Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Earth United States

Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in Landmark Climate Decision (washingtonpost.com) 120

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
In the first ruling of its kind nationwide, a Montana state court decided Monday in favor of young people who alleged the state violated their right to a "clean and healthful environment" by promoting the use of fossil fuels. From a report: The court determined that a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act has harmed the state's environment and the young plaintiffs, by preventing Montana from considering the climate impacts of energy projects. The provision is accordingly unconstitutional, the court said. The win, experts say, could energize the environmental movement and reshape climate litigation across the country, ushering in a wave of cases aimed at advancing action on climate change. "People around the world are watching this case," said Michael Gerrard, the founder of Columbia's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

The ruling represents a rare victory for climate activists who have tried to use the courts to push back against government policies and industrial activities they say are harming the planet. In this case, it involved 16 young Montanans, ranging in age from 5 to 22, who brought the nation's first constitutional and first youth-led climate lawsuit to go to trial. Though the cumulative number of climate cases around the world has more than doubled in the last five years, youth-led lawsuits in the United States have faced an uphill battle. Already, at least 14 of these cases have been dismissed, according to a July report from the United Nations Environment Program and the Sabin Center. The report said about three-quarters of the approximately 2,200 ongoing or concluded cases were filed before courts in the United States. Experts said the Montana youth had an advantage in the state's constitution, which guarantees a right to a "clean and healthful environment." Coal is critical to the state's economy, and Montana is home to the largest recoverable coal reserves in the country. The plaintiff's attorneys say the state has never denied a permit for a fossil fuel project.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in Landmark Climate Decision More

Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in Landmark Climate Decision

Comments Filter:

  • Congrats to them. But they will be lucky if the appeals are over before they're dead of old age.

    And this is a minor nit but a 22 year old is not a "youth". They are an adult. A young adult yes but an adult, not a kid or a youth. The way the article blurs that line is poor writing.

    At 18 I filled out my draft forms. That didn't make me feel child-like at all.

    • Re:2 things.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by aergern ( 127031 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @01:14PM (#63766652)

      Considering it took 12 years to bring it to trial, you may want to research things before mansplaining and talking trash about folks. Just saying.

      • Re:2 things.... (Score:5, Funny)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @01:31PM (#63766724) Homepage Journal

        Considering it took 12 years to bring it to trial, you may want to research things before mansplaining and talking trash about folks. Just saying.

        How DARE YOU....assume his gender!!!

        ;)

      • Re:2 things.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by iAmWaySmarterThanYou ( 10095012 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @01:37PM (#63766740)

        So the 5 year old was negative up when they filed the suit?

        Ok.

        • So the 5 year old was negative up when they filed the suit?

          To paraphrase Laurie Anderson:

          Just a a Hershey bar - In his father's back pocket.

          (I'm guessing...)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Bob_Who ( 926234 )

            To paraphrase Laurie Anderson:

            Just a a Hershey bar - In his father's back pocket.

            I love that you quoted Laurie Anderson! Here's another favorite: "Language is a virus....from...another planet (in outer space)"

            • I love that you quoted Laurie Anderson!

              I had a friend who was really into her, for a number of reasons.
              We must have seen Home of the Brave [wikipedia.org] probably 20 times in theater, late at night, way back ...

      • Considering it took 12 years to bring it to trial

        I'm surprised the plaintiffs' opinions haven't changed after facing the realities of adulthood.

        Me as a kid, watching Captain Planet: "Those people wrecking the Earth are so evil!"

        Me as an adult: "I'd totally work for an oil company if they gave me a nice fat pay check. The rent isn't gonna pay itself."

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by taustin ( 171655 )

          I'm surprised the plaintiffs' opinions haven't changed after facing the realities of adulthood.

          What makes you believe they have faced the realities of adulthood? No 22 year old is making enough money to pay the legal fees on a 12 year lawsuit. They either have rich parents, or are just outright tools of people with an agenda that as nothing to do with the environment, or both (like Thunberg). In any event, they've lived their entire lives with silver spoons in their mouths, and will continue to do so as long as they're useful.

          SCOTUS will have something to say about this, and it won't be what they wan

          • Re:2 things.... (Score:4, Informative)

            by mikeebbbd ( 3690969 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @06:52PM (#63767610)

            SCOTUS should have little to say about it. The constitutional claims are based on the STATE constitution not Federal. Constitutional amendment election coming up in 3...2...1...

