A recent Montana District Court ruling is making waves for climate change with a new generation of environmentalists at the forefront.
The ruling came down Aug. 14 after weeks of deliberation in favor of the young environmental activists. These activists claimed the state was violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment through the effect of fossil fuels.
The lawsuit was made by a group of 16 plaintiffs, ranging from 5 years old to 22. According to NPR, this group of Generation Z members presented climate science during the two-week trial, citing the strain on their mental and physical health as a result of wildfire smoke and droughts.
Native Americans also testified on behalf of the plaintiffs that these issues impacted ceremonies and typical food sources as well.
The state tried to fight these claims, arguing Montana’s impact was not more significant to other states and countries on a global scale. If Montana were to stop producing CO2, it would not be a solution. District Court Judge Kathy Seeley disagreed with this logic pointing to the science brought forward by the plaintiffs.
Previous to the trial, the state tried to motion the district court to throw out the case. As reported by the Flathead Beacon, the Montana Supreme Court denied a request by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen to dismiss Held v. Montana a week before the trial was set to start in June.
Montana’s state legislature will now have to determine how to enact policy in response to this case. NPR reports that change may not be immediate in a fossil fuel-friendly house with a majority of Republican representatives. The office also plans to appeal the decision.
The biggest takeaway from this case is actually the new precedent it may set. Other climate change cases can be made and passed henceforth. Other activists can now see a framework and use it to push their own cases through. Furthermore, the court system has shown it believes in climate science and may rule in favor of those with climate change concerns.
This ruling doesn’t completely clear the walkway. A climate change case passed in a traditionally Republican state, but it could be an uphill battle to do the same in other states, as these states saw why Montana failed to win the case. Future states can learn from these mistakes.
Additionally, the policies made by Montana and future states may not totally eliminate fossil fuels; but rather limit them. Part of the case hinged on Montana's Environmental Policy Act, where Seeley found a provision regarding climate change being violated by the state. Future projects which use fossil fuels may try to find climate change loopholes so a case like this can’t happen again.
I look forward to seeing what policies are going to be enacted in Montana and how far the case will take the state toward limiting the use of fossil fuels. I’m also watching to see what other cases may follow in fossil fuel-heavy states, the top producing states to watch being Texas, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Louisiana and West Virginia.
Claire Schiopota is a senior studying journalism. Please note that the opinions expressed in this column do not reflect those of The Post. Want Claire to cover a certain topic or talk about her column? Email her at cs123719@ohio.edu or tweet her @CSchiopota.
