Essay by Eric Worrall
The judge has upheld a claim the State of Montana has a duty to protect citizens from climate change.
Youth activists win ‘game-changer’ case for U.S. climate change protections
The young activists argued Montana was violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment by permitting fossil fuels without considering the climate.
Aug. 15, 2023, 5:25 AM AEST
By The Associated Press
HELENA, Mont. — A Montana judge on Monday sided with young environmental activists who said state agencies were violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by permitting fossil fuel development without considering its effect on the climate.
The ruling in the first-of-its- kind trial in the U.S. adds to a small number of legal decisions around the world that have established a government duty to protect citizens from climate change.
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley found the policy the state uses in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits — which does not allow agencies to evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions — is unconstitutional.
Judge Seeley wrote in the ruling that “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.
However, it’s up to the state Legislature to determine how to bring the policy into compliance. That leaves slim chances for immediate change in a fossil fuel-friendly state where Republicans dominate the statehouse.
…
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/youth-activists-win-game-changer-case-us-climate-change-protections-rcna99855
The court ruling is available here.
One thing for sure, this is the last chance greens will have to celebrate their victory. The Montana Legislature appear to have considerable latitude to develop a response to this obligation. This ruling is unlikely to lead to wind and solar.
There are likely plenty of ways the Montana legislature could comply with the ruling, while thoroughly infuriating greens.
For example, the Montana Legislature could ignore the renewable option, and fast track approval of new nuclear reactors, to reduce state emissions.
Or they could point out that far more people die in Winter than Summer, and do everything in their power to protect Montana people from climate harms, by releasing more CO2.
Of course, the most intriguing possibility, the Montana legislature now has real motivation to challenge the shaky scientific foundations of the alleged climate crisis. This problem goes away if the courts accept the evidence does not support the need for immediate action to address the alleged climate crisis. They could invite climate skeptics to testify at hearings, to point out that fossil fuel is a net benefit.
Popcorn all round.
For more information on climate politics click here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Given the arguments the “sceptical side” usually brings up, I would not be optimistic.
There would be no skeptic if the fanatic came to the table with more than utopian idealism.
The young activists argued Montana was violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment by permitting fossil fuels without considering the climate.
Solution…simples…permit Fossil Fuels WITH consideration of the climate.
Yes I think the decision merely requires the State Admin to somehow consider future fuel GHG emissions when issuing permits for fossil fuel development. My understanding is NEPA guidance may already require that at the Federal level. If so then it is a bad decision but not that big. But I have not studied it.
Let’s find out if the young activists live a fossil fuel free life. Strip everything out of their life related to fossil fuels.
Take away their cell phones and they will lose their minds.
More likely, regain their minds
Bryan, that’s exactly what the State is trying to avoid, being required to do a full-blown EIS for a minor project. One of the Left’s favorite tools
Off thread but interesting Stop Press
https://news.sky.com/video/share-12940727
Wind turbines can break down. That is an excellent point!
Alternatively we could discuss the fact, that the CO2 GHE and CO2 forcing (the canonical 3.7W/m2) are inconsistent theories.
In short, the CO2 GHE is defined as the difference it makes in emissions TOA (top of the atmosphere), while (additional) CO2 forcing is based on the difference in emissions TOT (top of the troposphere) PLUS an increase in “back radiation” from the stratosphere at the tropopause level. Only one of which can be right. Some would consider this a blunder of epic proportions right within the core of climate science.
https://greenhousedefect.com/unboxing-the-black-box
So, which argument would you bring in court? Yes, wind turbines can break down! Well..
All that black smoke! What a threat to health!
Saw that on msn a few minutes ago. Did you notice all the filth dropping to the ground? That’s real pollution not the CO2 that would have been put into the atmosphere from fossil fuels.
The best optimism we ‘realists’ have, is knowing the ‘alarmists’ are increasingly bereft of rational, empirical science or data to support their hysterical rantings and growing numbers are just laughing at them
In other words, facts don’t impress you.
