Recent events have me pondering this question.
Most notably, in two court decisions last week, courts ordered
the State of Washington and the government of the Netherlands to
take more aggressive action against climate change. In the
Washington case, in response to a complaint from eight
teenagers, a trial court judge has ordered the Washington
Department of Ecology to reconsider a petition filed by the
teenagers requesting reductions in GHG emissions. Similarly,
in the Netherlands, a
court ordered the government to reduce GHG emissions by 25%
within five years. The Dutch case was brought under human
rights and tort law, not under existing Dutch environmental
laws.
I have been very skeptical of the use of nuisance-type
litigation to require more aggressive government regulatory
efforts. I still think comprehensive market-based regulation
is the best approach. However, in the absence of aggressive
action in the United States and world-wide, these suits are
