Speaker 1: Are you smarter than an environmental reporter? Let's find out.
Speaker 1: Join us for the new and improved version of Parts
Speaker 1: per Billion, where we quiz Bloomberg environments finest journalists and
Speaker 1: see how brainy they really are. Hello, and welcome back
Speaker 1: to Parts per Billion, the podcast from Bloomberg Environment. I'm
Speaker 1: your host, David Schultz, and on this episode we're changing
Speaker 1: up our format a little bit from the way we
Speaker 1: normally do things. We're introducing a new environmental news quiz
Speaker 1: where we ask reporters about what's been going on in
Speaker 1: the world and see if they've been keeping up. The
Speaker 1: point of this quiz is to have some fun while
Speaker 1: talking about all the nerdy stuff we constantly cover here
Speaker 1: a Bloomberg Environment. But of course we will be keeping
Speaker 1: score and our extremely competitive reporters will be taking this
Speaker 1: challenge extremely seriously. And speaking of those reporters, I'm joined
Speaker 1: by two of them right now, Bloomberg Environments, Abby Smith
Speaker 1: and Sylvia Carignan. Thanks for joining. So let's just get
Speaker 1: right into this our inaugural Bloomberg Environment news quiz. Here
Speaker 1: is our first question. Elijah Cummings is a Democrat who
Speaker 1: represents Baltimore in the US House of Representatives, and he
Speaker 1: is set to become the chairman of the House Oversight
Speaker 1: Committee if Democrats take back the House. He recently said
Speaker 1: one of his top priorities would be investigating this person.
Speaker 1: Raise your hand if you know the answer. The listeners
Speaker 1: at home cannot see that Abby is raising her hand
Speaker 1: right now, Abby, do you think you know the answer?
Speaker 1: Is it Ryan Sink? That is wrong? Sylvia Woodings? Would
Speaker 1: you like to steal from her? Oh? My gosh, I
Speaker 1: have no idea who it is? All right, here's a
Speaker 1: hint mattresses. Naturally that the hitty hint is mattresses. Is
Speaker 1: it Scott Prewitt. That's right, Yes, Elijah Cummings is that
Speaker 1: he wants to investigate Scott Prewitt and how he was
Speaker 1: able to stay in his position for so long. So
Speaker 1: that is the answer. I'm glad that Scott prewd has
Speaker 1: become synonymous with word mattresses. Now, speaking of Scott Prewit
Speaker 1: at the White House, this is our second question. By
Speaker 1: the way, speaking Scott Prewitt, the White House still hasn't
Speaker 1: nominated anyone to succeed him at the head of the EPA. However,
Speaker 1: President Trump recently suggested he may choose this person, Abby, Silvia,
Speaker 1: what do you say? Oh, and Sylvia is we need
Speaker 1: to get like a buzzer here for the next quiz
Speaker 1: because raising hands is just not a very podcast friendly motion. Sylvia,
Speaker 1: you've raised your hand. Who do you think that Trump
Speaker 1: will nominate to head the EPA. He said he might
Speaker 1: go with the acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler. That is correct.
Speaker 1: That's one point for Abby, one point for Sylvia. Silvia
Speaker 1: just did a little dance here for all those at home.
Speaker 1: Final question. These people are arguing in court that the
Speaker 1: government is constitutionally mandated to address climate change. Who are
Speaker 1: the people who are arguing this in court? I think
Speaker 1: they both raising your hands. Looks like you guys both
Speaker 1: know the answer. Abby was first. However, there's a group
Speaker 1: of twenty one kids suing the government of our climate change.
Speaker 1: That's right. I would have accepted children or young people also,
Speaker 1: But that is correct, So that will do it. That
Speaker 1: was this week's quiz. It looks like Abby has won
Speaker 1: with a score of two to one. We also, Abby
Speaker 1: is doing a little dance. We will have both of
Speaker 1: these reporters back on in the future to compete again.
Speaker 1: But Abby is our Victor this week, and now we're
Speaker 1: going to take a quick break and be back with
Speaker 1: more from Abby on that kid's lawsuit. All right, and
Speaker 1: we're back now, and as we just mentioned, we're going
Speaker 1: to chatting with Bloomberg Environments Abby Smith about a pretty
Speaker 1: novel lawsuit that could reshape how the US government deals
Speaker 1: with climate change. So, Abby, what's this suit all about?
Speaker 1: And who are these kids and what do they want
Speaker 1: the government to do. So it's a group of twenty
Speaker 1: one they're mostly teenagers now at this point, ranging in
Speaker 1: age from ten to twenty one, and they really they
Speaker 1: want the government to address climate change. And if they're
Speaker 1: six usful, it could force the government to really have
Speaker 1: a comprehensive plan to address greenhouse gases across multiple sectors.
Speaker 1: And they have two main arguments. One is constitutional. They're
Speaker 1: saying by not keeping greenhouse gases under control, the government
Speaker 1: has violated their constitutional right to a livable climate. Now
Speaker 1: that would be a new constitutional right, so that's not
Speaker 1: a right that's been recognized before. And then their second
Speaker 1: main argument is a public trust argument. So the public
Speaker 1: trust doctrine says the government holds essential resources like water, land,
Speaker 1: wildlife in trust for its citizens, and they're arguing that
Speaker 1: the atmosphere and the climate are part of that trust.
