Why? Because those launching the suit have alleged that actions and inactions of the government have “profoundly damaged our home planet” posing a threat to the plaintiffs and their “fundamental constitutional rights of life and liberty.”

The Supreme Court in denying the federal government’s stay request referred the issue back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It should be noted that the Ninth Circuit has twice denied the federal government’s request to block this lawsuit from proceeding. The written decision of the Supreme Court was not unanimous with two justices, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, indicating they would have granted the federal government a stay.

The launch of this lawsuit has profound implications for those who seek to use the courts to stop governments from ignoring the impact policy decisions past and present are having on the climate. The plaintiffs seek a fundamental change to the energy paradigm of the United States, ending the country’s reliance on fossil fuels and accelerating the transition to sustainable renewable energy and a low carbon economic future.

The argument that their individual liberty and other constitutional rights are being violated is an interesting one because it infers that governments owe citizens a sustainable environment with clean air, clean water, and climate conditions that will not prove harmful to them and their descendants. The lawyers who have taken this case have stated that their clients are already suffering irreparable harm from rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and oceans because of governments willful neglect. In seeking immediate relief the plaintiffs want the courts to compel the government to put in place policies and a plan to cease and desist from the violation of their constitutional rights by ending the country’s fossil fuel dependence and by implementing strategies to reduce atmospheric CO2.

It has been three years since this lawsuit began its journey through the American court system. Undoubtedly the case will end up in The Supreme Court which will rule in favour of the plaintiffs or the government. If during the process a stay gets granted at any level of the court system I wonder how that will empower America’s youth to launch efforts to remove from government those who they deem responsible for promoting the fossil fuel and other environmentally damaging industries, deemed to be significant contributors to global warming.

Today California has a carbon cap-and-trade system in place. British Columbia has implemented a carbon tax. Oregon and Washington governors have attempted to legislate a price on carbon but have been stymied by opposition and lobbyists. But last Monday all four jurisdictions committed themselves to align their carbon-emission reduction policies to tackle climate change.

Oregon and Washington are adopting a low carbon fuel standard for all transportation within their states. By 2016 all four are committed to a 10% zero-emission target on all new vehicles sold within their jurisdictions. They also stated their intent to support any new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas emission standards for power plants. All four also committed to letting science guide policies on the environment and climate change with an ultimate goal of getting international agreement on carbon in place by 2015.