A Montana judge ruled in favor of youth activists who contended that the state’s use of fossil fuels infringed on their constitutional rights and harmed the environment.
The judge deemed the state’s policy for evaluating fossil fuel permits unconstitutional as it didn’t require agencies to assess greenhouse gas emissions’ impact.
Key Takeaways:
Full Story:
A Montana judge has ruled in favor of youth activists who argued that the state’s utilization of fossil fuels was infringing upon their constitutional rights while also harming the environment. District Court Judge Kathy Seeley concluded that the state’s policy used to assess requests for fossil fuel permits was unconstitutional due to its failure to require agencies to evaluate the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions.
In her ruling, Judge Seeley emphasized that the emissions and resulting climate change in Montana have been substantiated as significant factors contributing to adverse climate impacts on the state’s environment.
“Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury [to the youth],” she wrote.
This landmark ruling establishes a precedent in the U.S. that places obligation on the government to safeguard its citizens from climate change.
The responsibility now falls upon the state legislature to determine how to bring its policy in line with the ruling. However, this endeavor may prove arduous, given the state’s inclination towards fossil fuels and the Republican majority that holds sway over policymaking.
Julia Olson, an attorney representing the youth and also the executive director of Our Children’s Trust, hailed the ruling as a “significant victory” for Montana, its youth, democracy, and the climate.
“As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos,” Olson said.
Contrarily, Emily Flower, a spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, dismissed the ruling as “absurd” and indicated plans to appeal.
Flower said the ruling was “not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial.”
During the two-week trial in June, attorneys representing the 16 plaintiffs, all under the age of 22, presented evidence linking increased carbon dioxide emissions to rising temperatures, droughts, and wildfires.
Expert testimonies supported the assertion that these changes were adversely affecting the physical and mental health of the young plaintiffs.
In response, the state argued that even if Montana ceased all carbon dioxide production, its impact would be negligible on a global scale, given the contributions of states and nations worldwide to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
While this case will surely be appealed, it is likely only the beginning of these types of lawsuits intending to force government into unsustainable policies. What may be deemed as good for mitigating “climate change” will surely be bad for the population.
