Imagine waging a legal battle for the environment—not as a seasoned lawyer, but as a young, fiery activist. That is just what is going on in Montana, where young environmentalists find themselves on the front lines of what may end up being one of the most important legal cases ever seen. A lawsuit in question challenges the approach by the state toward approving projects for fossil fuels and their impacts on climate. What’s going on, why it matters, and what could happen next.
First off, some of the basics: A lower court in Montana last year made a huge decision: that state regulators have to consider global warming emissions when they OK projects for oil, gas, and coal. It was a big win for the young plaintiffs bringing the case, saying their futures were in play with climate change. They were indicating how, already, worsening wildfires and drought are impacting their lives in major ways.
But ultimately, to make a real punch landing, this ruling needs to be upheld in the Montana Supreme Court. Firstly, because a higher court decision will establish stronger precedent and might influence other states’ cases on climate—like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York, that already have constitutional rights enshrined in a healthy environment.
But Montana Republicans are fighting back hard, demanding that state Supreme Court justices reverse this ruling. “The District Court gave the plaintiffs their show trial last June,” said Chase Scheuer, press secretary for state Attorney General Austin Knudsen. “It is now time for the State Supreme Court to do its job and overturn the flawed decision that followed.”
What are the real core arguments here? One side, the state, makes the argument that the sum total of greenhouse gases from Montana’s fossil fuel projects is infinitesimally small compared with global fossil fuel emissions and that any reduction in those would make no difference for climate change. But as a countering argument, they also forwarded another—that the case had never reached trial because the young plaintiffs could not meet the threshold of harm, the legal standing to challenge the restrictions on climate-impact considerations.
On the other side, environmental activists and the young plaintiffs say every little bit matters. They said the activists explained that though Montana’s emissions may seem tiny, they are projects that together comprise an international concern. “The state needs to start evaluating the individual projects,” says Derf Johnson from the Montana Environmental Information Center. “It’s where the rubber hits the road”.
It’s the most recent in an international wave of young people suing governments for their futures. In Hawaii, youth climate activists just settled a lawsuit forcing their state to decarbonize its transportation sector within 21 years. In a landmark judgment, the European Court of Human Rights said countries need to do far more to protect people from the effects of climate change, as it ruled in favor of a group of older Swiss women against their government.
Already in Montana, the case is prompting some changes. State regulators, for the first time last month, began considering climate-changing greenhouse gases in some instances. For the first time last month, state regulators began reviewing proposals with greenhouse gas emissions in mind, which, according to environmentalists, were still superficial and did not account for the massive damages caused by climatic change.
Legal volleying sharp District Court Judge Kathy Seeley, whose disclosure revealed the preliminary ruling, said it’s left up to the Montana Legislature how policies will be brought into compliance. That means quick changes are not likely in a state that still touts its pro-fossil fuel reputation.
To Montana’s young people, it is personal. They explained how climate change is affecting their everyday lives—from issues with air quality caused by wildfires to reduced snowpack and drought affecting rivers and wildlife. It is not just an issue of the environment; it is an issue of the very basic human right to be safe and healthy in the future.
Looking ahead, the Montana Supreme Court will either kiss or kill that lower court ruling. This won’t affect Montana alone but might set a ripple effect influencing future climate litigations across the United States. “The bottom line is whatever the state Supreme Court decides, it’s more likely to be important than the trial court ruling,” said David Driesen, a professor at Syracuse University and expert in the area of environmental law.
Meanwhile, the case draws briefs in support from nearly all corners. Briefs have been filed on behalf of plaintiffs by hundreds of people and businesses, including Native American tribes, health experts, and outdoor recreation businesses. On the other side, lining up behind state efforts to have the ruling overturned are Republican legislative leaders, oil and gas interests, and other industry groups.
At the epicenter of this judicial fight, with its outcome still so uncertain, one thing is for sure: it will turn out to be a central turn in Montana’s, and quite probably beyond, climate policy. What is at stake?basically, what the young plaintiffs are waiting for with a Supreme Court determination—underscores what spearheaded a global youth movement to act against the worst impacts of climate change. It may just be that this case sets the precedent by which climate issues are dealt with for years to come.
