"A running list of how President Trump is changing environmental policy" - National Geographic's Michael Greshko, Laura Parker, Brian Clark Howard, and Daniel Stone, Published March 31st, 2017, updated Nov. 3rd, 2018
Article Summary by Milana Baldizzi
Composed by several journalists is a long, and still ongoing list of how President Trump and the Trump Administration is changing environmental policies. Whether they are positive or negative changes has yet to be determined, but as of now, one can see the tremendous quantity of actions that the administration is bringing about. A vast amount of changes rollback Obama-era policies that "...aimed to curb climate change and limit environmental pollution", while others simply threaten the government's funding of research and science. National Geographic's article is, essentially, an abridged timeline of ..."the Trump Administration's environmental actions and policy changes". The most recent addition takes a look at a recent case of 21 youths who are suing the federal government for it's role in global warming and climate change, and how the Supreme Court refuses to halt the trial. The trial began on October 29th, but was postponed due to the Trump Administration's request of the Supreme Court to block the case. According to Trump Administration Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, these youths insist that they are seeking "...nothing less than a complete transformation of the American energy system–including the abandonment of fossil fuels–ordered by a single district court….", he also adds, "assertion of sweeping new fundamental rights to certain climate conditions has no basis in the nation’s history and tradition–and no place in federal court." In this appeal, Francisco attempts to argue that climate change and the issues of climate change are not constitutionally threatening, and so do not belong as a case in a federal court room. In opposition to Francisco and the government's appeal, the youths' lawyer argues that "When a child suffers climate-induced flooding where the child sleeps, increased incidence of asthma attacks from climate-induced wildfire and smoke conditions in areas where the child exercises, dead coral reefs due to overly warm oceans where the child swims, and storm surges and rising seas perpetually attacking the barrier island where the child lives so that the child now routinely evacuates and experiences flooding in the child’s roads, home and school, those injuries are hardly generalized grievances." The youths' lawyer employs the usage of rhetoric to prove that the issue of climate change will infringe upon a child's constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, by threatening potential injury upon the child. The youths' suit has a strong momentum behind it, and will no doubt bring more attention to the consequences of climate change and global warming.