Addenum to existing Complaint
Darrell Prince : The United States
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Number 17-042 USA
Plaintiff’s Direct Plea to the Court
Your honor(s). With the permission of the Court, I will address it directly. As the Court is no doubt aware, the Constitution is conspicuously sparse on anything that can be construed as environmental, nor the Commons (air, water) nor anything about any resource management at all- representative of the problems with basing the core root of a bureaucracy now similar in size(2.8 million) to the Constitution’s citizenry (3.9 million) the 1790 census enumeration. Not as surprising when at the time, Manhattan was still home to lush original forest, and served lobsters from the Hudson Bay. California and Texas were years away from the floods of illegal immigrants that would come, Americans sneaking across the border into Mexico to steal Mexican prosperity. To be honest though, it was not even unknown at the time our common trust doctrine is pretty much adopted as stare decisis from the English common law
Despite this very serious deficiency in a foundational document, this document will, very eloquently, demonstrate passages both oft-used and novel in the text that responsibility of the government is to protect it’s people from great threats, and the government itself has already determined that this is a great threat, and this complaint is simply asking the Court to do it’s part, necessary at this critical juncture,to determine the government’s status in terms of dealing with this threat on a reasonable focus to the scope and the scale of the threat that may threaten the species of Homo sapiens.
For the motivation for the people of this Court, I would ask, for your relief, that you instead of looking to find reasons not to act, that you look for reasons to act. As this is a test for you, for the function for which you have sworn an oath to the United States, and more importantly, to it’s people. You have become, literally one of the most powerful human beings on the planet Earth
These are facts:
It is 70 degrees in February, after the 3rd consecutive hottest year on record.
Scientists, who are on a mission for truth that can be proven, who predict the weather days and weeks in advance, have been saying that this was going to happen for decades, and in fact, it turns out that the less vocal it’s way worse people, are more right than the over exposed it’s not a big deal people.
Snake oil- excuse me, your honor, Oil salesman, who are focused, and on a mission to make sure oil sales are as high as they can be, and all words truth or otherwise exist to serve that goal, as are all of the people they work with, or contribute money to stand on the other side of those scientists. Once there was no change, and now, it’s always been changing, much like the story.
It is, at this moment, more likely that catastrophe is coming, that we will not be able to stop it, and that either global warming is here early, or the apocalyptic end of days is upon us or both.
In either event, I would suggest erring on the side of positive action to the best of your abilities and choosing actual powers over standard conventions. Because when someone asks about what is going on right now, this time this era, whether it turns out for good or for bad, I would like you to be able to say you took action to preserve your country, your people your family and friends, rather than court conventions.
Because to have a real chance, we must cut through the nonsense, now, and focus 100% on what must be done.
- Can the government issue permits, or continue to allow behavior, found to be very risky to citizen health?
- Do citizens have a positive right, to expect the US government to take positive action, and any and all steps to guarantee the safety of the Republic itself? Is there a threshold for guaranteed action?
- What is the allowable standard for permitting risky behavior by the federal government, that includes the deaths of millions, and the loss of trillions of dollars in public property?
1%? 5%? 50%?
- What constitutes definitive appropriate action to protect preventable death, in terms of legal coverage, and budget applied?
- What percentage of consensus amongst the experts, constitutes facts, or actionable intelligence that no competent member of the government should question?
- What constitutes dereliction of duty, or treason, in terms of actions taken, or refusal to act in the clear best interests of the country, at the paid, or unpaid bequest of another party or parties?
CO2 releases since the industrial revolution have increased CO2 to a level not found since 10 to 15 million years ago, when the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than now and almost all ice had melted, raising world sea-levels to about 100 feet higher than today’s.
This action is brought pursuant to the United States Constitution. It is authorized
by Article III, Section 2, which extends the federal judicial power to all cases arising in equity
under the Constitution. It is a Controversy directly involving the United States “The identification and protection of fundamental rights is an enduring
part of the judicial duty to interpret the Constitution.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ____, slip.
