On December 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court delivered what climate activists are hailing as a landmark ruling in Held v. Montana. Sixteen youth plaintiffs, backed by the well-heeled advocacy group Our Children’s Trust, convinced the court that their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” was being violated by the state’s support for fossil fuel projects. The court’s 6-1 decision declared that this constitutional right extends to a “stable climate system.”
For those of us in the camp of climate realism, this decision is not just disappointing—it’s a blow to rational policymaking and the foundational principles of American governance. Let’s explore why.
The crux of the court’s ruling was the claim that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are a “substantial factor” causing harm to the plaintiffs. Really? Montana contributes a meager 0.09% to global emissions, an amount so small that it accounts for just 0.0018°C of warming under even the most extreme emissions scenarios. The notion that this infinitesimal contribution could meaningfully harm these plaintiffs is laughable. Yet, the court ignored the math and embraced the narrative.
With regards to Montana’s CO2 emissions, based on 2019 estimates Montana produces 0.63% of U.S. emissions and 0.09% of global emissions. For an anticipated warming of 2oC, Montana’s 0.09% of emissions would account for 0.0018oC of warming. There are other ways to frame this calculation (and more recent numbers), but any way you slice it, you can’t come up with a significant amount of global warming that is caused by Montana’s emissions.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/06/22/held-v-montana-climate-lawsuit/
As Dr. Judith Curry pointed out in her expert analysis last year, this case was built on a house of cards. The plaintiffs relied heavily on worst-case climate projections like the discredited RCP8.5 scenario and cherry-picked weather events to weave their tale of impending doom. Their claims ignored historical climate variability, which shows that Montana has faced severe droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather long before fossil fuels were ever a factor.
Curry’s damning critique of the plaintiffs’ approach highlighted their reliance on emotion rather than evidence. By conflating Montana’s localized climate issues with a global phenomenon, they bypassed the inconvenient reality that the state’s emissions are statistically insignificant. Instead, they leaned on the hollow mantra that “every ton of emissions counts,” a claim Curry dismantled with simple arithmetic.
Let’s call this what it is: judicial activism in service of a radical environmental agenda. The Montana Supreme Court overstepped its bounds, transforming itself into a quasi-legislative body. Justice Jim Rice’s dissent rightly warned that this ruling opens the door for courts to micromanage natural resource policies under the guise of constitutional interpretation. Such decisions belong in the hands of legislatures, where elected officials can be held accountable—not in the courts.
The plaintiffs argued that a stable climate system is essential for their recreational activities, ranching livelihoods, and general well-being. While that may sound noble, it’s hardly a justification for reshaping state energy policy through litigation. As Governor Greg Gianforte aptly put it:
“This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above-approach to energy, which is key to providing affordable and reliable energy to homes, schools, and businesses across our state.”
https://dailymontanan.com/2024/12/18/montana-supreme-court-affirms-decision-in-held-historic-youth-climate-case/
Moreover, this case sets a dangerous precedent for climate litigation nationwide. By focusing on local emissions in isolation, it ignores the global nature of the supposed issue. If every state were to adopt Montana’s approach, we’d end up with a patchwork of contradictory rulings, stifling energy development without delivering any tangible benefits.
One of the most unsettling aspects of this case is how it exploited young people to push a broader agenda. The plaintiffs, many of whom are teenagers, were presented as the face of the fight against climate change. But their understanding of the issues appears rudimentary at best. As Dr. Curry previously argued, these young plaintiffs are victims of an educational system and media landscape that bombards them with climate hysteria rather than scientific literacy.
Instead of encouraging resilience and innovation, this case fed them an apocalyptic narrative that stokes anxiety and fuels division. Climate change, whether natural or human-influenced, is a challenge that humanity has always adapted to. The notion that we can legislate or litigate our way to a “safe and stable climate” is not just naïve—it’s a dangerous distraction from real solutions.
Montanans are the ones who will bear the brunt of this decision. By invalidating the state’s limitations on greenhouse gas reviews, the court has made energy projects more vulnerable to costly delays and frivolous litigation. This will likely lead to higher energy costs and reduced economic opportunities, particularly in rural communities that rely on resource development.
