A lawsuit filed by children against the U.S. government and fossil fuel groups claiming that excessive carbon emissions harm their future won a big victory when a federal magistrate said the case should proceed.
In a filing last week, Magistrate Thomas Coffin, of the federal district court in Oregon, wrote to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the case filed by Our Children’s Trust was so novel that it should not be immediately dismissed.
The lawsuit states that the federal government has known about increasing carbon dioxide emissions for decades and failed to act to curb them. According to the plaintiffs, that violates the public trust doctrine, infringes the plaintiffs’ right to life and liberty and violates their due process rights.
“Plaintiffs also allege defendants have violated plaintiffs’ equal protection rights embedded in the Fifth Amendment by denying them protections afforded to previous generations and by favoring short-term economic interests of certain citizens,” wrote Coffin, who was appointed in 1992.
“Plaintiffs further allege defendants’ acts and omissions violate the implicit right, via the Ninth Amendment, to a stable climate and an ocean and atmosphere free from dangerous levels of CO2.”
Many scientists blame the burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for causing climate change.
The suit was filed by 21 children, ranging in age from eight-19, and climate activists.
Coffin’s opinion was based on the assumption that all of the claims made by the plaintiffs are true, a view he said was necessary at this early stage of the court process.
His major point was that because the court record is not developed enough, it would be a bad decision to grant the federal government and fossil fuel groups’ motions to dismiss.
While he points out that the federal courts are not the place to go to complain about government policy, he said the plaintiffs could make a compelling case.
“Assuming plaintiffs are correct that the United States is responsible for about 25 percent of the global CO2 emissions, the court cannot say, without the record being developed, that it is speculation to posit that a court order to undertake regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to protect the public health will not effectively redress the alleged resulting harm,” Coffin wrote. “The impact is an issue for the experts to present to the court after the case moves beyond the pleading stage.”
The main goal of the lawsuit is to require government-wide action on climate change.
Coffin wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency could address some of the effects of climate change with further regulation, but it’s not known how much those regulations could help. That was a question better left to the experts, which is another reason to not dismiss the case, he said.
“Given the complexities of the allegations and the need for expert opinion to establish the harm associated with government action and the extent to which a court order can limit that harm, the issue may be better addressed at the summary judgment stage,” Coffin wrote.
