Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

High School Students Sue Federal Gov't Over Global Warming

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the good-thing-they-know-the-whole-script dept.

Earth 491

Hugh Pickens writes "Katherine Ellison reports in the Atlantic that a group of high school students is suing the federal government in U.S. District Court claiming the risks of climate change — dangerous storms, heat waves, rising sea levels, and food-supply disruptions — will threaten their generation absent a major turnabout in global energy policy. 'I think a lot of young people realize that this is an urgent time, and that we're not going to solve this problem just by riding our bikes more,' says 18-year-old Alec Loorz, one of the plaintiffs represented, pro bono, by the Burlingame, California, law firm of former U.S. Republican congressman Paul 'Pete' McCloskey. While skeptics may view the case as little more than a publicity stunt, its implications have been serious enough to attract the time and resources of major industry leaders." (Read more, below.)Pickens continues: "Last month, Judge Wilkins granted a motion to intervene in the case by the National Association of Manufacturers who says the plaintiffs lack standing because their injuries are too speculative and not likely to be reduced by the relief sought. 'At issue is whether a small group of individuals and environmental organizations can dictate through private tort litigation the economic, energy, and environmental policies of the entire nation,' wrote NAM spokesman Jeff Ostermeyer. The plaintiffs contend that they have standing to sue under the 'public trust doctrine,' a legal theory that in past years has helped protect waterways and wildlife. While the adults continue their argument, Loorz says kids his age are much more worried about climate change than many of their parents might imagine. "

cancel ×

491 comments

establish the facts of your standing (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993355)

Case dismissed.

You cannot sue for something that has not yet happened. Period.

Re:establish the facts of your standing (2, Insightful)

P-niiice (1703362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993379)

It's already begun, and there are actual damages that can be sued for if it needed to come to that.

Re:establish the facts of your standing (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993395)

YOU, as the plaintiff, have to show that YOU have actual standing by showing that YOU have sustained damages from the direct action or inaction of whomever you are suing.

This isn't about whether climate change is occurring or not occurring. Its about legal procedures and rules.

Re:establish the facts of your standing (1, Troll)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993565)

Doesn't the U.S.Government have to agree it can be sued? As for Tort Law, one can easily show Negalgence in such things as the BP/Gulf Desaster(this one is easy). One need only look at the Acid Rains that are killing the forests. The allowing of "Fracking" which is not only causing contamination of water supplies, but introducing carcanagenic compounds littertraly under ones home. Allowing the Faceless ones to "cut corners" in Nuclear Energy design. And the list just goes on and on.

This looks like a learning issue, I think I'll ask my eldest, an Enviornmental Admin. Major to file a "Friend of the Court" brief.

And maybe one can the see the true colors of Mit Romney by asking what he thinks; SNAP.

Re:establish the facts of your standing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993757)

No, this is about adults exploiting clueless kids for their own crusade. This is the reality TV version of "Think of the children."

Re:establish the facts of your standing (3, Informative)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993835)

YOU, as the plaintiff, have to show that YOU have actual standing by showing that YOU have sustained damages from the direct action or inaction of whomever you are suing.

Actually, you don't: Public trust doctrine. [wikipedia.org] It's in TFA.

Re:establish the facts of your standing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993417)

Prove it! =)

I don't think a group of high school students can hire the relevant climatologists and fund the necessary scientific studies to prove the case. McJobs don't pay that well.

Re:establish the facts of your standing (4, Insightful)

kick6 (1081615) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993423)

and there are actual damages that can be sued for

Actual damages caused by the defendant? The US federal government is out there in the artic with hair dryers melting polar ice to raise sea level which explicitly injured the plaintiff?

Re:establish the facts of your standing (-1, Troll)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993451)

what has begun?

Greenland is called Greenland because 1000 years ago it was a nice place to live and raise a family. the world was warmer 1000 years ago and there are more people now than ever. in fact all the bad stuff like bubonic plague happened after the world cooled. just like in the 500's. after a cooling trend we had disease and pestilence.

Re:establish the facts of your standing (4, Informative)

lyml (1200795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993515)

That's not true, Greenland was named Greenland by it's first settler Erik the Red hoping that a pleasant name would attract other settlers.

Re:establish the facts of your standing (5, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993679)

Or, as other early settlers of Greenland called him, "Erik The Bastard".

Re:establish the facts of your standing (4, Interesting)

Poeli (573204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993527)

Seriously dude, the name Greenland has nothing to do with the actual climate. There are serveral theories about the name but none are that it was a green place a 1000 years ago.

Of course, when you tell someone that they will be travelling with you to a place that is barren, cold and inhospitable you may have trouble convincing even a Viking to come with you. So instead, Erik (according to popular legend) called the island Greenland and instead painted the island as being a wonderful place to settle.

