Well, it IS their Common Future (and that future's Quality of Life) that is arguably being treated with reckless procrastination, by so many of Today's aging and feckless leaders. These teens worried about the world they will inherit, just may have a case ...
by Jack Moran, The Register-Guard, registerguard.com -- June 11, 2014
The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that a local judge should not have dismissed a lawsuit filed by two Eugene teenagers who allege that the state is violating the public trust by failing to take adequate steps to stave off climate change.
The girls challenged Lane County Circuit Judge Karsten Rasmussen’s ruling in 2012 that courts lack authority to order state officials to create and carry out a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Rasmussen called the matter a political question that needed to be handled by members of the legislative and executive branches of state government.
But the Court of Appeals ruled that state courts do have the authority to take up the issue, and said that the merits of the teenagers’ request for a public trust declaration should now be considered by a Lane County Circuit judge.
Here's the decision that was just over-turned, today:
Oregon: Judge dismisses two girls' lawsuit about climate change
The girls and their mothers wanted Oregon to take more steps to protect the state from global warming
Source: Copyright 2012, Register-Guard
Date: April 6, 2012
Byline: Karen McCowan
archived on climateark.org
A judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit that two young environmental activists filed last May, seeking to force the state of Oregon and Gov. John Kitzhaber to take more stringent steps to protect the state’s atmosphere, water, land and wildlife from the impacts of climate change.
Lane County Circuit Judge Karsten Rasmussen ruled that the court lacks authority to order the actions [...]
Rasmussen also ruled that the matter is a political question, and that he would violate the Oregon Constitution’s separation of powers if he ordered the state to carry out a more aggressive plan to reduce carbon emissions than one adopted by the Legislature in 2007.
Ahh, dumb question but, Isn't much of government, especially the decision-making part of it, made up of politicians?
What is this "violating the public trust" upon which their lawsuit is based?
And why is it Government's responsibility to protect it, to nurture, to take steps that ensure IT -- will be there for future generations?
(Here's a hint: Free Markets and Corporations, generally "exploit" our commons -- Not "protect" them. Since they are generally driven by maximizing "Profits" -- Not future "Posterity.")
The commons were traditionally defined as the elements of the environment -- forests, atmosphere, rivers, fisheries or grazing land -- that are shared, used and enjoyed by all.
Today, the commons are also understood within a cultural sphere. These commons include literature, music, arts, design, film, video, television, radio, information, software and sites of heritage. The commons can also include public goods such as public space, public education, health and the infrastructure that allows our society to function (such as electricity or water delivery systems). [...]
Peter Barnes describes commons as a set of assets that have two characteristics: they are all gifts, and they are all shared. A shared gift is one we receive as members of a community, as opposed to individually. Examples of such gifts include air, water, ecosystems, languages, music, holidays, money, law, mathematics, parks and the Internet.
There are a number of important aspects that can be used to describe true commons. The first is that the commons cannot be commodified -- if they are, they cease to be commons. The second aspect is that unlike private property, the commons is inclusive rather than exclusive -- its nature is to share ownership as widely, rather than as narrowly, as possible. The third aspect is that the assets in commons are meant to be preserved regardless of their return of capital. Just as we receive them as shared gifts, so we have a duty to pass them on to future generations in at least the same condition as we received them. If we can add to their value, so much the better, but at a minimum we must not degrade them, and we certainly have no right to destroy them. [...]
Public space is a literal commons: the common ground where people come together as friends, neighbors and citizens. Places we share together—parks, streets, sidewalks, squares, trails, markets, waterfronts, beaches, museums, community gardens, public buildings and more—are the primary sites for human exchange, upon which our communities, economy, democracy and society depend.-- Senior Fellow Jay Walljasper, On the Commons, onthecommons.org
The Fall and Rise of Great Public Spaces
Kind of sounds like something worth "fighting for" -- doesn't it?
I hope those young 'ambassadors' for Future Quality of Life, have found themselves some 'good lawyers'.