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.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
The model is extremely useful for our persuasive arguments that we want to write. Our definition argument (first of three arguments) is what’s occurring in this model. Creating their basis of whether or not their claim has standing the same as what we’re doing by writing the definition argument of our personal claims that we want to prove. Most notable is creating inner categories within our definition argument like these children did, which we will prove to be true without doubt for the cause of our arguments.
I would say that this does help me understand the broad application of definition when it comes to making persuasive arguments because it shows how many different angles can completely change the credibility of an argument. Every possibility must be accounted for in some way or another to be able to prove that your claim has any standing.
Yes, it does. I understand that we have to narrow down exactly what things mean in order for the audience to understand what is going on. We can not let the audience ask what we mean by a term because then it could cause them to have their own idea of a definition, which in the long run could cause them to not agree with our argument. We must lead the audience to where we want them to go in order for them to not lag off our argument’s pathway.
It definitely does, I feel like it is also a little bit easier to find all of the flaws in other arguments rather than yours and the words you write since you have the outside reader perspective.
This model helps me understand the amount of clearly stated definitional claims and the evidence required to make an effective argument.
It seems a bit complicated to me because I’m not sure how far should I clarify a certain word so that I’m not wasting words in my argumentative essay. Like should I start in broader terms and work my way dissecting them into details of that word? How will I know if my argument or certain words are clarified? But this model guides me to get a somewhat a better understanding of what I would be doing for my definitive part.
Yes, it helps try to drive home any misinformed designations on sort of accusations and finding the flaws it may have. Such as, the Climate Change kids and there stands on saying the government hasn’t done anything on climate change while not asking for what the definition of Climate change is itself. Its an interesting thought process of finding a work around someone’s ideals to make them rethink it, like word chess. You find ways to win by think beyond someone else’s, in order check mate at the end.
I believe the model helped me understand the idea of definition/categorical arguments. It provides a lot of information on the concept of the claim, and I was able to grasp the idea of certain definitions. This reading helps clarify the local meaning of the claim that has been made. Different claims in this reading were able to be argued and defined, which is helpful to what we have to do in our assignment.
I see the point of this exercise as to illustrate the importance of being specific in your words. It is to literally “clearly” define the words you are using in your argument. “Hurt” when used in “He hurt me.”, must be clearly defined; the degree of damage must be explained/ shown in order bring everyone to the same page and hopefully the same conclusion.
This model of Definition/Categorical argument clearly demonstrates how the use of definitions and categories is critical in constructing and communicating legal arguments. By categorizing essential legal terms, the article helps readers understand how each term such as “standing,” “injury,” and “causation” requires exact explanation and proof.
It’s easier to understand how each component definitions, categories, and proof must work together persuasively for the argument to proceed ahead. It’s an effective strategy for both understanding and creating legal arguments.
This model did help me understand the broad application of definition to making persuasive arguments. This showed me the different ways that readers can interpret a concept or topic, proving how important is is to make sure your claims and arguments are clear, specific, and meaningful in order to ensure that your claim has standing.
This model of definition/categorical arguments helps me understand the purpose and application a little bit. It shows the different ways a writer can define a term which is helpful when writing my definition argument.
This has helped me realize that defining circumstances and giving clarity. It helps the author prove their point clearly and effectively and helps the audience understand exactly what the author is talking about and understand the author’s point in their argument. Being specific is the key, giving the reading a flow that the audience can clearly read through smoothly.
Yes, this article helped me understand definition better
This did help me continue to break down sentences and paragraphs into claims. From there it provided me with valuable examples of what I should and can do in my own argument. It also showed me the pitfalls and mistakes that can be made when posing a definitional argument. Specificity is key.
This model gives a massive amount of information in the nuances of your claim, along with how the specifics have to match the way the claim is presented. It flows to show the way you are intended to read and find the conclusion you are presented with. I find it great as a way to write a persuasion argument, as is an excellent example of getting the main points across while supporting them.
I think this model was helpful in showcasing how to clarify definition/categorical claims. I understand that all broad terms used have to be specifically explained and simplified, and as the author you can define terms as you wish to help enhance your argument. Terms such as “healthy environment” can mean many different things depending on the context, so you must lay out exactly what a “healthy environment” means in terms of climate change.
It was a little helpful, I probably need a little more time to think through it but going through how specific and, seemingly, thorough the legal system is in defining certain words, accusations, causes, whatever. It makes it a bit more clear what is required of definition arguements.
This model helps me understand how this kind of argument can be applied to different kinds of claims regardless of what they are arguing for or against.
Yes model of a definition/categorical claim has helped me better understand. What was most helpful was when we went through them all together. It was more clear and easier to understand everything once it was broken down and talked through. Personally, I understand better once it has been talked about more than once in different ways.
This model does help me understand because it explains the applications of definition under the claims. It helps me understand whether or not the claim is clear and if it’s exactly what you want your reader to understand. Especially with the different arguments and categories helped demonstrate what exactly we have to follow for our paper.
The model helped me understand the concept of a definition/categorical argument, but I’m still a bit lost. I was able to understand the idea of their claim and the definitions kind of. I did understand that defining terms in a particular way guides your readers interpretation, and weather or not they’ll follow your argument.
The model helps me understand definition and categorical argument. With what makes a claim valid and clear. Categorical argument helps establish local definition.