Source: http://ancientstandard.com/2010/12/17/how-greenland-got-its-name/ [ancientstandard.com]

Re:establish the facts of your standing (2, Informative)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993585)

no it was called greenland because it was green. we've even found evidence of farming there.

around the year 1000ad there was a warming trend called the Medieval Warming something. forgot the name. there was another one around the time of the Pax Romana. the Medieval warming trend coincides with the crusades because there were so many people in europe that everyone started fighting each other for land and so the Church found the perfect excuse with the crusades and helping the Byzantines

the Little Ice Age ended in the early 1800's. Right around the time all these scary temperature records start that show the world is warming. of course it's warming, we're coming out of a small ice age that lasted a few hundred years

Re:establish the facts of your standing (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993735)

Every time you reach a letter that is supposed to be capitalized, do you flip a coin to decide whether you should?

Nonsense (1, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993465)

Attempted [something] is illegal in many cases. And Guantanamo is full of people who were only planning something. Finally, neglect can definitely be a reason for a lawsuit.

This is a case where those in power neglect to act, and are therefore guilty of attempted climate change. Case accepted.

Re:Nonsense (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993875)

Attempted [something] is illegal in many cases. And Guantanamo is full of people who were only planning something. Finally, neglect can definitely be a reason for a lawsuit.

This is a case where those in power neglect to act, and are therefore guilty of attempted climate change. Case accepted.

Conspiracy (planning) can be a crime. However, the US Government is conspiring to warm the planet so claiming a conspiracy isn't going to work.

As for the US government not acting when it has the power to act, I would disagree with the "has the power" part. All a lawyer would have to do is read the 10th Amendment and ask where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the climate.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me to see an Obama appointed lawyer going before the judge and saying "We got nothin'" to throw the case. Of course, even if the government were to lose, it is not within the power of the judiciary to create policy. That's the job of Congress. But can a judge claim that Congress must pass a law that does something specific? Of course, I wouldn't say so. That's the same thing as the court writing the law, but I've seen stranger things.

Re:establish the facts of your standing (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993551)

People file injunctions against doing things that hasn't happened yet ALL the time... what are you talking about?

want to build a prison? a highway? a dam?

Are you sure about that? (2)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993651)

You cannot sue for something that has not yet happened. Period.

I've heard of somthing called "injunctive relief." I've also heard of courts issuing "protective orders."

Re:establish the facts of your standing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993747)

Case dismissed.

You cannot sue for something that has not yet happened. Period.

idiot

Re:establish the facts of your standing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993803)

Maybe they should file suit about the $14trn of boomer debt that their generation will have to service for the rest of their lives?

Re:establish the facts of your standing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993871)

They are called soft arguments. Armed to the teeth with soft arguments and precedents you can go against your government any time.

what exactly do they want done... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993357)

I don't get people, I get there MAY be a problem.
But assuming there is a problem, then what is the solution, you can't just say "we are mad, you should be doing something".
There is not easy fix, there isn't really even a hard fix..... nothing that is viable with out destroying the world economy.

They remind me of south park "they took our jobs"....

Re:what exactly do they want done... (0)

Torvac (691504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993525)

suprising. so because there is no fix its better to continue like nothing is wrong ? if you start to see something is obviously going in the wrong direction, you continue this way or at least slow down a bit ?
lost common sense because of money ?

Re:what exactly do they want done... (1, Redundant)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993723)

Given assumption (which may be wrong) climate change causes $1B damage resulting in eventual death of 1M

Scenario 1) do nothing. Result $1B in hole results in 1M deaths.

Scenario 2) Social engineering has never failed in the past, so we'll give it a try. Result $10B in hole results in 10M deaths.

I mean, come on. People are asking the .gov to accomplish something. This is the .gov people, not GOOG. All they're going to do is accept money from donors, send contract money to donors, repeat, plus or minus some feel good legislation.

This is only going to be fixed by individual social pressure working on individuals. Not federal social engineering. Not solving social problems using tech.

Re:what exactly do they want done... (4, Insightful)

drobety (2429764) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993535)

Whatever bad scenario you cast in your mind when you contemplate doing something about climate change, keep in mind that doing nothing will cause things to get much, much worst. History shows that humans are able to engage in large collective projects if they have the collective will for it. Also, economy thrives and economic opportunities are plentiful in times of great changes, and the reverse in times of great stagnation. I actually think economy would get a huge boost by steering our societies away from the abyss we are now headed, I see it as a win-win.

Re:what exactly do they want done... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993569)

typical BS, of course something can be done, no it won't destroy the economy, heck it'll probably spur new growth. You sound like a horse and buggy fanatic, they said the same thing about cars ruining the world...

Re:what exactly do they want done... (4, Funny)

smg5266 (2440940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993773)

Oh my the irony!

Everyone should do this (2)

jeesis (2494876) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993363)

Sue the government that is. Maybe then we can get laws forbidding people from suing everyone over everything.

Everyone has the right to sue the government (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993523)

Well, I suppose that rights are not really relevant anymore, but in theory we have the right to sue the government.

kids are worried ... (3, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993373)

Gee, that's shocking. My uncle in the mid 1960s was worried about The Bomb, and kids in my era fretted over ecological disaster.

