Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Ninth Circuit is currently hearing an attempt by the Juliana v. United States plaintiffs to halt all fossil fuel extraction in the United States.
The kids suing the government over climate change want to halt fossil fuel extraction
The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States say they’ve been denied their right to a safe and stable climate.
…
If the injunction is granted, it would lead to a nationwide moratorium on new fossil fuel permitting and leasing on federal lands and waters until the lawsuit is resolved. No small matter. However, existing mining and drilling projects would still proceed.
…
Philip Gregory, one of the lead attorneys representing the children filing suit, explained that the injunction request is meant to address the urgency of limiting climate change by reducing emissions from fossil fuels immediately. With the case currently tied up in appeals, the plaintiffs wanted to make sure the current state of affairs with respect to climate change doesn’t get worse as the wheels of justice slowly turn.
“We would have preferred to go to trial, submit our extensive evidence, and have the judge require the defendants to come up with a plan, a national climate recovery plan, for how they’re going to go about doing this,” Gregory said.
…
In response, the federal government argued this week that the injunction maneuver is a ploy to bypass proper legal proceedings. “Indeed, Plaintiffs by their present motion are essentially making a bid in this Court for a substitute mini-trial or ‘trial lite’ — which is premature until the pure issues of law now being briefed in this interlocutory appeal are appropriately resolved as a threshold matter,” wrote attorneys for the US Department of Justice. They described the injunction request as an “ambitious attempt to throttle important government functions superintending broad swaths of the national economy.”
The government also noted that the Juliana lawsuit was filed more than three years ago but the plaintiffs hadn’t asked to block fossil fuel leasing until now, which undermines the plaintiffs’ argument that without immediate action, they would suffer irreparable harm.
…
Read more: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/23/18234721/childrens-climate-lawsuit-juliana-injunction
A copy of the injunction is available here.
Even President Obama did not support this case – when James Hansen urged Obama to tie President Trump’s hands on climate policy. by settling the case in the plaintiff’s favour, President Obama refused.
I feel sorry for the kids, whom I see as victims of callous green political manipulation. This court case will almost certainly eventually be tossed out, and those poor kids will likely have to live with the crushing disappointment of being tossed aside by their former green friends once they are no longer any immediate use to the green movement.
Of course this is all about socialism under the guise of environmentalism. The Raw New Deal proposed by AOC lets this cat out very comprehensively.
What these Raw Deal proponents either forget or are unable to comprehend is that capitalism is what drives wealth and prosperity across the entire population base of the country. The recent catastrophic failure of the Venezuela socialism experiment is just another example of a very long list of such failures. More importantly this style of socialism has always ended in failure and it always will, for the obvious reason that most humans will always opt for welfare over work, given the choice. Just take a drive to your nearest indigenous land title reservation or public housing establishments to see what happens on a smaller scale.
The sad part is that these children have the best opportunity of any children on the planet to make a successful and prosperous life, because they are growing up in a system that allows everyone to achieve the level of prosperity of their choice. All they need to do is to study and work hard and reap the benefits. By teaching and persuading them that they are entitled to a freely funded existence from the public largesse is more than a pushing a lie, it’s a life sentence of misery.
Hydrocarbons and, not coincidentally, certain carbon-based lifeforms, too. There is a method and pattern to their madness.
Hair treatment? Flash photography?
The photographs used in these cases are professional, so I guess the looks in the picture are intentional. Their org site has signs of the Big Green money in operation.
Don”t blame these kids .
Blame their stupid parents,these children are being used to advance an ideology and are expendable as pawns in a power struggle .
I have written before about our 37 year old New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
She is in coalition with the Greens and NZ First and one morning she woke up and announced that she had had a nuclear moment [ which refers to a previous Prime Minister who banned American nuclear ships from our waters ].
She stopped all new oil and gas exploration off our coasts without any costings of what this action will cost New Zealand in the next 30 years .
The loss of jobs and then the imports of oil and gas as our present gas fields run out has now been costed at 30 to 40 billion dollars.
Absolutely no thought or costings were undertaken .
This was just virtue signalling to the UN and to hell with the 4.8 million people who live in this fair country .
It did not stop her from flying to the climate rukus in Switzerland .
I remember a movie in the fifties titled ” I’m All Right Jack ” and that’s what these people are signaling ,they have never thought about life with out affordable fuel for their cars and plentiful affordable electric power .
And that’s not even thinking about all the products that are made from oil and all the heavy industry that produces steel and aluminum that are essential for all modern countries.
Enough said .
“…submit our extensive evidence…”
————————————————–
These kids don’t know what evidence is.
