Hey, look, finally a win for a group suing over ‘climate change’, which is pretty much backed by lots of big astroturfed groups
Judge sides with young activists in first-of-its-kind climate change trial in Montana
A Montana judge on Monday 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 following a 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.
So, she pretty much made it up in order to give the kiddies a win
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.
They’ll get right on that in about 20 years. Maybe they’ll pass a few laws that restrict youts from using fossil fuels. They can do away with school buses, end the use of fossil fuels and such to heat schools.
Emily Flower, spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, decried the ruling as “absurd” and said the office planned to appeal. She criticized Seeley for allowing the plaintiffs to put on what Flower called a “taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.”
“Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate,” Flower said in an email. “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.”
They did
But Seeley said the state’s attorneys failed to give a compelling reason for why they were not evaluating greenhouse gas impacts. She rejected the notion that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are insignificant and noted that renewable power is “technically feasible and economically beneficial,” citing testimony from the trial indicating Montana could replace 80% of existing fossil fuel energy by 2030.
In all the articles and testimony I’ve seen, the state attorneys failed to ask some questions like “how did you kids get to the courthouse? Have you given up your own use of fossil fuels? Do you live in tiny homes? Given up meat? How many articles of clothing, jewelry, and tech products are on you that were made with petroleum?” Perhaps they could ask the judge the same questions.