Neither happened.

Re:kids are worried ... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993385)

And therefore nothing bad ever will. Right?

Re:kids are worried ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993473)

And therefore we should react to every 'chicken little' idea as if the world is coming to an end, right?

Re:kids are worried ... (3, Insightful)

p0p0 (1841106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993405)

You mean like the bombs used in World War 2?
Or the ecological disasters like the garbage islands in each major ocean and the continued clear-cutting of thrid-world countries, to name a few?

Long term thought does not seem to be something you're capable of, and is a handicap for most people. We weren't programmed to think long term so it literally is a difficult concept for some people.

Re:kids are worried ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993481)

You're an idiot and are detrimental to your own point. I do believe World War 2 happened before the 1960s.

Re:kids are worried ... (4, Funny)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993673)

You're an idiot and are detrimental to your own point. I do believe World War 2 happened before the 1960s.

Sources?

Re:kids are worried ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993733)

Sentence #1 Source [slashdot.org]
Sentence #2 Source [wikipedia.org]

Re:kids are worried ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993409)

The only issue is, climate change is already happening.

Re:kids are worried ... (2, Insightful)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993825)

And has been happening for millinea.

Re:kids are worried ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993443)

So by your reasoning, anything that people have ever worried about just ~never~ happened?
Your argument is pathetic, there is more than enough solid proof of climate change; you're probably either just a) too old to care because it won't affect your generation or b) have a below-average IQ and can't comprehend anything above your level.

Re:kids are worried ... (4, Interesting)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993447)

I think the fact that the latter could be combated with just a modicum of giving a shit adds more insult to injury.

There wasn't a fucking thing Joe Blow could do about The Bomb back during the height of the Cold-War, but something as simple as not generating extraneous waste gets the most ridiculous resistance out of people these days. I have known people that chose not to recycle because "fuck it." Until gas prices got insane, I knew people that would drive 2 blocks away to the corner store to get a candy bar rather than walk. Even something as simple as turning the thermostat up during the summer and down during the winter by a few degrees would result in enormous savings in fossil fuels, but again, there is an insane number of people out there that don't give a single fuck about the environment and a fair amount of people that, it seems, are hostile towards green initiatives solely because "fuck you", like the aforementioned people that refuse to recycle.

It's funny, but 70 years ago American society embraced rationing to support the war effort and beat the Axis, but trying to get society as a whole to embrace green technology is an exercise in futility, and many of these people are the children of those that grew up in that time period in the first place. Did all those lessons not get passed on from the WWII generation or what?

Re:kids are worried ... (3, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993689)

a fair amount of people that, it seems, are hostile towards green initiatives solely because "fuck you"

Could it be that they're tired rightly or wrongly of Big Government (from the Federal level thru State, County, City and Homeowners Association) telling them how to live?

Did all those lessons not get passed on from the WWII generation or what?

No, apparently they didn't. From the "Greatest" Generation directly to the "Me" Generation is stunning. I blame "The Greatest Generation", TV and 1960s Progressivism (the results of which are still being felt in society).

Progressivism because (1) flag burning and riots and meeting with the North Vietnamese in Cuba tends to transmit to everyone else, no matter what your pious words are, that you hate your country, thus breaking societal cohesion and (2) TV and movies -- of which all/majority of the writer were Progressive -- starting in the 1970s coarsening the culture with ever increasing amounts of foul language in movies and TV while eliminating cultural norms like good manners: children saying Please, Thank You, Sir & Ma'am, thus destroying the social lubricant and lastly (3) the belief that nationalism is a Bad Thing, and therefore nations are a Bad Thing; thus people claiming to be "citizens of the world" and welcoming large-scale illegal immigration.

Re:kids are worried ... (3, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993739)

Maybe part of the attitude comes from the hypocrisy of many of the people telling everyone else they should drive smaller cars and turn down their thermostat, while they themselves lead lavish, jet-setter lifestyles of opulent luxury. Kind of hard to take seriously when someone says, "Hey, you can't expect to keep using all that fossil fuel. We'll talk more when we get back from our Hawaiian vacation and our teen gets back from her spring break in Cancun."

Re:kids are worried ... (1)

smg5266 (2440940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993797)

We gotta kill them CO2s! Dem Nazi sympathizers! Maybe that will work

Re:kids are worried ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993455)

You can't be serious. 'The Bomb' hasn't happened because governments have come together to help police the globe. Ecological disaster? That's a fairly broad concept really but if you are referring to humans, certain laws have been put in place around the globe to prevent disaster. If you are referring to wildlife, then isn't that what animal rights activists, endangered species laws, etc are for? It has done well so far. This is because of situations such as this article, which you are bashing.

Of course, both of those things are highly likely to happen at some point, and maybe sooner than later. But the 'kids' and 'hippies' and 'activists' of this world have paved the way of change and many have taken their path. Use some brain power before speaking. Maybe the "Idiocracy" thing is well on its way to coming to fruition!

