Essay by Eric Worrall
This time aimed personally at President Trump.
‘A better future is possible’: Youths sue Trump over climate change
Issam AHMED AFP
Sep 16, 2025Smoke-choked air that fills their lungs, floods threatening their homes and debilitating heat: a group of young Americans testified Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s fossil-fuel push is trampling their inalienable rights.
…
They are also contesting the government’s actions undermining federal climate science, from firing scientists to removing critical reports.
…
Michael Sawyer, representing the Trump administration, countered that the case itself undermined democracy.
“This is, at its core, an anti-democratic lawsuit,” he argued.
“We just had an election. One of the major issues in that election was a dueling perspective on emissions, energy policy, and they are now stepping in and asking the court to overrule the results.”
…
Read more: https://www.cbs19news.com/trumps-fossil-fuel-agenda-challenged-in-youth-climate-suit/article_90c1ba59-dd1d-5f75-b44e-706afa91e834.html
The last children’s climate lawsuit was thrown out by the Supreme Court in 2025, on the basis that it was beyond the power of the courts to supervise such remedies, that climate policy was more suitably addressed by elected representatives.
While we have very little information on this new case, we got some insight into the kind of parents who would encourage their kids to be pawns in their adult games, during the previous youth climate lawsuit.
What can I say? The ink is barely dry on the previous youth climate lawsuit dismissal. In my opinion it is disgusting that organisations and parents are encouraging kids to participate in such a hopeless lawsuit, building up their hopes in the full knowledge those hopes will likely be dashed.
“Smoke-choked air that fills their lungs”
Quit vaping !
Where is that smoke-filled air? Not anywhere near where I live.
Love that smell of wood smoke from neighbours’ wood heaters on a cold winter’s morning 🙂
Try Kalifornia when the local reservoir is emptied and the police chief runs off to party in a foreign country. And don’t expect Oregon or Washington to be any better.
“floods threatening their homes”
Then stop building on flood plains. !
—-
is trampling their inalienable rights.
What rights are those..??
They have the right not to be gullible twits.. it is the choice they have made.
CO2 is not smoke.
Who said it was?
Smoke filled lungs.
I’m guessing they are talking about the wild fires that in their delusion, they believe to be caused by global warming.
Fires caused by far left arsonists, in many cases. I notice every time they point the finger at others it is THEM who are at fault. The HYPOCRITES.
Whenever you point your finger at another, you have 3 fingers pointing back at yourself.
Lefties obviously don’t know this
But our enemies do think CO2 is smoke. That’s why they talk about the “social cost of carbon” (soot!) instead of the “social cost of CO2 emissions.” This stupidity goes way back to the 1970s and “acid rain.” Re-brand a “problem” they have failed to demonstrate is a problem, and hey presto, they have a new “problem” to yell about!
Thanks Neil for this post. It made me think about why they speak about the “social cost of carbon.” It is in order to associate CO2 with soot which is black and dirty and nasty. In contrast CO2 is invisible and clean and usually beneficial to plants and all living creatures. These make it impossible to vilify. This is not simply being disingenuous but of the climate alarmists deliberately deceiving and exploiting children to get sympathy.
It is likely designed to get people to envisions the very nasty smog problem from the 60s & 70s.
Smog = smoke plus fog.
Neither is steam.. but they always show steam from cooling towers as being CO2 pollution
The height of ignorance is displayed every time they do that.
Deliberate ignorance; commonly known as BS and subterfuge.
Is it ignorance or deliberate malfeasance to promote fear?
Yes, carbon emissions is smoke, but CO2 is not.
Carbon emissions have been substantially eliminated over the past 50 years.
Someone should make that point.
Someone should also explain to those kids that CO2 emissions in the US has declined 20% over the past 2 decades, while global emissions keep going up. Let them decide who is to “blame.”
I live in a city where there has been a huge change over the past 50 years and very little of it can be attributed to renewables. Nearly 70% is said to come from fossil fuels – mainly gas – but I believe they have fudged the numbers for wind and solar and this should be much higher.
it is disgusting that organisations and parents are encouraging kids to participate in such a hopeless lawsuit, building up their hopes in the full knowledge those hopes will likely be dashed.
It is. But zealots can’t comprehend reality. They are locked into an elaborate fantasy that they have devoted so much time to creating and reinforcing that it’s become bigger and more real than reality in their heads. They must do “something.” They’re operating from deep-seated, powerful emotions that they have agitated, not rational, calculated reason and logic.
Someone needs to find the source of funds under-writing this stupidity.
They don’t give up. They don’t know when to.
The definition of anarchy is the inability to stop or not knowing when to stop. It’s a state of mind akin to addiction.
Can citizens sue a sitting president?
“The presidency is afforded significant legal protections to ensure the executive branch can function effectively. However, these protections are not absolute. A private citizen’s ability to file a lawsuit against a sitting president depends heavily on the nature of the actions in question, which determines if a legal claim can proceed.”
