Kids Coming at Climate Deniers, Solving Climate Science, Leading the Way

March 3, 2018

Not just the NRA.

Climate Denial Geezers are on the agenda for youthful activists.

Rolling Stone:

Generation Z – millennials’ younger brothers and sisters – are increasingly finding their voices in the Trump era, expanding media-savvy campaigns for racial equality and gun control to encompass climate change. A group of high school students are now planning a nationwide series of climate marches on July 21st, when they will confront lawmakers in Washington, D.C. with a list of their demands for a livable climate.

“I’d say I do about three hours of conference calls every single day,” says Jamie Margolin, a 16-year-old high school sophomore in Seattle who is the lead organizer of the march. “I’m not new to the climate activism world.”

It’s true. Margolin is one of 13 young plaintiffs suing Washington state government for not taking sufficient action to address climate change. She frequently spends lunches answering emails instead of hanging out with friends. And the Seattle teen is not an anomaly: Statistically, young women of color such as Margolin are the demographic most engaged on climate issues.

Margolin started planning the upcoming climate march, which she calls Zero Hour, last August, after the Trump administration announced its plans to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. She recruited Mrinalini Chakraborty, head of strategy for the national Women’s March, to help the students file for permits and plan logistics. Now, the organizing committee includes dozens of youth from Connecticut to California. The official websitefor the march launched last week.

Now, the group is drawing inspiration from the teen-led movement for federal gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Margolin was particularly impressed when the Parkland students confronted lawmakers about accepting money from the NRA – which produced some predictably awkward stammers. Her team is considering making similar demands for politicians to refuse money from the fossil fuel industry.

The fervor of Parkland activists as they take their fight to national and state officials gives Margolin confidence that Zero Hour is on the right track, she says. For her, her youth and gender are natural assets in the fight against climate change. “I’m a 16-year-old Latina girl,” she says, “I can help.”

Despite the recent uptick of attention, youth environmental activism isn’t new. There have been youth factions at the United Nations’ annual climate conference, for example, since the beginning of that process nearly 30 years ago. And over the past week, I’ve heard from dozens of young people from around the country who want to see more aggressive climate action.

Therese Etoka, a 17-year-old climate activist from Boise, Idaho, grew up with an awareness about the increasing frequency of wildfires. She now focuses on making actionable demands from those in power, including (successfully) testifying before the Idaho State Senate in support of stricter classroom science standards, on the day of the Parkland shooting. She sees the similarities between NRA and Exxon influencing policy, and sees it as her job to speak up before it’s too late: “This cannot be normal. We’ve had it.”

Edgar McGregor, also 17, often tweets about his anxiety from living in drought-prone southern California. He has been teaching himself climate science to understand what might be in store for his home state in the future.

“Teenagers like me have often wondered how to combat climate change,” McGregor recently tweeted. But he believes activism alone no longer works: “The ones who are speaking out must be the ones that change … and do the work themselves.”

It seems as though fearlessness among teenagers who haven’t yet reached voting age is one symptom of the cultural and environmental anxieties their generation is steeped in. Scientists agree that the world is fast approaching – and perhaps already past – key climate turning points, and that actions in the next few years will have centuries-long ripple effects. Combine that near-inevitability of radical environmental change with a federal government that holds climate denial as an official position – and you’ve got a generation that accepts radical political change as the only reasonable option.

“The powerful thing about youth is that I don’t have a hidden agenda,” says Margolin. By default, teenagers’ only vested interest is their future. “I don’t get paid for this, I’m not lobbying on behalf of anybody. I’m only doing this because it feels so urgent.”

Climate Liability News:

Thirteen young people are suing the state of Washington for violating their constitutional rights by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect them from the impacts of climate change.

The plaintiffs say the state is preventing them from enjoying the same rights, benefits and privileges of past generations and is violating the state’s public trust doctrine.