Re:kids are worried ... (4, Informative)

htomc42 (2547444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993663)

Of course kids are scared about global warming/climate change/whatever. For years now, it has been pushed on them relentlessly in the public schools. Remember that 'Captain Planet' environmental cartoon from years back, where every industrialist/capitalist was evil and had to be defeated? That was just the beginning. The level of outright propaganda that kids receive would make Goebbels smile. And, of course, that is completely independent on whether or not there really -is- some sort of man-induced climate changes occurring, and to what degree. The sad thing is that -both- sides of this debate have become so hopelessly politicized, that its hard to tell just where the truth is.

Re:kids are worried ... (0)

Cobble (1116971) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993709)

Nothing happened? We came very, very close to a nuclear war with the Russians, and atomic proliferation is in such a state that rogue nations and terrorists are increasingly likely to use a nuke. We are already in the midst of the greatest extinction of life since the end of the Cretaceous, when the dinosaurs went extinct. That is a measurable fact, and it's also human caused.

Re:kids are worried ... (1)

_8553454222834292266 (2576047) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993843)

Yeah, the mass extinction currently happening isn't an ecological disaster. And the bomb wasn't a disaster for Hiroshima...

The sad things is... (-1, Troll)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993375)

The sad thing is, the right-wing extremists denying the existence of global warming will go after these kids in the nastiest, most vile ways they can think of.

All the while, they hide behind the presumption that "both sides of politics are entitled to their opinions", "freedom of speech", "First Amendment", or whatever other piffle the extreme Right use to legitimise their dickhead, uninformed opinions.

Re:The sad things is... (5, Insightful)

Bicx (1042846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993407)

Censorship is nice when it's used on ideas you despise. It's not so great once a new administration flies in and turns the censor ray on you. It's best not to set a precedent.

Re:The sad things is... (2, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993463)

It is not censorship when you insist that only scientific conclusions be heard during debates about scientific issues.

Re:The sad things is... (2, Interesting)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993759)

It is not censorship when you insist that only scientific conclusions be heard during debates about scientific issues.

Yea, it is, when you get to decide how "scientific conclusions" is defined.

Re:The sad things is... (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993781)

So whats the penalty of presenting Ideas that have no scientific merit? Take global warming as an example should the scientist that came up with poor predictions based on bad assumptions, malicious or not, that influenced policy be held accountable for it? Should their research grants be taken away? The problem with Global warming/ Climate Change is that the uncertainty is too high right now to draw conclusions as to the true relation between emissions and impacts on the environment. If you are calling for a purely logical approach then that is what must happen, any and all speculation would have to be removed for you plan to work and as brilliant as our scientist are it is an impossible task. Once you let speculation in it degrades from a scientific debate to a debate.

Re:The sad things is... (2)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993419)

On the bright side, they're still young and naive. You can't buy off idealists.

Re:The sad things is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993595)

On the bright side, they're still young and naive. You can't buy off idealists.

No, you just have to wait until they grow out of their naivete and realize how the world really works. Posting AC so as do not undo earlier modding.

Re:The sad things is... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993653)

It's so nice to have integrity,
I'll tell you why.
'Cause if you really have integrity,
It means your price is very high!
-Tom Lehrer "Selling Out"

In other words, sure you can, you just have to raise the amount you're willing to pay. It's sort of like the classic joke of an old fart to a pretty young woman saying "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" "Well, ok." "Would you sleep with me for five dollars?" "What kind of girl do you take me for?" "We've already established that, we're just haggling over the price."

Re:The sad things is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993453)

If you truly believe in this fairytale why are you still using electricity? I bet you still drive an evil car too? I don't get the green fairy tale people, they talk a good game but won't go the extra mile, why? This is why they can't be taken seriously, when they go back to living in caves or get all their electricity from so called clean energy, then maybe anyone can believe they are serious. Why all the name calling too, seems to go with the people who believe in this scam for money.

Seems anyone I know who believes in the garbage science all have cell phones and use way more electricity than I do. But hey do as I force you too, what garbage this controller group of idiots.

Re:The sad things is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993707)

The inconvenient truth is that hypocrites like Al Gore use more electricity and drive thirstier cars than 10 ordinary working people living in a two-bedroom apartment. There are lots of similar hypocrites here on /. unfortunately.

Re:The sad things is... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993457)

How can you claim the moral high ground yelling from the gutter like that? These kids are being used as political tools in an election year.

Re:The sad things is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993475)

The sad thing is, the right-wing extremists denying the existence of global warming will go after these kids in the nastiest, most vile ways they can think of.

All the while, they hide behind the presumption that "both sides of politics are entitled to their opinions", "freedom of speech", "First Amendment", or whatever other piffle the extreme Right use to legitimise their dickhead, uninformed opinions.

everyone has a right to to make an ass out of themselves, including the above poster.

