A group of children sued the government of the United States because the environmental damages that tolerates today will affect their quality of life in the future, and that of their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. It is a case of equity of rights with future generations in the face of climate change.
In a moving initiative that opens new scenarios in the face of climate change, a group of 21 children filed a lawsuit against Washington (1). The reasoning is clear: these children presented themselves as representatives of future generations, arguing that while the government allows the advancement of climate change it violated their constitutional rights to a sustainable environment in the future. Those children once adults, their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, will not have an environment of adequate quality, and even their lives may be compromised.
The demand indicates that the State failed to control greenhouse gas emissions, and these trigger climate change, which will affect its future. Children demand that Washington initiate concrete and effective measures to stop the emission of gases and not continue to deteriorate the future. What is at stake is equity in the rights to a healthy environment between different generations.
The lawsuit, known as “Juliana vs. the US” (by the name of one of the young women), is underway since 2015, and had a substantial advance in 2016 when a judge recognized the validity of the claim (2). This means that now it is the Donald Trump government that will have to respond, precisely an anti-environment president, known for holding that climate change is an invention and seeks to reduce environmental regulations in his country.
The principle at stake is the right of intergenerational equity, that is, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren can also count on an adequate environment for their quality of life. This means that the current use of natural resources does not imply such severe negative effects that negatively affect our descendants, or that the environmental deterioration that we now produce will not finally explode irreversibly in the future.
Commitments to the future
More than one reader may think that this is another bizarre practice that can occur in a US court, as seen in some television series. Given that, I suggest caution. On the one hand, all Latin American countries have adhered to international agreements and treaties that include commitments to future generations. This began with the signing of Agenda 21 and the Declaration of the Eco 1992 of Rio de Janeiro. On the other hand, beyond these international negotiations, be it common sense as moral mandates, force us to ensure an adequate quality of life for our descendants.
However, environmental deterioration continues in all countries and globally. Today we have a better scientific basis that confirms climate change, the deniers of these problems are increasingly discredited or shown to work for corporations. We also know that the loss of natural areas and their biodiversity continues throughout the continent, and that the quality of water and soil deteriorates due to a pollution that does not stop.
We can also say to those of us who are interested in environmental issues but attend to their pockets, that the future costs of ecological deterioration will be astronomical. For example, the United Nations Environment Program estimates that adaptation to climate change may require $ 300 billion per year in the 2030s and exceed $ 500 billion by 2050 (3).
In the United States, the government stated that the demand was inappropriate, and even the oil companies wanted to join against the children. However, successively two judges have rejected that position. One of the judges in the process responded to the Trump government: “I have no doubt that the right to a climate system that is capable of sustaining human life is fundamental for a free and orderly society.” Thus it was confirmed that the trial will possibly begin in February 2018.
source: http://bit.ly/2yJNHks
