this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
74 points (83.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7223 readers
96 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a nothing article. There's no reason to have ever assumed it was a constitutional right
There's plenty of other, much better reasons to justify the need for stable climate.
It's not about justifying the need for a livable climate, but being able to legally enforce the future having one.
Then possibly something needs to change - add a new Amendment or something. But to claim that old laws written with an old understanding of how the world works needs to somehow carry the semantic weight of something it was never written to do seems a bit much.
Why does the Constitution need to be involved? The federal government already has power to regulate emissions, so there's nothing stopping Congress (from a constitutional perspective) from passing laws to do so.