A coalition of green groups are suing the US government for pollution. They claim that the government has failed to protect the atmosphere. The aim of the suits is to have the atmosphere declared a “public trust” deserving of special protection, a concept previously used to clean up polluted rivers and coastlines.
The cases are likely to take years to be resolved, but if successful they could have huge implications for carbon intensive businesses by effectively forcing the government to impose more stringent emissions regulations.
Read this article from businessGreen for more information on the case.
Young activists who are part of the iMatter movement are part of the group suing the government – read their manifesto which demands the government to protect the atmosphere for future generations.
One angle we can take in addressing environment and climate justice is what scientific evidence are political and corporate leaders using to justify inaction. Are they using fraudulent evidence and who provided them with this evidence? What was the intention of providing this false evidence. Creating confusion has the impact of sabotaging public and politicial understanding of the consequences of inaction. Phrases as warming and change are also inadequate and global climate destabilisation is more accurate description of the consequence of criminal negligence by politicians and corporate leaders. What evidence was the CEO and board of directors of GM using when they decided to build fleets of Hummers and fleets of less fuel efficient vehicle. That produced more greenhouse gases, burned more of the world oil supply and pumped out more lethal toxic smog forming emissions. Did they think it was economically and environmentally responsible conduct as the climate signals got worse? Destroying the web of life and destabilizing our planet’s climate are crimes against life on our planet. Is the Stephen Harper Conservative government of Canada colluding with organized corporate climate criminals? Time will tell !