- at 10 (2015). That grant of equitable jurisdiction requires Article III courts to apply the
underlying principles of the Constitution to new circumstances unforeseen by the framers, such
. An actual controversy has arisen and exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants because Defendants have placed Plaintiffs in a dangerous situation, continue to infringe upon Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and have abrogated their duty of care to ensure Plaintiffs’ reasonable safety, among other violations of law. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to redress the harms herein, which are of a continuing nature and which, if left unresolved, will be irreversible.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28
U.S.C. § 2201 (creation of a remedy), and 28 U.S.C. § 2202 (further relief)
28 U.S. Code § 1651(all writs) as this action arises
under the laws of the United States.
Jurisdiction will come from of course, as always from Article III powers as interpreted from (Marbury v Madison). The relevant portions of the Constitution are due process from the 5th and 14th amendments- no citizen should be harmed by U.S. or state action, directly or indirectly. Finally most importantly and directly, article 4 section 4- the Guarantee clause. It is one of the few positive rights listed in the Constitution. There is a standard from Luther v. Borden of saying it is non enforceable as a “political question”, and refers complainants back to Congress. Good idea. Let’s keep the courts on non political matters like, religion in schools, desegregation, abortion, but don’t wander into controversial political topics people might be hardened against reasonable debate on and could potentially come up with an out of control Congress. Especially when the complainants want a ruling on something completely outside what federal courts do, like judge from the bulk of American history and documents, what the definition of what a republican government is, and the duties of the federal government in enforcing that guarantee to the citizens of every state. The dominant and countervailing argument is in the given name of the clause- the GUARANTEE clause. If you talk to a car salesman, and he says he guarantees a car will operate for 10 years, and you ask well, in the event of the break down, what would be the process, and he says, oh, not my department, Plaintiff makes the recommendation that you buy elsewhere, and humbly suggests a higher standard for the American Republic It is the strongest language in the Constitution, and names the entire government, not just Congress, with the responsibility of providing a republic government, and to protect the country from external destruction, naming specifically invasion. It’s easy to see why this portion has never been used- the United States is nearly uninvadable by foreign powers; the last time a foreign soldier at war with the United States set foot in the United States was 1812, or perhaps, a careful study might yield a debatable scenario that occurred in the Spanish American war. In any event, 3000 miles of ocean to each side, nuclear weapons and satellite technology make foreign military invasion approximately as likely as alien invasion, for the near immediate future, without serious treason and dysfunction of the elected officials.
The important part, is that the entire US government is committed, by law, to preserve the shape of a republic, in form and in function and to maintain it against dissolution.
This is remarkably consistent, and provides a straight line from providing for the common defense, domestic tranquility, and the role of government, being, to protect the fundamental rights of the people, amongst those being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with a requisite duty of the people to alter or abolish said government should it fail to do so.
Plaintiff claims that climate change is the single greatest threat to the American Republic that it has ever encountered.
Plaintiff claims that the US government has knowingly, aided and abetted in the permitting, technology development, subsidization of the fossil fuel industry.
Plaintiff alleges that the US government has clearly acted, and spent more in defense of potential future sources of fossil fuels, than it would have taken to develop renewable sources of the same energy quantity that would produce dozens if not hundreds of times the energy out put.
Plaintiff accuses the US government of being the largest single emitter in the world, and spending more on fossil fuel expenditures than it does on renewable technology development.
Plaintiff claims much of Congress fails to act due to illegal emoluments in the form of campaign finance.
Plaintiff claims that to the best of his knowledge the timeframe, the window to act, to preserve is now, after more than 40 years of inaction, small enough that all urgency is due to this and all actions.
Plaintiff claims that the Guarantee Clause, the Preamble, and the Declaration of Independence state a clear responsibility and definition of government as that body empowered by the will of the people to defend the people from any harms it finds restraining the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, or property.
