 Welcome everybody to the second exploring climate strategies webinars this one on public trust We're very excited about it Just a couple notes before we walk through some technical Advices and then introduce our speakers the first is that we have an amazing Guidebook for people who want to read Discuss study and take action around the book climate insurgency And Second This is the first of three The second of three webinars the next one will be on just transition on Monday, July 10th we also have a There's a book discount for folks who want to buy five or more copies of against doom a climate Insurgency handbook which is available from PM press And I'm going to introduce Emily Jovey who will tell us how to watch and how to ask questions Hey everybody, so if you're watching on the YouTube live stream if you're having any technical difficulties We recommend just refreshing your page same goes if you're watching the YouTube embedded on 350s page or any other page and About halfway through the call. We're going to be taking questions So keep your questions in the back of your head and you can submit them on the YouTube page on the live chat Or also you can submit them in the comment section on the 350 page and we'll be monitoring those both Thank You Emily and We're so excited to have Julia Olson from our children's trust join us She's the first of two folks who will be joining us the second will be Jeremy Brecker who will introduce later but Julia is Executive director lead attorney for our children's trust she's also a mom and I Just wanted to really express a lot of gratitude to our children's trust To the earth guardians one of the participating groups and to 21 young plaintiffs who are suing the US government to protect our climate And also a huge congratulations in this legal battle with both two US government Administrations and the entire fossil fuel industry You've had an amazing recent victory So these young folks will get to bring their case to trial And it's a trial that Rolling Stone calls the trial of the millennium So we're excited to hear about that and please help me and welcome in Julia All right there, I think I'm not muted, right? All right. Hi everyone. It's great to be here. Thanks for calling in all of you I'm just gonna start briefly with an overview of our children's trust and our mission And that is we work with young people. We really want to elevate the voice of youth on the climate issue and Help them to bring legal actions against their governments for violating their basic human rights and violating their rights to public trust resources like air and water and We do this in a way that really takes care to listen to the scientists and Ask for standards and limits both in terms of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere and temperature That are based on the best available science So right now for example, we're working with the top experts and in all the different fields of climate science including Dr. James Hansen Who we really turn to for the the global prescription of needing to return to 350 parts per million by the end of the century So that's our goal in all of our actions youth led science-based And the way we got started was really back in 2011 We hatched actions all across the United States on behalf of young people some of those were administrative rulemaking petitions and Many were lawsuits and in all of those the the central concept is that government holds natural resources and trust not just for us for the present generation but for all future generations and That law is called the public trust doctrine and I know Jeremy's gonna tell you more about it here but I'll just run over a kind of a basic concept and That is that it this goes all the way back to Roman law with Justinian and and he said look the air the seas the shores of the sea Those things are all Protected for all of us and so what that means for government is that it has to protect these resources from impairment and Impairment that threatens the ability of later generations to use them. So clearly that's happening to the climate system To our oceans which are protected under the public trust As well as our air and our other waters and forests and wildlife All of those things are part of the public trust So that's one of our claims in the case it's one of the claims that the court has held we can move forward on and against the federal government and In terms of the federal government, it's really the territorial seas It's our ocean waters and our air shed that the federal government has clear control over and So we'll be arguing it about its violation of the public trust doctrine in that context I also want to just mention the constitutional claims under the Fifth Amendment because they relate to the public trust as well and They are that we all hold our these rights to life liberty and property and we think property is both public property and private property and When government acts in ways that knowingly put us in danger Threaten our personal security harm our public property and our private property threaten people's lives then government is violating our Fifth Amendment rights and The US government has known for well over 50 years that if we continued burning fossil fuels We would put people in danger and that the seas would rise and there would be potentially catastrophic results So we have government evidence going back really clearly until the 1960s on That point and all the way through all of the presidencies that that came afterwards and With that knowledge government chose to still you know keep us at 80% of our energy system is fossil fuels Even though there were reasonable alternatives and so we also have evidence that going back to you know Even the 70s under Nixon That there were plans to really decarbonize and there were roadmaps to get us off of fossil fuels So we're bringing all of that into really prove that there was a Constitutional violation going back many decades and that this violation of our rights really affects young people and future