Image 01 Image 03

Teens Sue Federal Government, Demand Climate Action

Teens Sue Federal Government, Demand Climate Action

Mad Science and even Madder Law: Federal judge sides with young plaintiffs.

Once upon a time, soccer and piano lessons were the preferred extra-curricular options for teens.

Now social justice warfare may be the thrilling, new, after-school activity. A group of American kids are suing the federal government demanding “climate action.”

“We are standing here to fight and protect everything that we love—from our land to our waters to the mountains to the rivers and forests,” Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, a 16-year-old plaintiff in the case told supporters after a hearing in Eugene, Ore. this fall. “This is the moment where we decide what kind of legacy we are going to leave behind for future generations.”

The case rests on the legal argument that climate change threatens the plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional right to life and liberty. Julia Olson, a lawyer for the plaintiffs and executive director of Our Children’s Trust, argued in court that the federal government has understood the threat of climate change for decades and knowingly put the lives of future generations in danger. The current measures in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient and not aligned with current science, she argued.

The kids just got a big boost from an Oregon judge, who denied motions by the federal government and trade groups representing energy companies to dismiss the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken issued a strongly worded, 54-page ruling to explain why she refused to dismiss the lawsuit at the request of the federal ­government and trade groups representing many of the world’s largest energy companies.

“Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environmental law, and the world has suffered for it,” Aiken wrote.

Aiken’s decision in the potential landmark case provided a glimmer of hope to the 21 youth plaintiffs, all of whom are between the ages of 9 and 20. They allege that the federal government’s actions ­during the past ­several decades have put their and future generations in danger, in violation of their constitutional and public trust rights. They’re seeking a court order that requires the government to drastically and quickly reduce carbon emissions that many scientists say contribute to climate change.

The arguments the teens and pre-teens are making are a fascinating blend of the latest scare stories, naturally occurring events, climate change buzz words, and Constitutional contortions.

Lead plaintiff Kelsey Juliana, who lives in Oregon, alleges that algae blooms harm the water she needs to drink and that low water levels caused by drought kill the wild salmon she needs to eat. Martinez, who lives in Colorado, alleges increased wildfires and extreme flooding jeopardize his personal safety.

Other plaintiffs are from farming families, suffer from asthma, and have had their homes overrun by raw sewage during the recent floods in Louisiana. The suit claims that by failing to protect these children from human-caused climate-related harm, the government violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

One of the benefits of the Trump Administration is that future courts may be forced to address real science at some point. Eric Holthaus of Slate asked legal experts what would likely happen next:

Of course, the suit will not have an immediate effect on policy. The trial and appeals process could take years, even in the best-case scenario. Another climate law expert I spoke with, Michael Blumm at Lewis and Clark Law School, said he expected lawyers for the Trump administration to attempt to drag the process out as long as possible.

Perhaps the most troubling part of this story that instead of enjoying a sport or learning an instrument, children are being exposed to climate alarmism that will have a more immediate and harmful effect on the quality of their lives than carbon dioxide.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I think perhaps climate change has already brain damaged these poor, defenceless teens?


Maybe a social warrior Judge? Her comments: “Federal courts too often have been cautious and overly deferential in the arena of environmental law, and the world has suffered for it,” Aiken wrote.

Who is paying for this to move through the Federal Court system?

This case in not going anywhere……….

These kids are awesome, and should be applauded.

This judge is atrocious, and should be retired or impeached.

    MattMusson in reply to clintack. | November 18, 2016 at 11:47 am

    Do you seriously doubt that there was collaboration between the Judge and the plaintiffs in this case? This was all a skit put on for the cameras.

    VetHusbandFather in reply to clintack. | November 19, 2016 at 6:43 am

    More likely these kids are being used as a mouthpiece for their parents. This is a modern take on Mom’s doing homework for their kids. These kids will all be rewarded with Ivy League scholarships for their parent’s valiant efforts in the name of liberalism.

I thought you had to have “standing” in order to sue the government. How can anyone sue on behalf of “future generations”. Such BS just from a legal standpoint, even apart from bogus climate change science.

    Joe-dallas in reply to GraySkies. | November 18, 2016 at 2:09 pm

    The legal reasoning in Massachusetts v EPA is how they get standing (the flawed logic as it was). Likely affirmed on appeal to 9CA and by the time it gets to USSC, scalia and ginsburg and/or breyer and/or kennedy will be replaced, so by the time it gets to the USSC, it will only be 2 or 3 justices left that dont respect the constitution.

How did this bull$#!+ lawsuit proceed as far as it has?

Oh, “Oregon.” Never mind ~

That is what this ruling says. That they have standing.

Keep in mind that these kids were raised in an Obama’s fundamentally transformed America. Their statement oozes of all the nonsense he spouts at all of his public speeches. The big one being “legacy”.

In considering this line of thought, and the state in which they live, would it really be a stretch to believe that these are the youth that will be leading the country some day? They’ll all go to college, get a degree in a field that is completely useless to society, and end up in politics or “community organizing”. They are just sheep.

    clintack in reply to Mr. Izz. | November 18, 2016 at 11:46 am

    Agree with everything but the ending. These aren’t sheep, they’re goats.

    Sheep are all the kids who mindlessly mouth the platitudes, and show up to walk around in circles — thinking that’s a way to make “real change”.

    These kids are goats. Many of them will grow out of their liberal-talking-points beliefs as they see how poorly those predictions correspond to what really happens. They will notice this dissonance precisely *because* they take the platitudes so seriously and so personally, unlike the sheep, who will jump from one platitude this week to a directly contradictory one the next without missing a beat.

    Leftism depends on people using words as markers of tribal identity and virtue signaling, while ignoring their actual meaning. Using words to mean actual things and corresponding words to action — that’s fundamentally conservative.

