On the case. From the Commonwealth Club of california, this is an hour. Our program tonight is our constitution, our climate and our children. Is there a right not to be harmed by Climate Change . And our speakers tonight are a distinguished group with phil gregory, partner, cojet petrie and macarthur llp, tia hatten, youth plaintiff in constitution and public trust case and julia olsen, executive director, our Childrens Trust. So please welcome our wonderful panel and greet them for us. [ applause ] and well ask phil to begin. Well, we just saw for those of you who havent heard, an amazing judicial feat today where the ninth circuit in a 30 opinion kept the temporary restraining order nationwide in place over the travel ban and that is [ cheers and applause ] its wonderful news and an excellent example about how our courts who serve as the third branch of government check the other two branches, the congress and the executive when they overstep their bounds, but courts dont just stop actions. Courts can cause actions. Courts can cause the executive branch to take steps and thats the basis of our suit and with that, im going to turn it over to julia olsen, executive director of our Childrens Trust and colead counsel on our case. Thanks, phil. Thanks, everyone, for being here tonight. Thanks to ann and the Commonwealth Club for organizing the event. Its great to see such support here for the young people involved in this case. So the last thing youre about to hear about for the next hour or so is really a case for everybody, and its a case for all the children in your lives who you love, and so i want to start by telling you the story of one child who is a plaintiff in the case. Shes 13 years old. Her name jaden and she lives in louisiana. For those of you in the audience you can see a picture of her on the screen. On august 15th at 5 00 a. M. , she stepped out of her bed and stepped into water that was up to her ankles in her home. This was during the storms you might remember last august in the south, and in her words, she stepped out of bed and stepped right into Climate Change. So the waters are flowing in. Theyre coming up from the floors of her home, theyre coming through the roof, pouringing in and theres also sewage water flowing out of the tubs and the sinks and the toilets in her home. So shes at home with her siblings. Her mom was in a neighboring community trying to help friends struggling with flooding from the day before and it took her several miles to get home to her children, she was five deep in water and her car was flooded. Jadens family survived the flood. 13 people in the region died and our federal government said that this is a 1,000year storm event, but the problem is these 1,000year storm events arent coming every 1,000 years anymore and theyre coming with frequency and severity and the government says that its directly attributable to Climate Change. So thats a story of one of the youth and the reason that we founded our Childrens Trust in 2010. We did so to elevate the voice of young people and to give them a platform to secure their rights to a healthy atmosphere and a stable climate system and you can see on the screen, 21 of these plaintiffs who are involved in the juliana versus United States case that well talk about in depth tonight. We lift up these voices and give them a way to bring action against government that will stabilize the climate system for them and also for future generations on whose behalf they stand sop owe we connect them with lawyers like phil gregory who donates all of his time probono to the cause. Hes been doing that for six years. [ applause ] and he truly is a hero. Hes been in it from the beginning and there are many lawyers like him around the country and around the world who are doing the same thing on behalf of youth everywhere in the state cases and other global actions that we support. So the lawses that we really turn to in this effort are foundational laws. Theyre laws that explain why we have government in the first place and what our basic human rights are and one of them is the Public Trust Doctrine and this goes back to ancient roman times and the justinian code is the baseline and the bedro of Legal Systems around the world and its simple. It says that government, as a sovereign trustee, and it holds those vital resources that we all depend upon and share in common like air and water entrust to future generations and you, and the youth we represent are the beneficiaries of that trust as the future generations and those resources need to be protected so they could be for everyones benefit and use and not just for the exploitation by the fossil fuel industry. Another thing thats core about what our Childrens Trust does is we are not willing to compromise the stashlity of the climate system and the longevity for the resources we need for survival so we look to scientists and experts from around the globe who are doing the most incredible research to really identify what needs to happen to protect the climate system for our great, great, great grandchildren and a 2degree celsius rise in temperatures which is what the Global Community has been focused on is actually catastrophic. Humans have never lived in that kind of world and well see catastrophic Sea Level Rise. Well see storms beyond belief. Well see immense drought, global chaos and disruption. So what we really need to do and we can do it is we need to return to an atmosphere Carbon Dioxide level of 350 parts per million and we need to stabilize temperatures that at less than a longterm warming of 1 degree celsius. So all of our actions on behalf of youth are uncompromising and based on the best science. I hope youre seeing the