Teens Take Politicians To Court Over Climate Change

For politicians who fail to act on climate change, Kelsey Juliana has a few words.

"I want to remind them that we are their employer," said Juliana, 18, a native of Eugene, Oregon, and freshman at Warren Wilson College in North Carolina. "The government works for us. If you're not doing your job, then I'm going to call you out on it."

Those aren't idle words, either. Juliana is a plaintiff in a potentially precedent-setting court case against Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber (D) and the state. She and co-plaintiff Olivia Chernaik, 14, claim that their government isn't doing enough to protect its current and future citizens from the devastating effects of climate change.

Pre-trial motions were filed in circuit court Jan. 9 and argument on the motions has been scheduled for March.

"This could be a landmark decision on the question: Does government, as trustee over our essential natural resources, have to protect it from carbon pollution and the impacts of climate disruption?" said Julia Olson, executive director of the nonprofit Our Children's Trust, and originator of a suite of youth-led lawsuits since 2011.

Several state and international cases remain in the pipeline, from New Mexico to the Netherlands. A federal lawsuit, which attracted the attention of industry leaders, was dismissed in December. Olson noted that she and her team of youth leaders are preparing another federal case.

The Oregon lawsuit is the furthest along, and the one to watch, experts say. Initially shot down by Lane County Circuit Court in 2011, the lawsuit gained fresh traction in June, when the Oregon Court of Appeals ordered the lower court to decide whether the atmosphere is a public trust that the state has a duty to protect. The appeals court ruling reversed the lower court's finding that state decisions about natural resources are political matters outside the court's authority.

An ancient legal principle underlies the plaintiffs' arguments. Dating back to Roman civil law, the public trust doctrine states that governments must safeguard certain critical natural systems so current and future generations can benefit from them.

The motion filed on behalf of Juliana and Chernaik asks that Oregon be ordered to develop and implement a plan that will contribute to a global reduction in emissions necessary to "return atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350 ppm by the year 2100." The state's answer acknowledges the "serious threat" of climate change, yet argues a lack of legal basis to extend the public trust doctrine to the atmosphere.

"It's going to take one brave, compassionate judge to speak on our behalf," said Juliana, who spent the fall walking across the country in the Great March for Climate Action.

Oregon, interestingly, is predicted to be among U.S. states least affected by climate change. In fact, some say the Pacific Northwest will soon be welcoming great numbers of so-called climate refugees from places like drought-stricken California. Still, that's not to say the region won't experience some consequences of a changing climate, such as reductions in snow pack, surface water and salmon populations, noted Chris Winter, co-director of the Portland-based Crag Law Center, who is representing Juliana and Chernaik.

"The state has a fiduciary obligation to these kids," Winter said.

As this legal strategy gains momentum, science continues to shed light on the speed with which the climate is changing and the breadth of its toll. On Friday, the government announced that 2014 was the hottest year on record since at least 1880. A study published on Thursday further warned that the damage we've already done may render the planet a lot less hospitable for future generations.

"Eventually the youth will win as the situation becomes clearer, but it is a dangerous situation, because by the time the climate change becomes obvious it is hard to prevent much larger change in the next several decades," James Hansen, often considered the world's leading climate scientist, wrote in an email to The Huffington Post.

In a 2013 scientific paper, which Hansen said provides the basis for the lawsuits, he concluded that the "continuation of high fossil fuel emissions would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. "

"Once the courts require the executive branch to have a plan for phasing down emissions consistent with what the science says is needed," added Hansen, "that will make it clear that the Keystone pipeline and other unconventional fossil fuels make no sense."

Olson called the controversial Keystone XL pipeline a "perfect example of elected leaders not acting as trustees."

Juliana pointed to an accumulating chain of proposed fossil fuel export projects in the Pacific Northwest as further evidence. "For [Gov. Kitzhaber] to approve another plan would be going in the opposite direction," said Juliana.

The governor made headlines this week for reportedly firing the chairwoman of the Oregon Transportation Commission after she rejected approval of state money for a controversial coal export project. The governor's office did not respond to requests for comment.

Kitty Piercy, mayor of Eugene, is among local leaders who support the teens and their national and international counterparts.

'have to protect it from carbon pollution and the impacts of climate disruption'

So what is 'carbon pollution'? Soot and Particulates or CO2?

Soot and Particulates

'There is increasing evidence that the amount of solar radiation incident at the Earth's surface is not stable over the years but undergoes significant decadal variations. Here I review the evidence for these changes, their magnitude, their possible causes, their representation in climate models, and their potential implications for climate change. The various studies analyzing long-term records of surface radiation measurements suggest a widespread decrease in surface solar radiation between the 1950s and 1980s (“global dimming”), with a partial recovery more recently at many locations (“brightening”).'

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011470/abstract

So 'global brightening' could cause increased temperatures.

CO2

'Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2'

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2.aspx

'World cereal production in 2014 to surpass the record in 2013'

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/

And a temperature trend since 1997 of 0.61C/century, not reliably linked to CO2.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

Of course we could try to model ourselves on King Cnut (Canute), and try and turn back the tides.

We are coming out of an ice age, and people don't expect warming temperatures? It is called an Interglacial for a reason.

What exactly is climate disruption?

Well, if they happen to get a judge on the verge of retirement that wants to get his name in the papers and make a ruling on an unproven theory, they could get a win....but a verdict for the plaintiffs  could also be reversed on the grounds of logic..