Get ready for a landmark climate trial that’s making waves in Montana! Sixteen young residents are demanding that the state take action to protect their constitutional rights by reducing emissions and ditching policies that promote the fossil fuels industry. And they’re not alone – similar challenges are set to take place in other states, including Oregon and Hawaii.
The plaintiffs, whose ages range from 5 to 22, argue that policies promoting the fossil fuels industry in Montana violate their constitutional environmental rights. They’re experiencing the worst impacts of climate change, including increasing temperatures, droughts, extreme weather events, and wildfires. Poor air quality is also leading to increased health risks for vulnerable children.
The trial, which started on Monday, will take place over the next two weeks and could set an important legal precedent for holding states accountable for climate inaction. If the young plaintiffs win, it could mean big changes for Montana and beyond.
Lead plaintiff Rikki Held, whose family’s ranch has been hit hard by climate change, testified that “Montana needs to take responsibility for our part” in addressing the global issue. But state leaders argue that Montana’s emissions are too small to make a difference.
Stay tuned for updates on this groundbreaking trial and the fight for a cleaner, healthier future for all.
On Monday October 19th, the state of Montana faced trial for its dismissal of a UN climate report, with a coalition of ten young Americans backing up their case. After hearing the arguments, the court ruled to allow twelve jurors to consider the claims raised by the very youth witness in the lawsuit. This action marked the United States’ first climate change trial based entirely on the testimony of minors.
The plaintiffs – seven girls and three boys – began their lawsuit in August, taking the state to account for failing to protect their future from the impacts of a warming planet. They alleged that the state had violated their rights to life, liberty, health, and the pursuit of happiness. In placing the futures of this generation at risk, the state had acted beyond its powers.
Adding to the tension was the state’s objection to the very evidence of climate change. When the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was cited to the court, the defendants argued that this was “hearsay”.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Catherine Stauffer, was quick to contrast the state of Montana’s dismissal of facts with the experiences of the youth: “Our plaintiffs relied on the science and experience to show that they were facing devastating impacts… while the state has repeatedly denied the science and the experience of Montana’s youth.”
The findings of this groundbreaking case will not only be felt in Montana, but across the entire United States. Every state, and not only the federal government, now has a duty to consider the scientific evidence in its decision-making process and refuse to deny their legal responsibility to protect their citizens from the long-term effects of climate change.
Climate change affects everyone, and it is encouraging to see the young generations mobilizing to protect their future. The present case is a powerful example of how law can be used to safeguard what is so often overlooked in politics, protecting the voices of those most at risk of the climate crisis.