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by taustin ( 171655 )

              State constitutions cannot override the federal constitution.

              This won't be the first time that's relevant.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by dryeo ( 100693 )

                Luckily the Federal Constitution has amendments 9 & 10 to allow States to give more rights then outlined in the Federal Constitution

        • That is so terribly sad. That your morals were destroyed by something that is completely unnecessary. There is no need for rent. It is a parasites occupation. We need to rid society of these parasites that destroy the lives of others and do no useful work themselves. it is time to say no. We'll take our values and dignity back now, thank you very much. We need to purge these parasites. Then all this can end, and humanity can have a future.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          You might think differently if you were say 20 years old today. With another 60 years ahead of you on the planet, the fact that it's going to be in a pretty bad state for much of that time might concern you.

        • Me as a kid, watching Captain Planet: "Those people wrecking the Earth are so evil!"

          I read somewhere an interview with the show's creators that the bad guys weren't originally meant to be silly caricatures of villains but rather much more grounded people doing jobs with environmental harm as a side-effect. The studio was worried that it would turn kids against their parents who were quite likely to work in industries the show would deride and decry as evil. And I suspect once parents start hearing about this "terrible propaganda" turning kids against their parents it would have been shut d

      • According to the article, the youngest plaintiff was 5. If the suit took 12 years to come to trial are we to assume that the suit was brought before the youngest were born? Clearly, not all of the plaintiffs have been with the suit from the beginning. The original poster was correct in pointing out that 22-year-olds are not youths. How that makes any difference -- I don't know. In any case, making that point is not in any universe trash-talking. Let's all try to get along.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Bob_Who ( 926234 )
          Well, at least they pass the Turing test. No one wastes their time imparting wisdom to AI bots.

    • Re:2 things.... (Score:4, Funny)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @01:21PM (#63766682) Homepage

      iAmWaySmarterThanYou - "in the business of disproving my name, one slashdot post at a time"

    • Youth is not a term used to describe everyone under the age of 18 and nobody above it. That word is child. The definition of youth is relative and not explicitly defined the way child is. I think most people would absolutely consider a 22y/o to be a youth, but not a child.

      As a person in his 40s, I would estimate a person could be considered a youth in most cases until about age 25. Maybe later, it depends on the situation.

      • "Youth is not a term used to describe everyone under the age of 18 and nobody above it. That word is child"

        Q: what does an 80 year old woman call the now-60-year-old who once was born from her?
        A: her child

        HTH, HAND

    • Can you blame forced draft registration for my mistrust of government solutions to anything apart from funding a strong basic income without taxes?

    • Congrats to them. But they will be lucky if the appeals are over before they're dead of old age.

      State constitution, state court, so appeals should be limited. I haven't read the ruling yet https://westernlaw.org/wp-cont... [westernlaw.org] but from the reporting it seems pretty straight forward:

      The people of Montana have per the state constitution a right to a “clean and healthful environment.” permits are given which could affect that, but are barred by state law from considering such effects so the question goes back to the legislature to resolve.

      Montana is republican, so I'd guess they'll resolve that i

      • My assumption is the appeal will be on the vague definition of "clean and healthful environment" unless it's well defined somewhere because by those 4 words you can ban almost any business or other activity.

        I doubt Montana is going to ban all ICE vehicles or non-green power sources or stop building new housing or paving roads and so on which would be possible to ban by following the same logic as applied in this case.

        If it does stick then watch for the series of other suits to follow based on this one going

        • I'm sure that the people who wrote that provision knew exactly what they meant. It's a shame that they didn't tell us.
  • Let's hope they appeal.

    I'd be interested in just hearing what legal standing they had in the first place.

    I mean, feelings and all are nice, but what the hell legal standing did they actually have I wonder?

    • Opps....ok, after posting I just now read a part at the end of the synopsis that said something in the constitution mentioned guarantee to healthful life, etc...

      Well, still will be interesting watch this move through the court system.

      Sounds like Montana IS quite dependent upon coal....will be nice to see how they feel about all their pristine environment, when they have no jobs or money coming into the state.

      As they move towards adulthood, they'll then learn that life is all about compromises.

