I’m really hoping that the lawyers for the state of Montana ask the youts what they’ve done in their own lives to reduce their own carbon footprints. Do they take fossil fueled travel in autos? Buses? Do they have FF ATVs to head out for recreation? How much time do they spend on-line, burning up lots of electricity?
Youth go to trial in a test of state’s obligation to protect Montana residents from warming
Youth plaintiffs said warming temperatures were harming their health and threatening their futures as a closely-watched climate trial kicked off Monday in Montana. But a lawyer for the fossil fuel-friendly state argued its emissions were “minuscule” on a global scale and that eliminating them would have little impact.
The case over state government obligations to protect people against worsening climate change is the first of dozens of similar lawsuits to reach trial. It’s scheduled to last two weeks.
The 16 young plaintiffs — supported by a parade of climate experts — are trying to persuade state District Judge Kathy Seeley that Montana’s allegiance to fossil fuel development endangers their health and livelihoods and those of future generations.
Plaintiffs attorney Roger Sullivan said in opening arguments that his clients and their families already were suffering health problems and economic losses as climate change dries up rivers and worsens wildfires. He said Montana has a obligation to protect residents from climate change under its unusually protective state constitution.
Here’s the thing: they’re going to have to prove it. They’re going to have to have facts, not scaremongering. They’ll have to prove that their health is suffering and it is due to the use of fossil fuels by Mankind which have cause a whopping 1.5F increase in global temperatures since 1850.
Experts say the case in state court could set legal precedent but isn’t likely to make immediate changes to policy in fossil fuel-friendly Montana.
Environmentalists have called the bench trial a turning point because similar suits in nearly every state have already been dismissed. A favorable decision could add to a handful of rulings globally that have declared governments have a duty to protect citizens from climate change.
Neither the US nor Montana Constitutions say anything of the sort. There is not duty to protect from a slight increase in temperatures, even if it was caused my Mankind. What will the climate cultists say if they lose the case?
The plaintiffs and their attorneys were cheered by supporters as they arrived outside the courthouse on Monday. Inside, Seeley’s small courtroom was packed with observers and members of the media.
How did the plaintiffs and attorneys arrive? Bus? Or, fossil fueled vehicles? One thing
One reason the case may have made it so far in Montana is the state’s constitutional requirement that government “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment.” Only a few states, including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have similar environmental protections in their constitutions.
Which is about actual environmental issues. ‘Climate change’ is not.
The case was brought in 2020 by attorneys for the environmental group Our Children’s Trust, which since 2010 has filed climate lawsuits in every state on behalf of youth plaintiffs. Many cases — including a previous one in Montana — have been dismissed.
In other words, it’s purely astroturfed, and plaintiffs are as young as 5. Does anyone think a 5 year knows what the hell is going on?
Teach how much of that 1.8 ( not 1.5) degree rise has occured during your own life span? Isn’t it over 1 degree F globally? Of course the land temps have gone up more than the 80% covered by wayer
Has the rate of change increased?
If so, is it possible to predict it ?
H, at what point will you finally admit you’ve been lied to and join us to save the republic? There is no embarrassment in being fooled once in a while. But if you just sit there through a dozen hoaxes then you’ve got a problem with reality.
Call Them What They Truly Are: The Fascist Far Left
With apologies to William Shakespeare (a white supremacist, we’re reliably informed by university academics), shall we compare the American government and Democrat party with the German Nazis of their day? As Elizabeth Barrett Browning might say, let us count the ways.
Holocaust aside (so far), Nazi fascists and American Democrats — (D) voters included — are a distinction without a difference.
As Steve McCann wrote in his excellent American Thinker article this past March, BLM and Antifa are the ruling regime’s chosen violent street thug enforcers, the equivalent of the Nazi SA (Stormtroopers), while the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are the extralegal police state SS (Schutzstaffel) of the (D) party.
Polls show that a large majority of registered Democrat voters admire these groups and their tactics, cheering on the atmosphere of intimidation, violence, censorship, confiscation of private assets, suspension of due process, arbitrary arrests of political foes, imprisonment of dissidents, and many other related abuses.
But aren’t fascists right-wingers, as gesticulating, spittle-flecked presidential historians like Michael Beschloss tell us?
Yeah, no. While epitomizing and celebrating centralized power, and abolishing freedoms, fascists and communists (much like Beschloss himself) each occupy one side of the same far-left socialist coin — once again, a distinction with no meaningful difference. A fascist by any other name would be the same.
Walking around in large cities with white skin and identifying as conservative in the America of 2023 is akin to wearing a Star of David in the Germany of 1938. Hyperbole, you say? Try walking around downtown in any large American city with a MAGA hat on, and count the minutes — nay, seconds — until you are physically or verbally assaulted. Or murdered outright. Social media are ironclad proof that Democrat voters undulate their hips and get their groove thing on anytime something awful happens to a prominent conservative.
If they could push a button to erase your existence, they would not hesitate. And if they can’t push the button themselves, they will support a government that promises to push the button on their behalf.
How’s this truncated checklist below vis-à-vis WWII-era fascists and modern (D) government officeholders and their (“Good German”) progressive voters?
Racial scapegoating and demonization? Check. Silencing and censorship? Check. State control of/symbiosis with a slavishly obedient media establishment? Check. Attacks on churches, churchgoers, and synagogues? Check. Passionate hatred of Zionist and religious Jews? Check. A nonstop fire hose of regime disinformation, propaganda, hysteria, and outright lies? Check.
Tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories about a demonized out-group supposedly scheming to overthrow Club Fed? Check. Eugenics, sterilization, the veneration of the state, and the worship of science™? Check. Surgical experiments on and mutilation of healthy bodies? Check. Masked or uniformed Jackboots in the streets, violently enforcing the whims of the ruling regime and its like-minded priestly caste of Brahmin billionaires? Check. Reichstag Fire/contrived emergencies (J6)? Check. Political dissidents imprisoned? Check.
Space constraints alone prevent this checklist from easily and quickly expanding ten- or a hundredfold.
Everything is confirmation bias to a leftist. After all, if you’re a progressive hammer, everything looks like a conservative nail. Do you drink black coffee? You’re a racist. What, you don’t drink black coffee? You’re a racist. Equity, you see.
Trying to persuade or convert progressive citizens and voters with dispassionate facts and logic, or appeals to civility, the law, or the Constitution, are examples of wishcasting. Ain’t gonna happen.