Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Federal court Justice Thomas Coffin has ruled that child plaintiffs suing the Federal Government have a right to put their case, that the US Government has a constitutional obligation to reduce CO2 emissions. But the consequences of this case may go far beyond an economically damaging change to US internal policy. If the plaintiffs win, what will the USA be obligated to do, if the “harmful” CO2 is mostly emitted by other countries?
In the first lawsuit to involve a planet, Judge Thomas Coffin of the United States Federal District Court in Eugene, Oregon, ruled on Friday in favor of twenty-one plaintiffs, ages 8 to 19, on behalf of future generations of Americans in a landmark constitutional climate change case brought against the Federal Government and the Fossil FOSL -1.91% Fuel Industry.
The lawsuit alleges that the Federal Government is violating the Plaintiffs’ constitutional and public trust rights by promoting the use of fossil fuels. The Complaint explains that, for over fifty years, the United States Government and the Fossil Fuel Industry have known that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels causes global warming and dangerous climate change, and that continuing to burn fossil fuels destabilizes the climate system.
Judge Coffin wrote: “The debate about climate change and its impact has been before various political bodies for some time now. Plaintiffs give this debate justiciability by asserting harms that befall or will befall them personally and to a greater extent than older segments of society. It may be that eventually the alleged harms, assuming the correctness of plaintiffs’ analysis of the impacts of global climate change, will befall all of us. But the intractability of the debates before Congress and state legislatures and the alleged valuing of short-term economic interest despite the cost to human life, necessitates a need for the courts to evaluate the constitutional parameters of the action or inaction taken by the government. This is especially true when such harms have an alleged disparate impact on a discrete class of society.”
The full text of Judge Coffin’s finding is here.
There is still a long way to go for the plaintiffs to win their case – Judge Coffin simply ruled that the plaintiffs have a right to have their case heard, and rejected actions by the Federal Government and Fossil Fuel industry associations to immediately dismiss the case.
However, it is probably worth considering the horrifying possibilities if the plaintiffs win their case.
Given that, according to Judge Coffin’s finding, the plaintiffs posit that the USA only produces around 25% of global CO2 emissions, a figure which is falling rapidly, what would the courts require the US Government to do, if the courts find the US government has a constitutional duty to reduce CO2 emissions?
Would the federal government have discharged its obligations, if they force US controlled territories to abandon fossil fuels? Even though this would make very little difference in the long run to global CO2 emissions?
Or would the Federal Government be placed under a constitutional obligation to force other countries to reduce their CO2 emissions as well, in order to protect US citizens from the alleged harms of CO2?
What if the rest of the world says no, and rejects US requests to reduce CO2? Or if the rest of the world agrees to a US request to reduce CO2 emissions, but does not honour that agreement?
This is not the first time such a ridiculous situation has arisen. In an interview in 2013, while discussing the weaknesses of climate models, Hans Von Storch, one of the giants of German Climate Science, and very much an advocate of climate action, discussed a German push to create a constitutional obligation to reduce CO2 emissions.
SPIEGEL: Will the greenhouse effect be an issue in the upcoming German parliamentary elections? Singer Marius Müller-Westernhagen is leading a celebrity initiative calling for the addition of climate protection as a national policy objective in the German constitution.
Storch: It’s a strange idea. What state of the Earth’s atmosphere do we want to protect, and in what way? And what might happen as a result? Are we going to declare war on China if the country emits too much CO2 into the air and thereby violates our constitution?
SPIEGEL: Yet it was climate researchers, with their apocalyptic warnings, who gave people these ideas in the first place.
Storch: Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I’m driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can’t simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I’ll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.
The plaintiffs are being advised by ex NASA GISS Director James Hansen, who appears to seriously believe that the world is on the brink of catastrophic runaway global warming. In this context, perhaps the plaintiffs and their advisor are aware of the terrifying potential of creating a constitutional obligation to wage global warfare, but believe that a bit of geopolitical brinkmanship is a risk worth taking, in order to “save the planet”.
Quite amusing how fitting the family names of some people in the US judicial system are:
– Ms. Loretta Lynch wants to lynch the fundamental rights of free speech and open science.
– Mr. Thomas Coffin wants to bury the prosperity of the US economy and the rigth of the US flora for an improved supply of the scarce and water-saving plant-food CO2 in a first-class “judicial coffin”.
Anybody else… ? 🙂
Sorry dear plants – a typo slipped: it should be “the right of the US flora” of course… 😉
How can anyone be surprised?
It’s the evolved strategy used by the left.
First, attempt to win a political victory. Failing politically, try an administrative procedure. Failing administratively, move on to the judiciary process, which includes an endless series of court cases.