      • Re:Let's hope the appeal... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @01:24PM (#63766696) Homepage

        The plaintiff's attorneys say the state has never denied a permit for a fossil fuel project

        "life is all about compromises"

        sure seems like their lawsuit is that the fossil fuel industry there is living proof that that's some tired bullshit you got goin on there, cayenne8

      • It'll also be interesting to see Montana's neighbors when they don't get the coal to fire their power plants.

        I'd follow this up with an emergency injunction immediately banning the extraction, import, and export of fossil fuels and its use within the state. I mean, that's the goal, why wait?

        • What if you just paid ppl not to use coal, or move?

          • What if you just paid ppl not to use coal, or move?

            Who is paying? Or do we just fire up the printing presses and mint some more inflation?

            Most of the world's problems could be solved given infinite money to throw at the problem, but due to the pesky laws of economics, you can't just create money out of thin air without it devaluing the money that's presently in circulation. That leaves taking money from people who already have it, and good luck with that in a democracy if you want to win elections.

        • I live in Colorado, in an area that used to be coal country, Now, the mines are closed and sealed, but they're also seeping natural gas. Where there's enough of it, the mine's owners are collecting and selling it, and, as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's a much cleaner fuel than coal. Montana could probably be doing the same, while funding research into ways to use coal other than burning it.

      • Well, pretty much ANY other source of energy is better than coal. And Montana *IS* right next to the Dakotas, which are in the middle of a big natural gas boom. And while still not clean energy, NatGas is cleanER relative to coal. So one could easily argue that shitcanning the coal plants and switching to gas until nuclear or renewables can be brought online is the exact compromise you're talking about.

        • It's just unfortunate that Montana has little or no free land to build on so that wind and solar aren't options, and they're forced to encourage the use of natural gas.

          Fun fact, all that natural gas exploration is venting Helium off into space. Every single piece of computerized electronics you own requires He to work. We could find ourselves in a "ringworld" scenario where if our civilization falls we won't have the materials to rebuild it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          A quick search suggests that Montana has a lot of wind it could exploit: https://www.montana.edu/wind/d... [montana.edu]

          The data is a bit old, they are talking about 80m turbines, but even with those there is a huge amount of energy available there.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        I can see how a based on current data, and judge could find the state violated or at least is violating that constitutional provision.

        However, I think people will regret this. Information on what is healthy and clean changes a lot. - What is top someone loonie from sue the state EPA for failing to ban all plastics, because micro plastics cause cancer or whatnot?

        'healthful' is a pretty squishy standard. I see a lot of abuse ahead.

        • Re:Let's hope the appeal... (Score:5, Informative)

          by FauxReal ( 653820 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @03:48PM (#63767172)
          They had a very solid case in my opinion, though IANAL. There are two provisions in the Montana Energy Policy Act on their books that forbids the state of Montana or its agents from considering environmental impact of global warming or greenhouse gasses of fossil fuels among other things. It's an explicitly anti-environment provision that conflicts with the Montana constitution. I doubt any other red states are that blatant about their methods and your loony will still have the burden of proof against them. You can read the court's decision here: https://westernlaw.org/wp-cont... [westernlaw.org]

          • I'm sure plenty of other states are as blatant in their methods to promote fossil fuel development. However, the provision in the Montana constitution is unusual in its clarity among all states, even the bluer ones. Interesting.

            Then ... the Powder River Basin (biggest coal mining area in the US at the moment, I think) is in Wyoming (no problem there) and Montana. There's a Navajo corporation that runs a large coal mine in that area - not sure which state it's in. They just got a federal emergency order issu

      • Then Montana needs to amend their constitution to not guarantee a healthful life etc.. then they can reinstate the law that forbids the state or its agents from conducting studies that consider the impact of fossil fuels. https://westernlaw.org/wp-cont... [westernlaw.org]
    • As residents in the state, don't they have standing in constitutional matters? Also, as the article pointed out, a few claimed that climate change has impacted them personally.

    • Re:Let's hope the appeal... (Score:4, Informative)

      by The-Ixian ( 168184 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @01:22PM (#63766690)

      From what I understand, sometime in the '70s or '80s Montana amended their constitution to include a clause that enshrines the right to a clean environment.

      https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/C... [mt.gov]

      But the legislature of Montana carves out all kinds of special exceptions for coal since it is such a major industry there.