A chorus of Gretas. One might expect that the kids named in this suit if educated and serious about fossil fuels would be living the low-carbon lifestyle that my great-grandparents did over a century ago. And yet, I don’t. They’ll continue to live a lifestyle that double what mine was at their age, and will cry holy murder if made to do otherwise.
More like
A Grief of Gretas
Like a Murder of Crows
And the kids are complaining about the effect on recreation and their ski season. Because nothing says “I care about my carbon footprint” like driving to a mountain in a remote location where nobody could exist if it were not for the ample supply of inexpensive fossil fuels, suit up in high-tech ski gear which are products of high-tech manufacturing from all over the globe, and then be transported up a mountain over and over again for no better purpose than personal recreation.
Let’s start with no phone no internet.
No phones, no lights, no motor cars. Not a single luxury.
Took a moment to place that. Now I have the GI theme in my head as an “earworm”.
Kangaroos are trying to take over the world.
Watermelons.
Green on the outside and Red (Communist) on the inside.
Climate Jugend and Green Shirts
Don’t slight the kangaroo.
They are smarter than any ClimateChange evangelist.
I didn’t see that part of the judges verdict where she explains to the youths that it will be they, who will for the most part, be carrying the financial burden as well as the decrease in standard of living due her favourable decision.
Except if mummy & daddy are raging lefty champagne socialist elites
They could go into CRED EM-DAT DATABASE and compare them with UN´s predictions from 2015-2030 and read chapter 12 in AR6 – or they could take up the question about the weatherstations classifications from 1 to 5 … or as stated in the article, they could compare The Lancets figure with Bjørn Lomborgs … and so on and so on … !!
Or they could simply ratio Montana’s contribution relative to China’s contribution and determine just how much their FF usage affects global temperatures. Then determine how much any potential Montana Nut Zero regulations on would effectively reduce temperatures.
Hint … Somewhere around 0.0°(C/F) over a century
This appears to be for individual permits … not for all of Montana production (so, the temp impact would be somewhere around 0.00000 degrees over a century).
(and, Judge Kathy, the permit is for drilling/extraction only; the permit does not cover all of the future uses (or perceived mis-uses) of the resource. Judge Kathy should follow through, with the ultimate progressive logic and require that all the end uses be permitted (with respect to weather/health etc), and that permitting criteria even be specific to Uncle Hansen & Aunt Ginny as they try to fill up their 1962 chev on their way to Church.
Just another case going to SCOTUS if they want to for all the obvious reasons.
Seems unlikely to end up at SCOTUS since this is a state judge citing State of Montana constitutional requirements. More than likely it gets overturned by the State Supreme Court after going through the required appeals process. Seems doubtful in the extreme that the Montana State Constitution actually addresses global warming and energy production law in Montana, which of course has zero impact on global climate.
State District Judge Kathy Seeley has made a decision that cements her credentials with progressives everywhere and could mean an appoint far up the judiciary totem pole. Arriving at a sensible verdict would have doomed her to Treasure State obscurity.
Now that is what I would call greedy.
The applicable section of the Constitution of Montana — Article IX — ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES is:
“Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”
It seems to me that the execution of Section 1 hinges on the definition of “unclean” and “unhealthful.” Soot and toxic gases would apply, but CO2 is not in and of itself generally considered “unclean” or “unhealthful,” despite the MSM commonly showing back-lit steam from cooling towers and implying that it is CO2.
I think that the good judge has overstepped her authority, for reasons best known to her.
It’s a pity that the Montana constitution does not cover the working conditions of everyone in the World or they would be more concerned about, for example, cobalt-mining children.
Isn’t there a trend to make us all consider the end-to-end impact of everything, including suppliers and end-users?
“…and each person…”
Ah, that makes the proposition that I made elsewhere absolutely proper. Require every student (above the age of 14, at least) to apply for a permit to continue breathing (thus emitting carbon dioxide) and eating (thus emitting methane). With hefty fines for non-compliance.
Clyde,
She (the judge) ties it to GHG/climate change, not just clean/unclean.
