14 ms·
Judge rules in favor of Montana youths in landmark climate decision
- wunderland 3y agoThis is the kind of thing that is inspiring to young people. Not watching a couple of billionaires experience weightlessness for a few minutes.
- PraetorianGourd 3y agoWhy does it need to be either/or? Some youths might be inspired by watching non-astronauts in space, some may be inspired by this climate activism. Others may be inspired by watching re-runs of Futurama. The important thing is the inspiration, not what triggers it.
- tobr 3y agoThe important thing is what it inspires.
- _Algernon_ 3y agoAnd some are inspired by that NPC trend on tiktok. There's definitely a difference in kind between sources of inspiration.
- phpisthebest 3y ago[flagged]
- deprecative 3y agoGiven that their parents and grandparents probably are the same folk that ensured a worse quality of life for them I'm going to side with the kids on this one.
- Aachen 3y agoTo be fair, until about 1990 the problem was virtually unknowable if you weren't a climate scientist working on cutting edge research yourself or were in the board room of the oil company that apparently had this investigated and then chose to make the most of their remaining time. I can't fault two entire generations for greenhouse gas emissions from before then, and after it became common knowledge, I can understand that society-wide transitions are genuinely hard. However, I do fault most able-bodied rich people (almost everyone who's reading this is in the world's top 10%) for, after it became known, barely even trying beyond a direct financial benefit to themselves in the short term (like solar panels on an otherwise idle roof which will yield a net profit in a handful of years)
- deprecative 3y agoTo clarify, I wasn't specifically talking about climate change. I was speaking broadly on regressive, rug/ladder pulling policies that put us into the situation we're in now and will likely be until climate change near extincts us.
- phpisthebest 3y agowhat you have personally done that was not "direct financial benefit to" yourself
- Aachen 3y agoThat's a long list of things which I posted on this account before. Some of the things are taking the bus to work instead of a more convenient car, taking more expensive trains rather than flying, reducing meat consumption when the meat replacements, which should be much cheaper to produce, are often actually more expensive, taking part in protests, exclusively using refilled glass containers (Mehrwegglas) rather than the cheaper throwaway pudding containers which also contain tastier contents, and reducing room heating (by thermal clothing and directly heating myself with a trickle of electricity rather than heating my environment) to the point where the neighbors' heat (we're on the ground floor) is enough to stay warm most of the winter. I'm looking into financing a wind turbine, which I expect to cost a few years' salary. I could put that money to other use (including for personal luxuries) but the climate problem is getting rather time-sensitive and I want to at least be part of the solution rather than the problem, even if it's very hard to solve all my emissions at once (I live in a rented place with gas heating, for example, but as mentioned I mostly replaced that even if some heating is still needed against mould and for visitors). Is that satisfactory for you?
- vkou 3y agoIf we're going to hold progress hostage to some poor person getting harmed in some poorly-quantified way, we never would have gotten runnning water, electricity, or the automobile.
- sophacles 3y agoBelieve it or not, keeping the planet nice is in their own self interests.
- phpisthebest 3y agoBelieve it or not, this lawsuit does nothing to "keep the planet nice"
- pyuser583 3y agoMy experience is young people are rarely inspired by news stories. Of all news stories, the ones involving court cases are the least inspiring. This isn’t about a disadvantaged person overcoming adversity. It’s a bunch of suits sitting on a room.
- smolder 3y agoYou might surprised how a good teacher could inspire hope in teenagers over this, contrary to all the other signals that indicate doom and gloom in their futures. Global warming was already weighing on me in my teens when I'm in my 30s now. It's a much more visible issue now.
- pyuser583 3y agoA good teacher can make soup exciting. Catching interest is 90% of teaching. I’m in my 40s, and for a good chunk of my childhood overpopulation and resource scarcity were big fears. It took me a like time to accept the global warming consensus, because that’s what happens when experts cry wolf. This looks like an interesting case, but also very specific to Montana.
- worik 3y agoMyexperience is the opposite. Both my memory and my observation
- Aerroon 3y agoWhy would future price increases for all your goods be inspiring for young people? That's what you're going to end up with when you increase costs. People don't choose fossil fuels just because, they're chosen largely for economic reasons.
- ordinaryradical 3y ago“Won’t someone think of the costs!” You know prices would be even lower if we let all our rivers and groundwater be polluted, right? Led piping was cheaper than alternatives too. Perhaps lower prices is not the all-important end you assume it to be?
