Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily sure hates it when people it doesn't like score legal victories. Bob Unruh whined in an Aug. 16 article, headlined" Judge bends to whining teens on climate change, makes huge ruling":
A judge in Montana has ruled that teen angst over the possibility that "climate change" may impact their lives is so important it overrides a state policy that energy decisions should not be made on that ideology, and it is being appealed.
The ruling came in a case brought by the Oregon-based Our Children's Trust which has brought similar complaints in every state, with most of the complaints failing.
The rare victory in Montana came because the state's constitution says the state must supply to residents a "clean and healthful" environment, and the plaintiffs claim that oil and coal projects don't do that.
Internationally, a court said several years ago that the Netherlands must cut greenhouse gas emissions. In the U.S., the Supreme Court earlier rejected a case that Our Children's Trust was pushing, although two other lawsuits from the organization still are moving forward.
Those are pending in Hawaii and Oregon.
A report from Legal Newsline reported the judge decided in favor of a "passionate skier" who felt like "a part of him is lost" after a wildfire at one Montana location, a woman "who believes the deteriorating climate has hurt her ability to play competitive soccer," and another woman who wonders if having children "is an option in a world devastated by climate change."
It wasn't until the 10th paragraph of the article that Unruh got around to noting that "At issue were energy industry permitting decisions by the state," and he never specifically stated what, exactly, the issue entailed. As a less biased news organization reported, the judge ruled that Montana's refusal to factor in environmental effects when evaluating fossil fuel permits violates thte state's constitution, which states that citizens have a right to a clean and healthful environment. Unruh waited until the 15th paragraph to mention that "Lawmakers in the state limited consideration of both in- and out-of-state "climate effects" in permitting processes."
Rather than do relevant factual reporting up front, Unruh continued to obsess over the students pointing out specific effects of climate change:
The judge noted most of the injury from the situation to the plaintiffs involved "anxiety, despair and depression."
"Plaintiffs’ injuries will grow increasingly severe and irreversible without science-based actions to address climate change," the judge claimed.
The report explained that the skier, "'Badge,' for example, loves skiing but 'climate change is reducing Badge’s ability to participate in this important recreational activity.'"
Other concerns cited by the judge were that Olivia Vesovich of Missoula "experiences bouts of depression when she thinks about the dire projections of the future" and Claire Vlases, a ski instructor, "said reduced snowfall is reducing her work days and ability to hike and practice cross-country running."
Unruh didn't expllain why explaining such direct effects of climate change must be mocked, nor did he make any effort to disprove those concerns.
