I didn't realize how explicit the Montana state constitution was on this [1], which was rewritten in 1972:

Part IX. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.

(2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty.

(3) 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.

[1] https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_00...

I am very interested to see how this may play out and whether it gets upheld (note this is just a district judge writing a single ruling). Or whether the remedy is either toothless, or unenforceable.

Because the major barrier I see is, with the climate change problem in general, no one is able to concretely and incrementally connect someone's (tiny) polluting action to actual harm to someone far down the line. (for legal liability purposes -- not saying the link doesn't exist in scientific proof)

Let me phrase it this way. For someone to have an actionable legal cause, doesn't it require that the person/entity causing some claimed harm have a particularized, concrete, connected relationship to the harm? And that their cessation of the claimed causative action would remedy the issue? <--- this is the important thing

The kids claim that <xyz> climate detrimental action is causing them harm. In most cases (some gas guzzling vehicle, coal burning plant) etc. the thing they claim is harming them, even if it were to be completely shut down, would not solve the climate problem. They would still be experiencing the harm.

So how would a law be enforceable if anyone could be sued for something that minutely adds to climate change, and their stopping their activity would produce no measurable effect on the claimant's outcome? Heck, the kids' own existence could be said to be linked to climate change.

Or, how about this -- wind farms could be sued for minutely adding to the environment / climate change problem. Or big box retail stores for causing traffic and wasteful packaging. The list could go on and on. We have opened a can of worms like if you said that denial of "the pursuit of happiness" is something that people can sue over.

What legal principle is being promulgated here? I suspect this will be subject to significant review if more cases accumulate.

> detailed how extreme weather has hurt her family’s ranch.

Animal agriculture is also a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, dead zones, and habitat loss. Her family's ranch my not align with her fight against climate change.

This is the kind of thing that is inspiring to young people.

Not watching a couple of billionaires experience weightlessness for a few minutes.

> Across five days of emotional testimony in June, the youths made claims about injuries they have suffered as a result of climate change. A 15-year-old with asthma described himself as “a prisoner in my own home” when isolating with covid during a period of intense wildfire smoke. Rikki Held, the 22-year-old plaintiff for whom the lawsuit is named, detailed how extreme weather has hurt her family’s ranch.

The attorneys for the state apparently did not dispute any of the provided science (which scope I don't know). What I find interesting is, why? Do they accept it? Or did they choose not to to avoid political blowback from challenging the science in court?

AFAICT without being an expert:

1. The state constitution says it's got to provide a clean environment

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/Constitution/IX/1.htm (so short I won't provide a quote)

2. The Montana Environmental Policy Act in Montana has some exceptions written into it and in subsequent revisions

https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Environmental/2021-m...

3. One of these exceptions is that it limits the scope of environmental review for some energy projects (Cmd-F "energy" in above link)

4. I didn't read the case docs so I don't know which particular limit or if something else was it violated the constitutional thing but something did according to the court.

I don't know what the things are that the folks are fighting against, but if it is one of those "everything must be environmentally reviewed" things that's used to stop windmills and nuclear plants from being built, then I'm on the other side of the kids. The article is that it's over fossil fuels, which sounds like the right target, but if someone else has details then please do share.

“There are political decisions being made without regard to the best scientific evidence and the effects they will have on our youngest generations,”

Yes, there are, indeed.

> Attorneys for the state countered that Montana’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is small. If the law in question were altered or overturned, Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell said, there would be “no meaningful impact or appreciable effect” on the climate.

Of course many laws in many jurisdictions, nationally and internationally, need to be altered to have a meaningful impact. Just like many votes need to be altered to change the outcome of an election.

That's not an argument to leave all these climate affecting laws unaltered. Just like we want every single vote to be counted.

Hopefully some of them will stay and work in Montana and not leave for greener pastures. It would be a shame and unbecoming if they don't follow through on their promise.

Many left-wing movements around the world are becoming increasingly litigious. Due to the failure of mass-mobilization and the realization that laws often favor them.

This is how it begins!!

> The state began and rested its defense on the same day, bringing the trial to an unexpectedly early close on June 20. In a pivot from its expected defense disputing the climate science behind the plaintiffs’ case, the state focused instead on arguing that the legislature should weigh in on the contested law, not the judiciary.

Wait until the State starts making changes to make this true. I am glad the youth won... but they only won the battle. The greedy capitalists will win the war by getting people in office to change everything they need so that none of this matters.

I hope they don't use tractors or any other fossil fuel vehicles. They should be mandated by the judge to reap the land by hand.

Unpopular opinion, really strong judicial review like this (1 judge is able to strike down whatever law the legislature of Congress passes based on vague criteria) is basically incompatible with democracy. At a minimum it should take a supermajority of a panel of judges to find a law 'unconstitutional'. It grants absolutely vast, arbitrary power to 1 single official because they happened to have attended law school. The system of government where 1 person has this much power but they don't have a JD is usually called a 'dictatorship!'

And if your response is- well I like this particular judge's ruling so it's OK, I would remind you that a different judge could come up with an equally stretched right-wing ruling. After all, a state could pass an anti-carbon pollution law only for 1 judge to arbitrarily decide that that somehow violates the constitution, or something. Right-wing judges have struck down gun control laws, campaign financing ones like Citizens United, anti-corruption laws.... the list goes on and on.

Strong judicial review is arbitrary and capricious

What is next? Old people suing young people if they fail to work enough to keep their pensions afloat? Absolutely banana republic level decision. Courts going beyond their customary boundaries is a bad idea for a democratic system stability.

Activist judge rules in favor of activist Youths, propped up by their rich Activist parents, attempting their best Greta Thunberg impression - sent from my iPhone

From a logical perspective, Montana now needs to declare war on China and India. The US' CO2 emissions have been falling for a long time, now at levels of the 1950s.

Pritzker's nuclear ban also means Montana invading a fellow state.