      Seems like it may be unconstitutional though...

      • Courts could bicker endlessly about what all those terms mean.

        Say there's a truck.
        It's a diesel truck.
        It's a dirty diesel truck, poorly maintained.
        It belches soot every time it starts and stops, partly due to being poorly maintained.
        The truck is owned by a small town.
        It's the garbage truck.
        Its job is to provide a service to keep trash off the land and into the landfill.

        So, is it promoting a clean environment or harming it?

        In cases of ambiguity one would have to err on the side of the Constitution not prohib

        • No mystery here. The cops or DOT could ticket the truck for improper maintenance.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That's easy. Funding should be prioritised for replacing the truck, or properly maintaining it, to prevent the harm it's doing. "Sorry we can't afford to not destroy your lungs" isn't an acceptable answer, and neither is not collecting refuse.

      • The real reason, is that positive rights are typically unenforceable. Most notably it conflicts with the 5th and 14th amendment to the US constitution, and the interstate commerce clause.

        Just think about what happens if Montana passes a constitutional right for free drugs, not only does it require violating federal jurisdiction over drugs, but it requires the government take away other people's property rights, to provide me with the free drugs.

        • The real reason, is that positive rights are typically unenforceable. Most notably it conflicts with the 5th and 14th amendment to the US constitution, and the interstate commerce clause.

          Just think about what happens if Montana passes a constitutional right for free drugs, not only does it require violating federal jurisdiction over drugs, but it requires the government take away other people's property rights, to provide me with the free drugs.

          So a right to a clean environment surely doesn't allow/oblige them to start regulating industry in other states, or even to regulate the emissions of cars driving through. But within their own state? It seems like the government is obliged to do more than approve every single coal mine that someone wants.

    • Let's hope they appeal.

      An appeal is likely, but the legislature may also propose and enact changes to the laws and constitution to make the case moot even before those appeals are complete, since, after all, Montana is Coal Country.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

      Good thing you’re just a shit poster on slashdot and not a legal professional.

  • None of these kids have ever lived without the benefits of products made directly or indirectly from fossil fuels.

    Try giving them up for a month. You won't like it.

    It will be like an episode of naked and afraid. In no time at all you will be lying in a muddy ditch naked, starving, sick and dehydrated.

    • ...or they could work in the renewables industry and help to reduce the cost so it's competitive with carbon based fuels. I guess it is easier to sue someone and post about it on social media.

      • ...or they could work in the renewables industry and help to reduce the cost so it's competitive with carbon based fuels. I guess it is easier to sue someone and post about it on social media.

        Fossil fuels are used for a lot more than just energy.
        https://youtu.be/jnqVNpZkzuI [youtu.be]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ZipNada ( 10152669 )

      What's that got to do with the lawsuit?

      Meanwhile there currently are appropriate alternatives to the fossil fuels that have caused global warming and we should quit mining coal in Montana.

      • What's that got to do with the lawsuit?

        Meanwhile there currently are appropriate alternatives to the fossil fuels that have caused global warming and we should quit mining coal in Montana.

        What alternatives are you referring to? If you mean "wind, solar, geothermal" you are only thinking about energy production.

        Fossil fuels are used directly and indirectly in everything that gives you the comfortable standard of living you enjoy. And since the entire basis of their suit is that granting fossil fuel permits is violating their constitutional right to a "clean and healthful environment" I would say they have no idea how dependent their "clean and healthful environment" is on those fossil fuels

        • Nobody said fossil fuels are used only for energy production, where did that come from?

          But we can obviously work to eliminate them for that purpose and it would reduce air pollution and global warming. And it is certainly possible now to stop approving new coal mining projects in Montana and impose strict environmental restrictions on the existing ones.

          It wouldn't leave any kids "lying in a muddy ditch naked, starving, sick and dehydrated", that was ridiculous.

          • "Nobody said fossil fuels are used only for energy production, where did that come from?"

            Well, yes they did.

            Fossil fuels are used for energy production. The key word is "fuel". Burning fuels produces energy.

            Petrochemicals are used for manufacturing things like plastic and fertilizer.

            • Go split some hairs somewhere else. The OP said "products made directly or indirectly from fossil fuels", which clearly means oil, gas, coal, and their derivatives.

