Explained | Montana youth take US state to court in landmark trial over climate change

A first-of-a-kind trial is underway in Montana, the United States where 16 young people have filed a lawsuit which has sought to hold the officials in the state accountable over inaction on climate change. The young plaintiffs hope that this lawsuit would bring changes to the fossil fuel-friendly state.

Plaintiffs feel a sense of 'betrayal'

In his opening statement, Roger Sullivan, an attorney for the young plaintiffs, from non-profit Our Children’s Trust, reportedly listed the costs and consequences of Montana’s fossil fuel-friendly policies which he said are also in violation of the state constitutional provision that guarantees a right to a “clean and healthful environment.”

Add WION as a Preferred Source

The trial is set to go on for two weeks and is being presided over by District Judge Kathy Seeley who the 16 young plaintiffs and their attorneys will try to convince that the state policies which supposedly favour fossil fuels not only endanger their health and livelihoods but also threatens the future generations.

ALSO WATCH |Climate change lawsuit: Montana youth file climate case

It is also worth noting that the lawsuit centres around the state’s constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment.” In line with this, Sullivan also said that Montana’s ongoing permitting of polluting fuels like coal and gas is contributing to a global crisis including, “heat, drought, wildfires, air pollution, violent storms, loss of wildlife, watching glaciers melt.”

The lawyer for the plaintiffs also went on to argue that because of these effects, the young people he represents are disproportionately suffering psychologically and healthily. Speaking on behalf of the plaintiffs, Sullivan said they felt a sense of “betrayal,” with some expressing reluctance to have their own children because they fear the world they would grow up in.

He also claimed that the state had pursued a ruinous energy policy which led to the release of 166 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually, which is equivalent to the emissions of countries like Argentina, the Netherlands, or Pakistan.

Montana youth testify in court

One of the plaintiffs, a 19-year-old Montana resident, Grace Gibson-Snyder told the court that the smoke from wildfires which have worsened due to climate change and became a “defining experience” of her playing soccer in high school.

She spoke about how her hometown Missoula was regularly shrouded in smoke which forced cancellations of soccer practices and kept her teammates with asthma away from the field. “It’s not pleasant,” said the 19-year-old, as quoted by The Associated Press. She added, “It’s so uncomfortable as you’re breathing deeper and deeper.”

ALSO READ |Explained | World Environment Day: 5 international agreements that would affect the planet in years to come

Meanwhile, the 22-year-old lead plaintiff Rikki Held also spoke about how climate change has affected the conditions on her family’s ranch in eastern Montana. Droughts have left “skinny cows and dead cattle” while wildfires make ash fall from the sky, said Held, speaking about the wildfires in 2021.

She said that wildfires had burned some 70 miles (113 kilometres) of power lines in her town which led to a month-long power cut and choked the air “all summer”. The incident also triggered mass evacuations and impacted the family’s motel business.

However, she remains optimistic. “We have the technology and knowledge, we just need empathy and willingness to do the right thing,” said Held. Notably, the trial is expected to see testimonies from all but the four youngest plaintiffs.

ALSO READ |Climate activists in Germany accused of 580 offences

The youngest plaintiff was two years old when the lawsuit was filed. Nathaniel K., a Montana resident, now five years old, according to his parents suffers from respiratory issues whose health is also threatened by wildfires which have been made worse due to climate change.

'Minuscule': US state ofMontana about its carbon emissions

Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell said that the state produces “minuscule” emissions and that the harms alleged by the plaintiffs can’t be traced to specific actions by state officials.

“Climate change is a global issue that effectively relegates Montana’s role to that of a spectator,” said Russell. He also said the trial “will hear lots of emotion, lots of assumptions, accusations... and notably fear about what the future may hold, including sweeping and dramatic assertions of doom that awaits us all,” but the reality is “far more boring” than what the youth have claimed.

ALSO READ |Greta Thunberg had her last school strike against climate change. Here's why

According to Russell, Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are decreasing and the plaintiffs are not challenging policies that would, if invalidated, meaningfully change the state’s impact on the climate.

The constitutional provision that the case is centred around is a part of the Montana Environmental Policy Act, which Russell has said is a “procedural” law which requires environmental reviews of any big projects in the state but does not mandate specific outcomes.

What do we know about the lawsuit?

The landmark trial that began on Monday is being closely watched since it could potentially set a legal precedent in climate change-related lawsuits. This comes as while there are several constitutional climate cases filed on behalf of youth plaintiffs across the US it is the first case to head to trial.

ALSO READ |Netherlands: Over 1,500 arrested in protests by Extinction Rebellion climate group

The case, Held v. Montana, was first filed in 2020 by plaintiffs who were aged between two and 18, at the time, and it finally went to trial three years later. The lawsuit has sought to declare that the state’s policies violate their rights and hope to set a legal precedent, as per their lawyers, which would encourage lawmakers to take action to fight climate change.

The lawsuit claims the government’s “systemic authorization, permitting, encouragement and facilitation” of fossil fuel use is exacerbating the climate crisis. Meanwhile, the US state has repeatedly sought to delay or dismiss the case calling it “meritless” and a publicity stunt aimed at “shutting down responsible energy development in our state.”

The state had also argued that the issue would best be addressed through the political process and not the courts. Notably, plaintiffs had originally sought an injunction which would force the state to develop a remedial plan or policies to reduce emissions, however, their bid was rejected by Judge Seely in 2021.

ALSO READ |7 of 8 climate red lines breached, India now a transgression hotspot: Study

Judge Seeley said that she could rule that the US state’s climate change exception in its environmental law is at odds with its constitution but cannot tell the legislature how to remedy the violation. Therefore, the plaintiffs are now seeking financial compensation, but rather a declaration that their rights are being violated.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.