DOD considers climate change a serious threat (4, Interesting)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993377)

DOD, and the US Navy in particular, have considered climate change to be a major national security issue for several years. There is no question that "climate change" is occurring. As usual, what is in question is:

— Precisely what part human activity plays in concert with natural global climate cycles, and
— Exactly how much the US and other First World nations should dramatically alter their economies and energy strategies while developing economies and other major economies (such as China and India) do comparatively nothing, absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means

Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993529)

The trick is managing a economically and politically/militarily stable transition to sustainable energy / carbon emissions practices.

No single government has enough authority to manage this, they're going to have to work together.

It's an interesting challenge, not as urgent as an extra-terrestrial invasion scenario, but nonetheless a global problem that requires a global response.

Even if China, India, Europe, and North America got together on a solution path, they'd still need to compel the rest of the world to play along.

Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (0)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993575)

Right now China, India, and Europe are trying to get the USA to play along on this issue. Or at least come to the table.

Are you serious? (4, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993713)

[Citation needed]

Seriously, if you believe that China and India are trying to get the US to "come to the table" on this, you're swallowing a ridiculous narrative, again put forth typically by AGW proponents who see the US as the villain here, instead of seeing things as they really are — namely, things like the fact that China is set to emit 50% more greenhouse gases than the US by 2015 [scientificamerican.com] .

Note: It doesn't matter that China has more people in the context of the climate change argument! If you identify some level x of greenhouse emissions as being a "bad" thing, then China emitting far more than the US is an extremely bad thing in terms of the effects that it would cause. You can argue that the US may be in a position to make the most impact, but with China set to significantly outpace the US in emissions and oil consumption, I think you need to take a look at what value the US taking a disproportionate hit in emissions control — and the dramatic impact that would have on our economy — would actually do for climate change that would be positive.

Put it another way: do you think that the evidence supports that China (or India, or any other developing economies) would be a better steward of this responsibility?

Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (2)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993769)

Funny! I just returned from a month in India and a hacking cough from.the poor air quality I experienced all over the country.i'm convinced one value not brought into the global equation is the billion wood burning fires for cooking food each day. What do y you think China and India are going to do about that? The US already had strict air quality laws and is working hard to do more. Do you expect everything to change all at once? If so, why don't you pay for it?

Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993553)

Precisely what part human activity plays in concert with natural global climate cycles

Yeah, precisely and it has to be precise or you're not going to believe it right? Because you know full well that there is no such thing as precision in climate science. It's about models and estimates and you right wing idiots are going to refuse to do anything until somehow every molecule of this world can be tracked and we can show that CO2 will cause us problems. Until then, you have a shadow of a doubt that you're clinging to and holding up as evidence that you don't have to do a thing.

Exactly how much the US and other First World nations should dramatically alter their economies and energy strategies while developing economies and other major economies (such as China and India) do comparatively nothing, absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means

And what are you going to tell your grandchildren when they inherit a world of shit? That China and India made you do it?

Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (2)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993641)

Yeah, precisely and it has to be precise or you're not going to believe it right? Because you know full well that there is no such thing as precision in climate science. It's about models and estimates and you right wing idiots are going to refuse to do anything until somehow every molecule of this world can be tracked and we can show that CO2 will cause us problems. Until then, you have a shadow of a doubt that you're clinging to and holding up as evidence that you don't have to do a thing.

Talk about missing the point. The use of the word "precisely" there has nothing to do with what you assume; it's the usage that asks, "How much does human activity play a part in this?" with the natural follow-on, "If human activity isn't really a big part of what's happening with climate cycles [and you can't say that it is or isn't], then we probably shouldn't decimate our economy unnecessarily." It's a key question, and "idiots" like you refuse to acknowledge it.

And what are you going to tell your grandchildren when they inherit a world of shit? That China and India made you do it?

Missing the point — again. (I guess I shouldn't be surprised.) This isn't about "China and India made us do it". It's that if the issue requires a global response — whatever the cause — then it necessarily must be a global response, not just First World nations sacrificing their entire economic and energy base, thus removing any influence they may have over the issue, leaving "China and India" to create that "world of shit" to which you refer even more quickly.

I do get a kick out of you assuming my political position, though, however incorrect you may be. The funny (sad?) thing is that you clearly assume I'm a "denier", when in fact I am very aware of climate change and its implications. Your problem is that you believe everything is about the big bad corporations, Big Oil, "The Rich", etc., and use climate change as a tool to attack your favorite villains, when in reality any workable global solutions are far more complex.

Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (4, Insightful)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993833)

Talk about missing the point.

No, he got the point. He was accusing you of being disingenuous because there's a trend of people just like you claiming "we don't know" and therefore "we shouldn't do anything". Of course, they're the exact same people who said "I have proof it's not happening! ...but I left it in my other pants" and "Don't believe the scientists they're all religious fools!". The way you phrased your questions made it obvious that you were only asking them for rhetorical purposes. It certainly looked like you'd already decided what the answers are and were indicating you had no interest in anything that might contradict your views. I would suggest using questions that less obviously one-sided next time. If you don't phrase them in a way that dictates the answer, most people won't assume you're an idiot with an agenda.

