Authorities still trying to stop the trial of "children of the climate"

He now sits on a panel of three judges from the 9th US Federal Court of Appeal. A decision as to whether the case could advance to trial is expected in the coming weeks or months.

Climate children claim that their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property are violated by a US government that knowingly promotes the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, which cause dangerous levels of warming, increase sea ​​level and promote droughts and storms.

They also say that they are entitled to a safe atmosphere and that they are being discriminated against as young people, who will bear disproportionate consequences of the climate emergency.

The lawsuit was described as a lunar attempt to get the federal government to act on the climate and was compared to Brown v. Board of Education, which has desegregated public schools. Mary Wood, a law professor at the University of Oregon, told CNN in 2016 that it was "the biggest case on the planet".

In addition to a similar case in the Netherlands, Juliana c. United States is the "most promising" legal action on climate change in the world right now, said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. does not plead the case.

"It is significant that neither in the Dutch case nor in the Juliana case government defendants have challenged the underlying science of climate change," Gerrard said. "Instead, their defense is the role of the courts, as opposed to the legislative and administrative bodies dealing with the issue.

"It's also clear," added Gerrard, that governments around the world have done almost no adequate work "to deal with the climate crisis.This is why people are turning to the courts.

Crowds gathered at the Portland, Oregon, courthouse to support the youth. Protesters carried placards saying "Let youth be heard" and "The atmosphere is a public trust".

Inside, Julia Olson, a lawyer for young complainants, argued that future generations would consider the climate emergency as the defining legal challenge of the century.

"When our great-grandchildren look back to the 21st century, they will see the government-approved destruction of climate as the constitutional issue of the century," said Olson. "We must be a country that applies the rule of law to the damaging behavior of the government that threatens the lives of our children so that they can grow up safely and free and pursue their happiness."

Olson asked the court to pursue the case, saying the ultimate relief sought by the youth was an order directing the US government to create a plan to limit the use of fossil fuels and to make safer and more livable atmosphere for young people and future generations.

Judge Andrew Hurwitz asked if the courts could do it.

"The question here is whether this branch of government, as we all three are today, has the capacity to provide the help your clients are looking for," he said. he declared at the hearing. "We do not doubt that Congress or the President can bring you the relief you are looking for without us."

"I do not think Congress or the President will ever do it without–" said Olson.

"Well, we could have the wrong congress and the bad president," Hurwitz said. "… The real question for us is whether or not we should intervene because of that.

"You present convincing evidence that we have a real problem.You are presenting convincing evidence that we have inaction … it can even reach the level of criminal negligence.The difficult question for me, and I guess for my colleagues, is: we must act because of this. "

Deputy Attorney General Clark said the case was trying to circumvent the usual procedures for creating federal laws, noting that the success of the case would have "catastrophic consequences" for court proceedings. "Thurgood Marshall has not brought a huge lawsuit to establish racial equality," he said. "It was a whole program, it went step by step."

Judges wondered whether this logic applied, given that the enormity of the climate crisis differs somewhat from civil rights violations, which are illegal, even on a small scale.

Much of the focus has been on the case in part because of the serious challenges of the climate emergency, which have been clear for decades but continue to worsen.

A United Nations scientific body discovered last year that there were only 12 years left to avoid some of the worst effects of the climate crisis, including flooded coastal cities, more deadly heat waves and the near-end of the coral reefs. Global emissions of heat-trapping gases are expected to be cut in half by 2030 and reach a net zero by the middle of the century, the group said in a landmark report.

Still, emissions continued to increase globally in 2018, according to the Global Carbon Project.

It is the fact that the US government has not responded adequately to the climate crisis that makes this lawsuit necessary, said Andrea Rodgers, Senior Counsel for Our Children & # 39; s Trust, which represents the young complainants.

"What we have learned during history is that when systems have been purposefully built (to violate) the constitutional rights of citizens, it is necessary that the three branches of government should 39 imply and correct the constitutional violation, "Rodgers told CNN.

A new delay in the case is dangerous for the planet and the people, she said.

"Time is not our friend on this issue."