# Youth Climate Suits and Inter-generational Injustice

An episode of [Drilled](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1439735906), 28 Nov 2019, 27 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/tracking.swap.fm/track/SxlTEPDY7xDg35RXkASs/pdrl.fm/3e5572/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/9a7ab5ee-ce11-48ff-a544-b3ec00ea9b1e/e8f551b0-d4d7-41a6-9926-b3ec00f4bb1c/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=7f82f371-6316-4ea6-a108-b3ec00ea9b2d

Young people around the world are taking governments to court over climate change—and winning global attention in the process. We breakdown the Juliana vs. United States case, where a group of young people sued the government for incentivizing increased fossil fuel dependence, thereby robbing the next generation of the pursuit for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Others, like Greta Thunberg, filed a complaint with the United Nations that top fossil fuel-producing countries were violating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As both suits move forward, we take a look at how they differ from climate liability cases, what makes them so compelling, and where they might head next. Support us on Patreon. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:10] Speaker 1: Welcome to Drilled. I'm your host, Amy Westerbilt. We're working
[0:13] Speaker 1: on our next investigative series. It's now going to come
[0:16] Speaker 1: out in January, but trust me, the way it will
[0:18] Speaker 1: be worth it. In the meantime, we're bringing you updates
[0:21] Speaker 1: on some of the other climate lawsuits going on, some
[0:24] Speaker 1: of the cases that we've mentioned in the past. Today,
[0:26] Speaker 1: reporter Emily Gertz is joining US. Emily publishes a newsletter,
[0:29] Speaker 1: Deregulation Nation, that tracks the Trump administration's environmental rollbacks. She
[0:34] Speaker 1: also contributes to Drilled quite a bit, and today Emily
[0:37] Speaker 1: looked at two different cases where children are demanding climate
[0:41] Speaker 1: action through the US courts and international law. Emily, thanks
[0:44] Speaker 1: for being here. Oh, you're welcome.
[0:46] Speaker 2: It's great to be here.
[0:48] Speaker 3: So first, I feel like I should say that these
[0:51] Speaker 3: quote unquote children are now all like teams and twenty
[0:55] Speaker 3: year old, but.
[0:59] Speaker 2: Most of them in the first case we're going to
[1:01] Speaker 2: talk about, yes, quite a few of them are no
[1:04] Speaker 2: longer miners, but some of them still are. Some of
[1:07] Speaker 2: them still are.
[1:08] Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay, So let's look at this case that's working
[1:11] Speaker 3: its way through the federal courts. This is the one
[1:13] Speaker 3: that we've been hearing about for the last few years.
[1:15] Speaker 3: Juliana versus United States.
[1:17] Speaker 2: Yeah, this story begins back in August of twenty fifteen.
[1:22] Speaker 2: That's when this group of twenty one young people, all
[1:26] Speaker 2: of them at the time were eighteen or younger, sued
[1:30] Speaker 2: the United States over climate change. The named plaintiff in
[1:34] Speaker 2: the case, who was nineteen at the time, is from Eugene,
[1:38] Speaker 2: Oregon and named Kelsey Juliana. So they filed the suit
[1:42] Speaker 2: in federal District Court in Eugene, Oregon, and it's the
[1:46] Speaker 2: name of the case became Juliana versus United States. The
[1:50] Speaker 2: main charge that these young people are bringing is that
[1:54] Speaker 2: by promoting the continued production and use of fossil fuels,
[1:58] Speaker 2: the US government has quote violated their fundamental constitutional rights
[2:03] Speaker 2: to freedom from deprivation of life, liberty, and property quote.
[2:09] Speaker 2: I spoke with one of the youth plaintiffs named Nathan Barring,
[2:12] Speaker 2: who was fifteen then and is twenty now, and he
[2:16] Speaker 2: told me about why he got involved in the case.