Hmmmm. Once again, USA ventures into territory where once one party establishes that something can be done, the opposing party would be foolish not to replicate. Hopefully some judge out there thinks ahead.
Ultimate jury of peers is the electorate? What of the Civil War eg? What are the criteria for deciding when to let Lincoln have his way? Contrast with the mustachiod WW2 German. Does distinctive facial hair lead to war? The questions are endless.
Why not? But make any frivolous lawsuit very expensive.
Because the bill(s) for the expensive frivolous lawsuit(s) will be sent to my kids. Assuming someone eventually pays the government debt, both the prosecution and the defense will probably be part of it. Both sides will be funded with public money.
Genuine question: Why are the kids being funded with public money?
Because my bad unclear writing.
I meant that both sides of frivolous lawsuits would be funded with public money.
With government expenses greater than tax income, the government borrows every new dollar it spends.
Thus the kids will be left with debt for the cost of their parents lawsuits against each other.
If the lawsuit does not get thrown out, then I’d expect to see more similar suits. In that case there is probably a stronger financial argument for the cost of law school.
Loser pays, and front the costs for the lawsuit in advance…then follow the money.
I may be wrong, but my understanding of the law is that you can’t sue a public official for acting within the duties of his/her public office. Even if you disagree with those actions. You can sue them for private acts outside the scope of their public duties. For example, if the President discovers Nancy Pelosi in bed with his wife, and he murders Nancy Pelosi, he can be tried for murder. Killing Nancy Pelosi is not part of his official duties as President. But if the President sends the army into Southern Slopovania to fight against the invading Russians and a thousand soldiers die in the military action, he can’t be sued.
My guess is that if this case ever reaches the court, it will be immediately dismissed by the judge. Unless of course the judge is in the ninth district in San Fransico. But that’s another story.
Never underestimate the biased judges who are joyfully attempting to block any of Trumps’s actions.
Well now that Greta is at sea their landbound siblings must purSUE her dream of pixie dust and rainbow farts. I wonder what those kids will do once their case gets dismissed again? Quit school? Well they certainly can’t get any dumber for they fail to spell: presidential imunity (sarc)
The premises are, the government has a duty to take care of people because of the “general welfare” clause, and the State has the power to control the weather, so it’s a dereliction of duty…
If this isn’t thrown out with prejudice, we are done as a country snd a free people. Might already be too late…
This was only to be expected. AGW has always been about politics and compelling more government control over all aspects of the economy. Hence it was inevitable that AGW policy would be levered into a lawsuit against the only government that matters. A host of organizations want to halt the current administration’s demolishing of AGW research and support programs.
Having lost completely the last election in 2024, they are now resorting to lawfare. Worse for them, given the decay and disintegration of the Democrats, it is to be expected that their political position will only worsen after the 2026 Midterm elections. Hence: lawfare. It’s all they have left, given how little public support they have.
Given how justice operates in the United States, it will be interesting to see how many injunctions against government actions will be sought after in the courts. No one should expect this to end anytime soon. I would not be surprised that, given the duration of other civil legal procedings, this could drag on for a decade or so.
I’m wondering when the riots and looting in protest of Charlie Kirk’s assassination begin.
Won’t happen, not until the trial of the “alleged” killer and his cohorts begins and it won’t be by the followers of Kirk. And watch out after the verdict. Nice sarc on your part,BTW.
There is a movement on the left, trying to contact any potential jurors in the Luigi Mangione case, to find the man innocent on the grounds that the CEO deserved to die.
That’s pretty much how the far left views anyone who disagrees with them.
Sadly, those riots and protests are already occurring, not to protest the killing, but to celebrate it.
Why should it end with the lawyers getting their version of “10% for the big guy) each time they step into a courtroom?
Our Children’s Trust is an American nonprofit public interest law firm based in Oregon that has filed several lawsuits on behalf of youth plaintiffs against state and federal governments.
Our Children’s Trust is a tax-exempt public charity under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and all contributions are tax-deductible as provided by law in the United States.
That says it all right there. Lawyers sucking dollars out of thin air.
Their name is deceptive. “Our” indicates that they speak for me. How can I sue them?
” . . . building up their hopes . . . ” towards what . . . exactly?!!
Building up their hopes that their children will somehow go along with a totally unproven theory of catastrophism?!!
WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT?!! . . . unless they are totally irrational idiots who are quite prepared to ridiculously manipulate the minds of their children in the name of their own utter idiocy?!!
You answered your own question.
At least the climate lawfare has not reached the legal team for Jean Carrol, combining agenda science, feminists, and old TV script plots.
When the Klimate Kids find out they’ve been lied to by the Klimate Kartel, they should turn around and sue them instead.
