"A precedent-setting global warming lawsuit will advance to a District Court judge in Oregon, thanks to 21 young Americans, ages 8 to 19.
The unconventional group of plaintiffs want to hold the federal government accountable for failing to act swiftly and effectively to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases causing human-caused global warming.
Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin found that the plaintiff's case is "unprecedented" but that it has merit and should proceed, rather than being tossed out of court like many other climate-related lawsuits have been.
The climate advocacy group Our Children's Trust brought the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. The request to dismiss the case came from the federal government and fossil fuel companies.
“The future of our generation is at stake,” said one 16-year-old plaintiff.
The failure to stem climate change, the lawsuit alleges, has caused harm to young people alive today as well as to future generations.
The suit also argues that the government's failure to slash emissions has violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights.
“The future of our generation is at stake,” said 16-year-old plaintiff Victoria Barrett, in a statement.
“People label our generation as dreamers, but hope is not the only tool we have. I am a teenager. I want to do what I love and live a life full of opportunities. I want the generation that follows to have the same chance," she said.
While the U.S. has cut its carbon emissions during the past several years, these cuts have not been significant enough to rein in global warming.
In addition, President Obama's regulations to cut carbon emissions are currently stuck in legal limbo, and they are essential to accomplishing the White House's goal of cutting emissions to 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
The case, known as Kelsey Cascade Rose Juliana v. United States, takes a different approach than previous climate change litigation in the U.S., which have mainly focused on violations of specific legal statutes, such as the Clean Air Act.
If it succeeds, it could open the door for a flood of similar suits in the U.S. and abroad.
In addition to the group of young people, the plaintiffs also include James Hansen, a former top climate scientist at NASA and currently a climate scientist affiliated with Columbia University and political activist.
He is named in the case as a "guardian for future generations."
Michael Gerrard, who directs the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University Law School, called Hansen's legal role as "an extraordinary move” since it seeks to address damage to future generations through a current court case.
- The future of our generation is at stake:
The magistrate judge's determination, Gerrard told Mashable in an interview, “... Seems to acknowledge the standing of future generations to sue, which would also be novel.”
The complaint includes the assertion that the government has known for decades that carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels has been causing climate change but has "failed to take necessary action" to cut these emissions.
One of the first federal reports warning of the potentially dire consequences of burning fossil fuels was published in 1979.
- Constitutional violations:
This case is set apart from other climate lawsuits in the U.S. because it is based on constitutional grounds, Gerrard said.
The plaintiffs argue that the government's actions, or inactions, rather, infringe on their "right to life and liberty," for example.
Judge Coffin determined that the plaintiff's allegations have a factual basis to them, even determining that there is a necessary role for the courts to act because the federal government has been stymied, writing:
"The debate about climate change and its impact has been before various political bodies for some time now.Plaintiffs give this debate justiciability by asserting harms that befall or will befall them personally and to a greater extent than older segments of society. It may be that eventually the alleged harms, assuming the correctness of plaintiffs' analysis of the impacts of global climate change, will befall all of us. But the intractability of the debates before Congress and state legislatures and the alleged valuing of short term economic interest despite the cost to human life, necessitates a need for the courts to evaluate the constitutional parameters of the action or inaction taken by the government. This is especially true when such harms have an alleged disparate impact on a discrete class of society."
The parties to the lawsuit have 14 days from Judge Coffin's findings and recommendations to file written objections, and then another two weeks for responses to any objections. After that, another District Court judge can rule on the case.
Gerrard said that if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs and orders the federal government to be more aggressive in fighting global warming or to take other actions, it would be a major victory for the environmental movement.
“This will be of enormous significance," he said.
"It’s hard to tell what the odds are of this happening."
Wonderful activity! Share this!
Fuente: mashable.com