- polygamous_bat 3y agoMuch easier to ignore the externalities if you know you will be dead by the time the bill comes due. Until them, more widgets for me!
- _Algernon_ 3y agoIf including economic externalities in the price makes goods more expensive, so be it. It's how things should be done.
- hypertele-Xii 3y agoLower prices themselves have a price. You could steal everything for free, why don't you?
- lame-robot-hoax 3y agoCarbon externalities not being reflected in the price of a good is a bug, not a feature. It’s a market failure that needs to be rectified.
- Aerroon 3y agoSure, and it will come at the expense of your economy. Eg would the ranch mentioned in the article be able to survive if it had to account for this? What will people's reactions be when you double the price of their food or gasoline? I'd wager one of the reasons why America's economy does so well compared to Europe's is the much cheaper access to energy. For example, Lithuania pays twice the price for gasoline and almost 3 times the price for electricity, meanwhile income in Lithuania is less than half of US incomes. People take a good economy for granted and are willing to trade it for many things. But then when the trade actually happens they will blame everyone else for the misery that results from it (eg "living wage" people).
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]
- terminous 3y agoI didn't realize how explicit the Montana state constitution was on this [1], which was rewritten in 1972: Part IX. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. (3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources. [1] https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_0010/section_0010/0000-0090-0010-0010.html https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_00...
- e40 3y agoBack when conservatism was synonymous with being conservative wrt the environment. Such a different place today's conservatives are at.
- dfxm12 3y agoFWIW, the democratic party was in power in Montana when this was written & passed. I guess for their part, republicans didn't get in the way.
- yycc9866tfbvxd 3y ago[dead]
- mikestew 3y agoI believe the word you're looking for is "conservationism". The definition of conservatism has not changed. In fact, the wikipedia article for conservation calls out the ambiguity, right at the top: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_movement
- kredd 3y agoHe was referring to the political right in the states. Historically speaking, in 70s/80s, even Nixon, passed laws for conserving the nature, protectionism and etc. At some point there was a switch into “nah, screw the environment” to align with the voter base.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- renewiltord 3y agoAFAICT without being an expert: 1. The state constitution says it's got to provide a clean environment https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/Constitution/IX/1.htm https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/Constitution/IX/1.htm (so short I won't provide a quote) 2. The Montana Environmental Policy Act in Montana has some exceptions written into it and in subsequent revisions https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Environmental/2021-mepa-handbook.pdf https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Environmental/2021-m... 3. One of these exceptions is that it limits the scope of environmental review for some energy projects (Cmd-F "energy" in above link) 4. I didn't read the case docs so I don't know which particular limit or if something else was it violated the constitutional thing but something did according to the court. I don't know what the things are that the folks are fighting against, but if it is one of those "everything must be environmentally reviewed" things that's used to stop windmills and nuclear plants from being built, then I'm on the other side of the kids. The article is that it's over fossil fuels, which sounds like the right target, but if someone else has details then please do share.
- phpisthebest 3y ago>> things that's used to stop windmills Why do you hate whales and birds? The environmental impact if windmills are pretty large >The article is that it's over fossil fuels, which sounds like the right target, MT has the largest coal reserves. Pretty sure that is target. The problem here like most of these things is the unintended consequences of these policies. Often they are only concerned with stopping the thing they believe is evil with no workable solutions as to what will replace it at all level, either from the energy demand stand point, economic fall out to the local economy, or the various other problems that some with regulatory change instead of market driven or natural change.
- renewiltord 3y agoWell, birds poop on me, so that's a good reason. It's war with those bastards.
- triceratops 3y agoIf a windmill can chop up whales the freaking largest mammal on the planet, I wouldn't dare stand in its way. Let us submit to our windmill overlords forthwith.
- PretzelPirate 3y ago> detailed how extreme weather has hurt her family’s ranch. Animal agriculture is also a big contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, dead zones, and habitat loss. Her family's ranch my not align with her fight against climate change.
- denimnerd42 3y agovery complicated issue as animal grazing also has tremendous environmental benefits
- tomweingarten 3y agoCan you provide some additional citations on this?
- denimnerd42 3y agohttps://today.tamu.edu/2021/08/10/grazing-cattle-can-reduce-agricultures-carbon-footprint/ https://today.tamu.edu/2021/08/10/grazing-cattle-can-reduce-... where I'm from the drive them down the highway on horseback and load them up on trains and drive them to the slaughterhouse. the land is kept similar to when however many thousands of bison roamed on it. as opposed to the nearby cities whose parks are overgrown with invasive brush or trimmed with petrol tractors.
