I am surprised by the very negative ton of the first 10+ comments. These kids are not kids any more. They are between 15 and 20. As a reminder, Lafayette was 16.
They see an issue and act on it with the tools they have.
When you have an issue with a piece of software, you look at the alternatives and possibly you act on the issue, you fix it. They do what you do as designer/software developer, just in another field.
We need more people doing and less people complaining. Some may consider it stupid to sue, but if this is the only solution, why not?
Yeah, it's probably stupid to sue (from a legal perspective, that is, it may be useful as PR), given that the judge seems to have admitted that there's no legal basis for the claim: Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. 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.” This is a novel legal argument, and it would have to be brilliant to gain much traction.
> We need more people doing and less people complaining. Some may consider it stupid to sue, but if this is the only solution, why not?
Some may consider it stupid to elect Trump, but obviously tens of millions of people felt it was the only solution.
I actually agree with you. Whatever you think of this suit or this election, I think we can agree that there are some situations in which you have no "good" recourse, and have to resort to whatever is there to make your point/stand.
Both major candidates optimized for the electoral college. If the election were on popularity they would have optimized for such --what the result would have been is unknown, it may have been the same or it might have changed the outcome, but we do know that the campaigns would have been vastly different.
Also, one candidate spent twice the amount on advertising. If the winner had outspent the loser by 2x, I'm sure there'd be an outcry about the amount of money used in the campaign.
Evidence that HN is a right-wing capitalist site (like both US political parties): in a discussion of threats to humanity, an apparently highly-rated comment talks about paying too much in taxes. And fears that solutions to global warming will "completely subvert our entire system of law making."
(Both of which are good things: not just markets, but the nation state system itself, are exactly what need disrupting. Those who drank the koolaid can't think past tight bounds even when future generations are at stake. Not everyone can escape to billionaire mansion compounds in New Zealand. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/sam-altmans-man... )
But there's a third explanation that doesn't imply it's right-wing capitalism: Maybe paying more taxes still doesn't solve global warming? A problem when I discuss global warming with colleagues is that they attempt to put me in one side (deniers) or the other (social-ecology), both of which don't match my views (In my case, I think tying social with ecology hurts both results, but the comment you're talking about has other ideas). So instead of judging and classifying this person, please dig into their logic and provide them with sources.
It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars and get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route anyway, people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution.
People who don't turn off lights (also TVs, computers) at their homes over night. I met a lot of them, one of the dumbest excuse was... light bulbs break if we turn on and off the lights frequently, so they were leaving 3x 100W lightbulbs overnight, irony, they were working as council of Greenest Capital of Europe :)))
People who burn coal and wood to heat homes, burn coal = more CO2, burn wood = less forests.
People who don't recycle stuff - I'll just throw away that TV on a street or drop from 2nd flow window for fun! Ha! People who buy new phones and computers because that's a new fashion.
People who eat food that was grown in places were 10years ago we could see amazon rainforests.
People are too lazy and it's too hard for masses to leave their comfort zones.
The US government has committed to meeting environmental targets such as emissions limits, and can be held accountable for meeting them. It also licenses and regulates industrial activity, and therefore can reasonably be held accountable for the results of that activity.
Or are you arguing that the government should have no accountability, oversight, responsibility or say in any of the activity of it's citizens?
It's not up to the plaintiffs to say what specific thing the government or individuals should or should not do - switch off this light bulb, don't drive on that journey, don't build that factory. It's the government's responsibility to maintain the environment in a sustainable way and implement policies to do so. If it's not doing so, or worse not even trying to do so or doing so in a willfully negligent manner, then it should be held accountable for that. The same should be true of any of the government's responsibilities.
Agreed, I'm not saying government is not responsible for it, they provide grants for renewable energy, create power plants, give tax cuts for people with own solar panels etc. But it's up to people how that energy and material is used, is it wasted or used efficiently. So far, we're great at wasting everything.
Absolutely, our current way of life in the western world may not be completely sustainable. We're competing for a share of a shrinking pie with growing and advancing economies across the world, economies that we are also heavily and inextricably dependent on. I think to some extent we need to accept this and figure out ways to manage the painful transition to a long-term sustainable civilization.
