[Steve_Seattle]

"The petitioners, between 12 and 16 years old, had asked the judge last month to find the state Department of Ecology in contempt for failing to adequately protect them and future generations from global warming."

To find them "in contempt" of, or for, exactly what? I thought law was based on precise language and specific rules and obligations. How can something so nebulous be the grounds of a lawsuit?

[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.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

And besides, how could Washington state be negligent? Weren’t they recently proposing a dollar-a-gallon carbon tax on gasoline?