Yeah, it's probably stupid to sue (from a legal perspective, that is, it may be useful as PR), given that the judge seems to have admitted that there's no legal basis for the claim: Aikin wrote: “This action is of a different order than the typical environmental case. It alleges that defendants’ actions and inactions—whether or not they violate any specific statutory duty—have so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.” This is a novel legal argument, and it would have to be brilliant to gain much traction.