And what do the plaintiffs get in return? A symbolic victory that does nothing. The court’s ruling won’t stop China from building coal plants or India from increasing its energy consumption. Instead, it sacrifices Montana’s energy independence and economic future on the altar of climate alarmism.
The Held v. Montana decision is a stark reminder of how far climate activism has infiltrated our legal and political systems. It prioritizes virtue signaling over scientific rigor, emotion over evidence, and centralized control over democratic processes. For those who believe in climate realism, this ruling is a clarion call to push back against the encroachment of climate alarmism into our courts and legislatures.
The path forward lies in promoting policies that balance environmental stewardship with economic growth and energy reliability. Courts should stick to interpreting the law, not rewriting it to align with activist agendas. Montana, like the rest of the world, will continue to face challenges from climate variability. The answer isn’t to hobble our energy systems—it’s to build a resilient, innovative society capable of adapting to whatever the future holds.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From what I have read on the issue, the Montana Supreme Court is elected, and financed mostly by the plaintiff’s bar.
That class of lawyers is what one thinks of with the snark—90% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
‘…the Montana Supreme Court is elected…’
People just need to pay attention to, and get involved in, their local primaries. The sad truth is that the ‘reddest’ states, including Montana, have a well-deserved reputation for electing RINO squishes.
Judicial elections here are “non partisan”. Very little attention paid unfortunately and what is front and center is abortion which the left exploits to the fullest.
I’m wondering where those judges obtained their PhD in a climate-related field from.
This isn’t about the climate, is it?
I wonder where they studied law. No law was broken in this case and the plaintiff’s can’t show any actual harm that affects them in a measurable way. This would have been tossed by a court run by rational justices familiar with state and federal law. Maybe they want this to be appealed to the Supreme Court to make a decision that affects all jurisdictions to prevent further frivolous lawsuits like these? Or maybe the justices really are that dumb.
Hanlon’s Razor: Never ascribe to malice what can be attributed adequately to stupidity or incompetence.
Support that. Who would bring that suit, though?
Nothing to appeal to a Federal court. The basis is as stated in the article, the state constitution declares the right to a “clean and healthful environment” and the scientific illiterates on the court came up with this vague pronouncement. Not really a ruling on a specific project so many more court cases are in the future due to black robe virtue signaling.
“…..the right to a “clean and healthful environment”’……
Okay, but CO2 is NOT a pollutant in a clean and healthful environment to begin with. That is why I am criticizing the judges’ lack of a background in science and climate science in particular.
Montana should then stop using all fossil fuels. “It’s for the children.”
Story tip – WATCH: Sen. Kennedy Delivers Masterclass in Destroying Climate Change Hypocrites – PJ Media
Last paragraph of story tip article above:
This exchange perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of the climate alarmist elite. They don’t believe their own scare tactics. Dr. Keys owns a home in a flood zone and dismisses average Americans as “low-information morons.” Kennedy’s grilling wasn’t just entertaining; it exposed how little credibility these so-called experts have when they refuse to practice what they preach.
“You can’t make this cat walk backwards, Professor,”
Love it.
Kennedy is a national treasure.
As the finest American Philosophers ever quoted once noted:
“Everybody Wants Ta Get Inta Da Act!” Jimmy Durante
“Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Mike Tyson
Been following this case with some interest for years. While the new decision is of course junk science, it is also unfortunately legally sound given IPCC—but only in Montana. Sort of like the EPA endangerment finding after MA v. EPA, except that unfortunate politicized junk science error applies nationwide.
Montana has an unusual but explicit state constitutional provision guaranteeing all residents a ‘healthy environmental future’. Was part of the original state constitution when Montana first became a state, put in place because of then already obvious environmental mining concerns. But the Montana constitution said nothing specifically about mining. (And remember, Libby Montana is the place with the worst carcinogenic asbestos remediation problem in the world, as a result of decades of mining vermiculite containing trace chrysotile asbestos (a then unknown carcinogen), and a big political deal in Montana at present.)
So the political and legal winds blew in the Montana kids favor. But NOT beyond
.
Efforts elsewhere in US to extend CO2 ‘liability’ via public nuisance doctrine have all failed. Efforts to extend via RICO— ‘Exxon knew’—have all failed. In EU, Dutch and Danish decisions are receiving major blowback and may not stand.
