Washington judge throws out children’s climate change lawsuit
A judge in Washington state on Tuesday dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed against the state by a group of child activists.
King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott ruled in favor of the State of Washington’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Aji P. v. State of Washington. The 13 young activists in the suit argue that the state is violating their constitutional rights through actions that cause climate change.
Judge Scott ruled that issues brought up in the case are political questions that cannot be resolved by a court, and must be addressed by Congress and the president.
Attorneys representing the children said they would make a formal statement on the judge’s decision on Wednesday morning. An initial statement by Our Children’s Trust, the group representing the children, suggested Judge Scott erred in his decision.
“Given the significance of the Court’s decision and the pronounced departures from proper judicial procedure and consideration of Plaintiffs’ claims, Our Children’s Trust will issue a formal statement regarding the decision tomorrow,” the initial statement read.
The child plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they were both “saddened” and heartbroken” by the judge’s decision.
Full story at the Washington Examiner
This follows the other big dismissal that overzealous climate change activists recently had in California court. That’s going to set a legal precedent.
Here’s the “formal statement” from the “Our Children’s Trust” website:
Washington Court Places Washington’s Fossil Fuel Use Above the Constitutional Rights of Youth: Formal Statement to Follow
Seattle, Washington — Today, King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott granted the State of Washington’s motion to dismiss Aji P. v. State of Washington, the constitutional climate lawsuit brought by 13 young plaintiffs. Given the significance of the Court’s decision and the pronounced departures from proper judicial procedure and consideration of Plaintiffs’ claims, Our Children’s Trust will issue a formal statement regarding the decision tomorrow. The immediate reactions of the Plaintiffs and their attorneys are set forth below.
Kailani, 13-year-old plaintiff from Spokane said:
“I am deeply saddened by the Court’s decision. My rights as a Native American person are being taken away because of climate change. Camas, huckleberries, salmon, and other traditional foods are disappearing and this is because of climate change that the government continues to contribute to. How long are people going to ignore that climate change is a real threat to my life and my culture? It’s very disappointing. The government is not taking the kind of action necessary to protect my rights. This is a fight that we will continue to fight. It’s not going to be easy, but this needs to change.”
Wren, 17-year-old plaintiff from Seattle said:
“As youth on this planet, we are absolutely heartbroken to hear that the judge in this ruling has decided to dismiss our case. In his ruling Judge Michael R. Scott decided that we do not have individual fundamental rights to a clean environment because this right is simply a “desirable objective” even though the legislature has already said we have this right. As plaintiffs on this case we believe that the ability to grow up and raise healthy families of our own on this planet is not simply desirable, but rather crucial to the prosperity of humanity on Earth. This summer alone, increasingly dangerous wildfires throughout the United States have destroyed communities and families, polluted and clouded our air, and taken human lives. I haven’t been able to leave the house without my inhaler this week because wildfire smoke has settled in Seattle. This is not the environment I believe any American deserves. What American youth deserve is to have their futures protected in our courts of law.”
James, 17-year-old plaintiff from Taholah said:
“It’s hard to capture the magnitude of the effects of Judge Scott’s decision. Our winters get more and more extreme. Our summers are drier. I miss our clean, crisp and pristine air on days like today when our clouds have a red overlay from wildfire smoke. We had another season without blueback sockeye salmon and our spring chinook is looking grim. This are only going to continue to get worse.”
Kylie, 13-year-old plaintiff from Taholah said:
“I am extremely disappointed with the Court’s decision. We have limited time to turn climate change around and every delay means more harm to me, my family, and my culture. We cannot continue down this path. I am hopeful that the appellate courts will do the right thing and allow this case to go to trial so that our voices can be heard.”
Andrea Rodgers, counsel for plaintiffs and senior staff attorney at Our Children’s Trust said:
“On a day when the sun in Seattle is shrouded in smoke from wildfires, the youth plaintiffs are devastated that Judge Scott declined to give them an opportunity to present their constitutional claims in a court of law. By deferring to the Executive and Legislative branches of government that have affirmatively placed these plaintiffs in harm’s way, without an appropriate legal analysis, the court has unfortunately chosen not to engage to protect the rights of these plaintiffs, to their detriment. The youth intend to continue to pursue the vindication of their constitutional rights before higher courts of law, as they have no other option.”
Andrew Welle, co-counsel for plaintiffs and staff attorney at Our Children’s Trust said:
“Plaintiffs intend to continue the pursuit of their urgent constitutional claims by appealing Judge Scott’s decision to Washington’s appellate courts. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that similar claims against the federal government must advance to the trial stage, affirming that the judiciary has a duty to resolve constitutional claims of this nature. Given the urgency of climate change and the important constitutional issues involved, the political branches of government cannot be immune from liability for the constitutional climate crisis of their own making.”