- dqv 3y agoWild animal grazing where we're not killing them and breeding more every year has tremendous environmental benefits. Killing them and eating them is not compatible with the environmental benefits of grazing: >Small numbers of grazers may be consistent with healthy ecosystems and have minimal greenhouse gas impact, but only if their populations stay within ecologically defined limits. https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ranching https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ran...
- justrealist 3y ago
- wrycoder 3y ago“There are political decisions being made without regard to the best scientific evidence and the effects they will have on our youngest generations,” Yes, there are, indeed.
- asynchronous 3y agoIf you’re implying what I think you’re implying, I agree.
- shadowtree 3y agoFrom a logical perspective, Montana now needs to declare war on China and India. The US' CO2 emissions have been falling for a long time, now at levels of the 1950s. Pritzker's nuclear ban also means Montana invading a fellow state.
- lostmsu 3y agoThere are less severe actions than invading.
- Aachen 3y agoAnd more effective/efficient, if this were a serious discussion of options
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- breakyerself 3y agoThe US is the #2 largest CO2 emitter and the largest overall historical emitter of CO2 so it would make more sense to declare on the US itself and China, then India if there's still powder left after that, but I don't imagine you're being anythinglre than facetious.
- shadowtree 3y agoChina in 2021 emitted 12,500 Mtons of CO2. The US in 2021 emitted 4,700 Mtons of CO2. The EU in 2021 emitted 2,700 Mtons of CO2. China emitted nearly as much CO2 than the US and EU combined. The US' CO2 output peaked in 2000, with 6000 Mtons, has been steadily declining ever since. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022 https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022
- triceratops 3y agoGood. Now add up all the emissions from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and tell us.
- az226 3y agoThis is how it begins!!
- hash872 3y agoUnpopular opinion, really strong judicial review like this (1 judge is able to strike down whatever law the legislature of Congress passes based on vague criteria) is basically incompatible with democracy. At a minimum it should take a supermajority of a panel of judges to find a law 'unconstitutional'. It grants absolutely vast, arbitrary power to 1 single official because they happened to have attended law school. The system of government where 1 person has this much power but they don't have a JD is usually called a 'dictatorship!' And if your response is- well I like this particular judge's ruling so it's OK, I would remind you that a different judge could come up with an equally stretched right-wing ruling. After all, a state could pass an anti-carbon pollution law only for 1 judge to arbitrarily decide that that somehow violates the constitution, or something. Right-wing judges have struck down gun control laws, campaign financing ones like Citizens United, anti-corruption laws.... the list goes on and on. Strong judicial review is arbitrary and capricious
- Supermancho 3y ago> At a minimum it should take a supermajority of a panel of judges to find a law 'unconstitutional'. Legal or moral correctness, is not usually limited to a single judicial decision. When it is, it's remarkable enough that we learn about it early in schooling. Just because a Judge ruled to strike down a law, does not impact democracy in any way. It's a legal maneuver that will be challenged both in another legal arena and in the court of public opinion. These are the social frameworks that exist to protect against arbitrary bad actors and they matter, regardless if you think it's "OK" in isolation or not. Everyone can agree that judges need some leeway in making decisions that are in the best public interest, regardless of the letter of the law...re: misspellings, grammar issues, ill-intent, etc. I happen to be a statist and think that the mere challenge to Federal Policy should not be discounted, because of futility. It's important to challenge governance from a distance, even today.