In order to demonstrate how committed they are to zero fossil fuels, they should immediately cease any and all fossil fuel usage – no heat or light for the homes they live in or the schools they attend if it comes from fossils, no automobile, train or plane travel, and that goes for their teachers and their lawyers and the courts their case is heard in too.
Only then should the courts allow their case to be heard.
I wonder how the kids in there Future World would get along without all of their electronic toys to play with.
MJE iii
Pitiable, brainwashed kids.
(A) the injunction request is to halt all fossil fuel extraction in the USA.
(B) It is meant to address the urgency of limiting climate change.
Have they presented evidence that (A) will achieve (B)?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcre/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/14/climateaction/
And that the science of climate change really is science and not activism?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/03/hidden-hand/
“and we want ice cream and chocolate chip cookies with every meal”
all credit to the wisdom and foresight of these children. they have obviously agreed to cease using all forms of fossil fuel;. no cars. no school bus. no trips in planes. no computers or social media. no electricity. no heat to keep themselves warm. A vote for a 19th century lifestyle.
The zealots behind these children are no different, in principle, to the terrorists who launch their cowardly attacks from behind a “wall” of women and children.
Walk to school.
No car trips to visit friends or go on holiday.
No flights to go on holiday.
Only natural fibres for clothes, which you have to make yourself.
No shoes.
No smart phones or iPads.
No heating in winter.
No AC in summer.
Grow your own food.
Oh no!!
It sounds just like third world existence.
Is this right written into your constitution? If not (as I suspect) where did this idea come from?
I doubt there is any climate anywhere on Earth that is ‘safe and stable’ as there are storms, floods, heat waves, cold weather, etc wherever one lives.
This should be the starting point (or the reason to dismiss the case out-of-hand) unless the plaintiffs can show that their chosen place of residence was ‘safe and stable’ when the CO2 levels were down at whatever figure they deem is necessary.
Camelot is the only place with an ideal climate, according to the musical.
It’s also a silly place.
Would banning these children from all conveniencies derived from petroleum wake them up? Would their parents and promoters agree to the same restrictions? That might wake them up but that connection has already been erased from their brains! This is a prime example of propaganda meant to destroy our country! The socialists and communists must be getting very desperate–they had us on a hundred-year roll but that deception is coming to an end!
9th circuit moratorium would just be ignored. Oil and gas and coal companies would just lie. Take a play book page from the Chinese and deny it.
The gloves are off. Play hard on the kids and watch the despicable child abusing ecoloons who want to use them squeal in horror at the defendants just ask the kids for right of reply. This is child abuse pure and simple and the perpetrators must be exposed on the world stage. Whatever happens now kids are going to get hurt which is disgusting.
its the equivalent of alcoholics(lawyers) and kids dependent of the sale of alcohol, suing the gov
to establish prohibition …
Should the court be foolish enough to grant the injunction, the proper response from energy/fuel providers would be to stop delivering their product to the states covered by the court. With immediate effect.
Ed, the fuel providers are part of the anti-scientific “believer” problem. They are a MAJOR instigating force behind first “global cooling” (we have to quit using fossil fuels now or the Earth will freeze) and then after a warming decade or two, CAGW.
It began in 1973, with the OPEC oil crisis. OPEC = Organization of Petroleum Exporting States, mostly Arab at the time. They decided to slash the production of oil to jack up the price and for political pressure.
Well do I remember the long gas lines, the even and odd days as to when you were allowed to buy gas, and the shocking prices. Gas went from around 30 cents a gallon in the US to the unimaginable 50 cents. Then it hit a dollar. There was plenty of talk about ending our dependence on foreign oil.
Most people were much more aware of the effect on consumers, but of course, fuel companies were also heavily affected. They did not like their commodity controlled by a handful of people on the other side of the world. They invested in alternative fuels–hydro, solar, wind. They want a return on that investment.
If fuel companies really wanted to sell as much fuel as they could, they would advertise in such a way that journalists would tell the climate truth and the nonsense would not be popular. There is no way they’ll cut fuel to idiot states. They do NOT want to wake people up.
Worrrall you say “I feel sorry for the kids, whom I see as victims of callous green political manipulation. This court case will almost certainly eventually be tossed out, and those poor kids will likely have to live with the crushing disappointment of being tossed aside by their former green friends once they are no longer any immediate use to the green movement.”
———————–
Most of the “children” in this particular group are over 15 years old. What right have you to make this sweeping statement without proof. At 15 many “children” are capable of understanding climate change. Many are concerned for their future – for they will have to live with our excesses – they have a right to try to maintain a liveable future.
