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.
More data. Montana produces very little natural gas (0.1% of US production) a small amount of oil (56,000 bpd from the Williston basin), but is the US #1 producer of steam coal from the Powder River Basin. 5 big strip mines, but all already permitted, so little practical future effect.
Then what was the point of the lawsuit if it doesn’t change much of anything in the state?
Propaganda
What they asked for:
“The plaintiffs seek a declaration that their right to a clean and healthful environment includes a right a stable climate system, as well as declarations that the State Energy Policy and the Climate Change Exception violate the Public Trust Doctrine and constitutional provisions that protect the right to a clean and healthful environment; etc; etc: etc …”
What they got:
The ‘Climate change exception” (wrt permitting) is in violation of State Constitution (“The state shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.”).
So, existing law stating that they don’t need to waste their time considering climate change impacts can’t stand … it needs to be fixed/altered by legislature (to say that they do indeed need to waste a little time and money assessing the potential impact of proposed permitting activities.)
The State’s Attorney General must appeal this interpretation of the Constitution by the judge.
The Powder River Basin does extend north into Montana but the majority of the coal is produced in Wyoming. Most of the coal is shipped by rail and burned at power houses all across the northern part of the country. There is a power house adjoining the mine near Gillette, Wy producing CO2 but it probably doesn’t make the kids in Terry, MT sweaty.
No science here, just advocacy.
Eric,
I agree with your analysis
This is no great victory for alarmism, but a great victory for common sense and energy security and reliability
The best way to keep kids (and everyone else) healthy and clean, from an energy perspective, is to make it reliable, affordable, clean and safe
This gives direct approval for gas and nuclear power generation and a good case could be made for clean coal technology power generation too
However, it’s not a good result for wind & solar (or battery cars), whose end of life toxic waste ends up in landfill, that’s not clean, or healthy for the kids
Whoever allowed this to be played out in court, did a great service to common sense, energy security and humanity
Oh – Montana kids – do Covid-19 (so-called) ‘vaccines’ (actually mRNA treatments) next.
Be sure to address the claim “Safe and Effective.”
Spokesman for Montana Attorney General talks about Judge Kathy:
“This ruling is absurd, but 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,” Flower said. “Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate — even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that our state has no impact on the global climate. Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.”
(Emily Flower is a good spokesman)
Story tip.
“There Is No Climate Crisis”…1600 Scientists Worldwide, Nobel Prize Laureate Sign Declaration (notrickszone.com)
But the link to clintel.org appears to be blocked, so no-one can access it.
This link to clintel.org seems to be working fine (at least via Google):
https://clintel.org/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI8YyGocjfgAMV7gytBh05kgTcEAAYASAAEgLn8fD_BwE
I had no problem with the link to the pdf of signatories.
Very odd… Something certainly wrong from my computer.
Keep getting error messages. TLS setting errors.
Started up the old clunker I use as a music server… was able to access pdf.
Check you DNS server setting. Something like Google (8.8.8.8) will work when others sometimes fail. You can set it back after trying …
Thanks,
If I have further issues I’ll look into it.
I was reading the order.
Under Section II. CLIMATE SCIENCE AND PROJECTIONS.
Part A. Climate Science:
Paragraph 67 says “There is overwhelming scientific consensus that Earth is
warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions”
Paragraph 69 says “carbon dioxide (CO2) is the GHG most responsible for trapping excess heat “within Earth’s atmosphere.”
Paragraph 70 says “Science is unequivocal that dangerous impacts to the climate
i:ire occurring due to human activities”
The continuation of these kinds of falsehoods was driving me crazy but I struggled on UNTIL I came to: B. Climate Change Projections and read this: (my bold)
93. Computer models used by scientists are an important tool for
predicting climate change and are reasonably relied upon by members of the
scientific community.”
That did it for me. No sense reading any further. It is lucky I haven’t eaten dinner yet.
There is an old saying, “so bad it could gag a maggot” and that is certainly appropriate for this ruling.
None of those findings mean anything since they have no context. Plus 69 is a lie; H2O is the most responsible.
Dave,
It appears you think I was using the quotes to justify the ruling. I said “The continuation of these kinds of falsehoods was driving me crazy…”
I used the quotes to show how uninformed the judge was.
