About Gov. Inslee’s appeal of youth climate victory

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday June 23, 2016 · 11:20 AM PDT

2016/06/23 · 11:20

Wash_petitioners_and_attorneys_(1).jpg — Andrea Rodgers (far left) and Julia Olson (far right) with six of the Washington youth plaintiffs.

We are the attorneys who represent the eight courageous youths who presented Gov. Inslee with an unprecedented climate protection opportunity to issue rules to protect their future from carbon pollution. We write not just as their advocates, but as mothers of young children as well. We do not now, nor have we ever, questioned Gov. Inslee’s professed commitment to addressing climate change.

But as kids know too well, actions speak louder than words and action based on solid science is sorely lacking at all levels of government, including within Gov. Inslee’s administration. What we have asked Gov. Inslee for is a Climate Recovery Rule for the state of Washington, detailing and describing how Washington will use its existing authority to cap and draw down GHG emissions in a manner consistent with the best current scientific understanding of what it will take to protect not just these eight brave youths, but all of us, present and future generations alike.

We would like to clarify that we never “sued the governor” as part of this litigation. Rather, we sought to support his desire for climate action by filing a petition for rulemaking with the Department of Ecology asking that the agency use its existing legal authority to cap and regulate carbon dioxide emissions based upon best available climate science. The goal was to give the governor an opportunity to take science-based action on climate. Instead of granting the petition and taking advantage of the opportunity, Ecology denied the petition claiming that it was doing enough to address climate change, even though its own documents said exactly the opposite. In fact, in its own legal brief, Ecology was transparent about its authority to do more if it wanted: “Ecology does not argue that it lacks the authority to adopt additional greenhouse gas emission standard[s] if it chooses to do so. Rather, the argument is that Ecology is not required to adopt additional standards.”

Even after the court sent the matter back to Ecology to consider current climate science, including the agency’s own findings that climate change was spiraling out of control and more aggressive emission reductions were needed, Ecology still refused to do its job.

It was not until the kids met with Gov. Inslee in July 2015 that he finally directed Ecology to promulgate the Clean Air Rule. Sadly, the governor directed Ecology to target the rule to the outdated and completely inadequate emissions reductions determined in 2008, even though his agency recently admitted those standards “should be adjusted to reflect the current science [and] need to be more aggressive in order for Washington to do its part to address climate risks and to align our limits with other jurisdictions that are taking responsibility to address these risks.”

The governor and Ecology have vigorously defended against our youth plaintiffs’ case, and have rebuffed all attempts we have made to work together towards a scientifically defensible Climate Recovery Rule. Even after we prevailed in court again in April 2016, to date Ecology and the governor have ignored our requests to meet to discuss implementation of Judge Hill’s order.

The legal findings set forth in Judge Hill’s November 19, 2015 decision are remarkable and make it clear that the governor has a broad panoply of executive authorities that can and should be utilized to facilitate science-based action on climate. There are some in the environmental community who support the proposed Clean Air Rule that has been described as “far from perfect.” Shouldn’t a court order acknowledging Ecology’s broad constitutional and statutory responsibilities to take science-based action on climate change and requiring the agency to act quickly be enough to embolden the agency to issue a rule that is better than “far from perfect?.” As mothers, we are puzzled by the ignorance of the scientific reality that we are running out of time to avoid catastrophic climate change that threatens survival and safety of us and our children. Waiting on the legislative branch to protect our climate gets us nowhere. But the court has made it clear that we don’t need to wait for legislation that will likely never come: “[T]he State has a constitutional obligation to protect the public’s interest in natural resources held in trust for the common benefit of the people of the State.” The time is now to put that obligation into action.

(Emission data from multiple government sources; Prescription data from Dr. James Hansen; Graph compiled by Our Children’s Trust.)

