Global warming can’t be ignored, Montana’s top court says, upholding landmark climate case

EvilEyeFleegle

Dogpatch USA
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 2, 2017
16,986
10,026
1,280
Twin Falls Idaho
Montana leading the climate change fight??
Not what most would expect, unless they know Montana--a state that always goes its own way--and pays little attention to the national culture wars rhetoric:


Montana’s Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a landmark climate ruling that said the state was violating residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by permitting oil, gas and coal projects without regard for global warming.
The justices, in a 6-1 ruling, rejected the state’s argument that greenhouse gases released from Montana fossil fuel projects are minuscule on a global scale and reducing them would have no effect on climate change, likening it to asking: “If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?”

The plaintiffs can enforce their environmental rights “without requiring everyone else to stop jumping off bridges or adding fuel to the fire,” Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority. “Otherwise the right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless.”

Only a few other states, including Hawaii, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have similar environmental protections enshrined in their constitutions.

The lawsuit filed in 2020 by 16 Montanans —who are now ages 7 to 23 — was considered a breakthrough in attempts by young environmentalists and their attorneys to use the courts to leverage action on climate change.


The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a district court ruling in the nation’s first constitutional climate change trial , affirming that the youth plaintiffs have a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment” while revoking two Montana statutes.

The 70-page decision, authored by Chief Justice Mike McGrath, comes 16 months after Lewis and Clark District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in the landmark Held v. Montana lawsuit, explicitly stating that the state’s greenhouse gas emissions are “proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment, and harm and injury to the youth plaintiffs.” Seeley’s decision also rolled back two laws enacted by the 2023 legislature that changed the Montana Environmental Policy Act.

The state immediately appealed the decision to the Montana Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the appeal in July. The court found in a 6-to-1 decision that Montana’s constitutional guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment” includes a stable climate system, “which is clearly within the object and true principles of the Framers inclusion of the right.”

“Plaintiffs showed at trial—without dispute—that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future,” the order states. “Plaintiffs showed that climate change does impact the clear, unpolluted air of the Bob Marshall wilderness; it does impact the availability of clear water and clear air in the Bull Mountains; and it does exacerbate the wildfire stench in Missoula, along with the rest of the State.”
 
Just reading between the lines and making some assumptions. Reads to me the courts found an excuse to not allow energy companies to simply come in and make a mess like they have in other areas.

I doubt the court cares that much about "climate change" but they do care about protecting Montana from the mess many energy producers make.
 
Just reading between the lines and making some assumptions. Reads to me the courts found an excuse to not allow energy companies to simply come in and make a mess like they have in other areas.

I doubt the court cares that much about "climate change" but they do care about protecting Montana from the mess many energy producers make.
..and that, in and of itself, is a victory for the people~

I do believe that the court made it clear that it did recognize climate change and the dangers it holds for the people of Montana.

From the link:

“Plaintiffs showed at trial—without dispute—that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future,” the order states. “Plaintiffs showed that climate change does impact the clear, unpolluted air of the Bob Marshall wilderness; it does impact the availability of clear water and clear air in the Bull Mountains; and it does exacerbate the wildfire stench in Missoula, along with the rest of the State.”
 
I doubt the court cares that much about "climate change" but they do care about protecting Montana from the mess many energy producers make.
Apparently they do considering they rejected greenhouse gases on a small scale as an argument.
I didnt see anything about "messes" in the OP
 
Just reading between the lines and making some assumptions. Reads to me the courts found an excuse to not allow energy companies to simply come in and make a mess like they have in other areas.

I doubt the court cares that much about "climate change" but they do care about protecting Montana from the mess many energy producers make.
Yeah, that's what I'm seeing too.
They may not really believe that, but they can use it as an excuse to spare those peoples' land.
 
Apparently they do considering they rejected greenhouse gases on a small scale as an argument.
I didnt see anything about "messes" in the OP

It doesn't take a new article for one to understand what they do.
 
Apparently, the court can't comprehend the preposterousness of the notion that "climate change" can be mitigated (presuming the junk science to be valid) by a State that comprises a tiny fraction of the world.

NotPossible.jpg
 
Apparently, the court can't comprehend the preposterousness of the notion that "climate change" can be mitigated (presuming the junk science to be valid) by a State that comprises a tiny fraction of the world.

View attachment 1055584
The justices, in a 6-1 ruling, rejected the state’s argument that greenhouse gases released from Montana fossil fuel projects are minuscule on a global scale and reducing them would have no effect on climate change, likening it to asking: “If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?”

The plaintiffs can enforce their environmental rights “without requiring everyone else to stop jumping off bridges or adding fuel to the fire,” Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote for the majority. “Otherwise the right to a clean and healthful environment is meaningless.”
It would appear that mitigation was not the issue?
 
..and that, in and of itself, is a victory for the people~

I do believe that the court made it clear that it did recognize climate change and the dangers it holds for the people of Montana.

From the link:

“Plaintiffs showed at trial—without dispute—that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future,” the order states. “Plaintiffs showed that climate change does impact the clear, unpolluted air of the Bob Marshall wilderness; it does impact the availability of clear water and clear air in the Bull Mountains; and it does exacerbate the wildfire stench in Missoula, along with the rest of the State.”

So is Montana now going to shut off every fossil fuel power station, and confiscate every ICE vehicle?

This ruling is complete virtue signaling bullshit.

Are the plaintiffs living in huts and operating under subsistence farming?
 
If it isn't, then what's the point of the case?
Just spitballing here..but--the rights of the people of the State of Montana?

I don't think that the court believes for a minute that this ruling will mitigate anything..it does seem to believe that the People of the State have the right to limit the actions of those who operate within its borders.

I do find it interesting that the wording of the ruling makes it clear that the court seems to believe that climate change is settled science.
 
Just spitballing here..but--the rights of the people of the State of Montana?

I don't think that the court believes for a minute that this ruling will mitigate anything..it does seem to believe that the People of the State have the right to limit the actions of those who operate within its borders.

I do find it interesting that the wording of the ruling makes it clear that the court seems to believe that climate change is settled science.
What "rights"?
 
So is Montana now going to shut off every fossil fuel power station, and confiscate every ICE vehicle?

This ruling is complete virtue signaling bullshit.

Are the plaintiffs living in huts and operating under subsistence farming?
No, probably not~

The thought of Montana 'virtue signaling' does amuse me...it's not really their style~
 
Just spitballing here..but--the rights of the people of the State of Montana?

I don't think that the court believes for a minute that this ruling will mitigate anything..it does seem to believe that the People of the State have the right to limit the actions of those who operate within its borders.

I do find it interesting that the wording of the ruling makes it clear that the court seems to believe that climate change is settled science.

"settled"

Like the pool of used up nerve clusters sitting in the bottom of your skull you call a "brain"
 

Forum List

Back
Top