Skip to comments.Our Children, the Climate Change Plaintiffs
Posted on 05/09/2011 8:26:32 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
The regulatory aims of the EPA to curb CO2 emissions; the continued push for carbon cap and trade legislation; and, the ongoing attempts by the international body politic to arrive at an operating framework to address climate change, all of these are now joined by our childrens efforts to get the judiciary to act to protect the planet. Well, maybe not your child or mine, but some youths throughout the country are now plaintiffs in various lawfare battles intended to obtain from the courts what climate change activists cannot seem to accomplish through the legislative and regulatory processes.
Alec Loorz is an example of one such child. He is a 16-year-old Oak View, CA climate change activist. According to Alec the youth have no political power, nor the ability to hire corporate lobbyists, nor the right to vote. But they do have a voice and Alec is using his to sue the federal government to protect the climate.
However, regardless of the flattering write-up Alec gets in the Ventura County Star, the legal framework for his lawsuit is not only not his idea, its also not a new one. As the VCStar notes, Alec is helped in his legal efforts through the aid of attorneys and a nonprofit, Our Childrens Trust. Looking a little more closely at those who have helped Alec may reveal where he came up with the fine idea to sue our government to protect the atmosphere.
In a related article at ABC News, Mary Christina Wood, a professor at the Oregon University of Law is credited as having created the legal framework for suits such as Alecs. The following statements are attributed to Professor Wood in the ABC article:
What is needed, Wood said, is a sweeping challenge to the governments failure to address climate change. And having young people as plaintiffs in the cases gives added moral authority, she added.
We should be getting youths in front of the courts, not polar bears, Wood said
But Professor Wood isnt just good for a quote in a news article on the topic or for having developed a legal concept. Wood is a rather passionate environmental activist and has written extensively on the threat of climate change to the world and on the legal strategy of utilizing the judiciary to force government into action to protect the environment relative to climate change. She is also the founder and current faculty director for the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the Oregon University of Law.
Professor Woods legal theory, upon which Alecs suit relies, can generally be summarized to claim that the atmosphere, along with all other natural resources, make up Natures Trust. Government as the trustee of Natures Trust is obligated to protect the trust. Climate change represents an imminent threat to the trust. Therefore, where government has failed to act, it should be forced to address the threat by judicial order.
Wood has written on this particular topic and the legal framework since at least 2007 and of note, has drafted a proposed Executive Order on Climate Change. This order would address climate change as a security threat to the nation and its citizens. It would allow the president to mandate carbon reductions and require, among other things, that all federal agencies
develop climate adaptation plans to adjust their policies and programs to climate change in order to best secure the safety, health, and welfare of the American citizens.
make transparent all difficult choices necessitated by emergency conditions .developed in close partnership with state and local authorities, and with citizen input.
Though the order does not address the specific actions that the citizens of the nation would have to take to also address climate change, imagine the implications if each and every federal agency with which the average citizen must deal imposed guidelines specific to climate change to the citizens interaction with that agency.
Actually, little imagination is necessary. Professor Wood has made it rather clear in her writings and speeches what she thinks are the citizenrys obligations in defending the world against climate change. In a 2007 speech to the Eugene City Club, Wood suggests that the citizenrys response to climate change should be on a par with the actions taken by our greatest generation after Pearl Harbor. In discussing what Americans did to support the country during a state of war, with the implication that they should do no less to address climate change catastrophe, one specific quote sticks out from her speech
Communities planted victory gardens to grow food locally so that the commercial food supplies could be sent to the military. Consumers made do with the bare minimum.
Additionally, in this same speech, Wood made clear how the concept of private property fit within the framework of Natures Trust
by defining Nature in familiar property terms, the trust frame reconciles private property rights with environmental protection. The discretion frame doesnt do this. It portrays environmental resources as nebulous features of the world we live in. Private property rights carry the day in our agencies simply because they draw upon a language of property that is so deeply embedded in our national culture. To confront any environmental crisis today, including global warming, we have to be clear on how public resources and private property rights fit together in the scheme of things. The trust frame is itself a property concept, so rather than pitting environment against property rights, you are fitting Nature into the system of property rights. The Natures Trust frame is not anti-property rights. To the contrary, it affirms our collective property rights in assets, like the atmosphere, that support humanity. In securing our public property, the trust also anchors our entire system of private property rights. All private property depends on Natures infrastructure.
To make clear, Wood suggests that her concept supports private property rights. However, upon scrutiny it appears those rights are subservient to the collective rights of the public. Yet all of Woods writings and speeches on the topic of Natures Trust amount to no more than legal theory.
It is where her legal framework has led us today that should be somewhat disconcerting. Alec Loorzs lawsuit is not an editorial or a speech. It is a legal claim being made against the federal government. Through the help of the Oregon nonprofit, Our Childrens Trust, many more suits are being filed in various states under the same theory with several of the plaintiffs being minors. Though Professor Wood doesnt appear to be directly tied to either the plaintiffs in these cases or Our Childrens Trust, it is interesting to note that the registered agent for the nonprofit, David Atkin, an attorney in Eugene, was also an adjunct professor at the Oregon University of Law. He taught courses for the same law program, the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program, founded and still directed by Professor Wood. In any case, Woods legal theory has now become a legal claim as it appears generally within each of the claims made by the plaintiffs.
Its past 11 oclock. Do you know where your children are at? If they are in court fighting against climate change, you may want to call Professor Wood and ask her to send them home.
I have an 11 year old. Can he sue Zero for spending trillions he will have to pay back?
Finger nails on a chalk board.
I’m a bit partial to:
“Our Children, the Obama Debt Plaintiffs”,
“Our Children, the Obamacare Plaintiffs”,
“Our Children, the illegal invasion Plaintiffs”
The United States were wise in not signing the Kyoto Protocol. I truly believe that this treaty was an effort to hamstring American development, while allowing so called "developing countries" an exemption. China was listed, of course, in the developing countries category.
The more I hear from vain snot-nosed brats like these, the less morally outraged I feel about sticking them the bill. Go ahead, you know everything. Figure out where you’ll get the bucks.
Sorry, Greybeard -
It was after 11 when I finished the post - you know, trying to finish, sleepy, judgment dimished - I’ll avoid the use of the over-exposed cliche in the future.
Young Pioneers and Hitler Youth Redux.
Truly, as this article demonstrates, “Idiocy is the greatest threat to our children”. The machinations of the corrupt leftist bureaucracy that has been pushing this now clearly obvious fraud, are tantamount to economic suicide if believed and acted upon. Therefore, this idiocy is the greatest threat we face, not the natural and normal state of climactic change.
I say this to anyone who has bought this drivel, and it floors them, or sends them off into ravenous rants of rapacious ribaldry, ...er more aptly, stupidity.
Countersue and show the benefits of a world that experiences “global warming”.
Its past 11 oclock. Do you know where your children are
Ill avoid the use of the over-exposed cliche in the future.
Now I'm confused. Are you the author or the poster of the article? I wasn't commenting about a cliche but the grammar and I would not have done that if I had known a fellow member was the author. Heaven knows, mine's bad enough.
Yep - the author. But I personally thought the cliche sounded worse than the grammar.
I guess the libs are counting on the judges being soft-hearted fools who will actually pay attention to the weeping, indignant skulls full of mush.