[GPSCC-chat] The faces of climate change.

[Wes Rolley]

While the DAPL protests and actions by the N. Dakota government have 
grabbed such news headlines as we have seen, it very well may be that 
the most important action this month took place in an Oregon court 
room.  This is the ruling handed down by Judge Aiken in the case of 
Juliana, et. al. vs United States of America et. al.

I quote from Judge Aiken's ruling:

This lawsuit is not about proving that climate change is happening or 
that human activity is
driving it. For the purposes of this motion, those facts are 
undisputed.3 The questions before the
Court are whether defendants are responsible for some of the harm caused 
by climate change,
whether plaintiffs may challenge defendants' climate change policy in 
court, and whether this Court
can direct defendants to change their policy without running afoul of 
the separation of powers
doctrine.

The Defendants in this law suit are many.
President of the United States,
the Council on Environmental Quality,
the Office of Management and Budget,
the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
the Department of Energy,
the Department of the Interior,
the Department of Transportation ("DOT"),
the Department of Agriculture,
the Department of Commerce,
the Department of Defense,
the Department of State, and
the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA").

I quote here Judge Aiken's citing the words of Judge Goodwin, another 
who stood up to the combined weight of corporate American and it's 
governmental allies.

    The current state of affairs ... reveals a wholesale failure of the
    legal system
    to protect humanity from the collapse of finite natural resources by
    the uncontrolled
    pursuit of sh01i-term profits .... [T]he modern judiciary has
    enfeebled itself to the
    point that law enforcement can rarely be accomplished by taking
    environmental
    predators to court. ...
    The third branch can, and should, take another long and careful look
    at the barriers
    to litigation created by modern doctrines of subject-matter
    jurisdiction and deference
    to the legislative and administrative branches of government.

Nothing is more assured than the fact that an AG Sessions will challenge 
this right up to a Supreme Court that could be filled by Trump 
appointees.  It is my fervent hope that the efforts of Dr Hansen and the 
plaintiffs in this case receive our loud and continuous support.  They 
will need it.

-- 
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, 
then you are wasting your time on this Earth" - /Roberto Clemente/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20161128/d79ff193/attachment.html>