Home | About | Donate

"It's Time We Were Heard": Another Day in Court for 21 Climate Kids


"It's Time We Were Heard": Another Day in Court for 21 Climate Kids

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

This post may be updated.

In a federal courthouse in Oregon on Tuesday, 21 youths and their supporters argued that by failing to act on climate change, the U.S. government has violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights.


I like that it’s composed of young folks no older than 20…As someone WELL out of that demographic age frame, I suggest a kind of sponsorship program for these kids (and can you really call people of any age fighting this fight 'kids?)


They are also safe from being arrested – which thrills me. They have more power at their age because of that.


What I find most encouraging is the novel, yet compelling argument. As most of us concerned with climate destabilization have thought and articulated, there is something inherently wrong and unjust when one group (i.e. elected officials and their appointees, along with their enablers) can knowingly by their actions and inactions set up catastrophes that endanger others’ lives.

And when it is on a scale of breadth and severity such as is represented by climate destabilization, and when it will put at risk the very survival of many (the young and yet unborn) who are completely innocent (unlike those of us who drive cars or otherwise consume fossil fuels), along with the extinction of species representing billions of years of evolution - and when we could choose an alternative pathway - it is fundamentally evil.

So I hope this suit gets a full and honest hearing. For, who has a better case?


Don’t worry. Blue green algae gave us the start of our oxygen atmosphere around 1.8 billion years ago and although it took 2 billion years for them to do it, there will be time for another attempt before the sun becomes a red giant and consumes the inner planets.


Climate change is a serious and immediate problem, but making up a load of nonsense is not particularly helpful. If you disagree with my comment please back up your claim with something that comes from a climatologist, or a marine biologist, … or any scientist in a relevant field.


I am equally concerned about anthropogenic global heating. I rather think that way back around 280 million years ago the atmospheric CO2 content was considerably higher than now and and the world was a warmer place. However, life survived quite happily.AGH wouldn’t be quite so bad if the human population was considerably smaller, allowing people to migrate to more habitable regions as it got hotter and weather patterns changed, and if our world leaders were not such a bunch of utter bloody nasty fools who would have us kill each other rather than cooperating.

However, another way of looking at it. Once the Earth had a nice stable atmosphere of methane, CO2, C0, nitrogen and probably a few others and lacked oxygen. Assorted reducing bacteria evolved and spent the next 2 billion years munching away and eventually produced enough oxygen to start atmospheric and oceanic oxidation, after which further production of oxygen allowed muticellular life to evolve which happily started munching blue-green algae etc. Around 800 million years ago so much CO2 and methane had been lost that the world went into a global ice age that lasted perhaps 200 million years and was only ended when enough volcanoes had spewed out enough C02 to cause global; warning and ultimately ourselves. We are, quite clearly, Mother Nature’s answer to the poisoning of the atmosphere by the oxygen-producing blue-green algae as we are once again attempting to return the global atmosphere to its pristine original balanced state…Not that is of any comfort at all as we seem all to be being too successful.


Perversely this effort gins up the image of the Children’s Crusades wandering about in Southern Europe. I must point out however that these are the very people who stand to lose the most with the absolute total lack of effort our government has displayed in real reduction of our fossil fuel use.


Well, I admit you found one professional. A mathematician, reporting a result from a mathematical model which makes no such claim.

Yes, the alarmist blog article you quoted, backs up your claim, but the linked abstract of the scientific paper does not. The paper makes no claim about human species perishing in 2100, and says nothing about 6C temperature rises.

The Scripps Institute is one of the worlds premier marine research institutions, they run a O2 program and they note the slight decline in atmospheric oxygen - “this loss will take many centuries to materialize, it’s hard to see this as high on the list of possible environmental concerns.”