Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

A New Constitutional Right

25 Comments

This is nutty on multiple levels:

They argue that they have a constitutional right to a safe climate, that they have a right to receive from us a planet that supports all life, just as our forebears gave us.

Even ignoring that there is no such “right,” what the hell is a “safe” climate?

And I love this:

We know without a doubt that gases we are adding to the air have caused a planetary energy imbalance and global warming, already 0.8 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times. This warming is driving an increase in extreme weather, from heat waves and droughts to wildfires and stronger storms (though mistakenly expecting science to instantly document links to specific events misses the forest for the trees).

Got that? We know that carbon is causing extreme weather events, but don’t expect us to provide any scientific basis for it.

Hansen is a loon.

25 thoughts on “A New Constitutional Right”

  1. “We know without a doubt that gases we are adding to the air have caused a planetary energy imbalance ”

    Planetary energy imbalance?

    Does he even know what those words mean?

    (I mean, sure, “global warming”, I’ll give him that that is at least not incompatible with physics, and there might even have been some that had some connection to CO2 levels.

    But a “planetary energy imbalance”? That’s hippie nonsense.)

  2. We all know what safe is. It’s whatever a leftist says it is. And to disagree means you are radical racist, sexist, homophobic denier. Kapeesh?

  3. “Speaking of ‘what do they mean by ‘safe,’ I’m curious what you mean by ‘constitutional.’ Let’s have a discussion about this so we won’t have to discuss the main topic and can ignore all your points.”
    Bob-1, Lord of the Sidetrack

    1. My on-topic comment:

      Rand and his readers may want to delve into the legal reasoning behind this case:

      A friend of the court brief by various legal scholars:
      http://ourchildrenstrust.org/sites/default/files/FiledLawProfAmicus.pdf

      The plaintiffs’ main page for the federal suit:
      http://ourchildrenstrust.org/US/Federal-Lawsuit

      The site has other pages dedicated to their state lawsuits as well.

      While “positive rights” are reviled here, it looks like the basis for this suit is not “give us free stuff”, but instead is “leave our stuff alone”, which is the essence of many negative rights.

      2. I have a right not to ever have it snow where I live, because snow creates extreme hardships and driving hazards. GIven equal protection under the law, and given that residents of Hawaii don’t have to put up with snow, I assert that the government has a duty to stop all snowfall for everyone else, including residents of Alaska.

        1. George, the issue isn’t safety or a right to safety.. This case asks who has a right to change everyone’s weather, for the long term?

          2. So a related current-day question is: who has a right to pollute everyone’s atmosphere? If you don’t agree that greenhouse gasses are a pollutant, then argue about smog instead. I think it is hard question, because today the right to pollute a little bit is accepted, and the right to pollute an enormous amount is not. This *might* be off-topic if you only want to argue about global warming, but it is not off-topic at all if you want to argue about legal rights.

            (I’m not sure if the wording “constitutional rights” is a red herring, but I’m pretty sure it would be helpful if we talked about “legal rights” rather than the more specific constitutional rights. Illinois_Central_Railroad_v._Illinois went to the Supreme Court to the supreme court, which ruled based on issues related to state’s rights and the commerce clause, but it looks to me like common law rather than the Constitution was at the heart of the case. Correct me if I’m wrong!)

          5. “So a related current-day question is: who has a right to pollute everyone’s atmosphere?”

            No one is “for” pollution but it is also impossible to have zero impact on the environment. Our very existence is an impact as well as what we need to do to survive.

            IMO, the environmental movement has passed beyond common sense restrictions to preserve our environment. That battle was already won so they had to move on to increasingly more restrictive ideologies in order to justify their existence. When you make your money off stopping pollution, you don’t actually want to see it end.

            There is also a lot of conflation between pollution and global warming in the advocacy community.

        2. But the weather will change regardless, so who do you sue? And if a weather “change” is bad, then who do you sue when the seasons change from summer to winter, which is obviously a change that’s a hundred times the magnitude of any trivial climate shift, and affects people living right now? It’s affecting me even as we speak. I assert that the government has a duty to stop winter. I also want an end to night time.

          Part of the idiocy of the lawsuit is that, like CAGW, it requires us to believe there is one perfect temperature, and yet that all temperatures are equally perfect. It’s mathematical nonsense. How can Florida be perfect at 77F while North Dakota is perfect at 40F? Are the people in Florida a different species than the people in North Dakota? Does one state enjoy the protection of the law while all the others are screwed over? There should be one thermostat for everyone, and it should remain at a comfortable 69F to 72F.