Oh, no, Tom. Just the opposite. I was just adding to your list.
OK, thanks.
Paragraph 67 is a lie: there is no such “overwhelming scientific consensus” that exists, besides which the scientific method does not and never has been based on consensus.
Paragraph 70 is a lie: True science has never been “unequivocal” in its findings, as evidenced by the numerous times new theories have replaced/supplemented old theories to explain new observations and data (the theories of cosmology, relativity, quantum physics and dark matter/dark energy immediately come to mind). This paragraph is also a lie by dint of being unable to distinguish human effects from natural effects as relates to either having “dangerous” (also undefined) impacts on climate.
Paragraph 93 is a blatant lie: computer models as used by climate scientists have been demonstrated to be totally unreliable, both when compared to each other and when their predictions over time spans in excess of ten years are compared to actual observations (measured data) over those same intervals (see attached graph). Few members of the scientific community rely upon such models . . . but almost all politicians and all climate alarmists rely upon them.
I think that it is bad legal precedent on at least two points:
1) Minors, who have not been legally emancipated, were given standing and allowed to bring suit, while their parents are still legally and financially responsible for any fallout from the action. Some of those same defendants are not able to get married, sign a binding legal contract, or exercise constitutional rights such as owning a gun or voting. As minors, they have certain legal protections, but a very limited set of rights afforded those past the age of majority. They can’t even exercise the legal privilege of driving a car.
2) The defendants are asking for redress for something that hasn’t happened. They are speculating that they will suffer harm, of unknown magnitude, at some unspecified time in the future. That is like me bringing suit against a neighbor with whom I have a poor relationship, claiming that I ‘know’ that I will suffer harm as a result of actions by my neighbor, and I want the court to intervene and place sanctions on my neighbor now, before it happens, in the absence of any threats.
Even if a strong case could be made that fossil fuel use will eventually result in harm to cohorts of this group who are in the same age group, there is no way of knowing whether all or even any of the defendants will still be alive when it happens. That is, it would be impossible for them to suffer the harm being claimed if they don’t live long enough to experience it. Neither they or the court has any way of knowing that.
This judge has been reckless in establishing legal precedent that is unwise.
IMAGINE! the hypocrisy to file such a law suit and then go on using FF every day like nothing happened.
Yes, exactly.
I wonder if judge Seeley, not being the brightest bulb in the chandelier, thought to advise the winning side (those kids) that, to be true to the nature of their court filing, they must henceforth do the following to make sure THEIR future did not contribute to any more “emissions” from the use of fossil fuels, else they themselves be held liable:
1. Don’t use any electricity from the grid . . . about 60% of which on average is presently generated by burning fossil fuels. (Ref: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427 )
2. Don’t consume any commercially-produced food . . . all of which relies on fossil fuels for harvesting, processing, packaging materials, transportation, and electricity for refrigeration and point-of sale store lighting and payment processing.
3. Don’t purchase/use any pharmaceutical drugs for pain relief or curing diseases, almost all of which require fossil fuel energy to produce and are obtained from many petrochemical feedstocks.
“Petrochemicals provide the chemical building blocks for most medicinal drugs: nearly 99% of pharmaceutical feedstocks and reagents are derived in some way from petrochemicals. For example, aspirin has been manufactured from benzene, produced in petroleum refining, since the late 19th century.”
— https://www.americangeosciences.org/geoscience-currents/non-fuel-products-oil-and-gas
4. Don’t purchase any clothing sold commercially (most of the same issues as with Item 2), in particular noting that synthetic fabrics (nylon, rayon, polyester, etc.) are exclusively made from fossil fuel raw stock and that even cotton and silk are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for growth, harvesting, processing, transportation and fabrication into final sales product.
5. In the future, don’t plan on driving any ICE cars, which produce “emissions” from burning fossil fuels . . . or even driving EVs, because about 60% of their electrical energy is, on average, currently produced by burning fossil fuels.
BTW, that’s likewise my feedback advice to judge Seeley.
Even cotton could not be grown in commercial quantities without energy for the farming, transportation, processing, and spinning and weaving to make the cloth. Additionally, fossil fuels are important in making fertilizer, insecticide, and herbicide.