[2:20] Speaker 4: I was born in Fairbanks, Alaska. I am actually at
[2:23] Speaker 4: third generation Alaskan, so my grandparents moved up before statehood,
[2:27] Speaker 4: and my mom was also born in a small coastal
[2:30] Speaker 4: fishing village, and essentially, I to sum it up, I
[2:36] Speaker 4: was very involved in local environmental issues that were disconnected
[2:41] Speaker 4: from climate change. For a few years. I wrote my
[2:45] Speaker 4: first letter to the editor when I was thirteen about
[2:47] Speaker 4: actually air quality that was connected to woodsmoke from woodstoves.
[2:53] Speaker 4: So that was just a human a completely local human
[2:57] Speaker 4: problem that had nothing to do with climate change. But
[3:00] Speaker 4: as I got more involved in those in that kind
[3:03] Speaker 4: of advocacy, I quickly realized that the most pressing environmental
[3:08] Speaker 4: challenge that Alaska and the Arctic was facing was climate change,
[3:12] Speaker 4: especially when you know the figure that the Arctic is
[3:16] Speaker 4: warming twice as fast as the rest of the world
[3:18] Speaker 4: hit me. I realized that, you know, we might lose
[3:21] Speaker 4: this Arctic identity before you know, the end of my lifetime.
[3:24] Speaker 2: What changes have you seen in your lifetime in your
[3:29] Speaker 2: part of Alaska?
[3:30] Speaker 4: Sure, and I don't even you know, I don't even
[3:32] Speaker 4: have to keep it only in my lifetime, but certainly
[3:35] Speaker 4: in the amount of in the time that my parents
[3:37] Speaker 4: have been there. You know, it's very pronounced how much
[3:40] Speaker 4: milder and warmer and wetter the winters have gotten. You know,
[3:43] Speaker 4: the prevalence of winter ice storms, which you know when
[3:47] Speaker 4: the Chinook winds will blow in from the south and
[3:51] Speaker 4: it'll go from you know, twenty below to thirty two
[3:54] Speaker 4: above overnight basically, and then it'll rain and then it
[3:56] Speaker 4: will freeze again. It coats the whole ground and everything
[3:59] Speaker 4: in a thick lege or ice, which is you know,
[4:02] Speaker 4: detrimental to all conditions of life. So that would include
[4:06] Speaker 4: things like you know, driving that will usually cancel school
[4:09] Speaker 4: for that kind of thing. You know, there's tons of
[4:13] Speaker 4: problems in other areas of the state with things like
[4:17] Speaker 4: permafrost melt that are very connected to infrastructure, but of
[4:22] Speaker 4: course even more connected to the climate as a whole.
[4:25] Speaker 4: As methane is is four times as potent of a
[4:28] Speaker 4: greenhouse gas as you know, carbon dioxide, So when that
[4:31] Speaker 4: permafrost melts, it's releasing all of that methane into the atmosphere.
[4:36] Speaker 4: And you know, Alaska such a state that we practically
[4:40] Speaker 4: have like four or five different climates up there. So
[4:43] Speaker 4: when you look at places like on the coast, we're
[4:46] Speaker 4: seeing how the salmon runs are being affected by the
[4:48] Speaker 4: warming oceans and the ocean acidification that's coming as a
[4:51] Speaker 4: result of climate change. And then when you look up north,
[4:54] Speaker 4: especially in the Northwest, which is really pronounced. We're seeing
[4:57] Speaker 4: how the loss of Sea I in the formation of
[5:01] Speaker 4: CEA isolator in the year is leading to horrific coastal
[5:05] Speaker 4: erosion that is actually taking entire indigenous communities that have
[5:08] Speaker 4: been there for centuries just right away into the ocean,
[5:12] Speaker 4: so that they're forced to relocate.
[5:13] Speaker 3: I'm just going to jump in here to underscore the
[5:17] Speaker 3: point of the case because it gets it has been
[5:19] Speaker 3: misreported so many times as suing the government for not
[5:25] Speaker 3: acting on climate change, which is not what it is.
