Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


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

Montana Supreme Court Upholds Right To 'Stable Climate System' For Youngsters (theguardian.com) 23

Posted by BeauHD from the kids-these-days dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Montana's top court on Wednesday held that the state's constitution guaranteed a right to a stable climate system and invalidated a law barring regulators from considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when permitting new fossil fuel projects. The Montana supreme court upheld a landmark trial court decision last August in favor of 16 young people who said their health and futures were being jeopardized by climate change, which the state aggravates through its permitting of energy projects. The 6-1 decision, the first of its kind by a US state supreme court, came in the first lawsuit to go to trial nationwide by young environmental activists challenging state and federal policies they say are exacerbating climate change.

Montana Supreme Court Upholds Right To 'Stable Climate System' For Youngsters More | Reply

Montana Supreme Court Upholds Right To 'Stable Climate System' For Youngsters

Comments Filter:

  • nope (Score:2, Interesting)

    by NagrothAgain ( 4130865 )
    this won't stand up under review, the State constitution can only apply to localized environmental effects. Emissions of CO2 don't cause a direct problem for the local environment or health. The global environment falls well outside of any State level jurisdiction.

    • Re:nope (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nickovs ( 115935 ) on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @10:55PM (#65024145)

      this won't stand up under review,

      The law suit was about the constitutionality of a State law regarding the parameters under which State officials make decisions about State regulations. The ruling was 6:1 by a full panel of the State supreme court. Whom do you think will review this?

      • Probably some corrupt federal judge whom supports the idea of "fuck yours; got mine."

        • So then how do we guarantee a stable climate?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Jeremi ( 14640 )

            So then how do we guarantee a stable climate?

            Presumably by reducing CO2 emissions enough that the atmospheric CO2 concentration doesn't continue climbing; or, alternatively, by somehow removing enough CO2 from the atmosphere to achieve the same effect. Most likely, some of both.

            Dunno how Montana could go about doing either of those things unilaterally, but that's the answer to your question.

          • You can't; the climate is always changing. Sometimes, like now, it's getting hotter, sometimes it's getting colder like it did during the Little Ice Age. Sometimes it's wetter, sometimes dryer. We may be able to reduce the effect humanity is having on the climate, but we'll never get it to stop changing.

  • My town recently spent half a million dollars of taxpayer money litigating against the construction of a new power line. Because power lines are bad or something. The electric company spent a comparable amount of money defending against this litigation, and won anyway. After several years. The line is under construction now.

    As both a taxpayer in my town and a customer of this electric company, I'm on the hook for my share for both the costs of litigation and the defense. Unsurprisingly, both my electric "de

    • ... some tree-hugger ...

      Because the 'beauty' of the suburb needs to be protected. Usually, tree-huggers don't spend this sort of money.

      ... power lines are bad ...

      Because it changes the value of someone's house. There are stories of US HOAs banning cell-towers, then all phone-calls into the suburb suffering sound fade or being dropped.

      • Don't bother, the nickname alone means he cannot comprehend anything more complicated than "money = good, libtard = bad." Certainly not something as complicated as direct consequences of their actions.
    • Good grief. Get up on your roof and install some solar panels. I did it this summer and the cost was peanuts. My power bill is now $10. I thought this was a nerds website.

  • ...Something is off. Check the water for brain-altering pollutants that turn judges blue.

  • Barring considering emissions?! (Score:3)

    by GrahamJ ( 241784 ) on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @11:30PM (#65024179)

    "invalidated a law barring regulators from considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when permitting new fossil fuel projects"

    How much of an asshole do you have to be to implement such a law? The US is full of imbeciles.

    • There are many US state laws that outlaw the consideration of climate change for various things. In 2012 North Carolina banned insurance companies from considering the impending rise in sea level for flood insurance. I'm going to hazard a guess that several reps in the state legislature had oceanfront property.

      https://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782

    • the change to the constitution was made decades ago back when montana was in a 20 year period when all branch of the government were run by democrats.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.

Close