Kids Take a Stand Against Climate Change,
but Do They Have “Standing”?
Twenty-one children are suing the federal government over its failure to address climate change. The basis of their case is that the government has not met its responsibility to protect the public’s fundamental right to a healthy environment.
Immediately we’re introduced to terms that sound perfectly clear, but which are all subject to interpretation, definition, categorization.
Young people across the United States have been asking courts to compel actions to address climate change. In the past, many federal and state courts have been reluctant to interfere in complex policy decisions that often raise concerns about causation, plaintiff standing, separation of powers, and the lack of clear legal authority.
(1) Causation, (2) Standing, (3) Separation of Powers, and (4) Legal Authority are members of the Category: Reasons the Court is Reluctant. Each one might require explanations to clarify how the terms are used in the argument.
In 2015, twenty-one kids between the ages of eight and nineteen asserted that the federal government’s failure to mitigate the known effects of climate change violates the public trust doctrine, which makes the government the trustee of national public resources, including the atmosphere, seas, shores, waters, and wildlife. In failing to do so, the government has been violating the public’s “inherent, inalienable, natural, and fundamental rights” to the environment.
The term “the public trust doctrine” doesn’t require 1000 words, but it does need to be described well enough to establish its meaning.
The young plaintiffs claim that the U.S. willfully ignores the dangers of climate change-causing policies. They claim that, because the government has continued to permit, authorize and subsidize fossil fuel extraction and consumption despite knowledge that those actions cause catastrophic global warming, it should be sued.
The author identifies three government activities in the “They Knew It Was Harmful” category: (1) permitting, (2) authorizing, and (3) subsidizing.
Defendants argue that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries don’t establish “standing” and therefore are not entitled to bring the case to court.
We’re going to need a clear definition of “legal standing.”
In order to sue, plaintiffs must prove that (1) they have suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and imminent; (2) the injury was caused by the defendant; and (3) the injury can be redressed by the court.
And there they are: the three items in the category: “Needed to Establish Standing.”
To prove the (1) requirement, they assert that climate change has directly harmed them and their property.
- Xiuhtezcatl, age fifteen, is of Aztec descent and claims that his sacred indigenous spiritual and cultural practices of honoring and protecting the Earth have been jeopardized by climate change.
- Alex, age eighteen, lives on the plum and hazelnut farm that his family has tended for generations, but recently it has suffered from droughts and record high heat.
- Zealand, age 16, claims that his allergies have gotten worse due to climate-induced heat waves and pollen count increases, forcing him to spend less time outdoors.
- Victoria, age 16, was affected when Hurricane Sandy caused her home to lose electricity and her school to close.
- Other Plaintiffs claim that their asthma has exacerbated, that they can no longer swim in their local lagoon because of flesh-eating bacteria, and that they had to cancel camping trips because of nearby wildfires.
This case grapples with whether a phenomenon as diffuse and complex as global warming can meet these requirements. In other words, even if the plaintiffs demonstrate “standing,” can they prove (2) the injury was caused by the defendant; and (3) the injury can be redressed by the court.
In other words, does “global warming” belong to the category: “Actionable.”
To establish standing Plaintiffs have to prove that the government has “substantial, direct, and immediate interest” in protecting the environment and ensuring that their future environment is livable and safe.
The list of characteristics (substantial, direct, and immediate) are categorical examples. What’s the Category?
Plaintiffs also assert that they “have suffered and will continue to suffer harm to their health, personal safety, bodily integrity, cultural and spiritual practices, economic stability, food security, property, and recreational interests.”
Source after source on this matter makes claims that contain definition and categorical distinctions. For each one that can be defined broadly AND narrowly, the author has to clarify the “local meaning”; that is, the meaning of the term for the purposes of the paper.
In response, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to establish standing because they assert that (1) only generalized grievances instead of concrete and particularized injuries, (2) the alleged harms cannot be traced to particular government actions, and (3) the alleged harms cannot be redressed by the Court.
These are the three defenses by the government to answer the 3 categories needed to establish standing. Notice each of the three can be argued.
However, in an unprecedented 2016 decision, United States District Judge Ann Aiken ruled in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that they had established Article III standing. Judge Aiken held that Plaintiffs . . .
(1) suffered an injury in fact because it does not matter if a large number of people suffer an injury, but rather that it is concrete and particularized. Additionally, Judge Aiken agreed that . . .
(2) the injury was imminent because Plaintiffs have already been affected by climate change Secondly, Judge Aiken held that, at the pleading stage, Plaintiffs established causation between the Government’s actions and Plaintiffs’ harm. Lastly, Judge Aiken held that,
(3) viewing the complaint in Plaintiffs’ favor at the Motion to Dismiss phase, Plaintiffs adequately demonstrated that their requested relief could redress their alleged injuries.
