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

DECEMBER 19, 2024:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana’s Supreme Court on Wednesday (Dec. 18, 2024) 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.

“This ruling is a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change,” lead plaintiff Rikki Held said in a statement Wednesday.

During the 2023 trial in state District Court, the young plaintiffs described how climate change profoundly affects their lives: worsening wildfires foul the air they breathe, while drought and decreased snowpack deplete rivers that sustain farming, fish, wildlife and recreation and affect Native traditions.

Going forward, Montana must “carefully assess the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel permits,” said Melissa Hornbein, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center and attorney for the plaintiffs.

Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte said the state was still reviewing the decision, but warned of “perpetual lawsuits that will waste taxpayer dollars and drive up energy bills for hardworking Montanans.”

“This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above approach to energy,” he said, which promotes using both fossil fuels and renewables.

A day earlier, Gianforte held meetings on how the state can increase energy production, which involved energy suppliers, large energy consumers, public utility companies, transmission stakeholders and legislators.

Incoming Senate President Matt Regier and House Speaker Brandon Ler, both Republicans, joined Gianforte in alleging the justices were overstepping their authority and had strayed into making policy.

“Judicial reform was already a top priority for Republican lawmakers,” Regier and Ler said, warning the justices to “buckle up.”

Montana courts have blocked or overturned numerous laws passed by Republicans in the 2021 and 2023 legislative sessions as being unconstitutional, including laws to limit access to abortion.

In seeking to overturn the District Court ruling, the state had argued the plaintiffs should be required to challenge individual fossil fuel development permits as they’re issued — which would have involved trying to challenge even smaller amounts of emissions.

Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate. June brought record warm global temperatures for the 13th straight month, according to European climate service Copernicus. The streak ended in July.

Montana’s Constitution requires agencies to “maintain and improve” a clean environment. A law signed by Gianforte last year said environmental reviews may not consider climate impacts unless the federal government makes carbon dioxide a regulated pollutant. The Montana Supreme Court’s ruling found that law to be unconstitutional.

AUGUST 14, 2023:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana judge on Monday (Aug. 14, 2023) sided with young environmental activists who said state agencies were violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by permitting fossil fuel development without considering its effect on the climate.

The ruling in the first-of-its- kind trial in the U.S. adds to a small number of legal decisions around the world that have established a government duty to protect citizens from climate change.

District Court Judge Kathy Seeley found the policy the state uses in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits — which does not allow agencies to evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions — is unconstitutional.

Judge Seeley wrote in the ruling that “Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury” to the youth.

However, it’s up to the state Legislature to determine how to bring the policy into compliance. That leaves slim chances for immediate change in a fossil fuel-friendly state where Republicans dominate the statehouse.

Julia Olson, an attorney representing the youth, released a statement calling the ruling a “huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate.”

“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,” said Olson, the executive director of Our Children’s Trust, an Oregon environmental group that has filed similar lawsuits in every state since 2011.

Emily Flower, spokeswoman for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, decried the ruling as “absurd,” criticized the judge and said the office planned to appeal.

“This ruling is absurd, but not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial,” Flower said. “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. Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.”

Attorneys for the 16 plaintiffs, ranging in age from 5 to 22, presented evidence during the two-week trial in June that increasing carbon dioxide emissions are driving hotter temperatures, more drought and wildfires and decreased snowpack. Those changes are harming the young people’s physical and mental health, according to experts brought in by the plaintiffs.

The state argued that even if Montana completely stopped producing C02, it would have no effect on a global scale because states and countries around the world contribute to the amount of C02 in the atmosphere.

A remedy has to offer relief, the state said, or it’s not a remedy at all.

JUNE 13, 2023:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Young people challenging Montana officials over their inaction on climate change are expected back in state court on Tuesday (June 13, 2023) in the ongoing trial over a lawsuit that environmentalists hope will spur changes in the fossil fuel-friendly state. State officials have sought to downplay Montana’s contributions to global warming and the significance of the lawsuit in state court. But it’s being closely watched for any legal precedents. The plaintiffs say warming temperatures are harming their health and threatening their futures. A state lawyer counters that sparsely populated Montana produces minuscule emissions and any climate harms alleged by the plaintiffs can’t be traced to specific official actions.

