By Mihika Bhatnagar, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun.
“Demanding that our leaders take action on climate change is about a lot more than polar bears and ice caps; it's about safeguarding our health, preserving our prosperity, and protecting the future of our children.”- Tom Steyer
Burning fossil fuels for more than a century has released heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases into the atmosphere, altering the world’s climate and acidifying its oceans. The use of coal, oil, and natural gas for transportation, home heating, and daily life has been shown to significantly contribute to global warming, sea level rise, catastrophic drought, major wildfires, and record flooding. Fossil fuel companies were aware 50 years ago of the risks of their products and chose to deceive the public instead of taking action.
In 2015, twenty-one teenagers between the ages of eight and nineteen, Earth Guardians organization sued the federal government in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon alleging that the government knew for about 50 years now that burning of fossil fuels causes dangerous levels of climate change and they still continued to approve and promote the development in the area of fossil fuels causing a severe threat to human lives. The plaintiffs also alleged that the actions of the government caused the violation of their fundamental rights and their obligations to hold certain resources in trust for people and future generations. In order to safeguard citizens' constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property as well as public trust resources, the U.S. government failed to establish the required climate change laws. The plaintiffs brought this lawsuit against the defendants, which included the government of the United States, President Barack Obama, and other executive agencies. Despite the fact that other organisations contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, plaintiffs contend defendants are more to blame than any other person, group, or nation for subjecting them to the risks of climate change.
The District Court dismissed the petition by stating that their intentions are only based on political charges and this so doesn't raise non-justiciable political questions. No one took this case seriously, however, even the Federal government has acknowledged several times that climate change is real. The connection between fossil fuels and climate change has a catastrophic threat to national security and therefore it becomes a threat to the human rights of the people. The executive bodies of the government are already proven capable of dealing with crime alert change as stated by the plaintiffs and it is high time that the federal court should intervene. Federal government officials tried a lot of times to dismiss the case.
Judge Aiken’s decision by allowing Juliana to go forward is widely viewed as a Landmark opinion because it Expresses Federal constitutional public trust and substantive due process right to a stable climate system that is capable of supporting human life.
Analysis
Even though the plaintiffs have presented a strong case, the reliance which we humans have on fossil fuels is undeniable, and we still have no alternative even close to replacing fossil fuels we will not have its replacement for the upcoming years, and pleading with the federal government to stop the usage of fossil fuels is something impossible to achieve. Holding them responsible and appealing to them to provide a better alternative to fossil fuels but what the plaintiffs want here is a government plan to phase out fossil fuels and pull greenhouse gases back out of the air., which is irretrievable damage and something no court in the world can undo.
The National Strategy of the Trump Administration states that industry must take precedence over the environment. There is an inevitable, inherent trade-off between economic activity and environmental preservation, even though everyone would prefer to have both because they both give benefits to the beneficiaries.
This lawsuit is trying to address this issue by prioritising environmental protection and making the right to a healthy environment a fundamental right, which is essential in today’s time, but the case makes it really hard for us to pick a side. The plaintiffs have not given any solution which may be proposed or imposed by the court and the defendants have no emotion regarding the citizen’s safety and their human rights.
In a case like Juliana, where a federal court finds that a plaintiff's innovative strategy in constructing a lawsuit has legal merit, it is difficult to believe that such a court cannot be equally innovative in using its equitable powers to fashion a helpful, albeit imperfect, remedy that protects a plaintiff's constitutional rights to a significant extent. The political branches of the federal government have mainly failed to take meaningful action on this existential matter, leading the plaintiffs, in this case, to turn to the courts for relief. Because the problems they have presented are different in nature and scope, many legal experts point out that the outcome of this lawsuit is unlikely to have an impact on the climate justice and public nuisance cases that cities and states around the nation have filed in state and federal courts. The youth plaintiffs are awaiting a ruling on their Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint and the Motion to Intervene filed by 18 states, led by Alabama.
Conclusion
Cases like Juliana's are very far-fetched but what they lack is a proper solution. Fossil fuels are one of the reasons for climate change and the fact that it is interfering with our lives as an individual is undeniable but fossil fuel is also very important if we look at their reliability in our daily life. Unless we don’t have an alternative for the same its usage cannot be stopped. We cannot just undo the damage caused but we can start as an individual to become the change.
Human influences have materialised at a pace and scope that have never before been seen, especially in the last 60 years. There are several indicators that we have profoundly altered our planet, including carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, ocean acidification, habitat devastation, extinction, and extensive natural resource extraction.
Not everyone concurs that these changes provide sufficient proof to name the Anthropocene as a new formal geological epoch. The changes in our planet are quite visible and the Juliana case is still a good start. Even if they lose the case they are still raising awareness among the people, and as stated by Mahatma Gandhi, we have to be the change we want to see in this world.
0 Comments