A judge ruled in favor of the youths who claimed that Montana’s use of fossil fuels contributed to the climate crisis and harmed their health.
The ‘monumental decision’ was based on The state’s policy on evaluating fossil fuel permit applications, which does not allow agencies to assess the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, was ruled unconstitutional.
The youngsters, between the ages of five and 22, were not looking for payment after a victory, but rather they wanted the defendants to ‘bring the state power system into constitutional conformity’.
Experts said the plaintiffs had the Montana constitution on their side, which likely helped with the ruling.
Article Nine reads: ‘The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment in Montana for present and future generations.’
A judge ruled in favor of the youths who claimed that Montana’s use of fossil fuels contributed to the climate crisis and harmed their health. The hearing lasted five days in June.
The trial took place in June, and the plaintiffs spent five days sharing stories about the injuries they claimed were caused by climate change and how their homes were negatively affected.
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley wrote in the ruling that “Montana’s emissions and climate change have been shown to be a substantial factor causing climate impacts on Montana’s environment and harm and injury” to youth.
Now the ruling is in the hands of the state Legislature, which has to determine how to enforce the policy.
That leaves little chance for immediate change in a fossil fuel-friendly state where Republicans dominate the state chamber.
Montana has the largest recoverable coal reserves in the country, more than 74 billion tons, close toJust a third of the US total, according to the MBMG Coal Program.
The state also ranks sixth in coal production, with around 30 million tons produced annually from 6 mines.
In 2022, coal generated 42 percent of electricity generation in the state of Montana, but the resource supplied more than half through 2016.
this compares with hydropower at 41 percent and wind power at 12 percent, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).
The youths, ranging in age from five to 22, were not seeking payoff after a victory, but wanted the defendants to “bring the state power system into constitutional compliance.” Pictured are the plaintiffs and their ages at the time of filing
Now the ruling is in the hands of the state Legislature, which has to determine how to enforce the policy. That leaves little chance for immediate change in a fossil fuel-friendly state where Republicans dominate the state chamber.
Pictured are several of the plaintiffs on June 12 in Montana, the first day of the hearing.
Some of the audience heard that the plaintiff’s attorneys assert that Montana has never denied a permit for a fossil fuel project, The Washington Post reports.
Judge Seeley heard from a 15-year-old plaintiff who has asthma.
He told the court how he felt ‘a prisoner in my own home’ when he isolated himself with COVID during intense smoke from the wildfires, which he said resulted from climate change.
Rikki Held, the 22-year-old plaintiff, has been outspoken about her family’s cattle ranch, which she says was also destroyed by the climate crisis.
Part of the audience heard lawyers for the plaintiff state that Montana has never denied a permit for a fossil fuel project.
Held said his family’s ranch relied on the nearby Powder River to grow crops and water cattle.
The river dried up in 2007 and then, in the spring of 2017, “abnormally high temperatures linked to the climate crisis caused the frozen river to rapidly melt and flood,” the lawsuit claims.
The state argued that even if Montana stopped producing carbon dioxide altogether, it would not affect it on a global scale because states and countries around the world contribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“I know climate change is a global problem, but Montana has to take responsibility for our part in it,” Held said during the hearing.
The lawsuit, filed in March 2020, described how children are more vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis, noting that it “harms their physical and psychological health and safety, interferes with family and cultural foundations and integrity, and causes deprivation.” economic”.
