Supreme Court Rejects Petition by Major Oil Companies to Review California Climate Change Lawsuit
By - Kunphen
This subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know this is uplifting news... so I hope this is ok...
That article is terrible and poorly written. The only important part is at the end and briefly covered. The article is all about making a political statement. So what I learned. State of California passed a law about climate change. I think (this is not clear) a couple of california cities sued in state court under california law. The oil companies tried to move this to federal court. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
Also apparently in some other lawsuits those cases were moved to federal courts (but in different states). The article did not even bother to try to explain why this suit is different and why California's law is allowing cities to sue in california , but other cities under different state laws are not.
Its just a bunch of vague political stuff about big oil. I hate articles like this. Why can't they do a little research instead of a drive by article? Try to figure out what the difference is between California's law and other state laws without putting out political bias? Try to educate me.
Also, guys, this just allows the lawsuit to go forward in state court. Its years before this goes anywhere. There will be more appeals to kill this and then if California wins, more appeals in state and federal court. You should do a remind me in 5 years on this. These lawsuits take forever.
RemindMe! 5 years
I will be messaging you in 5 years on [**2026-06-14 21:49:47 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-06-14%2021:49:47%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/UpliftingNews/comments/nzqyas/supreme_court_rejects_petition_by_major_oil/h1s23l9/?context=3)
[**63 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FUpliftingNews%2Fcomments%2Fnzqyas%2Fsupreme_court_rejects_petition_by_major_oil%2Fh1s23l9%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-06-14%2021%3A49%3A47%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20nzqyas)
Wow, that's a cool feature.
> Why can't they do a little research instead of a drive by article?
Because research isn't worth it. If you get upvotes and ad views with little research, why waste time doing research? Better spend that time writing another poorly researched article for more clicks instead.
People will start writing well-research articles when those articles are rewarded by the internet.
the only thing interesting about this routine ruling would be why THIS case is different from other ones. This is just a process ruling. We wont' take the case.
I detest these stupid drive by articles by fringe news services on the left and the right. They just put up trivial red meat for fringe people who don't want details.
Seriously, knowing why this is different would be REALLY interesting.
It is probably related to how the california law was written vs. lack of laws in other states. But the details are the interesting part. What is different about this case and the other ones mentioned in passing?
I am getting trolled by other guy on here who is triggered that I mentioned political bias. Thanks for writing a good comment.
These fringe sites on both sides are total garbage.
Why waste time do lot research when few research do trick?
reddit rarely cares about the quality of news sources for some reason. Law and Crime (this post), Vox, Daily Mail, Common Dreams, and all sorts of far leaning political "news" can make the front page of any subreddit if they've got a catchy enough title. and since they're playing to emotion instead of logic, they usually do! it's ridiculous that people will (rightfully) complain about Fox feeding their parents bad info, but don't check the validity of the news sources they read themselves.
the article is annoying me because it made me really curious as to why this case is different and i really don't know how to find out. lol.
Also this site has 333 marketing cookies and guards of other cookies related to statistics and whatever other justifications they have for cookies. Its insane.
I hate poorly written ‘liberal’ articles. Like, do you give enough of a shit about this stuff to do a good job? If not please leave it to the people who do and go work for clicks doing something else.
I’m trying to figure out what your problem with the article is. You complain of it being too political, or making a political statement, but The article is about big oil getting sued, of course politics are coming into play (although the article didn’t mention a single politician)
Where is the bias you are complaining of? Wait, are you mad that one guy they quoted talked about taxpayers footing the bill? They got quotes from people on both sides. They couldn’t get Chevron though because they didn’t answer A request for comment.
I thought the article was pretty informative, it let people know The history so far. You’re right that it could’ve explained some things better though.
The irony of your complaint though, is that getting more detailed information would probably involve more politics.
explaining legally why the case can go forward in a calinfornia state court as opposed to cases from other jurisdictions in other states being forced into federal court is not remotely political. I clearly said they should explain what is different about the state laws and the cases.
They were too lazy to research the difference and then explain it. Something has to be different about the case and law in california and the cases and laws in other states.
If this guy responds i expect him to go "know it all google lawyer" on me. You don't know the difference either.
The person you are responding to has a tenuous grasp of the English language, I'm not sure they understand what political means
Reread the article my man, it's not about big oil getting sued. You missed the whole thing.
Slightly off-topic. [After seeing Shell's defeat in an European court recently](https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/big-oil-may-get-more-climate-lawsuits-after-shell-ruling-lawyers-activists-2021-05-28/), I am interested in helping to bankroll such lawsuits. Are there any groups that does this stuff exclusively? Obviously there is Greenpeace but they also do stuff like occupying industrial sites, which I disagree with. It's ineffective and bad optics. Also iirc they are against nuclear power, which I am not, as long as it can be built at a decent cost. Any suggestions on organisations? I am in Europe.
Look up Youth v. Gov (the actual suit is Juliana et al. v the United States). Young people are suing the US federal government to change their environmental policy to protect their future from climate change.
> Look up Youth v. Gov (the actual suit is Juliana et al. v the United States).
In January 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.
Ecuador is interesting in this area because there is a constitutional "right of nature" which gives standing to anyone to sue on behalf of the environment
Australian youth had a win against the government here - https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/100169398. knowing our government they're definitely just going to ignore it, but it's a good precedence!
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but Google's AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
You might want to visit **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-27/climate-class-action-teenagers-vickery-coal-mine-legal-precedent/100169398](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-27/climate-class-action-teenagers-vickery-coal-mine-legal-precedent/100169398)**
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon me with u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
You might have interest in this story, from a slightly different perspective. He's still under house arrest. While he is getting help from his legal friends and organizations trying to get his case heard, he's not able to work as usual.
There's a great [interview with him on the Ralph Nader podcast.](https://pca.st/episode/520718cc-b9bf-4227-b50e-120535012a5d)
He is under house arrest from his own choice, he has repeatedly asked for the trial to be delayed. He also isn't someone to hold up as an icon in the fight against climate change. He is just a crooked lawyer whose corruption caught up to him.