"How much does human activity play a part in this?"

Over the last decade it's about 108% human causes. Natural causes have had a net negative effect, and so the human effect has had to overcome a natural cooling trend and warming has continued warming at a slightly slower pace. Surface temperatures appear to have been mostly stable because most of the warming is currently being pushed into the ocean (which continues to warm). This is because the last decade has been dominated by La Nina events. If you look at trends lines categorized by ENSO state [skepticalscience.com] (El Nino, La Nina or neutral) much of the short term noise is cancelled out of the resulting graphs showing a clear rising trend in temperatures.

It's that if the issue requires a global response — whatever the cause — then it necessarily must be a global response, not just First World nations sacrificing their entire economic and energy base, thus removing any influence they may have over the issue, leaving "China and India" to create that "world of shit" to which you refer even more quickly.

Of course, there are other options besides "do nothing" and "stop doing anything". A measured response might include, for example, imposing a carbon tax, and then taxing imports at the same rate. That would allow for reductions in emissions without allowing China and India to swamp America with "cheap shit" that breaks the rules.

Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (1)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993665)

Your right about the facts, however your wrong in your reasoning about the why. They aren't doing this because they think the sea is going to rise by several meters in the next few years.

It doesn't really matter if climate change is 'real' or 'exaggerated' for their purposes though. All that matters is the popular perception that is value by the masses. If the masses feel that 'climate change' is a reason to pick up pitchforks and rise against the establishment than that is something is of international concern.

Think of it this way, one the largest reasons the Americans rebelled against the British was a tax rate that was perceived as significantly too high. That tax rate by the way the way was a fair bit lower than today's tax rate. (The Boston Tea Party was a /Tax Protest/ not an independence rally). This by the way is the source of the name of our modern 'Tea Party' in politics.

My point is that popular perception is the driving force behind armed rebellions that can cause a change in who governs a nation. After all if that drove the successful revolution in our own country it's own reasonable to look out for the same in other countries.

Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993827)

Then again, the military plans also for the worst possible scenario. If the tanks and trucks lack diesel and the mission is still a go, what should the prudent military leader do? Same questions should be asked in any field related to the basic infrastructure, health care, security and other life preserving activities.

Re:DOD considers climate change a serious threat (3, Insightful)

tirefire (724526) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993691)

DOD, and the US Navy in particular, have considered climate change to be a major national security issue for several years.

Precisely why this lawsuit is teaching these kids a very bad lesson.

If these kids are concerned about the climate's future, shouldn't they be studying ways to better predict and manage the climate? Winning the argument in a courtroom matters about as much as winning a debate tournament. Doing research and finding ways to get results could save countless lives.

The Navy should be handing out research grants left and right (if it isn't doing so already) for research on climate management. If all the artic sea ice thawed, it would radically change the face of naval warfare for the US, and not for the better...

Does not follow (-1, Redundant)

wytcld (179112) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993851)

If these kids are concerned about the climate's future, shouldn't they be studying ways to better predict and manage the climate?

We have finely-honed ways to predict the climate. They converge to predict serious danger ahead. We also have a great deal of knowledge of ways to head off that danger -- primarily by reducing carbon emissions. Now, the students might want to do psychological studies about why we have the knowledge and the means but refuse to act. There's a lot to learn about why we're such stupid lemmings, victims of propaganda by the likes of Exxon and the rest of the vested interests, who believe that their descendants in private hilltop estates can hold off the catastrophy, or else believe nothing of the future at all, but see only the short term profits.

But what's wrong the filing suit? Anything to cut through the mass madness and inertia on this danger is good. There's been more TV coverage of Donald Trump than global warming over the last year in America. We are truly a decadent civizilation, and truly fucked if we don't wake up from this.

Hippies strike again (4, Funny)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993381)

Instead of peace signs, they now have law degrees.

Re:Hippies strike again (-1, Troll)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993441)

Yep. Typical Leftist behavior;

When you lose in the arena of ideas, use the courts to FORCE your will upon an unwilling populace.

AGW is a failed ideology. Despite the slavish devotion from many /. members, it's religious tenets have been proven false over and over. Now, in it's dying gasps, it uses brainwashed children and the courts to try and gain a last-minute victory over reality.

This will fail, as have all their other arguments. Reality is the greatest argument against leftist ideology, including the AGW religion.

(Yes, I know I'll get modded "Flamebait" and "Troll" by the scions of AGW that hole up on /. That's fine. All they do by modding me down is prove how weak their own position is.)

Re:Hippies strike again (1)

jkflying (2190798) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993499)

About those flamebait mods... your sig really won't help your case here.

And what you call 'leftist' is more conservative than pretty much everything except Fascist Italy and Spain and Nazi Germany, all of the 20s, 30s and 40s. Hell, even Nixon was trying to bring in universal health care, and he was considered conservative for his time.