People burning wood or coal in their homes is a miniscule contributor to CO2 compared to coal power plants. Only governments have the power to stop coal being mined at a national level, or coal power plants from being built.
> It's not the only solution, and government didn't create it. People are causing global warming, not government. It's people who decide to use cars and get stuck in traffic instead taking a bus, bus will go that route anyway, people in cars will cause more traffic and generate more pollution.
This is what's wrong. The government is supposed to be the people. The point of government is for people to steer people (as a collective) in the right direction.
And yet the true power is the policy makers in governments and board rooms who have(had?) the ability to incentivize and influence adoption of more sustainable actions. These people make decisions every single day. Their primary motivation? Profit for them and theirs. Their business models & the global economy relies on people consuming & throwing shit away, thus creating jobs, increasing production and, in turn, infinite quarterly growth... jusy like a parasitoid or a cancer. The dichotomous messages is what irritates me to no end with every "don't change habits, buy X to reduce your carbon footprint" news piece run ad infinum every. single. day.
I don't have the answers and, luckily, I am not a policy maker or <hardware maker> would be fined for deprecating 2 year old equipment, producers would account for the residual effects of their products' existence after it's usefulness expired, etc..
Now everyone run out and get in that Black Friday line to binge buy all those new XYZs, they're so much newer than the last iterations!
Government is supposed to be for the people by the people, and protect our common shared interests, as you say, such as resources (public trust, inherited from very old common law). This is the very angle the kids are coming from; and I suggest they will win at some point, maybe not today but soon enough as they represent all people yet to come, and since they are alreay present would have "standing".
I feel your wrath, all your points are things which should be addressed and the amount of people not giving a single f are legion. But saying government didn't create this is too short-sighted:
- they at least have a part in it. Just take your 'people who decide to use cars' argument: in countries like Belgium where it is, simply explained, more economical for a company to lease cars and give them to employees than to give the employees more loan. You can imagine what an employee does with a car he/she often doesn't even have to pay the gas for.
- they should be part of the solution as well. In my opinion it's their job to create a system where information and education about any of the problems you mention is available, or no, mandatory, for everyone annd definitely children. Teach them to do right, instead of having them believe chasing glamour or so is what's needed in life.
If there were no laws or no enforcement of laws against such things you would certainly sue (especially in the original sense of to plead and make arguments for a point).
The US is a uniquely litigious country so going through the court system in an adversarial sense makes perfect sense. In The UK system you might instead ask a court to determine who or which state organ has responsibility to fix the problem or who has authority to do something. See for instance the judgement on the Brexit case: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/judg....
The Public Trust Doctrine describes the issue. But it must be recognized that the Government comprises and represents us, otherwise there may be a problem understanding their authority, to act in our name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine
I think the problem here is they are proxies for those who really want the suits to go forward. Most of them cannot make an informed opinion about much in their early teens nor even by college as views can be heavily influenced by those in positions of authority they are exposed too.
It makes me worry when people think that "Government" is something unrelated to people, like it was an alien structure that just arrived in his country. In democracies, I mean.
Because, you know, it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives.
> it's weird to complain or sue every time that the government doesn't make something you wanted. Because in few years people have the power to elect another set of representatives.
You're correct if the government rules/laws are all made by the representatives. But a substantial amount of regulation is established or defined in detail by non-elected government employees. So, in many cases, waiting for a change in representatives won't change the status quo. This is in large part due to Congress abdicating their rule-making role and handing it to the executive branch. Sure, electing the "right" set of congresspeople should fix that, but it hasn't, and it's been on a downward trend of the past decade or two?
One example is the NSA surveillance. You should be able to sue the government to stop it if you think it's unconstitutional. We've now 2 congressional elections since the first Snowden revelations and congress still seems to be generally in support of the surveillance. So citizens need another avenue to protect themselves from laws and regulations which they feel to violate their rights.
I think this is a mischaracterization of the way government operates. congressional representatives are not "abdictating" any role. They provide guidance that is all too specific in many cases, because the legal standard requires it. The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives.
