Young Climate Activists Sue Obama Over Climate Change Inaction (cnn.com) 475
EmagGeek writes A recent lawsuit against Obama alleges he has a legal duty to act against climate change, and young climate activists, including 15-year-old Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh, are taking him to task on it. CNN reports: "Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh became a climate change activist at age 6 when he saw an environmental documentary. He asked his mom to find a way for him to speak at a rally. Now 15, the long-haired, hip-hop-savvy Coloradan is one of 21 young activists joining climate scientist James Hansen in suing the Obama administration for failing to ditch fossil fuels. 'It's basically a bunch of kids saying you're not doing your job,' he told me here at the U.N. COP21 climate change summit in Paris. 'You're failing, you know. F-minus. We're holding you accountable for your lack of action.'"
15 years old? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
this kid should be laughed at, and nothing more
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
one of them was along the lines of. "have a group for black sudents... and if there already is one give it more money"
now... i dont know about you, but if you dont know if there is a group or not... how can you even make demands when you have no clue what you are talking about?
Re:15 years old? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because he's an ACTIVIST!!!
Or more accurately, he's like 99.99% of activists out there--in that he wants someone else to fix the problem while he pats himself on the back for making no real sacrifice whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Four out of the last 11 (YTD) months have been the hottest on record (in the US). The ocean's temperature is rising. The ocean's acidity is rising.
Re:15 years old? (Score:5, Insightful)
At 15 years old he'll have to live most of his life with the effects of climate change, unlike the mostly old-fart climate conspiracy theorists who don't care what happens after they die.
Re: (Score:2)
At 15 years old he'll have to live most of his life with the effects of climate change, unlike the mostly old-fart climate conspiracy theorists who don't care what happens after they die.
My children are younger than he is, I care very much about the world they will grow up in.
I just know that you can't make the changes required, in the time left to do them in. The changes needed to start 30 years ago, we are far, far, far past the point of no return, time to prepare for the new world that is coming.
I've looked at the CO2 numbers, the pages NASA has published. The idea of stopping before 2 degrees C is a fantasy, I don't think we'll stop before 3 degrees. It'll be interesting to see if we
Re: (Score:2)
If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?
Maybe the mess he will have to deal with over the next 50-60 years of his life?
Re: (Score:2)
If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?
Maybe he doesn't want the environment to be even more fucked up when he's 50. Maybe he wants his kids to be able to enjoy a better earth. Maybe the kid is concerned about the future.
Re:15 years old? (Score:5, Informative)
If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?
Maybe if you only look at the atmosphere. But if you look at the oceans they have continued to warm without pause and over 90% of the climate warming is going into the oceans anyway. But you're going to have to retire that "no significant warming" meme after the end of this year because 2015 is going to blow the old records out of the water.
Re: (Score:3)
Here, there is no real controversy as the Administration agrees with the plaintiff and wants to do more. Nor is this an issue in which the court can involve itself: The Administration does not have the authority to do any more than it already is (and
Re: (Score:2)
...and another thing: the kid also has to have a cause of action for his lawsuit. You aren't just limited by the laws of physics when it comes to being an environmental crusader. You are also limited by the laws of man.
Re:15 years old? (Score:4, Insightful)
I see this and his age, and I can only think, "does he realize that, while Obama can make some action, the majority of such a thing has to come from Congress?"
I can only see him as being a brat trying to make a name for himself targeting a well targeted person.
The biggest thing on his table politically about climate change recently, might have been Keystone, which he didn't let go through
WTF does the Keystone pipeline have to do with climate change? The Canadians are selling the oil to China, anyway, it'll just take a different route.
So tired of this mindless repetition of "facts" from partisans on both sides.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
WTF does the Keystone pipeline have to do with climate change? The Canadians are selling the oil to China, anyway, it'll just take a different route.
Nothing, it actually just means that MORE oil will be burned moving the Canadian oil, rather than less.
Stopping the pipeline actually HARMS the environment.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:15 years old? (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you have (or are getting) a STEM degree, you are likely to get shunned" (by environmentalists)
Rubbish.
