Montana is now hosting a groundbreaking trial in which sixteen young people are seeking to hold state authorities accountable for their climate change inaction. The teenage plaintiffs are hoping that this case would force the state to rethink its pro-fossil fuel policies.
A lawyer for the young plaintiffs from the nonprofit Our Children’s Trust, Roger Sullivan, reportedly listed the costs and effects of Montana’s fossil fuel-friendly policies in his opening statement. He claimed that these policies also violate the state constitution’s guarantee of a right to a “clean and healthy environment.”
The trial, which is scheduled to last two weeks, will be presided over by District Judge Kathy Seeley, who the 16 young plaintiffs and their attorneys will attempt to persuade that the state policies that are allegedly in favor of fossil fuels not only endanger their health and way of life but also threaten future generations.
The term wildfire lawsuit refers to legal actions taken against entities, such as utility companies or individuals, for their alleged role in causing or contributing to wildfires through negligence or misconduct. These lawsuits typically seek compensation for damages to property, loss of life, or environmental destruction caused by wildfires, highlighting the growing accountability and legal implications associated with wildfire prevention and management.
The Montana lawsuit revolves around the state’s constitutional right to a “clean and healthy environment
The lawsuit revolves around the state’s constitutional right to a “clean and healthy environment,” In keeping with this, Sullivan added that Montana’s continued approval of polluting fuels like coal and gas is a major factor in the development of a worldwide problem that includes “heat, drought, wildfires, air pollution, violent storms, loss of wildlife, and watching glaciers melt.”
The plaintiffs’ attorney continued to make the case that the young people he represents are disproportionately experiencing psychological and physical harm as a result of these effects. Speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs, Sullivan claimed that they felt a sense of “betrayal,” with some expressing hesitation to have their own children out of concern for the society they would raise them in.
He further asserted that the state had adopted a disastrous energy policy that resulted in the annual emission of 166 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is comparable to the emissions of Argentina, the Netherlands, or Pakistan.
Landmark youth climate trial in Montana: What are the claims?
Grace Gibson-Snyder, a Montana resident and one of the plaintiffs, claimed in court that the smoke from wildfires which have worsened due to climate change and became a “defining experience” of her playing soccer in high school.
She described how the haze that frequently enveloped her hometown of Missoula prevented soccer training from taking place and kept her asthmatic teammates off the field. The 19-year-old was quoted as saying, “It’s not pleasant,” by The Associated Press. She said, “It’s so uncomfortable as you’re breathing deeper and deeper.”
The 22-year-old lead plaintiff Rikki Held also discussed how the weather on her family’s ranch in eastern Montana has changed as a result of climate change. Speaking on the flames in 2021, Held noted that droughts have left “skinny cows and dead cattle” while wildfires make ash fall from the sky
She claimed that wildfires in her village had destroyed over 70 miles (113 kilometers) of electricity lines, resulting in a month-long power outage and suffocating the air “all summer.” Additionally, the tragedy led to widespread evacuations and had an effect on the family’s motel operation.
However, she remains optimistic. “We have the technology and knowledge, we just need empathy and willingness to do the right thing,” said Held. Notably, the trial is expected to see testimonies from all but the four youngest plaintiffs.
When the complaint was filed, the youngest plaintiff was just two years old. Five-year-old Nathaniel K. lives in Montana with his parents, who claim that he has lung problems and that wildfires, which are becoming more frequent as a result of climate change, are a threat to his health.
According to Michael Russell, an assistant attorney general for Montana, the state emits “minuscule” amounts of pollutants, and the plaintiffs’ claims of harm cannot be linked to specific state officials’ acts.
“Climate change is a global issue that effectively relegates Montana’s role to that of a spectator,” said Russell. He also said the trial “will hear lots of emotion, lots of assumptions, accusations… and notably fear about what the future may hold, including sweeping and dramatic assertions of doom that awaits us all,” but the reality is “far more boring” than what the youth have claimed.
Russell claims that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are declining and that the plaintiffs are not contesting any laws that, if found to be unconstitutional, would materially alter the state’s climate change impact.
The Montana Environmental Policy Act contains the constitutional clause at the center of the dispute; according to Russell, this “procedural” statute requires environmental reviews of all significant projects in the state but does not specify the results that must be achieved.
Plaintiffs in the case Held v. Montana ranged in age from 2 to 18, when it was first filed in 2020
The historic trial that started on Monday is being closely followed because it might establish a legal standard for cases involving climate change. Despite the fact that juvenile plaintiffs have filed other constitutional climate claims across the US, this is the first one to go to trial.
Plaintiffs in the case Held v. Montana ranged in age from 2 to 18, when it was first filed in 2020. It finally went on trail three years later. According to their attorneys, the case aims to establish that the state’s actions violate their rights and hopes to create a legal precedent that will incentivize lawmakers to act to combat climate change.
According to the lawsuit, the government’s “systemic authorization, permitting, encouragement and facilitation” of the use of fossil fuels is causing the climate issue to worsen. The US state, meantime, has repeatedly attempted to stall or dismiss the case, claiming that it is “meritless” and a publicity ploy intended to “shut down responsible energy development in our state.”
The state had additionally maintained that political action, rather than legal action, would be the best way to resolve the problem. It should be noted that plaintiffs had initially requested an injunction that would have required the state to create a remedial plan or policies to reduce emissions; however, Judge Seely rejected their request in 2021.
The US state’s environmental law exception for climate change, according to Judge Seeley, is in violation of the state’s constitution, but she cannot direct the legislature on how to fix the problem. So instead of asking for money, the plaintiffs are now asking for a statement that their rights are being violated.