They’re “concerned.” Not enough to give up their own use of fossil fuels and make their lives carbon neutral, nor recommend that all other Warmists do the same. But, enough to sue and demand that Other People pay the price (this is a press release)
(Renewable Energy Mag) A group of UK citizens concerned about climate change, calling themselves ‘Plan B Earth’, have announced they are going to sue the British Government over what they see as its poor response to climate change.
Climate change is already causing hundreds of thousands of deaths per year across the globe and is a major factor in provoking the mass migration of people to other countries. It is also a contributory factor to destabilisation of international politics and security, with some observers arguing, for example, that climate change was a contributory factor to the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War.
Plan B Earth believes that the 2°C global average temperature limit committed to within the Paris Agreement represents a ‘cliff edge’ of catastrophic climate change and that exceeding this level would present a possible danger of annihilation for certain countries, particularly small island states. Furthermore, they claim exceeding 2°C would incur a high likelihood of hitting ‘tipping points’, leading to runaway climate change in excess of 4˚C. The Government’s own advisory committee, the Committee on Climate Change, have described 4˚C warming as extremely dangerous, almost certainly meaning the deaths of billions of people and a devastated world for survivors. Plan B believes that the probability of hitting 4˚C this century is high.
The first duty of Government is to protect its people. Plan B believes that this begins by being honest about the nature of the threat. However, the British Government, Plan B believes, does not want to upset powerful vested interests. They say the government’s current emission reductions do not even aim at limiting warming to Paris Agreement the Government has ratified.
Plan B Earth argues that the Government’s lack of action demonstrates a serious failure to fulfil its fiduciary duty to uphold intergenerational equity and fundamental human rights. The group’s intention to take the British Government to court for a safe climate target follows the successful deployment of such action in the Netherlands, where the court ruled that:…
Blah blah blah. Someone wants some money. And to force their beliefs on other people.
Read: Concerned Climahysterics Plan To Sue British Government Or Something »
Democratic voters want single payer health care. But don’t expect to hear Democratic candidates talk about it — at least not in those words.
(
The Trump administration said Thursday night that it will not defend the Affordable Care Act against the latest legal challenge to its constitutionality — a dramatic break from the executive branch’s tradition of arguing to uphold existing statutes and a land mine for health insurance changes the ACA brought about.
The bills on the docket Monday include:
(
It is very, very easy to fall down the minutia rabbit hole when it comes to climate policy—specifically because the writing of these policies has been characterized by white male power brokering between strong and potentially problematic personalities. This “business as usual†approach to public decision making (where the right men get around the right table and fix the right problems) just doesn’t work for climate policy. Why? Because of the moral and economic quandaries that underlie how we address a planetary-scale problem at a regional level. Climate change is inseparable from decision making on human rights, because of the basic moral math that the poorest and most vulnerable communities have the greatest to lose and yet are the least culpable for contributing to the problem. I’m going to say it like it is: When climate policy is written by white men in a closed room, that is white supremacy.
