•

Montana loses fight against youth climate activists in landmark ruling

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/montana-loses-fight-against-youth-climate-activists-in-landmark-ruling/

Emotional testimony leads to plaintiffs' win in first youth-led climate trial.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1463729

Archived version: https://archive.ph/HRDja
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230815010526/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/08/montana-loses-fight-against-youth-climate-activists-in-landmark-ruling/

6 comments

autotldr

•

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Experts previously predicted that a win for youths in Montana would set an important legal precedent for how courts can hold states accountable for climate inaction.

The same legal organization representing Montana's young plaintiffs, Our Children's Trust, is currently pursuing similar cases in four other states, The Washington Post reported.

Montana tried to argue that adjusting its energy policy and other statutes would have “no meaningful impact or appreciable effect,” the Post reported, because climate change is a global issue.

Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell described the testimony as a “week-long airing of political grievances that properly belong in the Legislature, not a court of law,” according to the Post.

Another attorney for plaintiffs and executive director of Our Children's Trust, Julia Olson, told AP that the ruling was a "huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate."

To young people suing, winning is seemingly just about pushing the state to embrace climate science and mitigate known harms moving forward.

I'm a bot and I'm open source!

treadful

•

Thanks to our state constitution. At least until the MAGAs decide to call a convention and ruin it.

gravitas_deficiency

•

Man, the arguments of the Montana AG’s legal team are prima facie imbecilic and insultingly dismissive.

ghostofjohnnycache

•

The most bizarre line of reasoning, to me, is the argument that "Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate", since their contributions aren't big enough. The only logical extensions of this is that nobody anywhere is responsible for climate change, since you could look closely enough and say that "this part of the city doesn't have too many dirty, polluting factories" or "well there's still this part of the rainforest that hasn't been cut down yet, so this district is carbon-neutral." No individual person is emitting so much carbon to change the global climate, so nobody has to change their behavior, everything is fine.

Montana called the ruling "absurd," but it's so much more absurd to take a stance like "it's okay if we keep polluting, it's a global issue" as if they aren't currently or will never be affected by climate change. And then then what balls to mock the judge as if this ruling is just for 15 minutes of fame, as if they wouldn't get some kickbacks or preferential treatment from various dirty industries if they had won...

I sometimes find it so difficult to comprehend the mindset of people making these sorts of anti-climate-activism arguments. Do they think they're separate from the issue, that they're just so special? Is it even still possible to pretend there isn't an issue? It all gives off the same antisocial vibes as roommates who leave a pile of dirty plates in the sink and deny they made a mess. But they even get in the way of the nicer roommate who would go out of their way to clean up someone else's mess so could be nicer for everyone....

michael

•

Good, polluters should be held accountable.

HowMany

•

Now, as restitution, Montana should purchase the means to produce wind turbines and solar panels, manufacture them in state, train apt students as field construction, maintenance and repairs and upgrades, etc. Making Montana an energy exporter. Yippee ki-yay!

That would go a long way to saying "sorry" - way more than any other trivial "at tax payer expense" settlement they'll come to.