Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Lawsuit appears to be in peril for California children harmed by climate change

News Feed
Wednesday, May 1, 2024

Eighteen California children who allege the United States’ climate policies intentionally discriminate against minors appeared in federal court this week with their landmark lawsuit in jeopardy.The children, ages 8 through 17, sued the U.S. government and the federal Environmental Protection Agency for violating their constitutional rights. Their attorneys claim the nation’s environmental policies have allowed dangerous levels of greenhouse gases to be released and accumulate in the atmosphere, knowing these emissions will endanger their well-being and future.Although younger generations will undoubtedly experience the worst effects of global warming, children have little, if any, recourse to influence the rules that will shape their future.“Their only redress is not the ballot box, elections or political power,” said Julia Olson, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit that has filed legal actions over climate change in several states. Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science. But U.S. Department of Justice attorneys this week petitioned a federal judge in California to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing in part that the court did not have the authority to make sweeping public policy changes.Judge Michael Fitzgerald, 64, acknowledged climate change would have profound effects for all Americans, especially those “younger than my age or the president.” But Fitzgerald, who did not make a ruling Monday, said he was inclined to side with the government, noting these decisions should rest with Congress and the executive branch. “There are ways everyone can express their political views,” Fitzgerald said, noting that he volunteered for an elected official as a child.In the coming weeks, Fitzgerald will rule on whether the case can proceed to trial. Ironically, in a case adjudicating the rights of children, the 18 plaintiffs — who live in communities that have been devastated by wildfires, flooding or heat waves — remained silent in the courtroom Monday. Outside of the downtown Los Angeles courthouse, however, the children and their attorneys expressed their desire to be heard. That included Genesis B., a 17-year-old from Long Beach, whose family does not have air conditioning. She has experienced summer temperatures so hot that she waits until sunset to start homework. By then, she’s typically tired and dehydrated.Genesis said she hopes Fitzgerald allows the case to move forward, because she feels the suit is their best chance to make a difference. “I would say just to keep future generations in mind, because this is one planet for everyone,” she said. “One quote I would share with the judge is: ‘We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors — we borrow it from our children.’” “When the EPA looks at the value of a life, it doesn’t treat a child’s life as worth as much [as an adult’s] because they’re not income-earners,” said Julia Olson, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit that has filed legal actions over climate change in several states. (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times) One of the main arguments of their lawsuit is that the EPA’s analyses of air pollution and greenhouse gases treats the lives of adults as worth more than those of children, according to Olson. “When the EPA looks at the value of a life, it doesn’t treat a child’s life as worth as much because they’re not income-earners,” Olson said outside the courthouse. “All of that economic analysis drives the government’s decisions on whether to control pollution or to allow it. And if it’s cheaper to allow it, then they’ll keep allowing it.”Federal attorneys argued no court ruling would be able to fix previous damage from climate change. But the children and their attorneys argued this case is just as much about mitigating future damage.“This may not automatically reverse the damage,” said Maryam A., a 13-year-old from Santa Monica. “But I think that you, as government officials, should be able to protect all Americans, regardless of age, gender, race, or anything like that. “The fact that you are dismissing our claims because we’re children doesn’t invalidate what’s happening to us. And I feel that sometimes people may not take seriously children sitting in a courthouse. But we’re the same as anyone else.”To reduce levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this century, the plaintiffs argue that the U.S. government needs to cease burning fossil fuels by 2050. The Biden administration has set a lofty goal of completely eliminating the nation’s carbon footprint by 2050, although it will take decades of concrete policy action for the nation to achieve that target.In the meantime, the U.S. and other countries continue to endure record-setting heat, intensifying wildfires and powerful storms. Avroh S., a 14-year-old student from Palo Alto, said extreme storms and flooding at his middle school caused a power outage and prompted an evacuation. For him and other plaintiffs, these recurring natural disasters only reinforced the importance of their case. “Apathy isn’t the answer. Action is,” he said. “If climate change wasn’t happening, I wouldn’t be here. I would much rather be hanging out with my friends or in school.”

Eighteen California children sued the EPA, saying U.S. climate policy discriminates against minors. A federal judge indicates he is likely to dismiss the suit.

Eighteen California children who allege the United States’ climate policies intentionally discriminate against minors appeared in federal court this week with their landmark lawsuit in jeopardy.

The children, ages 8 through 17, sued the U.S. government and the federal Environmental Protection Agency for violating their constitutional rights. Their attorneys claim the nation’s environmental policies have allowed dangerous levels of greenhouse gases to be released and accumulate in the atmosphere, knowing these emissions will endanger their well-being and future.