generations the most and in fact discriminates against them So one thing government does is probably many of you know is it discounts the value of life in the future in order to avoid spending money today to fix the problem and That's evidence of discrimination against young people and future generations. So that's part of also what this case is about So one thing that happened early on in the case is the fossil fuel industry as David said came in they intervened as defendants we did not sue them and They've been in the case for the last 18 19 months trying to get it dismissed alongside the government defendants but just recently the case got a little too hot for them and They had been losing repeatedly and decided that it was more of a risk to stay in the case than To leave it so they asked for permission to leave the case And they are now out which makes our lives so much easier and we're thrilled that they're no longer part of this case It was a real a victory I think for the youth to force the hand of the industry to leave this case that they say will threaten their businesses and their longevity in the fossil fuel industry, so now we're left with the Trump administration and and Fortunately under Obama the government admitted a lot of the key facts in the case and So we're in a really good position. We're continuing to develop the facts work with experts and In a really exciting turn of events. I think it was last week The court set a date for trial. We've been asking for trial day and now we finally have one and so February 5th 2018 is the date trial will start we anticipate that it will take us about three weeks to present our case and And then the government would have sort of an equivalent amount of time and so one of the things I wanted to really Get out to the group who have called in today is To let you know that we need the whole climate movement to help us mobilize for this trial and I think one thing that is important to understand about the legal system is Judges and courts they operate, you know within They're part of the public and they see what goes on in the media. They see what public sentiment and public opinion is and While the judges make decisions on the law and the facts of the case What's happening outside of that courtroom has mattered throughout history in terms of the way our judiciary reacts to Crises of social justice or social injustices, right? And we saw that with the gay marriage decision that came down the Obergefell decision It was really important the court noted in its opinion how times had changed and there was public support To support GLBTQ marriage So what is happening with the movement and everything that 350.org is doing is really critical and connects and I think helps build this intersectionality and The strength of the public trust because when people are out in the streets and doing Things to support firm climate action and action that's based on science. It helps support what we're doing in the courtroom So to that end We just hired our first organizer who is really excited to work with other organizations like 350 and help coordinate events that people can be doing leading up to trial and then to also ensure that we have a really strong presence in Eugene, Oregon starting February 5th and Sustaining that presence through the trial and just one idea we've been tossing around to throw out there to the community is if we had a day a day of action a sort of solidarity rallies at Courthouses around the country or even globally on the first day of trial where people are standing in solidarity with these 21 youth and Saying, you know, we're here at this place of justice and we're calling on all courts to be considering and taking action Using their authority to protect our climate system so that's one of the ideas we have that we're looking forward to and One way to get involved in that is to go to youth be gov.org So it's youth be gov.org is our organizing platform And if you want more information about the case you go to our children's trust org for more information So I want to make sure you have that and then I just want to quickly also talk about in my last couple of minutes about the remedy Because this is really important. Like what is this case going to do? What's the result and the result is I We hope that it will be like a Brown versus Board of Education case on climate justice Where the court will declare the constitutional rights and the public trust rights of these young people have been violated and Then we'll order a remedy to address that violation The remedy would be the court would after hearing from all of the the scientists the experts on what's happening Set a standard for what should atmospheric CO2 levels be at their maximum to protect our rights and our systems What should a maximum level of warming be and again? We're looking at 350 and 1 degree Celsius not 450 and 2 degrees Celsius Because we understand 450 and 2 degrees are catastrophic So we need to return back to levels that will be safe for future generations so once that standard is set then the question is well, how do you get there and The only way really to get there is for governments around the world to have Rational plans in place for decarbonizing our energy systems and Right now we don't have a plan in the United States as you probably know to do that And in fact the Trump administration is going in the opposite direction So the court would order the federal defendants to prepare a plan That would meet benchmarks and targets and there would be annual reporting. There would be ongoing court supervision The makeup of the plan the court would not dictate But it would oversee it and ensure that we are getting to a fossil-free energy system In line with the science and as soon as we can and we are working with experts who believe that we can be 100% free of fossil fuels by 2050 so that's the kind of remedy we're looking for and There's a lot of precedent for that remedy and judicial decisions throughout our country's history So there's a lot of hope and things