The judge grants “Standing” to the plaintiffs, and the case can proceed to trial. THAT’s how long justice takes. It took from 2015 until now to establish that the plaintiffs could even BRING the case, and THAT qualifies as a big legal victory for environmental advocates.
Your Response?
Reply below if this additional model of Definition/Categorical argument helps you understand the broad application of definition to making persuasive arguments.
777sunflower777
babyyoda1023
bloguser246
Urbie
ANONYMOUS
coldice234
confusedpinky
coolraccoon318
davidbdale
eric cartman
gingerbreadman27
hdt1817
hockeyplayer
hotgirlsemester
hurtnowitzki
koolsaxophone
ichverdustehier
indigo143
jreggie20
kevinjames
ladybug122718
laflame
maxxpayne
millycain
nothingxtoxsay
planefan25
propel78
puffer
rebelpilot64
stoneharbor91
sunflower828
JetsFan2
thad711
thefirstmclovin
TheFrogSprog
thekidfrombrooklyn
tonysoprano44
chich_
youngthug03
Counterintuitive Fall 2023 
Yes, I do think that this is very helpful in understanding the broad applications of definitions in making persuasive arguments.
Good. Thanks.
yes, I believe this argument model does help understand the complexity behind persuasive arguments. This model provided multiple points, perspectives, and rebuttals throughout the argument allowing for many questions to be formulated. This Argument showed multiple perspectives for each point made in the argument of the two sides .
All true, but on the topic of Definition and Category, did it illustrate that definition IS ARGUMENTATIVE?
This model of Definition/Categorical argument helps me understand the broad application of definition to making persuasive arguments because it explains the definition of standing and gives examples of the claims of the students that they say are affected by climate change. Persuasive arguments are made in this example, and it gives the reader the idea of believing something that they had a hard time doing so.
That was my hope, that the examples would illustrate that Definition arguments are PERSUASIVE, not just factual.
The Definition/Categorical argument Help establish much needed context for my reader and lets me reference it later on in the paper without having to clarify everytime.
Good point, Anonymous. Definition arguments establish meanings that will last throughout your paper.
I do think that further defining a point can better help understand the point of view and make it more persuasive.
Agreed, HotGirl. Readers cannot be allowed to provide THEIR definitions of terms essential to YOUR argument.
Within this categorical/definition argument it helps the reader understand the context with the use of examples, clarification, and providing persuasive text.
So true. Standing by itself can have many meanings, but if the author provides a compelling definition, the reader can’t impose her own.
I believe this example truly does help model definition and categorial arguments since it provides a considerable amount of information about the importance of the information we place in our arguments.
Good. Thanks.
I believe this to be helpful, because it explains to identify your audience to pick and choose what you may need to spend time to define.
You’re smart to reference the Audience, Gingerbreadman. Most new essay writers think they’re writing “for everyone,” but definitions establish YOUR meaning, making it easier to persuade your target reader.
The definition/categorical argument better helps me understand the broad application of definition to making persuasive arguments. This will benefit me when writing my first 1000 words as an impeccable model. I now understand that making claims is more useful than providing legal definitions while creating a good argumentative paper.
It’s important to remember that even claims that you might be tempted to call “factual” are always arguments. Definitions carve out space you can work in without contradiction by readers who had different ideas about how to use your terms.
Yes, I think this model of Definition/Categorical argument will help me establish an understanding of what I need to do to hook my readers into the idea I’m trying to make and use references that will later help clarify my argument.
If I understand your comment, I think you got it right.
The Definition/Categorical Argument explained it well and was shown in an easy way to understand. I feel as if I will be able to correlate this into my own paper due to all the great claims and examples given in this paper.
Good to hear, YoungThug.
tres helpful in understanding definition / categorical arguments and broad application of the definition to making persuasive arguments.
“Broad application of the definition” is a good way to put it.
Yes I think that this definition/Categorical arguments help me establish a better understanding of the context.It gives definition and standings and gives examples of claims of the students and how they are affected by climate change.
Definition is meaningless without context, Propel, so yeah, you’re right. As Author, you get to declare what terms mean in the context of your own argument.
Yes; Reading and going over the paragraphs gave me a broad understanding of what a Definition/Categorical argument is.
Good. Thanks.
I think that this example of a Definition/Categorical argument explains what the term “Standing” means while giving a good example by explaining the claims of the students about how we are being affected by climate change. Many good and persuasive arguments are made throughout this example causing the reader to be easily persuaded that action needs to be taken and how they are having difficulty creating this cause themselves.
You’re probably right that persuasive arguments are contained in the examples, but I hope you mean that Definition and Categorical claims are arguments, which was the point of the illustrations.
I believe this model is a good example of a definition/ categorial argument. This further explains how using definitions to support persuasive arguments could be beneficial in getting the readers to be easily persuaded and take on the context that the writer is trying to use.