9 ms·
Montana loses fight against youth climate activists in landmark ruling
- hoppyhoppy2 3y agoSee also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37126780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37126780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37123755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37123755
- palata 3y ago> “Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate—even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that our state has no impact on the global climate," Flower said. That Flower person just doesn't have a clue.
- HPsquared 3y agoI guess it's a question of "absolutely none" vs "proportionally almost none". The legal issue being of environmental damage done to the state of Montana by climate change, the actions of Montanans do indeed have a negligible impact. (Population 1.1 million)
- unlikelymordant 3y agoThis argument could be extended to anything by just dividing up the target into smaller chunks, just because individuals have negligeable impact on global climate doesnt mean nobody has any responsibility to reduce emissions. No raindrop thinks itself responsible for the flood.
- InSteady 3y agoAn individual gun, let alone bullet, kills so few people you can practically treat it as zero if you zoom out far enough. Therefore any regulation whatsoever is meaningless. Yeah, this is a very convenient rhetorical device for someone looking to trivialize important issues in bad faith.
- HPsquared 3y agoCost-benefit analysis is where we need to go.
- esafak 3y agoMontana is not an island. Behaviors and precedents spread.
- Mordisquitos 3y agoHowever negligible the impact, the State Constitution says what it says. Imagine if a local US government were to pass a law that totally banned the possession and ownership of firearms within city limits. They could analogously argue that this law does not violate the 2nd Amendment, because the right of the people to keep and bear arms in just this city has a negligible impact on “the security of a free State” overall.
- tareqak 3y agoFrom the article: Experts told Scientific American that Montana's emissions are significant given its population size, emitting in 2019 "about 32 million tons of carbon dioxide." That's "about as much as Ireland, which has a population six times larger," Scientific American reported.
- ClumsyPilot 3y agoI guess it's a question of "absolutely none" vs "proportionally almost none". So if you died of 1000 cuts and I inflicted 1 cut, then I am not guilty of any crime because proportionally my impact was almost none?
- lukas099 3y agoThey have about the same share of the responsibility as they do of the consequences. (actually greater share of the responsibility and lesser of the consequences, but still)
- pauldenton 3y agoAre there many car factories in Montana? Are there strip mines? Frakking oil fields? This is Montana not North Carolina
- hobs 3y agoJust the coal power plants that TFA mentioned that got to skip regulatory evaluation because of friendly politicians.
- tareqak 3y agoFrom the Reuters page for this story: In a June trial, the youths had argued that despite its sparse population, Montana is responsible for an outsized share of global emissions. The state is a major producer of coal, oil and gas that is shipped elsewhere and is also the home of pipelines and other infrastructure needed to ship those fuels. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/montana-judge-hands-historic-win-young-plaintiffs-climate-change-case-2023-08-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/montana-judge-h...
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y agoI hate driving into Billings. Huge oil refinery or something right next to I94. Smells like poison. Edit: found this link https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=MT#:~:text=Montana%20has%204%20refineries%20with,are%20in%20the%20Billings%20area https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=MT#:~:text=Montan....
- COGlory 3y agoAre you seriously asking if there are strip mines in Montana? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
- wildzzz 3y agoWhat a ridiculous claim. Does this guy think there's just a single pollution factory in China doing all the damage? Whole Montana cannot be solely to blame, they can certainly share some blame just like any government that has any sort of greenhouse gas production within its jurisdiction. Oh wait, they aren't allowed to do environmental impact studies that consider greenhouse gas so there's no data to support the claim that Montana produces any!
- declan_roberts 3y ago> This prohibition, 16 plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 successfully argued A 5 year old being used in a lawsuit? Really?
- fwungy 3y ago[flagged]
- Ma8ee 3y agoYou know clearly absolutely nothing about Greta Thunberg.
- NovaDudely 3y agoIt is an idea that many floated as soon as Greta turned up in the news. They didn't like the message, so they decided to attack her rather than the ideas. Use some media based pareidolia and they had a conspiracy to make the world seem right again. It is easier to attack the person and the ideas of climate change, to stay pure in ideals and intent, than to accept dirty truth that we the people may have had any influence on the world that is even vaguely negative.
- fwungy 3y agoI know a lot. Her parents are quite well connected and used their child because it works well in the media. Children want to please their parents and mimic their views. It's not a great idea to push young children into the media spotlight. It rarely turns out well for the child.
- Ma8ee 3y agoThis is what I meant with that you know nothing about her. Her parents didn't push her into the media spotlight. I'm certain some Youtube channel has told you otherwise, but the facts are that she herself was the driving force behind her activism, and she was the one that pushed her family to become more conscious about climate change.
- fwungy 3y ago[flagged]
- nelsnelson 3y agoWhat reason might that be? Oh, because you think they are dumber than you? Well they are going to have to suffer the consequences of your smarty-pants bad decisions for way longer than you, so I say, we give them a vote proportional to the statistically average remaining years they have left on this planet.
- 4rt 3y agoIs your argument that a 1 week old baby with ~84 years of expected lifespan remaining should have a vote worth 84x that of an 83 year old?
- ethbr1 3y agoI don't know if I'd go with a 1:1 ratio, but voting for matters that might have consequences farther in the future? Yes, they should have a weighted vote. It's hard to be objective when you don't have skin in the game.
