It what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind in the US, a Montana state court has ruled in favour of young people who allege the state government has violated their right to a “clean and healthful environment” by promoting the use of fossil fuels in a ruling that could send reverberations on this side of the border..The US court ruled as unconstitutional a provision in the state’s Environmental Policy Act that failed to consider the climate impacts of energy projects such as coal fired power on young people. Montana is home to some of the largest coal deposits in the Lower 48..A similar case is pending in Canada..In her decision, state judge Kathy Seeley ruled the “Plaintiffs have proven that as children and youth, they are disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts.”.“The State authorizes fossil fuel activities without analyzing greenhouse gases or climate impacts, which result in GHG emissions in Montana and abroad that have caused and continue to exacerbate anthropogenic climate change.”.The order provides unspecified but “meaningful redress” to plaintiffs’ injuries because “the amount of additional GHG emissions emitted into the climate system today and in the coming decade will impact the long-term severity of the heating and the severity of Plaintiffs’ injuries.”.The suit was filed by 16 litigants aged 5 to 22 who brought the nation’s first youth-led constitutional case to trial. Unlike Canada, constitutional challenges in the US are paid for by the appropriate level of government..The vast majority of similar cases have been rejected by courts across the US. However, Montana’s state constitution explicitly guarantees a right to a “clean and healthful environment” which was deemed to be the deciding factor..Arguments were heard over five days in June..Attorneys for the state argued that Montana’s contribution to global emissions was so small there would be “no meaningful or appreciable” effect on climate if abated. They argued the issue more properly resides in the state legislature and not the courts..The state is expected to appeal the decision. But observers say the win could energize environmental groups across the US — and indeed, North America — and usher in a wave of climate change litigation..The law firm representing the youths, Our Children’s Trust, has filed similar cases in all 50 states, including Canada, with trials pending in four..“Today we witnessed democracy in action as Montana’s judiciary fulfilled its constitutional duty to hold the political branches accountable for actions exacerbating the climate crisis and causing harm to the state’s youngest and most vulnerable people."."This is what climate justice in the courts, and protecting the constitutional rights of our children's right to a safe climate looks like,” said Nate Bellinger, senior staff attorney with the non-profit group..Lest anyone think it’s an isolated occurrence, Our Children’s Trust in conjunction with the David Suzuki Foundation has filed a similar case in Canada which is pending on appeal after it was rejected in a Vancouver courtroom in October, 2020. .La Rove v. His Majesty the King was filed by 15 minors from seven provinces and one territory on the grounds that the federal government is violating their rights to life, liberty and security of the person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for failing to protect essential public trust resources. .The youth plaintiffs also allege that Canada’s conduct violates their right to equality under section 15 of the Charter, since youth are disproportionately affected by the effects of climate change..“Canada, the 10th highest emitter of greenhouse gasses, has failed to meet its last five greenhouse gas emission reduction targets it set for itself since 1998,” said Andrea Rodgers, Senior Litigation Attorney for Our Children’s Trust. .“Elected leaders say climate change is an emergency and one day later authorize a pipeline to transport 600,000 barrels of oil from Alberta to British Columbia.”.Arguments were presented to a federal judge on Feb. 14 and 15 of this year and a decision to hear the case is pending.
