I’m really hoping that the lawyers for the state of Montana ask the youts what they’ve done in their own lives to reduce their own carbon footprints. Do they take fossil fueled travel in autos? Buses? Do they have FF ATVs to head out for recreation? How much time do they spend on-line, burning up lots of electricity?
Youth go to trial in a test of state’s obligation to protect Montana residents from warming
Youth plaintiffs said warming temperatures were harming their health and threatening their futures as a closely-watched climate trial kicked off Monday in Montana. But a lawyer for the fossil fuel-friendly state argued its emissions were “minuscule” on a global scale and that eliminating them would have little impact.
The case over state government obligations to protect people against worsening climate change is the first of dozens of similar lawsuits to reach trial. It’s scheduled to last two weeks.
The 16 young plaintiffs — supported by a parade of climate experts — are trying to persuade state District Judge Kathy Seeley that Montana’s allegiance to fossil fuel development endangers their health and livelihoods and those of future generations.
Plaintiffs attorney Roger Sullivan said in opening arguments that his clients and their families already were suffering health problems and economic losses as climate change dries up rivers and worsens wildfires. He said Montana has a obligation to protect residents from climate change under its unusually protective state constitution.
Here’s the thing: they’re going to have to prove it. They’re going to have to have facts, not scaremongering. They’ll have to prove that their health is suffering and it is due to the use of fossil fuels by Mankind which have cause a whopping 1.5F increase in global temperatures since 1850.
Experts say the case in state court could set legal precedent but isn’t likely to make immediate changes to policy in fossil fuel-friendly Montana.
Environmentalists have called the bench trial a turning point because similar suits in nearly every state have already been dismissed. A favorable decision could add to a handful of rulings globally that have declared governments have a duty to protect citizens from climate change.
Neither the US nor Montana Constitutions say anything of the sort. There is not duty to protect from a slight increase in temperatures, even if it was caused my Mankind. What will the climate cultists say if they lose the case?
The plaintiffs and their attorneys were cheered by supporters as they arrived outside the courthouse on Monday. Inside, Seeley’s small courtroom was packed with observers and members of the media.
How did the plaintiffs and attorneys arrive? Bus? Or, fossil fueled vehicles? One thing
One reason the case may have made it so far in Montana is the state’s constitutional requirement that government “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment.” Only a few states, including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have similar environmental protections in their constitutions.
Which is about actual environmental issues. ‘Climate change’ is not.
The case was brought in 2020 by attorneys for the environmental group Our Children’s Trust, which since 2010 has filed climate lawsuits in every state on behalf of youth plaintiffs. Many cases — including a previous one in Montana — have been dismissed.
In other words, it’s purely astroturfed, and plaintiffs are as young as 5. Does anyone think a 5 year knows what the hell is going on?