right slide there. I have an image of what this reflects and the other thing, just before i turn it over to phil to talk a little bit more about this movement and this campaign. This really is strategic litigation thats coordinateded and it is based on the campaign. So we do a lot of media work and we give the youth a platform to speak and look to other social justice movements, and ill let phil talk about those. Im going to use three expressions. One is unprecedented, another, a novel theory, third, this is no ordinary lawsuit. You think they would be coming from press clippings, but theyre from the. S. Judges have written about our case, but were really not a new theory. This has been going on for decades. When we first started formulating these cases we focused on the civil rights cases and we said its the youth that were put front and center not only through high school and segregation rallies, but the naacp put kids on trial as well as the science showing the harm that separate, but equal, was causing to the kids in the south. An excellent book on this if you havent read it is richard klugers book simple justice its on the history of brown versus board of education and how they got to the decision, but essentially what the naacp was doing was putting civil rights on trial by having the youth as well as scientists from around the nation testify about the harms that were occurring. So if you read the brown decision it really talks about the science that was put before the courts. Another thing book that i want to commend to you that i handed out my last copy is called unlikely heros and by a guy called jack bass and what it is is about the judges in the 5th circuit in the south who had to implement these decisions, judges who courageously took on the entire ingrained, segregated world. We thought if there were judges in the south that could do that are there judges nowadays who are prepared to take on the fossil fuel industry . The other cases that we looked at were the tobacco cases and we all know that the Tobacco Industry was very big. Doubt is their product and thats a book by david michaels, but the whole theme for the Tobacco Industry is sowing uncertainty and based on the documents that weve gathered and weve received from independent sources, the same Public Relations folks, the same lobbying outfits that were dealing with tobacco were in parallel, dealing with the Oil Companies and so the other cases weve been looking at to track are the cases involving wall street. My partner joe kochet wrote a book people versus greed and thats whats really going on out there. We are trying to address problems that wall street wants to continue to exist. So how do we do that . How do we go after these groups of people . Recently, california had a major line of cases involving its prison system, and the prisoners went after the prison system and said what were enduring, the conditions were enduring, overcrowding, poor medical treatment and those violate the eighth amendment cruel and unusual punishment clause, and so they went after the california prison system and those of you who dont know about these this line of cases, its fascinating because the prison system was found to be so overcrowded that the target the court set for the prison system to achieve that said okay, youll be okay if you hit a target is 135 occupancy so they had to bring it down and the court said were going to start releasing prisoners until you get to that target, and thats a very important for our case when we talk about later. The Court Setting a target and requiring the governmental body to reach that target and come up with a pan and if the governmental body cant come up with the plan and these prison cases, they said well have the plaintiffs and well have the prisoners set up a plan to come up with the target and lo and behold the prison system came up with that target and finally, i just want to say, the last thing we focused in on is who is going to be the most harmed by what the government has known historically about whats going on with Climate Change . And obviously, the people who are going to be most harmed are youth and future generations, and thats how we came to determine that kids might be an Excellent Group to bring this case. Tia, why dont you talk about how you became a plaintiff here . Yeah. Im one of the 21 youth bringing the suit against the federal government and it was the spring of my senior year it was 2015 before we filed the lawsuit and i was in oregon, my hometown and we were with the youth of High Schoolers trying to bring a basically, we were trying to get us to go to City Council Meetings to get a Climate Action plan to cut carbon emissions. And this was because eugene had just passed a similar plan and how they did that wases that youth had consistently gone to City Council Meetings telling them that their rights were being infringed upon and that eugene needed to be responsible to cut carbon emissions. So a group of us youth in bend were trying to do that also, and it was through that that i got connected with Kelsey Juliana which had previously been on the oregon state case and she contacted me asking if i wanted to be a part of meaningful Climate Change and by meaningful she meant was suing the federal government. I was intrigued, of course. My parents were, as well, and it was intriguing to me because ive always been interested in environmental law. I was interested in the theory of it, and i was deeply concerned about the place that i loved and it was more than just the fact that that past winter i had seen my favorite ski trails be closed down because of lack of snow. It was that the places that i loved and the people that i loved were being