Although younger generations will undoubtedly experience the worst effects of global warming, children have little, if any, recourse to influence the rules that will shape their future.

“Their only redress is not the ballot box, elections or political power,” said Julia Olson, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit that has filed legal actions over climate change in several states.

Aggressive and impactful reporting on climate change, the environment, health and science.

But U.S. Department of Justice attorneys this week petitioned a federal judge in California to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing in part that the court did not have the authority to make sweeping public policy changes.

Judge Michael Fitzgerald, 64, acknowledged climate change would have profound effects for all Americans, especially those “younger than my age or the president.” But Fitzgerald, who did not make a ruling Monday, said he was inclined to side with the government, noting these decisions should rest with Congress and the executive branch.

“There are ways everyone can express their political views,” Fitzgerald said, noting that he volunteered for an elected official as a child.

In the coming weeks, Fitzgerald will rule on whether the case can proceed to trial. Ironically, in a case adjudicating the rights of children, the 18 plaintiffs — who live in communities that have been devastated by wildfires, flooding or heat waves — remained silent in the courtroom Monday.

Outside of the downtown Los Angeles courthouse, however, the children and their attorneys expressed their desire to be heard.

That included Genesis B., a 17-year-old from Long Beach, whose family does not have air conditioning. She has experienced summer temperatures so hot that she waits until sunset to start homework. By then, she’s typically tired and dehydrated.

Genesis said she hopes Fitzgerald allows the case to move forward, because she feels the suit is their best chance to make a difference.

“I would say just to keep future generations in mind, because this is one planet for everyone,” she said. “One quote I would share with the judge is: ‘We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors — we borrow it from our children.’”

Julia Olson is photographed in dappled shade outside a courthouse in Los Angeles.

“When the EPA looks at the value of a life, it doesn’t treat a child’s life as worth as much [as an adult’s] because they’re not income-earners,” said Julia Olson, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit that has filed legal actions over climate change in several states.

(Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times)

One of the main arguments of their lawsuit is that the EPA’s analyses of air pollution and greenhouse gases treats the lives of adults as worth more than those of children, according to Olson.

“When the EPA looks at the value of a life, it doesn’t treat a child’s life as worth as much because they’re not income-earners,” Olson said outside the courthouse. “All of that economic analysis drives the government’s decisions on whether to control pollution or to allow it. And if it’s cheaper to allow it, then they’ll keep allowing it.”

Federal attorneys argued no court ruling would be able to fix previous damage from climate change.

But the children and their attorneys argued this case is just as much about mitigating future damage.

“This may not automatically reverse the damage,” said Maryam A., a 13-year-old from Santa Monica. “But I think that you, as government officials, should be able to protect all Americans, regardless of age, gender, race, or anything like that.

“The fact that you are dismissing our claims because we’re children doesn’t invalidate what’s happening to us. And I feel that sometimes people may not take seriously children sitting in a courthouse. But we’re the same as anyone else.”

To reduce levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this century, the plaintiffs argue that the U.S. government needs to cease burning fossil fuels by 2050. The Biden administration has set a lofty goal of completely eliminating the nation’s carbon footprint by 2050, although it will take decades of concrete policy action for the nation to achieve that target.

In the meantime, the U.S. and other countries continue to endure record-setting heat, intensifying wildfires and powerful storms.

Avroh S., a 14-year-old student from Palo Alto, said extreme storms and flooding at his middle school caused a power outage and prompted an evacuation. For him and other plaintiffs, these recurring natural disasters only reinforced the importance of their case.

“Apathy isn’t the answer. Action is,” he said. “If climate change wasn’t happening, I wouldn’t be here. I would much rather be hanging out with my friends or in school.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Indigenous People Reflect on the Meaning of Their Participation in COP30 Climate Talks

At United Nations climate talks billed widely as having a special focus on Indigenous people, those people themselves have mixed feelings about whether the highlight reel matches reality