      3. I believe that we should make the world safe for our children, but not for our children’s children, because I don’t think children should be having sex.

  4. They argue that they have a constitutional right to a safe climate, that they have a right to receive from us a planet that supports all life, just as our forebears gave us.

    Yes, because we all know that hurricanes, tornados, fires and floods never happened before the Industrial Revolution, right?

  5. Actually, I kind of like this idea, so much so that I’d like to add a few things to it.

    A Constitutional Right to a safe and stable Sun. (Currently, there are way too many flares and too much radiation).
    A Constitutional Right to safer, better gravity (Far too many people die from falling).

    /sarc

  6. I’m not sure what “a constitutional right to a safe climate” is supposed to mean either, but a couple of his points are correct:

    The best available science points to an imbalance between the Earth’s incoming and outgoing radiation of about (IIRC) 1.4W/m^2.

    expecting science to instantly document links to specific events misses the forest for the trees
    This is accepted by everyone up to speed on both sides of the debate, that you can’t attribute any specific weather event to climate change.

    1. “This is accepted by everyone up to speed on both sides of the debate, that you can’t attribute any specific weather event to climate change.”

      Not so much these days. It was mainly used to shut down skeptics but now AGW activists frequently cite different hurricanes and other weather as evidence of climate change.

      There hasn’t been the predicted rise in extreme weather and climate scientists can’t even predict the number of hurricanes each year much less their severity. Colorado State even lost its outside funding for hurricane predictions, http://www.nwfdailynews.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-a-lousy-hurricane-forecast-1.242050

      There just seems to be so much we don’t know which makes it hard to believe the claim that while we can’t predict the weather this month, we can accurately predict it hundreds of years from now. Short of time travel, there isn’t a way to verify that claim.

      1. but now AGW activists frequently cite different hurricanes and other weather as evidence of climate change.

        And “skeptics” continue to point to a record snowfall here or there as evidence against AGW, so, like I said: accepted by everyone up to speed on both sides of the debate.

        1. Heh, went straight from here to WUWT’s latest post: “Coldest ever temperature recorded on Earth found in Antarctica” need I say that in the comments it’s suggested that this is evidence against AGW?

        2. Andrew, if you’re knee deep in snow running from a woolly mammoth in record cold as you try to put distance between yourself and the oncoming glacier, excuse us if we don’t think you’re suffering from global warming. You can believe anything you want, just don’t demand that the rest of us go along with it.

        3. And “skeptics” continue to point to a record snowfall here or there as evidence against AGW.

          Ignoring the pointless scare quotes, very few skeptics do so unironically. It’s more intended as a jab at the hysterisists.

        4. I agree skeptics take delight at every blizzard shutting down a global warming conference. But leaders of the AGW movement, like Mann, Gore, and Hansen, cite weather as proof. It isn’t just activist leaders but scientists and politicians, like Obama, with power to make policy.

          If it was just commenters on the internet it wouldn’t be as big a deal. And the weather isn’t climate rebuttle rose out of the AGW community because skeptics were making fun of those climate conferences being cancelled due to blizzards. It isn’t surprising that they use it selectivly, when it supports their cause because science isn’t really driving the movement but politics.

          I think you are more interested in science than the politics of AGW but the people in power not so much.

  7. By the way, if this is truly a Constitutional right, in force since the beginning of the Republic, wouldn’t we still be locked in the Little Ice Age?

  8. This might be shocking but it isn’t new. There have been concerted efforts to enact legislation similar to what is proposed in the link across the country. Some of it is at the state level but the activist groups usually set their sites at the local level.

    http://envisionspokane.org/2011/08/17/community-bill-of-rights

    “Second. The Right To A Healthy Spokane River And Aquifer.

    The Spokane River, its tributaries, and the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer possess inalienable rights to exist and flourish, which shall include the right to sustainable recharge, flows sufficient to protect native fish habitat, and clean water. All residents of Spokane possess fundamental and inalienable rights to sustainably access, use, consume, and preserve water drawn from natural cycles that provide water necessary to sustain life within the City. The City of Spokane and any resident of the City or group of residents have standing to enforce and protect these rights.”

    You should see the other 3 rights they wanted. As usual, there is more going on than protecting the environment.

Comments are closed.