For the delays? Go to the wikipedia article and use the sources there
>The contempt case was scheduled to begin in September 2020. Citing concerns about coronavirus, Donziger's fourth lawyer, Attorney Lauren Regan, requested in late October that the civil trial be rescheduled for a third time. The trial was rescheduled to begin on November 9, then delayed until January 2021 for Donziger to have legal representation. In the face of objections to holding the trial virtually, Preska rescheduled the trial to take place in person on May 10, 2021. Donziger asked Preska to allow his criminal contempt trial to be livestreamed via Zoom because of restrictions on public attendance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and significant public interest in the case. Preska rejected Donziger's request and Donziger then asked that proceedings be televised. This request was also denied.
For being corrupt? If you don't mind 500 pages or so you can read the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling in The Hague against Ecuador for the case. You can probably skip a good deal of it though.
The entire "trial" is bullshit and Chevron/Texaco already LOST in Ecuador but then decided to abuse OUR court system to exact revenge on this guy for providing his legal expertise to the courts to help prosecute the aforementioned oil conglomerates for the ecological disasters they left behind in MANY places they looked for, drilled for, or actually extracted oil. In violation of their original agreements, of course.
Why are you defending this travesty? Do you honestly think Donziger bribed a judge in Ecuador to get them to rule against Chevron/Texaco despite the fucking MOUNTAIN of evidence that they polluted the shit out of that region? Do you want to look at pictures of it yourself? [This is what you're defending.](https://www.dw.com/en/a-slippery-decision-chevron-oil-pollution-in-ecuador/a-18697563)
I am defending the rule of law, why are you making a bunch of bullshit emotional appeals to avoid the simple fact that the trial against Chevron in Ecuador was rife with fraud and has not been upheld by a single other country in the entire world. There is extensive documentation of it, in part because Donzinger decided to document it himself. So yes, I do believe the Ecuadorian judgment had enough issues with it to render it internationally unenforceable.
Ah yes, youre defending the rule of law. Thats why youre defending the side that bribed a witness that later admitted that they lied in exchange for the bribe money, which happens to be the only evidence used by both the US, and ironically enough the Arbitration Tribunal. In simpler terms, the side accusing the other of corruption, fraud and bribery made that verdict ... through corruption, fraud and bribery.
The judge ordered him under house arrest. Didn't think I'd actually see someone try to lie about it, but here we are.
I didn't lie, he is still under house arrest because of his repeated requests for the trial to be delayed. I don't understand how anyone could derive any other meaning from the context.
You make it sound like he house arrested himself lmao. Go ahead and tell the class how he came to be under house arrest.
If you continuously postpone the trial, you think you’re gonna get a lollipop and a sticker? Of course the judge gave the order, you can’t house arrest yourself. Literally no one thought that.
That’s actually how I read it. I’m also a bit dumb, though…
It happens from time to time, haha. I will not comment on the crookedness of the lawyer, however, which is really what I think fired people up.
Environmental law is the NRDC's game.
Will look into them, thanks!
NRDC, EDF (Environmental Defense Fund), Earthjustice are all good firms.
Earthjustice, that's who I was forgetting. Court cases are all they do.
Will consider them. NRDC was already mentioned.
Yes, was reiterating/seconding them.
Your stance towards Greenpeace is well placed. I was a big admirer of their work until I picked them for a presentation at school and did a bit of research.
The very idealistic roots turned into a donation oriented organization that seemed to pick their stunts based on how much donations and publicity it can create and ignored things they previously had on their agenda because they weren't scandalous enough anymore.
Mind you: that was over two decades ago and I've mainly ignored them since, they may have gone through another evolution, but on first glance [it does not seem like it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Greenpeace).
Yep, I have gotten the impression that they are not picking their battles well.
Groups that are against nuclear, but for clean energy... huh, that seems incredibly backwards... and I'm an American, I have large amounts of experience in backwards thinking.
It's sadly very common. I'm very pro-nuclear and worked in nuclear power plants for years, but anti-nuclear sentiment remains significant among every side.
Even Bernie Sanders' proposed "[Green New Deal](https://berniesanders.com/issues/green-new-deal/)" planned to shut down all nuclear power plants in the US. In fact, out of all the political candidates running (of the two main parties in the US), exactly one candidate was pro-nuclear power.
It could be strictly financial.
We kinda missed the bus on Nuclear, and renewables are taking over.
Yes nuclear energy is safer and massively more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels. No argument there.... but dollar for dollar, you'll get more out of solar. [Here's a full report](https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf).
Additionally, it could be optics. If someone like Bernie is just trying to get shit done to combat climate change, then he would have to consider the stigma around nuclear (justified though it is not). Would it be easier to convince people that nukes are safe? Or just to slap down a fuckload of Solar, wind, geothermal, etc.? Especially if it's a part of a bigger plan, like the Green New Deal. Nuke plants are just one more thing for the opposition to grab onto, and try and stop progress.
All of that said, I still think that Renewables are a short-ish term solution. They can help fight climate change, and get us to net-zero carbon in our lifetimes. Nuclear is going to be much more important as we start to climb the Kardishev scale, but we aren't there yet.
Nuclear is on demand. There are no renewables with 100% reliable on demand power that can go in every place. Until we have good enough giant battery technology to store huge amounts of energy, we need on demand power for energy demand spikes like during a super cold winter night when everyone's heat and lights are drawing massive power.
Most "clean energy" proposals that rely on renewables still technically rely on gas fed peaking power plants to cover demand spikes. It'd make far more sense to have nuclear reactors doing that wherever renewables aren't enough, and would cost less than current battery tech.
Interesting how he uses Chernobyl as an example as to why Nuclear is bad. That reactor flaw existed because Russia was cheap, and the magnitude of the disaster increased because they wanted to hide any resemblance of responsibility for it. Basically saying, it's a poor example/comparison to modern Nuclear technology.
