Supreme Court Denies Extremist Lawsuit
The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that the state does not have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the environment.
The
majority court opinion denied the claims of ​Kelsey Juliana and Ollie Chernaik​, two young Oregonians who
filed suit in 2011 against the state of Oregon for failing in it's public trust duty to protect essential natural resources including water, wildlife, and the atmosphere -- from ongoing impacts of the climate crisis. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were seeking a ruling through the lawsuit that would have made it illegal to use any natural resources in Oregon, unless government approved.
Writing for the majority, Justice Lynn R. Nakamoto affirmed the reality of climate change, but did not agree that the state has a responsibility to protect the environment:
"On review, the parties continue to dispute the scope of natural resources subject to the public trust doctrine and the state’s obligations with respect to natural resources subject to the doctrine. Urging an expansion of the public trust doctrine, plaintiffs contend that the state has, and breached, fiduciary obligations to prevent impairments due to climate change with respect to a range of natural resources in Oregon. Although the state agrees that the natural resources in Oregon that plaintiffs describe have suffered some adverse effects of climate change brought on, in part, by carbon dioxide emissions, the state contends that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that the state does not have the obligations that plaintiffs claim..."
Former Chief Justice Thomas Balmer explained in a dissenting opinion that in reaching its decision the majority had reframed the plaintiffs’ case to reach the adverse result. In the ​divided ruling​, the Court agreed with the youth that navigable waters are subject to the public trust doctrine, but said the state has no affirmative duty to take care of its resources.
Kate Brown decided she need to weigh into the decision by the Oregon Supreme court, and she takes the opportunity to further advocate for her radical climate change agenda, which is set on suppressing industry and commerce in Oregon. Brown is know to use Emergency Clauses and Executive Orders to get her way, when others don't agree with her.
“As I have said throughout this legal process, I agree with the plaintiffs, and other young people across Oregon and the world, when they say there is an urgent need for climate action.
“The unprecedented wildfires that raged across the West this year should have been a wake-up call for everyone: we need to be taking impactful steps immediately to address climate change. That’s why I took executive action in the spring to reduce Oregon’s carbon emissions, after Republican legislators walked out two years in a row to block climate action legislation. At every turn, the industries that are dependent on polluting the climate have tried to delay action—placing the health and economic burdens of climate change onto Oregon’s youth.
“To all of Oregon’s young people: If you’re frustrated by the speed at which your government is addressing the most urgent crisis of this generation and the next, know that I am too. There is a place where Oregonians can make their voices heard––the ballot box. If you care about climate change, if you care about the future of this planet, if you want future generations to have clean air and clean water, then please, vote.â€
--Ben Fisher| Post Date: 2020-10-24 13:18:20 | Last Update: 2020-10-24 15:06:11 |
