Young climate activists successfully sued Montana: A judge ruled that the state violated their right to a healthy environment. The judgment could have a signal effect for similar proceedings in the USA.
There has never been such a court judgment in the history of the USA. 16 young people between the ages of five and 22 had sued for their right to a clean environment and a judge in Montana agreed with them. District Judge Kathy Seely ruled that it is unconstitutional for agencies to fail to consider climate impacts when making decisions about oil or gas projects.
“Part of the reason I love Montana is that our constitution states that everyone has the right to a clean and healthy environment,” said Claire Vlasas, one of the young plaintiffs on PBS television.
In fact, Montana is one of the few US states that has enshrined the right to a clean environment in the constitution. The conservative state is very pro-fossil fuel.
accusation of profiteering
The environmental activists accused the state of children and young people being particularly affected by the harmful effects of burning fossil fuels. With the help of experts and reports, they tried to prove that global warming is a direct consequence of greenhouse gas emissions.
“It really scares me to see what’s close to my heart disappear before my eyes,” plaintiff Sariel Sandoval told CNN. She feels that the state puts profit before people’s welfare. “Even though they know full well that there is visible damage – to the country and the people. And that they find it more important to make money than to take care of the people of Montana.”
Another plaintiff, Rikki Held, whose family runs a ranch in Montana, testified during the trial that her family’s livelihoods and health are increasingly threatened by wildfires, extreme temperatures and drought.
Attorney General wants to appeal
How the judgment will affect the approval of oil and gas projects in the future is still uncertain. However, experts assume that the verdict could have a signal effect for similar proceedings in the USA.
Climate lawyer Michael Gerrard of Columbia University described the decision on NPR as a turning point. “It’s one of the most important climate change decisions ever made by a court,” he said.
It was only the second time that such a court case had taken place. Climate scientists were cross-examined on the witness stand. “And the court agreed with the plaintiffs on every point.”
There has been no response from the Montana Attorney General. His spokeswoman Emily Flowers called the verdict “absurd” in a statement and announced that she would appeal.