Most environmental concern is BASED on the findings of science,
whereas lack of environmental concern is based on either ignorance or selfish greed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The solutions proposed are not, however, based in reality...
We aren't all going to stop driving gas powered cars, turn off our AC, or move into 1,000 sqft houses.
All things that we'd have to do, and do rather quickly, to "solve" the problem.
The truth is, we're going to go barreling past 2 degrees C, and probably past 3 degrees C.
We'd be far better off to just prepare for that, rather than make a vain attempt to stop it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We can indeed stop driving gas-powered cars, and power them and your house from carbon-neutral energy sources. Talk about defeatism...
Re: (Score:3)
You saying we can, and actually being able to do it, are two different things.
A whole lot of people still drive 10 year old cars, a whole lot of people are not going to put solar up, and a whole lot of people aren't going to move.
Our way of life using the energy we use, from the sources we use, isn't sustainable long term, but it can't be changed in the short term either.
Will it change? Yes.
Will it change in the timeframe required to hold global average temp below the 2 degree level? No.
That is really the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All of those things require a great deal of money. All of those things required time. All of those things will pollute. And it all assumes that Joe Average
Re:15 years old? (Score:5, Informative)
Well good news! People don't eat uranium, carbon fiber or semiconductor materials, so my plan won't starve people! I was thinking about nuclear, wind and solar rather than running the planet on ethanol. You know what will starve people though? The droughts and floods that come with climate change. Those and other natural disasters HURT PEOPLE.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah the right wing story progression (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not happening
It's uncertain
It may be happening but it's not us
Ok it's happening, but it's all those poor people who are trying to catch up with us
Ok it's happening, but there's nothing we can do about it.
Ok it happened, but there was nothing we could have done about it.
Yes. You could have done something. Finding yourself it a hole, you could have stopped digging.
You could have kept your friggin' traps shut with your destructive obstructionist bullshit and got the hell out of the way of the smart and mo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Forty years ago did you put forth a viable solution to the problem?
Have you been living in a carbon-neutral cabin in the woods ever since?
Do you have a car? Do you drive it frequently?
Do you have a computer? (yes, because you're on the internet) Where do you think that computer came from?
Do you have an air conditioner? Do you run it during the summer?
Do you buy food from the super market?
Do you buy c
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ah the right wing story progression (Score:5, Insightful)
What, so that you can spend a crap load of MY money trying to fix the unfixable?
Sorry, no thanks.
Your choice is spend money or spend more money. There is no option to spend no money.
Another way to look at it is this: Assume Global Warming is complete fiction, but we go with it anyway. We create an entire new clean energy industry, which stimulates the economy, and creates more jobs and therefore more wealth, less poverty, and less crime.
The worst case case is we have less pollution, generate cleaner energy, more efficiently, and create more jobs for more people.
Even hard-core conservatives love creating new jobs. What other plan do you have that could achieve this?
Re: (Score:3)
These are not the same things. I get from A to B most of the time on a bike.
I hear lots of people say that, and it sure sounds nice. It isn't very realistic however...
How do I take the kids to school on a bike? How do I go to the grocery store on a bike and bring home enough to feed a family of 5? While it is 30 degrees/100 degrees outside? In the rain?
Once you have a car, you use it, then you move to the suburbs where everything is driving distance, not walking/biking distance.
Buy a compact instead of a pick up. etc. etc.
Ahh, that "minor inconvenience" thing... So you want me to go out and spend money to replace my larg
Re: (Score:2)
The irony is that even if China does stop their carbon climb, even if they cut total output by 20% from current levels, it wouldn't be enough.
When I look at the actual numbers, the total amount of CO2, we would have to cut the total worldwide output of CO2 by more than 50%.
Not cut "the climb", but the TOTAL number.
And we have to do it in the next 5-10 years.
For many reasons, that simply is not going to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's something that's real that you can do with only a minor inconvenience...