    Give it ten years. Half those goats will be strong, activist conservatives before you know it — with all the passion of a convert.

When was the last time a federal judge was impeached? The Congress needs to start exercising its power to impeach judges.

Even a failed attempt at impeachment would put all judges on notice that they too might be brought before Congress to explain themselves.

I think that they woulda had a better chance of surviving a Motion to Dismiss for failing to state a legal claim had they sued on the whole notion of generational theft. Yesterday’s seniors (since this theft began in earnest in the 1960s) and today’s seniors, via Congress, have greatly indebted future generations.

“Fun for us today. Debt and no fun for you tomorrow.”

As a cartoon character used to say, “I’ll gladly repay you Tuesday, for a hamburger today.”

“. . . in order to form a more perfect union, . . . and [to] secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution . . .”

Here we see it once again. So many of today’s problems are caused because the Constitution, a document of limitation, NOT one of expansion, was not followed.

    Unfortunately, “our Posterity” was excised from the Constitution to secure reproductive rights and abortion rites.

Considering the current trend in the climate….a delay by the Trump Administration may result in the trials having further delays from the onset of a new mini ice age. Hard to show up for a trial on global warming when there is a blizzard outside.

I think these propaganda maneuvers are going to have perverse consequences.

Obviously, the kiddies did not think of this on their own, any more than the high school students that have been turned out by their school teachers and administrations to protest the election results. These maneuvers are coercive in nature.

Some of the weaker-minded ones will be swept up in this, at least for a while. Others are going to question it, and get whanged by the oh-so-sincere adults. We have seen the results of this, before, such as in the election that has just concluded.

Lots and lots of kids supported Bernie Sanders, and then got a ring-side seat to election fraud.

Fraud in demonstrations and lawsuits is similar in effect.

I wonder if the tactic of taking this argument to it’s logical conclusion would be worthwhile.

If using oil, etc…, is having that catastrophic an effect that they are worried THAT much, agree to turn off ALL power for a while (except of course those for emergency purposes, like hospitals).

Have them wake up to a world of candles, and no hairdryers, no recharging their cell phones, and see their reaction.

I haven’t been a perfect parent, but at least I never named my kid “Xiuhtezcatl”.
Someone needs to get this kid a copy of Johnny Cash’s song: “A Boy Named Sue”.

Raise the age of things like driving, having cell phones, or using the internet to 21. That will reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Since the remedy they demand is “climate action,” give it to them good and hard. Permanently bar the plaintiffs from:

* The ownership or use of air conditioning or refrigeration
* Ownership of or travel in vehicles powered by fossil fuel
* The use of electricity they don’t generate themselves

The warmth of their self-satisfaction will keep the caves they live in nice and toasty.

If they have standing, what prevents me from suing on behalf of myself and future generations for the horrible future we face with $20 TRILLION of national debt?

    Joe-dallas in reply to 94Corvette. | November 18, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Sue for the 90x in debt
    In the liberals mind, the debt is not a non issue since the debt is backed by the US Treasury. (not withstanding the example of greece )
    But the phantom co2 based global warming is real. (the is not to say the earth is currently in a warming cycle even when factoring in the current pause, it just that the warming is not caused by co2, at least not in any meaningful amount.

This article was written by a Weatherman.

Weather Guessers can’t tell us with certainty what the weather will be like tomorrow but CAN tell us why climate has changed continuously since the earth was formed and before man arrived?


Somebody please tell these kids that they’ve been fed BS as an integral part of their education indoctrination, and that “climate change” is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by those pushing communism/control of the masses ~

    Climate change is a real and regular process. The average temperature in particular can vary by 40 degrees or more within minutes. It’s the bounding envelope which counts, and that has proven to be semi-stable in recorded history, producing a world characterized by extraordinary class diversity.

I spent over 35 years living in both Washington and Oregon. They are not known for excessive warming. Drip, drip, drip……

We ridicule our unenlightened ancestors for allowing Urban VIII to humiliate and condemn Galileo over a question of science … but then we substitute the authority of a court and allow it to behave similarly.

Lawyers, courts, politicians, TV personalities, and voters have nothing at all to do with science. And there’s no possible way that they can. You’d have more luck getting a cat to compose a sonnet, or a turtle to draw an accurate map, than you would trying to arrive at scientific fact via lawsuit.

Xiuhtezcatl Martinez

anchor baby or dreamer?

side observation: how many rainbow stickers do you think the judge has on her hybrid Subaru?

Can’t we saw Oregon and California off the continent? Without the mountains there the rest of us might get better weather.

If they have standing why wouldn’t kids who want to sue to protect the lives of unborn children?

The good thing here is that the Obama/Holder/Lynch DoJ is not going to be able to do a negotiated deal with these nuts, locking in some sort of environmental restrictions through court that they couldn’t get through Congress.

Texas has a “loser pays” law, and my understanding(?) is that in other states its left up to the judge’s discretion. Is there a federal equivalent?

Because I would love it if Exxon hired the best legal team money could buy, presented a successful defense, and then the judge ruled that these climate nazis had to pay for it.

What legal standard needs to be met for a judge to rule this way? Malice?

There are two populations in the world today. One is the media and a small handful of corrupt scientists who have been bought and paid for by the liberals. It is these people who “believe” in climate change being man made because it is good politics for them. The other population is the vast majority of scientists who know that man does have an effect on the climate, but that this effect is likely small to trivial and to alter nature’s path is both prohibitively expensive and extraordinarily dangerous. (I, being a research chemist, talk to scientists all the time and know this to be true.)
Perhaps it would be a good idea that we prove that mankind is altering the climate in a significant manner and that the change will be deleterious (as yet unproven and unknown) before we start litigating cases like this based upon the hot air from a few outspoken individuals.