Chernobyl is used because the sequence of events that caused it were mostly based in very human failures you can't really engineer away and put the worst case scenario in stark relief.
From a purely technical perspective Chernobyl should have never happened. They did things no sane engineer should have done with that reactor. But it's only a poor comparison if you think modern companies and countries don't have incentives to be cheap or avoid responsibility.
You can absolutely engineer the faults of Chernobyl away. It’s a large reason why human factors and UI engineering became a thing. Automation and removal of as much of the human element as possible to take out ambiguities. Event tree analysis is a good model for exposing weaknesses in a system as well.
I’m summarizing, but technology and safety have been much improved since Chernobyl. Unless I misread what you’re trying to say, in which case I apologize.
Technology and safety *have* improved, but all of that still requires fallible humans to implement from design to operation. To use the event tree analysis example, a team of engineers can put together a perfectly detailed and thorough one but a human under great strain to find acceptable compromises regarding costs, image, etc. has to approve it. Those compromises are generally based on risk assessments, and humans are notoriously bad at that.
To expand on the risk part, the scenarios that bite you the hardest are those that are a confluence of extremely rare events and unforseen fallout from them. We definitely learned from it, but Chernobyl again provides a good example where the reactor was being operated well outside the assumptions that designers thought it would be, making things that normally wouldn't be relevant critical to the sequence of events. We're constantly learning about these things, and it's become apparent there's quite a bit of hubris involved in assuming you can plan for every combination of scenarios.
When the cost of failure is having to abandon a major population center for a few decades at least, and the chances of a failure increase the more plants you have operational, the massive investment isn't really worth the risk.
They’re saying that you cannot guarantee the site will be maintained and operated properly 100 percent of the time for the lifetime of the plant. Anyone who thinks they can guarantee that is a fucking dipshit with little imagination as to how badly things can go wrong.
You don't have to maintain and operate a nuclear plant properly 100% of the time, even including things like Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear still has the best track record for safety among all energy production methods. It even beats wind in life lost per unit of energy generated.
I've already typed out a longer version of this, but we're currently watching thousands of dams erode and put thousands and thousands of homes and lives in danger, and really doing nothing about it. How can we look at that, as well as past nuclear mishaps, and trust that we'll adequately upkeep our nuclear plants any better than we're maintaining our dams? Both are huge engineering projects, and could have massive consequences, so it's a valid comparison when showing how responsible we can be with maintaining such projects long term. I'm in favor of nuclear energy, for the record
There is generally a difference between dams and nuclear, that being the difference in regulation around them. Dams SHOULD have been better maintained, and likely WOD have if they were regulated in the same way which nuclear plants are (for very good reason). The answer ultimately is that we as a society need to stop skimping on infrastructure upkeep across the board, we need to lose this mindset that regulations are inherently bad.
The worst case scenario for non-nuclear is far worse though.
Only if you make a series of bad faith assumptions about other green tech
We can't (yet) meet all our power needs with green tech. There has to be some sort of on-demand generation. The alternatives all spit their waste into the environment (or at least a portion of the waste).
Chernobyl also clearly shows how ill-equipped we are to deal with the fallout of a nuclear power plant if something were to go wrong (or if the Russians were able to sabotage it). When the risk is that high it seems silly to me to continue to argue for nuclear power when there are plenty of clean energy alternatives. Hell, the only convincing argument in my mind is that we already have so many nuclear power plants that one more doesn’t matter.
There arnt plenty of clean energy alternatives, they have yet to design the clean energy alternative that can provide the energy needed to run a city year round which does not include the massive amount of environmental destruction which comes from the production and disposal of batteries.
One of the main issues is that if you're going to build plants *safely* you're not going to build them in time to actually make a difference in global warming. Might as well drop the trillions of dollars that would take into researching and implementing better solutions.
That is questionable, nuke plants take so long to build largely because of public opposition more than anything else. Of we decided we wanted nothing but nuke plants and started building tomorrow you could probably safely have them online in 5 years or so.
The permitting process alone is about 10 years, even with a compliant public. It just won't be enough without compromising the very things that have kept its safety record what it is.
That's a good point, though, the incentive to not be cheap is preventing a large, local disaster so I think that might be moot.
Even ignoring the morality of it, if a reactor fails and causes destruction similar to Chernobyl, that's a PR nightmare if it's due to cheap equipment. Imo, no World Leader would take on that risk, even the dumbest ones.
>though, the incentive to not be cheap is preventing a large, local disaster so I think that might be moot.
History has proven that across all manner of activities this isn’t the disincentive people like to claim it is.
In part *because* such a failure is such a PR nightmare it can actually provide incentives to do things that make it all worse. Again Chernobyl is a pretty good example: because the USSR didn't want to admit they had an accident they hid it as long as possible. Had they admitted it and took the hit to national pride, an international response probably would have gotten the situation under control much more quickly and much less radioactive material released.
The funny thing abt Chernobyl is that the explosion wasn’t triggered by the uranium. It was triggered by water. Once water hits a certain temperature it literally combusts. Chernobyl was basically a hydrogen bomb powered by uranium
The thing is, using "human error" as a way to dismiss concerns is like using "steel isn't strong enough to support this this bridge" then building the bridge anyway
At a certain point if you build a bridge out of shitty steel and it breaks we understand that this is an inevitable and is an obvious result.
When it comes to humans though, we just say "well, obvious those humans were corrupt/untrained/lazy/overworked" and just dismiss it.
But the point is, if your big project relies on perfect human beings, then your project is going to inevitably fail.
Exactly. Reddit loves to pedal nuclear power as if it's a flawless unlimited superpower. I'd love for that to be true. I'd love for nuclear power to become widespread and for us to actually upkeep it and be responsible with it. The problem is, that's now how government funding works. We have thousands of dams - massive engineering projects that require long term attention and upkeep to avoid flooding thousands of homes and potentially killing thousands and thousands of people. And yet somehow, thousands of those dams are currently at risk of failing and we're really not doing much about it, because the funding isn't there. You expect me to look at that and trust that nuclear plants will be properly maintained? When the stakes are even higher? And when we've failed to maintain them in the past?