In sum, we skeptics just lost a legal skirmish under special circumstances in one of 50 states. Carry on to win the global climate war across several battlefields:
Montana had a Constitutional Convention and rewrote the the states Constitution
in 1972. I believe that’s where the “clean and healthful environment ” came from
but my memory dating back to that time is dim. But I do remember that there
was a very strong environmental movement along with a anti war sediment from the Vietnam
War in Helena at that time. The Legislature also wrote some radical laws at that
time also. One I remember they lowered the drinking age to 19 then 18 due to the
draft lottery. I personally knew several fatal automobile victims from that time. This case
is extremely radical in my view.
I moved here in 77 but you are correct. The language in it has a lot of virtue signaling that was popular at the time. Of course no one (save a few devious attorneys) could have anticipated the breadth of the lawfare that dastardly profession has engendered over the past half century.
Hi Rud,
All good points as always.
I’d add a couple more points.
I’ve been finding it more effective when engaging with the alarmed (note I said the alarmed, not the alarmists) to brush aside the whole CO2/warming discussion and lead with those two things. If we’ve got full stomachs and the same weather we’ve always had, can’t even detect a change in it, why are we worried?
I don’t have a nice neat graph for point 2, but point 1 is easy:
But how do the defendants’ bills compare with the payouts of the Inflation Reduction Act?
Taxpayers are footing the defendant’s bills as the state is in the crosshairs.
They’ll get their healthy environment but it will have to come from some other place. Montana gets pretty cold in the winter and without the modern conveniences of life brought to you only by fossil fuels they’ll all freeze to death.
So much for their safe and healthy environment, eh wot?
It appears that President Trump intends to restart the KeystoneXL project as soon as he resumes office. This would take the pipeline through Montana. Will Montana’s Court ruling enable litigation that will impede the President’s effort?
It will require the environmental impact statements to include CO2 assessments.
Add to it, the earth energy system has numerous feedbacks (negative in systems engineering parlance) that continuously thermalize the environment. Thermalize is a specific word defining achieving or moving towards thermal equilibrium.
A positive feedback in the atmosphere is impossible. It violates Kirchhoff’s law.
Add to it, there is no such thing as a “Green House Effect.” That is a phrase used to hide the oversimplification of everything. Also, there is no such thing as a “Greenhouse Gas.” That phrase is derived from “GHE.”
People do not understand what a greenhouse is and how it works. A greenhouse is an environmental control system.
I think it’s a terrible decision with some favorable upside potential.
Montana is a pretty red state, and there is unlikely to be strong support for the sort of changes that would be compelled by this decision establishing a vague right to a healthy environment. Unlike a woke state like Massachusetts, where there would be political support for pretending to implement the decision, I suspect that there will be pushback from the citizenry and politicians in Montana. That means the issue is going to be framed and debated somewhere there is a real chance of getting the skeptical side out, rather than a place where the debate stage will be loaded with climate activists.
I’m betting we hear about a push to amend the state constitution in 3… 2…1…
Anyone paying attention is aware that climate has always changed and always will. The mistake is blaming it on carbon dioxide (burning fossil fuels). The irony is that the preponderance of evidence, some of which is documented in Sect 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com shows that CO2 has no significant net effect on climate.
The measured increase in water vapor (WV) has contributed some warming to natural climate change. About half of the WV increase is from human activity. More than half of the human contribution to WV is from increasing irrigation. The human contribution to WV will slow and possibly prevent a future devastating glaciation.
The WV increase can account for all of the human contribution to average global temperature increase since before 1900. Supporting analyses are at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com and documents referenced therein.
So does this judgement provide a legal precedent that establishes that defined localities (in this case the STATE of Montana) have their own climates?
In other words, there is not just ONE identifiable climate that operates everywhere around the world, but rather each sovereign locality can lay claim to a distinct climate that pertains particularly to their locality.
I agree with this approach.
And if this is the case now, does it also hold that there is a responsibility on plaintiffs bringing cases of liability for damage to their climate to firstly define the particular characteristics of the climate in question, and precisely how it has become damaged, and the extent of loss & damage pertaining to the plaintiffs.