In the lawsuit, filed Friday in Kings County Superior Court, the plaintiffs allege that the state of Washington, Gov. Jay Inslee and several state agencies have known for a long time that younger generations are living in “dangerous climate conditions” but have acted with “shocking deliberate indifference and abdication of duty” by exacerbating the climate crisis and delaying meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gases.

Several of the plaintiffs in the suit were also plaintiffs in Foster v. Ecology, which asked the court in 2014 to force the Washington Department of Ecology to consider a petition to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The court acknowledged the youth had the constitutional right to live in a healthful environment with the benefit of public trust resources and ruled that the state was not adequately reducing its greenhouse gas emissions.

The case resulted in the adoption of Washington’s Clean Air Rule in 2016, however plaintiffs say the rule took too long and did not go far enough. It  exempts the state’s only coal-fired generating station and other big polluters and the plaintiffs say it is not aggressive enough to protect future generations from the dire consequences of climate change.

The rule’s compliance requirements were also suspended in December as the result of a ruling by the Thurston County Superior Court.

“Defendants have a systemic policy, custom and practice of authorizing projects, activities, and policies that cause emissions of dangerous and substantial levels of GHG pollution into the atmosphere,” wrote Andrea Rogers, an attorney with Our Children’s Trust, who is representing the young plaintiffs in the new case.

A spokesperson for Inslee’s office said officials  are still reviewing the complaint.

“It is worth noting that Gov. Inslee has spent a considerable part of his life and career dedicated to fighting climate change, fighting for renewable energy, clean air and clean water,” she said, adding that several bills currently before the state legislature would strengthen these efforts.

Representatives from the other defendant agencies did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


16 Responses to “Kids Coming at Climate Deniers, Solving Climate Science, Leading the Way”

  1. nickreality65 Says:

    RGHE theory exists only to explain why the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without. Not so. The average global temperature of 288 K is a massive WAG at the ”surface.” The w/o temperature of 255 K is a theoretical S-B ideal BB OLR calculation at the top of – the atmosphere. An obviously flawed RGHE faux-thermodynamic “theory” pretends to explain a mechanism behind this non-existent phenomenon, the difference between two made up atmospheric numbers.

    But with such great personal, professional and capital investment in this failed premise, like the man with only a hammer, assorted climate “experts” pontificate that every extreme, newsworthy weather or biospheric flora or fauna variation just must be due to “climate change.”

    The Earth’s albedo/atmosphere doesn’t keep the Earth warm, it keeps the Earth cool. As albedo increases, heating and temperature decrease. As albedo decreases, heating and temperature increase.

    Over 9,700 views of my five WriterBeat papers and zero rebuttals. There was one lecture on water vapor, but that kind of misses the CO2 point.

    Step right up, bring science, I did.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE (LinkedIn)—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

  2. Kids, if you catch your parents watching Fox News, change the channel and hide the remote!

    Then reprogram the set-top box to block Fox News.

    Remember — they aren’t called “parental controls” for nothing!

  3. Adrian Vance Says:

    “Anthropogenic global warming” is a fraud and I prove it in “CO2 Is Innocent” free at: where you can clip copy the six page paper, have the chemistry and stoichiometry authenticated by a Chemistry teacher or anyone who has had college Chemistry, do the demo and see for yourself. I prove what I say. Adrian Vance

  4. […] the people, especially the young of this world, are starting to feel the power. The young ones. They are smart, they are educated, […]

  5. I would generally say that might be a good idea, but then one has to consider the fact that Faux News viewers are mentally addicted to that channel, and they will likely exhibit the same violent behavior that drug addicts exhibit when they can’t get a fix. It won’t be pretty, and it might be dangerous to the youngsters.

  6. Andy Lee Robinson Says:

    You cannot reason with the NRA or fossil fuel interests – you can only go for their bottom lines and attack their sources of funding.

    It’s not just about the money, it’s *only* about the money and fuck anything that gets in the way – even physics and children’s futures.

    There has to be one hell of a revolution to force inevitable change – let’s hope it’ll be a peaceful and orderly one.