It's funny that the only two notable accidents with nuclear since we started using it is from a technical fault of Russia cheaping out and the other from a tsunami due to the sea walls not being as high as they were needed.
It's like nuclear power is pretty safe or something.
That knowledge is uncommon, that's the real issue imo.
We should just take the money from "Breast Cancer Awareness" and put it into "Nuclear power Safety Awareness".
Before hating on me for making that joke, peep where the money goes in that organization, it's actually depressing/ridiculous. Learned about it in college from a progressive professor, even.
i agree with you but p sure there’s been more than two. Three Mile Island for instance
You really can't see why anyone is against nuclear energy? For the record, I'm all for it. But for nuclear to be safe and sustainable, there needs to be attentive, long term maintenance and upkeep to make sure everything is safely working in the long run. If not, the stakes are high - as we've seen in the past. Our government doesn't like to fund upkeep of things that aren't a critical danger. Just look at our water pipelines, our dams, our coastal flooding issues, our crumbling roads. Hard to trust that they'll safely maintain nuclear power plants when we're currently watching them ignore dams in danger of failing that could flood thousands and thousands of homes.
It's tough when physicists lobby widely to make nuclear seem like a thing that's so dangerous, nobody can be trusted with it.
As a past nuclear plant worker I spent a couple days talking to a physics prof about which systems failures contributed to the Fukushima explosions and why this was never going to be an ever-burning slag pit. Cladding corrosion into hydrogen rupture meant particulates would settle over a few weeks and at that point we'd know truly whether the area was a hazard.
Circling back, there was caesium contamination detectable above background, and an increased background radiation - need a big rainstorm to come wash most of that into the ocean (edit) and some study to predict expected bio-accumulation.
Not marginalizing the people who died from radiation exposure following the event; these are nuc workers and emergency responders, though, not the public. I feel for the emergency responders.
Anyway in discussing this with knowledge and experience, she threatened to fire me as her TA. Her actual stance: I'm a physicist with a Ph.D, I know better than you. What if it DOES become the ever burning slag pit?
But a GE reactor never can. A thing called poison load. If the geometry of the fuel changes, the reactor shuts down. A very basic safety feature.
Nuclear, while it does have a few issues, is overall 1000 times better than fossil fuel generation, as long as it is cost-effective. Small modular reactors should not be dismissed as a clean alternative forwards. Which again is why I don't want to support campaigns against it but rather push Big Oil into renewables/carbon-neutral energy at a faster pace at least.
So how does one get rid of the nuclear waste as a byproduct? I'm pro nuclear but my family isn't and they asked this question? I had no answer to this as it was a trap and I knew if I say anything it will amount to something like the rods are poisoning the earth or water...
The short answer is that while there is still waste, it's orders of magnitude smaller in volume than fossil fuels and all you have to do is lock is up it a place with little ground water. You can't make nuclear weapons with nuclear waste and even if there was a "spill" by say the delivery vehicle crashing, all you have to do is send in people to pick it all up, put it back on another vehicle and send it on its way. Meanwhile coal power plants are just dumping waste directly into the atmosphere.
And rivers. I’ve lost count how many times in my life it’s made the news when one of their tailing ponds either leaks or fails, and pours massive amounts of pollution into the river systems and the company goes... 🤷♂️
Coal sadly produces nuclear waste as well, we just throw it up into the air and pretend it doesn't exist.
Yes but you could make a dirty bomb with it couldn't you?
Dirty bomb.... or... dirty burger?
"Man I fucking hate Phil Collins"
Idk why but I cracked up.
Watch Trailer Park Boys, incredibly clever comedy TV series. Very stupid show, but characters are top notch.
Actually just started it!
Generally not. You could use it to poison a water source or environment if you got your hands on enough of it but in general it's not radioactive enough to do any real damage in the quantities which would be practical to build a bomb out of.
The very encouraging research into Nuclear Fusion should hopefully make the more dangerous, (relatively), Nuclear Fission obsolete. Yes, I know it’s some years away from practical implementation, but I’m pretty optimistic. Fusion is relatively clean and, as I understand it, has the ability to consume Fission waste as a fuel source.
Said everyone for the past 70 years
I mean it is a legitimate question and one of the biggest issues with nuclear especially if you want to massively scale up nuclear energy. Basically what we do now is store them in specially designed barrels in thick concrete bunkers but the problem is there's really no way of getting rid of it and nobody wants to be the area where nuclear waste is stored.
Answer 1: it's a heck of a lot easier to contain a small amount of solid waste (from nuclear) either indefinitely or until we have the tech to deal with it than it is to contain the gaseous (CO2, methane, fluorocarbons) or liquid (fertilizers, coal mining runoff, etc) waste produced by other energy sources.
Answer 2: people are working on making small modular reactors that actually use the waste from older reactors as fuel (look up traveling wave reactor). Talk about upcycling!
You can dispose of them underground. Nuclear actually produces very little "waste" and underground storage is a completely viable answer for long term disposal.
For example, all the nuclear waste produced in the US since 1950 would take up around a football field, ten yards deep.
On top of the existing fuel already being an incredible small amount, it could be reduced even further (up to 80%) by using [newer designs that can reuse existing spent fuel](https://www.anl.gov/article/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy).
US needs to change its laws tho, as recycling is currently illegal, when I checked 7 years ago.
Also, uranium mining is still very fossil fuel intensive and damaging locally. The nuclear power life cycle still needs improvements in the beginning and end. We have the means to do this, but the will and motivation as a society is lacking.
This is likely because some of the "recycling" is basically the same methods you'd use to refine and extract plutonium to make a nuclear weapon.
Much of the "byproduct" of nuclear reactors is then processed into other nuclear fuels. Really the biggest issue with nuclear is we can't scale it up to anywhere near what we need globally, and the shortage isn't even really the fuel- a lot of that crazy nuclear power generation shit uses some really rare metals like zirconium and beryllium in both the reactor and the fuel reprocessing, and unlike the fuels, those materials can't really be easily recycled once they've been used in there, at least not for a few thousand years have rendered them inert again.
