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

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.

Re:nope

[nickovs]

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?

Re:

[codebase7]

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

Re: nope

[ArmoredDragon]

So then how do we guarantee a stable climate?

Re:

[Jeremi]

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.

Re:

[techno-vampire]

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.

Re:

[senileoldfart]

Some day you will have to explain this to your grandchildren.

Re:

[techno-vampire]

Considering that I'm in my seventies and have no children that I know of, I sincerely doubt that.

Environmental activists: why shit costs more

[RightwingNutjob]

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

Re:

[NotEmmanuelGoldstein]

... 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.

Re:

[codebase7]

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.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is simple. Move to a country with no pesky laws or regulations.

Re:

[Dan667]

I keep suggesting somewhere like Somalia where they have "libertarian" politics, but none of these folks actually will move to their "nirvana"

Re: Environmental activists: why shit costs more

[opakapaka]

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.

Re:

[q_e_t]

You are confusing NIMBYs with tree-huggers and thus mischaracterising the political leaning of the opposition. I see this a lot.

A red state did that?

[Tablizer]

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

Re:

[CommunityMember]

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

Since it is a fly-over state, I would blame chemtrails :-)

Don't look up?

Barring considering emissions?!

[GrahamJ]

"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.

Re:

[Zigakly]

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

Re:

[Zigakly]

And then subsequently this in 2015, a North Carolina town quashed a solar farm because they feared it would take sunlight away from farms. I shit you not.

https://abc11.com/sun-solar-panels-energy/1122081

Re: Barring considering emissions?!

[richardellisjr]

No they didn't. One nut job said something stupid and it got blown out of proportion. The other reasons were all perfectly valid. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]

Re:

[will_die]

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.

Re:

[evil_aaronm]

How much of an asshole do you have to be

Just your average Republican? Because the last good Republican was Eisenhower.

Re:

[Dirk Becher]

My city used to have something like this. A council that had to review every municipal building project for environmental impact and that was stacked with green party members who kept delaying or refusing pretty much everything. The council was eventually abolished with the votes of the conservatives and worker party because the city is pretty rundown and desperately in need of something that could give it an economic boost.

Re: the grift that keeps on grifting

[vbdasc]

Indeed... Sea levels rise because one of the four whales that support the edges of the Earth waves his tail due to an itch.

Re:

[q_e_t]

Physics is a communist plot by fascist liberals ultra capitalist socialists.

Hi, Montanan here

[Turkinolith]

For those who are missing the details:

The Montana state constitution explicitly declares that the right to a clean and healthful environment is Inalienable.

The challenge is that by forbidding the consideration of energy projects impact on greenhouse gasses that could affect and harm that environment that their rights were being violated.