Some suggest that as lawyers, we should not be targeting a “green governor”, but should be “going after the oil companies.” A few years ago attempts were made to hold the oil companies responsible, but were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court, on the theory that the Clean Air Act (a weaker version than we have here in Washington) will solve climate change. Oil companies and their representative trade associations are defendants in our constitutional climate case against the federal government pending in the District of Oregon. There will also be other attempts of course to hold polluters accountable, but while polluters should pay a price for profiting over knowing destruction of our planet, it is our sovereign governments that have allowed, and oftentimes facilitated, the pollution to occur in the first place. Only sovereign governments have a fundamental responsibility to their citizens to protect our common natural resources for present and future generations. That is not Exxon’s job. That is, however, Gov. Inslee’s job.

Fortunately, we live in a constitutional democracy with not two, but three branches of government and the judicial branch has drawn the constitutional line to protect our children. The politicians in power cannot squander the resources of our state at the expense of all future generations.

The stark reality is that the leading climate scientists tell us that one percent annual reductions of GHG emissions, which Ecology has proposed, are essentially useless. Remember, that means the state endorses continuing 99% of annual GHG pollution when we need at least 8% per year reductions in carbon dioxide pollution. The “far from perfect” approach will get us nowhere other than locking in additional warming. The glaciers will still melt, the seas will still rise, the oceans will acidify, communities will be relocated, and we and our children will suffer. These problems are happening today and when you look at this planet through the lens of history, you see that we are already living in a changed world. This is simply not a problem that can be handled by half-measures. Indeed, history tells us that the pursuit of the “far from perfect” approach stands as a roadblock, not a catalyst, for future action. Some call us radical in demanding adequately aggressive climate action. Yet we are only listening to what the scientists say we need to do and what our children demand. Is it really radical to want to protect our children and save their future?

To add to the public’s frustration, Gov. Inslee has chosen to appeal the judicial decision in the youth’s favor, after he made public statements that he was happy about it. Understandably, the kids and his constituents are rightly dismayed when a politician says one thing and does another. But political doublespeak aside, we face a larger problem. Not only do we not have a Climate Recovery Rule for the state of Washington based on current science, like the youth have demanded, but Gov. Inslee is wasting precious time, and an unprecedented opportunity, with a proposed Clean Air Rule designed more to capture headlines than to reduce emissions. A true leader not only tells us what we want to hear, but leads us where we need to go.

Andrea Rodgers

Attorney, Western Environmental Law Center

Julia Olson

Executive Director & Chief Legal Counsel, Our Children’s Trust

Judges Can Save Us From Climate Change, And They've Already Started

juliaolson

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday July 06, 2015 · 2:48 PM PDT

2015/07/06 · 14:48

A new trend is on the horizon. Concerned about the dangers of climate change and the violation of fundamental rights held by citizens, courts are requiring governments to take adequate actions to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

On June 23rd in the U.S. and June 24th, 2015 in the Netherlands, news broke simultaneously on opposites sides of the world. Courageous judges in two courtrooms, separated by 9 time zones and more than 8000 km, ordered governments to step up their game to protect their citizens from the dangerous impacts of climate change. These cases were united by the game-changing work of youth and elders, alongside their attorneys, and the foremost climate experts of the world seeking intergenerational justice and a liveable planet for future generations.

The Hague District Court rendered the unprecedented verdict that the Dutch State must take more action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands. Just hours before, a U.S. judge also issued a landmark ruling in a climate change case brought by eight youth, ruling that State of Washington must reconsider the youth's proposed rule on carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile, a similar case as adjudicated in the Netherlands has recently been brought against the Belgian government before the District Court in Brussels on behalf of 9,000 concerned citizens.

UNITED STATES

“Frustrated by an historical lack of political will to respond adequately to the increasingly urgent and dire acceleration of global warming, eight youth petitioners submitted a petition for rulemaking,” wrote Judge Hollis Hill in her June 23, 2015 order. After the Washington State agency rejected the youth’s petition, Seattle-based Judge Hill ordered the State to reconsider their petition in light of current climate science.