Your example of surveillance is completely misplaced. If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it.
If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts.
> The folks in Congress are right to set the national budget and priorities, but it is a good thing that the details of implementation are left to agencies, because they're the ones with the experience and technical knowledge to know how to achieve the objectives.
This is true, but only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous. Otherwise it effectively allows agencies to write the law. But, yes, there's a gray area and where that line is drawn is unclear. But the "we need to pass the law to find out what's in it" of the Affordable Care Act is probably not how congress should operate.
> If, after the Snowden revelations, congresspersons in favor of widespread surveillance continue to be elected, that's actually a sign the American people are fine with it.
This is only accurate if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues. It's entirely possible for people to be concerned about it but to be more concerned about military policy, the economy, etc., and to vote on those instead.
> If you think a law or regulation violates your rights, the correct avenue to address the issue is the courts.
That was exactly the point I was trying to make to the OP commenter. :)
"only if the laws are passed with enough specificity that the interpretation is reasonably unambiguous"
If this isn't the case a court can strike down the law as ambiguous.
"if people vote based on single-issues and/or if surveillance is one of their top few issues"
... but can't the same thing be said of any particular policy? if this policy isn't as important as other policies, that's the public deciding that we're fine with it. you and I as individuals may disagree, but this is the reality we face. it's simply not going to get fixed through legislative action, until and unless we are able to reframe the national conversation sufficiently.
> electing the "right" set of congresspeople should fix that, but it hasn't
It's much more likely that we haven't elected the right set than it is that the right set is utterly incapable of doing their job.
> We've now 2 congressional elections since the first Snowden revelations and congress still seems to be generally in support of the surveillance.
If the issue were important enough to the majority of people then being in favor of this would make it very hard to get elected, as would being unwilling to pass laws outlawing it.
>If the issue were important enough to the majority of people then being in favor of this would make it very hard to get elected
This assumes the majority of people have the technical capacity to understand the ramifications of the situation.
>We've arranged a global civilization in which the most crucial elements — transportation, communications, and all other industries; agriculture, medicine, education, entertainment, protecting the environment; and even the key democratic institution of voting, profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
Many (actually millions of) people take it very seriously, particularly those who thanks to de-industrialisation, will likely lose their jobs, sink back into poverty or give up hope of rising out of it and of course those in northern hemisphere who suffer massively or die from not being able to warm themselves.
Doubtless you think the alternative is armageddon. I get that. But when people read that the <official> estimates of global temperature reduction are of an order too little to detect in return for massive global pain by those least able to avoid it (with consequent enrichment by some of the rest of us), one wonders why the case made for that scenario is not more persuasive to people like Judith Curry for instance (and many other well informed authorities). As a specific recent example: to suggest she'd risk the future of mankind on Earth for the chance of preferment in Trump's administration, as has been suggested is beyond satire.
I am glad kids are taking action rather than just complaining, however, people can take personal action. The money for any pay out from a suit will most likely come from their future social benefits rather than the industries they are suing.
Some personal choices to take action on:
Buy local produce, and let your local supermarket or grocer know this. Educate others. It saves on all of the transport emissions from air or truck freight of goods.
Cut back on electrical, and gas usage. Most homes I have visited in the US have multiple TVs, each family member has more than two computers, or smartphones and tablets.
Car pool. Buy economy cars, not SUVs. Walk. Run. Cycle to work. Americans can sure use the exercise and diet changes. (DISCLAIMER: I am an American, born and raised). I was working physically 9-11 hours a day in Las Vegas, and cycling 6 miles to and from the construction site each day. Obese co-workers called me crazy. Then before Christmas 2009, I gave CPR to a 35 year old man with two kids and new born baby on the site, but he died before he hit the ground from a massive coronary. He had just arrived to work with Dunkin Donuts coffee and donuts in a bag and dropped. He stopped taking his heart medication his wife said.
After being in SE Asia for 8 years, and returning to the US, my perception of just how obese Americans have become is striking. I have been living in the rice fields of East Java, so it is even more stark.
