Children’s Climate Court Case Pushing an Injunction Against Fossil Fuel Extraction

By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From WUWT

The Ninth Circuit is currently hearing an attempt by the Juliana v. United States plaintiffs to halt all fossil fuel extraction in the United States.

The kids suing the government over climate change want to halt fossil fuel extraction

The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States say they’ve been denied their right to a safe and stable climate.

If the injunction is granted, it would lead to a nationwide moratorium on new fossil fuel permitting and leasing on federal lands and waters until the lawsuit is resolved. No small matter. However, existing mining and drilling projects would still proceed.

Philip Gregory, one of the lead attorneys representing the children filing suit, explained that the injunction request is meant to address the urgency of limiting climate change by reducing emissions from fossil fuels immediately. With the case currently tied up in appeals, the plaintiffs wanted to make sure the current state of affairs with respect to climate change doesn’t get worse as the wheels of justice slowly turn.

“We would have preferred to go to trial, submit our extensive evidence, and have the judge require the defendants to come up with a plan, a national climate recovery plan, for how they’re going to go about doing this,” Gregory said.

In response, the federal government argued this week that the injunction maneuver is a ploy to bypass proper legal proceedings. “Indeed, Plaintiffs by their present motion are essentially making a bid in this Court for a substitute mini-trial or ‘trial lite’ — which is premature until the pure issues of law now being briefed in this interlocutory appeal are appropriately resolved as a threshold matter,” wrote attorneys for the US Department of Justice. They described the injunction request as an “ambitious attempt to throttle important government functions superintending broad swaths of the national economy.”

The government also noted that the Juliana lawsuit was filed more than three years ago but the plaintiffs hadn’t asked to block fossil fuel leasing until now, which undermines the plaintiffs’ argument that without immediate action, they would suffer irreparable harm.

Read more: https://www.vox.com/2019/2/23/18234721/childrens-climate-lawsuit-juliana-injunction

A copy of the injunction is available here.

Even President Obama did not support this case – when James Hansen urged Obama to tie President Trump’s hands on climate policy. by settling the case in the plaintiff’s favour, President Obama refused.

I feel sorry for the kids, whom I see as victims of callous green political manipulation. This court case will almost certainly eventually be tossed out, and those poor kids will likely have to live with the crushing disappointment of being tossed aside by their former green friends once they are no longer any immediate use to the green movement.

CONTINUE READING –>

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Children’s Climate Court Case Pushing an Injunction Against Fossil Fuel Extraction

  1. By reflecting away 30% of the incoming solar energy the atmosphere/albedo make the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere.
    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6503085690262216704

    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    The non-radiative processes of a contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, render ideal black body LWIR from the surface impossible. The 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface is a “what if” calculation without physical reality. (TFK_bams09)
    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6507990128915464192

    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    Without the 396 W/m^2 upwelling there is no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop to “warm” the earth.
    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6457980707988922368

    Greenhouse theory has it wrong.

    These three points are what matter, all the rest is irrelevant noise.

    Like

    • That the atmosphere reflects away 30% may be so, but it’s irrelevant. Without the atmosphere, the earth’s surface would reflect/radiate 100% back out to space. So, the surface would be much hotter, but just above the surface it would be freezing cold. The atmosphere let’s the incoming and outgoing slow down and average out.

      With the atmosphere, he earth s not a black body, and that’s the point.

      Your 3rd point shows that there cannot be any life on earth. That’s mistaken.

      There are many reasons why current Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) theory is wrong, most specifically the missing ‘Hot Spot’ in the tropical troposphere, but most of the value added likely will be in showing everyone that, even if their theory is correct, the results for the next couple hundred years likely will be a net benefit to life on earth.

      Like

      • Your reply appears to be mostly the voices in your head.
        Space is hot not cold.
        Reflecting is not radiating. The more reflected the less radiated.
        Just like the moon a large portion of the lit side would be well above freezing.
        The molten core would also warm the surface.
        No CO2 = NO LIFE!!!!!

        Like

  2. The surface of the earth is the temperature it is for the same reason a house is warmer inside than out during the winter or cooler inside than out during the summer, the insulated envelope.

    The appropriate equation is Q = U A dT.

    U is a complex combination of non-radiative processes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection (winds), latent (evaporation/condensation) and radiation.

    At 0.04% (400 ppm) the mass of CO2/GHGs is so small they play a negligible role in U.

    As Q increases/decreases with decreases/increases in albedo dT increases/decreases.

    Increase/decrease in net energy means an increase/decrease in dT and a warmer/colder surface.

    1) The atmosphere makes the earth cooler not warmer compared to no atmosphere
    2) Because of the non-radiative processes the surface cannot upwell/radiate as a BB.
    3) Without the upwelling BB there is no energy loop for the GHGs to absorb/re-radiate or “warm” anything.
    4) No man-caused climate change.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s