Speaker 1: And there I guess, because they're young people, they're going
Speaker 1: to have to deal with the lack of those resources
Speaker 1: in the future. I guess that's kind of their argument.
Speaker 1: So I understand the Supreme Court recently put a hold
Speaker 1: on the suit and you know, is essentially pausing it.
Speaker 1: You know, what's going on, Why did they do that,
Speaker 1: and what's going to happen next? Right, So, the case
Speaker 1: was slated to go to trial October twenty ninth in Eugene, Oregon,
Speaker 1: and the government has really been trying everything it possibly
Speaker 1: can to get this suit put on hold, and in
Speaker 1: a last ditch effort, just ten days before the trial
Speaker 1: was going to start, they went to the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and said, can you please pause this? And Chief Justice
Speaker 1: John Roberts did that. He put the trial on pause
Speaker 1: on October twenty fourth, and now we're kind of waiting
Speaker 1: to see what happens next. He asked for responses from
Speaker 1: both parties, and the government wants the court to take
Speaker 1: up what's called a writ of mandamus, which essentially would
Speaker 1: mean they could kill the suit altogether. It's not really
Speaker 1: clear what the Court's going to do. It's a really
Speaker 1: unusual situation, really unusual case. So we're kind of all
Speaker 1: waiting to see what's going to happen. But this could
Speaker 1: be eventually, this could be heard by the nine justices
Speaker 1: on the Court. I mean, I guess we're a long
Speaker 1: way away from that, but is that a possibility. It is,
Speaker 1: it's a possibility. I think it's unclear whether the justices
Speaker 1: will hear it at this point or whether the case
Speaker 1: will kind of go through on the merits. And either
Speaker 1: way it's going to make it up to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: just given the arguments that these kids are bringing forward.
Speaker 1: But I think the timing is really the big question. Well,
Speaker 1: that kind of leads me into the last thing I
Speaker 1: wanted to ask you about, which is this is a
Speaker 1: pretty novel, as you mentioned, novel lawsuit, you know, relying
Speaker 1: on some pretty new and I don't want to say
Speaker 1: out there, but you know, pretty creative legal claims. And
Speaker 1: we see a lot of these lawsuits they often get dismissed,
Speaker 1: but it seems like this one is going further. It's not,
Speaker 1: you know, immediately getting dismissed. What are the chances that
Speaker 1: this actually gets heard on the merits that there's a
Speaker 1: trial in court where essentially climate change is like put
Speaker 1: on trial. Is that possible or is this just you know,
Speaker 1: going to be the years of legal wrangling and nothing
Speaker 1: ultimately comes of it. I think it is possible that
Speaker 1: it could go to trial. I think it's really a
Speaker 1: really open ended question at this point. I think what's
Speaker 1: interesting about this case is it's made it past a
Speaker 1: lot of hurdles that folks thought it wouldn't make it past.
Speaker 1: The Ninth Circuit did take up this case back in March.
Speaker 1: The government tried again to get the court to go
Speaker 1: over the District Court in organ which is hearing this case,
Speaker 1: go over their head and kill the case, and the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit didn't do it, and so it made it
Speaker 1: past that hurdle and the judge and organ Judge Anne Aikens,
Speaker 1: she kind of breathed life into both of the kids'
Speaker 1: arguments when she allowed the case to go forward initially.
Speaker 1: And that order came just two days after Donald Trump
Speaker 1: was elected. So I think that's been interesting. But on
Speaker 1: the flip side, it's important to note that the public
Speaker 1: trust argument in particular has been tried in a couple
Speaker 1: different cases across the country, mostly at the state level,
Speaker 1: and none have been successful. And I think the other
Speaker 1: thing too, is that even folks who support climate action
Speaker 1: are kind of wary of this suit because it could
Speaker 1: tie the government's hands. The kids brought this case against
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, which tried just as hard to get
Speaker 1: this case dismissed. I think there's a lot of open questions,
Speaker 1: and even if the kids are successful on the merits,
Speaker 1: the remedy is a whole other question because the court
Speaker 1: is going to be really really hesitant to force the
Speaker 1: government to do a comprehensive plan that the court doesn't
Speaker 1: like to dictate policy. So a lot of open questions.
Speaker 1: I think ultimately, at the end of the day, the
Speaker 1: kids do face quite a few hurdles to breach that
Speaker 1: success point at the end of this process, but that's
Speaker 1: not to say they won't have their day in court. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right. That was Bloomberg Environment's Abbie Smith, who now
Speaker 1: the latest title she can add to her resume is
Speaker 1: winner of the inaugural Bloomberg Environment Parks Pavilion News Quiz.
Speaker 1: Adding it right now, yes, updating her resume as we speak.
Speaker 1: She was talking about the so called Kids Climate Suit.
Speaker 1: For more of her reporting, visit our website at news
Speaker 1: dot in Bloomberg environment dot com. That's news dot Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Environment dot com. This episode of Parkspavilion was produced by
Speaker 1: myself and Jessica Coombs. Our editor is Marissa Horn, and
Speaker 1: our audio engineer is Nicholas an Zelada. Music tracks from
Speaker 1: Parkspavilion are a message and Wall by Jazaar. They were
Speaker 1: used under a Creative Comments Attribution share Like license. More
Speaker 1: information can be found at Better with Music dot com