Attorney Andrea Rodgers with youth plaintiffs, Zoe Foster, Aji Piper, and Gabe Mandell, waiting for the judge's decision in King County Superior Court.

The youth, between 9 and 14 years old, had petitioned the State agency to create a rule mandating reductions of greenhouse gas emissions based on the most current climate science, which says that 350 ppm of carbon dioxide is the maximum level for a safe climate system. While not disputing the science or the urgency of the crisis, the State chose to delay taking action until after the upcoming international climate conference set for December in Paris. The youth had argued the State had a duty to reduce its emissions more quickly because the youth’s and future generations’ constitutional rights to essential public trust resources were being threatened.

Judge Hill ordered the State to report back to the court by July 8, 2015 on whether it will agree to more stringent emission reduction rules.

Judge Hill’s order relied on an expert declaration by NASA climate scientist Dr. Pushker Kharecha on the current scientific understanding of how to ensure a stable climate for our children and future generations. By ordering the State to consider the current best science for climate stability when deciding upon emission reductions, Judge Hill made it clear that the State must not only identify what emission reductions are required for climate stability based on current scientific understanding, but must also make those emission reductions a reality, something legislators and presidents the world over have, thus far, failed to achieve.

The youth were represented by Andrea Rodgers, an attorney with Western Environmental Law Center, with coordination and support from Our Children’s Trust, the Oregon-based nonprofit spearheading and supporting similar cases in the U.S. and internationally. Our Children’s Trust is currently supporting lawyers representing youth plaintiffs in several U.S. states, and a new federal case against the U.S. government is planned for filing later this month.

THE NETHERLANDS

In the parallel case, the Dutch court agreed with the Urgenda Foundation (representing multi-generations of citizens) that the severity and scope of the climate problem make it necessary for the Dutch government to reduce the Dutch greenhouse gas emissions at a much higher pace. In its ruling, the court imposed a 25% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 upon the government, ruling that the current Dutch climate policies that aim for only a 16% reduction in 2020 are unlawful.

The Dutch court considered that the nature and extent of the damage ensuing from climate change, the knowledge and foreseeability of this damage, and the chance that hazardous climate change will occur are such that the Dutch government has a serious duty of care to take measures to prevent it. According to the court it is an established fact that the Dutch government has the constitutional power to control the collective Dutch emissions level and that it indeed controls it. By signing the UN climate treaty, the State once again expressly accepted its responsibility for the national emission level and in this context accepted the obligation to reduce emissions as much as needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

The court found that the State should not hide behind the argument that the solution to the global climate problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts. In the words of the court: Dutch per capita emissions are one of the highest in the world and any reduction of emissions contributes to the prevention of dangerous climate change. Also, the court ruled that there is enough evidence to assume a sufficient causal link between the Dutch greenhouse gas emissions, global climate change, and the effects (now and in the future) on the Dutch living climate.

The Dutch court explained that it had not entered the political domain for it is the judiciary’s duty to provide legal protection to citizens against acts or omissions of the government that pose a realistic and grave threat. The Dutch decision marks the first time human rights were used as a legal basis to protect citizens against climate change.

BELGIUM

The case filed against the Belgian federal government was brought by the association Klimaatzaak (Climate Case Belgium). Klimaatzaak is demanding all mitigation measures necessary to ensure the prevention of a warming of the earth that is dangerous to humanity. Last month was their first day in court to agree on the planning and the process of the proceedings.

Although Belgium is at the forefront of setting ambitious climate targets, the lawsuit asks the Belgian government to back up their words with actions, and to accelerate the transition to a prosperous, fossil-free society, so that future generations of Belgians will be able to live in safety and prosperity.

Klimaatzaak hopes the Belgian court in Brussels will rule in line with the valuable legal precedents in the Netherlands and Washington, and will follow as the third stone setting in motion what could become an avalanche of successful climate change court cases against governments worldwide. In the absence of sufficient political will to tackle the climate problem, courts could prevent and protect society from climate change related damages, casualties, and infringements of human and civil rights. Indeed, they have already started.