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — Indigenous people filled the streets, paddled the waterways and protested at the heart of the venue to make their voices heard during the United Nations climate talks that were supposed to give them a voice like never before at the annual conference. As the talks, called COP30, concluded Saturday in Belem, Brazil, Indigenous people reflected on what the conference meant to them and whether they were heard. Brazilian leaders had high hopes that the summit, taking place in the Amazon, would empower the people who inhabit the land and protect the biodiversity of the world’s largest rainforest, which helps stave off climate change as its trees absorb carbon pollution that heats the planet.Many Indigenous people who attended the talks felt strengthened by the solidarity with tribes from other countries and some appreciated small wins in the final outcome. But for many, the talks fell short on representation, ambition and true action on climate issues affecting Indigenous people.“This was a COP where we were visible but not empowered,” said Thalia Yarina Cachimuel, a Kichwa-Otavalo member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, a group of Indigenous people from around the world. Some language wins but nothing on fossil fuels Taily Terena, an Indigenous woman from the Terena nation in Brazil, said she was happy because the text for the first time mentioned those rights explicitly.But Mindahi Bastida, an Otomí-Toltec member of A Wisdom Keepers Delegation, said countries should have pushed harder for agreements on how to phase out fuels like oil, gas and coal “and not to see nature as merchandise, but to see it as sacred.” Several nations pushed for a road map to curtail use of fossil fuels, which when burned release greenhouse gases that warm the planet. Saturday's final decision left out any mention of fossil fuels, leaving many countries disappointed. Brazil also launched a financial mechanism that countries could donate to, which was supposed to help incentivize nations with lots of forest to keep those ecosystems intact.Although the initiative received monetary pledges from a few countries, the project and the idea of creating a market for carbon are false solutions that "don't stop pollution, they just move it around,” said Jacob Johns, a Wisdom Keeper of the Akimel O’Otham and Hopi nations.“They hand corporations a license to keep drilling, keep burning, keep destroying, so long as they can point to an offset written on paper. It's the same colonial logic dressed up as climate policy," Johns said.“What we have seen at this COP is a focus on symbolic presence rather than enabling the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples," Sara Olsvig, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, wrote in a message after the conference concluded.Edson Krenak, Brazil manager for Indigenous rights group Cultural Survival and member of the Krenak people, didn't think negotiators did enough to visit forests or understand the communities living there. He also didn't believe the 900 Indigenous people given access to the main venue was enough.Sônia Guajajara, Brazil's minister of Indigenous peoples, who is Indigenous herself, framed the convention differently. “It is undeniable that this is the largest and best COP in terms of Indigenous participation and protagonism,” she said. Protests showed power of Indigenous solidarity While the decisions by delegates left some Indigenous attendees feeling dismissed, many said they felt empowered by participating in demonstrations outside the venue. When the summit began on Nov. 10, Paulo André Paz de Lima, an Amazonian Indigenous leader, thought his tribe and others didn’t have access to COP30. During the first week, he and a group of demonstrators broke through the barrier to get inside the venue. Authorities quickly intervened and stopped their advancement.De Lima said that act helped Indigenous people amplify their voices.“After breaking the barrier, we were able to enter COP, get into the Blue Zone and express our needs,” he said, referring to the official negotiation area. “We got closer (to the negotiations), got more visibility."The meaning of protest at this COP wasn't just to get the attention of non-Indigenous people, it also was intended as a way for Indigenous people to commune with each other. On the final night before an agreement was reached, a small group with banners walked inside the venue, protesting instances of violence and environmental destruction from the recent killing of a Guarani youth on his own territory to the proposed Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project in Canada.“We have to come together to show up, you know? Because they need to hear us,” Leandro Karaí of the Guarani people of South America said of the solidarity among Indigenous groups. “When we’re together with others, we’re stronger.“They sang to the steady beat of a drum, locked arms in a line and marched down the long hall of the COP venue to the exit, breaking the silence in the corridors as negotiators remained deadlocked inside. Then they emerged, voices raised, under a yellow sky.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Takeaways From the Outcome of UN Climate Talks in Brazil

After two weeks of negotiations, this year’s United Nations climate talks have ended with what critics are calling a weak compromise