threatened because water is essential to life and it begins as these small things and then is grows and it grows and once you realize the impacts of Climate Change you realize how extensive it is and that its affecting everyone. So its kind of a no brainer to jump on Something Like that. I can honestly say i didnt realize exactly what it was going to be like, and i am so exciteded that its grown to be this big. I dont think i knew at all that it was going to be this big, and each of us, each of the plaintiffs we all have a background in Environmental Activism and we all have our own injuries listed in our complaint against the federal government is our own personal injuries. Theres, as you can see, as julia talked about is jadens impact is just one. There are 20 plaintiffs and two of my good friends in roseberg have farms in roseberg that are being threatened and the list really goes on and we each have our own stories and julia gets in court and tells them very eloquently, and she is against the federal government which is really what our case is alleging is against the federal government and shell explain why we brought it against the federal government and not just the fossil fuel companies which is important to distinguish. [ applause ] thanks, tia. So one theme i think youll see as we talk tonight is story telling is really important and bringing out the Human Element of how Climate Change is impacting people so well share a few more of these stories as we go along tonight, but i want to talk to you about the claims in the complaint. We filed in august 2015. We filed against the United States, the president , all of the major departments and agencies that are responsible for our fossil fuelbased Energy System and also responsible for not controlling the pollution thats coming out of that system, and ill just walk through the claims and try to make it as simple and understandable as possible. So this is a constitutional case which protects our rights to life, liberty and property and the fifth amendment is the substantive due process part of our constitution, and what it means is that government cant do things that infringe on our rights to life, liberties and property, and so in this case, the personal security of these young people, their very lives in the future and for many of them who live in coastal region, their property is being threatened by the actions of the federal government and ill go into that a little bit more, but one part of the claim is about when the government knows that its putting citizens in danger, it creates a duty on government to then act to either prevent that danger or if the danger exists to then do something about it and they cant act with indifference to the harms that theyve created and so a really important part of our case is looking back at for just how long the United States has known that if we kept burning fossil fuels we would cause catastrophic Climate Change and when we first started research we were shocked to find out that the knowledge goes back to the 40s and 50s and perhaps even earlier, to the early part of the 1900s, but there was a moment in 1965 when lyndon b. Johnson issued a report out of the white house and there was an entire chapter on atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change and they predicted with unbelievable accuracy what was going to happen if we kept digging up and burning fossil fuels. They knew it would cause ocean acidification, and climate destabilization and they knew the impacts would be catastrophic. This is a letter from 1969, a white house letter, and you can see them on the screen that the letter refers to the potential for apocalyptic change and in terms of talking about Sea Level Rise they write, this, in turn, can raise the level of the sea by ten feet. Goodbye, new york, goodbye, washington, for that matter. This is 1965 knowledge. Then during the Nixon White House in 1970, another report came out that said that in the longer term the quality of the atmosphere may well determine whether a man survives or perishes. So i want everyone to who is listening to this to really understand how deep and long lasting the knowledge has been about the climate dangers posed to our country and to the very survival of future generations. So then the question and im showing another chart for those listening in right now that just shows going back to 1955 all of the way through the present, the various key moments in time when our government issued reports and made critical findings, by the top scientists around the world and by the highest levels of our government to the presidency about the need to act on Climate Change, and this is repeated, every decade, every administration we need to act on Climate Change. We need to transition off of fossil fuels, but instead what we did was we permitted more development, more production, more leasing of our public lands for oil and gas extraction and Coal Production and we kept a fossil fuel based Energy System in place so that no citizen could do anything about this because this truly is a government embedded system that we all depend upon. So just for a little comic relief there have been international processes that you all probably know about with climate talks going back 22 years. The United States initiated the climate talks as a way to defer on Climate Change so the Framework Convention was orchestrated by the United States to avoid setting limits on climate pollution and to keep talking and talking and talking and so this cartoon says its settled we agree to sign a pledge to hold another meeting to consider changing course at a date yet to be determined and thats what our World Leaders have been doing. So this is levi, hes 