Roger Cox is an attorney, legal counsel for Urgenda and Klimaatzaak, and author of the book Revolution Justified, that provided the inspirational impetus for the Dutch and Belgian climate cases.

Julia Olson is the founder, Executive Director & Chief Legal Counsel of Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit organization based in the United States advocating for governments to adopt and implement enforceable science-based Climate Recovery Plans with annual emissions reductions to return to an atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of 350 ppm, and an adjunct instructor at the University of Oregon School of Law.

Serge de Gheldere is a co-founder of Klimaatzaak, the nonprofit initiating legal proceedings against the governments of Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels, and the Belgian federal government demanding all measures necessary to ensure that Belgium makes the contribution needed to prevent a warming of the earth that is dangerous to humanity. He is also the founder and CEO of Futureproofed.

Poll

59 votes Show Results

Do you think it's time for judges to hold governments accountable for climate change?

59 votes Vote Now!

Do you think it's time for judges to hold governments accountable for climate change?

Yes

58 votes

1 vote

Unsure

0 votes

Blogging from Barrow

juliaolson

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday October 08, 2013 · 3:53 PM PDT

2013/10/08 · 15:53

Julia Olson is executive director of Our Children's Trust and works with attorneys, scientists, filmmakers, and youth to secure science-based climate recovery plans to return CO2 levels to 350 ppm, under the Public Trust Doctrine. She is a mother, a lawyer, and a professor.

Three days ago I was heading to the northernmost town in the United States in order to help a dedicated public interest attorney prepare for and argue one of the most important cases the Supreme Court of Alaska has ever heard, Nelson Kanuk v. State of Alaska. The case is about whether the Alaska Constitution requires the State to protect the atmosphere as a public trust resource for present and future generations. It’s only the second time the Alaska Supreme Court has traveled to Barrow (originally called Ukpeagvik, meaning “place to hunt snowy owls”) for oral argument. The last time was over 30 years ago to hear a case on offshore oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea. Tonight, as I sit here at the Polar Bear Apartment we rented at 4476 North Star Road (just 4476 to locals), I am in awe of the richness of this place and the overwhelming experience of being at the top of the world. I could not have anticipated all that I would witness and learn these past two short days.

When you walk out of the Alaska Airlines hangar in Barrow in October, it’s cold, the ground is white, the sky is usually grey, and it’s flat. Nearly all of the buildings are on pilings or stilts because of the soggy permafrost when it warms, the roads are unpaved gravel under the ice and snow, and the only other things breaking up the vast landscape are the Arctic Ocean and the occasional snow covered lagoon. To my eyes, it was stark. But I was looking forward to spending a few days with my cousin, who happens to be teaching English at Ilisagvik College here for the past two years.

juliaolson

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday August 23, 2012 · 9:01 AM PDT

2012/08/23 · 09:01

For my whole life, the federal government has known that climate change, caused by our carbon emissions, would endanger generations of Americans. And for decades, it has abdicated its sovereign duty to the people of this nation to prevent the ensuing harm from this climate crisis.

I was born in 1971 when President Nixon was in office and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were at 326 parts per million (ppm). I was born during an environmental revolution when new laws to protect air, water, wildlife, and our nation’s natural treasures sprung from bi-partisan efforts and were consecrated by the pen of a Republican President. I was born just after the civil rights movement that ignited in the streets and in the courts transformed our nation--three years to the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed. I was born at a time when youth were concerned with other fundamental rights, like access to sustainable resources and environmental justice, led a legislative and Earth Day movement that reconstructed our government’s role over natural resources.

RSS

About Gov. Inslee’s appeal of youth climate victory

Judges Can Save Us From Climate Change, And They've Already Started

Blogging from Barrow

Our Nation's Children, Calling on a President to Avert the Climate Crisis