The courts have been the literal gold mine of the left which is why they put so much effort in stuffing the courts, especially the Federal Courts, with ‘progressive’ activist judges.
They have a long and varied history of winning. One of their prominent successes is homosexual marriage. Every state which held a state wide vote prior to court actions resulted in overwhelming ratification of thousands of year history traditional marriage. Regardless of one’s view on marriage, the recent history is hardly one of democracy.
Previously, the left, for reasons of controlling the voting laws of states, have conducted a national campaign to elect Secretary of States and Attorneys General as a reaction to the 2000 Gore v Bush Florida court battle. Now they’re using them in the courts to promote the climate agenda, starting with Exxon.
One should recognize how overwhelmingly successful this strategy has been in the US, and will likely to be in the future. Even if the left loses political campaigns, including a complete loss of the Federal elected officials (President, Senate, House), the courts will insure the gains remain and are even extended.
The Oregon case, regardless of outcome, is merely one data point in the court’s campaign, which the left will ultimately win.
James Dellingpole described why here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/09/conservatives-will-always-lose-climate-change/
The case, such as it is, is theatrical but, after all, it is in the Ninth Circuit and it is in Oregon. If the right had the organization of the left, they would immediately sue, in the same court, using the same arguments the Magistrate accepted, to sue the Government, and the environmental organizations, including the celebrities of global warming theatrics.
They have done actual and measurable damage – just compare your electric bill today to your bill in 2009 under the Obama Administration.
Regardless, the left will win their court cases, it’s just a matter of which one will win, given the way the judiciary has been gamed. Consider it will only take five people to decide for 330 million that sex is simply a declarative choice — much less that CO2 is somehow a pollutant.
Cedarhill,
You are exactly right. Excellent analysis.
Well I guess it is time to sue those kids for their direct involvement in refusing to stop spewing CO2 into the air. Yes kids turn in your cell phones, cancel cable TV and go out back and start chopping wood, your time has come.
It would be intersting to see 320 million Americans suing each other over being blatant carbon polluters.
Ridiculous? Sure but allowing this lawsuit to proceed is just as ridiculous.
What is even more ridiculous and many times more dangerous is the state attorney generals crusade against CEI. They might as well take free speech and flush it down the toilet, save them the trouble of trying to muzzle CEI with vague accusations and frivolous subpoenas.
First, this is only a magistrate, not a district court judge. He has actually only made a recommendation to a judge. Second, every other case like this one has been dismissed. Next, not even the 9th Cir allowed Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil Corp. to go forward, and SCOTUS denied cert in 2013. “AEP extinguished Kivalina’s federal common law public nuisance damage action, along with the federal common law public nuisance abatement actions.” Kivalina, 696 F.3d at 857 (9th Cir. 2012).
Finally, I’m not so sure going to trial would be a bad thing. If I were defending oil and/or the feds, I’d not only counter claim against the plaintiffs – – for using oil energy and petro-based products – – but I’d also third-party every person on Earth for using oil energy and petro-based products. Get out the popcorn . . . .
In that third-party action, include a cause of action for exhaling CO2….
….However, it is probably worth considering the horrifying possibilities if the plaintiffs win their case…
I really don’t see this as an issue. This case is NOT about climate change.
It is a technical case about whether someone has the right to put a case to a court that the government is breaking the American Constitution. Given the important position of their constitution in American affairs, I should think that the presumption should be that people have a right to challenge the constitutionality of government action in most circumstances, and should only be prevented when the challenge is obviously pointless.
In this case, the charge that future generations may be damaged is not pointless. Most readers of this blog will immediately point out that it is wrong, and unsupported by evidence. This may well be true – but that is not the issue. This case does not concern itself with whether the charge is true or not – only with whether the charge is a coherent one that can be addressed..
You are missing the point: The climate obsessed are in the process of eating an elephant.
Beginning of the self-destruction of the USA!
Shouldn’t this judge slap an immediate injunction on all CO2 enrichment activities in horticulture?
While CO2 is a byproduct of fossil fuels and and other industries, these maniacal growers are purposely increasing the concentration of this deadly pollutant. /sarc
Any ruling in favour could be turned around on the appellants. Everyone exhales about one kilogram of carbon dioxide daily, so they should contribute to the solution by not breathing out! Problem solved!
It is certainly everyone’s right to have their own beliefs and opinions about the future, and to attempt to convert others to their point of view. What is pernicious here is the claim that fears about the future are a fact, proven by scientific analysis. It is like making belief in Seventh Day Adventism the law of the land.
I agree with riparianinc. Perhaps it is high time to put the premise of global warming to the test. Here are some thoughts on protocols that could be applied:
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/claim-fossil-fuels-cause-global-warming/
..Will Hansen be taking the stand to explain all his failed dire predictions of the past ???