I service the homes of many very liberal professionals like this judge. I’m sure many see me as just some tradesman. But I am smart enough to see they are shockingly just as prone to the mass movement psychosis as impressionable adolescents like spoiled nieve Greta.
They think we have “ trapped” the heat, locked it in, it can’t get out! There is no understanding that the very nature of the atmosphere and oceans is movement- constant massive fluidity on a planet open the the vastness of space. If we could lock up and keep heat that easily with a very very small amount of C02 would nt that be an industrial opportunity of incredible value?
I thought judges were supposed to rely on evidence?
There is none to support the claim that CO2 is causing anything bad.
What evidence that does exist, shows that CO2 is good for the environment.
Wrong. Look at all the felony suits (now 4) against Trump. Evidence? None. Stretched legal theories never before appiied? Many.
It’s called lawfare, the weaponization of a formerly supposedly unbiased court system.
Evidence? Let’s see what the prosecution presents at the various trials. It is the sworn duty of the juries in court cases to establish whether or not the evidence is credible. Until then . . .
Three poor assumptions there. 1) That an unbiased jury can be assembled where the trials are being held. 2) That the judge will allow any contrary evidence to the prosecution’s case to be entered. 3) That even if all the evidence is presented, and the jurors are unbiased, that they will honor their oath, and not rational self-preservation – a failure to convict will lead to THEIR being investigated, charged, and convicted themselves.
(Now, I am a stubborn bastard. If I were on any of the juries, they would be deadlocked. But I would be looking for a GOOD documents forger, and a very isolated place to hole up for the next decade or so. Probably put in land mines around my place.)
Your words . . . and I see why.
A direct attack on the U.S. Constitution and our personal freedoms.
Anyone doing a proper analysis could show wind and solar are more CO2 intensive than fossil fuels.
And, in Montana, thanks to this ruling, prior to permitting wind/solar, they should have to do the analysis.
It would be ironic that, if after doing the analysis, the investigators were to conclude that the ‘unreliable’ sources would turn out to produce more CO2 than conventional sources, and permits to install solar or turbines would be denied.
The question has already been answered based on the evidence offered. The plaintiffs had a busload of professors giving evidence that GHGs are causing global warming and harming children in Montana. Montana made no effort to counter these “proven facts” per the order:
I
Now Montana is stuck for the cost of those expert witnesses.
Very difficult to find an expert witness to argue that climate change is not caused by GHGs.
The only way this gets fixed is for the light to go out and the pumps stop pumping.
The proper reaction of the legislature should be to impeach a judge who thinks she’s a dictator and not a judge.
The Montana Legislature needs to immediately pass laws forbidding this judge, the parents of the these kids and all pro-AGW media and politicians from using any form of fossil fuel or product made with fossil fuels. Make them live up to their demands first.
Two points here.
First, the state’s lawyers made no attempt to present an organized body of scientific and evidentiary counter-arguments to what the climate activist plaintiffs were claiming.
Second, Montana’s amended constitution from 1972 states that “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”
The 1972 amended constitution is a Pandora’s Box of environmental litigation mischief, and was intended as such when it was passed fifty years ago. But the state constitution says what it says.
In the absence of any substantive counter-arguments from the state’s lawyers, the climate activist judge had an easy decision to make in accepting the plaintiff’s arguments verbatim and ruling against the state.
Even if the verdict was preordained, the larger public interest would have been better served if the state’s lawyers had presented a fully-detailed set of scientific and evidentiary counter-arguments to each and every one of the plaintiff’s claims.
Those counter-arguments could have been placed on the public record for future use by anyone who has to deal with the regulatory decision-making fallout which is certain to flow from this decision.
Having spent time doing environmental regulation compliance work in Montana in the mid-1970’s, before moving into nuclear, I can tell you that climate activists will waste no time in placing strong pressure on the state’s regulatory agencies to deny the environmental permits needed by Montana’s oil field operators, by the state’s coal mine operators, and by its coal-fired power plants.
That pressure will be similar in its scope and extent to what climate activists in New York State will be applying as a consequence of that state’s 2019 Climate Act.