9 and his island is subject to Sea Level Rise. Hes lost the beaches hes played on in his young life and his home will be under water if we dont stop what were doing and i bring him up because one part of the case is about the discrimination against young people and their right to equal protection under the law and so if you think of the hodges case which was the decision saying that everyone has the right to marry, that case was about protecting a group of people who were being discriminated against with respect to the exercise of a fundamental right. Well, these children are being discriminated against with their ability to exercise their fundamental rights and not have their personal security threatened. And i just want to show you two more quick slides and for those listening, this slide shows that under president obamas Clean Power Plan which was in his words, the single most important thing the United States government has ever done on Climate Change would essentially flat line our emissions, our climate pollution all of the way through 2040. So a slight dip with we lose coal fired power plants and its emissions and this is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American Public to lead them to believe that the Clean Power Plan was going to solve Climate Change and it was never intended to do so. Conversely, this graph shows how steep our emission cuts really need to be to get back to safe levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. There is a blue dotted line that shows if we had started when epa said we should have started that would have been a much easier transition and now the steep decline is significant and its what we aim to achieve in this case, and so phils going to tell you a little bit about the defendants and the defenses they raise. This is ann clark, chair of the environment and Natural Resources memberled forum. You are listening to the Commonwealth Club of california. Our program tonight is our constitution, our climate and our children. Is there a right not to be harmed by Climate Change with phil gregory from cochet, petrie and mcarthy llp, tia hatten, youth plaintiff and constitutional and public trust case and julia olsen, executive director of our Childrens Trust. Phil, back to you. Thanks, ann. Well, im doing the defendants position so, of course, i get to wear the black hat here. We only sued the federal government and so the first step in the case was the key trade associations for the fossil fuel industry, the petroleum bunch and the National Association of manufacturers. They move to intervene in our case. Why did they do that . If this case goes forward and these kids win our business could be dramatically cut back and very well could be eliminated so the judge let in these trade associations as defendants. So then we had to face what everyone faces in litigation. Your claims are all hooey and the first thing the hooey argument was is what we call standing. Standing means somebody has to prove that under article 3 of our constitution they have a viable case or controversy. So standing has three elements. The first element is theres been an injury in fact and the defendants argued, you know, Climate Change is so bad, its so widespread that these grievances are general for everybody, and under the law you cant sue for a generalized grievance. So these plaintiffs dont have standing because theyre merely asserting a generalized grievance, not that theyve been individually injured. Next, the they said causation. The injury that these plaintiffs suffer, they have to be traceable to the defendants conduct, and you know what . Theres no way this is what the defendants say. Theres no way these plaintiffs are going to be able to prove that the federal government caused good Climate Change. Well, let me just tell you that the court just quickly do a side, just took that on. Court said, you know, in a decision denying the motion to dismiss, the judge akin said the defendants as we allege in our complaint are responsible for more than 25 of global co2 emissions and thats the United States alone, more than 25 , and because we were able to show there was a significant share the court said these plaintiffs can prove causation. The third thing about standing, the third claim the defendants asserted is that the is that you cant do anything about this. You cant do anything about this. There are so many wonderful regulations out there. Let us keep passing and enacting regulations and judge, you cannot do anything, and the judge took them to task on that saying that if the plaintiffs can show, if these kids can show that the defendants have control over a quarter of the planets Greenhouse Gas emissions, that a reduction in those emissions will, by nature, slow Climate Change, reduce the probability of harm and the plaintiffs would then be able to redress their injuries. So we were able to get around that, but the other argument the defendants raised was what we call separation of powers based argument called political question and political question is not something that involves politics. What it is it means a branch of government, the Judicial Branch should not get involved in matters that are entrusted to the other branches of government. So if its foreign policy, for example, and the constitution has entrusted that to the executive, you, courts should stay out of it. Again, remember, this is called the political question doctrine and are tockville in democrat see in america observed there is no question in the United States that sooner or later does not turn into a judicial question, and we just saw that as we said earlier with the immigration ban, but here, the court said it doesnt matter that the court has