You could stop eating meat. It would improve your health and help the environment. Eating meat has the environmental impact equivalent to all of the driving you do.
www.cowspiracy.com
Re: (Score:2)
Here's something that's real that you can do with only a minor inconvenience... You could stop eating meat. It would improve your health and help the environment. Eating meat has the environmental impact equivalent to all of the driving you do. www.cowspiracy.com
Better yet, don't have children. You should do both.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people would consider not having children as more than a "minor inconvenience". However, if we stopped eating meat, we could support about 10x the current earth population so if you want children, just stop eating meat. The greenhouse gas saved by not eating meat can support a large family.
50% of climate change gasses (methane and CO2) come from the production of meat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cows produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
The produce lots of methane... more than any other source of methane.
Get rid of cows and you get rid of most of the methane.
www.cowspiracy.com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that doesn't change the outcome.
That is the problem with all the ideas and suggestions, they don't actually make a real difference to the end game.
The numbers are massive, and people just love to say "well if we all do our part". But that is crap. The amount we ALL would have to do is FAR more than most people will do.
The US would need to cut total energy consumption by 75%, total fossil fuel consumption by 90%, and need to do it quickly, within 5-10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The solutions proposed are not, however, based in reality...
We aren't all going to stop driving gas powered cars, turn off our AC, or move into 1,000 sqft houses.
All things that we'd have to do, and do rather quickly, to "solve" the problem.
The truth is, we're going to go barreling past 2 degrees C, and probably past 3 degrees C.
We'd be far better off to just prepare for that, rather than make a vain attempt to stop it.
Oh, they're realistic. But in order to pull that off we'd actually have give a shit about the future. We'd have to step out of our greed fueled little lives and put a concerted effort into making the world a better place. That simply will not happen because we're too damn stupid and greedy. As long as we can keep kicking the can down the road, we will. As long as someone stands to profit from the status quo, it will be maintained. This is how humanity has operated throughout history, and the so-called "mode
Re:15 years old? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your statements and his are not mutually exclusive. The bulk of people who are environmentalists or who think climate change is bunk form their positions on these issues for philosophical or economic reasons, not rational reasons. I'm an engineer and I spend a lot of time "educating" them. If you don't know the difference between kilowatts and kilowatt-hours (as most of these people don't), you have no business trying to influence energy policy. It's completely obvious you're basing your opinion on things other than facts.
The environmental scientists who research this stuff do so with a fairly neutral approach. A lot of engineers are environmentally conscientious as well because it correlates with energy efficiency, and engineers love optimizing for efficiency. But they're realistic about it. That's why such a large segment of slashdot readers are both pro-environment and pro-nuclear. They're realistic enough to realize that although nuclear has its drawbacks, the drawbacks of opposing it resulting in continued use of coal and oil are much, much worse [washingtonpost.com] (because wind and solar technologies are not yet capable of taking over base load, and probably won't be for another 20 years). Go ahead. Ask anyone who's pro-solar how many square meters of solar panels they'll need on average to charge their EV every night (using batteries as interim storage). Most of them have no clue, and wouldn't even know how to start figuring it out. Heck, most of them don't even have the faintest concept of how big a solar panel it takes to light a light bulb. How can you compare a technology to alternatives and come to a decision to advocate it if you don't even understand these basic things?
Re:15 years old? (Score:4, Interesting)
Whenever the stark reality of data flies in the face of warmists agenda they get hostile and to ad hominem.
That was quite masterful the way you used satire to demonstrate the same logical fallacy you were decrying. And with a dash of strawman thrown in, too - are you a former Colbert writer?
I also love the way you use ridiculous hyperbole to lampoon the layman who thinks he knows so much about such a vastly complicated issue that he is fully confident in calling it black or white, and calling anybody an idiot who does not agree with the stark color of his vehemently stated but argumentatively void comments.
The more I read your post, the more I think you might just be this century's Voltaire - a true master. I mean you lit this fucker up like a winning bingo card:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
I'm truly impressed. A+.
Re: (Score:3)
People with an agenda don't want to be bothered with pesky issues like reality.
As your posts nicely demonstrate.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't even like people with a proper science or engineering background at the EPA.
What?? Is it true that they really dislike someone JUST because of their degree or is it they don't like some corporate shill sneaking in their that coincidentally has a STEM degree?