[5:28] Speaker 3: It's suing them for, you know, continuing to subsidize fossil
[5:34] Speaker 3: fuel production, continuing to create and adopt policies that tie
[5:40] Speaker 3: us to automotive transportation as like the sole mode of transportation,
[5:45] Speaker 3: all of that stuff. So it's really like the moves
[5:48] Speaker 3: that the government has made to lock us into a
[5:50] Speaker 3: fossil fueled economy, not failing to act on climate change,
[5:55] Speaker 3: which is how it has been reported a lot of times,
[5:59] Speaker 3: and I still see people saying that today.
[6:02] Speaker 2: Yeah, and that is actually a point that when I
[6:05] Speaker 2: speak to legal experts about this case, and when I've
[6:09] Speaker 2: spoken to the lead lawyer in the case, Julia Olsen,
[6:13] Speaker 2: that is a point they try to get out that
[6:15] Speaker 2: this isn't This case isn't about failure to act. This
[6:19] Speaker 2: case is about actually taking actions that are violating the
[6:26] Speaker 2: constitutional rights of the plaintiffs.
[6:28] Speaker 3: Yeah.
[6:29] Speaker 2: Yeah, So that's Nathan Barring, one of the youth plaintiffs,
[6:32] Speaker 2: describing the effects of climate change that he and his
[6:36] Speaker 2: parents have already seen in Alaska. Several of the plaintiffs,
[6:40] Speaker 2: like Kelsey, who are from Oregon, have experienced intense droughts
[6:44] Speaker 2: and wildfires, and another is a New Yorker who experienced
[6:49] Speaker 2: the blackout caused by Hurricane Sandy. The youngest plane is
[6:52] Speaker 2: in this case is a twelve year old boy, he's
[6:55] Speaker 2: twelve now, who lives in a Florida Barrier Island and
[6:59] Speaker 2: they're dealing with with algael blooms and more intense storms
[7:02] Speaker 2: driven by warming oceans. So this is not theoretical. This
[7:08] Speaker 2: isn't in the future. These children are growing up and
[7:12] Speaker 2: young people are experiencing their young adulthoods with the impacts
[7:16] Speaker 2: of climate change actively affecting their lives for the worst.
[7:21] Speaker 3: That's really fascinating, and especially it really it's kind of
[7:25] Speaker 3: striking that he's twelve now, so he was seven years
[7:29] Speaker 3: old when this case was initially broad. That's incredible. Okay,
[7:33] Speaker 3: So these kids are suing the government for keeping policies
[7:36] Speaker 3: in place that are harming them and, by extension, all
[7:38] Speaker 3: children by making climate change worse. What's the legal question
[7:43] Speaker 3: at stake? Right?
[7:44] Speaker 2: Here's John Schwartz, a New York Times climate reporter who's
[7:48] Speaker 2: been covering this case, and he describes it very clearly
[7:52] Speaker 2: from your perspective as a reporter, What is the nut
[7:57] Speaker 2: of this litigation?
[8:00] Speaker 5: The question they're trying to get answered is is there
[8:02] Speaker 5: a constitutional right to a healthy climate, to a climate
[8:10] Speaker 5: that doesn't veer off into dangerous climate change with the
[8:14] Speaker 5: sort of temperature changes in extreme weather and the stuff
[8:17] Speaker 5: we're starting to see now, in which we will be
[8:19] Speaker 5: seeing much much more of as time goes on, if
[8:22] Speaker 5: we don't take the kind of action that's necessary to it.
[8:27] Speaker 3: So why not sue the producers of oil, coal and
[8:30] Speaker 3: natural gas like some of the communities that we've talked
[8:34] Speaker 3: about and talked to on drilled well.
[8:36] Speaker 2: Julia Olsen, the lead lawyer in the case that which
[8:40] Speaker 2: is to say, the lead lawyer for the youth plaintiffs,
[8:44] Speaker 2: says that they've suited the government because Ultimately, it's the
[8:47] Speaker 2: government's active support of fossil fuels that violates the constitutional
[8:53] Speaker 2: rights of these young people. Here's how Julia Olsen explains
[8:58] Speaker 2: that well.
