WaEx:
A judge in Washington state on Tuesday dismissed a climate change lawsuit filed against the state by a group of child activists.
King County Superior Court Judge Michael Scott ruled in favor of the State of Washington’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Aji P. v. State of Washington. The 13 young activists in the suit argue that the state is violating their constitutional rights through actions that cause climate change.
Judge Scott ruled that issues brought up in the case are political questions that cannot be resolved by a court, and must be addressed by Congress and the president. more here
A judge in King County made the right decision, hallelujah, glory be and that’s totally amazing. I wonder if he’ll do it again after his fellow judges crap all over his ruling and do an end run around this judge to change his decision. Hell must’ve froze over in Seattle and King County for a day or so.
But, but, it’s for the CHILDREN.
Was it Opposite Day yesterday when the Judge made this decision? Just asking!
Thanks judge, for acknowledging that “climate change” is political, and not scientific.
Before you can sue anyone over “climate change”, wouldn’t you have to prove it’s not just a catchy slogan?
The Trump administration is trying to get these types of cases dismissed, and that’s probably the most prudent course of action. However, I read much of the Aji P. complaint, and it would have been interesting to let this thing go to trial and have plaintiffs try to prove their allegations.
Before liability can be imposed, there needs to be something called a causal connection between the harm alleged and the acts supposedly causing the harm. The kids allege a multitude of harm such as a shortened ski season, smoke from fires, worry about decreased numbers of animals and fish, an inability to play outside because it’s too hot, etc. All of this injury is supposedly caused by the state’s fossil fuels and transportation policies.
Trying to prove causation would be a monumental task in terms of both effort and money. Essentially, both sides would have to prove or rebut the existence and extent of human caused global warming, a direct link between any human caused global warming and the injuries alleged, the effect of mitigating factors such as poor forest management vis a vis’ man made global warming, and the proportion of man made global warming caused by the state as compared to man made global warming caused by sources outside of the state. The expert science evidence alone would probably cost plaintiffs tens of millions of dollars – even assuming plaintiffs could satisfy the legal standards for having that evidence admitted. These are issues which have been the subject of scientific debate for many years now, and despite the AGW advocates claims are not “settled science” and will be debated and studied for many more years to come. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof, and at the end of this even if they prevail, they would have to argue that destroying Washington’s fossil fuels and transportation infrastructure would be an effective remedy.
The bottom line is that this is a publicity stunt, but it would be interesting to call plaintiffs’ bluff and require them to spend the millions of dollars in an effort to prove their claims. And at the end of the day, it is more likely than not that Washington’s fossil fuels and transportation policies have no or minimal effect on climate change.