Re:Hippies strike again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993513)

You'll get modded Flamebait or Troll because that's what you are. Climate change is real and going to be an increasing problem in the future. Just because people like you are too delusional to realize it doesn't make it any less real. And those kids have every right to fight for their rights here. They're going to have to pay because you're too much of a selfish jack ass to do the right thing.

Re:Hippies strike again (2)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993783)

I am not defending the OP you're replying to, but to the rest of your post.

Many are not arguing whether climate change is happening, but why it is happening and if humans are even making a measurable difference. We can all agree that pollution is an issue, but not everyone agrees that we are the cause of global warming.

Personally, I believe, with the lack of complete and hard facts, we should be making a best attempt to cut back on global warming related pollution, but I do no believe in rash decisions. A great way would be to tax fossil based fuel to the point it becomes on par with renewable energy and all the tax money gets funneled into renewable research and projects.

I have a sister-in-law who sets her AC to 60f when it's 90f outside, then she sits with the patio door wide open for her 30min bouts of smoking. BTW, she's on welfare and refuses to pursue her boyfriend for child-support. We need a way to not let this happen while not harming people who really need welfare.

Re:Hippies strike again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993805)

Well duh, climate is constantly changing. Always has, always will. The two relevant questions are: 1. Are humans causing a difference at the moment? 2. How do we mitigate that difference? Nobody can provably answer (1) at the moment, and charlatans and swindlers are taking advantage of carbon taxes, carbon credits and carbon markets to bleed the coffers dry in a massive social engineering exercise.

Re:Hippies strike again (4, Insightful)

tbannist (230135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993677)

Actually, none of the Tenets of AGW have been "proven false". You get modded down for being a trolling doucebag. Given that even the "sceptical scientists" hired by the Koch brother to "once and for pove that global warming isn't happening" found that, actually, yes global warming is happening at pretty much exactly the rate the "alarmists" have been saying, you're just delusional.

Every major sceintific organization in the world accepts that global warming is occuring, the past decade was the warmest on record. What could possibly make you believe that it had proven false?

Why not sue over out-of-control deficit spending? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993383)

That's a bigger threat to their future well-being.

Ask the Greeks how well out-of-control spending works when you run out of other people's money to spend.

Re:Why not sue over out-of-control deficit spendin (5, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993429)

Well no, the Greeks and everybody else can tell creditors to stick it up their collective asses. Ultimately, the economy of the whole world may fail, but it won't endanger our biotope. Screwing up the weather however can't be undone.

Remember, debt is an artificial human construct. Global warning (if/when it happens) is reality. You can't dismiss reality.

Re:Why not sue over out-of-control deficit spendin (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993879)

You can't dismiss reality.

You don't watch Fox News, do you.

Re:Why not sue over out-of-control deficit spendin (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993507)

Given the fact that most of the world's currency is based on the faith it's users have in it's value, I wouldn't be too sure that other people's money is going to be worth anything once society rolls over and refuses to play their game, and forcing austerity measures on a class of people that had little to do with the shit in the first place is one of the best ways you can make that happen.

Atlas may be shrugging, but Atlas ain't "job creators" and capitalists, Atlas is the mob, and at the end of the day, the mob rules.

Close, but no cigar. (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993421)

At issue is whether a small group of individuals and corporations can dictate through political and military influence the economic, energy, and environmental policies of the entire planet.

Revolting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993431)

So.. all the energy of the youth go into ..

pointless lawsuits,I am sure, would be tot he tune of a few million $$.

earlier they used to steal for beer money, now they sue.

and just kids. just getting into the sue habit early.

Listen, kids, let me quote some Gandhi to you: 'if everyone cleans up their own backyard, the would would be much cleaner'.

So why not start with using some bikes, and wasting less stuff? less cola, more water?

educate yourselves and your friends while at it instead of being knwo at alls.

In the meantime, if you want to sue, sue Govt of china too, while at it. Guess you dont have the stomach for that fight.

Accountable (2)

mango9 (159959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993467)

Makes legal sense? Don't know enough to comment BUT I support the principle that political leaders must be accountable for their actions... and ignoring / downplaying global warming is a serious action in my book.

New Cable TV commercials eminent? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993469)

"Have you or a loved one been injured or even killed by the receding ozone? If so, call for a free consultation....we don't charge a dime unless you win your case."

good-thing-they-know-the-whole-script dept (4, Funny)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993471)

from the good-thing-they-know-the-whole-script dept.

Is that the "It's the end of the world! We're all going to die!" script or the "Oh, sorry, our predictions were wrong..." [slashdot.org] one?

Let me guess... (0)

alexmin (938677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993505)

None of them is going to major in math and science in college but go for soft degrees and later attempt to govern us.

Global Warming Wave (0)

halfkoreanamerican (2566687) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993571)

Now we can make our government raise taxes even more to pay someone else who doesn't want to work. I think we should all paddle a bit harder to ride this one.