to choose which agencies or sectors should reduce emissions by or by how much. The court is not going to protect any particular action and julie will talk more about this in a moment set a target as we talked about in the prison cases and have the defendants come up with a plan to hit that target and so as the court said, thats how we are going to do this, were going to, the court will issue an order, but the executive branch is going to implement that order because what were alleging is that the federal governments aggregate actions and systemic actions are harming these kids, and i want to point out that in the oral argument, the federal government started off by saying Climate Change poses a monumental threat, and when the judge turned to the attorney representing the fossil fuel industry and asked him, well, do you agree that theres theres a threat being posed by human caused Climate Change and that attorney refused to take a position in the court, refused to take a position. Now we know now that the fossil fuel Industry Based on documents we have, clearly was influencing the president. For example, we have the American Petroleum institute, one of the trade associations that intervened having a 1998, an action plan. Victory will be assured when we sow doubt, when we create doubt in everybodys minds. Well, doubt is their product. Thats what their Communications Plan was in 1998. Another memo we have is a state department memo, and its between two officers in the United States state department stating that theyre going to go talk with a group called the Global Climate coalition of which the American Petroleum institute and the National Association of manufacturers remembers and theyre going to say the president of the United States at this point is george w. Bush rejected the kyoto treaty in part baseded on on i from you. The fossil fuel industry and the defendants were working hand in glove with the executive to keep the fossil fuel systemic problem in place and thats been one of the major issues thats come out in the Court Proceedings and tia, why dont you spend a minute talking about what its like at these Court Proceedings. Yeah, well, just coming off after that its definitely something im aware of when im lined up with the 20 other youth and we look at the government lawyers sitting side by side with the fossil fuel lawyers and the first time i was sitting there looking at them, and i was wondering, do you have children . I was shocked because up until this point in my life i thought the government had been doing kind of a fine job and but, i really realized seeing that visually they were sitting side by side seeing that we dont have rights to a livable future, so it was really discouraging. The arguments are full of discouragement and encouragement. You kind of go in with a nervous energy. Were really excited for julia and phil and theyre sitting on the left side, luckily and theyre championing i did not mean it like that, but yeah, julia is like a Champion Story teller so theres a lot of legal statutes in all of the previous cases that they go off and some of the stuff goes over my head and im one of the older plaintiffs. Theres a lot of legal stuff going on, but then theres also the story telling. Theres the moral side of Climate Change. Its affecting humans and i think julia does an eloquent job bringing that in and it brings tears to peoples eyes and thats inside our courtroom and there are two other overflow rooms full of people, too and its being streamed in portland which is really awesome and once we leave the courtroom thats when its really cool. So when we get out there, theres hundreds of people, hundreds of supporters of all ages, a layoff kids who have come from in town and also out of town and are just rallying and shouting encouragement and, you know, they know that this trial is for them, too, and its really encouraging because i know everyone in that crowd has their own story, too. It is also very encouraging to see the media there to show that there are people here supporting and to show that the judge, that people are mobilizing behind this important issue and that they know that we have a right to this and thats just going to become more and more important as we go to trial. So thats something to keep in mind, as well. But coming out of the hearings, i dont know if julia was going to mention this, but the hearings have been putting beyond the fact that i think that julia has these amazing arguments and that we have a really great case, but the judges they make it seem like they are in favor with our case which i didnt even know was allowed than when i heard judge aiken when she was ripping the government for not settling with us because they knew that obama was trying to come up with a plan and they admitted they came to the they just came up and the first thing they said was admitting that Climate Change was human caused and so basically, the judge just said why arent you sitting down with these kids and coming up with a plan . If you cant get stuff through other branches of the government then why are you sitting down with these kids and going through the courts. So, yeah, i was shocked. Like, what . Did you say that . We were looking at each other, all of the kids and i and it was exciting. It left us with a lot of hope and also, like i was kind of confused because i was, like, stuff doesnt usually go your way and coming out of that hearing and having her decision come out right after trump was elected and its a source of hope and im excited for trial and the discovery process for sure, yeah. Thanks, tia. Thanks for all of the kind words. It is really energizing to be at the federal courthouse. It was unlike anything phil