This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

Well, it IS their Common Future (and that future's Quality of Life) that is arguably being treated with reckless procrastination, by so many of Today's aging and feckless leaders.  These teens worried about the world they will inherit, just may have a case ...

Eugene teens win reversal in climate change case

by Jack Moran, The Register-Guard, registerguard.com -- June 11, 2014

The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that a local judge should not have dismissed a lawsuit filed by two Eugene teenagers who allege that the state is violating the public trust by failing to take adequate steps to stave off climate change.

The girls challenged Lane County Circuit Judge Karsten Rasmussen’s ruling in 2012 that courts lack authority to order state officials to create and carry out a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Rasmussen called the matter a political question that needed to be handled by members of the legislative and executive branches of state government.

But the Court of Appeals ruled that state courts do have the authority to take up the issue, and said that the merits of the teenagers’ request for a public trust declaration should now be considered by a Lane County Circuit judge.

Here's the decision that was just over-turned, today:

Oregon: Judge dismisses two girls' lawsuit about climate change
The girls and their mothers wanted Oregon to take more steps to protect the state from global warming

Source:  Copyright 2012, Register-Guard
Date:  April 6, 2012
Byline:  Karen McCowan

archived on climateark.org

A judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit that two young environmental activists filed last May, seeking to force the state of Oregon and Gov. John Kitzhaber to take more stringent steps to protect the state’s atmosphere, water, land and wildlife from the impacts of climate change.

Lane County Circuit Judge Karsten Rasmussen ruled that the court lacks authority to order the actions [...]

Rasmussen also ruled that the matter is a political question, and that he would violate the Oregon Constitution’s separation of powers if he ordered the state to carry out a more aggressive plan to reduce carbon emissions than one adopted by the Legislature in 2007.

Ahh, dumb question but, Isn't much of government, especially the decision-making part of it, made up of politicians?


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

What is this "violating the public trust" upon which their lawsuit is based?

And why is it Government's responsibility to protect it, to nurture, to take steps that ensure IT -- will be there for future generations?  

(Here's a hint:  Free Markets and Corporations, generally "exploit" our commons -- Not "protect" them. Since they are generally driven by maximizing "Profits" -- Not future "Posterity.")

The commons
From Wikipedia

The commons were traditionally defined as the elements of the environment -- forests, atmosphere, rivers, fisheries or grazing land -- that are shared, used and enjoyed by all.

Today, the commons are also understood within a cultural sphere. These commons include literature, music, arts, design, film, video, television, radio, information, software and sites of heritage. The commons can also include public goods such as public space, public education, health and the infrastructure that allows our society to function (such as electricity or water delivery systems). [...]

Peter Barnes describes commons as a set of assets that have two characteristics: they are all gifts, and they are all shared. A shared gift is one we receive as members of a community, as opposed to individually. Examples of such gifts include air, water, ecosystems, languages, music, holidays, money, law, mathematics, parks and the Internet.[3]

There are a number of important aspects that can be used to describe true commons. The first is that the commons cannot be commodified -- if they are, they cease to be commons. The second aspect is that unlike private property, the commons is inclusive rather than exclusive -- its nature is to share ownership as widely, rather than as narrowly, as possible. The third aspect is that the assets in commons are meant to be preserved regardless of their return of capital. Just as we receive them as shared gifts, so we have a duty to pass them on to future generations in at least the same condition as we received them. If we can add to their value, so much the better, but at a minimum we must not degrade them, and we certainly have no right to destroy them.[3] [...]

Public space is a literal commons: the common ground where people come together as friends, neighbors and citizens. Places we share together—parks, streets, sidewalks, squares, trails, markets, waterfronts, beaches, museums, community gardens, public buildings and more—are the primary sites for human exchange, upon which our communities, economy, democracy and society depend.
-- Senior Fellow Jay Walljasper, On the Commons, onthecommons.org  
   The Fall and Rise of Great Public Spaces

Kind of sounds like something worth "fighting for" -- doesn't it?

I hope those young 'ambassadors' for Future Quality of Life, have found themselves some 'good lawyers'.

Extended (Optional)

Your Email has been sent.