Current:Home > ContactYoung environmentalists won a landmark climate change ruling in Montana. Will it change anything? -Wealth Nexus Pro
Young environmentalists won a landmark climate change ruling in Montana. Will it change anything?
Oliver James Montgomery View
Date:2025-04-10 16:18:48
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Young environmental activists prevailed in a closely watched Montana lawsuit that said state officials weren’t doing enough to protect them from climate change.
Legal observers called it a landmark victory for the 16 plaintiffs: It marks the first time a court in the U.S. has declared that a government has a constitutional duty to protect people from climate change.
Here’s what to know about Monday’s potentially groundbreaking ruling that followed a first-of-its-kind trial earlier this summer:
WHAT DID THE RULING SAY?
State District Judge District Judge Kathy Seeley said officials violated Montana’s highly protective constitution by refusing to consider the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions when they’ve approved coal mines, oil drilling and new power plants.
Attorneys for Montana argued the state’s emissions were too small to make much difference in climate change.
Seeley rejected the argument, saying essentially that every ton of greenhouse gas counts toward global warming and each ton makes the plaintiff’s lives worse as wildfires in Montana get worse and streams dry up from drought.
The judge also said the state can do something about it — deny permits for fossil fuel projects if their approval would result in “unconstitutional levels of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions.”
Montana has some of the world’s largest coal reserves.
“Montana’s land contains a significant quantity of fossil fuels yet to be extracted,” Seeley wrote. “The State and its agents could consider GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and climate impacts and reject projects that would lead to unreasonable degradation of Montana’s environment.”
SO WHAT DO THE YOUNG ACTIVISTS GET OUT OF THEIR VICTORY?
Seeley’s opinion was carefully crafted to avoid wading too deeply into policy matters that are considered the function of other branches of government and not the courts.
“It doesn’t try to set up the court to set climate policy for Montana, which is something that a lot of courts have balked at — the idea that on their own they can figure out how much climate mitigation should be done,” said David Dana, a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law specializing in environmental law.
The ruling applies only in Montana — one of few states with a constitution to explicitly protect environmental rights. The state’s Republican attorney general already has promised an appeal.
If it stands, Montana officials no longer will be able legally to ignore the huge contributions to global warming made by fossil fuels. Whether they do anything about those emissions is another question.
The federal government, for example, has for more than a decade analyzed greenhouse gas emissions from major oil, gas and coal projects — oftentimes under court order. Yet Democratic and Republican administrations alike have continued to approve drilling and mining projects.
That seems likely to happen in Montana especially for the immediate future. Republicans hold a supermajority in the Legislature and have been strong advocates for more drilling and mining.
Notwithstanding that political reality, one of the young plaintiffs, Clare Vlases, 20, of Bozeman, said she believed Seeley’s decision will serve as a check on the other branches of government that are promoting fossil fuels.
“I know my Montana lawmakers respect the constitution and they respect our governmental processes,” Vlases said. “With that respect comes the responsibility to listen to this decision.”
WHAT ARE THE BROADER LEGAL IMPLICATIONS?
Never before has a U.S. court weighed in to say that a constitutional right to a healthy environment “includes climate as part of the environmental life-support system.”
That makes the ruling a landmark in climate litigation, said Sandra Zellmer, a professor of natural resources and environmental law at the University of Montana Blewett School of Law.
It could have even greater impact if it is upheld by the Montana Supreme Court, bolstering its impact as a legal precedent that could be cited in cases across the U.S. and even nationally, Zellmer said.
Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts have constitutions with environmental protections similar to Montana’s.
WHAT OTHER CASES LIKE THIS ARE OUT THERE?
There have been few comparable court decisions on climate change internationally, including a 2019 ruling from the Netherlands’ top cour t in favor of activists who for years sought legal orders to force the Dutch government into cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In the U.S., the environmental law firm that brought the Montana case — Oregon-based Our Children’s Trust — has filed climate change lawsuits in every state, with most of those unsuccessful. Its victory in Montana came a decade after the state’s Supreme Court denied an earlier climate change case from the firm.
Two lawsuits from Our Children’s Trust are inching toward trial.
In Hawaii, a state judge set a trial next summer in a lawsuit that says the state is violating plaintiffs’ rights by operating a transportation system that produces large amounts of greenhouse gasses.
And in Oregon, a federal judge ruled in June that climate activists can proceed to trial years after they first filed a lawsuit that seeks to hold the nation’s leadership accountable for its role in climate change. A date has not yet been set. A previous trial in the case was scuttled by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts days before it was to begin in 2018.
veryGood! (6965)
Related
- Where will Elmo go? HBO moves away from 'Sesame Street'
- Boston College vs. Denver Frozen Four championship game time, TV channel, streaming info
- Messi scores goal, has assist. Game tied 2-2: Sporting KC vs. Inter Miami live updates
- Texas’ diversity, equity and inclusion ban has led to more than 100 job cuts at state universities
- Romantasy reigns on spicy BookTok: Recommendations from the internet’s favorite genre
- DNC paid $1.7 million to Biden's lawyers in special counsel probe
- Authorities say 4 people are dead after a train collided with a pickup in rural Idaho
- China-Taiwan tension brings troops, missiles and anxiety to Japan's paradise island of Ishigaki
- Stamford Road collision sends motorcyclist flying; driver arrested
- Lenny Kravitz works out in leather pants: See why he's 'one of the last true rockstars'
Ranking
- Will the 'Yellowstone' finale be the last episode? What we know about Season 6, spinoffs
- What the Stars of Bravo's NYC Prep Are Up to Now
- Maine lawmakers reject bill for lawsuits against gunmakers and advance others after mass shooting
- Jury visits a ranch near US-Mexico border where an Arizona man is charged with killing a migrant
- John Galliano out at Maison Margiela, capping year of fashion designer musical chairs
- Far fewer young Americans now want to study in China, something both countries are trying to fix
- 2024 Masters tee times for final round Sunday: When does Scottie Scheffler, Tiger Woods tee off?
- Visitors are seen on camera damaging rock formations at a Nevada recreation site
Recommendation
House passes bill to add 66 new federal judgeships, but prospects murky after Biden veto threat
Masters purse reaches new high: Here's how much money the 2024 winner will get
JoJo Siwa Addresses Claim She “Stole” Her New Song “Karma” From Miley Cyrus and Brit Smith
When does NBA play-in tournament start? Games could feature Lakers, Warriors, Heat
Rolling Loud 2024: Lineup, how to stream the world's largest hip hop music festival
Maine lawmakers reject bill for lawsuits against gunmakers and advance others after mass shooting
Tennessee governor signs bill requiring local officers to aid US immigration authorities
World's Oldest Conjoined Twins Lori and George Schappell Dead at 62