Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens openly admit they have given up on winning voter support for their climate agenda.
Climate Change Warriors’ Latest Weapon of Choice Is Litigation
By Jeremy Hodges, Lauren Leatherby and Kartikay Mehrotra
May 24, 2018
In the global fight against climate change, one tool is proving increasingly popular: litigation.
From California to the Philippines, activists, governments and concerned citizens are suing the biggest polluters and national governments over the effects of climate change at a break-neck pace.
“The courts are our last, best hope at this moment of irreversible harm to our planet and life on it,” said Julia Olson, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, a legal challenge center in the U.S. that is involved in climate change litigation across 13 countries, including the U.S., Pakistan and Uganda.
The wave of activity is about channeling the fervor of a social movement to drive change via the legal system. The arguments vary based on both culture and the law. In the U.S., home to more cases than anywhere else in the world, many recent suits involve plaintiffs seeking to protect climate-change rules passed under former President Barack Obama. In Europe, it’s largely governments being hammered over pollution-reduction plans that fall short of EU targets.
“The political branches of government have had decades to stop destroying our climate system; now only court-ordered mandates will stop the destruction our governments are perpetuating, and increasingly supporting,” said Olson, whose primary dispute is on behalf of a group of American teenagers suing the federal government to end U.S. dependence on fossil fuels. Both the Obama and Trump administrations have sought to end the case and been rebuffed.
…
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-climate-change-lawsuits/
The greens behind the climate litigation craze have no intention of letting voters get in the way of their nasty economic and political agenda.
Judge shopping is fine for the climate activists, but they ignore that reality that there is civil disobedience available to the populace at large. If we the people decide that the rulings aren’t good, we can simply not comply. Where are they going to find a way to force 300M Americans to do something? See how effective speed limit signs are on the highways…
“Where are they going to find a way to force 300M Americans to do something?”
Well, given that according to http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
…I guess they won’t!
I think were getting closer to what has been their primary motivation all along.
Don’t tell the snowflakes – it’ll ruin their self-image.
When they do get what they want, will they realize it is higher prices, lower standard of living, and shortages due to not using high energy output per volume of energy sources?
Nope. Not the rank and file.
Update: May 24, 6:00 p.m.
by Amy Westervelt
The lawsuit brought by Oakland and San Francisco against large oil companies will move forward. But not because Judge William Alsup ruled on the oil companies’ motions to dismiss the case at today’s hearing.
Alsup is asking both sides to prepare additional written arguments by next week. He’s also given them two months to collect new documents and interviews.
A final ruling on the motions to dismiss is expected in August. If the case does move forward, it could be the first of its kind to go to trial.
https://www.kqed.org/science/1923458/youve-heard-of-a-murder-of-crows-how-about-a-crow-funeral
Sorry
https://www.kqed.org/science/1924401/cities-vs-big-oil-climate-case-reaches-turning-point-in-federal-court
See also here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-24/climate-change-judge-s-homework-was-industrialization-worth-it
The scientific evaluation of glyphosate, and the exaggeration by IARC(*) of the risk (or simply making up toxicity where none exists) was discussed previously:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/agitators-regulators-and-predators-on-the-prowl/
(*) “IARC” is “CIRC” in French, pronounced “cirque” which means circus
This is OLD stuff that I just found, I don’t know if that was specifically discussed:
http://www.pan-germany.org/download/presse/Press_release_PAN_Europe_020315.pdf
It might help the defense to present the spurious correlation problem to the judge.
I put it into plain language here:
https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/05/27/spurious-correlations-in-climate-science-2/