- 4rt 3y agoParents do have "skin in the game".
- ChadNauseam 3y agoAlternatively: kin in the game
- adolph 3y agoAye, I think it makes sense for parents to have proxy votes for their kids.
- 3y ago
- maybelsyrup 3y agoGotta start somewhere. I hope this contributes to some more momentum in the right direction, both legally and in the zeitgeist more broadly. Was also surprised to read that Montana emits as much ghg’s as Ireland.
- wyager 3y ago> Was also surprised to read that Montana emits as much ghg’s as Ireland. Does Ireland have much industry to speak of? I was under the impression that most of Ireland's "industrial" output was effectively tax services. Montana is heavily weighted towards agri-industrial production, so it's not surprising to me that net energy usage per person is ~5x higher.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoMontana also has a lot of coal reserves, which I assume they use some in state for power production. It’s funny because Montana also has lots of hydro.
- xzel 3y agoThey have a large amount of cattle. Just read an article in the FT (would link but on mobile) about Ireland looking to cull 200k cows to help balance their methane emissions.
- hinkley 3y ago“They have a large amount of cattle” Montana has more cows than humans. Montana has more than twice as many cows as humans. 1.1 million residents and 2.6 million head of cattle.
- derriz 3y agoIreland has 7.5m head of cattle[1] - I think that qualifies as a "large amount". And you can add 6m head of sheep and over 1.5m pigs. About 40% of Ireland's CO2 equivalent comes from agriculture/agri-business. [1] https://ahdb.org.uk/news/irish-cattle-and-sheep-numbers-rise-in-2022 https://ahdb.org.uk/news/irish-cattle-and-sheep-numbers-rise...
- friend_and_foe 3y agoI want to know wyat this constitutional right to "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations" is. Is it a state constitution thing? The article told us nothing about the case.
- CaptainNegative 3y agoYes. The text is here, 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... . It's very vague, probably intentionally, and the working interpretation is whatever the court just decided it is.
- mapmeld 3y agoYes, it's in the state constitution, Article IX https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/docs/72constit.pdf https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/docs/72constit.pdf
- tareqak 3y agoMontana Code Annotated 2021 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA ARTICLE II. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Part II. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS Inalienable Rights Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities. https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0020/part_0010/section_0030/0000-0020-0010-0030.html https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0020/part_00... Montana Code Annotated 2021 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA ARTICLE IX. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Part IX. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES Protection And Improvement 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. 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...
- wavesounds 3y agoThe reason they're having success in Montana is because Montana's constitution says "The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations" It would be nice if we could amend the US constitution with something similar.
- nxm 3y agoThe rich would carve out exceptions for themselves (e.g. private jets)
- iraqmtpizza 3y agoLOL no. We're not stapling positive rights and duties onto the back of the constitution
- tareqak 3y agoFrom the article: This prohibition, 16 plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 successfully argued, violates their constitutional right to a "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." 1. I wonder if there are other activities that could be banned outright for violating Montanans constitutional right to "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." 2. I also wonder if there are activities and goods that Montana is compelled to legalize using this same constitutional right.
- karaterobot 3y agoYeah, it's pretty vaguely worded. It has text about it being the responsibility of every Montanan to improve the environment, now and for the future. I'm not sure how they would measure or enforce that, and if lawsuits start popping off as a result, I think they will probably just amend the text of the constitution.
- MAGZine 3y agoIirc they had amended the Constitution specifically with vague wording because Montana has historically been exploited by large corporations, and they wanted to make it easy for citizens to protect the environment.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- HPsquared 3y agoThey could ban smoking under that law, perhaps.
- t0bia_s 3y agoOr even heat by burning wood?
- runlevel1 3y agoI figured the legislature prohibited considering greenhouse gas emissions in a roundabout way, but nope... From the law itself (emphasis mine): > (2) (a) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b), an environmental review conducted pursuant to subsection (1) may not include an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state's borders. Context: Subsection (1) just defines the general what and why of an environmental impact statement. Subsection (2)(b) gives only two exceptions: If the project is being done jointly with a federal agency and the federal agency requires it, or if congress amends the Clean Air Act to define carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant. Source: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/HB0971.pdf https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/HB0971.pdf
- gorgoiler 3y agoThe article says “as a result, statutes prohibiting climate impact analysis and remedies are now invalid and permanently enjoined”. Page 6 of the ruling says that in March this year — three years after the suit was filed — the laws in question were repealed by the governor. Two weeks later Montana tried to have the case dismissed for “mootness”. https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023.08.14-Held-v.-Montana-victory-order.pdf https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023.08.14... I’d like to hear more about that. Was the state was trying to unilaterally settle — and avoid a public trial — by saying “fine then, we’ll undo the law if you hate it so much, happy now?” and attempting to storm off in a sulk, only to be dragged out of their room and back into court?
- InSteady 3y agoMore like having to fight established precedent in the courts is much more dangerous and expensive than to continue your lobbying efforts as you always have and write (or repeal) laws at your convenience. Of course we aren't talking about the state of Montana at this point, but rather the "stakeholders" who are in the politicians' campaign chests and ears 24/7/365