[8:59] Speaker 6: As a lawyer, I'm looking at the party most responsible
[9:04] Speaker 6: for causing the harm, and I'm also looking at the
[9:08] Speaker 6: remedy that's available to really stop the climate emergency from
[9:14] Speaker 6: worsening and to begin to redress it so that we
[9:18] Speaker 6: can protect these fundamental life support resources for these young people.
[9:24] Speaker 6: And when I look at the party most responsible, it
[9:29] Speaker 6: is the United States government, historically and presently because of
[9:36] Speaker 6: the government's creation of promotion, of support of a national
[9:41] Speaker 6: fossil fuel energy system, and now, you know, particularly under
[9:46] Speaker 6: this administration, a push to be what the President calls
[9:51] Speaker 6: energy dominant in the world, and in this administration's view,
[9:56] Speaker 6: that means fossil fuel energy dominant, you know, promoting and
[10:02] Speaker 6: facilitating the extraction and exportation of our domestic fossil fuel
[10:08] Speaker 6: resources so that the rest of the world can continue
[10:11] Speaker 6: using them as well as us use them domestically. So
[10:16] Speaker 6: the case is about the government's affirmative acts that have
[10:22] Speaker 6: put these young people in a position of danger and
[10:25] Speaker 6: continue to act in ways that are enhancing the danger
[10:29] Speaker 6: for young people. I think it's a question of inner
[10:33] Speaker 6: generational injustice. I think it's discriminating against the young people
[10:38] Speaker 6: living today, but also all future generations and people who
[10:43] Speaker 6: aren't even yet born yet.
[10:44] Speaker 3: So really interesting thing about this case, alongside this big
[10:47] Speaker 3: new question that it's asking about a constitutional right to
[10:51] Speaker 3: a Liverpool climate, is that it's still in court at all.
[10:54] Speaker 3: It's been There's like, so many people have tried to
[10:57] Speaker 3: get this thrown out the Obama administration and tried to
[11:00] Speaker 3: have it dismissed without any hearings or a trial, and
[11:03] Speaker 3: so has the Trump administration. But federal judges have rejected
[11:07] Speaker 3: those attempts, and the Supreme Court also turned the Trump
[11:10] Speaker 3: Justice Department down when it tried to leap over the
[11:13] Speaker 3: lower courts to get it thrown out, which is a
[11:16] Speaker 3: real indication that, like, you know, the court system wants
[11:20] Speaker 3: to see this case.
[11:21] Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right. It's even more amazing considering that the
[11:25] Speaker 2: fossil fuel industry initially joined the government to try and
[11:29] Speaker 2: stop the case. In that process, the government and the
[11:33] Speaker 2: industry essentially agreed with the kids that climate change is real,
[11:38] Speaker 2: a fact that may surprise some people who are activists
[11:42] Speaker 2: in this realm, but they did allow that that was true.
[11:45] Speaker 2: Climate change is real and it's a huge threat to
[11:49] Speaker 2: the well being of these young people. But what the
[11:52] Speaker 2: government and the fossil fuel industry jointly argued at that
[11:56] Speaker 2: point was that the government has no constitutional to do
[12:01] Speaker 2: anything about that. So the trial is not about whether
[12:07] Speaker 2: climate change is real. It's about whether the Constitution can
[12:12] Speaker 2: be read to guarantee people the right to a stable climate,
[12:19] Speaker 2: you might say, the right to a climate in which
[12:21] Speaker 2: they can pursue life and liberty and happiness.
[12:26] Speaker 3: I mean, it really feels to me like the life
[12:31] Speaker 3: part is pretty valid, Like people are dying already. All
[12:36] Speaker 3: the projections are showing that that is going to be
[12:40] Speaker 3: part of climate change, and yeah, it's really is It's
[12:44] Speaker 3: really interesting. Okay, So fast forward to June twenty seventeen.
[12:49] Speaker 3: Fossil feel industry drops out of the case. Do we
[12:51] Speaker 3: know why.