    • I don't think those kids 'that never had to do without' realize everything we use today is a product of oil. Not just the obvious ones like cars & planes, but things you don't think of like a toothbrush, dental floss,shampoo bottles, tampon applicators, makeup, chewing gum, bandaids, scotch-masking-electrical tape, shoes, all nylon/polyester/spandex/lycra/leggins/workout clothing, parkas, skis,goggles, helmets, winter boots, the elastic that holds up your underwear, kitchen utensils, mouse, keyboards,

      • I don't think those kids 'that never had to do without' realize everything we use today is a product of oil. Not just the obvious ones like cars & planes, but things you don't think of like a toothbrush, dental floss,shampoo bottles, tampon applicators, makeup, chewing gum, bandaids, scotch-masking-electrical tape, shoes, all nylon/polyester/spandex/lycra/leggins/workout clothing, parkas, skis,goggles, helmets, winter boots, the elastic that holds up your underwear, kitchen utensils, mouse, keyboards, monitors, the lightswitches, insulated wires, pens, et. al.

        That's why it should be mandatory that every kid after high school spends 6 months in a camp that realistically mimics living in the 1850s. Having to no refrigeration, AC, fans, running water, poop in an outhouse in all weather or a pot inside that you carry out to empty, use newpaper or magazines for TP, or having to stuff old rags up your hoochichoochi to stop your monthly bleeding might get their heads screwed back on correctly so they see the forest instead of just the trees.

        They will go insane the second you take away their smartphone made from fossil fuels. They really have no idea how good they have it, how dependent their lives are on it. It's "better living through chemistry".
        I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a guy who was going to be a father for the first time. He told me how he and his wife were environmental and would be using cloth diapers because they believe disposables are bad for the environment. I laughed my ass off and told him he had no idea what he w

      • I don't think those kids 'that never had to do without' realize everything we use today is a product of oil. Not just the obvious ones like cars & planes, but things you don't think of like a toothbrush, dental floss,shampoo bottles, tampon applicators, makeup, chewing gum, bandaids, scotch-masking-electrical tape, shoes, all nylon/polyester/spandex/lycra/leggins/workout clothing, parkas, skis,goggles, helmets, winter boots, the elastic that holds up your underwear, kitchen utensils, mouse, keyboards, monitors, the lightswitches, insulated wires, pens, et. al.

        You do understand that oil that gets transformed into durable items like plastic isn't necessarily going to add to atmospheric carbon, and as such, it's not really necessary to turf them as part of combating climate change?

        That's why it should be mandatory that every kid after high school spends 6 months in a camp that realistically mimics living in the 1850s. Having to no refrigeration, AC, fans, running water, poop in an outhouse in all weather or a pot inside that you carry out to empty, use newpaper or magazines for TP, or having to stuff old rags up your hoochichoochi to stop your monthly bleeding might get their heads screwed back on correctly so they see the forest instead of just the trees.

        It's an interesting concept... but not really related to climate change.

        I mean a LOT more has changed since the start of the industrial revolution. For instance, back then the predominant fossil fuel was coal, used for heat, transportation, and manufacturing.

        Now, coal is really only used

        • You do understand that oil that gets transformed into durable items like plastic isn't necessarily going to add to atmospheric carbon, and as such, it's not really necessary to turf them as part of combating climate change?

          Plastic is essentially a waste byproduct from the refining process that's literally worthless as anything but plastic. There's no reason why anyone would bother pumping oil just to turn it into plastic, since it would cost more to pump it than they'd be able to sell it for. So yes, witho

        • Re:None of these kids would give up fossil fuels (Score:4, Informative)

          by RedK ( 112790 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @07:00PM (#63767628)

          > You do understand that oil that gets transformed into durable items like plastic isn't necessarily going to add to atmospheric carbon, and as such, it's not really necessary to turf them as part of combating climate change?

          You still have to extract it from the ground, which means granting permits, which was the process that this lawsuit targetted.

          Helps to understand the context of what we're talking about.

          • > You do understand that oil that gets transformed into durable items like plastic isn't necessarily going to add to atmospheric carbon, and as such, it's not really necessary to turf them as part of combating climate change?

            You still have to extract it from the ground, which means granting permits, which was the process that this lawsuit targetted.

