On Monday, a Montana state court handed down a ruling in one of the most eagerly awaited decisions related to the climate crisis and environmental policy. In that ruling, the court struck down part of a law passed in 2021 that specifically forbids state agencies from considering the effects of greenhouse gasses or climate change when evaluating state policies, specifically those having to do with fossil fuel production and use.
The ruling received media attention largely because the plaintiffs in the case were a group of 16 young people, ranging in age from 22 down to 5, who argued that by ignoring climate change, Montana law was damaging their potential for living in a healthy environment.
But the importance of the case goes way beyond “aw, look at those cute kids winning a case.” This is the first time that any court has ruled that young people have a right to a healthy environment and that consideration of climate change is part of that right. It’s a case that could have effects well beyond the Big Sky State.
Policies like the one in Montana that attempted to exclude considerations of climate change from state policies have been widespread in red states. Florida went as far as banning state employees from using the terms “climate change” or “global warming.” Donald Trump did the same thing in federal agencies and instituted a rule preventing agencies from considering climate change in infrastructure projects. So maybe it’s a good thing Trump was always having Infrastructure Week, but never passed an infrastructure bill.
President Joe Biden swiftly removed these federal limitations when he took office, but crushing climate change policy at the state level remains a top Republican priority, or at least a top oil and gas company policy, which Republicans are only too happy to support. Phoenix may be baking under a record number of triple-digit days, but just last year Arizona lawmakers “deemed climate and sustainability issues as trivial.”
The court ruling in Montana may represent a sea change. As The Washington Post reports:
The sweeping win, one of the strongest decisions on climate change ever issued by a court, could energize the environmental movement and usher in a wave of cases aimed at advancing action on climate change, experts say.
Replicating what happened in Montana has one big complication: The Montana constitution has text specifically promising its citizens a “clean and healthful environment.” Only five other states have environmental guarantees in their constitutions—Hawai'i, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania—and none of them are red states. A youth-led case in Hawai'i is scheduled for court next year.
Gaining similar rulings from state courts in the red states that are treating the climate crisis as something to ignore or cover up won’t be as simple as it was in Montana, but experts are still convinced that it can happen. The number of such cases is growing, and the victory in Montana is expected to energize more such filings.
The case is certainly concerning Republicans. As HuffPost reports, Sen. Steve Daines responded with a statement about “[a]ctivist judges … helping far-Left environmentalists push their green hallucination down the throats of Americans.” Yeah, those kids are just pint-sized lobbyists. And after all, it’s not as if July was the hottest month in the history of mankind or something. (Spoiler alert: It was.)
Republicans are also calling these kids “pawns.” But there’s a better word: They’re heroes. And we’re going to need a lot more like the Montana 16.
Sign the petition: President Joe Biden, declare climate change an emergency under the National Emergencies Act.
American political parties might often seem stuck in their ways, but they can and in fact do change positions often. Joining us on this week's episode of "The Downballot" is political scientist David Karol, who tells us how and why both the Democratic and Republican parties have adjusted their views on a wide range of issues over the years. Karol offers three different models for how these transformations happen, and explains why voters often stick with their parties even after these shifts. He concludes by offering tips to activists seeking to push their parties when they're not changing fast enough.