So we'd run out of the rare earth shit long before we'd really run into any sort of major storage issues.
Gen IV nuclear reactors actually use the spent fuel from gens I-III. In fact even most of the waste they do produce can still be recycled.
See instead of doing more fission for energy, we can take advantage of the heat generated by the decay of the spent fuel. We can use this to drive steam turbines and it’s quite scalable. It also has the benefit of removing toxic radioactive waste from storage facilities and putting it to positive, relatively carbon neutral, energy production.
The reason I say relatively is due to the current use of carbon based energy (in most cases) to manufacture the storage and new generators. However bring just a few of these online and we can start powering the plants without coal.
The biggest caveat is that to make these super safe they’d essentially have to be kept small. Industrial applications do exist but more precautions are necessary when using more fuel as even spent fuel can give off lethal amounts of radiation.
This means it would be better suited towards smaller subdivision focused generators rather than a whole city capable one. While more complex, the added benefit of a more distributed, resilient grid should outweigh the cost of implementing so many small generators. From a national security standpoint these grids could be connected BUT remain technically isolated, so a cyber breach wouldn’t necessarily have a widespread impact. Hell if power can be safely rerouted by other connected generators it would be even more difficult to attack.
Finally since the fuel can be locked in a thick lead case there is little risk of damage causing a nuclear incident. Since we only need the heat we can over-engineer it rather easily while still being able to harvest the heat we need. Even if the outer container is breached the fuel can be kept deep enough within that it would take serious effort to expose it and leak radiation.
Unfortunately some environmentalists (not all) have locked on to “nuclear bad cause waste” and don’t seem to grasp the “re-use spent fuel” portion of these reactors. This has led to massive pushback against their development and implementation. Implementation that could put to work (and remove from potentially leaky storage) a good portion of the spent fuel we’ve collected.
Even better if we got enough of these online we could start dismantling our current gen I-III reactors. We’d only need a few to generate enough waste fuel once our massive reserves are put to use or over a long period of time finally exhausts itself.
Reprocess it and use it again. In the US, very little of the actual energy is extracted, the rest gets buried.
The amounts of waste are actually really low, about 40g per person per year, you could comfortably pack all the waste we've ever produced into a football field. Also, we keep finding more uses for it. The spent rods are only dangerous because of the huge amount of energy they still contain, more than 90%? Spent fuel reactors can be constructed, and are in other countries.
Also the containment of the waste is well understood. You dig a hole in some rock and stick it in. Containment for the waste product from coal fire power plants, for example, is much more dangerous and occasionally catastrophic.
> So how does one get rid of the nuclear waste as a byproduct? I'm pro nuclear but my family isn't and they asked this question?
It could be buried deep underground, as [Finland is in progress of doing](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/05/31/finland-breaks-ground-on-its-deep-geologic-nuclear-waste-repository/).
This still sounds super sketch though
Having a radioactive hole in the ground isn't ideal, but it can be contained and monitored. That's taking responsibility for the waste we create. When fossil fuels are burned, who's taking responsibility for the waste that's created? It's not the guy who owns the power plant, that's for sure. That guy making billions from burning fossil fuels will just send the carbon dioxide up the smokestack and forget about it. The profits from burning fossil fuels are privatized and then the problem of dealing with the waste (or not dealing with it and suffering the effects) falls on everyone else on the planet.
No method is absolutely perfect, so it's all about balancing risk and mitigating it. It makes much more sense to have all the waste safely controlled and completely accounted for.
For comparison, [other methods of green energy aren't free from environmentally contaminating waste either](https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/solar-panel-waste-the-dark-side-of-clean-energy) and the waste is a lot less controlled.
I completely agree, we have to balance risks and be responsible for our waste. More than anything though, what we are doing as a society is just trying to find another energy source to continue in our growth mindset - I think this where the problem lies. What we should be doing is thinking in terms of degrowth. It’s not a popular opinion, and many think it’s just an outlet for communism. But seriously, we live in a world of limited resources and we think we can infinitely consume with no consequences.
Yeah, except that's exactly my point, you missed it entirely :(
Videos are cool, but I've taken courses on it, thanks.
You may want to reread the post you replied too, he already agrees tht nuclear energy is clean.
Yup thanks :P
Was this the pipeline that went through some sovereign tribal land or something though? That's been most of the backlash I've heard of surrounding oil pipelines, that they cut through reservations and sacred land and stuff
Pipelines are massive investments that need to be paid off over decades, and already [2017, that pipeline was considered a high-risk project](https://ieefa.org/ieefa-op-ed-investors-steer-clear-keystone-pipeline/) which was supposed to carry some of the dirtiest, least competitive oil available. It's was partly funded by the government of Alberta last year for this reason. It's safe to say at this point when we're seeing decent electric vehicles starting to come out that this pipeline wouldn't be able to pay for itself in a million years and it would probably end up stranded. However, like in [other situations with stranded fossil fuel infrastructure](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04062021/illinois-clean-energy-coal-plant-prairie-state/), the risk is that this stranded piece of infrastructure would block progress in terms of clean energy investment and regulation on the fossil fuel industry. Having it cancelled was the wiser decision long-term. However, the region should be provided with new and clean jobs in the absence of the pipeline project.
The Dakota pipeline was cancelled because it ran dangerously close to an aquifer that multiple states in the Midwest use.
Couple things you may be missing here that might be why so many people have commented saying "something seems off" here-
Oil that travels by trucks and trains, well by trains is much safer then pipelines-
>[According to data from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), spills occur more frequently with pipelines than rail cars. In 2015, PHMSA received 252 reports of pipeline spills compared to 44 by rail. Even the year before, pipeline spills were 62 percent higher than spills by rail.](https://www.engineering.com/story/oil-by-pipe-or-by-rail-which-is-less-likely-to-fail#:~:text=According%20to%20data%20from%20the,higher%20than%20spills%20by%20rail.)
