Wild, Important Climate Change Court Ruling From Montana, Of All Places

A successful climate lawsuit in Montana has legal experts
expecting more litigation to enforce climate change policies.

 Here's a new one. A good one, actually. From ultra-conservative Montana!

Here's the story, from the Washington Post:  

"In the first ruling of its kind nationwide, a Montana state court decided Monday in favor of young people who alleged the state violated their rights to a 'clean and healthful environment' by promoting the use of fossil fuels.

The court determined that a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act has harmed the state's environment and the young plaintiffs by preventing Montana from considering the climate impacts of energy projects. The provision is accordingly unconstitutional, the court said. 

The sweeping win, one of the strongest decisions on climate change ever issued by a court, could energize the environmental movement and usher in a wave of cases aimed at advancing action on climate change, experts say."

The case involved 16 Montanan youths, ages five to 22.  It was the first constitutional and first youth-led climate lawsuit to go to trial, says WaPo. 

Youth-led climate lawsuits have really become a thing around the world, but it's been hard to get one of these off the ground in the United States.  Fourteen such  cases have been dismissed in the U.S., WaPo reports. 

Of course, this isn't the end of the Montana case.   It will be appealed to the state Supreme Court.  A spokesperson for the Montana Attorney General said the ruling was "absurd"  and Montanans can't be blamed for causing climate change. 

It's absolutely true that Montana contributed an exceedingly small share to climate change.  This case alone will not "solve" climate change. But Montana does contribute a tiny bit to our altered climate. After all, Montana is a major coal producer and has a lot of coal in the ground yet that can be mined or otherwise recovered for use as a fossil fuel. 

Rikki Held, whose name is on the lawsuit said, "I know that climate change is a global issue, but Montana has to take responsibility for our part in that."

This case does have a better chance than others because of the Montana Constitution. That constitution has the phrase that the state's residents have a right to that "clean and healthful environment."

Youths who brought the suit hammered at that wording in their litigation and testimony. A 15-year old with asthma described being a prisoner in  her own home home when wildfire smoke blanketed the state. (Does that sound familiar? Seems wildfire smoke has been a problem everywhere these days, including here in "clean" Vermont).

The practical effect of the Montana ruling involves a law that blocks the state from considering emissions and climate change when considering whether to approve energy projects. That type of law applies in a number of conservative oil, gas and coal producing states. 

You'd better believe Montana Republicans and the state's petroleum and coal industry will be fighting hard for an appeal to this court ruling.  An industry spokesperson told the Washington Post that it will be hard to approve coal and oil projects and those approved would be subject to time-consuming and costly litigation. 

 "'If this decision stands, it will cause great economic harm to the state of Montana," said Alan Olson, the executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association.'"

Still, it's definitely possible the Montana Supreme Court will uphold the ruling, despite the appeals and opposition from the fossil fuel industry.

According to the Montana Free Press/Flathead Beacon: 

"Speculating about what the Montana Supreme Court might do on appeal, retired Supreme Court Justice  Jim Nelson called the case a 'slam dunk home run' and said he expects the state's highest court will have a difficult time overturning the decision.

'I think this is one of the most powerful decisions I've ever read on the environment in Montana,' said Nelson, who said on the state Supreme Court for nearly two decades."

Even though other states don't have the "clean and healthful environment" language in their constitutions, the Montana case will probably open the door to other climate lawsuits in other states. Lawyers and activists are surely combing state laws and constitutions nationwide to support their causes. 

This opens yet another front in the battle for real climate change action.  Some of it is coming from just the free market that so many Republicans tout. After all, companies that promote and create means of renewable energy are making money hand over fist, and hiring, in large part because the demand is there. 

Some local and state governments, and to an extent federal agencies are beginning to take climate change more seriously, as voters are increasingly demanding it. At least in some corners of the nation and world. 

And for those that are clinging to the fossil fuel past, expect more litigation like this.