In a historic trial, a Montana court ruled in favor of youths accusing the state of violating their clean environment rights, though an appeal was expected. The landmark climate trial’s ruling deemed a state law barring greenhouse gas considerations for fossil fuel permits unconstitutional, a case watched for its potential to influence similar litigation nationwide.
In a landmark climate trial, a Montana court on Monday ruled in favor of a group of youths who accused the western US state of violating their rights to a clean environment.
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley said a state law preventing agencies from considering greenhouse gas impacts when issuing fossil fuel development permits was unconstitutional.
The case, Held v. State of Montana, brought by 16 plaintiffs ranging in age from five to 22, has been closely watched because it could bolster similar litigation that has been filed across the country.
“By prohibiting analysis of GHG0 (greenhouse gas) emissions and corresponding impacts on 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,” Seeley wrote.
“Today, for the first time in US history, a court ruled on the merits of a case that the government violated the constitutional rights of children through laws and actions that promote fossil fuels, ignore climate change, and disproportionately imperil young people,” Julia Olson, executive director of the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust said.
Emily Flower, spokeswoman for Montana attorney general Austin Knudsen, denounced the ruling and said 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,” she added.
At the heart of the case was a provision within fossil fuel-friendly Montana’s constitution that says: “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”
The youths said they had been harmed by the “dangerous impacts of fossil fuels and the climate crisis,” with children “uniquely vulnerable” to its worsening impacts.
The closely watched case was the first involving a constitutional claim against a state, and also represented a rare instance in which climate experts were questioned on the witness stand.
Miroslava Salazar, with AFP