And as for trucks, not only are the spills typically much smaller when a truck has an incident, but these are also typically happening on or around roads, which not only helps contain some if not much of the ecological damage by being more easily cleanable than, say, a pond, but also they tend to happen on roads, so transportation to the truck oil spill is almost always FAR easier than travelling some remote access road if one exists with the heavy equipment needed to clean up a major spill. Now, while it's true that there is more spilled via truck every year than pipelines and trains COMBINED, it's also quite often being spilled on "highway 135" or whatever and not "in the ancestral homelands and sustenance based hunting grounds of generations of both people and thousands of types of animals" like, you know, the Dakota pipeline project.
Crazy thing is half the pipes in America now are like 60 years old too. Incidents will only increase with time.
Something feels off about this comment, but I don't know enough about global oil transport or the Dakota pipeline to argue...
I agree, I don't know enough to comment, nor read an opinionated comment on the subject (I wish more people were like that, it's literally how society operates lol)
All I can offer is he's not a Trumper, so don't write him off like one... I almost did. He could very well be right.
You might look at the "environmental defenders"
The are lawyers who work on cases to force governments to enforce their own laws. Very effective.
Also hero's in my book because they are choosing to be on a much lower wage than they would be doing commercial law.
SCOTUS is extremely unified lately.
They have been dishing out 9-0 decisions like crazy.
Makes you think that maybe they are trying to tell the court packers to fuck off?
I’m holding my breath for the abortion and LGBT adoption cases.
I’m not sure what’s going on with lgbt adoption but pretty much every justice says they have no intention on overturning Roe v. Wade
Yup. They even read gender identity into the civil rights act a few months ago.
Despite what a lot of people might say, constitutionalists on the bench is a good thing. I mean it’s literally their only job to see if something is compliant with the constitution. Equality is one of those things.
Equality is written into the constitution?
Originalists (which we have 2 or 3 of on the SCOTUS right now) want to interpret the constitution "as the framers intended" but when the framers wrote it many of them literally owned black people. We *cannot* structure modern life around the lives of land-owning upper-class white men from 250 years ago.
For real, it starts with "We the People" but it took a few hundred years and had to be ammeded twice for that phrase to include black persons and women.
One, slavery was not written into the constitution. Two, that was a hard decision for the founding fathers to make in order to get other colonies on board, maybe in retrospect an incorrect decision but it is what it is. Three, I never said it was written into it. Finally, they intentionally wrote it to be fairly time-proof.
I mean, you can write a document to be fairly time proof, but that doesn’t mean it will actually hold up to the test of time. We live in a fundamentally different world than the framers. Our society has evolved beyond what they could possibly have comprehended. I don’t know what you mean slavery was not written into the constitution. It was certainly allowed by the constitution at that time and nearly 20 years later the constitution was amended to include slaves as 3/5 of a person... sounds like it was included to me...
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Y’all didn’t abolish slavery, you just hid it in the basement and hoped no one would look.
Yeah except the “founding fathers” weren’t “between a rock and a hard place” they *were* both the rock *and* the hard place.
Imagine 100 years from now people are trying to do things in the ways people, or even just political leadership, of 2021 intended. That will include quite the range of people. The founding fathers had some unified agreements but unless you narrow it down to 1 or 2 specific people, there’s no one overall intent.
Edit: I say this not to disagree with you but to point out how flawed it is to look for intent from a supposed middle ground when in reality intents are just all over the place without a single unified vision.
Just like how there was concern about how the bill of rights shouldn’t have been included because it would imply that *only* those rights were protected. Unfortunately it’s seems that comes true. We should need lawsuits to say “this violates the first amendment”, they should just have to say “nothing in the constitution gives the government the ability to suppress free speech”.
It was never written into the constitution but it was well understood that it wasn't ethical and they chose to allow it. The framers were intelligent men who made many good choices that have served as a framework for this government but obviously they weren't flawless and they had a pretty narrow perspective on the human condition, so we need to stop this bullshit where we deify then and the legislature saying it was "written to be time-proof."
The 2nd amendment is it's own proof that it wasn't, there has been debate about its meaning and its utility in society for over 200 years now, written in a time when it was almost impossible for one armed man to kill *hundreds* in a timespan of *minutes*. Meanwhile the civilian population cannot own other arms such as tanks or missiles, so the "resist government tyranny" interpretation doesn't exactly stand either.
It doesn’t matter how many people you *can* kill, if you restrict someone’s rights it’s game over.
It’s the same fundamental argument that prevents us from outright legally requiring a COVID vaccine. You could *theoretically* kill several hundred people in the span of a few short minutes by simply riding a subway in NYC during commute hours while sick with coronavirus, and we **still** can’t artificially restrict your own rights to your own body.
You have a *fundamental* right to self defense, *via bearing arms* that are dangerous enough to accomplish an effective defense, and the government may *never* restrict or remove this right.
>the government may never restrict or remove this right.
As a convicted felon in the market for a fully automatic firearm with a high capacity magazine, I'm very encouraged by this comment.
No, you just don't you get it. People owned slaves 225 years ago and that means our system of government is invalid despite it working exactly as intended, and being updated regularly to be in line with the people's will every couple of decades.
I shouldn't have to get what I want passed into law following the constitutional process because I KNOW BETTER than the constitution.
Wait what do you mean I can't cancel the constitution because it was written by rich old white men? That normally is more than enough to cancel people on twitter. /s
0/10 critical thinking skills get a refund on your education
Stop arguing with this guy, he is an obvious troll. Most of the framers didn't even view slaves as humans, much less worthy of citizenship. They would have been ok with 10% of the population gaining the right to vote. Originalism has no place in modern thought.
Yup. These are the same people who support everyone being able to own whatever kind of gun they want, while completely overlooking the first three words of the second amendment. No regulation on muh guns
Well-regulated means well armed as written. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s as simple as that. The 2nd amendment is absolutely critical to providing people the ability to protect their rights. Gun control is racist and classist. The elite will always be well armed. The 99% shouldn’t have their hands tied behind their backs with gun control. Arm the people.