[12:52] Speaker 2: Well, we don't know exactly why, but we can speculate
[12:56] Speaker 2: from their perspective. At that point it may have become
[13:00] Speaker 2: too risky to stay on board with the government because
[13:04] Speaker 2: at that point it became more likely that the case
[13:07] Speaker 2: was going to go to trial. When the case goes
[13:10] Speaker 2: to trial, of course, all the parties become subject to
[13:13] Speaker 2: pre trial discovery, which for the industry might have well
[13:17] Speaker 2: meant giving Julia Olsen, this lawyer for the youth plaintiffs materials,
[13:25] Speaker 2: you know, internal company documents about climate change or policy lobbying,
[13:30] Speaker 2: whatever is relevant to the case. And this could be
[13:34] Speaker 2: stuff they'd rather keep private, and therefore, from their perspective,
[13:40] Speaker 2: getting off the case at that point may have made
[13:42] Speaker 2: more sense.
[13:45] Speaker 3: Okay, So where does Juliana versus the United States stand now?
[13:50] Speaker 2: Well, this past June, lawyers for both sides appeared at
[13:53] Speaker 2: a hearing before a three judge panel, a federal three
[13:57] Speaker 2: judge panel. The judges asked them both a lot of
[14:00] Speaker 2: tough questions about climate change and about the legal basis
[14:03] Speaker 2: for the case to go to trial, and now we're
[14:06] Speaker 2: waiting for their decision. John Schwartz of The New York Times,
[14:10] Speaker 2: who I spoke to about the case, says, there's really
[14:13] Speaker 2: no way to know whether or not the judges will
[14:16] Speaker 2: allow the case to go to trial.
[14:18] Speaker 5: There are many things that can happen. Then, as they say,
[14:20] Speaker 5: with a forward pass, you know, three things can happen.
[14:23] Speaker 5: Two of them are bad. The case can get derailed,
[14:26] Speaker 5: it can go back down to the district court and
[14:29] Speaker 5: the trial can begin, or they can make it, or
[14:31] Speaker 5: they can issue their decision, and either or the other
[14:34] Speaker 5: side will appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Again,
[14:36] Speaker 5: It's been before the Supreme Court twice on these interlocutory motions,
[14:41] Speaker 5: on these appeals that come up before you even get
[14:44] Speaker 5: to start the trial.
[14:50] Speaker 3: So there's an equally exciting international case going on right
[14:54] Speaker 3: This is involving Swedish climate activist Gretathenburg and a handful
[14:59] Speaker 3: of other climate activists yep YEP.
[15:01] Speaker 2: On the same day as the United Nations Climate Summit
[15:05] Speaker 2: in September, Tunberg and fifteen other young people from around
[15:10] Speaker 2: the world filed a complaint with the United Nations against
[15:14] Speaker 2: five countries. Those countries are Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey.
[15:21] Speaker 2: And the complaint that these young people have made and
[15:24] Speaker 2: these this group of people is aged eight to seventeen.
[15:29] Speaker 2: They state that by continuing to promote fossil fuels and
[15:33] Speaker 2: failing to curb carbon emissions fast enough, that these countries
[15:38] Speaker 2: are threatening their lives in future livelihoods, which they say
[15:43] Speaker 2: violates their human rights under a very specific international treaty
[15:47] Speaker 2: called the Convention of the Rights of the Child.
[15:50] Speaker 3: That's super interesting. So as you were saying the list
[15:53] Speaker 3: of countries, I was like, why wasn't the United States
[15:56] Speaker 3: included in this? But it's, of course, because the United
[15:58] Speaker 3: States hasn't signed on to the Convention of the.
[16:01] Speaker 2: Right I mean, which is you know, which I mean
[16:05] Speaker 2: isn't specific to that treaty. The US actually doesn't sign
[16:08] Speaker 2: on to many international treaties because of the feeling that
[16:14] Speaker 2: it would be handing off sovereignty of domestic policy to
[16:20] Speaker 2: foreign entity. So yeah, so so, I mean, it feels
[16:23] Speaker 2: especially morally glaring that we're not signed on to this,
[16:27] Speaker 2: you know, a treaty protecting the rights of children. But
[16:29] Speaker 2: in international terms, unfortunately, it's not that unusual.
