CBS Sixty Minutes - Steve Kroft
A lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 kids alleges the U.S. government knowingly failed to protect them from climate change. If the plaintiffs win, it could mean massive changes for the use of fossil fuels
 |
| The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States |
Of all the cases working their way through the federal court system,
none is more interesting or potentially more life changing than Juliana
versus the United States.
To quote one federal judge, "This is no
ordinary lawsuit." It was filed back in 2015 on behalf of a group of
kids who are trying to get the courts to block the U.S. government from
continuing the use of fossil fuels.
They say it's causing climate
change, endangering their future and violating their constitutional
rights to life, liberty and property.
As we first reported earlier this
year, when the lawsuit first began hardly anyone took it seriously,
including the government's lawyers, who have since watched the supreme
court reject two of their motions to delay or dismiss the case.
Four
years in, it is still very much alive, in part because the plaintiffs
have amassed a body of evidence that will surprise even the skeptics and
have forced the government to admit that the crisis is real.
The
case was born here in Eugene, Oregon, a tree-hugger's paradise, and one
of the cradles of environmental activism in the United States.
The lead
plaintiff, University of Oregon student Kelsey Juliana, was only five
weeks old when her parents took her to her first rally to protect
spotted owls.
Today, her main concern is climate change, drought and the
growing threat of wildfires in the surrounding Cascade Mountains.
 |
| Kelsey Juliana |
Kelsey Juliana: There was a wildfire season that was so intense, we
were advised not to go outside. The particulate matter in the smoke was
literally off the charts. It was past severe, in terms of danger to
health.
Steve Kroft: And you think that's because of climate change.
Kelsey Juliana: That's what scientists tell me.
It's
not just scientists. Even the federal government now acknowledges in
its response to the lawsuit that the effects of climate change are
already happening and likely to get worse, especially for young people
who will have to deal with them for the long term.
"The government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a danger zone on climate change."
Steve Kroft: How important is this case to you?
Kelsey
Juliana: This case is everything. This is the climate case. We have
everything to lose, if we don't act on climate change right now, my
generation and all the generations to come.
She was 19 when the
lawsuit was filed and the oldest of 21 plaintiffs. They come from ten
different states and all claim to be affected or threatened by the
consequences of climate change. The youngest, Levi Draheim, is in sixth
grade.
Steve Kroft: You're 11 years old, and you're suing the United States government, that's not what most 11-year-olds do, right?
Levi Draheim: Yeah…
He's lived most of his life on the beaches of a barrier island in Florida that's a mile wide and barely above sea level.
Steve Kroft: What's your biggest fear about this island?
Levi Draheim: I fear that I won't have a home here in the future.
Steve Kroft: That the island will be gone.
Levi Draheim: Yeah. That the island will be underwater because of climate change.
Steve Kroft: So you feel like you've got a stake in this.
Levi Draheim: Yes.
The
plaintiffs were recruited from environmental groups across the country
by Julia Olson, an oregon lawyer, and the executive director of a
non-profit legal organization called "Our Children's Trust." She began
constructing the case eight years ago out of this spartan space now
dominated by this paper diorama that winds its way through the office.
Steve Kroft: So what is this?
Julia Olson: So this is a timeline that we put together…
It
documents what and when past U.S. administrations knew about the
connection between fossil fuels and climate change. The timeline goes
back 50 years, beginning with the presidency of Lyndon Johnson.
Julia
Olson: During President Johnson's administration, they issued a report
in 1965 that talked about climate change being a catastrophic threat.
Whether
it was a Democrat or a Republican in office, Olson says, there was an
awareness of the potential dangers of carbon dioxide emissions.
Julia Olson: Every president knew that burning fossil fuels was causing climate change.
Fifty years of evidence has been amassed by Olson and her team, 36,000 pages in all, to be used in court.
Julia Olson: Our government, at the highest levels, knew and was briefed on
it regularly by the national security community, by the scientific
community. They have known for a very long time that it was a big
threat.
Steve Kroft: Has the government disputed that government
officials have known about this for more than 50 years and been told and
warned about it for 50 years?
Julia Olson: No. They admit that
the government has known for over 50 years that burning fossil fuels
would cause climate change. And they don't dispute that we are in a
danger zone on climate change. And they don't dispute that climate
change is a national security threat and a threat to our economy and a
threat to people's lives and safety. They do not dispute any of those
facts of the case.
The legal proceedings have required the
government to make some startling admissions in court filings. It now
acknowledges that human activity - in particular, elevated
concentrations of greenhouse gases - is likely to have been the dominant
cause of observed warming since the mid-1900s… That global carbon
dioxide concentrations reached levels unprecedented for at least 2.6
million years… That climate change is increasing the risk of loss of
life and the extinction of many species and is associated with increases
in hurricane intensity, the frequency of intense storms, heavy
precipitation, the loss of sea ice and rising sea levels.
 |
| Julia Olson with correspondent Steve Kroft |
Julia Olson: It's really the most compelling evidence I've ever had in any case I've litigated in over 20 years.
The
lawsuit claims the executive and legislative branches of government
have proven incapable of dealing with climate change. It argues that the
government has failed in its obligation to protect the nation's air,
water, forests and coast lines. And it petitions the federal courts to
intervene and force the government to come up with a plan that would
wean the country off fossil fuels by the middle of this century.
Steve Kroft: You're just saying, "Do it. We don't care how."
Julia Olson: Do it well and do it in the timeframe that it needs to be done.
Steve Kroft: You're talking about a case that could change economics in this country.
Julia Olson: For the better.
Steve Kroft: Well, you say it changes the economy for the better, but other people would say it would cause huge disruption.