So if I can afford them, I can own nuclear weapons? If so, please let me know what city you live in.
Don't talk about things you don't understand. The militia line in the 2nd isn't a restriction on the right, and also doesn't even mean what you think it does. "The militia" meant every able bodied man, so unless you want to restrict the right for only women, you might want to pick a new strategy.
First, I own multiple guns. Second, don’t give me this don’t talk about things you don’t understand bullshit. Until the Heller decision, and Scalia’s divisive interpretation of the amendment in a 5-4 decision, “well regulated militia” meant what is now the National Guard. When the amendment was written, the US had no formal military. No one was paid to be a soldier 24x7 to protect our citizens.
I have one simple question for you. Should individuals, like Soros or Bezos, be allowed to own nuclear weapons? Those are by definition “arms” as in the “arms race”. If you don’t support unfettered access to whatever weapon anyone wants to own, you already support regulations on arms for the “Michigan militia”.
Edit: I will completely give up the military argument, if we can agree that we should do away with our 3/4 of a trillion dollar annual military budget and go back to what we had at the time the second amendment was written. No formal military, but citizens protecting the country.
Equality was not part of the constitution, hate to break it to you.
Even if they don’t like their rulings they are consistent.
The right wingers on the court like Alito and Thomas are too smart to straight up overturn Roe and risk a huge public backlash that sends a bunch of Democrats to Congress.
They're going to gradually chip away at Roe and allow more and more red state to impose increasingly ludicrous regulations to the point where an abortion is all but impossible unless you have the means to fly to a blue state
As an independent who sometimes leans conservative, overturning roe v wade would be enough for me to be okay with Biden court packing.
"They" as in the Supreme Court justices, aren't chipping away at anything. That would be state legislatures.
The Supreme Court has been chipping away at Roe v. Wade for decades. See, for instance, [Planned Parenthood v. Casey](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744) in 1992, or more recently [Gonzales v. Carhart](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-380).
Right, but those will be taken to court and then upheld...
If they actually do not overturn Roe v. Wade, I will be pleasantly shocked. I know a few Republican leaders (former and current) who will lose their collective little minds, especially since they purposely appointed Conservatives for those positions for this purpose alone.
When that debate was going on though, they both straight said they had no intentions of revisiting Roe v. Wade. So that shouldn't really be a shock to anyone.
I'm sure they won't, not until congress shifts hands and the court packing threat is gone again.
And gun control. They are pretty much hell bent on exporting Texas style gun proliferation onto the entire country.
Sounds good to me. If you are going to diminish police protection in major cities we should at least allow the law-abiding citizens (verified by FBI background check) to arm themselves.
The effect isn't to diminish police protection. It's to diminish police presence where there are other, more qualified professionals to handle a given situation.
You don't want a nervous, armed officer handling a mental health situation that they're never trained for. We have other professionals who are highly educated and specialized in dealing with these sorts of things who aren't liable to just resort to riddling a disabled person with bullets.
Obviously if someone breaks into your home, the police are still paid to respond.
FUCK YEAH! USA USA USA
Guarantee it’s a narrow ruling if they don’t drop it entirely.
I AM NOT ARGUING ABOUT ABORTION, but the *ruling* of Roe V Wade was garbage. Even rbg and the other lib justices said it had no basis in the law and was shakey at best.
It was legislation from the bench full stop.
I’m not arguing about abortion. I’m arguing about how this was not the duty of the SCOTUS to decide. Something just about every constitutional scholar has said. It is a legislative issue and even the lib justices have said so.
If the court overturned it (doubtful) it would go back to the states. Or the feds could pass a law.
I’d be just as angry if they outlawed drugs from the bench or something.
Seems like violation of constitutionally protected rights hence the original ruling.(14th amendment) (life, liberty. And pursuit of happiness.. remember that one??) If my life is threatened by the pregnancy I should be able to get the medical treatment needed to preserve my health and a state shouldn't be able to stop me just because it makes them squeamish.
Methinks you haven't actually read the original ruling for you to say something as wildly and easily provable false as that.
The huge majority of abortions are not life threatening medical abortions. If we can agree that all other abortions are bad then I agree we can have abortion for rape and medical necessity.
Except all these restricting laws have a provision for mother safety. Even the infamous Alabama law.
The court can also rule for that.
And yes. I have ready the case.
Again, not arguing about abortion. I’m arguing against legislating from the bench.
The Texas heartbeat law allows exceptions only in the case of a medical "emergency", and does not provide any exceptions for rape and incest.
Right. It clearly states "unduly restrictive" now we disagree on what that means? Maybe we could bring in a mediator who can view it through the impartial lens of justice. Maybe like a judge? Or a group of them? Preferably the highest authority on such manners.
My point is that saying the Supreme Court had no place in making a ruling on this is incredibly ignorant; you're misrepresenting the torn emotions some justices felt ruling on the matter as proof it shouldn't have been done.
This is not unusual at all. Most of the business the Court conducts is confirming the rulings of lower courts, and unless you are a Court watcher these rarely make the news.
Hardly "super unusual."
No, they are doing what they are tasked to do, which is interpret the law and how it applies to each case. No matter how much the media tries to tell you otherwise, the Supreme Court is largely an arm of the law free from political spectrum and outlook. As long as they have lifelong appointments, these guys are not beholden to political "teams" or "gangs" just because a particular president nominated them. That's one of the beauties of our judicial system.
Too many newbie idiots out there who only started paying attention to this stuff once Trump was elected and don't realize it is ***NOT*** the job of the Supreme Court to push political opinion or agenda. Quite the opposite, actually.
Based on the article, it sounds like the only issue was whether the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction. This is a threshold issue that is usually raised before a defendant even has to answer the complaint. It took almost 4 years to get to the point where the defendants have to answer the complaint. California state courts may be pro plaintiff, but they are also incredible backlogged even before COVID complications. This lawsuit isn’t going anywhere fast. Sorry to be a downer on your “uplifting” news lol
As it should be; only an activist Court would interfere in intrastate commerce.
