. Until 1936 that modifier was interpreted to mean that taxes were for purposes that benefited the ENTIRE U.S. population and states. (the emphasis was on the word “general” ; meaning no regional favoritism – an even distribution)
In the 1930s there occurred a significant set of revisions to a document that had serve the nation well for 140 years. (Extra credit to the student who can name what else was going on in the 1930s in the US government. Hint, the word “welfare” also took on a whole new meaning at that time.)
Art. I, Sec 8, Cl 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The provisions of the section reads as follows: “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Mark
Touche’, but be aware that politicians are mimics. The GOP is currently learning from the Dems and the Dems learned from the GOP and round and round we go.
For example … For the sake of “national security” is a pretty powerful excuse to grab authority. The GOP was quite feisty in using that concept. It could very well be why the current POTUS clings to declaring CAGW as the greatest threat to mankind. ……….. thinking out loud ….
Since when does the Judiciary get to order the Legislature to create a specific law? Isn’t the Judiciary suppose to merely judge the existing laws? Judge Hollis R. Hill needs to point out, specifically, where in the Constitution he gets the authority to do so.
For what it is worth, I am a retired attorney having practiced for 35 years. I read the opinion. I think this is much ado about nothing.
The Washington state Constitution does require the government to protect the public lands and the state. Nothing unusual about that. The public trust doctrine requires the government to protect the public lands and the state. Nothing unusual about that. The Court can’t really be involved in the agency rule making process. Nothing new about that. The Ecology department is in the process of making rules. It is their job.
End of case.
I’m a Brit and don’t fully understand the local legal terminology and procedures within the USA, let alone Washington State. However, there’s some talk here of “damage”, “containment areas” and “who is liable” and I’m wondering who is liable even if some quantifiable “damage” or “injury to individuals is proved to have been caused by man-made CO2. Short of building a State sized air tight greenhouse over Washington any “breach” or problem cannot be contained: CO2 levels are controlled by the whole world’s natural and human actions in the past and at present, including other USA States and all local ethnic areas, and these levels average out globally over the planet’s surface governed by very basic laws of physics.
Could there also be a case for what might be called a balancing contra-charge of increased benefits from increased CO2 in terms of increased crop yields, cheaper food, faster tree growth and even reduced heating costs! That, at least could mitigate or reduce any such proven damage.
I smell a well deserved “unforeseen consequence” including unsuccessful action legal costs and counter-claims damages costs for the warmists who have organised and funded this legal action. Their problem is one similar to any religious zealots’ – their self-righteousness blinds them, preventing them from being able to distinguish between facts, consequences and dogma and interpreting everything that occurs or affects them according to historic holy scriptures based on others’ particular and local passed down and often political requirements. When they see their preaching failing, they experience a desperate need for an immediate believers’ response and snatch at any even remotely connected event or circumstance to help them judge and condemn all heretics.
Having idiot judges who confuse overseeing the execution of laws written by elected legislators and “finding” what laws legislators should write, is the real danger to the youth of tomorrow .
So can I sue the judge for threatening my grand-kids futures?
Washington State has long been very leftish, notwithstanding some centrists like Scoop Jackson (may God keep him close to his breast) and Warren Magnuson (wherever he may be).
Jim Brock
This thread has nearly spun out to its end, I think. Hope its okay to post this, now… .
After all the justified bad-mouthing of Washington State (my home state), it is, even now, still much better run than California (I have much eye witness evidence! — anecdotal, yes, but there is a definite pattern…).
California can’t even take care of its stray dogs and cats. So, Washington said, “We’ll take them.”
11/20/15 — California shelter dogs arrive at Paine Field in Everett, Washington
http://video.seattletimes.com/4624202629001
(Seattle Times video — may need to paste link into your browser to view it)
100 dogs and 10 cats arrived in Seattle Friday, part of 1,100 California shelter animals due to be euthanized that were flown by the Wings of Rescue group to shelters in Washington and throughout the region. (Erik Lacitis / The Seattle Times)
Hat tip to my friend who runs the Humane Society of Skagit County, Washington, Janine Ceja — who was driving one of those vans yesterday.
Way — to — go, guys! #(:))
Well, perhaps a good place to start would be to park the fleets of diesel school buses and let the students walk miles to school like good ole gramps?
We can only trust that this same judge has issued a restraining order against the Mt Ranier stratovolcano to prevent it from erupting and furthermore disgorging the type of massive lahars upon which Seattle is built. Such risk mitigation should keep the Department of Ecology on its toes once it has resolved more pressing issues addressed by the court. The same judge might even take a leaf out of “The Donald’s” playbook and get them to build a fence.
Bob
Nutty culture you have out there. I realize this link is Portland, but when I saw what they did concerning “pee”, it floored me that decision makers thought this was wise for the general welfare. Sorry if i equate Portland with Seattle and the population centers of Washington, but the “moment” seemed indicative of the regional area.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/portland-reservoir-to-be-flushed-because-of-urinating-teen/
Meanwhile put your eyes on this little lawsuit. Dr. Jim Hansen, an NGO and his granddaughter.
http://ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit
Please stop calling them greens, they are reds.