we can look to to guide us as we head to trial So I will I'll wrap there, but I look forward to questions and hearing what Jeremy has to say Thank you so much Yeah, and Jeremy's gonna give us some ideas about how we can apply this into our grassroots organizing Jeremy Brecker is the author of against doom a climate insurgency manual That this series of webinars is centered around. He's a amazing historian. He wrote the the classic labor history strike And has been very much both a writer about social movements and a participant in them He's a co-founder of the Labor Network for Sustainability who has graciously co-sponsoring this series of webinars with us and Welcome Jeremy. Hi there I like to just start by thanking 350 for pulling the series of webinars together and Ella Labor Network for Sustainability David and Emily for working to get the techniques and the technologies and the publicity out and especially to Julia for being here with us her Being here is a sign of how much she cares about the way the movement Relates to the legal work that's being done And she has taken that attitude from the beginning and I think it's been a tremendous strength of the our children's trust Work from the beginning I'm gonna talk about other ways that we can use the public trust doctrine and the right to a stable climate for the climate protection movement and I think that we can incorporate in the next wave of actions they're going to be Taken in many many ways around the country this basic idea of the public trust doctrine the basic idea that we have as Human beings and as citizens a right to a safe climate and that our government is violating that right I want to say that Julia and Our children's trust are not responsible for anything. I'm going to say but Julia Feel free to comment as you think appropriate in the question-and-answer session. I Also want to say That as a historian I can strongly confirm what Julia Just said About the way that movements and public action and public opinion can affect the decisions of courts When you look at the civil rights movement the fact that these sit-down Sit-ins were happening affected court cases if you go back to a field that I know about with Labor history the fact that basic rights of workers were Recognized for the first time by the Supreme Court back in the Great Depression was undoubtedly related to the fact that the auto plants of the major Auto employers were at that time being occupied by auto workers who were sitting down having sit-down strikes in those plants and the Supreme Court made Decisions completely out of line with what they had decided before And one can presume that's because they figured if they didn't act They were going to be facing Worker uprisings of a kind that they would Even give workers rights in order to forestall I think we can think about the case That's being referred to these days Informally as kids versus Trump as a teachable moment it's a chance to raise public debate on Trump's climate destruction and more broadly on the entire Fossil fuel industry Destruction of our future by destroying the climate and the backing and support and encouragement That government both at federal and other levels have given to that Business plan of destroying the climate and the future of our people in our planet We can run teachings Demonstrations at fossil fuel infrastructure sites like pipelines and Fossil fuel power plants and I think The places that are most vulnerable to climate change for example where a floodplain has been declared To suddenly be much much more vulnerable, which is happening all over the country As a result of climate change these are places that are teachable places that can go along with our teachable moments that are the result of this case coming up and There's no need to wait for the case. We can start doing it now And Undoubtedly whatever the outcome of the case it will be appealed and so this is the beginning of a process in which The bigger the popular involvement along the lines that Julia laid out the more Judges know that If they do the wrong thing they're delegitimating themselves and if they do the right thing the people have their back The claim that a Movement or a Objective like climate protection Has legal legitimacy Has over and over again been crucial for Empowering social movements and some people say well, you know, what difference does it make? If you look at the history for example of the civil rights movement you see that the basic constitutional claim of a Right to equal treatment under the Constitution gave a power and legitimacy to the civil rights movement that was a crucial part of its power and when demonstrators and sit-inners and freedom risers and Rosa Parks were arrested for refusing to get up from a seat on the bus We're refusing to get off the bus. We're refusing to leave the lunch counter or the Woolworth's store was refusing to serve them When they were arrested they could say that They had the Constitution and the law on their side And in fact they were engaging in enforcing the law and the Constitution Even if southern sheriffs were arresting them and hauling them away to jail and I think we can do something similar With the civil rights move with the climate protection movement You might call it turning the tables or flipping the script or sometimes it's called political jujitsu But there's a critical role for saying that those who are protecting the climate are the people who are involved in Enforcing the Constitution and enforcing the law that those who are destroying the climate We're permitting and enabling the destruction of the climate are fundamentally criminals violating the law and the Constitution Now there's three ways that this is that I'm aware of that this is already being done And has been done by the climate movement Including 350 and others A little over a year ago. There was a global weeks of action called break free from fossil fuels and In The organizer many organizations were involved with it, but the 350 organizers specifically planned and in fact