and i have ever experienced in our legal careers, and with a packed courtroom full of people and people waiting outside and people hearing what next steps are in the case and its good to have that level of public engagement. So i encourage you all to come check it out some time in eugene. So as tia said, two days after we got our new president and it wasnt the one some of us wanted, we got a great decision from the federal court and its a beautiful read if anyone likes to read legal decisions. We also have shorter summaries on our Childrens Trust website so you can check that out, but i want to read you one of my favorite parts of your decision. She said there is no doubt that right of a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society, just as marriage is the foundation of the family, a stable climate system is quite literally a foundation of Society Without which there would be civilization and progress. For those who dont know a lot about our implied liberties that we hold under the constitution theres probably been less than ten times in the history of the nation where the Supreme Court has recognized an implied right that isnt explicitly written in the constitution and some of those implied rights include the right to travel and the right to parent your children and the right to protection on the high seas in case any of you are interested and the right to marriage and the right selfdefense and the right that the court has recognized for the first time in history the right to the climate system that sustains life and the habitable plan the and the environment thats safe for our children is really remarkable and critically important as we move forward. The other thing that the court found is that the Public Trust Doctrine applies to our federal government and not just to our states and that the federal government has an obligation to protect the trust resources that are under its control like our territorial waters, our ocean waters and must protect those for the benefit of generations and thats an affirmative duty to protect and so our oceans are threatened with acidification and Sea Level Rise and we need to take a radio break. This is ann clark, chair of the environmental and resources led forum. You are listening to the Commonwealth Club of california. Our program tonight is our constitution, our climate and our children. Is there a right not to be harmed by Climate Change . With phil gregory from the partner and cochet, petrie and mcarthy, hllp and youth plaintif and youve been listening to julia olsen, the executive director of the Childrens Trust and weve come to that point in our program tonight for our audience questions and we will start that just as soon as i give them to phil and phil will be referring back to your audience questions. If you have questions youd like to ask, please bring them up. That would be wonderful. Thank you, ann. So we have some questions here. Im going to start with this one. Connections with schools could be a powerful way to spread awareness of your mission, your plaintiffs are an example of empowerment for students. How about schools having twice bring the constitution and ideas of civic duty to life . How can schools do that, julia, tia, what do you think . Well, i can talk about one way we engage with youth at the local level and we have a program called youth Climate Action now and we help support young people in different communities to go to their local governments and tray to get laws passed to commit cities to reduce emissions at levels required by science and to do that we partner with teachers. We partner with youth organizations and one of our key partners in this effort is a group called youth guardians. Theyre also a Plaintiff Organization on this federal lawsuit and so earth guardians has crews all over the country and all over the world and so any young person that wants to get involved and actually be part of this Plaintiff Group can start a crew or join a crew from earth guardians and they can also connect to our Childrens Trust and get plugged into a local effort. Another thing were doing is gearing up to do something for this youth day, april 22 that will try to tie educating children about the constitution, about Climate Change and about our courts impea. Julia, one other question for you, why dont you talk about how the Childrens Trust was created and where the idea came from. Sure, so i was an environmental lawyer for a long time bringing cases to protect the west, and then i had children and really came to realize that Climate Change was going to be the issue that would define their lives and i was frustrated with the whackamole approach of trying to beat down all of these bad environmental projects and i would bring cases that would have literally nine lives. Theyd do an Environmental Review and wed stop it and theyd do another Environmental Review and we see it with the xcel pipeline, and they keep coming back and were not getting back to the systemic problem of Climate Change and i heard professor mary wood speak at the university of oregon and she was writing about applying the Public Trust Doctrine to the atmosphere, and she calls it Atmospheric Trust Litigation and she had been being looking for crazy lawyers to actually bring these cases that she had been talking about for a few years, and i happened to be one of those crazy lawyers, so we met and just started generating more ideas and i decided that i wanted to take on this effort to bring campaign, strategic litigation that was coordinate across the country and eventually the world and support lawyers to do these cases on behalf of young people, and so that was the origin and again, its dependent upon people like phil