Since this case was first filed several years ago, I’ve forgotten how it will help the environment. Will the oil companies be forced to run advertisements that acknowledge the impact of fossil fuels on the environment? Will they be forced to invent some kind of environment scrubber?
It’s good that we can hold them accountable, but how will they undo all the damage their lies have already caused? Their continued denial of fossil fuels being a direct link to climate and environmental impacts have done almost irreparable damage, because their lies have been believed and passed on as truths. It’s like Fox running an oops, we lied, once at 2am when no one will notice.
Money towards educating the public about the true impact of fossil fuels is a start, but I fear there are people so engaged in the lies, that the truth will have no impact at all.
The idea is that San Francisco and Oakland will take a lot of money from the oil companies to be wasted by those cities’ governments. Basically it’s a representative action whereby those cities claim to be vindicating the rights of every citizen who suffers an injury due to climate change.
That’s about as uplifting as putting down your dog. 😒
The local governments in the area have a profit-generating division of their city and county attorney’s offices that go after companies with these representative actions all the time. They have very fancy offices that look like law firms and not government offices. It’s predatory and not really designed to help anything.
How’s their compensation compared to top law firms? I’ve only looked at the SEC at one point in my career (finance, not law), but the pay was miserable and the amount of red tape made it seem like the most soul-crushing experience since prom.
I hope they do what they did to tobacco. Make the payout so massive it has to be done over decades. Make sure 100% of the money is used for green tech advancements. 500,000 charging stations nationwide and solar panels on the roof of every school and federal building is a good start. The remaining 500 billion can go towards funding EVs.
The issue is that cities around the US are suing the oil companies on tenuous grounds in the sense that many are asking for compensation for unspecified *future* damages caused by climate change.
Obviously big oil is not doing the environment any favours and many of them have been irresponsible as hell, but it seems pretty unlikely that many of the plaintiffs will get what they want. Because legally it doesn’t make sense to pay up for ambiguous future damages and if they do pay up it sets a precedent and there will be a massive tsunami of global warming litigation with payment demands and the legal world will be utter chaos.
Not dissimilar to what’s going on with the opioid crisis now—obviously the defendants are full of crap and need to do something to try to make amends but now we’ve got the most complex mess of mass litigation modern America has ever seen with various MDLs and innumerable individual claims.
Fuck the major oil companies.
Certainly you don‘t need to pay for fuel
Seems like a pretty obvious and reasonable “states’ rights” issue.
State citizenry has legitimate grievances with oil companies. If there is legal recourse within state law how does this suddenly become a federal issue? How does this even get close to the Supreme Court let alone actually get there?
The SCOTUS loves gimmes like this. Then when the day comes and it's time to back the most catastrophic partisan vote imaginable, they can point to the many times they took a measured approach on comparatively unimportant issues.
Not giving cert isn't rejecting anything. What the dick is happening to journalism.
Why is this uplifting news?
The fourth largest economy in the world decides what happens to what happens to the rest of the country. When California decides to raise their environmental guidelines every Americans company must comply or not do business in the states. Which is a death sentence. Why do you think the past administration fought so hard to prevent California from increasing the gas emissions standards of cars sold in Cali. If California says cars and trucks must get 35 mpg to be sold in the state, all cars will some reach that standard. Oil companies hate that. State right only if it benefits corporations or religious beliefs.
This is not true. When California introduced ethanol blended fuel standards... no one followed suit. It was literally the only jurisdiction that did this. All that changes is vehicle restrictions in California. Maybe Honda sells more Civics.
Ah good. Higher gas prices for everyone!
Really Really Awesome looking forward to $6.50 gas.
We're paying around $9.43 for gallon of diesel right now
What ? That clearly won’t drive the price of goods up.
Unpopular opinion but if California would reverse the 1969 law of deforestation to protect the redwoods and allow for a cut down for a "fire line" it would prevent MASSIVE spreads of wildfires and save towns and homes and also produce lumber to boost economy and lower housing costs. Wildfires kill the redwoods anyways but it would also slow wildfires saving people on insurance and life itself. But I'll get hate for this "idea"
All of Florida is a flood zone but we still build because we have a thing called a fire line. It actually stops wildfires in it's tracks. We also have controlled burns. My family in the Midwest also have these things called controlled burns and fire lines. I understand you think California is doing it right and you hate to say they are because we all know they aren't but in my 15 years of landscaping I hired 2 individuals from California and they were park rangers. They both said they wish redwoods were allowed to be cut. You cut them and fill the the void with sand. It will stop the fire. It's simple
My bad and I do apologize. I did read what you said but I'm a typical idiot on social media reading it without paying attention to what you're actually saying and I do apologize. Ok so let me ask something I clearly don't understand. During the pandemic ...."Gasoline by Seether" just started playing lol........ the news said the Ozone layer healed itself, also they keep saying its a new record since they started keeping records. Also the record before this was in 1897 so what were we doing than to have that heat? Have you also seen the Antarctica dig? It used to be mud. Idk bro..... I'm baked and I pick up trash because I love my town but I can't fix the earth. I just do what I can and I think Cali would be better if they made fire lines. Love ya brother and be safe. You ever make it to Tampa I'll buy you a beer and shot. Thanks for not being a dick and attacking me. Respect
California needs to stop using oil. Reee
I mean this is good, now if Cheveron, BP ...et al want to say screw you to California they just stop selling fuel to them and see what they do. Guarantee you their tune changes in about 2 months time.
Not gonna happen. California has largest vehicle ownership population in US. If oil companies want to try that, the US government and courts will treat them unkindly.
There’s more Californians than Canadians. They can ditch Canada and lose less than if they ditched California, the ~6th largest economy in the world.
Court: ok let accept that
Also the court: let ban oil by 2025 instead!
(Something telle they won't be allow to do that :( )