Unless the judge’s ruling is overturned — not a certainty at this point — regulatory permitting agencies in Montana will have no other practical choice but to deny the necessary environmental permits the next time these come up for renewal.
“The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment …”
As the judge leaves the courtroom, and begins to unlock her car, she needs to be handed the paperwork that brings suit directly against her, for her individual/personal dereliction to ‘maintain and improve a clean & healthful environment’.
As a leader, she needs to set an example and stop violating the constitution as she, herself, has officially interpreted it.
Where would they find the range of experts prepared to take apart the consensus science?
WUWT?
Held v Montana Climate Lawsuit, June 21st, 2023
by Judith Curry
Judith Curry was asked to testify by Montana’s lawyers and prepared a written response to accompany her verbal testimony.
The state’s lawyers ultimately decided not to call her as a witness. That she didn’t testify allowed her written testimony to be struck from the court record.
Others with equally good credentials might also have been called as expert witnesses for the state’s position. I’m thinking Roy Spencer and John Christy.
As Judith Curry notes in her blog post from June 21st, having her testify as an expert witness for the state might have produced a circus atmosphere in the courtroom.
However, had she testified, her viewpoints would have been on the record. Having that testimony in the record for future reference was valuable, even if the final court verdict was preordained.
She was probably right about the circus. The effort to cast her as a denier was ramping up. I believe she was happy to avoid the angst.
The Montana Legislature can easily address this problem. Establish a Montana Department of Green House Gas Mitigation.
Commissioners can then be hired to take an application form to every high school, college, university campus.
This application form is titled “Application for a Permit to Emit Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases”.
It reads “I (insert name) hereby apply for a permit to emit carbon dioxide and other recognized greenhouse gases such as methane. I understand that this application will be evaluated by the Montana Department of Green House Gas Mitigation, in order of receipt. Until such time as the permit is granted, I will not emit any carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gas. Failure to do so will result in a $10.00 (ten dollar) per day fine, payable monthly, with a 2% (two percent) interest penalty for arrears each 30 (thirty) days that payment is in arrears.”
For the public school students, they will need to explain that they either have to stop eating and breathing – or pay $300.00 a month for the privilege of emitting dangerous gases.
Let’s see. The legislature could pass laws to reduce emissions such as:
1) no smart phones until your 18
2) no social media until 18
3) no driver’s license until 18
4) 9pm curfew, weekends included, until 18
5) 1 hour TV per day until 18
6) mandate smart devices that turn the lights out by 10pm in all rooms teenagers reside in
That should help the children understand how they can contribute to reducing CC, by fiat.
I notice Montana has had air quality monitoring since 1981. That would be the place to start. It was digitised in 2015.
https://archive.org/details/montanaairqualit1981mont/page/n12/mode/1up
“In its 24th annual “State of the Air” report, the American Lung Association pointed out that the three-year average for air quality continues to deteriorate in Montana, largely due to pollution from forest fires, which sends particulates into the air and into the lungs.”
https://dailymontanan.com/2023/04/19/montanas-air-gets-worse-in-annual-report/
Not CO2 then.
I wonder how much money their lawyers made from this
The young activists argued Montana was violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment by permitting fossil fuels without considering the climate.
And in precisely which paragraph of the US Constitution is that particular “right” mentioned?
I believe that refers to the State Constitution not the U.S.Constitution. But let’s take this to the absurd level, you should need a permit to breathe out being that the supposed boogeyman, CO2, is between 35,000 – 50,000 ppm with each exhale.
Climate change happens. Always has, always will. And the State of Montana is compelled to protect people form that change? Bat droppings crazy.
Eric shouldn’t get too excited about nuclear in Montana, it’s illegal unless they’ve changed it from back in the day, when I spent an entire legislative session in Helana lobbying for changes in The Montana Majority Facilities Siting Act.
I woke up this morning in Montana to the smell of wildfire smoke. It’s curious how these
Montana activist judges who stop forest management projects over some Greens ESA
lawsuit will handle a persons right to not have to breath wildfire smoke for weeks on end.
All those “young activists” should set an example and turn off the heat in their homes. We’ll see whether they change their minds by next February. Montana isn’t exactly a tropical paradise.