Did use the idea of the public trust as a fundamental part of the framing for that action I was involved in Albany, New York and The first chapter of against doom is a description of the actions and Albany and how they used the Public trust idea To frame the action that they did and more broadly with the break free from fossil fuels the Public trust idea was made central and was Put in a proclamation And I'm not going to read the whole thing, but you'll find it as the Francis piece for against doom And it begins we are here to defend the climate the Constitution and the public trust We are here to help our community our country and the world break free from fossil fuels While we may risk arrest we commit no crime We are implementing the public trust doctrine which requires that vital natural resources on which human well-being Depend must be cared for by our governments for the benefit of all present and future generations and it ends We proclaim the people of the world have a right indeed a duty to protect the public trust We own in common the earth's climate when we take nonviolent direct action We are law enforcers carrying out our duty to protect the earth's climate from illegal dangerous crime crimes And I think that general idea and we've updated this for The next round of actions that we're going to be doing in the next coming months And I think that basic idea is something that we can incorporate in a very wide range of actions for climate protection over the coming months and years the second Way it's been used and that we can use it more in the future is as a justification for civil disobedience and That was definitely the Albany action that I was describing was actually there were 400 people who occupied the Railroad track that carried the bomb trains that went through poor black neighborhoods in Albany And there were 400 people who were there prepared to risk arrest Blocking it. I guess somehow the people were running those in charge of those trains and the Companies behind them Somehow they got smart and decided it wasn't a good idea to run those trains when there were 400 people trying to block them and so we didn't get arrested but we did manage to occupy the tracks and Interestingly, we found out that the police and the local officials hated the bomb trains and They didn't want to arrest us either in the worst way, but there were two participants Marissa Shea and Mev McBride who went up the tracks to another little town where the trains were running and actually hung themselves from a tripod and Set themselves up so they would be almost impossible to remove and they actually blocked the train carrying the Explosive oils there And they described their efforts as enforcing the public trust doctrine Which as they said requires that vital natural resources in this case the atmosphere on which human being well-being depends must be cared for by our governments for the benefit of present and future Generations and of course all of this is a is an outgrowth of the our children's trust suits and the and the legal work That's been going on around them Marissa Shea said the global climate system on which every human depends is no longer stable Because our governments have utterly failed us so now for our survival. We will act on climate ourselves And the third way this has been used is in people's Tribunals popular tribunals these have a long history going back to especially the Vietnam War where they were used to show the fact that United States was committing war crimes in Vietnam and In 2014 The Climate Justice Alliance Ran a tribunal And as a matter of fact Julia Was on the people's judicial panel Before whom people from all around the world presented testimony about how climate change And extractive industries were affecting them and destroying their communities The panel was not designed to be an objective panel that was Listening without having any prior Knowledge or information or understanding about climate change in this case. It was people who Understood and were committed to climate protection and their statement At the end Their evaluation of the evidence that had been presented to them. I'm just going to read a tiny bit of it Based on the evidence we have heard here today The nations of our world are in violation of their most fundamental legal and constitutional obligations Those who blockade coal-fired power plants or block tar sands oil pipelines are committing no crime They are acting to prevent a far greater harm Indeed a harm that by virtue of the public trust doctrine is itself a violation of law on a historic scale now the Potentials for using the public trust doctrine and using the idea of a right to a stable climate have taken a giant step as a result of the most recent Decisions in the our children's trust federal case The For the first time as far as I know ever and Julia can correct me a federal judge has said there is a public trust right to and a safe climate system and Going beyond that That there is a constitutional right that all people have to a climate system That is safe from devastating climate change This was the decision Issued by federal judge and Aiken And it established legal principles that I think our movement can cite and quote as a fundamental justification not only for climate protection, but for The most Dramatic and forceful, but none though of course nonviolent actions to enforce climate protection through citizen and public people's action The on the public trust doctrine judge Aiken Quoted a judicial opinion that the right of future generations to a balanced and healthful Ecology is so basic that it need not even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed to exist from the exception of humankind and perhaps even more Important and intimately connected With the public trust doctrine, but in addition to that the Public trust as a line of argument. She said that the right to a stable climate Well, here's the quote. I have no doubt that the right to a climate system Capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society