\n
![](\"https:\/\/static.scientificamerican.com\/sciam\/cache\/file\/2B8C11C0-7DEE-42E2-B295818D302CBF89_source.jpg\")
<\/p>\n [ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
CLIMATEWIRE |<\/strong>\u00a0A landmark court decision that Montana is violating its youngest residents\u2019 rights to a clean and healthful climate could have legal repercussions well beyond the Treasure State.<\/p>\n Judge Kathy Seeley of the 1st Judicial District Court in Montana\u00a0found Monday that youth in the state<\/a>\u00a0have a \u201cfundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes climate\u201d as she struck down two laws that bar state agencies from considering the climate effects of fossil fuel projects.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is what climate justice in the courts, and protecting the constitutional rights of our childrens\u2019 right to a safe climate, looks like,\u201d said Nate Bellinger, senior staff attorney with Our Children\u2019s Trust, the Oregon-based law firm that represented the 16 young Montanans.<\/p>\n The ruling is a major victory for the\u00a016 young people<\/a>\u00a0behind the first U.S. youth-led climate trial. And it could help provide momentum for a burgeoning raft of climate litigation, including what is likely to be the\u00a0second-ever kids\u2019 climate case<\/a>\u00a0next year in Hawaii.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause of their unique vulnerabilities, their stages of development as youth, and their average longevity on the planet in the future, plaintiffs face lifelong hardships resulting from climate change,\u201d Seeley wrote, siding with youth witnesses who testified that children are more susceptible to climate-induced physical and psychological harms than adults.<\/p>\n Those findings are likely to be raised in the youth-led Hawaii lawsuit, set to open in June 2024, nearly a year to the day since Seeley began hearing the Montana case. Youth plaintiffs in the Hawaii case argue that the state’s transportation system allows for high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, in violation of the young people’s constitutional rights.<\/p>\n Though Seeley declared\u00a0two recent Montana laws<\/a>\u00a0unconstitutional, the immediate effect of\u00a0Held v. Montana<\/em>\u00a0in the Republican-controlled state is unclear.<\/p>\n Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen\u2019s office said it will appeal what it called an \u201cabsurd\u201d ruling.<\/p>\n \u201cMontanans can\u2019t be blamed for changing the climate \u2014 even the plaintiffs\u2019 expert witnesses agreed that our state has no impact on the global climate,\u201d said Knudsen spokesperson Emily Flower.<\/p>\n Flower noted that other judges have rejected climate lawsuits, adding \u201cit 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Our Children\u2019s Trust\u2019s highest-profile case,\u00a0Juliana v. United States<\/em>, was featured last year in a Netflix documentary.<\/p>\n Legal experts described the ruling as a landmark decision \u2014 one that could influence policy and litigation elsewhere around the country.<\/p>\n \u201cI think this is the strongest decision on climate change ever issued by any court,\u201d Michael Gerrard, faculty director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, which tracks climate litigation across the globe, said on X, formerly known as Twitter.<\/p>\n In addition to finding that the young people have a right to a stable climate, Gerrard noted, Seeley found that fossil fuel use is the principal cause of climate change and that alternative fuels can provide an economically sustainable substitute.<\/p>\n The Montana ruling represents the first time a court has found that a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment includes the right to a safe climate, said Maya van Rossum, an attorney who leads the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and works to enact environmental provisions in state constitutions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe oil and gas industry, and their friends in Montana’s government, are now on notice that the people of Montana have the higher power of the constitution to help them ensure protection of their climate,\u201d van Rossum said.<\/p>\n Montana and two other states \u2014 Pennsylvania and New York \u2014 affirm the right to a clean environment in their constitutions, and van Rossum said the ruling will help other states that are considering similar provisions.<\/p>\n \u201cCreating an affirmative duty to ensure environmental rights are protected is an important legal recognition that strengthens the ability of government to address climate change,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Seeley\u2019s ruling is largely a procedural victory, said Patrick Parenteau, a law professor emeritus at Vermont Law and Graduate School. Last August, Seeley rejected a request from the youth that she order the state to develop a remedial plan to tackle climate change, saying she did not have the authority.