I forgot to also ask –
can plaintiffs be awarded relief for loss / damage / injury through negligence or actions of defendants for events that MIGHT or COULD happen, but haven’t be shown to have ACTUALLY HAPPENED and caused material harm?
I would think that they would have no standing if they can’t demonstrate personal harm.
Clearly, the plaintiffs would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that they have suffered loss or damage resulting from sea level rise without the coastline touching state borders.
That point really shows how ludicrous the absence of anything resembling logic in this ruling. There is no quantifiable harm here. The whole purpose is to try and spank the legislature’s fingers for passing a law that disregards “climate change TM” in doing project paperwork like EIS’s and other malarkey. With their reasoning any project of any kind that moves a shovel full of dirt could be challenged using the plaintiff logic. You could just as easily sue a wind project over life cycle costs being worse and viewshed pollution (which they very much do cause). Even courts in progtopian nightmares like California haven’t gone this bat poo crazy. It’s pretty embarrassing as one who resides here. We could replace UM Law with the figurative Cracker Jack box and get better results.
The plaintiffs did not win the original law suit with facts the State lost by not presenting facts, stipulating to the consensus “science” then showing the state couldn’t control the climate. The state never even called Professor Curry to testify even though they had hired her to prepare for it. The judge in the original case rightly ruled on the case as presented so this Supreme Court case’s only hope for correcting the ruling was amicus briefs that tried to get climate science facts introduced. We failed in getting the Supreme’s attention. The Held case never defined climate or climate change. Every plaintiff witness including all their experts referred to “climate events” like rain storms and forest fires and were never called on it. All of the plaintiffs claimed damage from things like smoke or high water with no quantification or foundation. None of that was challenged. This was a stark lesson in how not to argue a climate lawsuit.
Truly a disappointment and embarrassing.
Yep, Bob, but not as harmful as the endangerment finding in favor of EPA v Mass, et al.
That ruling will only be solved by changing the EPA charter or another “Scopes Trial”.
Sad, and only those of us here or the same ilk and the Bush lawyers that thot the Co2 argument by ignorant state lawyers would even have a fighting chance to prevail. Even Judge Ruth commented that they should not be ruling on science hypothesis, but the legal aspects of the case.
Gums sends…
“Montanans are the ones who will bear the brunt of this decision. By invalidating the state’s limitations on greenhouse gas reviews, the court has made energy projects more vulnerable to costly delays and frivolous litigation. This will likely lead to higher energy costs and reduced economic opportunities, particularly in rural communities that rely on resource development.”
So, it seems someone could sue wind and solar projects by stating that the cradle to grave CO2 and other GHGs of wind turbines and PVCs cause measurable harm to the environment. Include the mining in other countries of the minerals and metals needed…
It would be helpful to know what the decision actually said.
Why would some nincompoop give David a down-vote for stating the obvious?
https://dailymontanan.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Opinion-Published.pdf
Lots of junk science
“… this ruling opens the door for courts to micromanage natural resource[s] …”
That door has been open for a long time. Courts already micromanage salmon, wolves, grizzly bears, owls, ducks, mice, squirrels, and frogs to name just a few. Totally inept and ignorant judges with zero expertise make absurd and baseless rulings all the time. Those judges are bought and paid for by enviro-plaintiffs from the eco-industrial complex. Now freshly monetized by the exiting Biden regime, expect more of the same only more so.
If this helps turn MT redder and realist and sensible, it’s okay.
Is it not true that Montana’s constitution has an amendment stating that is citizens have a right to a stable climate? What that means is, as best, poorly defined and is mostly completely undefined, but the court only ruled in favor of what the state constitution specifically demands: that legislation and regulation must take that constitutionally guaranteed right into consideration, at the very least in regard to any action that might impact that right.
The court’s ruling does not specify what might or might not impact that right. Since no one can positively prove what might or might not have such an impact, essentially any legislation or rule making must make a consideration on the issue. That does not say the legislature or bureaucracy must reach any predetermined conclusion.
The court’s decision has nothing to do with what happens outside the state borders. It could result in some specific conclusions by state officials about what actions seem very unlikely to be relevant; conclusions very much on the skeptical side of some issues based on available research.