Re: 15 years old? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Environmentalists" really get nasty when you rain on their parade with things like facts. If you have (or are getting) a STEM degree, you are likely to get shunned. They don't even like people with a proper science or engineering background at the EPA.
Citations please.
This post reeks of paid shilling (Score:2)
Implying environmentalism is never feasible, check
Pandering "the facts", check
Ridiculous claims about environmentalists (They hate STEM!!).. check
Complaining about someone else's agenda despite the obvious presence of your own? Check
I'm actually impressed you were able to fit nearly all rhar into a paragraph. Next are you going to talk about windmills killing birds?
Not doing his job? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm... I checked The Constitution and it doesn't say anything about it being the President's job to "ditch fossil fuels". Heck, it doesn't even mention "climate change". Perhaps this kid should take a Civics / Government class and learn that it's Congress that passes these things called "laws"...
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention that I'm sure we can find over a dozen activities this kid takes part in that negatively impact the climate.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not to mention that I'm sure we can find over a dozen activities this kid takes part in that negatively impact the climate.
Let me help you:
"Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh... hip-hop-savvy Coloradan...,' he told me here at the U.N. COP21 climate change summit in Paris.
I'm guessing he didn't row a boat to Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if he did he'd probably be breathing pretty hard spewing CO the whole damn time... hypocrite!
Re: (Score:2)
??? row boats do not produce coal gas
True. But human respiration produces CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct that somebody needs a civics lesson, to learn whose job the U.S. Constitution says is to "recommend to [Congress'] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct that somebody needs a civics lesson, to learn whose job the U.S. Constitution says is to "recommend to [Congress'] Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient".
Ya, I know that and Obama has "recommended" many things to Congress during his term. How'd that work out for him with this Congress filled with people that don't want to say anything but "no" and, apparently, do little else? In any case, as I said, it's the job of Congress to actually pass laws. Perhaps, *someone* needs a lesson in "reading".
Re:Not doing his job? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would proffer it's even more important for Congress to know when it should NOT pass laws... Often the proper answer is "no", especially when it comes to political winds and short term trends.
Agreed and good point, but I'm pretty sure this Congress has other agendas with their liberal (no pun intended) reliance on "no" as their governing mantra. At least one Republican has been quoted as say they should deny Obama any achievements during his tenure.
Re: (Score:3)
instead of spouting typical "literal reading" ignorance
(a) You chastise me about that then provide cut/pasted excerpts from the Constitution - which is *literally* a literal reading? Talk about irony. (b) I know all that, and it was mentioned by another poster (to which I replied as in (c)), so you're late and short. (c) Doesn't change my point that Congress passes the laws in this country - treaties and "recommendations" to Congress not withstanding. (d) You're (obviously) a pedantic dumb-ass.
Cheers, have a nice day! :-)
This is great news! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that the precedent has been set, I'm looking forward to suing all of these students twenty years from now for their terrible career choices which have made them unemployable, thus depriving me of the tax revenue needed to support my Social Security and Medicare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
15+20=35. I would hope he has a degree by 35 if he intends to have one at all.
Idiot (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess he hasn't gotten to the class in school yet explaining that the Executive branch can't enact laws . . .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's fifteen. The long hair, the hip hop activism, and the impossible suit are means to an end for him.
He's probably getting laid for this shit.
Re:Idiot (Score:5, Funny)
He's probably getting laid for this shit.
Perhaps we can all learn something from him after all....
Re:Idiot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
...and even if he unilaterally enacts a regulation, or one of his subordinates enacts a regulation, good luck getting that enforced as the other party and offended corporate interests will descend and object in a variety of ways.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No standing (Score:4, Insightful)
In order to prove standing, he will have to prove that he's sustained damages. He will find that hard to do. The kid might as well sue for having his financial future mortgaged to a hilt while he is at it. At least in that case, he could document how he is being royally screwed.
James Hanson (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this the same James Hanson who warned us [theguardian.com] in Jan 2009 that there were "only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world"? That if we fail, all will be lost? Because we busted that deadline in Jan 2014. And the world hasn't exactly ended yet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how we criticize terrorists for hiding behind a wall of children and using them as shields. I wonder how much manipulation has been done here. :/ Ah well...