I am a libertarian and mainly capitalist, so I don't wish any of this forced on anyone through legislation, and people are free to continue in their ways; I am just presenting some perceptions that might make people think twice about their lifestyles. They can choose what they want, but their are consequences locally and globally.
For me, I have not felt healthier, and less stressed, and I will take these tools, perceptions and lifestyle choices back with me to the US. I went vegetarian 3 years ago, haven't drank alcohol in 7 years, and I run and exercise everyday. I know it might be harder when I get back, but I have built a solid foundation to continue there anyways.
Big country-wide, policy changes need to be thought out economically, since we can only throw so much money and manpower at a particular solution. Some of the more rational choices may seem to go against feelings, and unfortunately, those who want the vote, vote for what makes people feel happier, not what's probably best for them and the country as a whole.
This idea that fighting global warming has to start from individual behavior disregards the fact that lifestyle choices have social implications and are likewise constrained by social situations. Individuals are tied to their environment and free will meets constraints in reality. There are people who wish to adopt more sustainable lifestyles, but can't because it would make them unable to find a job, see their family and friends, move around, etc. Individual choices have a marginal impact. And this impact ofter comes with a high cost in terms of comfort.
The idea that change must come from individuals has been around for a long time, without much effect so far. I hope governments can support people who want to live in a way that is closer to their values (sustainability) by actively disincentivize irresponsible and destructive behavior.
> Buy local produce, and let your local supermarket or grocer know this. Educate others. It saves on all of the transport emissions from air or truck freight of goods.
This doesn't make much sense intuitively, and a quick Google search seems to confirm that most of the environment impact of produce comes from the growing efficiency and production methods, not from its transportation.
Feel-good measures that do very little are bad enough, since they encourage complacency, but feel-good measures that actually make the environment worse are terrible!
In terms of one's diet, I think the best one can do is to stop eating beef. It is terrible compared to other meats. In terms of one's overall impact, getting involved politically is probably the easiest way to make a change. Switching from Mexican tomatoes to greenhouse-grown Canadian tomatoes is not going to make much of a difference in either direction.
I should have been more clear on what I meant by 'local produce':
Local, or US Feta cheese, not imported from Greece.
California pistachios, not Turkish.
USA/NJ tomatoes, not from Holland or elsewhere.
Farmer's markets.
Every little bit helps, and it is not like you are taking any austerity measure between Greek or US Feta for example.
People rely too much on government to legislate intelligence. Emergent properties arise out of local, individual changes in behavior or choices. Yes, government matters, but it does start with individuals.
As far as growing efficiency and production, the US both imports and exports more food than any other country. We are very efficient at growing subsidized crops like corn. Why don't we stop the subsidies and grow more variety with the same efficiency? Less exporting, which is primarily due to an abundance in the US due to subsidies, would certainly trim the carbon footprint. The US exports $149 Trillion worth of food!
Agreed on beef, and all the sugar in the American diet in the form of corn syrup and others.
I don't know. Shipping is incredibly efficient these days. If only 10% of the CO2 footprint of your food comes from shipping (which is roughly right according to quick Google searches), optimizing shipping distance is really the wrong thing.
Instead, you should choose the most efficient producers, wherever in the world they are located---that is, optimize the 90% term. How? Buy the cheapest food! If Turkish pistachios are cheaper than California ones, then they are probably being grown more efficiently, with lower CO2 emissions. Price presumably reflects producer costs.
We certainly don't export $149 trillion of food annually. US GDP is only $16.8 trillion. I see $133 billion of agricultural exports in 2015, according to [1]. But again, I don't think this matters, and don't think that reducing food exports and imports would reduce total CO2 emissions.
They can, but it won't help. Just watch Mythbusters to understand that things you don't consume will be consumed by someone else. When we need to divide our emissions by 10, people who make an effort won't offset people who don't.
Carpooling won't help enough. Economy cars won't help. Renewable heating won't help. Wind turbines won't help. All of that together will never even divide your consumption by 2, plus since we save money by using less energy, we have more money available that we spend on other carbon-emitting products. We need everyone to take action, so that the ecologist worker isn't disadvantaged in his life compared to the meat/petrol/flight/wasteful worker. Let's look at the numbers:
- Nature absorbs 3GtC per year [1] (Giga-tons of carbon. 1t of Carbon = 3.7t of CO2).
