Newly obtained public records reveal that the recruitment of young children for strikes and demonstrations are a long-planned component of the climate industry’s litigation campaign
Newly obtained public records reveal that the recent wave of private “climate” litigation and state attorneys general (AGs) investigations was not only laid out behind closed doors seven years ago at an infamous 2012 meeting in La Jolla, California. It turns out the attendees also got very early word about the frenzied street theater of children’s marches and school kids’ strikes now filling the streets, including this week in the U.S.
The reason? These demonstrations are a long-planned component of the climate industry’s litigation campaign, including particularly Juliana v. United States, the “Climate Kids” suit that is a radical example of the extreme climate activism flooding the courts.
That La Jolla gathering gathering, organized by a coalition of Rockefeller Foundation–supported groups, produced a blueprint for what has become a litigation industry dedicated to obtaining a settlement in the hundreds of billions of dollarsfrom energy interests. It also laid out the plan to impose what we know as the Green New Deal — by court order. That plan included a cry for help from activist AGs, “State attorneys general can also subpoena documents, raising the possibility that a single sympathetic state attorney general might have substantial success in bringing key internal documents” out for the groups’ litigation agenda. We know that activist AGs cooperated.
Now comes Juliana, a federal case filed in Eugene, Oregon seeking imposition of the climate agenda by the courts and the subject of a cheerleading CBS News segment. The agenda has been thwarted by the democratic process. That democratic process embodies and is protected in great part by our Separation of Powers, which Juliana seeks to throw aside.
Records of one of the La Jolla presenters, a law professor at the University of Oregon (in Eugene), show that after the implosion of “cap-and-trade”, climate alarmists bemoaned how “conventional approaches” had failed them. With the voters and their elected representatives repeatedly disappointing the activists, even in the face of the $-billion-plus-a-year climate industry’s media and pressure group campaigns, the lawyers had plans. These plans included sending children in waves to the streets.
The entire strategy of the civil and legal disruption we see, of suits, marches and strikes by schoolchildren, was laid out at this private session seven years ago.
These public records produced mere days after 60 Minutes’s promotional segment, and days before the nationwide children’s climate walkouts, affirm:
- the climate litigation campaign was expressly grounded in this failure of “conventional approaches” otherwise known as our constitutional system
- it was to be “linked to youth climate movement (world-wide marches)”;
- it would be accompanied by a press strategy including documentaries featuring children;
- the meeting was acknowledged, but this strategy laid out there was “not to be publicized”;
- the strategy sought both a cooperative federal administration “Consent decrees (would be ideal)” — and to “Bring selected carbon majors to the table, then what?”
“Then what” turned out to be demands by cities for “damages” to run into the several hundred billions of dollars, in litigation — regularly thrown out by the courts — demanding that targeted industries bail out bankrupt progressive governanceand pay for their desired programs. It meant, as in the Julianacase, a demand for federal imposition through the courts — by consent decree, if elections turn out right! — of what is now known as the dangerous if absurd Green New Deal.