A group of young plaintiffs has achieved historic success in Montana: the US state violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to a “clean and healthy environment,” Judge Kathy Seeley ruled. She declared a state law unconstitutional, according to which authorities do not have to consider the effects of greenhouse gases when examining permit applications for oil and gas projects. The decision in the “Held v. Montana” case has a great signal effect, writes about the New York Timesand could favor similar trials across the country.
16 people between the ages of five and 22 had complained. They accuse the state in the western United States of having been harmed by the “dangerous effects of fossil fuels and the climate crisis”. Children are “particularly vulnerable” to the worsening effects. Lead plaintiff provided an example during the trial: Rikki Held, whose family runs a ranch in Montana, described how wildfires, extreme temperatures and drought are making farm work increasingly difficult. Burnt power cables led to long power outages, cattle starved to death for lack of grass, and water ran out. The livelihood and well-being of her family are threatened.
Montana has long been a major coal and gas producing state, and gets about one-third of its energy from burning coal. The ruling now means the state must consider climate change when deciding whether to approve or renew fossil fuel projects.
The plaintiffs did not seek financial compensation, but a declaration that their rights had been violated. Because in the state constitution, the residents are guaranteed the “right to a clean and healthy environment”.
However, the state argued that even if Montana stopped producing any pollutants, it would have no impact on the global climate. A spokeswoman for Attorney General Austin Knudsen called the judge’s decision absurd and said she would appeal.