<\/p>\n But in her decision, Seeley expressed optimism that the ruling would \u201cinfluence the state’s conduct\u201d by invalidating the state laws that prevent climate analysis, Parenteau added.<\/p>\n And if the decision is upheld by the Montana Supreme Court, he said, it will be a \u201clandmark in U.S. climate litigation.\u201d<\/p>\n The ruling suggests a potent role for the judiciary, just as an array of lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry are poised to go to trial in state courts from Hoboken to Honolulu. More than a dozen cities, counties and states are suing major oil giants for their contributions to climate change.<\/p>\n \u201cThe case in Montana is a clear sign that seeking climate justice through the courts is a viable and powerful strategy,\u201d said Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which provides scientific evidence for climate litigation cases. \u201cWhether it\u2019s governments, fossil fuel companies or industry trade groups \u2014 holding polluters and their enablers accountable is a critical piece of meaningful climate action.\u201d<\/p>\n Merner added that the case is a \u201cclear win for climate science.” Seeley\u2019s 103-page decision delves deeply into the science, including a graphic of the \u201cKeeling Curve,” Charles Keeling’s eponymous curve that shows a long-term trend of rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.<\/p>\n Her ruling followed a full week of testimony in her Helena courtroom by a parade of experts who testified on behalf of the youth about the effects of climate change on Montana\u2019s iconic glaciers and trout streams.<\/p>\n Seeley wrote that she found the scientific witnesses who testified for the youth \u201cinformative and credible.\u201d And she said there is \u201coverwhelming scientific consensus that Earth is warming as a direct result of human [greenhouse gas] emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.\u201d<\/p>\n Attorneys for the state, which presented only one outside witness, downplayed Montana\u2019s contribution to climate change, saying it is a global problem and the state can\u2019t do much to prevent it.<\/p>\n But Seeley rejected that argument, finding that the state\u2019s greenhouse gas contributions are not minimal, but \u201cnationally and globally significant.\u201d She added that Montana’s emissions \u201ccause and contribute to climate change and plaintiffs’ injuries and reduce the opportunity to alleviate plaintiffs’ injuries.\u201d<\/p>\n Until greenhouse gases are reduced, she wrote, \u201cextreme weather events and other climactic events such as droughts and heatwaves will occur more frequently and in greater magnitude, and plaintiffs will be unable to live clean and healthy lives in Montana.\u201d<\/p>\n Marco Simons, general counsel of EarthRights International, which represents Colorado communities suing the oil and gas industry, said it was \u201cespecially important\u201d that Seeley found that the youth had the standing to challenge state laws and policies because they are being harmed by climate change.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court’s ruling fully recognizes the reality of climate change,\u201d he said, calling it a significant victory for climate litigation.<\/p>\n In Montana, the\u00a0young people who testified in the case<\/a>\u00a0or sat on wooden benches in the courtroom watching the seven-day trial, celebrated Seeley\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n \u201cThis ruling, this case, it is truly historic. We are heard!\u201d said Kian Tanner, who testified that the state\u2019s increasingly hot summers and more frequent wildfires were interfering with where he feels \u201cmost at home\u201d \u2014 the soccer pitch.<\/p>\n \u201cFrankly the elation and joy in my heart is overwhelming in the best way,\u201d said Tanner, who was 14 in 2020 when the lawsuit was filed. \u201cWe set the precedent not only for the United States, but for the world.\u201d<\/p>\n The youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement, which tweeted support for the 16 young activists behind the climate case during the trial, said Monday that the victory proves that \u201cGen Z is a powerful force in the fight against the climate crisis and we won\u2019t be stopped.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cMark my words: from courthouses to statehouses to the ballot box in 2024, our generation is taking over,\u201d said Varshini Prakash, the group\u2019s executive director.<\/p>\n