and I think that That is something we should inscribe on our banners and our posters And put in our speeches As well as what we say to our friends and neighbors when we say This is what we have a right to do and must do so Just to conclude here This is part of what I've been calling the climate insurgency the core idea of an insurgency is That it says the government may claim to be doing What is the law and what is the Constitution, but its fact it is undermining and destroying fundamental principles of Constitution and law and therefore It does not have legitimate authority as long as it is the destroying Basic rights of the people Basic who it claims is representing and who it claims that has authority because it represents them and the conversely The people at a certain point And that point it seems to me is now come and in fact Has come a long time ago have a right to Even defy the authority that claims to be legitimate and to Take action that enforces those rights and Makes the world safe for ourselves and the people who are going to come after us Thank you, Jeremy And this is David Solot North American arts organizer at 350 org Encouraging folks to type in your questions And let us know If you're from a group and what part of the the world you're from And we have a first question for Julia, which is is it possible that the court case could win? And what are the implications for climate protection if you did? all right, uh, thanks for the question and Thanks, Jeremy. It's great to always hear you talk about this work. You're doing a great job so We have two really amazing judges handling this case Judge Ann Aiken is the district court judge and judge Thomas Cawthon is a magistrate judge who Is assisting with basically the pre-trial work that that we're doing in the litigation And both of them have written excellent opinions Allowing us to move forward to trial and rejecting the governments and the industry's arguments in the case and They are working hard. They understand the issues of climate change actually They're very well versed in the law and the legal questions posed to them And these are senior judges who have been on the bench a long time and are highly respected And we are very confident based upon What we've seen so far in their opinions and in their advice to us during status conferences that we've had that they're ready for us to present the case of trial and I you know, I say this a lot that Uh, good facts make good law and bad facts make bad law and these are the best facts I've ever had in any case. I've ever litigated in my 20 years of litigating Uh, they're good facts They're horrible facts for the planet. They're horrible facts for these kids But in terms of winning a case and showing injury that's been caused by defendants They're they're slammed on facts and the government has admitted a lot of those facts Already, so we're in excellent shape. And I believe That we have a very very promising chance to win this case of trial so Yes And there was a question if you could comment on uh, Jeremy's statement About the relationship between grassroots organizing and action and legal outcomes in courts Yeah, I think it's it's absolutely right that The organizing that happens outside of the courtroom Does have an impact on what our courts do And how they perceive the issues that are before them And one thing that I want to point out to people that a lot of people don't Understand when they think about the civil rights movement That while there were these really visceral images on tv That were happening to children with dogs attacking them and kids being sprayed and The sit-ins that were happening That at that time in our country when brown versus board of education was decided Only 30 percent of the people in this country wanted desegregation So only 30 percent were really supporting what the civil rights movement was doing If you contrast that to what we have today We have the majority of americans supporting climate action so really showing that level of support and And having it be front and center is critical and we're going to need it as we go to trial And I'll also say that there's also something about moral support for these young people and for the legal team and for the experts Having everybody out there really standing with us in whatever way you can Helps keep us going because it's a heavy load. So we welcome you to join us And robert asks Julia, what do you see as the biggest legal challenge in the case? The biggest legal challenge at you know, fortunately, we've overcome the biggest legal challenge is already So there are all kinds of jur- what are called jurisdictional defenses That defendants bring So to name a couple the political question doctrine The separation of powers between the branches of government Do the kids have standing to be in court? Can we show that they actually have real injuries? and We've already argued those issues before the court and the courts agreed with us that we have a right to be there The court has jurisdiction So really proving up the merits of the case is going to be the easy part We've already overcome the hard part and then You know, if we win a trial, which we think we will We have to hold on to that decision as it goes up on appeal to the night circuit court of appeals And ultimately to the supreme court A lot of people ask us that question. What about when you get to the supreme court? And right now with the current composition of the court, I think we'd win I think justice kennedy would write the decision. I always say that Uh, but you know, I think we would win who knows what the court will look like in three years but That's again why the movement is so important, right? Like we need the movement to overwhelm And help lift up and hold this decision all the way through to the end Um, because we'll probably be there one day Somebody us Again support Is asking, uh, if there's interviews With the children we can spotlight. Well, can we do to support? And maybe that's a Opening for you to also say who who are these uh 21 young folks standing up? Yeah, so I have the best clients In the world They are 21 young people who range in age from nine years old to now 21 and 10 of them Or Yeah, 10 of them 11 of them are from oregon The case is based in oregon And the rest are from around the country They are a very diverse group in every way you could imagine several of them are indigenous Our native american children Um, they also regionally geographically diverse and diverse in terms of the climate impacts their suffering so One thing about this group of young people many of them Met each other being a part of this case, so they've very quickly become a family and some of them are Quite reserved and initially didn't want to do a lot of media work others are very extroverted And do a lot of public speaking But all of them have really started to Engage more in telling their stories in a lot of Ways and on a lot of different platforms So if if you have a place where you would like to highlight one of their stories or all of their stories Definitely be in touch with us on that youth be gov dot org website and You know throw out an idea and we would love to connect with you and and help up with their voices because really This is about getting their stories out there So thank you. Thanks for that and uh tim from 350 in houston is asking How is our children's trust? Covering the legal costs Yeah, another great question. So we're a nonprofit and We're funded largely by individual donors Lots of small donations and some bigger ones and then we also have Grant support from foundations Uh The way we really fund the attorneys is we get a lot of pro bono attorneys So the attorney is working on this case work pro bono on it our experts are all working pro bono So there's a lot of donated time by a lot of people that really helps us to do this work Not just in this case, but globally we're helping youth bring legal actions But we still just the budget for the trial hard cost not paying attorneys or experts is about one and a half million So it's spendy and we are still fundraising for that So do you want to pitch in and go to our website and help out? And mark schaefer is asking Says most of public most of public supports climate action, but most lack a sense of urgency Can the case highlight the real issues and help tip public to demand action now? Yeah, you know that is one thing we are doing climate science is going to have its day in court where The truth will be laid bare by all these experts and I definitely feel the urgency and I can tell you I've spent the last couple of weeks reading expert reports that were Working on getting submitted to the defendants as part of our trial preparation and one of our experts is you know writing on ice sheets and The sea level rise projections and what's happening in the Antarctic and Greenland and I think you're right that a lot of people don't feel that urgency and kind of sit with it and it's definitely what we do with this case and what we will be having the judges And anyone who's watching this case do so it's definitely a goal and Thanks for thinking about ways we can we can do that more effectively Thank you for that. We have a question from Jennifer scarlet from Bronx climate justice north and the question is Can you and can you connect the public trust doctrine focus with Naomi client's description that no is not enough? And invite either of you to respond to that Take one. Sure. Well, I think um the Is really a touch briefly on the question of the remedy And I think that the As far as no is not enough what the our children's trust Case has laid out in terms of the remedy is very much on target for What the yes is what the the framework for policy and overall transition to a climate safe economy Involves and as a matter of fact I used The basic ideas from their remedy in what I laid out in against doom As what the climate movements should be focused on and I think there's Really two parts to that and let me talk about the the case and then talk about how I think we How we steal their ideas for the wider climate movement Case basically has two things. You've got us stop Putting the stuff into the air You've got to stop burning fossil fuels and you've got to do that very very rapidly. That means in particular no new fossil fuel infrastructure was sometimes called a fossil freeze and If you have a fossil freeze then the Since the infrastructure that's there the pipelines and the power plants and so on only have a limited lifespan Probably on average something like 30 years So if you actually have a freeze on new fossil fuel infrastructure the result is you'll pretty much meet that target of eliminating the burning of fossil fuels by 2050 That doesn't mean that people shouldn't try to shut down coal-fired power plants and other existing facilities, but as a basic strategy no new fossil fuel infrastructure phase out existing infrastructure as it as it becomes The end of its useful life or end of its destructive life Gives up a kind of the a piece of the framework here And then the other piece that has to be there is a plan for what you're going to do instead and the core of that Uh Is rightly left Uh open in the uh our children's trust remedy proposal because all kinds of social groups and governments and interests need to be part of that but the core essential is that This case is directed toward the federal government But I would add that not only the federal government, but every state Every municipality every institution every university every corporation Needs to develop a climate action plan that's based on meeting the scientific requirements of essentially eliminating the burning of fossil fuels by 2050 And that's the yes and there's one other thing that needs to go with that as a yes, which is this Uh transformation Uh has Uh a potential for what's often referred to as a just transition and what that means is There are two parts of it. One is some people are going to be threatened by the Elimination of fossil fuels Even though hugely more jobs are going to be created than Threatened some people who work in the fossil fuel related industries are going to be threatened And we have to have a just transition for them to see that they aren't paying the cost For something that we all desperately need The other thing is that This transition opens huge opportunities for remedying not only climate change but also the Incredible and Rapidly growing injustices of our society on race lines on economic lines on gender lines and we can use this transition as a way to Greatly Reverse the direction that the trump agenda is taking us even farther in the direction of and Uh Instead see that the jobs that are created are open to minorities open to people of color to women to other groups that have been marginalized in the labor market And similarly that the first Power plants that are closed down are the ones that are in our poorest communities that are Leading those communities to suffer Even greater threats of pollution greater rates of asthma than the population as a whole and I think our that Provides the The yes of what we're going to do using this transition Not only to protect ourselves in the world from climate change But also creating a more just world And there's a question from mark who says fossil freeze Fossil freeze first makes sense But won't we be able to shut down fossil folly faster as clean renewable energy? Comes in big and people see it's a great jobs bonanza Let me respond to that and julia can also she wants but that's absolutely right and that is the The point is a plan is that it's the core of it is to phase in fossil fuel energy Extremely rapidly and to make the energy efficiency changes Uh that will make fossil fuels unnecessary much more rapidly like public transportation systems and electrification of vehicles and What's the most economically efficient energy of of of all which is the Reducing of the energy that we waste in buildings and In our public infrastructure and our homes And many of our of our industries which actually will pay for itself in all A handful of years since one of the most best investments that can possibly be made so all of those will um Do exactly what the viewer said they will as we put them into effect at the Local and state and regional level they will greatly accelerate the use of fossil fossil free energy Uh and this is part of the story of how we're going to combat the trump agenda and circumvent Long before we can Push it off the stage of history. We're going to be able to circumvent it because we're going to be able to Put those climate action plans into effect in a way that makes our energy Cheaper as well as safer Thank you for that. Jeremy and julia. Uh, we have another question I'm going to invite you in our last five minutes to respond to that and the previous one if you'd like and thank you To everyone for watching for your questions Uh, this is from dawn fervor. He says a concern I have if when the case is won is enforcement I can imagine our current government An industry dragging their feet will the courts impose sufficient fines and regulations to force will change Yeah, it's a good question. Uh, so enforcement is definitely key and Tell you one example of what a court can do with enforcement Is in the the prison reform litigation that happened in california That resulted in a supreme court decision So california prisons were at 200 capacity And the court issued an order saying that the the prisoners rights their constitutional rights were being violated And the prisons had to come back down to 137.5 percent capacity And ordered california to prepare a plan and figure out how to do it build more prisons let prisoners out Whatever but get it done by a date certain And so you can see that there's numeric parallels here, right? And the court ultimately said to california if you don't do it, we're going to start letting prisoners out The courts will just decide and we'll let prisoners out to get to the capacity um same in the desegregation era where courts took over school districts in order to desegregate them So courts have enormous power and authority to act to enforce their own orders and I'm Confident that there are enough good people in government who will want to comply with these orders that will have traction and And one thing that we're doing parallel to this is really working with the private industry and the experts and the academics To work up a plan so that in the event that the government the federal government Doesn't get a plan done in the time frame. It's ordered to do so or the plan Is worthless that we'll have something to present to the court for the court's consideration Um during an enforcement process if that's necessary So we're we're looking 10 steps ahead so that we have our ducks in a row and we're ready to roll with a plan if if we need to So uh going back to that the last question one other piece Or maybe it was two questions ago, but just one other piece I want to add about the yes like getting to yes is Is also Not just the capacity to create a new energy economy and new ways of living with one another and with energy but also to think about the potential with agricultural reform and forestry reform and working on sequestration that is biological so biotic sequestration not ccs Um, and there's so much capacity to change our relationship to land and water and wetlands So that the earth can really sequester more of this carbon that we've been polluting it with Um because we do need to draw down carbon in addition to reducing and eliminating our emissions So it's it's been a real pleasure and thank you so much for all of you for organizing this and for Everyone's showing up and participating Thank you so much Julia Olson. Jeremy Brecker. Please join us Next week Monday, July 10th at the same time for our Just transition webinar will be lifting up some of the work of the labor network for sustainability And we'll look forward to following the court case In Eugene and hopefully creating the social pressure in the streets and at the fossil fuel facilities Thank you all