I do have a few reports to read - I'm trying to learn more about this global science thing so I can more accurately opine on the mathematics in use but there's a lot to digest and, frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in the maths involved. There is not only not one standard, they appear fond of not publishing what they tried before reaching their
Climate Cultism (Score:2, Interesting)
James Hansen should be immediately separated from these children.
The man is an absolute climate lunatic.
He should get his day in court... (Score:2, Insightful)
... Just as soon as he shows us all HIS plan to ditch all fossil fuel use, without a negative energy balance at any time, will all the math shown, and the most pessimistic assumptions you can make about renewable availability and construction/maintenance energy costs baked in. After that, I want him to figure out how to PAY for it. Then I want him to take a good look at what goes into all those 'Green' technologies. A solar panel is energy intensive to make, and requires some toxic materials.
Re: (Score:2)
He already has the payment portion nailed. He is suing Obama so that he will pay for solar panels for the kid's house.
So what has he done? (Score:5, Informative)
According to https://www.whitehouse.gov/ene... [whitehouse.gov], since Obama took office:
* The EPA released the Clean Power Plan — the first-ever carbon pollution standards for existing power plants, ...and on and on.
* The U.S. increased solar electricity generation by more than ten-fold, and tripled electricity production from wind power.
* The DOI has approved over 50 wind, solar, and geothermal utility-scale projects on public or tribal lands.
* Obama put forth initiatives to help develop principles for establishing energy corridors; encourage the use of designated energy corridors in western states; expedite the review of transmission projects in non-western states; and improve the overall transmission siting
* Created the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
* Proposed the toughest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles in U.S. history
* Finalized the first-ever fuel economy standards for commercial trucks, vans, and buses for model years 2014-2018.
* The EPA proposed two new rules in 2014 under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program to curb HFC's.
* Released a Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions that builds on progress to date and takes steps to further cut methane emissions from landfills, coal mining, agriculture, and oil and gas systems.
* Committed to deploying 3 gigawatts of renewable energy on military installations, including solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal, by 2025.
* Directed federal agencies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as building energy use and fuel consumption by 28 percent by 2020 and increase deployment of renewable energy.
What's the common thread here? Well, things Obama *can* do (EPA regulations, federal programs) he did - what required House & Senate to write laws, he made proposals - largely in agreement of the relevant industry groups...but if no laws are written as a result of all this work - is that Obama's fault?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Obviously he should have been more cooperative in working with Congress. Instead he enacts his own agenda, bypassing all the good work Congress has tried to accomplish. /s
It's not Obama (Score:2, Insightful)
It's clear President Obama had and has the will to act significantly on reducing CO2 emissions.
He is fighting the fossils in an obstructionist, denialist, bought-and-paid-for Republican-controlled senate and congress for every inch of progress on this issue.
The targeting of this lawsuit is misplaced.
Re: (Score:2)
James Hansen is a becoming shameful (Score:5, Insightful)
I get how as a scientist watching things you want to push people to action. That being said, James Hansen has gone a little overboard [theguardian.com] IMHO and into the realm of damaging the credibility of scientists in general be politicizing things himself. He's written things like:
Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years
This despite the IPCC estimates that gain/loss in glaciers will be regionally dependant on precipitation changes(and this based on admittedly poorly modelled precipitation).
The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.
This isn't precisely a statement backed by peer reviewed evidence either...
When people are angry about the science being politicized, it does NOT help for the scientists to go over board politicizing things themselves in the hope of being a counter-balance. It doesn't work between FOX and MSNBC counter balancing each other from Rep-Dem sides of things, and it doesn't work for educating people on the science either. You just get more and more grandiose hyperbole, half truths and flat out propaganda from both sides.
We're saved! (Score:2)
Well, that does it! Climate fixed, we're saved! Thanks Quetzalcoatl!
Schools aparently don't teach Executive Imunity. (Score:2)
This case has no chance. (IANAL, but I can google) The president can not be sued or prosecuted criminally for any act he does (or does not do) in the execution of his duties as president.
