Montana loses fight against youth climate activists in landmark ruling

Gotta start somewhere. I hope this contributes to some more momentum in the right direction, both legally and in the zeitgeist more broadly.<p>Was also surprised to read that Montana emits as much ghg’s as Ireland.

I figured the legislature prohibited considering greenhouse gas emissions in a roundabout way, but nope... From the law itself (emphasis mine):<p>&gt; (2) (a) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b), an environmental review conducted pursuant to subsection (1) <i>may not include an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state&#x27;s borders.</i><p>Context: Subsection (1) just defines the general what and why of an environmental impact statement. Subsection (2)(b) gives only two exceptions: If the project is being done jointly with a federal agency and the federal agency requires it, or if congress amends the Clean Air Act to define carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant.<p>Source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;leg.mt.gov&#x2F;bills&#x2F;2023&#x2F;billpdf&#x2F;HB0971.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;leg.mt.gov&#x2F;bills&#x2F;2023&#x2F;billpdf&#x2F;HB0971.pdf</a>

From the article:<p>This prohibition, 16 plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 successfully argued, violates their constitutional right to a &quot;clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.&quot;<p>1. I wonder if there are other activities that could be banned outright for violating Montanans constitutional right to &quot;clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.&quot;<p>2. I also wonder if there are activities and goods that Montana is compelled to legalize using this same constitutional right.

The article says “as a result, statutes prohibiting climate impact analysis and remedies are now invalid and permanently enjoined”.<p>Page 6 of the ruling says that in March this year — three years after the suit was filed — the laws in question were repealed by the governor. Two weeks later Montana tried to have the case dismissed for “mootness”.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;westernlaw.org&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2023&#x2F;08&#x2F;2023.08.14-Held-v.-Montana-victory-order.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;westernlaw.org&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2023&#x2F;08&#x2F;2023.08.14...</a><p>I’d like to hear more about that.<p>Was the state was trying to unilaterally settle — and avoid a public trial — by saying “fine then, we’ll undo the law if you hate it so much, happy now?” and attempting to storm off in a sulk, only to be dragged out of their room and back into court?

See also<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37126780">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37126780</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37123755">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37123755</a>

&gt; <i>This prohibition, 16 plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 successfully argued</i><p>A 5 year old being used in a lawsuit? Really?

The reason they&#x27;re having success in Montana is because Montana&#x27;s constitution says &quot;The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations&quot;<p>It would be nice if we could amend the US constitution with something similar.

I want to know wyat this constitutional right to &quot;clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations&quot; is. Is it a state constitution thing? The article told us nothing about the case.

&gt; “Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate—even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that our state has no impact on the global climate,&quot; Flower said.<p>That Flower person just doesn&#x27;t have a clue.