and young people like thai who co tia who help lead this effort. Tias got a question, go ahead. It says do you have a message for san franciscos children and parents that you would like this audience to Carry Forward . I know my input on this question would be to inform Young Children about Climate Change and inform adults if theyre not aware of it and inform them of the courts howers apowers and going on about this case and definitely in these coming months and once the trial happens organizing people to, you know, hold rallies and vigils throughout the trial that may be weeks on end, and i think starting individual movements is really powerful and definitely, you know Climate Change is just like an Environmental Justice issue and fighting these different civil rights movements and joining all of these different rallies going on is really person because thats a huge part of our case, too, is just that its justice i cant say that word. Its an issue that infringes on a lot of different rights so supporting other people and other movements right now is important for us, too, and for all of us to be a part of and also spreading this message of hope to people that Something Like this is going on because theres a lot of darkness with this new administration, and this is really a light for people right now. Yeah. Thanks, tia. Another question is whats going to happen next in the case . And here i get to change hats. Put on the white hat. Today we substituted in for barack obama, president donald j. Trump as a defendant in our case, and were hoping downstream to [ applause ] to take his deposition. The status conference julia alluded to that occurred earlier this week, the court told us that it wanted to focus on the science and we have incredible scientists, a Blue Ribbon Panel of scientists who want to talk both about the scope of the problem and how we can remedy the problem and this is going to be science and not alternative facts, okay . As we were gearing up for this case we did a lot of informal discovery. We went to websites and we saw documents. For example, here is a 1983 report from the epa. Can we delay a greenhouse warming . Theres reports to congress where they pinpoint 2015 as the timeframe where if we continue on with business as usual were going to hit a tipping point. Well, they werent too far off and all these reports strongly urge the executive department to do something about Climate Change and unfortunately, they continued on with business as usual. We were troubled when the new administration started taking websites down. So weve sent out a letter telling them to preserve the information. Were also taking steps to take the deposition of rex and both in his role as chair and ceo of exxonmobil, on the executive committee of the American Petroleum institute and now what is he going to do about this significant problem in the role as secretary of state. The other side wants to depose our children. They want to say, well, we want to take the depositions of people like tia. Are you really being injured by Climate Change. My view is, give me a break. The government has indicated they are considering appealing the decision that came down from judge aiken. Finally, we are hopeful to have a trial of this case in the fall winter of 2017. Thats going to be 36 weeks where the court will put the science on and well see what kind of defense the federal government and fossil fuel industry three against us. This is suzanne qulark. You are listening to the Commonwealth Club of california. Unfortunately, we have reached that point in our program for one last question. What we have gathered is a lot of questions. I do want to thank you. We just have time for one last question. So, phil, well get back to you for that famous last question. I want the Radio Audience to know that phil is definitely wearing his white cowboy hat. Nisthis is a question julia l answer. If we are successful at trial, what kind of consequences will the federal government and fossil fuel indoes sfustry face . If we are successful and we win, life is going to change in a really good way. We are going to have a National Plan that sets forth how we transition off of the fossil fuel based Energy System, including transportation. Were going to be off fossil fuels probably by 2040. Predominantly in the United States. That effort will spread around the world. Thats what will happen. One thing i want everyone to know thats listening, we are also working with the top technical experts and economists around the world who already are developing plans for how we do this. It is feasible. The only reason it hasnt been done is because there hasnt been political will to do it. It is feasible. We will all be better off and healthier in our communities as a result. Thats what happens if we win. We need everyones help to win this case. We have massive resources on the other side with the defendants. Our Childrens Trust is a small nonprofit. We rely on donations. We need the public to mobilize and stand with the quids whkids go to trial in the fall. Write letters and get the word out. This is going to be the trial of the century on climate. Thank you. Thank you, julia olson. Tia hatton, if you could add one last sentence, what would be most important for you to tell our audience. I would say im a part of this case so i can look my children in the eye and tell them i fought against Climate Change. I think thats the stance we are all taking. How are we going to tell future generations how we dealt with this and the outcome of this case is going to decide how the future looks for future generations. Phil, you have done such a wonderful job for all of us. It could be a couple of sentences. We would love