[16:35] Speaker 3: Okay, So this sound this case sounds pretty similar to
[16:40] Speaker 3: the Juliata complaint, is it? Or are they making a
[16:42] Speaker 3: totally different argument there?
[16:44] Speaker 2: There are some at least superficial similarities between this international
[16:49] Speaker 2: case and the Juliana versus United States case. Both groups
[16:53] Speaker 2: of children are making similar accusations that governments are actively
[16:58] Speaker 2: doing things right now that are going to intensify future
[17:01] Speaker 2: climate change, and that they're doing them despite knowing that
[17:04] Speaker 2: those actions will make things worse for the children who
[17:07] Speaker 2: are alive today and worse than they might otherwise have
[17:11] Speaker 2: to be if the government was ramping down climate emissions sooner.
[17:17] Speaker 2: I spoke with Ramine Pajan of Earth Justice, one of
[17:20] Speaker 2: the co councils in this United Nations complaint, and here's
[17:23] Speaker 2: how he contrasts the two cases.
[17:26] Speaker 7: First of all, that Juliana case is extremely important, and
[17:30] Speaker 7: our case really is a supplement to that case. These
[17:35] Speaker 7: those kind of cases where children are bringing are challenging
[17:39] Speaker 7: actions and in actions of their respective governments in their
[17:45] Speaker 7: countries is very important, and our case is a little
[17:50] Speaker 7: bit different. And I think the first difference is in
[17:55] Speaker 7: the case of Juliana, we haven't named the United States
[17:59] Speaker 7: as a party because, as I said earlier, they have
[18:02] Speaker 7: not agreed to this treaty, the only country in the
[18:06] Speaker 7: world that has not agreed to it. The other really
[18:09] Speaker 7: big difference is that we are bringing a claim. These petitioners,
[18:14] Speaker 7: these youths, are bringing a claim against five countries together,
[18:19] Speaker 7: which means that for them to do that at the
[18:22] Speaker 7: national level, they would need to bring five different cases
[18:26] Speaker 7: and five different countries. And we argue that that's really
[18:31] Speaker 7: burdensome and costly. But not only that, if they were
[18:34] Speaker 7: to bring a case in Brazil, they could not challenge
[18:38] Speaker 7: the actions or inactions for example, Turkey through Brazilian court
[18:43] Speaker 7: cases because of foreign sovereign immunity principles. So the type
[18:49] Speaker 7: of case that we're bringing is sort of directed at
[18:53] Speaker 7: five countries. It would be too hard to bring them
[18:56] Speaker 7: in each country. But then also from a legal perspective,
[19:00] Speaker 7: we're making arguments about international cooperation and the need for
[19:05] Speaker 7: each of these countries that we have brought the case
[19:07] Speaker 7: against to do more at the international level to ensure
[19:11] Speaker 7: that other polluters are also reducing their emissions. So that
[19:15] Speaker 7: particular claim is a little bit different than the typically
[19:19] Speaker 7: the kind of claims that are brought at the national
[19:22] Speaker 7: level courts.
[19:23] Speaker 2: So that was Ramin Pajan. According to him, these five
[19:26] Speaker 2: countries are significant in three ways. The five countries that
[19:31] Speaker 2: are named in this complaint, they're among the biggest historical
[19:34] Speaker 2: and current greenhouse gas emitters. Each has agreed that children
[19:38] Speaker 2: from their countries can make human rights complaints against them
[19:42] Speaker 2: and seek justice under the Human Rights of the Child Treaty.
[19:46] Speaker 2: And each of these countries is a member of the
[19:50] Speaker 2: G twenty group of major economic powers.
[19:53] Speaker 3: So if the UN finds against them here and they
[19:56] Speaker 3: curb their support for fossil fuels as a result, it
[19:59] Speaker 3: might put some sort of pressure on other wealthy nations
[20:02] Speaker 3: to follow suit. Yeah, is that like a fair assumption.
[20:06] Speaker 2: That's the working assumption as best I can take away.
