Because you're headed back to school on Tuesday.
Time (1/19/20) reports: "On Friday, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals threw out the high profile lawsuit Juliana v. United States, in which 21 young Americans sued the United States government for violating their Constitutional rights by taking actions that exacerbated climate change. The court acknowledged that while the threat of climate change is real, it 'reluctantly' concluded that the issue should be raised with the executive and legislative branches of government, not the courts. The suit, which was filed in 2015, argues that the U.S. government violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to life and liberty by taking steps to support a national energy system that causes climate change, despite know the threat of climate change for decades. The suit requested multiple remedies, including the court order the U.S. government 'to prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions' and work to lower CO2 in the atmosphere."
|
|
|
|
|
|
"When the vast majority of existing homeowners have voted against domestic solar systems with their wallets, why should the owners and renters of new homes be saddled with the cost of energy diversification? If the math were that simple and the benefits that obvious, a mandate wouldn’t be necessary."
– Oliver McPherson-Smith,
American Consumer Institute
|
|
|
|
|
|
