Remember me
▼ Content

Alaska Supreme Court


Alaska Supreme Court09-10-2019 11:55
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1454)
https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/tophlalaska-supreme-court-to-hear-youths/995313627

This is one silly climate change story. Are warmist really this desperate? I'm not sure how they think actions like this would actual help their cause. Guess that's why they used children, instead of adults. There really needs to be consequences for filing silly lawsuits like this. Plenty of legitimate cases need to be heard. Waste of time and money. Even if Alaska could be compelled to adopt the strictest 'green' new deal, it's not going to change the climate, globally in any way. They just don't contribute a signification portion, of what is being claimed as causing the harm. Alaska isn't to blame, and can't fix anything, as demanded in the lawsuit.
09-10-2019 18:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
HarveyH55 wrote:
https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/tophlalaska-supreme-court-to-hear-youths/995313627

This is one silly climate change story. Are warmist really this desperate? I'm not sure how they think actions like this would actual help their cause. Guess that's why they used children, instead of adults. There really needs to be consequences for filing silly lawsuits like this. Plenty of legitimate cases need to be heard. Waste of time and money. Even if Alaska could be compelled to adopt the strictest 'green' new deal, it's not going to change the climate, globally in any way. They just don't contribute a signification portion, of what is being claimed as causing the harm. Alaska isn't to blame, and can't fix anything, as demanded in the lawsuit.


You bring up a great point.

Who uses children for political purposes? What kinds of organizations and ideologies?
















I'm guessing ones that clearly have no love of children and that aren't looking out for their future well being.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2019 19:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
There is no right to climate clause in the Alaskan constitution. Nothing in their constitution states that Alaska must maintain the environment as is.
09-10-2019 19:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Into the Night wrote:There is no right to climate clause in the Alaskan constitution. Nothing in their constitution states that Alaska must maintain the environment as is.

... nor has the Alaska Supreme Court defined "Climate."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-10-2019 20:44
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1454)
A lot of people move to Alaska for the gold, which was great, while it lasted. Then the discovered the black gold, and it was really good for a while too. Fishing is good business up there as well, kind of hard to run boats, without burning gas. And, I'm very sure that gas burning is quite popular during the long winters as well. Wonder if any of those kids, actually live in Alaska, or spent their first winter yet. The could possible have believed anything would get done in the courts, not that sort of power. They just gamed the system, for politics and publicity, and should be held accountable. How is anyone suppose to take global warming seriously, if it's played like a game?
09-10-2019 21:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
HarveyH55 wrote: How is anyone suppose to take global warming seriously, if it's played like a game?

... by being bullied into it.

IBdaMann wrote:Who uses children for political purposes? What kinds of organizations and ideologies?


The official answer is: Those who seek complete and total authoritarian control.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-10-2019 05:40
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1454)
Updated story, more details...

https://www.wftv.com/news/national-news/ap-top-news/tophlalaska-supreme-court-to-hear-youths/995313627

This gets more into the issues. Alaska's main source of revenue is crude oil, and the lawsuit, brought by 16 children, ages 5-20 years old, want Alaska to stop pumping oil, or take steps to offset the 'damage' their oil contributes to climate change. Basically, they want to swap prosperity for poverty. Obviously, the case will get tossed out, again. It's really disturbing the use of kids as a shield, for these silly ploys. I'm sure if it were adults that sued, there would be a lot of anger, possible violence.
11-10-2019 01:57
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(133)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Are warmist really this desperate? I'm not sure how they think actions like this would actual help their cause. Guess that's why they used children, instead of adults. There really needs to be consequences for filing silly lawsuits like this. Wonder if any of those kids, actually live in Alaska, or spent their first winter yet.

I dunno. WFTV sure likes that police blotter stuff, as a lot of stations around the country have for many years. Basically it's an Oregon group, Our Children's Trust, and its lawyer Andrew Welle suing to force Alaska to adopt an emissions reduction plan ending subsides for fossil fuel exploration, and declare the residents of an island Inuit village victims of discrimination due to Alaska's failure to protect their constitutional right to "a stable climate system that sustains human life and liberty" (whatever that means). And attorney's fees, of course.

Esau Sinnok, lead plaintiff and oldest of the group, is no longer a child. He's 21. He was a minor at the time of original filing in 2017. All of them live in Alaska, as they'd lack standing to sue in state courts otherwise.

Alaska, meanwhile, is pretty generous to citizens, who receive an annual dividend from the state's permanent fund based on Trans-Alaska Pipeline revenues. Inuit & Athabaska natives are also eligible for certain federal benefits. The state will no doubt help pay to relocate the village if necessary, as it's done on several occasions, but with residents themselves divided on moving (they've voted for it twice, by narrow margins), won't do so until Mother Nature forces matters. Concern seems to be much of the younger set could head to Fairbanks or Anchorage and abandon the village's traditional hunting lifestyle before a new village is built. It's a loss-of-culture fear, not one of physical health left unattended to.

I don't believe any general climate policy lawsuit has ever succeeded in a US court. Jurists have consistently held that it's a political decision. Up to now, environmental litigation has sought to enforce existing state or federal laws, not compel a state to pass new laws to protect a group's interest in the environment. But yeah, the activists will plow through plenty of taxpayer money taking this one to SCOTUS if they can; the state's legal expenses are much higher than the plaintiffs'.