____________ _________ _________________
Darrell Prince Date
- Exhibit A : Historical Context
Arrhenhius publishing a Global Warming book 1906
Världarnas utveckling (1906) (German: Das Werden der Welten , English: Worlds in the Making ) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:
“To a certain extent the temperature of the earth’s surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat.” (p46)
“That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses.” (p51)
“If the quantity of carbonic acid [ CO2 + H2O → H2CO3 (carbonic acid) ] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth’s surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°.” (p53)
“Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.” (p54)
“Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree.” (p61)
“We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” (p63)
Exhibit B Global Warming Feedback loops
Understanding Positive (increasing warming) Feedback Loops That May Promote Runaway Global Warming
Rather than define feedback loops (or reciprocal associations), and positive versus negative feedback loops in general terms, below are simplified, key examples of positive (increasing warming) feedback loops that may promote runaway global warming.
Note: For these purposes, where the term “posivitive feedback loop” is used, it indicates “positive (increasing warming) feedback loop.
(Key for reading the diagrams: an arrow pointing up = increase; an arrow pointing down = decrease; a horizontal gray or curved blue arrow = causes)
Positive Feedback Loop: Example #1
Our burning of coal and oil releases CO2 which traps heat in the atmosphere. That extra heat puts more water into the atmosphere in two ways: the warming accelerates the evaporation of surface waters and, also, as the air warms, it holds more water – thus creating a positive feedback “loop” between water vapor and temperature, initiated by an increase in atmospheric CO2.
Example #1 Diagram
Positive Feedback Loop: Example #2
As the increase in atmospheric CO2 increases air temperature, it promotes the thawing of the permafrost (frozen ground in the tundra) which contains large quantities of CO2 from the bacterial decomposition of previously frozen vegetation and animal life. Briefly, any increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to an increase in temperature which leads to further increase in temperature due increase release of CO2 from the thawing permafrost – thus creating a positive feedback “loop” between increased atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
Example #2 Diagram
Positive Feedback Loop: Example #3
A related feedback loop from the warming atmosphere and the thawing of the permafrost is the release of previously frozen methane into the atmosphere. Methane traps about 30 times more heat than CO2, although it stays in the atmosphere for on the order of decades as opposed to centuries for CO2 -thus atmospheric warming initiates a feedback loop involving previously frozen methane.
Example #3 Diagram
Positive Feedback Loop: Example #4
Another feedback loop involves the release of methane from the deep sea beds. At sufficient depths, large amount of frozen methane are stored on the sea beds as methane clathrates – frozen clumps of methane. But as the atmosphere and, hence, the seas warm, they will eventually melt the clathrates which will escape into the atmosphere, further warming the atmosphere – thus atmospheric warming initiates a feedback loop involves the release of previously frozen methane clathrates.
Example #4 Diagram
Positive Feedback Loop: Example #5
A different type of positive feedback loop coming into play as the atmosphere and bodies of water warm involves the melting of the north polar ice (and land glaciers) that reflects 90% of radiant energy to expose water that absorbs 94% of the solar energy and thus increases warming which in turn reduces arctic ice and so on. The same sort of “decreasing reflectivity” loop is occurring where land ice glaciers are melting and exposing much more heat absorbent surfaces which in turn increase atmospheric warming and so on.
Example #5 Diagram
Positive Feedback Loop: Example #6
Another different kind of positive feedback loop coming into play as the earth warms is the decline of forests which absorb CO2 from the atmosphere , i.e. constitute CO2 “sinks”, reducing warming, because (i) of die offs once the temperature exceeds a species’ thermal maximum, (ii) increasing forests fires caused by increasing storms’ lightning – especially for dead forests, drought affected forests, and insect infestations that kill off forests or otherwise make them more vulnerable to burn more easily.
Example #6 Diagram
Positive Feedback Loop: Example #7
A unique case of a warming feedback loop promoting forest decline that can cause rapid, dramatic warming involves warming to a level that will result in the collapse/disappearance of the Amazonian forest and release of CO2 because of increased bacterial decomposition at the “floor” of the great forest. The Amazon rain forest is such that it fosters its own precipitation level to sustain the forest. As warming increases, it reduces the rainfall in the Amazon and forest will, effectively, begin to dry out and take less CO2 out of the atmosphere. When temperature has increased enough the Amazon rain forest (and great CO2” sink”) will collapse and the warmed soil and bacterial decomposition will yield an amount of carbon (CO2) greater than that in all living vegetation.
Example #7 Diagram