[supernova87a]

I think this law/provision was passed at a time before there was a clear notion of CO2 from burning fossil fuels being connected to climate change, and they were thinking about more traditional pollutants/harms like logging and drilling oil.

(In my opinion) This historic law/provision is not specific enough (or it does not create a novel enough kind of cause of action) for the climate change type of problem, to be enforceable as it gets tested up the judicial chain. (see my other comment in this story)

[matthewdgreen]

If the law had been intended to apply to oil drilling and specific pollutants, it would have named them. Or at least named specific types of pollution. Instead it appears to have been deliberately written broadly to capture a wide variety of forms of environmental degradation, perhaps including some not discovered at the time of writing.

[delecti]

The connection between atmospheric CO2 and warming was actually identified as early as around the year 1900.

I wasn't around then to have a sense of the broad social awareness of things, but I've gotten the impression that the science was fairly obvious before the 1970s.

[anonymousiam]

I assume that the year 1900 "identification" you refer to is the work from Svante Arrhenius, which was later disproved.

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/so-if-angstrom-already-...

[supernova87a]

To me it reads of the kind of Rachel Carson types of environmental damages that were getting much more attention at that time. (Acid rain, pollutants, runoff, etc)

If they had anticipated CO2 (and yes, I agree it was known by some well before this time), they should have / would have made it much more specific to include that kind of slow, "who is responsible" kind of harm.

[flangola7]

Except it literally was just tested.