Our Children, the Climate Change Plaintiffs

The regulatory aims of the EPA to curb CO2 emissions;  the continued push for carbon cap and trade legislation;  and, the ongoing attempts by the international body politic to arrive at an operating framework to address climate change, all of these are now joined by our children’s efforts to get the judiciary to act to protect the planet.   Well, maybe not your child or mine, but some youths throughout the country are now plaintiffs in various lawfare battles intended to obtain from the courts what climate change activists cannot seem to accomplish through the legislative and regulatory processes.      

Alec Loorz is an example of one such child.  He is a 16-year-old Oak View, CA climate change activist.  According to Alec the youth have no political power, nor the ability to hire corporate lobbyists, nor the right to vote. But they do have a voice and Alec is using his to sue the federal government to protect the climate. 

However, regardless of the flattering write-up Alec gets in the Ventura  County Star, the legal framework for his lawsuit is not only not his idea, it’s also not a new one.  As the VCStar notes, Alec is helped in his legal efforts through the aid of attorneys and a nonprofit, Our Children’s Trust.    Looking a little more closely at those who have helped Alec may reveal where he came up with the fine idea to sue our government to protect the atmosphere.

In a related article at ABC News, Mary Christina Wood, a professor at the Oregon University of Law is credited as having created the legal framework for suits such as Alec’s.  The following statements are attributed to Professor Wood in the ABC article:

What is needed, Wood said, is a sweeping challenge to the government’s failure to address climate change. And having young people as plaintiffs in the cases gives added moral authority, she added.

“We should be getting youths in front of the courts, not polar bears,” Wood said…

But Professor Wood isn’t just good for a quote in a news article on the topic or for having developed a legal concept.  Wood is a rather passionate environmental activist and has written extensively on the threat of climate change to the world and on the legal strategy of utilizing the judiciary to force government into action to protect the environment relative to climate change.    She is also the founder and current faculty director for the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program at the Oregon University of Law. 

Professor Wood’s legal theory, upon which Alec’s suit relies, can generally be summarized to claim that the atmosphere, along with all other natural resources, make up Nature’s Trust.  Government as the trustee of Nature’s Trust is obligated to protect the trust.  Climate change represents an imminent threat to the trust.  Therefore, where government has failed to act, it should be forced to address the threat by judicial order.   

Wood has written on this particular topic and the legal framework since at least 2007 and of note, has drafted a proposed Executive Order on Climate Change.  This order would address climate change as a security threat to the nation and its citizens.  It would allow the president to mandate carbon reductions and require, among other things, that all federal agencies –

 “develop climate adaptation plans to adjust their policies and programs to climate change in order to best secure the safety, health, and welfare of the American citizens.

And,

make transparent all difficult choices necessitated by emergency conditions ….developed in close partnership with state and local authorities, and with citizen input.” 

Though the order does not address the specific actions that the citizens of the nation would have to take to also address climate change, imagine the implications if each and every federal agency with which the average citizen must deal imposed guidelines specific to climate change to the citizen’s interaction with that agency. 

Actually, little imagination is necessary.  Professor Wood has made it rather clear in her writings and speeches what she thinks are the citizenry’s obligations in defending the world against climate change.  In a 2007 speech to the Eugene City Club, Wood suggests that the citizenry’s response to climate change should be on a par with the actions taken by our greatest generation after Pearl Harbor. In discussing what American’s did to support the country during a state of war, with the implication that they should do no less to address climate change catastrophe, one specific quote sticks out from her speech  –

“Communities planted victory gardens to grow food locally so that the commercial food supplies could be sent to the military. Consumers made do with the bare minimum.”

Additionally, in this same speech, Wood made clear how the concept of private property fit within the framework of Nature’s Trust –

 “…by defining Nature in familiar property terms, the trust frame reconciles private property rights with environmental protection. The discretion frame doesn’t do this. It portrays environmental resources as nebulous features of the world we live in. Private property rights carry the day in our agencies simply because they draw upon a language of property that is so deeply embedded in our national culture. To confront any environmental crisis today, including global warming, we have to be clear on how public resources and private property rights fit together in the scheme of things. The trust frame is itself a property concept, so rather than pitting environment against property rights, you are fitting Nature into the system of property rights. The Nature’s Trust frame is not anti-property rights. To the contrary, it affirms our collective property rights in assets, like the atmosphere, that support humanity. In securing our public property, the trust also anchors our entire system of private property rights. All private property depends on Nature’s infrastructure.”

To make clear, Wood suggests that her concept supports private property rights.  However, upon scrutiny it appears those rights are subservient to the collective rights of the public.  Yet all of Wood’s writings and speeches on the topic of Nature’s Trust amount to no more than legal theory. 

It is where her legal framework has led us today that should be somewhat disconcerting.  Alec Loorz’s lawsuit is not an editorial or a speech.  It is a legal claim being made against the federal government.  Through the help of the Oregon nonprofit, Our Children’s Trust, many more suits are being filed in various states under the same theory with several of the plaintiffs being minors.  Though Professor Wood doesn’t appear to be directly tied to either the plaintiffs in these cases or Our Children’s Trust, it is interesting to note that the registered agent for the nonprofit, David Atkin, an attorney in Eugene, was also an adjunct professor at the Oregon University of Law.  He taught courses for the same law program, the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program, founded and still directed by Professor Wood.   In any case, Wood’s legal theory has now become a legal claim as it appears generally within each of the claims made by the plaintiffs.   

It’s past 11 o’clock.  Do you know where your children are?  If they are in court fighting against climate change, you may want to call Professor Wood and ask her to send them home.

About these ads


Categories: Climate Change, Law

14 replies

  1. Glad to have this information, thanks. The greatest threat to the world environment is too many humans. I didn’t read any thing in your article about Ms Wood willingness to sacrifice her life for what she believes. Perhaps she can also influence those about her to sacrifice their lives as well.

  2. Although I am concerned with the environment, there are a couple of things that concern me about her stance. First of all, is it really fitting for adults to be introducing impressionable youth to the world of frivolous lawsuits? Or worse yet, using children as a mouthpiece for their climate agenda? Secondly, we are sadly mistaken if we think that America can have an overwhelming impact on climate change while other countries on the planet continue to pollute, such as China. Sure, there are a lot of things that can be done on the local level, I certainly recycle and utilize re-usable shopping bags, and I would hope that it is my example that would best educate my children to appreciate their environment. Somehow I doubt that plopping a teenager in front of a federal court to spout an adult’s agenda is really the most effective way to address climate change. Too bad someone as passionate as Ms. Woods isn’t fighting for human rights, but instead waisting the government’s (taxpayer’s) time and money on trying to make headlines.

    • Thank you for the comment, Minerva –

      Actually, this is a human rights issue for many like Wood. It just comes in the form of environmental justice.

    • Claiming that their actions are “for the children” is a tactic that the Liberals have used with a depressing amount of success in the last three decades. Regardless of the issue at hand, evoking those three words will recast any debate in ways that make anyone opposed to the policy under discussion seem cruel, heartless, etc., etc. etc…

      This is a particularly vile manifestation of the phenomena because they take earnest, intelligent and thoughtful young people — feed them a carefully selected diet of facts and theory — and then use them as props against what is ultimately their own interests.

      How grateful are these kids going to be when they (like so many others) graduate from high school or college and look to join the workforce, only to find that there are no jobs because their own efforts have caused so many industries to shut down?

      6

  3. I have to say, I am old enough to remember being taught in earth science that the definition of organic was anything that contains the element carbon. The environmentalist movement may as well be called anti-human humanism.

  4. Actually carbon is not a pollutant. It is fertilizer for plants. According to the Scientific Method ( the Gold Standard for legitimate science) there are no experiments proving anthropogenic global warming. They claim consensus. Consensus was precisely the reason that the Scientific Method was invented.

    Out of the billions of dollars in federal research grants there are no control studies like in legitimate science.

    The THEORY posited by the IPCC is that CO2 will rise into the atm0sphere and stay there for a 100 years and thus become cumulative and causing global warming. This is scientifically impossible. You can prove this for yourself. Just google the specific gravity of CO2 and you will note that is 1.52 or in other words 152% heavier than air. Yes that is right it actually sinks to the ground when released. This is why they use it in fire extinguishers because it smothers O2 from the fire. They also use it in movies to create that spooky ground fog.

    In point of fact you can also google record low temps being set around the planet for the last 8 years, the opposite of warming. I have a whole article devoted to debunking global warming claims if you are interested.

    Blessings on you and yours
    John Wilder

  5. Just a general conversation with young kids, about (so called) Climate Change, will reveal that they are being fed much disinformation – be it via the media, the school curriculum or even from their parents and close relatives.
    It seemed to me that much of the ‘knowlege’ espoused from these children’s mouths was very biased towards the THEORY of Carbon Based Man Made Climate Change (CAGW). Please remember a theory is still unproven.

    My Husband remembers that in 1943 – while in the 4th grade at school, in his weekly reader, it taught that within ten years America would have used up all of its oil reserves…. never happened yet the kids were fed that information!

    Reading my news online I came across the following, which I believe backs up what I was thinking/experiencing. Get the children young enough, teach them what you want them to know and believe, therefore indoctrinating them, and you have the whole future society doing your bidding (perhaps?). For complete story follow the link

    http://justmeint.wordpress.com:80/2011/06/29/are-we-polluting-our-childrens-minds/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,151 other followers

%d bloggers like this: