Local News

Teen loses court bid to force action on climate change

Posted November 26, 2015

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— A Raleigh eighth-grader who took her fight to clean up the environment to court has lost that legal battle.

Hallie Turner, 13, petitioned the state Environmental Management Commission for rules that would require North Carolina to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at least 4 percent each year. The panel rejected that petition, so Hallie took her case to court.

Hallie's attorney, Gayle Goldsmith Tuch, said Thursday that the judge had ruled in favor of the state. 

The girl released this statement in response:

"While I am disappointed in the ruling, I know that I am right to demand immediate action on this issue. This ruling will not deter me from continuing my work. Climate change is too urgent for any of us to sit quietly while the State fails to take significant action. I will continue to speak out until the State does what is needed to protect our future."

Hallie is part of a nationwide youth movement taking on climate change. The Oregon-based nonprofit Our Children's Trust has been leading efforts to file lawsuits or administrative petitions in every state and against the federal government.

"This is an issue, it's not only affecting me, it's affecting future generations," she said. "I feel like my voice needs to be heard."

34 Comments

Please with your WRAL.com account to comment on this story. You also will need a Facebook account to comment.

Oldest First
View all
  • Greg Klayton Jan 15, 2016
    user avatar

    Poor little brain washed children.

    They should first blame their parents for increased CO2 emissions. If their parents would have used birth control or had abortions they wouldn't be around exhaling CO2 and contributing to global warming.

  • Sam Nada Nov 28, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    I'm sorry, I momentarily forgot that reality has a left-wing bias.

  • Sam Nada Nov 28, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    Numerous investigations of the East Anglia Institute "controversy" have turned no credible evidence that there was any intent to suppress or falsity data.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#cite_note-EPA_1.1.4-36

    There are many outside references in that Wikipedia article, so if you don't trust their summary you can review the original sources.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/31/climate-mails-inquiry-jones-cleared

    http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/documents/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf

  • Sam Nada Nov 28, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    What is the political agenda of Wikipedia?

  • Jason Clinch Nov 28, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Source data such as the East Anglia Institute's, which no longer exists? But TRUST them...

  • Jason Clinch Nov 28, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Think the suppression of dissenting research by those involved with the East Anglia Institute had anything to do with peer reviewed papers not being published?

  • Jason Clinch Nov 28, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    You rail against the national review, but then you link to a wikipedia posting?

  • Sam Nada Nov 27, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    The National Review? Is that what you consider the best available source of science information?

    Scientists are constantly analyzing and re-analyzing their methods and data to insure accuracy. Why is it that any adjustment showing more warming is considered a falsification? Why were the adjustments made? Did they increase the accuracy of the measurements and the estimates of climate warming? Why would you look to a non-scientific media source with the expressed purpose of espousing conservative political views to get the most reliable answers to those questions?

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/

    You offer no source for your contention that the 97% consensus figure is not correct. Many independent studies and surveys have supported that number, often finding it a low estimate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

  • Sam Nada Nov 27, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread



    I don't but many religious people do. Why would they ignore his advice on climate change?

  • Sam Nada Nov 27, 2015
    user avatar

    View quoted thread


    Historical CO2 readings are not based on ground readings. That's preposterous. Ice cores trap atmospheric air, and CO2 levels can be determined from them. The sun is one factor, but it's not what's driving warming now. Sun output levels have been decreasing during the current warming trend. There are numerous factors that contribute to global temps historically. The primary cause of the current warming is humans burning fossil fuels and very rapidly increasing the level of CO2 to exceedingly high levels by historical standards. It's both the level and the speed of increase that's of concern.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    The WSJ opinion piece is bunk. I'll take science over a hugely biased media advocate for big business.

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/05/27/shoot-and-a-miss-wall-street-journal-op-ed-attacks-97-climate-consensus/

More...