In a 2 to 1 decision, the 9th District Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs, all between the ages of 8 to 19 when the lawsuit began in 2015, “lacked the legal standing to sue the United States,” reports Reuters.
Circuit Court Judge Andrew Hurwitz said the majority reached their conclusion “reluctantly,” given the record “conclusively establishes that the federal government has long understood the risks of fossil fuel use and increasing carbon dioxide emissions” and “that the government’s contribution to climate change is not simply a result of inaction.”
However, The Guardian reported the justices noted that the court lacked the power to enforce such a plan or climate policy decisions by the government and Congress, concluding “in the end, any plan is only as good as the court’s power to enforce it.”
The court did find the plaintiffs did meet the requirements for their standing in the case and some of them met the requirements for injuries, saying they actually proved their injuries were caused by the climate crisis.
“Indeed, the plaintiffs’ experts make plain that reducing the global consequences of climate change demands much more than the cessation of the government’s promotion of fossil fuels. Rather, these experts opine that such a result calls for no less than a fundamental transformation of this country’s energy system, if not that of the industrialized world … given the complexity and long-lasting nature of global climate change, the court would be required to supervise the government’s compliance with any suggested plan for many decades.”
THIS ISN’T OVER! BREAKING: Today, a divided Court recognized the gravity of the evidence on the youth plaintiffs’ injuries from climate change and the government’s role in causing them. 1/3 pic.twitter.com/DVcBK8tocq
— Our Children's Trust (@youthvgov) January 17, 2020
Needless to say, but the Department of Justice said the government was “pleased with the outcome.” Dan Farber, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, said the 9th District Court ruling basically closed the door on federal litigation seeking “courts to take bold action on climate change on their own.”
A similar case in Europe in October 2018 had a decidedly different outcome. Nearly 900 Dutch citizens and the Urgenda Foundation filed suit against their government over its inaction on climate change. In October 2018, the Hague Court of Appeals upheld a 2015 ruling that the Netherlands government must take more action to reduce emissions that cause climate change.
“The Court of Appeal’s decision puts all governments on notice. They must act now, or they will be held to account,” Urgenda director Marjan Minnesma said after the verdict. (Urgenda is a group calling for a quick turn toward a sustainable society; the title is short for Urgent Agenda.)
