Climate activists have demonstrated that they are, regardless of age, just petulant children.
A vegan protest at Starbucks had activists blocking the entrance of Starbucks. Why? Because Starbucks had charged more for soy milk than actual milk. So, the climate activists threw a tantrum.
Crisis Crusaders have invaded art galleries and museums dumping soup and paint on priceless masterpieces to get their “we all gonna die” message across. In Australia, two activists with "Extinction Rebellion" superglued their hands onto the frame surrounding Pablo Picasso's painting “Massacre en Corée."
And at the Gallery in London, two activists threw tomato soup on Van Gogh’s "Sunflowers." The pair chanted their incantation to their climate gods demanding action while supergluing their hands to walls with a petroleum-based glue.
“Families can’t even afford to heat a tin of soup,” said the pink-haired activist. Ummm. Correct me if I am wrong, but unless that “family” is burning wood, that heat comes from one form of petroleum or another.
In 2015 an activist lawyer named Julia Olsen filed a federal lawsuit in Eugene Oregon. It was styled Juliana v. United States. The argument was specious and should have been dismissed by the trial judge. Olsen, filing for 21 children aged eight and up, claimed that the U.S. Constitution required the U.S. Government to address the “climate crisis” and that the plaintiff children had “a right to a stable climate system that can sustain human life.”
Although a reasonable person would read such nonsense and declare it nonsense, the case remained alive for nine years.
The district court’s decision to allow the case to move forward, declaring that plaintiffs had a constitutional “right” to a clean environment, was appealed to the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco. In 2020, in a 2-1 decision, the case was ordered dismissed for lack of standing. Although the case was dismissed, there seemed to be a glimmer of hope for the plaintiffs. The opinion began with this:
In the mid-1960s, a popular song warned that we were “on the eve of destruction.”
The first two pages encompassed the court agreeing with the plaintiffs that the planet is doomed unless fossil fuels are eliminated. But then the judges seemed to grasp sanity and correctly decided that a trial court was wrong. The plaintiffs had no standing. The matter was dismissed and sent back to the trial court.
The trial judge is a Clinton appointee named Ann L. Aiken. She might have read that opening line and thought, “Maybe I’ll let them amend the complaint.” And she did allow for an amended complaint, notwithstanding the Circuit Court's order to dismiss. Plaintiffs amended — and what they produced was pretty much the same Complaint.
The matter was again appealed and this time the Appeals Court didn’t wax on about “climate change” or that we are “on the eve of destruction.” It told the petulant kids in Oregon and counsel that the case was dismissed once – it is now dismissed in total. In essence, the court said to the kids: "No means no."
Counsel for the kids stomped her feet and tossed a fit.
"This is a tragic and unjust ruling, but it is not over," Olson said. "A declaration of our constitutional rights is one of the few things that has moved our nation to greater justice and equality throughout history."
Is this the end of the matter? No. Olson said she'll take it to the full Ninth Circuit panel. If she stomps her feet hard enough, maybe the full panel will agree with her.