- We'll be 9 billion people on Earth in 2050, so each human can emit 0.333tC per year (or 1.23t of CO2). The argument that some (USA) consume more than others (Philippines) is offset by the facts that the development of most poor countries is soaring (hear: China will access the consumer market just like USA) and the poor also use inefficient and polluting processes.
- So our goal is 1.23t of CO2 (=0.333t of carbon) per person per year. We emit 22t of CO2 per year in USA, 9t in France, 5.5t in Romania and 4t in China. You can calculate the rate for yourself [3].
And that's only to come back to nature-reasonable footprints. If we want to offset the carbon that's already in the air, we need to make even more effort.
So the effort in every industrialized country is to divide our emissions by ~10, which is unreachable by simple personal action.
Since you too believe in the power of markets, a huge tax on carbon will advantage those who emit fewer CO2 and will be much easier to manage for corporations than any regulation. It has to be offset by lowering other taxes, so we don't increase the global tax pressure on the economy. It just has to be high enough so that all the cost of global warming weighs on CO2 emitters only, which probably means some types of jobs (e.g. half of car factories) belong to the past. But it's either that, or a global warming that creates such pressure on our civilizations that we might live in endless wars.
I'll have to review all of it in more detail, but I still believe change happens at the individual level including not spending the savings on other carbon-emitting products. It's similar to emergence in self-organized systems. Great, coordinated actions follow from simple, local rules or behavior or action.
I fully understand wasted effort, like paper vs. plastic bags (as so aptly argued in Guesstimation book), when you consume more gas driving to the supermarket, and if you cut down on frequency of trips you offset the non-issue of plastic vs. paper.
I do believe in both individual and societal action, however society is construct of individuals, and ultimately action happens at the individual level. Law suits seem to be counter to both your argument and mine. I don't think they accomplish more than my suggestions. I am in great health now, and I consume half the food I used to, and not the carbon-emitting heavy hitter like meat and dairy anymore. I am an optimist, and I think if 100 million US citizens cut their food consumption by quarter or half, it would be a significant change on quality of life, society and carbon emission.
The power of markets for me is consumer-driven, not government mandated like a carbon tax. Government cannot legislate intelligence or change, and to look to government for this is part of the problem in my opinion. People need to take a look at their lifestyles and choices.
I doubt this will get very far. It seems like it would open up a whole can of worms and completely subvert our entire system of law making.
>She declared the facts of man-made climate change “undisputed,” and supported the plaintiffs’ challenge to hold national powers accountable for the damages caused by global warming.
>Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. 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.”
So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back?
> So if I decide that taxes are too high and I present evidence that the tax rate is at the wrong end of the laffer curve I could get my money back?
How does that flow from these quotes?
To be equivalent, you would need to prove that the tax rate is so insane that it has a substantial chance of killing you. Equivalent arguments for tax relief are in relation to poverty, medical costs, food and basic necessities, etc and generally win.
They do? People have actually sued the government because their taxes were too high for their particular circumstance? I'm not trying to be facetious, I just don't know much about this topic.
No, the same civil rights allow you to start a process to invalidate a tax completely and they are used that way all the time. Civil rights arguments have everything to do with why your laffer curve isnt optimal and we pay higher set rates so there are things that are completely exempt. Look at state sales tax exemptions as an example of people lowering their effective tax rate, but not the overall tax collected or the average benefit of government.
It seems to me like you are trying to warp the discussion into every tool with a visible political outcome being equivalent and open to "democratic" systems. The republic is a tool for a specific purpose that is usually opposite of delivering optimal solutions to the majority. The democratic systems are supposed to deliver what you seem to want until they violate civil rights. If they dont for a reason other than civil rights, then your recourse is to petitition the republic to change the election process. But you cant make the republic actually care about your general tax rates or any other problems it allows the democratic process to handle, it can only make sweeping rules when parties are in violation of the core rules.