Bravo! (2)

Subm (79417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993581)

Bravo!

People looking to the government to lead on acting to protect the environment are going to wait a long time. To call members of Congress and the executive branch "leaders" mis-uses the term in this case.

If we want to change, we are going to have to lead our government. Yeah, they should act in our interests, but they aren't. We can do something about it. If this lawsuit doesn't succeed, the next one will go farther. And the next one farther. Until the kids who are thinking about their lives eventually get their interests protected over those of government officials who only have a few years left anyway.

Not concerned (0, Troll)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993637)

Loorz says kids his age are much more worried about climate change than many of their parents might imagine.

Sounds like Loorz has been well indoctrinated by his teachers. Because his assertion is demonstrably false [nytimes.com] . Unless my "many" he means "a few of us brainwashed cloistered kids".

Wow! You really can sue for anything! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993661)

Wow. How do you go into court and waste government funds (for both the judicial portion of the court and the defense against this case) when:

1) the extent of any damages are unclear
2) the thing you're suing over is not 100% accepted as being something that's real (global warming caused by humanity)

and

3) THE ENTITY THAT YOU'RE SUING HAS NO PROVABLE DIRECT IMPACT ON THE THING YOU'RE SUING ABOUT

This is why activism in the US is typically cast in such a negative light. Because there's so many stupid publicity stunts that ultimately don't do anything but cost the average person money in taxes.

Be careful what you ask for. (4, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993669)

The social controls required for the US to reduce its emissions meaningfully must result in an eco-police state with massive Federal micromanagement.

Other countries can and will take every advantage of this. So would I.

Re:Be careful what you ask for. (1)

dietdew7 (1171613) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993865)

"Eco-police state with massive Federal micromanagement" that's a feature not a bug.

How old are they? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993693)

If they are below eighteen, they don't have a right to sue. If they are older than that, they are just as responsible as the rest of humanity.

Education failed? (2)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993731)

Somebody needs to educate these kids on how political change is really achieved in our system of government.

drill baby drill people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993821)

This is what happens when the folks wanting to use up all of our resources in the next 30 years while they are still alive find out that there are actually younger people who have to deal with the fallout from their irresponsible actions.

Yes, lower gas prices are good, but if they had to pay for the pollution damage that is subsidized by society, it would be a lot more expensive than it is now.

Go kids!. Hopefully they get some regulation on emissions out of it.

Publicity Stunt (5, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993847)

LOL

"I watched An Inconvenient Truth 2x in one night, that made me an environmental activist at 12."

Aside from a host of Constitutional issues (I'm pretty certain that the court can't order the Executive branch to sign, nor the Legislative branch to approve, treaties), at a certain point isn't it parents' job to protect their kids from being used like this?

We all know this will chew its way through the courts. A liberal judge will agree, an appellate court will overturn, the 9th Circuit (of course) will support, and it will go to the Supremes. These kids will become famous as "the face of activism of their generation".

Do you think they're serious? Well they sure do:

While the adults continue their argument, Loorz says kids his age are much more worried about climate change than many of their parents might imagine. Indeed, one British survey found that children between the ages of 11 and 14 worry more about climate change (74 percent) than about their homework (64 percent). "I used to play a lot of video games, and goof off, and get sent to the office at school," he said. "But once I realized it was my generation that was going to be the first to really be affected by climate change, I made up my mind to do something about it."

LOL, wow, I'm convinced. He's even given up video games to pursue this. Well, ok; not "given up", just refocused.

You know why this is a publicity stunt?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/ [usdebtclock.org]
$15 trillion.
$50k per citizen
$140k per taxpayer.

These kids (and the gray eminences using them for publicity) are taking something that - even if it's happening, the human input is not nearly as well-proved as the Faithful would like us to believe - as a critical and *immediate* threat, while ignoring the real critical and immediate threat (but the approach of which would threaten the freedom of action of their own political sponsors).

This is the equivalent of complaining to your neighbor about his dog crapping in your yard, while your house is burning down. It's either a publicity stunt or simply screwed-up priorities...either way it's a gross waste of time and resources. But hey, it's all about filling up the news cycle, not really about constructive actions anyway.

This bit is chilling:

"Sometimes I do ask myself, like is there really any chance to solve this problem?" Loorz acknowledged. "I feel a lot of despair sometimes, but when I talk to Dr. Hansen, he says there is still hope, so I have to trust that he knows more than I do about this."

Leni Riefenstahl is absolutely laughing her ass off. Well played, Herr Gore. Well played.

Liberalism at its best. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39993863)

This is what happens when liberal teachers teach only liberal idealisms, and exclude fact from their lessons.

Scientists can't determine whether animal flatulence or humans create more damaging effects to the ozone. And the scientists can't even determine whether it's global warming, or when it cools down, global climate change.

These kids should be in school learning, rather than wasting taxpayers time & money, which they don't even contribute to at this point.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...