to hear your last thoughts on this. I have a great amount of faith in the independence of our judiciary. Our courts are going to stand up as the firm branch of government against ignorance and improper use of power. I would strongly encourage everybody out there to believe in our court system. It is going to be severely tested over the next four years. If we trust in our judges, and we trust in the ability of the courts to be objective and to do the right thing, i firmly believe, like the judges during the civil rights cases, that they will take the steps that need to be faken and that our future for generations to come will be much better off because of this case. Julia, ill come back to you. What do you want most for the audience to carry back with them that would help your campaign. Ill ask phil and tia also. I think way want everybody to carry is everything phil just said and that tee ia just said really critical. It is not just to have hope and belief in what we are doing but it is too support us in whatever active way you can. Whatever that means to you in your life. It is time to get active. We are at the end of the line. Time is the enemy. The status quo is the enemy. We need to muster all of our energy and kurnl to really preserve what we have all benefited from in our lives for the next generation. Phil . A week ago, my first grandchild, alice was born. I, like tia, want to be able to look her in the eye and say, i did everything i possibly could. We are at a critical juncture. I want all of you to take away that you can do things. There are opportunities for volunteer work. Please take advantage of them. This is a serious moment in the history of our country. You can step up or you can step aside. Tia, for your generation wharks wou what would you like the audience to take way . Would i like to see more like these two women that came. They fundraised and traveled to get here to see us. I hope there are more young people like you and like our youth plaintiffs out there mobilizing. It is really inspiring for me. Lawyers are inspired by it. It is essential to this movement and to where we are moving as Going Forward in our lives and with this administration. Im just really excited and it gives me hope. Thank you for coming. Would the two young ladies stand up and tell us what grade they are in . What grade are you in . Wow. So what grade are you in . 7th grade . Wonderful. And you . 6th great. Well, grade. Thank you for being here. This is going to be hard to close our program tonight. We still have a lot of questions that people would like to respond to. I wish we had the time. Stay tuned. Im sure we will all be talking about this both with our friend and our neighbors and people we need to talk to. This is ann clark, chair of the environment and Natural Resources led form. You are listen tog the Commonwealth Club of california. Our program tonight is our constitution, our climate and our children. Is there a right not to be harmed by Climate Change . Our wonderful panel was phil gregory, tia hat ton,youth plaintiff and constitutional and public trust case. Julia olson, executive director, our Childrens Trust. So i would like for the audience to give a big hand to our terrific panel. Plauz. For our Radio Audience, i want you to know that phil is awaiting his white cowboy hat as we clap. I also want to thank our wonderful audience here. What a great audience we have had and we really appreciate your questions and your responses. We want to thank the two young women that came to be with us. We didnt know they were coming. We really appreciate your coming and being part of the program tonight. Thank you so much. So lets give a wonderful applause to our audience here and on the radio and the internet who are listening to us. So a great big applause for you, our audience and for those who are on the internet. So find our programs on the internet at www. Commonwealth. Org. Click on our website for Common Wealth club videos, radio schedules and subscribe to our weekly free podcast and programs archives. This is ann clark, chair of the environment and Natural Resources, memberled forum. Thank you all for being with us tonight. This meeting of the Common Wealth club of california is adjourned. Z. Tonight, American History tv in prime time. From the annual lincoln symposium. Craig simons and john march sa lec talk about the april, 1865 meeting between Richard Sherman and con federal general joseph johnston. The two discussed terms for broader peace. American history tv in prime time starts at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. On cspan2, with senior officials from the obama administration. Former senior adviser, valerie jarrett, speaking at the city club of chicago, followed by former attorney general, loretta lynch, speaksing at harvard law school. Here is a preview. One of the most important lessons i have learned as a lawyer is the problem that someone walks into the office with is rarely the problem they have. It is usually a symptom of a larnler issue. People have jumped on this issue of the challenges that immigrants face to a society, whether it is to social services or to the economy. They have said, this is the problem. Thats not the problem. Thats not the problem. The problem is, how is the economy sfrtructured in a particular area . Is the economy set up so that thats where undocumented immigrants are drawn and work. They arent hiring themselves, by the way. Why are we blaming the people na have the least power in this situation . That type of dialogue makes it hard to have a conversation. If you can open it up and say, i know you are afraid about the economy and the jo
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.