Litigating the Climate

The purpose of our courts is to interpret laws and determine the intent of legislation in light of a given set of facts.

The Our Children’s Trust organization is asking the courts to order our federal government to remedy what they apparently believe is a domestically caused global crisis.

Two Ninth Circuit Court judges correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, but a dissenting judge implied there was a “judicial resolution.” Her plan would make interesting reading.

One plaintiff said a water shortage on her Navajo reservation forced her to leave and become separated from her family. A Florida resident said “climate change” causes storms that jeopardize his barrier island home.

At trial, neither of these plaintiffs would be able to prove with absolute certainty that the same circumstances would not have occurred if fossil fuels had never been used and if the government had not allowed their use. There were no droughts, storms or sea level changes prior to the use of coal to power steam engines? The climate and landscapes never changed before Francis Peabody, Henry Ford or John D. Rockefeller existed?

Despite the left’s propensity for using the courts for judicial activism, it is simply not their job. Whether or not global climate change can be reversed by executive order or acts of Congress remains to be seen.

Greg Williams


Comments are closed.