Based on this case, sue the Montana DMV for the simple connection of CO2 and vehicle registrations (allowing vehicles to drive on the Montana highways).
Sue the gas station permitting agency. Sue the dept of Agriculture (does Montana have dairy production) Sue the permitting agency that allows windmills. Sue ’em all. Sue the judge, as an individual if she drives a car (“The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment …”).
Just checked. Botha the Montana House (100 members) and Senate (50 members) are roughly 2/3 R and 1/3 D. Don’t see this going anywhere.
So much for any greenhouse gas “global” effect. Apparently, greenhouse gasses are well mixed except in Montana.
This is actually GREAT news!
The state of Montana is sure to appeal this case to a higher court based on judge Seeley’s ruling that “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”.
That ruling is easily challenged by asking for evidence (that of scientific caliber would be best) to be presented that (human) emissions have been shown to be a causative factor in “climate change”. AFIK, such has never been concluded by the majority of atmospheric scientists, let alone to the extent of being scientifically-established beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Proven”? Not a chance of that being true.
“Harm and injury”? Name them specifically, unambiguously.
It will be interesting to see what evidence will be forthcoming in an appeal case to show that Judge Seeley was nothing more than an uninformed bonehead in her ruling in the subject case.
Without being overturned on appeal, this case would open the floodgates to millions (hundreds of millions?) of US liability lawsuits seeking (totally-unsupportable) damages from governmental and private organizations that caused/allowed “emissions” into Earth’s atmosphere.
Any taxpayers got a couple of $hundred trillion laying around?
I agree; it is fabulous news. I have felt for some time that settling this issue in the courts, where you have to prove damages and threats, would be the best way out of this madness.
The problem is that the only people who get to provide such evidence are court approved experts.
I don’t think this is fabulous. There’s no way in this political climate that a politician would allow the climate religion to face any challenge. It’s political suicide with the indoctrinated.
All Montana Republicans will do is hope that California or Germany or the UK breaks before Montana breaks.
““Proven”? Not a chance of that being true.”
That’s right.
Anybody that knows anything about this subject knows there is no proof of a link between CO2 and any facet of the Earth’s weather. Even the IPCC says so. This judge is out on a limb, believing in fairy tales. Her, and all the other climate-change-deluded individuals out there.
Prove it, judge. You can’t do it. You are making claims you can’t back up with facts. Just like the lawyers and experts who lied to you in court, can’t do it, although I guess they fooled you, didn’t they.
The judge doesn’t have a clue.
“Even the IPCC says so.”
Really Tom? Have you got any proof at all of that? I’ve never read anything like that.
So you admit you haven’t read anything from the IPCC.
OK !
He’s read the Summary for Policy Makers. Which has very little to do with anything else from the IPCC – it’s purely a restatement of Das Kapital.
You’ve got to be kidding, Simon. Proof (statistics) have been shown throughout the last week or two on this website about how all the extreme weather metrics are less severe than in the past. Including the wording from the IPCC.
You are twisting things here Tom (I feel), so in the interest of transparency, I am going to use your words. You said….
“there is no proof of a link between CO2 and any facet of the Earth’s weather. Even the IPCC says so.”
So I am asking you to point me to a document, where the IPCC says there is “no link between CO2 and facets of the earths weather.” Can you do that?
There’s no link between CO2 and the performance of the Swedish women’s soccer team, either. But since the summary the IPCC emits claims Climageddon is upon us, you’d think there would be some support for this link in other materials the IPCC cites. You’d think that. You’d be wrong. I haven’t checked everything, but the soccer link doesn’t seem to be there, either.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Simon, but not even the IPCC supports the conclusions the UN talking heads demands.
That’s not what Tom said. He said “there is no proof of a link between CO2 and any facet of the Earth’s weather. Even the IPCC says so.”
So if Tom’s statement is true, or he wants people to believe it is true, he should be able to find a statement where the IPCC said what he claims, or he shouldn’t be saying it at all. Pretty simple I would have thought.