In only a few years most of these “children” will be able to vote – are you suggesting that voting should only be allowed when over say 50years?
There IS scientific evidence for AGW. You ignore this. You claim that the science is financially driven. You suggest that there is a conspiracy amongst 10s of thousands of scientists without proof (!!!). Does this belief of yours seem like science.
Profligate living now may feel good if you are old – more money, more cheap motoring, etc. but it would be wise to take a small hit now rather than a wipe-out in 50 years when you will be dead.
Why not listen to them and engage with scientific evidence as to where their stance is wrong. Calling them “victims” is showing your ignorance.
What a flog……..
Fortunately these kid will grow up and won’t be so gullible. Like older people they will be skeptical about the nonsense their unfulfilled aunties tell them
the “global warming” “science” has been exposed as a generational fraud.
Hope these kids can make even better gains in health education longevity wealth and peace than the Boomer Generation achieved?
Sounds to me like you’d be happy living in North Korea, where most people live dirt-poor lives under the boot-heel of a repressive communist government. You should go live there then, and wallow in your own brainwashed ignorance and your idiotic CAGW ideology (which is all it is).
Ghalfrunt, thank you for illustrating a science denier in action. All innuendo, no content. Read some of the threads here and become educated. If you want more, go to the links below to scientists like Judith Curry … If you can deal with a little maths …
“There IS scientific evidence for AGW. You ignore this.”
You’re ignoring the fact that there really is NO evidence. What you call evidence is computer modeling. Computer modeling is neither evidence nor science; it is merely a tool of science.
“You claim that the science is financially driven. You suggest that there is a conspiracy amongst 10s of thousands of scientists without proof (!!!).”
This is a straw man. You are the one who frames it as a conspiracy; very few skeptics, if any, do that. In reality, every person on earth seeks what is in their best interests, and for climate scientists that means toeing the global warming line. Skeptics receive ridicule, censure, job loss, no funding, publications rejected, etc. etc. There’s a lot of evidence of that.
” Does this belief of yours seem like science.”
Science is based on skepticism and inquiry. What you call science is actually just belief in what people calling themselves scientists say. In essence that is no different than believing what religious clergy say.
let me guess your under 35?
and youve grown up with the lies yourself
anyone over 50 sure isnt so gullible
we’ve been there done that
and have the scars to prove it in many cases.
Maybe his comment was designed to be satire! Anybody that uses a name that contains “half runt” should be taken with considerable skepticism!
It is painfully obvious that you have never read the UN Agendas 21, 2030 and Sustainability and the proclamations of various UN officials.
Yea there is Scientific Evidence for Global Warming and Global Cooling, in fact the only thing there is no Scientific Evidence for is a “Safe & Stable Climate”, which is what these poor abused children are demanding.
Can you enlighten us on how there demand is to be achieved and when we will know that we have achieved it?
ghalfrunt: “There IS scientific evidence for AGW. You ignore this.”
Please provide some of this evidence. How much added warming does CO2 add to the atmosphere?
No need to answer. I know you don’t know the answer. Noone knows the answer. There is no evidence CO2 is adding additional warmth to the Earth’s atmosphere, there is only speculation. It is possible that any effects of CO2 could be completely offset by other factors.
You say there is evidence but that’s not true. Every time evidence is requested it is the same old thing: crickets. That would be because there is no evidence. You could prove me wrong, but you won’t.
ghalfrunt:”You suggest that there is a conspiracy amongst 10s of thousands of scientists without proof (!!!)”
You are referring to Climategate. No, the conspiracy was only among a handful of people. Unfortunately, these people controlled all the data and went about modifying the climate data to make it appear that the climate was getting hotter and hotter as time goes along, and the modifications made it appear that the warmth of today is unprecedentedly high. This was the deceptive template, the infamous Hockey Stick chart, that went out to all the other scientists in the world, who had no reason to question its varacity, and they accepted it as established fact, and are currently unwittingly (some) basing their scientific studies on this bogus data.
Just a very few people have managed to deceive billions of people about the Earth’s climate by rigging the surface temperature data, and sent the Western societies off on an enormously expensive wild goose chase to try to control the Earth’s climate.
If you believe that there is evidence to support AGW, please present it.
The mere fact that it is warmer than 150 years ago is not evidence.
Your claim that 10’s of thousands of scientists agree that the tiny bit of warming we’ve seen is both a problem and caused by man is a complete lie. Those claims have been presented and shredded on these pages many times.
As to limiting the vote to those over 50, it’s not a bad idea. I’d support it.
