Oregon teens take global warming to Oregon Supreme Court
»Play Video
EUGENE, Ore. - There's no place 16-year-old Kelsey Juliana feels more at home than walking and breathing in the fresh air of Oregon's outdoors.
"I was named after the outdoors, and I was born in the wilderness in Fall Creek," Juliana said. "It's just so beautiful."
But for this South Eugene High School student, she fears the fresh air in her home state could soon be disappearing.
"It's not looking too good if we continue living the way that we are," Juliana said.
Since the tender age of 10, Juliana has been studying the effects of climate change in Oregon and around the world.
"With climate change we're seeing high increases of drought, we're seeing higher intensity, and more frequent fires in Oregon," Juliana said.
About a year ago Juliana and Olivia Chernaik, another minor from Oregon, decided to file a lawsuit against Governor Kitzhaber and the State of Oregon. The lawsuit compelled the government to protect Oregon's natural resources as required by the Public Trust Doctrine.
"There are top leading scientists all over the world who are working very hard to present this case," Juliana said.
In order to preserve the climate, current climate science is calling for a return to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the century.
For the atmosphere to make it to that point, scientists said carbon dioxide emissions would need to be reduced by at least 6 percent per year. If action is not taken until 2020, carbon dioxide emissions would need to be reduced by at least 20 percent per year.
For now Juliana is just waiting and hoping that the Oregon Supreme Court listens to her plea.
"We are the upcoming leaders of this world and it really is our future that is at stake," Juliana said.
Juliana's lawyers filed their notice of appeal last week. No word on when or if any action will be taken.
Perhaps it would be wise for these two to consider the following questions before the Oregon Supreme Court listens to her plea. The court or others may very well ask these, but the big question is whether the two have considered these themselves:
Â
What is Chernaik's and Juliana's position regarding "Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the NONgovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)" and the related 2011 Interim Report? These two reports, (seen here: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2009/2009report.html and here http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html ) are a detailed, authoritative rebuttal of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) findings, which the Obama Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency relies on for their regulatory proposals.
Â
What is Chernaik's and Juliana's position regarding allegations that the IPCC reports fall short of EPA guidelines requiring highly influential scientific assessments to meet a variety of standards for transparency, data availability and due diligence?
Â
Have Chernaik and Juliana done their own due diligence assessments of IPCC reports to assure people that information conveyed by Chernaik and Juliana on the issue of global warming is above reproach? If those assessments have been done for them, can they provide specific references in IPCC reports where theories of natural causes for the current global warming have been disproved, or more simply, show that the IPCC had any requirement to also evaluate potential natural causes?
Â
If Chernaik and Juliana take the position there is a scientific consensus in favor of the idea of human-caused global warming, are they prepared to show how "consensus" is the new operating standard of scientific inquiry across all fields of study?
Â
If Chernaik's and Juliana's position is indeed that global warming skeptic scientists operate under guidance from industries opposing CO2 regulation, are they prepared to provide specific proof of improper payments to those scientists, and specific proof of faults in the scientists' resulting reports that are obvious indications of industry-guided science errors?
Â
Are Chernaik and Juliana able to demonstrate how energy sustainability and stewardship of the environment are synonymous with CO2 regulation, considering the questions above?