Here’s the IPCC report. See if you can find anything in there that connects human-derived CO2 to any weather event.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/2nd-assessment-en-1.pdf
The Summary for Policy Makers doesn’t count. That’s a political document, not based on any science. The author of this just made things up out of thin air and passed it off as science.
Tom…. this report is from 1995. But even then it had this to say..
“Global mean surface temperature has increased by between
about 0.3 and 0.6°C since the late 19th century, a change that is
unlikely to be entirely natural in origin. The balance of evidence,
from changes in global mean surface air temperature and from
changes in geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of atmospheric temperature, suggests a discernible human influence on global
climate.”
that was back then…. now they say in AR6….
“It is unequivocal that human infuence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid
changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.”
“Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850.”
“The likely range of total human-caused global surface temperature increase from 1850–1900 to 2010–201911 is 0.8°C to 1.3°C, with a best estimate of 1.07°C.”
“Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. “
So Tom it is just pure nonsense and mischief to say that the IPCC say “there is no proof of a link between CO2 and any facet of the Earth’s weather.”
Now if you think I am wrong then you need to stump up with direct quotes like I have. But I think you wont because you can’t.
Clearly Tom doesn’t think I am wrong….
All evidence will be Modeled Evidence
Very likely to be true for presentations made on behalf of the “young environmental activists” side in any appeal’s case. However, let’s not rule out that side also trying to call ChatGPT as it first “expert” witness 😉
A further reaction after some quick study up. The ruling is peculiar to the Montana constitution, so has no legs in other states.
Its A2(Inalienable rights)§3 specificity includes “the right to a clean and healthful environment.”
Its A9(Environment and natural resources)§1 states “The state shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.”
The irony of both provisions is that Libby Montana is the largest asbestos Superfund site in the US thanks to former large scale mining of asbestos contaminated vermiculite. The state has done nothing to mitigate because deemed too expensive. The easiest would be to simply move Libby elsewhere. It’s not as if Montana lacked open space.
Don’t think climate change will be placed on par with asbestos.
But, of allowed to stand, can be used by other state EcoFascists as a hammer. (In search of a sickle)
Most other states do not have the specific clauses used in this ruling based on the Montana state constitution. If they did this angle would have been used before,
So if they consider CO2 a pollutant could breathing become a criminal offence ?
It apparently already is in Georgia if you support MAGA.
Did you happen to catch the Georgia grand jury foreman on tv some weeks ago? She looked like a real loon. Really goofy. You wouldn’t want her sitting in judgment of you. She had already convicted Trump way back then, before all the evidence and witnesss were heard.
It’s just another political attack on Trump from the radical Left. They are pulling out all th stops.
The Georgia prosecutor was asked if she had coordinated her case with Special Councel Jack Smith, who filed charges against Trump for Jan 6, and the prosecutor would not answer the question.
If I was the prosecutor and some reporter asked me if I was coordinating with Jack Smith, insinuating there was a nefarious conspiracy going on, and there was not, I wouldn’t hestitate to say, “no, I’m not cooperating with anyone, including Jack Smith. But she didn’t say that.
None of these cases against Trump have any merit.
Trump said he needed one more indictment to put him over the top in the presidential race and this might be it.
“The state shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.”
Montana by the numbers
– All-time highest temperature: 117° F (Glendive on July 20, 1893)
– All-time lowest temperature: -70° F (Rogers Pass on Jan.20, 1954)
Montana’s lowest temperature was recorded in 1954 at -70 degrees. But in early February 2019 and into the first week of March, Montana set a brand-new bone-chilling record for consecutive below-freezing days when Great Falls concluded its 32-day streak on March 8, 2019.
Some not so Healthful temperatures showing up there without a reliable heating / cooling system in place.
Also, having traveled across Montana a number of times, there is plenty of grassland & timber to suck up any excess CO2 they put into the system.
Only in the comfortable west will you hear a demand for a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment
Do they realise civilisation is a rather thin veneer?
How cold can it get in Montana during winter ?
