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.
I live in Ohio. A few years back, the Supreme Court declared that the method of school funding was unconstitutional under the provisions of the Ohio Constitution about public education. Clearly, this is something the state legislature could do something about, unlike the weather.
The Ohio legislature made a few superficial changes in the school funding formulae, threw a little bit more money on the table, and declared themselves in compliance.
The plaintiffs in the case took them back to court, RWR, three of four more times. The Ohio Supreme Court huffed and puffed and issued sulfurous denunciations, and after the fourth or fifth opinion, they gave up.
End of story. it is easy for courts to opin. It is impossible for them to compel a duly elected legislature to do something.
It would seem right and proper for all state officials and judges to lead be example and immediately sell their autos and stop flying.
I would not want them to be in contempt of the court!