Via Unsplash.com
By The Vanguard Staff
HELENA, MO – In a trial starting Monday, 16 young plaintiffs, in a “first trial of its kind,” according to The Associated Press, hope to “set a precedent” by calling out “state officials for pursuing oil, gas and coal development in hopes of sending a powerful message to other states.”
AP said 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.”
The plaintiffs, aged five to 22, will try to prove how young people are harmed by climate change now and in the future, detailing “how wildfire smoke, heat and drought have harmed residents’ physical and mental health,” said AP, which notes “experts say the case likely won’t lead to immediate policy changes in fossil fuel-friendly Montana.”
Lawyers for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, tried repeatedly to get the case thrown out over procedural issues, said the AP, but 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,” said the AP, adding only a few states, including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have similar environmental protections in their constitutions.
While, added the AP, State District 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,” but could issues a “declaratory judgment” stating 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, dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon.
He told the AP, “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.”
Economist Terry Anderson, a witness for the state, said that over the past two decades, carbon dioxide emissions from Montana have declined, said the AP story.
“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.
The AP noted the case was started in 2020 by 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,” reported the AP.
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 had been halted by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on the eve of the trial in 2018.
AP said, 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, telling the AP, “It will change the future of the planet if courts start declaring the conduct of government unconstitutional.”
“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,” reported the AP.
“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,” said the AP.
“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,” noting “It really pushes the boundaries of what courts are capable of and effective at addressing.”