PS: Since you obviously didn’t bother to actually read the responses, many of the posters above have actually done what you demanded. Show where the kids are wrong. I guess there’s no room for reality when you are in the middle of an emotional rant.
There is no change that has occurred that is even close to being outside the envelope of what we know has occurred in the past. A friggin 0.6C change in over a century. Good effing grief. Idiocy.
ghalfrunt,
You are the one is ignorant, to the point of being a fool. A 15 year old’s decision making process is mostly governed by hormone fueled emotions. Rational cognition becomes a bigger factor later (if ever). This is the reason why many activities, like voting, are restricted to ages 18 or older, while others are restricted to age 21. These young people are simply doing what they have their entire lives when confronted with complex difficult decisions: they are deferring to their parents and other adult authorities. So regardless of what evidence they or you believe they have to present, these children (for indeed they are still legally considered children) do not have the ability to judge if it is valid or not. This makes them a pure PR tool by their parents and lawyers, which is shameful. And shame on you if you can’t see this.
What Gag Halfrunt meant to say was, “Zaphod’s just this guy, ya know?” He should have just said that forgot the rest.
America, where red is blue, and red is green.
Cos being red doesn’t actually work.
You bring up one of my pet peeves Gamecock. No one will ever convince me that it was pure chance that red came to be associated with the Republicans and blue with the Democrats, or that it was chosen because red and Republican both begin with R. It was surely a conscious decision to avoid associating red with the left-wing party as was the norm in most countries for many years. Accusing a Democrat of being a socialist was an effective attack and the socialists running the show were keen to avoid outing their comrades.
No one will ever convince me that it was pure chance
Well, you maybe happy to remain ignorant of the history of the choice of colors in the US, but for those who aren’t it dates back to the 1970s when color graphics began to be used on TV news (before then, the majority of TVs were B&W). each outlet used it’s own color scheme, often switching the colors each presidential cycle. As Vice-Presidential candidate for the Democratic party, Geraldine Ferraro described the reporting of the 1984 election: “One network map of the United States was entirely blue for the Republicans. . . . On another network, the color motif was a blanket of red.”. It was the 2000 election that cemented the red/blue color code we know of today. In that election NBC had used Red for the Republicans and Blue for the Democrats and it was Tim Russert who coined the terms “red state” and “blue state” in his analysis of the election results. The terminology and colors stuck and have been in use ever since.
I’m not ignorant of that “history” at all John. I remember it well. And I’m saying that after their memory of McGovern and Dukakis, and the negative connotation of being cast as socialists in those days, the news media fellow travelers came up with rationales for not associating the Democrats with the Reds as would have been the honest thing. The switching colors game was all part of that process of assuring us that the Democrats are not the red commies. You can quote the Wikipedia nonsense all you want, I’m not buying.
Facts are not nonsense. Sorry to inform you, but baseless conspiracy theories on the other hand are. Get back to me when you have some real facts to back up your conspiracy theories.
I didn’t say it was a conspiracy. They didn’t need to conspire when everybody in the news media was on the same page philosophically. I’m sure that they all acted independently on the same concern, that the public shouldn’t get the idea that Democrats are the red party. Or maybe you can explain why else they would have been concerned that it was relevant to switch the colors each election? Was it because red was the desirable color and they didn’t want to unfairly impact the Republicans?
Use your head for more than a hat rack.
Red is a vibrant color. Some of them chose to make the incumbent party Red, other the party that looked likely to win the election. There are plenty of reasons why the colors and why the switching each election cycle without inventing nefarious quasi-conspiritory reasons. But by all means, keep the tinfoil on your head if it helps you sleep at night.
Oh, and if they had the ” the same concern, that the public shouldn’t get the idea that Democrats are the red party.” yet you acknowledge that they switched from cycle to cycle (meaning the Democrats occasionally were the “red” party for certain election years) you’ve just defeated your own fact-less and baseless theory. well done.
When the left can’t abort babies, they wait, and use them as propaganda when they get a little older.
How long until one of the Big Oil producers file an amicus brief supporting the kids? Crazy world.
Their use of children to push the “climate” cause is just further proof not only of the depravity of the CAGW ideology, but also signals that it is in its death throes. They are desperate now. But this is why we need another Trump term, so they can’t recoup and reposition themselves. I wasn’t much fond of Trump when I voted for him, and I am even less so now. But the fact that I voted for him, and will do so again is entirely on the Democrats, who, it seems, instead of learning from their mistakes are now doubling down on them.
Why is it that in a line-up of kids they always look so glum, yet when it is politicians and lawyers they look so smug?
Nature has it’s own way of denying “a safe and stable climate.” Reference the geological history of the Earth if you doubt my statement.