The youth filed the case because the state of Washington is violating their constitutional rights by perpetuating an energy and transportation system that is dependent upon fossil fuels. The case follows up on historic victories secured by young people in the case of Foster v. Ecology, which ultimately led to the adoption of Washington’s Clean Air Rule. In spite of the Foster court’s 2015 recognition that “the scientific evidence is clear that the current rates of reduction mandated by Washington law cannot achieve GHG reductions necessary to protect our environment and to ensure the survival of an environment in which [Youth] can grow to adulthood safely,” the State of Washington continues to pursue policies that cause dangerous levels of GHG emissions and harm the rights of young people.
The young plaintiffs, who range in age from 8 to 18, are supported by Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit that supports legal actions across the world, including the landmark lawsuit against the United States, Juliana v. United States, that seek science-based action by governments to secure a safe climate and healthy atmosphere for all present and future generations.
Our Children’s Trust is a nonprofit organization, leading a coordinated global human rights and environmental justice campaign to implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans that will return atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to below 350 ppm by the year 2100. We elevate the voice of youth, those with most to lose in the climate crisis, to secure the legal right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate on behalf of all present and future generations. www.ourchildrenstrust.org/
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The young plaintiffs, aged between 8 and 18, are supported by Our Children’s Trust, a non-profit organization that supports legal action around the world
and why is that “their” world. Have they stolen this world from wild enemies and then cleared, cultivated, developed to fertile ground.
Our Children’s Trust, a non-profit organization that supports legal action, should provide sufficient justification.
“science-based Climate Recovery Plans that will return atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to below 350 ppm by the year 2100”
That sentiment runs contrary to the single most important assurance we can make today in an effort to preserve life on Earth, and that is to feed the Carbon Cycle of Life with increased atmospheric CO2.
I call that child abuse.
I do agree.
There are so many things wrong about what these children believe and how they have gotten to this position that abuse is apparent in their education and counseling. The future must appear very dark to them, most adults must be selfish liars, and hope is extinguished by fear and helplessness. What a sad state of affairs for them to face as they move into adulthood.
All such suits should be summarily dismissed if any of the defendents lives on grid, drives a car, or benefits in any way from fossil fuels. This means no clothes buying, no using hospitals, no buying food at stores, nothing. Until they are willing to live what they are brainwashed to believe, too bad. If they can’t live the life they demand, they have no right to force anyone else to.
“summarily dismissed” — agreed, only unequivocally.
Looks like the lawyers for the non-profit made no profit on that one. But the non-profit will profit on a new wave of donations. They win either way in profits which is what it’s all about anyway. They will still get face time as talking heads but just need to put on the victim face and cry about how they were treated. Maybe they should have had that Hog guy in Florida on the team. He’ll show up if there are media cameras present to save the children.
I wonder what a life without electricity, heat, or polymers would be like for these children?
No internet, and a short brutal life.
This the result of education that does not teach about history, or logic, and action without consideration of the consequences.
The poster children for birth control.
Actually, considering this had to have been done with the parents’ consent, they’re parents are the proper poster children for birth control.
Despicable!! Those greenie adults should be charged with child abuse for forcing children to lie in court.
These children should be on the front lines…. no electricity, no cars, nothing produced using fossil fuels.
Hmm, I wonder if these kids and their “lawyers” walked to the court house ?
They should be sent to Racing stables with hurricane lamps to clean out the manure to give them an idea of what real “horse s*+t” looks and smell like, and as a reminder what the streets of their suburbs might be like without fossil fuels
Imagine how much fossil fuels they all use every year, plus plastics, paints, pharma, phones, plastic containers…etc. When they grow old enough to realize how they were used and made to look like BIG HYPOCRITES.
Sounds like they shouldn’t be allowed to use anything that starts with “P”.
Child abuse, pure and simple.
On so many levels.
First one: Parading teens around that proclaim things they can’t/don’t have the life experiences to expound upon.
They are being used in a political theater, unbeknownst to them.
Shame on those (olden days they might have been drawn and quartered) that fed their young minds with unsubstantiated theory, presented as fact.
Now comes the decade(s) of trying to reverse the damage.
To force 13 year olds to behave like adults amounts in my book to child abuse.
hahaha! lots of adults do act like that, don’t they!
That judge was just … like … so unfair. He … like … wouldn’t let me … like …use my phone in his courtroom … you know. And they made me wear this … like… so stupid tee shirt… you know. It was … like … so not cool. They even made me … like … you know … take the ring out of my nose and eyebrow and even my lip. Like … so unfair…. you know. They wouldn’t even let my boyfriend in cause he’s …. like … got purple hair and 25 years old and they didn’t like … you know … his face tattoo. That’s sick … you know … cause he’s… like … gonna be in a rap band . But I got a bunch of likes on my facebook page.
And in the less than 20 years these little persons have been alive there has been no statistically significant change in earths average temperature..
