[Mouton]

Generally when one seeks injunctive relief they need demonstrate the harm. Is their position it is warmer? Well warmer means more areas of the planet can sustain humans through agriculture. This is what happens when the ABCs are forgotten in the schools and it becomes common fare to indoctrinate.

Find a blackboard, send them to it and make them write 500 times: I am too uninformed to render policy decisions.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Generally when one seeks injunctive relief they need demonstrate the harm."

Well, won't they just rattle off a bunch of dire predictions about the effects of global warming as "proof" of the harm they've suffered or will suffer?

It seems that this opens up a can of worms. For example, someone could sue the government for not doing enough to fight terrorism, because terrorist acts still happen. Or, one could say that officials haven't done enough to make cars safe, or to prevent gun violence, or to cure cancer. These are all threats about which one could always do "more."

I guess my point is that a lawsuit based on hypotheticals - hypothetical damage and hypothetical solutions - is legal nihilism. This takes judicial activism one step closer to the abyss.