Drive over the Continental Divide in winter.
There leftists, they believe that civilization is caused by government. For them, more government means the world is more civilized. As long as there is government, all is good with their world.
From the article: “Judge Seeley wrote in the ruling that “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.”
Where is the evidence that CO2 is having an impact on Montana?
No evidence provided here. No evidence at the link provided.
Where’s the evidence? What is the evidence?
This judge is trying to force people to do things based purely on speculation about CO2’s effects.
Judge, who told you CO2 was dangerous and needs to be regulated? It obviously wasn’t someone who is knowledgeable about CO2, as they have given you a distorted view of the real world.
i bet not one thing she classifies as evidence is actually evidence of CO2 being harmful or needing regulation. She is operating on hear-say. She has been fooled and isn’t smart enough to realize it. Or, she is onboard with the narrative, regardless of the facts. Unfortunately, we seem to have a lot of judges that looks at things like that. Their particular bias comes front and center.
Show me the evidence!
If she thinks CO2 was dangerous why is she breathing? I bet the courtroom was far above 1000 ppm.
The judge determined that “Montana’s emissions” harmed Montana’s environment. Huge stretch.
Literally a busload of expert witnesses offering unchallenged consensus science. Just a small sample here:
Extracted from the ruling at this link:
https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2023/20230814_docket-CDV-2020-307_order.pdf
It appears none of the consensus science was challenged. Where are you going to find an expert witness that disputes the claim that GHGs cause global warming. The majority of WUWT authors support that view. I believe I am one of a small number who constantly make the point that CO2 can have negligible impact on Earth’s energy balance but believe I am one of a small number.
Even this one got up without challenge:
As well as:
Who will challenge the notion that children are being harmed by climate change:
The plaintiffs made their case. The evidence was overwhelming.
“The evidence was overwhelming.”
Not one bit of that is actual evidence. It’s all speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions.
Thanks for all the information, Rick.
I wish I had been in that courtroom for the defense. They wouldn’t have gotten by with passing speculation, assumptions and assertions off as facts. Your Honor, I object!
And you are correct, very few are prepared to go against the CO2 narrative. I call it cowardice.
As for this:
“74. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist, wrote that the practice ofburning fossil fuels emitting CO2 could one day warm the planet. Arrhenius, and other early climate scientists, understood that the more CO2 that was added to the atmosphere, the more the surface ofthe Earth would warm.”
Arrhenius didn’t know everything about CO2. He didn’t know about the results Dr. Happer established for CO2, which says that beyond a certain point, increasing CO2 adds little warmth to the Earth’s atmosphere.
And Arrhenius didn’t know about negative feedbacks associated with CO2. Nor does any scientist today.
This is what happens in a world ruled by emotional thinking.
The education system is full of them.
The education system has made a conscious decision to exclude anyone who thinks logically.
Initial rulings are rarely upheld … it’s too easy to venue-shop for a friendly judge. So the appeals will go on. It seems rather unlikely that any state constitution guarantees a right to be protected from climate change, not to mention no such provision in the US Constitution. But we’ll soon see.
The loose wording of the relevant constitutional provision is that the state must provide a clean, healthy and improving state environment. The true meaning of that depends on the judge-of-the-day.
Mile after mile after 100’s of miles of desolate bone-dry dusty and treeless desert.
The Dust Bowl Lives on
Montana wants not to attract attention less the rest of the world hits them with a charge of destroying climate.
and Life on Earth
There is perfectly ***nothing** healthful there.
No, a group of lawfare advocates have won, the kids were just a convenient group with “standing”.
Or, Montana could take current estimates of Montana CO2 emissions and total global CO2 emissions and use the climate model calculations of how much temperature increase would be prevented by Montana immediately eliminating all intrastate CO2 emissions.
Then use the same climate model calculations to show how quickly that (0.001 degree? prevention by 2100) measure will be obliterated by ongoing global CO2 increases,
logically proving that Montana has no way to protect its citizens against climate
(other than possibly through better management of water supplies, flood control, forest management, assuring reliable energy, etc., having nothing to do with greenhouse gases).
Ball in the other court, to use some sports analogy. Awaiting further instructions.
> constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment
Pretty sure you cannot make that a right.
I would allow the plaintiffs a right to a pursue clean and healthful environment but that’s not what was adjudicated.
For reasons not climate related this “landmark” ruling cannot stand.
See comment above. It is an express right in the Montana state Constitution.State court, state constitution.
The assumption here is that CO2 is “dirty”. It’s not. Every living thing is mostly carbon. All life forms would have to be removed from Montana to make it “clean” of carbon.
Judge Kathy Seeley got her judge’s badge out of a Cracker Jack box, well known for being packaged with a prize of trivial value.
It used to be that natural disasters were unexpected. They were caused by nature, not by humans, so we were “powerless” to stand against them. Humans endured disease, famines and floods, earthquakes and fires, and then rebuilt with the irrepressible resolve of the human spirit … But now, it seems that every major disaster is the fault of the common man, who is constantly told conflicting messages about what he should and shouldn’t consume in the quest to reduce his ‘carbon footprint’.
Cancel these communists | Eva Vlaardingerbroek rejects carbon credits to curb climate change – YouTube
It´s hard not to feel just a little bit pity for the young ones, who thinks that CC is turning our planet into Hell on Earth. One thing is climate science, another thing is biology, what will happen to the many who is healthy and doesn´t have a higher risk for heat exhaustion and heat strokes … I think most in here knows the answer to that … it´s personal carbon allowance (digital-id) and 15-minuts cities – a universal mouse-utopia so a speak.
How does the court propose to isolate Montana from the rest of the world’s emissions? Montana can reduce its CO2 emissions to zero, and the net effect on climate would be nil.
More complicated. Montana is the US#1 producer of steam coal from the Powder River basin. The ruling targets future coal mine permits, not emissions per se.
Interstate Commerce, Rud. Having been used to prevent a wheat farmer from growing grain solely for his own consumption and stopping a hop-head from cultivating his own weed, why not here? Stopping coal production for regional consumption would seem to be a weightier issue than either wheat or weed for personal consumption.
Similar to China & India vs the West
re: “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”
WAS this actually demonstrated?
BTW, these two items: “[1]Montana’s emissions and [2]climate change” would appear to be two separate things, with the 2nd item being ‘an act of God’ (as insurance underwriters might be prone to term it) and an action, a result stemming from one’s placement/location on this earth and also an item one has ability to change by moving, by relocating to a more hospitable location.
Did they make use of newer, accurate USCRN data? Or just the usual NASA/GISS massaged USHCN data?
Yes. By weight of evidence on consensus science that Montana did not choose to challenge.. Actual ruling at this link:
https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/case-documents/2023/20230814_docket-CDV-2020-307_order.pdf
For Montana, the Berkeley Pit at Butte and Anaconda and a thousand other mines could just be a bigger problem than AGW.
Nice map here:
https://westernmininghistory.com/mine-state/montana/
“Of course, the most intriguing possibility, the Montana legislature now has real motivation to challenge the shaky scientific foundations of the alleged climate crisis. This problem goes away if the courts accept the evidence does not support the need for immediate action to address the alleged climate crisis.”
I am still at a loss to understand why the Republicans at all levels make no effort to expose the scientific problems with the climate alarmist narrative other than congressional testimony (which is largely ignored).
Republicans just sit on the hands while the Left and the climate alarmists use the climate scare narrative to wage war on our fossil fuel-dependent society with regulations, rules, laws and lawsuits and fearmongering to try bringing about some utopian fossil-free fantasy land that will never be.
You don’t a football game if you are never on offense.
The Climate Reference Network has 5 stations in Montana. I haven’t looked at them, but my guess is that none of them will show a significant increase in temperatures since 2005 or so. .
Oh but they can be quickly tweaked upwards to suit a narrative – a concept already used by some nefarious organisations
Not-so-much the USCRN network (you’re thinking of the USHCN.)