Sounds like another attempt for environmental groups and their lawyers to fund their wealthy lifestyles through fund raising off of the announcement of the suit.
More lawfare for us to pay for. When is suing for climate going to become frivolous?
A realist would explain that even fixing potholes is too complex for most governments.
Children have FAR better prospects for a decent future life under this President than the previous one.
By putting reliable electricity as a priority, rather than an afterthought, means the future will not be lumbered with a broken electricity supply system that would lead to constant blackouts.
That is what is needed to shut these stupidly blind and ignorant activists down.. an extended period with no access to electricity or anything else that uses fossil fuels.
They need to be shown that they could not exist without fossil fuels and their products.
So they’re basically going to ask the court to accept the opinion of children over both elected officials and climate scientists of all stripes.
It should be thrown out without oral arguments by the first court it hits. Sadly, it will probably get to the Supreme Court.
Regarding the title of the above article
“Our Children’s Trust Launches a Youth Climate Lawsuit“:
In the US to file a federal lawsuit you generally must be a legal adult, meaning you are 18 years of age or older. Minors (those under 18) lack the legal capacity to sue on their own. For a minor to pursue a lawsuit, a parent or legal guardian must file it on their behalf.
So, let’s get this straight:
1) this is not a federal lawsuit filed by children . . . if it were, it wouldn’t have any legal standing,
2) the lawsuit is brought by the legal entity titled “Our Children’s Trust”, owned and operated by adults and CLAIMING to represent the interests of a select group of children,
3) Or Children’s Trust has questionable legal standing unless at least on one of parties of the firm has at least one the children named in the suit, or at least one of the parents of at least one of the children named in the suit has requested legal representation by the firm.
Some publicly available info on Our Children’s Trust:
—Our Children’s Trust is led by co-founder Julia Olson, who serves as the executive director and chief legal counsel. The nonprofit law firm (again note the law firm is NOT owned or operated by children, i.e., those under 18 years old) coordinates lawsuits “on behalf of young plaintiffs” in attempts to compel governmental organizations to take action on climate change. Olson is a career environmental litigator who uses constitutional law to argue that governments are violating the fundamental rights of children by perpetuating climate change, obviously not caring to admit that climate change happens naturally and despite mankind’s actions or inactions.
—Mary Christina Wood is a University of Oregon law professor who helped establish the nonprofit and who developed the concept of “Atmospheric Trust Litigation.” This legal theory argues that governments hold natural resources, including the atmosphere, in trust for the public and have a duty to protect them. Of course, that legal theory has no scientific basis given that Earth’s atmosphere is shared by some 195 separate nations that currently comprise the world. The fact that she (as a principal in Our Children’s Trust) has not approached the International Court of Justice (aka “World Court”) to seek monetary compensation under her Atmospheric Trust hypothesis speaks volumes about her core beliefs and ethics. Moreover, how she proposes “protecting the atmosphere” is anyone’s guess since she is a law professor, not a scientist or engineer.
So, in reality, does anyone really believe any person under the age of 18 really has understanding to (a) clearly define the term “climate” for the court, or (b) to define how they have suffered damages from “climate” that are directly attributed to mankind’s actions or inactions? . . . noting that civil law does not allow suing anyone or any entity for POTENTIAL FUTURE damages.
BTW, as regards the claim that Our Children’s Trust “uses constitutional law to argue”, that is malarky . . . the US Constitution does not contain an express basis for natural resources being held in trust for the people . . . however, the Public Trust Doctrine, a principle of common law dating back to times of early Roman and English empires, specifies that governments holds certain natural resources in trust for the public’s benefit.
Nothing surprising here, the CAGW clowns have nothing to support what they say. They are losing, that’s why we have distractions like this. The sorry part is that now they must hide behind children. Disgusting.
The eggsperts are only thinking about the kiddies and the grandkiddies-
How misguided peanut allergy recommendations created an epidemic | Peter Attia & Marty Makary | Watch
Simple assessment shows that burning fossil fuels does not cause climate change:
Slope of the regression of the UAH6.1 temperature data from 1988 to Jan 2025 is 0.01648 C°/yr,
In the 37 years this amounts to 0.01648 * 37 = 0.61 C°.
For a WV increase of 0.067 1/1 per C° this results in a per unit WV increase from temperature increase of 0.61 * 0.067 = 0.04086 1/1
The average WV during the 37 years is 28.8 kg/m^2 so the WV increase from temperature increase is 0.04086 * 28.8 = 1.177 kg/m^2
The regression slope of the measured WV increase is 0.0447 kg/m^2 per year
In the 37 years this amounts to 0.0447 * 37 = 1.654 kg/m^2
The measured increase is then 1.654/1.177 = 1.405 or about 40 % more than from just temperature increase.
This FALSIFIES the assumption by many climate scientists that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase caused by CO2 increase.
They are such good people.