The argument that the state is killing you is only significant if you can make it rationally, and a 10-99% tax isnt killing you unless it doesnt exclude the poverty level in its gradients and then you dont need to be the one being killed to make the argument. A 99% tax rate that can get 50% of the vote may indicate another failure though.
The government already grants monopolies on lifesaving drugs that causes the price to go up more than 10000%. Although it isn't a tax I don't see how type one of law should differ from another in this scenario.
I'm glad someone noticed this. The judge basically said, "there's no legal basis for this challenge," which means it would have to be some amazing legal analysis to pass scrutiny.
These sorts of lawsuits are going to be necessary with the rise of Trump's EPA--or what should be called Coal Protection Agency. We're about to enter a brave new world of environmental governance, one that is led by a climate change denier and one that believes "global warming" is a Chinese plot to weaken our economy.
It's possible that he believes that global warming is a real phenomenon but that our treaties with the rest of the world place us at a major disadvantage.
If he does believe global warming is real, why is he picking Myron Ebell, a Coal lobbyist, to lead the EPA? [0] He was quoted to say: "The whole case for global warming is silly, and I believe the vast majority of scientists thinks it's silly, and therefore I'm a little bit embarrassed that I waste my time on this silly issue." [1]
Modulo the fact that none of Trump's positions appear to be immutable, he has made numerous claims that climate change is a hoax (and also one that places the US at a disadvantage):
I don't understand US law nearly well enough, but aren't they essentially suing for future damages (e.g. something that hasn't happened yet)? How does this work as anything other than a PR stunt and a trophy-for-everyone move from a judge in Oregon?
Generally it's hard to pre-emptively sue to prevent the government killing you -- even though in the US the Constitution requires due process before a person can be deprived of "life, liberty, or property" -- because most ways the government has of killing you (guns, bombs, etc.) happen very quickly.
In this case the mechanism by which the government is alleged to be killing people is slow-acting enough that the people who claim they will be harmed have time to file a lawsuit.
Is it possible to sue and collect damages for exposure to carcinogens (eg. asbestos) before the cancer manifests? If so, there's a reasonable analogy to be made: once excess CO2 is in the atmosphere, solar radiation will inexorably cause harmful warming. The biggest difference is that carbon sequestration is somewhat imaginable, but still impractical (especially for non-government actors).
A carbon tax initiative was on the ballot in (very blue) Washington State, but sadly went down in flames. Which is strange considering how blue the state is.
A carbon tax is one of the best ways to address CO2 pollution.
The initiative wasn't so simple. In addition to the carbon tax, it included a reduction in the state sales tax, with the net result being an overall reduction in tax revenue for the state. With social services and education already underfunded (at least in people's minds), this was a difficult tradeoff to make.
My sense was that the initiative was formulated to appeal to two different groups of voters but in doing so ended up alienating both.
As I understand it, the carbon tax proposal in Washington was supposed to be revenue-neutral. Do you have a pointer showing it would come out revenue-negative?
It was designed to be revenue neutral, but it's a bit hard to predict behavior changes which will affect the result (and the whole point was to change behavior).
This. A carbon tax avoids creating a million regulations for every place where we could save energy, because companies who spend too much carbon will just have fewer money to keep going, and you'd just have to compare the price of things to know which ones are less ecologic. Besides, the tax can be used for ecologic projects, or can be used to reduce other taxes.
But every time I try to explain it in France, I'm answered "But you don't realize! Poor people won't be able to afford a car or meat and they'll be the first ones to go bankrupt!". Which is why I say: Fusionning socialism and ecology in France, where all ecologist groups are leftish, badly hurts their work. A right-wing ecology who isn't adverse to capitalism would come up with a CO2 tax with success and actually do something against global warming.
> Poor people won't be able to afford a car or meat and they'll be the first ones to go bankrupt
A good solution to that would be to payout all of the proceeds of the carbon tax split evenly between everyone. That way people with below average carbon emissions will actually end up with more money than they had before, though they would still be incentivized to emit less.
I found http://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-wash... very helpful in understanding some of what was going on with this ballot initiative, and in particular why the environmentalist establishment opposed it. That opposition explains some of the strange outcome.