Or his fraudulent temperature reconstruction?
Interesting thought. Will any of the CAGW theorists be willing to testify under oath and under penalty of perjury?
Unlike a congressional hearing, in court they would be subject to aggressive cross examination by a hopefully knowledgeable attorney without the aid of a friendly politician to interfere on their behalf.
The further adventures of lawfare.
When I was a kid I was always told never to leave home without wearing a pair of clean underpants (briefs, to some here). When I asked why I was told it was in case I fell under a bus: how would I feel knowing the medical staff saw me in soiled underwear.
It then follows that I have a fear of falling under a bus, so I want to prosecute Transport for London for continually promoting the use of double-decker buses – which they must know are deadly, if not to my generation, then to the ones to come. I might even get the courts to include in the case the manufacturers of clean underwear as they obviously had a stake in the endangerment.
That is a good basis in argument compared to Klinton Inc wanting to sue gun manufactures.
If advocates for the green blob stay in control of the US presidency, this could be a “sue and settle” circus, which the EPA and the rest of the Feds are notorious for. BTW– I had heard the description as the “Ninth Circus”.
This scam has “sue and settle” printed all over it. The issue that should have arisen is whether these ‘children’ have standing to sue – not being able to prove that they have been damaged in any way by CO2 and all.
Child abuse.
Perhaps this lawsuit can force a public peer review of EPA’s secret CO2 Endangerment Finding.
So if Obama believes CO2 is the greatest threat facing the US, why not declare war on CO2 and make it illegal to emit CO2. Anyone found to be doing so to be jailed until such time as they are no longer emitting CO2.
That is very much where the US government CO2 policies are heading. They problem is that people are fighting them, so that only the big producers are targets. But eventually, as the big producers come under government control, the little producers will be the next targets. And so on down the line, until everyone in the country has a CO2 mandate controlling every action.
It sounds like exaggeration today, but this is what is happening with water rights in the US under EPA regulations. CO2 will surely follow the same pattern. Eventually every fart will come under EPA GHG regulations for methane emissions. Eat beans, go to jail.
Eat beans – go to jail
Turn over and mix the leaves and debris in your recycle bin – go to jail.
Since Puerto Rico is about to go no electric- no power, California, NYC, northern Virginia and DC should do the same.
Again suggesting that fossil fuel and energy industry stop delivering their products for a month or so, in order to “minimize negative impact on human life”, symbolically.
And not resume working before their contribution to human wellbeing is acknowledged properly.
Ayn Rand wrote a novel along these same lines in the 1950’s, if I am not mistaken….
Atlas Shrugged, actually about the government stealing individual innovation and productivity in the interest of “fairness”.
Who id John Galt?
Who is John Galt?
A case involving science to be ultimately decided by an elected or politically appointed judge with an Arts degree. Just wonderful. “Judge – you hold the fate of your grandchildren in your hands!”.
Just the latest attempt to implement a world-wide carbon tax to fund the lifestyles of the global elites. Al Gore is giggling with delight.
Has there ever been a climate lawsuit that has been taken to completion? My understanding of such legal quests is that the activists make every effort to AVOID such action for fear of ‘discovery’ throwing ALL such climate claims into disrepute.
If this is settled out of court – quite likely – it will be yet another indication that TPTB are more interested in hiding from disclosure than ever and, at the same time, enriching a few whose ’cause’ works to the activists advantage. Claims settled ‘out of court’ tend to be believed by the public to be evidence that the claim had ‘proof’ behind it. No smoke without fire etc. I mean, why else would anyone part with substantial out-of-court settlement payments ?
Yes there has been a case taken to successful completion: The phonied up case that the USSC heard and ruled in favor of CO2 being a pollutant the EPA can regulate at whim.
SAD
Imagine if the children from the future could travel back in time and sue for the $trillions wasted on the Biggest Lie in history – that our CO2 is “endangering the planet”, thus lowering living standards for generations.
They’d clean up.
Should the little kiddies win, the court has no jurisdiction over Congress.
Unless they want to pull an Obama and declare, “Congress hasn’t acted, so we are going to take over the economy.”
It that kind of abuse, or a President unilaterally declaring law, that the framers of the Constitution gave rise to the second amendment.
Federal court Justice Thomas Coffin has ruled that
he does’nt know his place.
A judge in Eugene–which means they found a friendly court on another planet.
Seriously 40 years ago NAS was studying the possibility of global cooling; so, global warming was not an established fact then, or before. Since that time we have collected and corrected some data suggesting a warming planet, but no idea how much nor whether it is beneficial or harmful. Look, the elimination of fossil fuels will almost undoubtedly make these children’s future bleak.
As a lawyer, this ruling is embarassing. This retired federal magistrate has moved well into the Twilight Zone.