Montana Youth Take State Government to Trial Over Responsibility to Protect Residents from Climate Change

In Montana, a two-week trial commenced on Monday, centering around the obligation of the state government to safeguard its population from the perils of climate change. A group of young individuals, who are already experiencing the detrimental effects of worsening wildfires, dwindling streams, and melting mountain glaciers, assert that their health, livelihoods, and those of future generations are being jeopardized.

Supported by a procession of climate experts, the sixteen plaintiffs aim to convince a judge that the state’s allegiance to fossil fuel development endangers their well-being. Attorney Roger Sullivan, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized in his opening statements that Montana is constitutionally bound to shield its residents from the impacts of climate change. While legal experts believe this state court case could establish a precedent, it is unlikely to bring immediate policy changes to fossil fuel-friendly Montana.

Responding to the allegations, Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell contended that climate change is a global issue and that the harm alleged by the young plaintiffs cannot be directly linked to specific actions taken by state officials.

Environmentalists view this bench trial as a turning point, as similar lawsuits in almost every state have previously been dismissed. A favorable verdict could contribute to the few global rulings that acknowledge governments’ duty to protect citizens from climate change.

One factor that may have propelled this case further in Montana is the state’s constitutional requirement to “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment.” Only a handful of states, such as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York, have comparable environmental safeguards embedded in their constitutions.

The plaintiffs criticize state officials for their alleged negligence in curbing emissions that contribute to global warming, while Montana continues to pursue oil, gas, and coal development, which generate employment, tax revenue, and meet energy demands in Montana and beyond.

The plaintiffs point to the smoke from increasingly severe wildfires polluting the air they breathe, droughts depleting rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife, and recreation, as well as reduced snowpack and shorter winter seasons that impact recreational activities.

State experts are expected to counter these claims by arguing that climate extremes have existed for centuries, and Montana’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is relatively insignificant.

Carbon dioxide, released during the combustion of fossil fuels, traps heat in the atmosphere and is a major driver of climate warming. The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration reported earlier this month that carbon dioxide levels in the air reached the highest point in over 4 million years this spring. Additionally, greenhouse gas emissions reached a record high last year, according to the International Energy Agency.

Since the lawsuit was filed three years ago, its focus has been narrowed to whether Montana’s Environmental Policy Act, which mandates state agencies to balance environmental health with resource development, is unconstitutional because it does not require officials to consider greenhouse gas emissions and their climate impacts.

Judge Kathy Seeley has indicated that she may rule that the state’s climate change exception in its environmental law contradicts the constitution, but she cannot dictate the corrective measures that the legislature should undertake.

Note: The original text contained a reference to another news story that is unrelated to the content of the article. It has been omitted in the rewritten version.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about climate change litigation

More about climate change litigation

• Montana Youth First to Trial Over Whether State Obligated to Protect Residents from Climate Change