- hash872 3y ago>It's a legal maneuver that will be challenged both in another legal arena and in the court of public opinion It will not be meaningfully challenged in the court of public opinion, which is completely irrelevant to judicial decisions. If it'll be challenged in an appellate court.... why not limit decisions blocking the democratically elected legislature to a full appeals court of 15 judges, as opposed to just 1? One party can always find 1 extremely ideological 'judge' in East Texas to enjoin the entire country. >These are the social frameworks that exist to protect against arbitrary bad actors and they matter.... Everyone can agree that judges need some leeway in making decisions that are in the best public interest I do not agree, and you are not considering that the judges themselves may be making ideological policy decisions as opposed to 'the best public interest'. It may interest you to learn that several other developed countries do not have judicial review whatsoever- whatever the legislature passes is the law, full stop. (In Netherlands that's literally in their constitution!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
- AlgorithmicTime 3y ago[dead]
- Eumenes 3y agoActivist judge rules in favor of activist Youths, propped up by their rich Activist parents, attempting their best Greta Thunberg impression - sent from my iPhone
- wayeq 3y agoCynical HN user presents cynical mind reading in sarcastic post
- supernova87a 3y agoI am very interested to see how this may play out and whether it gets upheld (note this is just a district judge writing a single ruling). Or whether the remedy is either toothless, or unenforceable. Because the major barrier I see is, with the climate change problem in general, no one is able to concretely and incrementally connect someone's (tiny) polluting action to actual harm to someone far down the line. (for legal liability purposes -- not saying the link doesn't exist in scientific proof) Let me phrase it this way. For someone to have an actionable legal cause, doesn't it require that the person/entity causing some claimed harm have a particularized, concrete, connected relationship to the harm? And that their cessation of the claimed causative action would remedy the issue? <--- this is the important thing The kids claim that <xyz> climate detrimental action is causing them harm. In most cases (some gas guzzling vehicle, coal burning plant) etc. the thing they claim is harming them, even if it were to be completely shut down, would not solve the climate problem. They would still be experiencing the harm. So how would a law be enforceable if anyone could be sued for something that minutely adds to climate change, and their stopping their activity would produce no measurable effect on the claimant's outcome? Heck, the kids' own existence could be said to be linked to climate change. Or, how about this -- wind farms could be sued for minutely adding to the environment / climate change problem. Or big box retail stores for causing traffic and wasteful packaging. The list could go on and on. We have opened a can of worms like if you said that denial of "the pursuit of happiness" is something that people can sue over. What legal principle is being promulgated here? I suspect this will be subject to significant review if more cases accumulate.
- voisin 3y ago> how would a law be enforceable if anyone could be sued for something that minutely adds to climate change, and their stopping their activity would produce no measurable effect on the claimant's outcome? There is a remoteness doctrine that it can’t be so remote as to minutely add to a harm. And so this would limit claims to only large emitters, and then there would be a measurable impact on the outcome.
- steve76 3y ago[dead]
- bonadrag 3y agoWhat is next? Old people suing young people if they fail to work enough to keep their pensions afloat? Absolutely banana republic level decision. Courts going beyond their customary boundaries is a bad idea for a democratic system stability.
- deltree7 3y ago[dead]
- sproketboy 3y ago[dead]
- sproketboy 3y ago[dead]
- freedomben 3y ago> Across five days of emotional testimony in June, the youths made claims about injuries they have suffered as a result of climate change. A 15-year-old with asthma described himself as “a prisoner in my own home” when isolating with covid during a period of intense wildfire smoke. Rikki Held, the 22-year-old plaintiff for whom the lawsuit is named, detailed how extreme weather has hurt her family’s ranch. The attorneys for the state apparently did not dispute any of the provided science (which scope I don't know). What I find interesting is, why? Do they accept it? Or did they choose not to to avoid political blowback from challenging the science in court?
- ticviking 3y agoAny time an activist organization presents evidence that the state doesn't contest I assume the whole case was set up by activists and the lawyers on both sides have an outcome that they both want but that democratic processes like election and debate won't create.
- veave 3y agoI hope they don't use tractors or any other fossil fuel vehicles. They should be mandated by the judge to reap the land by hand.
- HumblyTossed 3y ago> The state began and rested its defense on the same day, bringing the trial to an unexpectedly early close on June 20. In a pivot from its expected defense disputing the climate science behind the plaintiffs’ case, the state focused instead on arguing that the legislature should weigh in on the contested law, not the judiciary. Wait until the State starts making changes to make this true. I am glad the youth won... but they only won the battle. The greedy capitalists will win the war by getting people in office to change everything they need so that none of this matters.
- tromp 3y ago> Attorneys for the state countered that Montana’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is small. If the law in question were altered or overturned, Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell said, there would be “no meaningful impact or appreciable effect” on the climate. Of course many laws in many jurisdictions, nationally and internationally, need to be altered to have a meaningful impact. Just like many votes need to be altered to change the outcome of an election. That's not an argument to leave all these climate affecting laws unaltered. Just like we want every single vote to be counted.
- bjourne 3y agoMany left-wing movements around the world are becoming increasingly litigious. Due to the failure of mass-mobilization and the realization that laws often favor them.
- mimd 3y agoHopefully some of them will stay and work in Montana and not leave for greener pastures. It would be a shame and unbecoming if they don't follow through on their promise.