Young people sue Donald Trump over climate change

The Verge

4 days ago

A group of young people — as young as 7 and as old as 25 — are suing the Trump administration to stop its assault on renewable energy and climate action.
Executive orders President Donald Trump signed to promote fossil fuels amount to an 'unconstitutional' overreach of power, they allege in a complaint filed Thursday at a US District Court in Montana. The 22 plaintiffs also claim that by increasing pollution and denying climate science, the president's actions violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty.
It's the latest high-profile case brought against governments by youth concerned about how fossil fuel pollution and climate change poses risks to their health and ability to thrive as they grow up.
Two brothers, aged 11 and 7, 'were born into climate change-induced smoke seasons that did not exist for older generations'
Two brothers, aged 11 and 7 and named 'J.K.' and 'N.K.' in the suit, 'were born into climate change-induced smoke seasons that did not exist for older generations and which compromise their health,' the complaint says.
They grew up mostly in Montana but now live in Southern California, and the suit says wildfire smoke has encroached on their lives from state to state. J.K. was born with an abnormal mass of lung tissue and 'experienced nosebleeds, sore throats, headaches, tiredness, coughing, trouble breathing, and eye irritation from wildfire smoke,' according to the suit. N.K. has 'frequent' upper respiratory infections that have led to emergency room visits. They've both missed school days and camp because of feeling sick from smoke and soot in the air from wildfires, it says.
Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels trap heat, and rising temperatures have contributed to longer fire seasons in the western US. With hotter, drier conditions, the area burned by forest fires in the western US doubled between 1984 and 2015.
'Every additional ton of [greenhouse gas] pollution and increment of heat Defendants cause will cause J.K. and N.K. more days of poor air quality, more smoke, and thus, more harm to their lives, health, and safety,' the complaint adds.
In recent years, scientists have been trying to better understand the long-term health impact of wildfire smoke, which previously hadn't been studied as thoroughly as pollution from other sources thought to be more consistent problems, like factories and highways. Now, chronic exposure to wildfire smoke is a growing concern. Wildfire smoke is considered a neurotoxin estimated to be more harmful than other common air pollutants, but its effects on the body can vary depending on what kinds of materials burn and how chemicals released by the fire interact with other substances in the atmosphere.
After campaigning on a promise to ' drill, baby, drill ' and accepting more than $75 million in contributions from oil and gas interests, Trump signed executive orders on his first day in office declaring a purported 'national energy emergency,' directing federal agencies to 'unleash' domestic fossil fuel production and promote the use of gas-powered vehicles over EVs. He signed another executive order to 'reinvigorat[e]' the coal industry in April. Coal releases more planet-heating pollution when burned than other fossil fuels and has struggled to compete with cheaper sources of electricity.
The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to block implementation of those executive orders and to declare them unconstitutional. They also claim that Trump lacks the authority to erode environmental protections passed by Congress under the Clean Air Act. The administration's efforts to impede scientific research and remove climate information from federal websites amounts to 'censorship' and denies plaintiffs access to resources they might otherwise be able to use to minimize risks they face from climate change, the suit alleges.
In response to the lawsuit, White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers said in an email to The Verge, 'The American people are more concerned with the future generations' economic and national security, which is why they elected President Trump in a landslide victory to restore America's energy dominance. Future generations should not have to foot the bill of the lefts' radical climate agenda.'
The plaintiffs, who hail from Montana, Oregon, Hawai'i, California, and Florida, are represented by the nonprofit law firm Our Children's Trust, which has also represented young people in similar climate cases. A federal appellate court dismissed another case that youth filed against the Obama administration in 2015 over fossil fuel pollution causing climate change, and the US Supreme Court ended that legal battle this year when it declined to hear an appeal.
But there have also been some wins. A group of youth reached a settlement last year with the state of Hawai'i and its Department of Transportation that commits them to a plan to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2045. J.K. and N.K. were also plaintiffs in a climate suit filed against the state of Montana. Last year, Montana's Supreme Court upheld a district judge ruling affirming their right to a clean and healthy environment and rejecting policies that had barred officials from considering the consequences of climate change when permitting new energy projects.