Climate Controversy Flashcards
How does Juliana (Juliana v. United States) impact you?
The government may be forced to stop funding fossil fuels with tax breaks and subsidies, which will make fossil fuels less competitive even more so.
What is Juliana?
Juliana v. United States is a lawsuit filed in 2015 by attorney Julia Olson on behalf of kids who are suing to shop the U.S. government from continuing the use and funding of fossil fuels. Because fossil fuels cause climate change and climate change threatens their future constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that the government must defend against it and stop supporting fossil fuels. The named plaintiff, Kelsey Juliana is related to James Hansen. The government has knowingly failed to protect the coming generations from climate change.
How is Juliana precedent-setting?
In 2016, a federal judge stunned the government by denying its motion to dismiss the case and ruling it could proceed to trial. In what may become a landmark decision, Judge Ann Aiken wrote, “Exercising my reasoned judgment, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.”
What are the government’s counter arguments in Juliana?
The government is working to prevent the case from going to trial because they will lose on the facts. However, their argument is that energy policy is the legal responsibility of Congress and the White House and not the courts. And that energy policy is complicated and global and it is up to Congress to determine energy policies that impact our energy usage.
What is the counter argument to the government’s defense against Juliana?
The WH and the Congress are not doing their job, as in the case when the courts decided Brown v Board of Education and forced action in desegregation. In this case, the plaintiffs are seeking to have the government cease permitting oil and gas leases on public lands and cease tax subsidies and other extraordinary benefits to the industry. This reasoned remedy is not asking the government to effect changes outside of its purview and is something that the courts can impose.
Name some prominent thought leaders who have changed their minds about climate?
Jerry Taylor, of the Cato Institute, has argued against climate action for a long time, now believes that, due to proper risk management, we need to address carbon. (https://thebulwark.com/what-changed-my-mind-about-climate-change/amp/)
What’s the progression of flipping someone?
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)
With women, the progression is more like:
First they ignore you and decide if they are attracted, then they think you are rude and pushy, then they argue and think you are stupid, then they listen begrudgingly and expect you to answer their questions expertly, then they take credit for the idea
