Australian news, and some related international items

Historic court case to go ahead; young climate activists sue USA government

Flag-USAjusticeJudge Won’t Dismiss Youth Climate Lawsuit; Stage Set for Historic Trial , 17 November 2016 By Dana DrugmandTruthout | Report As global temperature continues to rise — with 2016 slated to set a new high for the third consecutive year — young climate activists are rising to the occasion and breaking new legal ground. Finally, a landmark youth-led climate change lawsuit may move forward to trial.

On November 10, 2016, US District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled in favor of 21 youth plaintiffs suing the federal government over its inadequate action to prevent anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD).

“It’s clear Judge Aiken gets what’s at stake for us,” said 17-year-old plaintiff Victoria Barrett, from White Plains, New York. “Our planet and our generation don’t have time to waste. If we continue on our current path, my school in Manhattan will be underwater in 50 years.”

Judge Aiken rejected defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, following the recommendation made by magistrate judge Thomas Coffin last April. Judge Coffin determined that the youths had standing and had potential constitutional and public trust claims.

The youth plaintiffs (who range from nine to 20 years old) and the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust claim violation of the public trust doctrine, and most prominently, violation of their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property due to climate instability. Federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the main defendants, supported by the fossil fuel industry as interveners in the case. The plaintiffs allege that the government has known about the dangers of climate change for decades, yet deliberately pursued policies that enabled a fossil-fuel-based energy system and locked in dangerous levels of warming that may be irreversible.

Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of a court mandate that the US develop a climate recovery plan based on the current science……

Although this was not a decision on the merits, Judge Aiken acknowledged the substantive argument that the conventional policy response to the climate crisis has failed to prevent harm.

“This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case,” she wrote in her decision. “It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions — whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty — have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.”

In seeking appeal, the government will ask the judge for certification that raises a jurisdictional question, but Vermont Law School professor Patrick Parenteau said she will likely deny this request, thus sending the case to trial.

“I think the case has a lot of moral force and a lot of rhetorical force, regardless of what its ultimate fate may be,” Parenteau told Truthout, adding that it will hopefully capture public attention and remind people that elections have consequences, particularly for younger generations……..

November 19, 2016 - Posted by | Uncategorized

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: