Held vs Montana and What We Should Learn

Held vs Montana, the first of its kind is a trial that has recently concluded in Helena, Montana. What is this exactly? It was a trial that took place in Montana, with the plaintiffs alleging state constitutional right violations.    This is the first major climate trial in US history. 16 youth ranging in age from 5-22 filed a lawsuit against the State of Montana. The Montana State Constitution explicitly states that the state of Montana has a duty to provide a” clean and healthful environment”. The plaintiffs alleged that the State of Montana had not done so through policies that favored fossil fuels and further contributed to Climate Change, a phenomenon that is causing the Earth to warm rapidly because of various greenhouse gasses. These policies ranged from Montana in 2011, prohibiting consideration of Climate Change in permitting energy permits,  withdrawing from the Western Climate Initiative, and banning state agencies from taking Climate Change into consideration when approving large projects.Climate Change affects everyone but the plaintiffs, throughout the trial,  testified to the effects they personally have had to deal with. These effects ranged from raging wildfires to melting snowpack, to asthma being worsened to not being able to do certain extracurricular activities such as running. 

Throughout the trial, not only did the plaintiffs themselves testify,  but several experts testified as well. One expert, Peter Erickson, a researcher at the Stockholm Research Institute states that “Montana is the linchpin of the fossil fuel economy” . According to Erickson, Montana consumed as much energy as Ireland, a country in Europe who in size, is 32 times larger than Montana in terms of population. Jumping in, with this statistic,  Montana’s Assertion that they don’t contribute much to Climate Change is nothing apart from a smokescreen, designed to deflect blame from themselves. Yet this is what they and most Republican States pride themselves in doing: Deflecting blame and asking questions that don’t need to be asked.

Another expert, Dr. Lisa Van Susteren testified that there were large amounts of negative effects on the  mental health of young people because of Climate Change. She testified that the physical effects of Climate Change come with Climate Change. In her testimony, she asserted that “Being surrounded by wildfire can have mental health impacts. It tells you the world is not a safe place, you can’t go outside and breathe.” A study that Dr Van Sustern co-authored showed that 16 in 25 felt that humanity was doomed and 4 in 10 states they had concerns about having children of their own. The study also talked about institutional betrayal, showing data that they collected that showed 2/3s of the 10,000 youth they surveyed blamed the government. She testified that this ruling will have a big impact on the youth plaintiffs mental health, whether that is positive or negative. Jumping in here, I can personally say that I have mentally been impacted by Climate Change(More on that in the next article coming next week). It is a truly scary feeling to know that your life is about to be changed at the hands of Climate Change yet the government, who is supposed to be serving people like me, have just bowed down to the fossil fuel industry. 

The State started off by announcing that they would not call controversial climatologist Judith Curry, who had been the constant subject of rebuttal by witnesses for the Plaintiffs. The State called 1 expert, Terry Anderson. Anderson, a climate economist, was made to look silly by Phillip Gregory, the plaintiffs attorney, who cited multiple errors in his expert report. He questioned if an economist like Anderson, who has known ties to the Tobacco industry,  could be really considered an expert on greenhouse gas emissions. Another witness for the State, Chris Dorrington, the director of the Montana Department of Environmental quality, admitted he had no idea what the IPCC, the international scientific body that publishes authoritative reports on Climate Change. 

Why is this important? Because Climate Change is a huge problem and governments all across the United States, state and local, have not done enough to address it. Literal homes are collapsing like a deck of cards, Fires burn forests to a crisp with trees left stranded in lifeless forests , rivers are drying up at the rate of Usain Bolt on a track, and the future of countless generations left uncertain. Yet despite what is happening everywhere around us, what do the governments do? With a couple of exceptions, most State governments sit in their offices, handcuffed by the riches of fossil fuels and choose to ignore the problems at hand. When the going gets tough, most politicians sit back and collect the checks. 

Yet we can do something about that. The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution states that Congress shall not prohibit the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Petitioning, protesting, are all things people across the country are currently doing. Yet we can do something more. The separation of powers was created in order to prevent unchecked power. In order to do this, each branch of the US government:executive, judicial, and legislative, have checks and balances against each other. The most important one here, is that the judicial branch can declare actions by the executive and legislative branch unconstitutional. Courts all across the country have been doing just that for centuries. While slight variations of this principle may be slightly different across all 50 State constitutions, the core principle is the same. When a State Constitution states that the state has a duty to provide clean air and environment, courts should hold the State accountable to doing just that. When those States pander to fossil fuel companies and coal, they are not doing their constitutional duty.  We can take advantage of this and use it to our full advantage. Lawsuits cost money yet the costs of dealing with Climate Change in the future will be far bigger than 1 lawsuit now. We are feeling many effects of Climate Change today.  Imagine what the world will be like in 20 years. Our fight has just begun and we should not stop until we win. 

Authors Note: Several news articles and other blogs were used for factual information only. All opinions above are of the author’s. In order to preserve some form of writing integrity, here are all articles I used in Apa Format.

Kirk, K. (2023, June 26). The six big surprises in the Montana youth climate trial. Yale Climate Connections. Retrieved June 30, 2023, from https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/06/the-six-big-surprises-in-the-montana-youth-climate-trial/

Drew, M. (2023, June 20). State employees, economist testify for state as climate trial winds down. Retrieved June 30, 2023, from https://montanafreepress.org/2023/06/20/state-employees-economist-testify-for-state-as-climate-trial-winds-down/

Noor, D. (2023, June 20). Groundbreaking youth-led climate trial comes to an end in Montana. Guardian.com. Retrieved June 30, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/20/held-v-montana-climate-trial-youth-end

Clark, L. (n.d.). Young People in Historic Climate Trial Rest Their Case. Scientificamerican.com. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/young-people-in-historic-climate-trial-rest-their-case/?ref=upstract.com

Drugmand, D. (2023, June 23). MT Climate Trial Plaintiff: “Climate Change Has Impacted My Ability to Breathe”. Truthout.org. Retrieved June 30, 2023, from https://truthout.org/articles/mt-climate-trial-plaintiff-climate-change-has-impacted-my-ability-to-breathe/

Noor, D. (2023, June 12). Young Montana residents bring climate change case to court for first time ever. Retrieved June 30, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/12/montana-young-residents-first-ever-climate-change-trial