[20:11] Speaker 2: Some nations take following these UN agreements more seriously than
[20:15] Speaker 2: the US often seems to do, or at least they
[20:18] Speaker 2: don't like being called out publicly on not following them.
[20:22] Speaker 2: Jean and his co counsul Michael Hosfeld say that they
[20:26] Speaker 2: would not have brought this suit. Excuse me, it's not
[20:29] Speaker 2: a suit, it's a complaint. They would not have brought
[20:32] Speaker 2: this complaint if they didn't think it could ultimately pressure
[20:36] Speaker 2: big carbon polluters to work harder and faster to get
[20:39] Speaker 2: off fossil fuels.
[20:41] Speaker 3: That's super interesting. I imagine that the fact that Greta
[20:45] Speaker 3: has become world famous probably helps with the kind of
[20:48] Speaker 3: public shaming or like call out on this too. Who
[20:52] Speaker 3: are some of the other kids that have joined this complaint?
[20:54] Speaker 2: Well, this is truly a global group of people. There
[20:57] Speaker 2: are two suites, Greta and an eight year old Sammi
[21:01] Speaker 2: reindeer herder named ellen Ann, and the other kids in
[21:06] Speaker 2: this complaint come from Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, India, Palau,
[21:12] Speaker 2: the Marshall Islands, Nigeria, South Africa, Tunisia and the United States.
[21:18] Speaker 3: Wow, that's an incredible group. So there are American kids
[21:23] Speaker 3: on this complaint too. How does that work if they're not?
[21:28] Speaker 3: I don't know, like, do the complainants have to be
[21:30] Speaker 3: from some of the countries that are being charged here?
[21:35] Speaker 2: Yeah? You know. Actually that's a good question of why
[21:39] Speaker 2: they found some plaintiffs from the United States to join
[21:43] Speaker 2: this complaint when the US isn't a signatory on the treaty,
[21:48] Speaker 2: And to be honest, I would have to follow up
[21:50] Speaker 2: to learn more about that. One of those Americans, though,
[21:54] Speaker 2: is Carl Smith. He's a seventeen year old Upac from
[21:58] Speaker 2: western Alaska. Like ellen Ann, the Swedish Sami girl, he's
[22:03] Speaker 2: an indigenous person whose ancient way of life depends on
[22:07] Speaker 2: a reliably colder climate, and they both live in or
[22:11] Speaker 2: near the Arctic, which has already warmed up much faster
[22:14] Speaker 2: than most of the rest of the world. There's another
[22:17] Speaker 2: American on the case. Her name is Alexandria via Signor.
[22:22] Speaker 2: She's fourteen and she's also a Friday's for Future School
[22:26] Speaker 2: strike leader here in New York City, and she and
[22:30] Speaker 2: I talked about why she's part of this case.
[22:33] Speaker 8: Yeah, so I guess what had actually made me get
[22:36] Speaker 8: involved in organizing and becoming a climate actvis was I
[22:40] Speaker 8: was visiting family back in northern California, where I was
[22:44] Speaker 8: born and raised, and I was visiting family when the
[22:47] Speaker 8: Paradise Fire broke out, and so Paradise had quickly became
[22:51] Speaker 8: the worst wildfire in California's history, and many people died
[22:55] Speaker 8: and lost their loved ones, and a lot of homes
[22:58] Speaker 8: were destroyed.
[22:59] Speaker 9: And I was so close to this fire, and I
[23:01] Speaker 9: was seeing what.
[23:02] Speaker 8: Was happening to the community around us, and as well
[23:05] Speaker 8: experiencing that smoke. The smoke was seeping into my house.