(from http://definitions.uslegal.com... [uslegal.com])
Executive immunity is an immunity granted to officers of the executive branch of government from personal liability for tortious acts or omissions done in the course of carrying out their duties. The U.S. president's executive immunity is absolute; however, the immunity of other fed
Re: (Score:2)
Dune and the Spice (Score:2)
Someone apparently hasn't bothered to read Dune yet. Or take a civics course.
Could we theoretically get off fossil fuels? Yes. Could we do it overnight? No. The spice must flow. To unilaterally end the usage of fossil fuels in transportation would be to "End all commerce among the Great Houses". There simply is no replacement for fossil fuels when it comes to transportation. Especially once you consider the infrastructure.
This doesn't even begin to cover the power of fossil fuels, specifically oil, when it
Put it in kid terms: (Score:2)
Congressional Republicans: Haha, we don't like you, so we're not going to let you play, and there's more of us than there are of you, so get lost, loser!
Congressional Democrats: Hey, we want him and his buddies to play, and he's right, and you're all just being mean!
Congressional Republicans: STFU or we'll beat you up again -- and you can't stop us from doing that, either!
Obama:
Cong
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
He's hip hop savy. That makes it important.
Hip Hop (Score:2)
Dat lectric fuck da ozone hole
Or make if hot or some fucken thing
Gotta save da whales - you know dey sing?
My vape's lectric
but don't burn no coal
Gets free lectric
from my ride's console
Da Man's smoke's fucked
My smoke's fine
(Dis can't be Hip Hop
too much rhyme)
Easy (Score:2)
It's the victim culture don't you know, so everyone cares. This kid should get what he wants just because he cried "FOUL" at someone. I think the song said "Money for nothing and your chicks for free!" right?
The kid might have been smarter to break^Winvent, a clock and get invited to the White House and Google before the lawsuit... but hey, that ship may have already sailed... to Qatar that is.
Is my cynicism showing?
Re: Who cares (Score:2)
I don't think this qualifies as news for nerds. Someone cares, but /. in general is a bit too pragmatic to care about this stuff. Not to say there isn't a significant environmentalist community here, but most /.ers know even if man made climate change exists the chances of cataclysmic results of climate change is highly unlikely.
I kinda feel sorry for the kid though because I don't think he's prepared for the backlash. By suing the president for climate change he's alienating both the left and the right and
Re: (Score:2)
Is it? It's not like it's without prescient: http://news.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is only because you've never seen Emo's skit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You sue the executive because he could be liable for malfeasance ( failing to do their duty). If there is some law under which it could be shown he had some specific obligation.
You can imagine some sufficiently twisted expansionist interpretation of exist environmental regulation where that might be possible. Its hard on the other hand at least for me as a lay person see how you could make a claim against the legislative body, they have powers but they don't really have much of anything in the way of lega
yes (Score:2)
> do we now live in a dictatorship, much like Russia, wherein one tyrant pretty essentially crafts all the rules?
Yes.
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/... [reginfo.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
At his age, I had all the answers. I was also witty, insightful, and never wrong. Oh, I was devilishly handsome and my philosophical works were fantastic and original. So, you do have a point.
Also, I was wrong. Well, except for the devilishly handsome bit.
So let's go back to calling it global warming (Score:2)
Which was the original, and still accurate, name by which this phenomenon was known, until right wing messaging diluted it to climate change concern so that it could be deliberately confused with natural climate change cycles.
Or if you want to be pedantic, we could call it "the climate changes associated with global warming".
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is a constant
I don't see how this could be. If it was constant, the earth would be very hot or very cold. The climate record indicates that the climate fluctuates - it's not constant.
So the question for you is: if CO2 is not a driver of climate change, what is driving the current (dramatic) climate event?
Protesting climate change is as effective as protesting the daily sunrise/sunset.
I think you'll find that they aren't protesting the fact of climate change, but rather that we are deliberately changing the climate to our own detriment: which makes as much sense as stabbing yourself in the eye "o
Re: (Score:2)
Xiuhtezcatl .......wow....what a name
Yeah, I thought Nahuatl was a dead language. I wonder if it's a traditional family name, or if someone just used an Aztec Random Name Generator.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows, it may have been mis-spelled...