BELEM, Brazil (AP) — After two weeks of negotiations, this year's United Nations climate talks ended Saturday with a compromise that some criticized as weak and others called progress.The deal finalized at the COP30 conference pledges more money to help countries adapt to climate change, but lacks explicit plans to transition away from the fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas that heat the planet.But that disappointment is mixed with a few wins and the hope for countries to make more progress next year.Here's what you need to know about the outcome. Leaders tried to nail down specifics on fighting climate change Leaders have been working on how to fight the impacts of climate change, such as extreme weather and sea level rise, for a decade. To do that, every country had the homework of writing up their own national climate plans and then reconvened this month to see if it was enough.Brazil, host of the climate conference known as COP30, was trying to get them to cooperate on the toughest issues like climate-related trade restrictions, funding for climate solutions, national climate-fighting plans and more transparency on measuring those plans' progress. More than 80 countries tried to introduce a detailed guide to phase out fossil fuels over the next several decades. There were other to-do items on topics including deforestation, gender and farming. Countries reached what critics called a weak compromise Nations agreed to triple the amount of money promised to help the vulnerable countries adapt to climate change. But they will take five more years to do it. Some vulnerable island countries said they were happy about the financial support. But the final document didn't include a road map away from fossil fuels, angering many.After the agreement was reached, COP President André Corrêa do Lago said Brazil would take an extra step and write their own road map. Not all countries signed up to this, but those on board will meet next year to specifically talk about the fossil fuel phase out. It would not carry the same weight as something agreed to at the conference.Also included in the package were smaller agreements on energy grids and biofuels. Responses ranged from happy to angry “Given what we expected, what we came out with, we were happy,” said Ilana Seid, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States.But others felt discouraged. Heated exchanges took place during the conference’s final meeting as countries snipped at each other about the fossil fuel plan.“I will be brutally honest: The COP and the U.N. system are not working for you. They have never really worked for you. And today, they are failing you at a historic scale,” said Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, a negotiator for Panama.Jiwoh Abdulai, Sierra Leone’s environment and climate change minister said: “COP30 has not delivered everything Africa asked for, but it has moved the needle.” He added: "This is a floor, not a ceiling.”The real outcome of this year’s climate talks will be judged on “how quickly these words turn into real projects that protect lives and livelihoods,” he said. Talks set against the Amazon rainforest Participants experienced the Amazon’s extreme heat and humidity and heavy rains that flooded walkways. Organizers who chose Belem, on the edge of the rainforest, as the host city had intended for countries to experience firsthand what was at stake with climate change, and take bold action to stop it.But afterward, critics said the deal shows how hard it is to find global cooperation on issues that affect everyone, most of all people in poverty, Indigenous people, women and children around the world.“At the start of this COP, there was this high level of ambition. We started with a bang, but we ended with a whimper of disappointment," said former Philippine negotiator Jasper Inventor, now at Greenpeace International. Indigenous people, civil society and youth One of the nicknames for the climate talks in Brazil was the “Indigenous peoples' COP.” Yet some in those groups said they had to fight to be heard. Protesters from Indigenous groups twice disrupted the conference to demand a bigger seat at the table. While Indigenous people's rights weren't officially on the agenda, Taily Terena, an Indigenous woman from the Terena nation in Brazil, said so far she is happy with the text because for the first time it includes a paragraph mentioning Indigenous rights.She supported countries speaking up on procedural issues because that’s how multilateralism works. “It’s kind of chaotic, but from our perspective, it’s kind of good that some countries have a reaction,” she said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

The Climate Impact of Owning a Dog

My dog contributes to climate change. I love him anyway.

This story originally appeared on Grist and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.I’ve been a vegetarian for over a decade. It’s not because of my health, or because I dislike the taste of chicken or beef: It’s a lifestyle choice I made because I wanted to reduce my impact on the planet. And yet, twice a day, every day, I lovingly scoop a cup of meat-based kibble into a bowl and set it down for my 50-pound rescue dog, a husky mix named Loki.WIRED's Guide to How the Universe WorksYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Until recently, I hadn’t devoted a huge amount of thought to that paradox. Then I read an article in the Associated Press headlined “People often miscalculate climate choices, a study says. One surprise is owning a dog.”The study, led by environmental psychology researcher Danielle Goldwert and published in the journal PNAS Nexus, examined how people perceive the climate impact of various behaviors—options like “adopt a vegan diet for at least one year,” or “shift from fossil fuel car to renewable public transport.” The team found that participants generally overestimated a number of low-impact actions like recycling and using efficient appliances, and they vastly underestimated the impact of other personal decisions, including the decision to “not purchase or adopt a dog.”The real objective of the study was to see whether certain types of climate information could help people commit to more effective actions. But mere hours after the AP published its article, its aim had been recast as something else entirely: an attack on people’s furry family members. “Climate change is actually your fault because you have a dog,” one Reddit user wrote. Others in the community chimed in with ire, ridiculing the idea that a pet Chihuahua could be driving the climate crisis and calling on researchers and the media to stop pointing fingers at everyday individuals.Goldwert and her fellow researchers watched the reactions unfold with dismay. “If I saw a headline that said, ‘Climate scientists want to take your dogs away,’ I would also feel upset,” she said. “They definitely don’t,” she added. “You can quote me on that.”Loki grinning on a hike in the Pacific Northwest. Photograph: Claire Elise Thompson/Grist

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.