…citizen’s right to a stable climate….how has this legislation affected say Mountain St. Helens and the pending Yellowstone super volcano so far ?
For those of us who live in the US Northwest — I live in the Middle of Nowhere, southeastern Washington State — the issue involves a possible acceleration in the process of closing Montana’s remaining coal-fired power plants; the possible forced closure of the state’s coal mines which feed those power plants; and the possibility that future exploitation of that part of Bakken Formation located in eastern Montana might be slowed or even halted.
The court’s decision is here:
https://dailymontanan.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Opinion-Published.pdf
An analysis of the decision is here at the Daily Montanan:
https://dailymontanan.com/2024/12/18/montana-supreme-court-affirms-decision-in-held-historic-youth-climate-case/
Friends who live in Missoula expect that review and approval of environmental permits for coal mines and for coal and gas-fired power plants located within the state will be slowed or even denied, and that once a precedent is set for these denials, the scope of climate activist pressure against approval of other kinds of environmental permits will expand.
It actually would be good if they try. A lot of this activity is on federal acreage and Indian reservations and then federal courts will be involved. Interstate commerce, etc. Colstrip is a dead man walking, it’s worn out and not worth putting more money into. But gas is relevant and I believe the Crow export some of their coal.
I guess I’ll have to drop Montana from my list of places to visit or live. Others should do the same.
That’s moronic. Most people here do not agree with the court decision. On the other hand we get too many tourists already so never mind.
even in montana the lawyers suffer from ivy disease
The ignorance of these six judges is simply appalling.
The Montana state AG’s legal strategy offered nothing to counter the plaintiff’s arguments; i.e., the AG’s staff included no specific counter-arguments to the plaintiff’s claims. See my expanded comment here.
Judges are not scientists. It is doubtful that they understand the science behind climate and weather. Matters pertaining to science should NEVER be decided by the adjudication nor legislation.
the fight against climate change
What are the criteria established that must be met for that fight to be won?
“safe and stable climate”
What is the definition of a safe climate? How do we prevent tornadoes, as an example? For that matter, lightning, meteoroids, wild animals, crop and livestock disease, and the list goes on. Furthermore, a reduction of the standards of life will occur with this nonsense making these kids less safe in an unsafe world.
The climate will never be stable. Weather is the earth energy system trying to achieve equilibrium, but given the variability of energy inputs, it can never be accomplished.
Lacking basic legal definitions to the terminology employed, it is impossible to measure if the future meets those definitions.
So, now does the State of Montana have an obligation to do an environmental impact assessment of people living in the State? People exhale CO2 and emit methane.
Are they going to mandate scrubbers and neutralizers everyone has to wear 24/7?
The Montana Supreme Court accepted the plaintiff’s arguments that: (1) climate warming is caused by anthropogenic carbon emissions; (2) this warming is causing significant damage to the environment; and (3) Montana’s leadership in showing how its emissions can be reduced is useful in convincing the larger body of carbon emitters worldwide to reduce their own CO2 emissions.
The state AG offered no arguments or evidence to counter these three major points. His staff was completely silent on these issues, making it easy for the court to cite the plaintiff’s arguments in their majority opinion.
If the state AG had included Judith Curry’s testimony in its lower court arguments, and had the state AG countered the claims of the plaintiffs in the areas of alleged environmental damage and of the supposed effectiveness of Montana’s leadership influence within the larger political sphere of world carbon reduction, then at the very least a body of countering aguments would be on the public record, arguments which the Montana Supreme court would have been obliged to consider.
Montana’s coal-fired power plants have reached the end of their useful lives. The logical path forward is to replace those coal plants with modern high efficiency coal-fired technology.
But unless the incoming Trump administration intervenes, what will happen instead is that Washington’s and Oregon’s plans to cover the states of Montana and Wyoming with wind turbines and solar panels, building new transmission capacity through Idaho to feed power to the coastal populations, these plans will go forward without effective opposition.
“…that this constitutional right extends to a “stable climate system.”
Yes, it is a Montana State Constitutional right. How many other state constitutions have this ‘right’ enumerated?