The disastrous precedent set by the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision that people have a right to a "life-sustaining climatic system" might have far-reaching effects on the future of the United States. This ruling, which was rendered in the Hu Honua Bioenergy v. Public Utilities Commission (PUC) case, creates a risky precedent that may be used to legitimize excessive government power and violate the rights of residents.
US Court Rules There Is A Human Right To A ‘Life-Sustaining’ Climate https://t.co/zLoFiasp51
— US Burning (@UsBurning) March 17, 2023
Associate Justice Todd Eddins' opinion, which said that the PUC "recognized its public interest-minded role" and correctly examined the effect of the project on people' "right to a clean and healthy environment," served as the foundation for the court's ruling. Nonetheless, this judgement may be used as justification for government overreach and violations of people' rights.
"The PUC understood its public interest-minded mission," the court found. https://t.co/Rqx9mo1Oie
— Pacific Business News (@pacificbiznews) March 17, 2023
In 2017, the environmental advocacy organization Life of the Land challenged the PUC's original approval of the project to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which the court then remanded to the PUC. Since then, the dispute has been continuing. Hu Honua filed its own judicial appeal when PUC overturned its judgment in 2022. According to court filings, Hu Honua seeks to generate electricity by burning locally produced eucalyptus trees, which HELCO would buy to assist power the system on Hawaii Island.
Associate Justice Michael Wilson said in a concurring opinion that the "lives of our children and future generations are at risk" due to the "climate emergency" we are now experiencing. This is an outlandish claim that is unfounded and just intended to incite fear in order to further a radical environmental agenda.
The court's ruling raises further issues since it establishes a bad precedent that might be used to support excessive government power and violate individuals' rights. This judgment may be used as evidence for the control of private business by the government, which would be a clear violation of our fundamental rights.
In addition, several human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and the United Nations, already see climate change as a human rights concern. This is an absurd effort to further an environmental agenda by using human rights as a weapon. The United Nations and other international groups shouldn't be able to tell the United States how to take care of its environment.
The decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court sets a risky precedent that might have significant consequences for the future of the United States. This approach is an irresponsible effort to further an environmental agenda using human rights and fear tactics. It establishes a risky precedent that may be used to justify excessive government intervention and the violation of people' rights. To defend our fundamental liberties, we must speak out against this ruling.