Julia
Olson: If we don't address climate change in this country, economists
across the board say that we are in for economic crises that we have
never seen before.
The lawsuit was first filed during the final years of the Obama administration in this federal courthouse in Eugene.
Steve Kroft: Did they take this case seriously when you filed it?
Julia Olson: I think in the beginning they thought they could very quickly get the case dismissed.
In
November 2016, a federal judge stunned the government by denying its
motion to dismiss the case and ruling it could proceed to trial. In what
may become a landmark decision, Judge Ann Aiken wrote, "Exercising my
reasoned judgment, I have no doubt that the right to a climate system
capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered
society."
Steve Kroft: A federal judge ever said that before?
Julia Olson: No judge had ever written that before.
The opinion was groundbreaking because the courts have never recognized a constitutional right to a stable climate.
 |
| Ann Carlson |
Ann Carlson: That's a big stretch for a court.
Ann Carlson is a
professor of environmental law at UCLA. Like almost everyone else in
the legal community, she was certain the case was doomed.
Ann Carlson: There's no constitutional provision that says the that environment should be protected.
Steve Kroft: Why is the idea that the people of the United States have a right to a stable environment such a radical idea?
Ann
Carlson: Well, I think that Judge Aiken actually does a very good job
of saying it's not radical to ask the government to protect the health,
and the lives and the property of this current generation of kids. Look,
If you can't have your life protected by government policies that save
the planet, then what's the point of having a Constitution?
Steve Kroft: How significant is this case?
Ann
Carlson: Well, if the plaintiffs won, it'd be massive, particularly if
they won what they're asking for, which is get the federal government
out of the business of in any way subsidizing fossil fuels and get them
into the business of dramatically curtailing greenhouse gases in order
to protect the children who are the plaintiffs in order to create a safe
climate. That would be enormous.
So enormous that the Trump
administration, which is now defending the case, has done everything it
can to keep the trial from going forward. It's appealed Judge Aiken's
decision three times to the ninth circuit court in California and twice
to the Supreme Court. Each time it's failed.
Julia Olson: They don't want it to go to trial.
Steve Kroft: Why?
Julia Olson: Because they will lose on the evidence that will be presented at trial.
Steve Kroft: And that's why they don't want one.
Julia
Olson: That's why they don't want one. They know that once you enter
that courtroom and your witnesses take the oath to tell the truth and
nothing but the truth the facts are the facts and alternative facts are
perjury. And so, all of these claims and tweets about climate change not
being real, that doesn't hold up in a court of law.
The Justice
Department declined our request for an interview, but in court hearings,
in briefs, it's called the lawsuit misguided, unprecedented and
unconstitutional. It argues that energy policy is the legal
responsibility of Congress and the White House, not a single judge in
Oregon. And while climate change is real it's also a complicated global
problem that was not caused and cannot be solved by just the United
States government.
In other words, it's not responsible.
“As the district court in a similar suit recently ruled, the plaintiffs in these climate cases would have the courts ‘regulating all statutory, regulatory, budgetary, personnel, and administrative Executive actions that relate to the environment.’ Under our laws, making such important decisions about the Nation’s energy and climate policy is entrusted to elected officials, not the courts. It’s also important to note that this lawsuit was originally filed against and opposed by the Obama Administration because the role of elected officials was being circumvented.”
— Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division
Steve Kroft: Why is the federal government responsible for global
warming? I mean it doesn't produce any carbon dioxide. How are they
causing it?
Julia Olson: They're causing it through their actions
of subsidizing the fossil fuel energy system, permitting every aspect of
our fossil fuel energy system, and by allowing for extraction of fossil
fuels from our federal public lands. We are the largest oil and gas
producer in the world now because of decisions our federal government
has made.
Steve Kroft: What about the Chinese government? What about the Indian government?
Julia
Olson: Clearly, it's not just the United States that has caused climate
change but the United States is responsible for 25 percent of the
atmospheric carbon dioxide that has accumulated over the many decades.
Julia
Olson is confident they're going to prevail in court. Ann Carlson and
most of the legal community still think it's a longshot, but she says
she's been wrong about this case every step of the way.
Ann
Carlson: Courts have asked governments to do bold things. The best
example would be Brown versus the Board of Education, when the court
ordered schools to desegregate with all deliberate speed. So there have
been court decisions that have asked governments to do very dramatic
things. This might be the biggest.
Steve Kroft: You've been stunned by how far this case has gotten. Why has it gotten this far?
Ann Carlson: I think there are several reasons this case has actually
withstood motions to dismiss. I think the first is that the lawyers have
crafted the case in a way that's very compelling. You have a number of
kids who are very compelling plaintiffs who are experiencing the harms
of climate change now and will experience the harms of climate change
much more dramatically as they get older. I think the hard question here
is the law.
 |
| Jayden Foytlin |
The latest oral arguments in Juliana versus the United States were
heard earlier this month in portland. But whatever happens next will
certainly be appealed. Two-thousand miles away, in the aptly named town
of Rayne, Louisiana, the family of one of the plaintiffs, 15-year-old
Jayden Foytlin, is still rebuilding from the last disaster in 2016 that
dumped 18 inches of rain on Rayne and Southern Louisiana in just 48
hours.
Jayden Foytlin: That's just something that shouldn't
happen. You can't really deny that it, climate change has something to
do with it. And you can't deny that it's something that we have to pay
attention to. I'm not sure if most of Louisiana, of South Louisiana is
going to be here, that's just a really big worry of mine.
For the foreseeable future, it's impossible to predict when and how the storms and the lawsuit are likely to end.
Links