JUNE 12, 2023, UPDATE:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Youth plaintiffs say warming temperatures are harming their health and threatening their futures as a closely-watched climate trial kicks in Montana. But a lawyer for the fossil fuel-friendly state said in opening arguments on Monday (June 12, 2023) that Montana’s emissions were “miniscule” on a global scale and eliminating them would have little impact. The 16 young plaintiffs and their attorneys are trying to persuade a judge that the state’s allegiance to fossil fuel development endangers the young people’s health and livelihoods and those of future generations. Experts say the case in state court could set legal precedent but isn’t likely to make immediate changes to policy in fossil fuel-friendly Montana.

JUNE 12, 2023:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A first-of-its kind trial in Montana will decide if the constitutional right to a healthy, livable climate is protected by state law. Experts say a ruling against the state could set an important legal precedent but is unlikely to change policies in fossil fuel-friendly Montana. Two weeks of testimony starting Monday (June 12, 2023) will include 16 young plaintiffs hoping to call out state officials for promoting policies encouraging oil, gas and coal development while failing to curb planet-warming emissions. Experts for the state are expected to downplay climate change impacts and Montana’s contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions.

Extended version:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Whether a constitutional right to a healthy, livable climate is protected by state law is at the center of a lawsuit going to trial Monday (June 12, 2023) in Montana, where 16 young plaintiffs and their attorneys hope to set an important legal precedent.

It’s the first trial of its kind in the U.S., and legal scholars around the world are following its potential addition to the small number of rulings that have established a government duty to protect citizens from climate change.

The trial comes shortly after the state’s Republican-dominated Legislature passed measures favoring the fossil fuel industry by stifling local government efforts to encourage renewable energy while increasing the cost to challenge oil, gas and coal projects in court.

By enlisting plaintiffs ranging in age from 5 to 22, the environmental firm bringing the lawsuit is trying to highlight how young people are harmed by climate change now and will be further affected in the future. Their testimony will detail how wildfire smoke, heat and drought have harmed residents’ physical and mental health.

The plaintiffs’ youth has little direct bearing on the legal issues, and experts say the case likely won’t lead to immediate policy changes in fossil fuel-friendly Montana.

But over two weeks of testimony, attorneys for the plaintiffs plan to call out state officials for pursuing oil, gas and coal development in hopes of sending a powerful message to other states.

Plaintiff Grace Gibson-Snyder, 19, said she’s felt the impacts of the heating planet acutely as wildfires regularly shroud her hometown of Missoula in dangerous smoke and as water levels drop in area rivers.

“We’ve seen repeatedly over the last few years what the Montana state Legislature is choosing,” Gibson-Snyder said. “They are choosing fossil fuel development. They are choosing corporations over the needs of their citizens.”

In high school, Gibson-Snyder was an environmental activist who was too young to vote when she signed on as a plaintiff. The other young plaintiffs include members of Native American tribes, a ranching family dependent on reliable water supplies and people with health conditions, such as asthma, that put them at increased risk during wildfires.

Some plaintiffs and experts will point to farmers whose margins have been squeezed by drought and extreme weather events like last year’s destructive floods in Yellowstone National Park as further evidence that residents have been denied the clean environment guaranteed under Montana’s Constitution.

Experts for the state are expected to downplay the impacts of climate change and what one of them described as Montana’s “miniscule” contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions.

Lawyers for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, tried repeatedly to get the case thrown out over procedural issues. In a June 6 ruling, the state Supreme Court rejected the latest attempt to dismiss it, saying justices were not inclined to intervene just days before the start of a trial that has been “literally years in the making.”

One reason the case may have made it so far in Montana, when dozens of similar cases elsewhere have been rejected, is the state’s unusually protective 1972 Constitution, which requires officials to maintain a “clean and healthful environment.” Only a few other states, including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have similar environmental protections in their constitutions.

