Judge Dismisses California Kids’ Climate Crusade Lawsuit against EPA, Saying They Failed to Make Their Case
The EPA may have dodged a bullet here, there is another children’s climate crusade case that is going to trial in Hawaii later this year.
Late last year, climate activists recruited a group of school-aged children to bring a climate lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. In their suit, they claimed that the agency intentionally let greenhouse gases emit from businesses and the energy industry.
The case, Genesis B. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, alleges the EPA “intentionally allows” planet warming pollution to come from the sources it regulates, such as vehicles and heavy-duty trucks, power plants, and oil and gas wells. It follows the first constitutional climate case in the US, which youth plaintiffs successfully tried in Montana earlier this year.
The case further alleges the agency allows this pollution “despite knowing the harm it causes to children’s health and welfare.” The case was filed Sunday night in US District Court in the Central District of California.
Let that sink in for a minute. We have covered the EPA’s war on the fossil fuel industry. I have reported that the agency now has methane in its sights, which in not only directed at the gas industry but also at our nation’s livestock.
If anything, the EPA is guilty of over-regulation.
However, there is no amount of appeasement that climate cultists will find acceptable.
I am happy to report, though, that the pendulum seems to be swinging back toward sanity. The lawsuit was tossed out by a federal judge, who insisted the children (and the eco-activist adults who encouraged them) failed to make their case.
Judge Michael Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California this month ruled the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the suit because they did not show how the remedies they sought — including a declaratory judgment that their constitutional rights have been violated — would mitigate those harms.
“Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how a declaration regarding Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitution and the legality of Defendants’ conduct, on its own, is likely to remedy these alleged injuries,” he wrote. The ruling granted the plaintiffs permission to amend their complaint by no later than May 20.
“Our Children’s Trust,” the group that helped bring the case, will persist.
“When presented with a constitutional violation, there is no reason for a federal judge to throw up his hands and say nothing can be done,” said the organization’s co-executive director Mat dos Santos.
“In doing just that, this order tells children that judges have no power to hear their complaints.
“Courts do, in fact, have that power. Courts have a responsibility to hear constitutional violations, as they’ve done in many important cases in our nation’s history.”
Dos Santos said Our Children’s Trust would file an amended complaint.
And while the EPA may have dodged a bullet here, there is another children’s climate crusade case going to trial in Hawaii later this year that also involves Our Children’s Trust.
Judge Jeffrey Crabtree in Honolulu ruled on Thursday the youth plaintiffs could pursue their claims that the Hawaii Department of Transportation is shirking its duty to protect the environment by promoting and funding highway projects that lead to more fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions.
Crabtree rejected the state’s argument the plaintiffs had no tangible injuries on which to base their case since they claimed climate change effects are “already baked in.”
“Transportation emissions are increasing and will increase at the rate we are going,” Crabtree said. “In other words, the alleged harms are not hypothetical or only in the future.”
Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Lauren Chun said Thursday the state “stands behind its record as a national leader in addressing climate change” and will continue to work towards meeting its climate goals.The case will move forward to trial in September, only the second youth-led climate case in U.S. history to do so, according to Our Children’s Trust, which is representing the plaintiffs along with Earthjustice.
Hopefully, this judgement in the case will favor the side of real science and sound reason.
For those of you interested, Our Children’s Trust receives funding from the Avaaz Foundation, the Libra Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. I would like to note that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has given quite a bit of money to anti-Israel groups.
Since 2013, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has contributed to numerous anti-Israel organizations. The Fund gave at least $880,000 to groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace, Zochrot, and the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights that support the “boycott, divest, and sanctions” (BDS) movement that favors breaking off economic and social ties to the Jewish state.8 Rockefeller Brothers Fund president Stephen B. Heintz, wrote in an email that such grants were needed to “end the fifty-year long occupation in order to bring justice, dignity, and freedom to all Israelis and Palestinians.
The pairing of environmental extremism with antisemitism is totally on brand, especially considering the High Priestess of the Climate Cult was arrested protesting an Israeli singer at this year’s Eurovision contest.
Police arrest Greta Thunberg who was protesting at Eurovision and carry her away. pic.twitter.com/OagfHNZRJt
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) May 11, 2024
It might be worthwhile for patriots who love our country to one day robustly explore how nonprofit groups are funded, given how much money is being spent on ludicrous court cases.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Oh great, now the chirruns are yelling at the sky.
Non-governmental organizations – truly an oxymoron for a 5th column shadow government.
the left has their marching orders
THEIR GOOSE STEP MARCHING ORDERS
Nobody “intentionally allows” the emission of greenhouse gases. The emissions are a by-product (i.e., not intentionally produced) to the physics and chemistry involved in the processes of generating the energy people need to maintain civilization and society.
This reminds me of the story Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore tells about his break with Greenpeace. Another member proposed that Greenpeace should lobby for a ban on chlorine. Moore realized he knew he was working with nut jobs at this proposal to ban an element.
He should have said the children have no standing, because it’s not possible they even understood the points of the case.
I would disagree with that premise. I know plenty of children in e=tthe age ten to twenty that are fully aware of the physical, chemical, and geologic principles involved… and could make the heads of these willing “victtims spin round and round till they fall off.
I wish I could round up my fellow fourth grade schoolmates as we studied this precise ecosystem.. the carbon cycle, along with the water cycle. We knew that when earth was formed, it had a certain umber of carbon molecules in and on and above it. Many of those carbon molecules were held in he form of carbon dioxide, more in plant life, and more yet in animal life, including microorganisms. Same with oxygen. As time goes on, those carbon molecules form up and break down and change their “state” pr phase…. but their total number canno change. Tje carbon in the atmosphere is not formed” there, it ends up there as carbon in other forms breaks down, is liberated, reforms..
I’d lke also to take this nil-wit Thuneburg criter and grill HER on the physical, anatomic, chemical, characteristics and behaviour of that carbon she’s always fretting bout. I’d like to remind her that if I were to remove every molecule of carbon from her own body she would cease to exist (which I would claim to be a benefit to society). I would also remind her that EVERY molecule of carbon now presen within her corpse came out of the air, was formed ino some form of plant life, then often eaen and reformed by some animal, then a mix of animal and plant life was eaten by HER, and is now a part of her physical form. Where would she be if hose carbon molecules had no been available to go through that process to become HER? I’d also remind her that as she sits ther e rying to comrehend he scientific FACTS I am presenting to her, she sits there EXHALING… ready for this? CARBON DIOXIDE. which came from the trees and artichokes and steak and shrimp and bugs she has eaten in these past few days.
So SHE is the cause of it all, and thus, to keep everything safe and wholesom, SHE must now sacrifice her life to reduce the carbon present in the air we are all breaing, and swapping amongst ourselves.
And THIS thing is “educated”?
“No standing?” They won’t take this lying down, I’m sure.