Montana's State Constitution Hands "The Kids" a Big Win
Republicans: "A Constitution's just a goddamned piece of paper"
The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.
Montana Constitution, Article IX, Section 1
There’s no doubt that Montana is a uniquely beautiful place. Anyone who’s been to Big Sky Country can vouch for the rugged beauty and the seemingly endless mountain ranges. But Montana’s also unique in that the state’s constitution guarantees its citizens “a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.”
That this provision of the Montana Constitution is frequently and uniformly ignored by state government and extractive industries intent on taking as much out of the state as they can goes without saying. Like any other state, money talks and good intentions walk- if they can move at all.
Too often, decisions that may impact global climate change and, thus, the future of generations to come are made with no thought of that future. In Montana, a nonprofit group called Our Children’s Trust filed a lawsuit on behalf of 16 Montana children aged 5 to 22.
Surprisingly, unlike what might be expected in similar cases, the children won.
Sixteen youth climate activists were awarded a victory in a milestone case on Monday solidifying that Montana violated their right to a “clean and healthful environment.”
In a 103-page document, Judge Kathy Seeley wrote that the young plaintiffs, ages 5 to 22, in Held v. State of Montana proved they are “disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts,” which violated the young Montanans’ right to a safe climate.
A provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act prohibits the state from considering the impact of fossil fuel emissions on climate change. Seely ruled that to be unconstitutional and will require the state legislature to rework the policy, according to The Associated Press.
The activists argued the state’s role in pushing fossil fuel pollution only worsened climate change and subsequently harmed young people. The state argued that Montana has only played a minute role in the global issue of climate change.
The state argued that because their role in worsening climate was so minor, any requirement to rework their policy would, in effect, be an undue burden.
But wouldn’t that mean that the provision of the Montana Constitution guaranteeing future generations the right to “a clean and healthful environment” is just so many meaningless words?
If you listen to the reaction of Montana Republicans, they’re far more concerned with the economic benefits of extractive industries than with “a clean and healthful environment.”
Republican state lawmakers and a petroleum industry representative said that while they are hopeful the state’s appeal will be successful, [Judge] Seeley’s decision could result in fewer energy projects being permitted or subject permitting decisions to cumbersome litigation.
“If this decision stands, it will cause great economic harm to the state of Montana,” said Alan Olson, the executive director of the Montana Petroleum Association.
This begs the question: Why should the economic benefits of petroleum extraction in Montana override the right to “a clean and healthful environment” guaranteed by the Montana Constitution?
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.
“This is a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy and for our climate,” said Julia Olson, the executive director of Our Children’s Trust, which brought Held v. Montana. “More rulings like this will certainly come.”
The sweeping win, one of the strongest decisions on climate change ever issued by a court, could energize the environmental movement and usher in a wave of cases aimed at advancing action on climate change, experts say.
The ruling — which invalidates the provision blocking climate considerations — also 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. Those youths are elated by the decision, according to Our Children’s Trust.
There already appears to be a consensus that the swings in extreme weather we’re experiencing now are due primarily to global climate change. If we continue making decisions the same way we always have while expecting different results…well, that sounds like the definition of insanity. Yet the state of Montana appears to be doing precisely that. Even worse, they see nothing wrong with that, and they can’t understand why “the kids” are interfering when there’s money to be made.
Perhaps the most frustrating is how Montana Republicans are reacting, accusing the plaintiffs in the lawsuits of being the “pawns” of radical Liberal environmentalists.
Montana Republicans responded to Monday’s ruling in a landmark climate case with statements painting the judge as an environmental “activist” and dismissing the 16 youth plaintiffs — their own constituents — as “pawns” and members of a “climate cult.”….
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ultimately agreed. In her 103-page ruling, Seeley wrote that the plaintiffs “have proven that as children and youth, they are disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts,” and that their “injuries will grow increasingly severe and irreversible without science-based actions to address climate change.”
One might expect Republicans to be outraged that the state’s government was found to have violated their constituents’ constitutional protections. Instead, they attacked both the young plaintiffs and the judge, and defended Montana’s polluting industries.
As might be imagined, no Republican addressed, or even acknowledged, the state Constitution’s promise of a right to “a clean and healthful environment.”
Why? Because the GOP is interested in the environment only insofar as it can be milked for economic benefit. After all, we’ll be dead at some point, and then future generations can deal with the mess, right?
Except for that messy and inconvenient little guarantee in the Montana Constitution that Republicans prefer to ignore. Unfortunately for them, Judge Kathy Seeley won’t allow them to.
And then there’s Tim Sheehy, who’s been recruited by the Montana GOP to run against incumbent Sen. Jon Tester in 2024 and was all too happy to toe the party line:
Interesting how when they don’t rule for Republicans, they’re “Liberal activist judges,” right? And “the climate cult and their job-killing agenda?” I can hardly wait until he finds a way to blame transgender activists and socialist libtards.
‘Course, what’s particularly interesting is how Sheehy changed his tune once he became the GOP nominee for Tester’s Senate seat:
Sheehy is the founder of Bridger Aerospace, a Bozeman-based aerial firefighting business. Prior to launching his Senate bid, Sheehy’s company notably scrubbed language about “fighting on the front lines of climate change” from its website, as ABC News reported last month.
Meh…that was then….
Again, there’s an awful lot of overheated rhetoric and name-calling when Republicans completely ignore the Constitutional guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment.” No one on the Left is talking about “Liberal programs,” “climate cults,” or “job-killing agendas.”
This isn’t about any of those things. It’s about a provision in the Montana Constitution that the plaintiffs believe the Montana state government has been ignoring. And the truth is that they have been because, to quote former President George W. Bush, the Consitution is “nothing but a goddamn piece of paper.”
Republicans generally don’t care about the effects of global climate change because they can find ways to insulate themselves from it. Many are wealthy enough to live where the impacts are lessened or don’t have to worry about it as much. That isn’t the case for the plaintiffs who brought the case.
The Republican response to Monday’s ruling is the latest example of the party burying its head in the sand about the mounting impacts of climate change — extreme heat, wildfire, flooding and mass coral bleaching, to name a few — while working to increase production of planet-warming fossil fuels.
During the June trial, several youth plaintiffs testified about the many ways that fossil fuel-driven climate change has affected their lives and health, both physical and mental.
People my age are beginning to realize the impact of climate change for the first time over the last 10-15 years or so. Children are learning they’ll live with those impacts for their entire lives. Despite what the Montana Constitution may promise them, they understand that neither government nor industry has their futures or best interests at heart.
At some point, you can’t blame them for wondering what their future will look like. Will they have “a clean and healthful environment” to look forward to as they grow older and raise families of their own? What adverse effects of today’s irresponsibility will they be left to cope with?
This battle isn’t over, of course. Montana Republicans have pledged to appeal Judge Seeley’s ruling, and they may be able to outspend and outlawyer their way to victory, thus ensuring nothing will change. And the plaintiffs behind this lawsuit will look forward to their future knowing that Republicans just metaphorically gave them a stiff middle finger.
Such is the American way, no? Money talks, values walk. And Republicans neither know nor care for the Big Picture or anything beyond their self-interest.
(Housekeeping note: In the future, all of my posts will be public. Any reader financial support will be considered pledges- support that’s greatly appreciated but not required. I’ll leave it to my readers to determine if my work is worthy of their monetary support and at what level. To those who do offer their support, thank you. It means more than you know.)