Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


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

Montana Supreme Court Upholds Right To 'Stable Climate System' For Youngsters (theguardian.com) 190

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:

  • Barring considering emissions?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    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.

    • Re:Barring considering emissions?! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Zigakly ( 5628338 ) on Thursday December 19, 2024 @12:06AM (#65024237)

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Zigakly ( 5628338 )

        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: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        Regardless of what N. Carolina did, home insurers are fleeing the state. The following article has a nice map, and NC is dead center for the pullback (you can google for non-paywalled sites that have the map)

                https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]

      • "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

        Well, if there is any truly conclusive proof of the fact that climate change is real, that the consequences are going to be bad and that climate change deniers know this too, then it is the fact that climate change deniers feel a pressing need to pass laws like that. Particularly laws that insulate themselves from suffering financial consequences from damage done by climate change. The only reason anybody would forbid insurance companies from taking into account potential damage due to climate change is bec

    • How much of an asshole do you have to be

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

      • Eisenhower, now there was a good man. Hard to believe he got elected, I mean, most of the time it seems we elect lawyers and other assholes, not good people at all.

    • 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.

  • Hi, Montanan here (Score:5, Informative)

    by Turkinolith ( 7180598 ) on Thursday December 19, 2024 @02:42AM (#65024405)
    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.

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

      Thats the most legalese brained thing I have ever read, as such a thing is the definitition of impossible.

      • There is nothing wrong with declaring an unobtainable right in the Constitution. It means that the State isn't allowed to be the one to take the thing away from you.

        For example, it can recognize a right to life, but you'll still die somebody. But it means the State isn't allowed to kill you. Or at least has to try not to.

      • so, english not your first language then? a third grader could correctly parse this!

  • Lawfare strikes again (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) on Thursday December 19, 2024 @03:32AM (#65024451)

    In civilised countries like those in Europe, contentious issues are resolved by ordinary politics in the legislatures. Thus abortion, equal marriage and civil rights were achieved by law changes. This is how it should be, surely. The resort to using the courts to achieve what are clearly political objectives but which you can't achieve a legislative majority for is unhealthy. It leads to the imposition of the dominant elite's agenda despite the will of the population. Eventually they get upset enough with you that they subvert the courts - and the elite discovers what it's like to have someone else's beliefs imposed on them.

    The USA is stuck with an obsolete constitution that is barely holding together. Using the judiciary to impose your policies is to spend the legitimacy of the courts on this rather than keeping it in reserve for when the wheel falls off...

    • This isn't lawfare. No new law was made. No weird precedent was set. This is the courts upholding the existing laws by pointing out what a regulator was doing was against Article IX Section 1 of the Montana state constitution.

      You don't like this ruling? Fix the underlying law just like how civilised countries like those in Europe do it. Pro tip: Europe has courts too, and courts there also regularly make rulings against regulators for not following the law of the land.

      Using the judiciary to impose your policies is to spend the legitimacy of the courts on this rather than keeping it in reserve for when the wheel falls off...

      Are you fine with the government suspen

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      There have been several legal actions in Europe seeking to determine that climate change is infringing on people's rights.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
      In Europe, contentious issues are more likely to be solved by legislatures, but courts like ECHR also play a role, as well as national ones. It's a tapestry

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      When a law is passed that violates a country's (or in this case state's) constitution the courts are the proper place of resolution. This is the way it is in most democracies including in "civilized countries like those in Europe".

      https://www.venice.coe.int/sac... [coe.int].
      "Most European countries have established special constitutional courts that are uniquely empowered to set aside legislation that runs counter to their constitutions. Such constitutional courts review legislation in the abstract, with no connectio

    • The USA is stuck with an obsolete constitution that is barely holding together.

      What about the US Constitution is obsolete?

      You don't need to understand email before you can write a law about privacy (4th and 5th Amendments).

      You don't need to understand modern firearms to write a law about firearms (2nd Amendment).

      You don't need to understand email and social media to write a law about Freedom of Speech (First Amendment).

      So if the foundations are solid, what is obsolete about the US Constitution? Or do you just hate the idea of Life, Liberty, and Happiness?

      • 1) The electoral college is a farce
        2) The role of the Senate to give advice is never used.
        3) Power has drifted to the Federal government by the use of the commerce clause in ways it was never intended
        4) The need to get continuing motions through congress to keep the government solvent is dangerous
        5) The existence of a standing army etc. as well as the intelligence services is flawed. The right of Congress to declare war is totally marginalised
        6) The very fact that the originalist interpretation of the const

        • Hm. While I do have a few nits to pick with your list, overall, it is pretty damned solid. Thank you. That was a fantastic response and I now have more to consider.

    • In civilised countries like those in Europe, contentious issues are resolved by ordinary politics in the legislatures. Thus abortion, equal marriage and civil rights were achieved by law changes. This is how it should be, surely. The resort to using the courts to achieve what are clearly political objectives but which you can't achieve a legislative majority for is unhealthy. It leads to the imposition of the dominant elite's agenda despite the will of the population. Eventually they get upset enough with you that they subvert the courts - and the elite discovers what it's like to have someone else's beliefs imposed on them.

      The USA is stuck with an obsolete constitution that is barely holding together. Using the judiciary to impose your policies is to spend the legitimacy of the courts on this rather than keeping it in reserve for when the wheel falls off...

      Your invocation of "lawfare" as a critique of the Montana ruling misunderstands the role of the judiciary in the American system of government—a role Alexis de Tocqueville identified as fundamental to the functioning of American democracy. In Democracy in America, de Tocqueville noted that in the U.S., political questions often turn into judicial ones. This is not an aberration but a deliberate design of the constitutional system, which empowers courts to interpret laws and enforce constitutional prot

  • ...if it hadn't been for those meddling kids!

  • So, they want to get aheadcof the game and ban the next ice age.

    Can they also ban asteroid impacts and supervolacnoes? Those are a bit more worrying, especially the iminent eruption of Yellowstone. If that thing is permitted to erupt in my lifetime I can say bye by to civilisation.

  • They should definitely have a "right" to a pony.

  • The problem isn't the "fossil" fuel acquisition, it's the consumerism, inefficiency, and wastefulness of the student's society.

    Are they using Prime? Are they buying fashionable clothing? Are they driving? Are they using air conditioning? All drivers of fossil fuel use and all inefficient and wasteful.

    All the lawsuit really says is, "I want to keep doing things just the way I am, but I want to pretend the problem is someone else. Also, look at me, look at me, look at me!"

  • This is just idiot grandstanding. The climate is bigger than you. You cannot dictate to it, and if you try, you'll get smacked down.

  • oh no (Score:2)

    by k3v0 ( 592611 )
    won't someone think of the shareholders?!?!

  • I hate to be the grumbling old man in the room all the time on slashdot, but this site has a reputation to uphold as being the place where TECHNICAL people come to learn and discuss the news. What distinguishes the technical reader is the desire to read primary source material over "curated" and summarized news. Every time I see a mainline news organization used here as a source, it immediately sends up a red flag. You just know they're going to go for the narrative and fail to point you back to sources. Na

  • It's good when a conservative state wakes up and realizes it has a lot to lose [wikipedia.org] from climate change. Will Florida [youtube.com] be next?

  • Now there is a constitutional right to good weather. Why didn't the farmers think of this?

Slashdot Top Deals

The finest eloquence is that which gets things done.

Close