    • Adrian Vance Says:

      I have a free demo experiment in “CO2 Is Innocent” at that you can clip-copy, print and have authenticaed by anyone that has had college Chemistry, do the low cost demo experiment, like $7, and see that CO2 in the quantities feared, does not heat the atmosphere and in greater quantities cools it! Prove it with your own eyes in your own experiment that you can see for yourself. I prove what I say. Adrian Vance

      • greenman3610 Says:

        let me know when you perfect the anti gravity device.

        • You definitely caught a live one here. Check out this paragraph that I lifted from his website:

          There are no “greenhouse gases” forming a solid, clear layer topping the troposphere to make Earth a “greenhouse” by capturing IR physically and Dr. Jim Hansen, Ph.D., inventor of this concept claims that the effect heats the atmosphere overnight as Earth emits IR energy captured during the day, but all overnight temperature records show a steady temperature decline from sunset to sunrise which says “No re-emission!” It is not rising, per Dr. Hansen, or even flat. It declines all night.

          I think you should throw him back.

          • Adrian Vance Says:

            Instead of making a fool of yourself in public why don’t you take that quote to a physicist and ask him about the physics of greenhouses and the upper atmosphere. There is no similarity and the Hansen analogy is at best a stupid mistake for which he should have been defrocked, losing his degree and post.
            If you want to put $100 on it we can arrange that, but I get to nominate the physicist and he will be 100% authentic.

          • Dr. Hansen “inventor of the concept”?

            Then I guess you’ve never heard of Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius or Guy Callendar.

            The rest of that paragraph is simply too silly to waste any more time with.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Adrian is no newcomer to Crock—-he HAS been “thrown back” a number of times, but as Yoda would say, “The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one”, so he keeps jumping back on the hook.

            If you search him out on the web, you will find that he is a prolific publisher of ignorant unadulterated bullshit on many topics, not just climate change. Here’s something he posted—–tasteful, huh? Especially to those of us who lost someone who was high in the WTC towers on 9/11

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Forgot to say go full screen for proper “impact”

      • How come the Earth is not a ball of ice. ?

        • Adrian Vance Says:

          Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius or Guy Callendar. never wrote of “Radiative Forcing,” “Feedback Loops,” “Greenhouse Gases” or any of the other fake science Hansen rambles on about. Look in every Physics textbook on gases or the “Handbook of Chemistry and Physics” published by the Chemical Rubber Company and you cannot find anything on these nonsensical terms. The fact of the matter is that they are comity codes for 30,000 physicists our government has in NASA, NOAA and GISS at $90,000 to $180,000 per year coming up with more BS and myths so they can tax and control energy and the people.

          The key to all this is the Le Chatelier Principle for Gases which has been removed from all the Physics textbooks published after 1990, but we document and explain it in “CO2 Is Innocent” at Read it, clip it, print it, have it authenticated by and physical scientist who graduated before 1988. Anyone with a degree after that year is defective.

    • But the fossil fuel interests ‘sources of funding’ are their customers, which means you and me and virtually every other household and business in the U. S. (not to mention world) economy.

      That makes addressing climate change really hard unless you can change the behavior of all us willing patrons.

      Why don’t we just boycott them? It would be tough to get the buy-in you’d need, given the convenience and the dependence built up around them. It has to be unwound slowly.

      But putting a price on carbon via a carbon tax (paid on carbon in the fuels by extractors), starting small but rising over time, would start consumers looking hard for alternatives, and same for businesses, government, i.e. all participants. That would decrease demand for fossil fuels, which goes directly at the business model of fossil fuel interests, ending their growth in favor of alternatives (renewables and improved efficiency).

      Keeping fossil fuels cheap and handy is just not going to work, given that what we need is to use less of them.

      The tax can be returned to households as a monthly rebate, to help cushion the economic impacts and provide an economic stimulus (this is Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s Carbon Fee & Dividend proposal).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: