In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means
under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved
under existing US
law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by
arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy,
arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.
To quote Alice Wooley's article: «A good
argument is one based in
existing precedent or statute, or plausible statutory or constitutional interpretation, and posting the sorts of facts that will arise
under the
law, should at least raise this chance of success to 30 or 40 %.»
Unfortunately — but predictably — the
arguments put forth by Wise did not move Justice Joseph M. Sise of the Montgomery County court house in New York, who concluded that the court could not recognize a chimpanzee as a human or a person
under existing laws.