Complaint
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/59f3a929ec212dff083abbb7/1509140781050/10.27.17+AK+Complaint.Final.pdf


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 11-10-2019 02:08
11-10-2019 12:46
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1384)
VernerHornung wrote:
I don't believe any general climate policy lawsuit has ever succeeded in a US court.
Also can you sue for future damages? Is that even a thing? Like if you're saying a defendant is doing something that will later cause you harm the damages are hypothetical.

I would think there have been plenty of lawsuits against someone up river from someone else literally mucking things up for them but I'd have to think they were all after there were damages.
11-10-2019 19:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
I don't believe any general climate policy lawsuit has ever succeeded in a US court.
Also can you sue for future damages? Is that even a thing?

Of course you can sue. You won't necessarily win, but Marxists like yourself desperately want to.

Pay attention. Marxists focus heavily on "externalities" which are really just entropy resulting from the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is a huge thing among Marxists because if they are ever able to legitimize taxing the 2nd law of thermodynamics then they will have hit the mother lode of all taxes because it applies to all things. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and Marxists want to destroy everything ... starting with capitalism and the world economy ... so legitimizing the label of "externalities" is a mission unto itself.

HarveyH55 wrote:... or take steps to offset the 'damage' their oil contributes to climate change.

Right there ... build in a tax to "offset" the completely undefined.

Externalities. Taxes and fees to "offset" that which cannot be specified.

The next step is to sue people and companies for externalities that they "should have paid" or that they "should have been paying" without ever having to specify any sort of damages.

Oh, of course if you look up the word "externalities" you will find that Marxists have ensured it has a "legitimate" definition within ECONOMICS.

You will also find that POLITICALLY it is used quite differently semantically.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2019 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
VernerHornung wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Are warmist really this desperate? I'm not sure how they think actions like this would actual help their cause. Guess that's why they used children, instead of adults. There really needs to be consequences for filing silly lawsuits like this. Wonder if any of those kids, actually live in Alaska, or spent their first winter yet.

I dunno. WFTV sure likes that police blotter stuff, as a lot of stations around the country have for many years. Basically it's an Oregon group, Our Children's Trust, and its lawyer Andrew Welle suing to force Alaska to adopt an emissions reduction plan ending subsides for fossil fuel exploration, and declare the residents of an island Inuit village victims of discrimination due to Alaska's failure to protect their constitutional right to "a stable climate system that sustains human life and liberty" (whatever that means). And attorney's fees, of course.

Esau Sinnok, lead plaintiff and oldest of the group, is no longer a child. He's 21. He was a minor at the time of original filing in 2017. All of them live in Alaska, as they'd lack standing to sue in state courts otherwise.

Oregon groups have no legal standing in Alaska. Andrew Welle is a lawyer that lives and practices in Alaska, well known for filing frivolous lawsuits. Esau is a resident of Alaska. The age of 21 makes no difference under Alaskan law. He was not a child when the lawsuit was filed, as he was over the age of 18.

Get yer fact right, dude.

VernerHornung wrote:
Alaska, meanwhile, is pretty generous to citizens, who receive an annual dividend from the state's permanent fund based on Trans-Alaska Pipeline revenues. Inuit & Athabaska natives are also eligible for certain federal benefits. The state will no doubt help pay to relocate the village if necessary, as it's done on several occasions, but with residents themselves divided on moving (they've voted for it twice, by narrow margins), won't do so until Mother Nature forces matters.

Alaska is not required to pay to relocate anyone.
VernerHornung wrote:
Concern seems to be much of the younger set could head to Fairbanks or Anchorage and abandon the village's traditional hunting lifestyle before a new village is built. It's a loss-of-culture fear, not one of physical health left unattended to.

Their choice. Big deal. You want to deny people the choice of where they live??
VernerHornung wrote:
I don't believe any general climate policy lawsuit has ever succeeded in a US court.

You must first define 'climate policy'. Such lawsuits have succeeded, but only in the SOTC, not in the United States.
VernerHornung wrote:
Jurists have consistently held that it's a political decision.

Except in the SOTC.
VernerHornung wrote:
Up to now, environmental litigation has sought to enforce existing state or federal laws, not compel a state to pass new laws to protect a group's interest in the environment.

Except in the SOTC.
VernerHornung wrote:
But yeah, the activists will plow through plenty of taxpayer money taking this one to SCOTUS if they can; the state's legal expenses are much higher than the plaintiffs'.

SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in this suit. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
The decision of the Alaskan Supreme Court on this matter is final, unless they themselves violate either the Alaskan State Constitution, or the Constitution of the United States.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2019 23:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9806)
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
I don't believe any general climate policy lawsuit has ever succeeded in a US court.
Also can you sue for future damages?

You can sue because you don't like the color of someone's nose hairs. Doesn't mean it has any standing.
tmiddles wrote:
Is that even a thing?

Yes. It's a thing. That sort of suit is often filed in the SOTC.
tmiddles wrote:
Like if you're saying a defendant is doing something that will later cause you harm the damages are hypothetical.

Correct. Without any fact to judge, there is nothing to judge. The lawsuit is frivolous. That doesn't matter of course in the SOTC.
tmiddles wrote:
I would think there have been plenty of lawsuits against someone up river from someone else literally mucking things up for them but I'd have to think they were all after there were damages.

Correct.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Alaska Supreme Court:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Alaska, July, hottest month every recorded...119-08-2019 07:13
Alaska in desperate need, of air conditioners and sunscreen...1308-07-2019 05:20
City should explore taking oil companies to court over climate change costs, councillor says126-03-2019 17:32
Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating35023-12-2017 22:13
Barrow, Alaska: The Leading Edge Of Climate Change - 7 mins221-12-2017 19:56
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact