Youth activists win 'unprecedented' climate settlement in Hawaii
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Settlement: https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/495-2024...
Went in to poke holes. But this looks legit.
This settlement appears highly dependent on Art. XI § 9 of the Hawaii Constitution, referenced in another comment [1].
The story of how such strong wording made it into their Constitution, way back in 1978, must be interesting.
Based on what? The court that approved the settlement reserves continuing jurisdiction over it through 2045 (or the achievement of the goal).
Oh interesting.
Their litigation would seem to depend on Art. XI § 9 of the Constition of the State of Hawaii, which holds:
“Each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment, as defined by laws relating to environmental quality, including control of pollution and conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources. Any person may enforce this right against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable limitations and regulation as provided by law.”
Now prove that a hardline unrealistic zero emissions by 2045 won’t lead to a worse environmental.
Because I think lack of food, lack of trucks for maintenance, lack of locally produced clean water, and lack of tourism will result in negative outcomes.
I am an automotive EE, we’re designing trucks now for 32-34 model year release, spoiler, they’re gas and diesel.
One, not how the law works. But also, not how debate works? Prove that not doing this won’t lead to worse outcomes. You can’t. It’s in the future.
> lack of food, lack of trucks for maintenance, lack of locally produced clean water, and lack of tourism
How does this result from zero emissions? The food is grown there or imported. Onshore aquifers can be pumped with electricity, like they are already. (Worst case, import.) And not sure how this hits tourism, either.
> am an automotive EE, we’re designing trucks now for 32-34 model year release, spoiler, they’re gas and diesel
Of course. Nobody is phasing out gas/diesel trucks in the 2030s on the mainland. But this is about Hawaii. Phasing out fossil fuels—of which they make none—makes sense on multiple levels.
You should’ve led with this. Saved me the rest of the reading.