What proportion of the population can even define “statistically significant”?
Among those who can recite the definition, how many UNDERSTAND it?
There is no average temperature of the Earth, so the point is moot.
unPlanned children.
Isn’t that what the U.N. wants? UNplanned Children
“I am sad. In my long 13 years of life I’ve noticed the long term trends in temperature and national fish stocks. I miss the golden age of our climate when in the year 2006 the planet was in equilibrium. I hope the judge does the right thing and takes over for the President, and the Congress.”
Judges trying to take over The Donald would be VERY entertaining.
“In my long 13 years of life”
I stopped reading right there. He doesn’t understand anything of importance in this discussion, making his opinion worthless.
13 years is old enough to remember when vaxxers made a fool of themselves. Several times.
Saving millions of lives is foolish.
Glad we got that straight.
and CO2 caused more than 100% of the observed warming. Whatever.
If you’re not “of color” and not female, you’re not a victim I guess.
Isn’t white a color?
White is all colors, actually.
Unless you try to physically mix every color available in oil paints, then it is a really crappy brown color. I have yet to find a mix of paint colors that make white.
If you have a beam of light of each of the primary colors and combine them on the floor, the resultant spot will be white.
If you have paint of all the primary colors and combine them, the result will be black.
The difference is paint absorbs, so the black is the absorption of all the color.
While the light is additive, so it’s all colors.
Right, and black is absence of color. So if someone is black they are NOT “persons of color”. While all others are.
Let it stamp wrinkles in her brow of youth;
With cadent tears fret channels in her cheeks;
Turn all her mother’s pains and benefits
To laughter and contempt; that she may feel
How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is
To have a thankless child! Away, away!
I wonder how many of them got a new play station for posing as victims?
If not, how many of them surrendered their smartphones? (Rechargeable stuff uses lots of energy.)
OH! And how many of the kids are aware the the conditions other kids work under to mine the lithium for their rechargeable stuff?
They came into existence partly because of, and enjoy their health and prosperity partly because of…. the Industrial Revolution….which they want to take down….
The OCT directors are white liberal lawyers (what a surprise):
Kelly Matheson – President
Sharon Duggan – Secretary
Julia Olson
Patrick McGinley
Socialist, manipulative white-collar criminals scamming for other-people’s-money.
The reality is that based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind including the state of Washington has no control. The party responsible for climate change is Mother Nature so that is who they should ve naming in their legal action. Lots of luck finding a court that has jurisdiction over Mother Nature and if one does get a judgement against Mother Nature, lots of luck collecting on a judgement.
Weather is not climate and extreme weather events has been part of the current climate for some time. Weather cycles are also not climate change. True climate change is so small that it takes a network of sophisticated sensors decades to even detect it. There is no evidence that current climate change has causes a worsening of weather climate conditions. Climate has never been optimal for all and in fact the optimal climate has never even been defined and according to science, even if the optimal climate were defined, mankind does not have the power to achieve it.
If the plaintiffs believe that the use of fossil fuels is somehow bad for the environment then they should first themselves stop making use of all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels an any way but obviously they are not doing that. They are wearing clothes that invariable were at one time transported by trucks that use fossil fuels.
There was a journalist on TV last night reporting on the indoctrination of our children in schools with climate change propaganda. It is highly organised, manipulative, and relentless. They are getting them young. There is an appalling article (another one) on the Guardian at the moment, and it is depressing reading the comments, and the cliches that flow forth from the uninformed. The warming “is locked in”. “It’s too late now”. “The ice caps are melting”. And as for the vitriol directed at ‘deniers’, who the author likens to Nazi appeasers! Appalling stuff. Everybody still trots out the 97% of scientists blah blah blah. The #WalkAway campaign has attracted thousands of personal testimonies. What about a #NoConsensus campaign? Get thousands of brief personal testimonies from scientists who state their credentials, and their disagreement with the theory. Or would too few be willing, in the current environment?
Kailani, (13) from Spokane said:
“My rights as a Native American … Camas, huckleberries, salmon, and other traditional foods are disappearing.”
So… Kailani is suggesting that she and her immediate family regularly eat camas, huckleberries, salmon et al (all also hunted and gathered in the traditional manner – no food miles allowed) as the core part of their diet?
Or is what she really saying is that she believes it is her RIGHT to be able to eat these things… but tonight she is getting home delivered pizza?
Kailani? I don’t think your lawsuit should have been dismissed. I think you should have been made to pay damages.
Sounds like her “Native American” ancestors missed out on pawpaws. (I had one once. Great flavor but don’t preserve well.) Guess they were “Native” to the wrong part of America.
Or, maybe some of her ancestors did eat pawpaws but other “Native Americans” drove them out?
(All “Native Americans” were peace-loving before that white guy Columbus showed up. Just ask an Aztec.)
She should look around at her own reservation and see how filthy it is before blaming white people for the weather.