3Comments
In a landmark trial, a Montana court has ruled in favor of a group of young activists who have accused the state of violating their right to a clean and healthy environment. Ending the trial a few days early, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley said a state law that allows fossil fuel projects to be developed without any regard for climate impacts is unconstitutional.
The game-changing case, the first of its kind in US history, has been watched closely as it could boost other litigations filed across the country and influence how other judges handle such cases in other states.
The 16 plaintiffs – aged five to 22 – cited a law passed in 2011 which made it illegal for environmental reviews to assess the damage caused by greenhouse gases when issuing permits for new projects like building power plants. This, they argued, went against a clause in the state constitution that guarantees all Montanans the right to a safe environment.
Originally added to the constitution five decades ago, the clause states that "the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Over the course of the two-month trial, the plaintiffs argued that the state’s approach to fossil fuels had harmed their physical and emotional health.
"Plaintiffs have proven that as children and youth, they are disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts," wrote Judge Seeley in her final report. "By prohibiting analysis of GHG0 (greenhouse gas) emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate… the MEPA (Montana Environmental Policy Act) Limitation violates Youth Plaintiffs' right to a clean and healthful environment and is unconstitutional on its face," she added.
The 16 young activists were represented by the nonprofit Our Children's Trust. Commenting on the victory in a statement, executive director Julia Olson said: "As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today's ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation's efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos,"
In response, a spokesperson for the Montana attorney general Austin Knudsen called the ruling “absurd” and confirmed that the state would appeal. “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," said Emily Flower.
According to BBC News, Montana holds around a third of the country's recoverable coal reserves and the ruling has been met with strong opposition from those who rely on the coal industry for a living. If the court’s decision is upheld, the state may be forced to consider climate impacts when issuing future permits for fossil fuel projects.
Many of those who reject the ruling say it isn’t fair for Montana to restrict its emissions when the rest of the world continues to churn out greenhouse gases. However, it is hoped that this decision will set a precedent for other similar cases around the world, triggering a wave of victories for those trying to hold their local authorities to account for their climate policies.
