Political views aside, please approach this scenario with a open mind using the Law as guide.

Jonas is a 14-years old environmental activist from Texas represented by his mother and legal counsel and asserts that the United States government violated his rights by encouraging and allowing activities that significantly harmed his right to life and liberty (i.e. failing to regulate emissions ofgreenhouse gases) which has led to climate change.

Jonas argues that:

1. the lack of governmental action on climate change discriminated against his generation, since he and other youths would be most impacted by climate change in the future but have no voting rights to influence that or any type of legislation now via the ballot.
2. he has suffered immediate "concrete injury" due to climate change, having his family home and town completely wiped out from two Category 5 hurricanes in the same hurricane season which is highly unusual to be hit twice in a row by a max hurricane.

And seeks:

1. the judiciary branch to issue a mandamus to the United States Congress, instructing the House of Representatives to pass a resolution recognizing climate change. They don't have to take steps to stop, limit, or prevent it - just "recognize it".
2. the judiciary branch to rule in favor that the United States government was, in fact, violating Jonas' constitutional rights to life and liberty by failing to take action and steps to reduce climate change.

Questions:

1. Does Jonas have standing to file suit against the United States?
2. What strengths or approach can Jonas' and his legal counsel use as plaintiffs to have a 'fighting chance'?
3. What are the downsides and weaknesses to Jonas' claim and argument that can be exploited by the defense (US Government)?
4. The Judiciary Branch of the United States does not author legislation, but can it issue a mandamus to the United States Congress instructing them to recognize climate change?