[23:10] Speaker 8: It was inflaming my asthma and making me very sick,
[23:13] Speaker 8: and seeing how people were in the community were handing
[23:16] Speaker 8: out these face masks to keep out the harmful particles
[23:20] Speaker 8: from the smoke. But the face mass didn't actually keep
[23:23] Speaker 8: out what was harmful to you. It was actually you
[23:27] Speaker 8: weren't protecting yourself from from the effects and so that
[23:31] Speaker 8: shows how we are so unprepared to really protect ourselves
[23:35] Speaker 8: from the climate crisis. And so because of how I
[23:38] Speaker 8: was in such a unsafe situation, my family had to
[23:42] Speaker 8: send me back to New York City early. And at
[23:45] Speaker 8: that point, once I got back, I was really upset
[23:48] Speaker 8: and I wanted to.
[23:49] Speaker 9: Get involved and I wanted to do something about it.
[23:52] Speaker 8: And so I started to research the effects of the
[23:54] Speaker 8: climate crisis, and I started to research wildfires, and I
[23:58] Speaker 8: saw the connection between climate change in California's wildfires. And
[24:02] Speaker 8: because of that, that made me want to take action
[24:05] Speaker 8: and really do something and make my voice heard. And
[24:08] Speaker 8: only after seeing Gretitenberg speak at COP twenty four is
[24:11] Speaker 8: what made me know what I could do and what
[24:14] Speaker 8: I could really do to make my voice heard.
[24:16] Speaker 9: And so that is why I started my weekly climate
[24:19] Speaker 9: strike on December fourteenth of twenty eighteen. And it was
[24:23] Speaker 9: after seeing how the.
[24:24] Speaker 8: Climate crisis is affecting my hometown, but also seeing.
[24:28] Speaker 9: How the climate crisis is hitting people all around the world.
[24:32] Speaker 3: So COP twenty four, which she mentions, there was the
[24:35] Speaker 3: twenty eighteen International Climate Treaty Conference in Poland, which didn't
[24:39] Speaker 3: really move the needle on global climate action right.
[24:43] Speaker 2: It was a letdown, just like September's UN Climate Summit,
[24:47] Speaker 2: and just like the Poland meeting. It's what young people
[24:51] Speaker 2: and not nations did at these meetings that seems to
[24:53] Speaker 2: have had the biggest impact so far in terms of
[24:56] Speaker 2: building support to slash fossil fuels.
[25:00] Speaker 3: It comes next with this UN children's case.
[25:02] Speaker 2: Well, now we're waiting to hear if the UN Committee
[25:06] Speaker 2: on the Rights of the Child takes up the case.
[25:09] Speaker 2: If they do, they'll start investigating the charges that the
[25:14] Speaker 2: young people have made, and that could include getting testimony
[25:17] Speaker 2: from the kids and others on the climate effects of
[25:21] Speaker 2: continuing to promote the use of fossil fuels. Eventually, this
[25:26] Speaker 2: committee will release its findings about whether or not the
[25:29] Speaker 2: five nations have violated these kids' rights and what needs
[25:33] Speaker 2: to happen if they have. The two co councils, Pijan
[25:38] Speaker 2: and Hausfeld say that these sorts of human rights investigations
[25:42] Speaker 2: can take a year or more, but they're hopeful that
[25:46] Speaker 2: given the severity that the climate crisis is already showing,
[25:52] Speaker 2: that the committee will recognize that this is urgent and
[25:55] Speaker 2: that they will work faster.
[25:57] Speaker 3: Okay, that's all super interesting. Thanks Emily keep us posted
[26:01] Speaker 3: on what happens next. In both these cases, we'll do.
[26:10] Speaker 1: Okay, that's it for this episode. We'll have a couple
[26:13] Speaker 1: more bonus episodes for you in December, and then we
[26:16] Speaker 1: will go dark for a few weeks and bring you
[26:19] Speaker 1: season three in January. Stay tuned for that and we'll
[26:22] Speaker 1: see you next time. Thanks a lot.
[26:29] Speaker 3: Drilled is produced and distributed by Critical Frequency.
[26:33] Speaker 1: The show was created and reported by me. Our music
[26:36] Speaker 1: is by Martin Wissenberg. You can find Drilled wherever you
[26:40] Speaker 1: get your podcasts, and please remember to drop us a
[26:42] Speaker 1: rating or review.
[26:43] Speaker 3: It really helps us find new listeners.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.