            Helps to understand the context of what we're talking about.

            I agree, it's important to understand the context [eia.gov]:

            Montana has the largest estimated recoverable coal reserves among the states, accounting for about 30% of the U.S. total.26 Montana is the fourth-largest coal-producing state. In 2021, the state produced about 5% of the nation's coal from six operating mines.

            [...]

            In 2022, coal generated 42% of Montana's in-state electricity generation.

            [...]

            Montana holds less than 1% of U.S. total proved crude oil reserves, and the state accounts for about 1 in every 200 bar

      • That's why it should be mandatory that every kid after high school spends 6 months in a camp that realistically mimics living in the 1850s. Having to no refrigeration, AC, fans, running water, poop in an outhouse in all weather or a pot inside that you carry out to empty, use newpaper or magazines for TP, or having to stuff old rags up your hoochichoochi to stop your monthly bleeding might get their heads screwed back on correctly so they see the forest instead of just the trees.

        a week would probably suffice, but i agree, these kids need to touch grass

    • Unfortunately, the courts have discovered the trick of using human rights violiations that might occur in the future as a justification to push certain politics in the present day. In my country, this is since recently known as "intertemporary personality rights". And since personality rights are very high ranking in our constitution it allows the courts to do pretty much what they want in every topic that might eventuall have a human rights angle.

    • Did Masanobu Fukuoka prove you can match industrial farmer rice yields on a quarter acre withou needing fuel, pesticides, fertilizer, and irrigation?

    • None of these kids have ever lived without the benefits of products made directly or indirectly from fossil fuels.

      Try giving them up for a month. You won't like it.

      It will be like an episode of naked and afraid. In no time at all you will be lying in a muddy ditch naked, starving, sick and dehydrated.

      I mean talk about hypocrisy, it's like how you can't live water and as such, have no objection to be dropped in the middle of a large lake.

    • That was never their point.

      This was more calling out the bald-faced hypocrisy of putting something in the State Constitution about protecting the environment but then letting the energy companies destroy such.

      "Fixing" the State Constitution is probably the easiest route out for the State in this situation...

  • For the yoots
  • Despite all the news that "renewables" are making huge inroads, global oil demand jumped to record highs and continues to climb: https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
    Given we're a century away from practical fusion, petroleum is an absolute necessity in agriculture (fertilizers & pesticides), not to mention the food distribution chain, (tractors, trucks & shipping), simply put, there's no feed the 7.8 billion humans with out mass use of climate chaining oil.
    So some kids won a preliminary case again
  • I believe that we must use all energy, nuclear and petroleum. Only relying on one type of energy that is perceived to be "better" will lead to a worse overall attention to environment. I am however optimistic that not all kids are like the ones that created this lawsuit. When I give a ride to kids whose parents drive electric cars or even work for electric car manufacturers, and see that I drive a manual transmission (obviously endothermic engine), they are immediately fascinated and tell me they really wan

  • Montana Constitution 1972 - BobCampbell (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kwestmt ( 697585 ) on Monday August 14, 2023 @05:09PM (#63767408)
    In 1972 Robert (Bob) Campbell - Delegate to Montana Constitution - discussed the proposed constitutional provision for "the Environment and Natural Resources ." "The state and each person shall maintain and improve an environment in Montana for present and future generations." Bob Campbell addressed this provision and asked and wondered why anyone would just have "An environment to maintain and improve?" Bob Campbell then proposed and hoped the delegates would add "A Clean and Healthful Environment." to the provision. It passed 100 per cent. by everyday working Montanans. No elected representative to the Montana House or Senate was allowed to be a delegate. Working Montanans decided their future for A Clean and Healthful Environment. they were not political representative of the Montana House or Senate.
  • Gonna be a dental floss tycoon.

  • It will have no effect, because the defence will be that any particular decision will have no effect on the global climate. And this will be irrefutable, will be confirmed by citations from the climate science literature and IPCC,

    The onus will be on opponents to prove that a given measure will either have direct effects (which given the size of what Montana can do, coupled with what China is doing, will be impossible). Or it will have to have indirect effects by force of example. Which will be impossible

  • So, let's see, now it's a tort if something MIGHT happen.

  • right to "clean and healthful environment" is incredibly vague, case should have been thrown out immediately just like all the other cases have failed.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close