Although we are all already paying a high price for climate change, today's children and young people will have to endure much worse conditions, and for much longer.
In fact, climate change will continue to intensify for the rest of their lives if we continue on our current path.
That's why a group of young Americans filed a lawsuit against the United States in 2015, demanding that climate change be responsibly factored into government decisions.
I will be long gone before the full effects of climate change are felt, but each of the 21 young people who filed the lawsuit, dubbed Juliana v. the United States, will have their lives fundamentally altered.
When their future is at stake, asking American children to wait until they are old enough to vote for change is not a viable option.
The judicial system (when it functions) is an important mechanism through which citizens can hold elected leaders accountable.
And for children, at this point, it is their only recourse.
Climate change, currently one of the main causes of youth anxiety and depression, is already affecting their physical and mental health.
The “Juliana 21″ defend all Americans.
We all have the right to a bearable climate, with clean air and water.
But instead of pursuing the lawsuit, the federal government appears to be categorically opposed to the young plaintiffs having their day in court.
In the nine years since the lawsuit was filed, the Juliana 21 and their legal team have fought 14 attempts by the United States government to stop it in its tracks.
(I have all the information: I have been a volunteer expert in this case).
Last month, for the seventh time in the Juliana lawsuit, the federal government sought an injunction, an extreme legal tactic in which a higher court orders a lower court not to hear a case (rather than following the usual process, in (where the higher court rules on a case only after it has been heard by the lower courts).
The new maneuver subverts the judicial process and prevents Juliana 21's evidence from being heard and examined in a public hearing.
The Government's action is disconcerting, considering that courts around the world and in the United States have allowed young plaintiffs to file similar complaints.
For example, in another lawsuit brought by the nonprofit Our Children's Trust (which also filed the Juliana lawsuit), a Montana court recently found that each additional ton of greenhouse gas emissions would increase the already serious violations of human rights. of constitutional protection of the young plaintiffs.
Consequently, the judge ruled that public officials must take these harms into account when reviewing applications for fossil fuel exploitation permits.
After the Montana Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the State to suspend the application of this historic ruling, state agencies are already working to implement the new rule.
Juliana, in her own way, has also made legal history: no other case in the United States has had seven requests for the issuance of injunctions against her.
As the plaintiffs point out, “of the more than 40,000 civil cases in which the United States is a defendant represented by the Department of Justice,” only in Juliana “has the Attorney General attempted to stop the preparation of an evidentiary record at trial.” .based solely on the fact that it costs the Government too much money to execute it.”
As the Montana court recognized, the climate crisis is more serious as the days go by.
Every day more carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere;
And every day, the US government spends tens of millions of dollars subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.
This costs us twice as much, because we are paying for both the subsidies themselves and the health and environmental damage caused by drilling and powering our energy sectors with highly polluting fuels instead of clean and available renewable energy. .
If the price of litigation is too high for the Government, this is partly because the Executive has waged a nine-year battle to stifle the voices of Juliana 21. In fact, a further delay would only increase the total costs expected of the litigation.
What's more, my own assessment of the environmental costs incurred in these last nine years of delays shows that they are overwhelmingly higher than the financial costs cited by the Government.
This is not an issue where the Administration can say, “We do not interfere in the affairs of the Department of Justice.”
In this case, the Administration is the defendant, and has full responsibility for the actions of its attorney general.
The best outcome – morally, economically and environmentally – would be to reach an agreement with the children.
The only thing they want is for the Government to take into account when making political decisions the effects that climate change has for them and for future generations.
It seems obvious.
If, for some strange reason, the Administration does not want to reach an agreement, it should at least allow the matter to go to trial.
The United States Constitution and judicial system are powerful vehicles for shaping what our democracy offers to disenfranchised young people on a long-term, life-threatening issue like the climate crisis.
The Juliana 21 understand that if the attorney general manages to delay his trial again, they will still not be able to prevent their government from making the problem worse.
Just as it is urgent to address the climate crisis, it is urgent to prevent – now – the attorney general from resorting to the extraordinary tactic of asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to dismiss the case, effectively denying the young plaintiffs their right to a trial.
We must support Juliana 21. In this case, justice delayed is actually justice denied.
Joseph E. Stiglitz
, Nobel Laureate in Economics, is a professor at Columbia University and winner of the 2018 Sydney Peace Prize. © Project Syndicate 1995-2024.
Follow all the information on
Economy
and
Business
on
and
X
, or in our
weekly newsletter
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Keep reading
I am already a subscriber
_