In prior rulings, State District Judge Judge Kathy Seeley significantly narrowed the scope of the case. Even if the plaintiffs prevail, Seeley has said she would not order officials to formulate a new approach to address climate change.

Instead, the judge could issue what’s called a “declaratory judgment” saying officials violated the state Constitution. That would set a new legal precedent of courts weighing in on cases typically left to the government’s legislative and executive branches, environmental law expert Jim Huffman said.

Still, such a ruling would have no direct impact on industry, said Huffman, dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon.

“A declaratory judgment would be a symbolic victory, but would not require any particular action by the state government. So the state could, and likely would, proceed as before,” he said.

Economist Terry Anderson, a witness for the state, said that over the past two decades, carbon dioxide emissions from Montana have declined, but that’s in part due to the shuttering of coal power plants.

“Montana energy or environmental policies have virtually no effect on global or local climate change because Montana’s GHG (greenhouse gas) contributions to the global total is trivial,” Anderson said in court documents.

He argued climate change could ultimately benefit Montana with longer growing seasons and the potential to produce more valuable crops.

Supporters of the lawsuit predicted an overflow crowd when the trial starts Monday in Helena. They rented a nearby theater to livestream the proceedings for those who can’t fit in the courtroom.

The case was brought in 2020 by attorneys for the environmental group Our Children’s Trust, which has filed climate lawsuits in every state on behalf of young plaintiffs since 2011. Most of those cases, including a previous one in Montana, were dismissed prior to trial.

A ruling in favor of the Montana plaintiffs could have ripple effects, according to Philip Gregory, Our Children’s Trust attorney. While it wouldn’t be binding outside Montana, it would give guidance to judges in other states, which could impact upcoming trials such as one in Hawaii, Gregory said.

Attempts to get a similar decision at the federal level were boosted by a June 1 ruling allowing a case brought by young climate activists in Oregon to proceed to trial in U.S. District Court. That case was halted by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on the eve of the trial in 2018.

From 2011 through 2021, Our Children’s Trust brought in contributions of more than $20 million, growing from four employees to a team of more than 40 attorneys and other workers and about 200 volunteers, according to tax filings and the group’s website.

Founder Julia Olson said securing the trials in Montana and Oregon marked a “huge step” forward for the group.

“It will change the future of the planet if courts will start declaring the conduct of government unconstitutional,” she said.

While Montana’s Constitution requires the state to “maintain and improve” a clean environment, the Montana Environmental Policy Act, originally passed in 1971 and amended several times since, requires state agencies to balance the environment with resource development.

Lawmakers revised the policy this year to say environmental reviews may not look at greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts unless the federal government makes carbon dioxide a regulated pollutant.

A key question for the trial will be how forcefully the state contests established science on human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, said Jonathan Adler, environmental law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. If the state doesn’t deny that science, the trial will deal with the question of whether courts can tell governments to address climate change.

“I’m skeptical about that,” Adler said. “It really pushes the boundaries of what courts are capable of and effective at addressing.”

To Gibson-Snyder, now a student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, the court system became the only avenue to make change as a 16-year-old.

Since then, “I’ve become maybe a bit disillusioned,” she said. “The question is not only can we create sustainable policy, it’s how can we dismantle the policy that’s actively harming Montana?”

MAY 12, 2023:

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Attorneys for a group of youths suing Montana over damages caused by climate change say officials repealed the state’s energy policy to avoid an upcoming trial. The plaintiffs want to use the trial scheduled to begin June 12 to highlight the dangers of fossil fuels. The two sides are due in court Friday (May 12, 2023) for arguments. An energy policy that was challenged by the lawsuit was repealed in March by the state Legislature. Attorneys for Montana’s attorney general want that part of the case dismissed. But the plaintiffs say their legal challenge remains valid because the Republican-dominated state continues to promote gas, coal and oil development.

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

Extended version:

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Current Weather