 |
|
Six
of the 21 young people from across the U.S. that have filed a landmark
constitutional climate change lawsuit against the federal government in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. © Our Children’s Trust
|
Oil and gas lobbyist are
trying to be named as co-defendants in a lawsuit filed by 21 teenagers against
the US government.
The teens claim their rights were violated when public resources were used for
fossil fuel exploitation and they’re fighting back.
RT USA report continues:
“Fossil
fuel companies continue to show complete disregard for my future and the future
of my generation,” Victoria Barrett, a 16-year-old plaintiff who opposed the
industry’s proposal to intervene as defendants in the suit, told EcoWatch.
“They have put my constitutional right to a certain quality of living at risk
and continue to completely bulldoze over any real solutions for a sustainable
world.”
The
lawsuit seeks comprehensive, science-based legislation to return atmospheric
carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million by the year 2100. The 21 plaintiffs
filed their opposition to the industry’s motion to intervene in the case last
week.
The
lobbyists seeking to become co-defendants with the federal government are the
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represent the likes of
ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, Koch Industries and almost all US refiners and
petrochemical manufacturers. The American Petroleum Institute, which represents
625 oil and natural gas companies, and the National Association of Manufacturers
are also looking to intervene.
The
trade associations argued they have substantial interest in the suit because a
ruling in the youths’ favor would cause them harm. They also assert they are
already subject to many environmental regulations under the federal Clean Air
Act and other laws.
The
industry claimed that “reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to bring
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels down to 350 parts per million would abate
some of the future risks of climate change, those reductions would nevertheless
not be ‘appropriate’ if the future potential benefits would be outweighed by,
for instance, enormous losses in productivity and economic development.”
Plaintiffs
counter-argued that the Petro Associations are not entitled to a seat at
the defense table and that their corporate interests are adequately represented
by the government.
“The
Petro Associations have the same ultimate objective as [the federal
government]: to have this case dismissed and prevent this court from granting
[the youths] their requested relief,” attorneys wrote in their response to the
trade groups’ motion to intervene, according to Oregon’s Register-Guard.
“These
organizations are not named as defendants in our complaint,” Phil Gregory, of
Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy, one of the attorneys representing the youth
plaintiffs, told EcoWatch. “The fossil fuel industry understands how
significant our case is. They want to join the federal government in attempting
to defeat the constitutional claims asserted by these …plaintiffs. The fossil
fuel industry and the federal government are lining up against 21 young
citizens. That shows you what is at stake here.”
The
lawsuit that caught the oil and gas industry’s attention was filed on August 12
in the US District Court in Oregon, by 21 youth plaintiffs aged eight to 19,
eight of whom live in Oregon.
Former
NASA scientist Dr. James E. Hansen, who has been outspoken about climate
change, was also part of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs assert the federal government
has violated their rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiffs
in the suit also claim the government failed to protect essential public trust
resources by facilitating the exploitation of fossil fuels. They further claim
that for over 50 years, the government knew that carbon dioxide pollution from
fossil fuels was causing global warming and dangerous climate change.
Both the government and the
trade groups have asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit. In a November 17
filing, government attorneys said the government has “substantial separation of
powers concerns” surrounding the case, which they said has the potential to
improperly “transform the District Court into a super-regulator setting
national climate policy,” according to Register-Guard.
No comments:
Post a Comment