There is another solution. Wealthy societies are low fertility societies. Current mitigation efforts run counter to generating wealth (particularly, generating higher energy costs and moving wealth around ineffectively).

My view is that in the long term, moving the standard of living of the Somalian to the standard of living of the Minnesotan is a better strategy even from the point of view of climate change than implementing policies that degrade the standard of the Minnesotan while doing nothing positive for the Somalian.

Wealthier societies can more easily adapt to the modest climate change than poor societies can adapt to no change at all. And it is better to have better control of overpopulation than to have continued population growth and thus need for harsher and harsher control over environment impact of humanity.

An order of magnitude fewer people with the same CO2 emissions per capita generate an order of magnitude less CO2 collectively.

The US doesn't have the only court system. According to Wikipedia, the UK and the Netherlands don't have judicial review.

Words have meaning. Loaded question doesn't mean "I'm butthurt because someone on the internets disagrees with me." Instead it means

What is being assumed in my question:

Obviously, there is the assumption that there are more than one branch in some sort of democratic government context which is justified given glitch! explicitly mentioned two branches of government, legislative and courts. And there's the implication that this somehow neuters the legislature (which was the key point of my observation and a clear problem with glitch!'s post which several people noted).

And that's it. It's not a big question so there's not a lot of assumptions hidden in it.

As to "could be considered irrelevant", I suggest you don't do that. A court which can reinterpret legislation without regard for the writing or intent has the power to craft their own law. What is the point of a legislature which can be overridden and bypassed at will by the courts?

glitch! said courts should be able to do these things without regard for the abuses of power that this leads to. That's why courts usually don't have that power in the first place.

Because nothing is more important than climate change. Not even the factors like overpopulation that make climate change a problem in the first place.

No. I think I was quite fortunate. I will not answer your loaded question (loaded because it falsely implies that I did not "demand justice" from courts) because it isn't worth answering due both to the obvious of the answer and to the irrelevance to what anyone else has posted here.

That's not the job of courts. That's the job of voters to police.

Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.

Not everyone does judicial review. And it seemed to me that glitch wasn't interested in judicial review or anything else that obstructed any justice the courts could mete out.

Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.

Well just how devastating can local effects be? Sure, if you have huge numbers of desalinization plants running up the coast of say, California, dumping very salty water right off shore, it's going to cause problems for that region. But we have rather simple and low energy technologies for mixing salt into water that can greatly reduce the problem.

I still suggest that. This is a typical semantics shift. "Decent product" means different things to each of us. The original post stated that some businesses create "brand-destroying" products. That's not decent product. And customers can put two and two together when all the stuff they get from a retailer is crap.

For whatever reason, a lot of people prefer low price over quality. I've seen nothing in this thread to even show there is an actual problem. If instead you want quality, you don't buy it at the retailer shaving all these costs.

For example, from a much earlier post:

In other words, one can buy a better product presumably for more from Home Depot. There are probably other mop buckets sold online or via catalogue of far higher quality, if you're willing to shop for them too. So it is not an actual problem that Walmart sells flimsier mop buckets. Just pay more for what you really want.

You're making the broad assumption that the mid-markets were better quality. Why is the cheaper product winning in the first place?

Or you can choose to pay more for said decent product.

Wow, that's pretty broken. In other words, you only consider the costs of "externalizing environmental, societal, and future impacts" which is exactly the problem I was speaking of.

Ignoring the opportunity costs of a choice is not least harm. The reason we burn coal in the first place is because it is useful to do so. And that utility also generates externalities, but of the positive sort.

Externalities are easy to engineer for. Just stick in some revenue-neutral tax on coal or whatever. Just be careful to avoid excessive costs because of a quasi-religious conviction that coal burning is bad. Past that, markets. Problem solved.