I would love that, given it gets resolved which effects stemmed from which president/house/senate. Seeing the circular party occupancy in the US, anything good gives credit to the following elect, and anything bad gives blame to the following elect. Therefor most decisions lean towards short term benefits and long term detriments.
I also like the approach of Polly Higgins, who is trying to make the Earth a legal entity with her own fundamental rights, which can be defended in a court of law [1].
Though I totally agree with cause, I find USA system suing your government/municipal/etc. a weird system.
1. Law works mostly well to enforce current system. E.g. There is law that you have to process my application in 30 days, but it was delayed by year and I lost something because of that.
2. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same.
3. The 2. case is very tricky. No doubt both sides will spend tons on legal fees, but outcome can be very arbitrary, not based on interpretation on current laws/.
4. This system most likely benefit the most lawyers, as the benefit from the ambiguity. Maybe we should accept the fact, that not all conflicts can be solved in court room? E.g. city can pass stupid law that doesn't make sense (e.g. ban AirBnB) and nobody got right to sue because of that. The only exceptions should be conflict with upper law (e.g. no city can ban minority or pass law not to pay federal tax).
5. Some of my misunderstanding is based that I'm used to civil law (we interpret rules passed by some government) vs. common law (law is based on individual cases that have precedential effect on future cases). However, I find that using it on government/state/municipal level is a stretch.
>2. Currently it is often use as a way to shape future laws. E.g. AirBnB sues some city against new law. Uber does the same.
It's used to contest laws that are believed to possibly be in violation of existing law.
>3. The 2. case is very tricky. No doubt both sides will spend tons on legal fees, but outcome can be very arbitrary, not based on interpretation on current laws/.
Huh? What's the outcome going to be based on if not on the current law? Unless you're specifically referring to common/civil law difference that makes no sense.
>4. This system most likely benefit the most lawyers, as the benefit from the ambiguity. Maybe we should accept the fact, that not all conflicts can be solved in court room? E.g. city can pass stupid law that doesn't make sense (e.g. ban AirBnB) and nobody got right to sue because of that. The only exceptions should be conflict with upper law (e.g. no city can ban minority or pass law not to pay federal tax).
It sounds like you're suggesting that cities should have significantly higher legislative powers not restricted by the courts? I must be misunderstanding, but in case I'm not... why?
Just being critical here:
This still seems like a valid statement:
"Their opposition was based on a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.”"
It seems like the new judge ruled for it because,
“[their] action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. 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.”,
emphasis on constitutional right to life and liberty. Although that may be true, I am having trouble seeing as to how this may pertain solely to the Federal Government; It is possible to amend the constitution with an environmental specific amendment, but it would have to go through the legislative branch; I see nothing wrong with that. But looking at article 1 section 8 of the constitution, I do not see as to how this solely pertains to the Federal Government alone? Keep in mind that this country is a democratic republic and not a democracy; the federal government should be subject to the states rule, not an entity on its own.
What a ridiculous joke. "Kids" aren't suing anyone. Cynical adults who haven't been able to get their way through the democratic system are trying to ram their policy preferences through the courts, and they are abusing innocent children to do it. In a saner world, that judge would have called Child Protective Services.
What are these kids doing to develop non-CO2-emitting energy sources? Why don't they spend their time and energy on that instead? Even if we assume for the sake of argument that such lawsuits are justified, all they do is suck up resources that could be used for developing energy technologies to fix the problem.
See todays Marrakech meeting. Turns out we have most technology solutions available to cut down CO2 considerably and all that is required is policy to implement them. Not research - not even productize - all of the suggested approaches are based on productized approches.
> See todays Marrakech meeting. Turns out we have most technology solutions available to cut down CO2 considerably and all that is required is policy to implement them.
Can you give a reference for this? I'm not finding anything helpful on the conference website.
They see an issue and act on it with the tools they have.
When you have an issue with a piece of software, you look at the alternatives and possibly you act on the issue, you fix it. They do what you do as designer/software developer, just in another field.
We need more people doing and less people complaining. Some may consider it stupid to sue, but if this is the only solution, why not?