In what is being hailed as a landmark victory for environmentalists, Montana State District Judge Kathy Seeley ruled that Montana officials violated Montana’s highly protective constitution by refusing to consider the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions when they’ve approved coal mines, oil drilling, and new power plants.

Essentially, a group of young environmental activists used Montana’s State Constitution, which guarantees that residents have “the right to a clean and healthful environment,” to force the State to consider climate change when dealing with fossil fuel-related projects having an environmental impact.

Procedural difficulties…

The court erred in granting general standing to the young activists without the legal necessity of proving specific individual damage. You do not obtain standing because you are a resident and don’t like a particular law that might theoretically damage you. In granting general standing the Court accepted that:

• “Olivia expressed despair due to climate change.”

• “Badge is anxious when he thinks about the future that he, and his potential children, will inherit.”

• “Grace … is anxious about climate change.”

• “Mica gets frustrated when he is required to stay indoors during the summer because of wildfire smoke.”

This is clearly a political issue that should be determined by a legislative process.

And the court cannot adequately determine the science when scientists themselves cannot directly measure the influence of anthropogenic global warming on a chaotic climate system with natural variability or generally agree about its impacts.

According to renowned climate expert Dr. Judith Curry, a leading climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology …

This report responds to the Plaintiffs’ claims that:

• the release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel emissions into the atmosphere is already triggering a host of adverse consequences in Montana;

• the threats posed by fossil fuels and the climate crisis are existential;

• Montana’s energy system should transition to a portfolio of 100% renewable energy by 2050.

My report provides evidence that supports the following conclusions:

• The climate-related concerns observed by the Plaintiffs are well within the range of historical natural weather and climate variability, with worse occurrences of weather and climate extremes observed during the early 20th century.

• Plaintiffs’ concerns about climate change in the 21st century are greatly exaggerated, and not consistent with the most recent assessment reports and research publications.

• In 2021, Montana ranked 10th among U.S. states in terms of the share of electricity generated from renewables, about 52%. There are significant problems with a portfolio of 100% renewable energy for Montana by 2050.

• Emissions from fossil fuels generated in Montana provide a miniscule contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and do not influence directly Montana’s weather and climate. <Source>

Montana plans to appeal…

The Montana attorney general’s office said the state would appeal, sending the case to the state Supreme Court.

“This ruling is absurd, but not surprising from a judge who let the plaintiffs’ attorneys put on a weeklong taxpayer-funded publicity stunt that was supposed to be a trial,” Emily Flower, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, Austin Knudsen, said in a statement. “Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate.”

"This “same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.” <Source>

Bottom line…

Does anyone really believe if Montana allows oil drilling, it will have a catastrophic effect on the climate and may kill or injure Montana’s children? More than the pollution in Beijing is killing Chinese children.

It is absurd to believe that a Court and attorney-advocates can be the arbiters of science, especially science they cannot possibly understand.

In commenting on the case, the progressive communist democrat media propagandists at the AP reported, “The ruling following a first-of-its-kind trial in the U.S.” and “adds to a small number of legal decisions around the world that have established a government duty to protect citizens from climate change.”

Huh? Where in the U.S. Constitution does it claim that the federal government has a duty to protect its citizens from climate change? Melting glaciers? El Niño or La Niña? Hot summers or cold winters? Hurricanes?  Scientists know that ENSO (El Niño–Southern Oscillation) has a significant effect on the weather but can't explain or forecast its occurrences.

We are so screwed by the communist environmental de-growth movement and its attempt to cripple the U.S. economy as a precursor to destroying the United States.

-- Steve