A climate lawsuit won big in Montana. What will it mean for other cases? – Source New Mexico

Montana Youth Win Historic Climate Case

After three years, a climate lawsuit brought by 16 young people against the state of Montana has come to a stunning close. On Monday, a Montana district court judge ruled that the state government’s energy permitting policies violated the youth plaintiffs’ right to a healthy environment, which is enshrined in Montana’s state constitution.

A Monumental Step Forward for Climate Litigation

The ruling did not compel the state to take specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or fossil fuel production. But climate law experts say the verdict marks a monumental step forward for an emerging — and rapidly growing — body of climate litigation. By directly linking the state’s energy policies and resulting greenhouse gas emissions to the harms endured by young people, the decision established a strong legal argument that could be a model for other climate cases.

“The core logic of this case is going to arise again and again,” Sandra Nichols Thiam, an attorney and the director of the Environmental Law Institute’s climate judiciary project, told Grist.

Detailed Findings of Wrongdoing

Over more than a hundred pages, District Judge Kathy Seeley laid out an unusually detailed finding of the state’s wrongdoing and its impacts on the mental health, physical health, and cultural resources of the youth plaintiffs. Seeley zeroed in on a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act, the state law that governs permitting of major infrastructure and energy projects, that explicitly prevented state agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions when evaluating projects. The court resoundingly concluded that by not accounting for the climate impacts of its actions, the state of Montana — a major producer of coal, oil, and gas — directly harmed the plaintiffs.

“The state’s actions exacerbate anthropogenic climate change and cause further harms to Montana’s environment and its citizens, especially its youth,” Seeley wrote.

Implications for Constitutional Cases

The ruling could especially bolster cases in states that, like Montana, enshrine environmental rights in their constitutions, said Michael Gerrard, faculty director at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Currently, six states grant a constitutional right to a healthy environment, which protects access to clean air and water much as the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and religion.

A climate lawsuit in Hawaiʻi going to trial next summer leans on the state’s constitutional right to a healthy environment. (The plaintiffs in both Held v. Montana and Nawahine v. the Hawaiʻi Department of Transportation are represented by the Oregon-based nonprofit Our Children’s Trust.) Gerrard said Montana’s finding that excess greenhouse gas emissions qualify as a breach of that fundamental right could easily be cited to strengthen legal arguments in Hawai‘i’s and similar constitutional cases. Plaintiffs could also use the ruling as a model for clarifying a specific government’s role in worsening the climate crisis.

Factual Basis for Climate Impacts

But even in cases that don’t involve constitutional rights, the Held v. Montana decision could help provide a clear factual basis for establishing climate impacts and their harms, Thiam said. Evans noted that the judge’s affirmation of climate change’s effects on youth and Indigenous plaintiffs provides “a powerful example for other cases around the country.” Gerrard added that in particular, the case could be cited for its factual findings of the unique climate vulnerabilities of children and the mental health impacts of a degrading environment.

Limitations and Future Outlook

Yet the Held v. Montana verdict is not without its limitations. In their initial complaint, the plaintiffs asked the court to order the government to develop “a remedial plan” to reduce statewide emissions — a request the court dismissed. That’s a fairly predictable response, according to Gerrard, since courts typically evade questions that could be seen as more political or better handled by the legislature.

By declaring the state’s policy unconstitutional, the court essentially required the state of Montana to consider climate change impacts when permitting energy projects. But the court did not force the state to take any further measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as permitting fewer fossil fuel projects. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Montana state attorney general has stated that the office plans to appeal the case to Montana’s Supreme Court.

Thiam noted that for any emerging realm of environmental litigation, establishing key facts and securing greater wins in court takes time. Climate litigation worldwide has more than doubled over the last five years, with most cases brought in the U.S, according to a recent report by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Sabin Center on Climate Change Law. As the number of cases continues to grow, environmental law experts say we can expect to see more court victories.

“The ruling will be inspirational in the United States and globally,”

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
• SDG 15: Life on Land
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The article discusses a climate lawsuit brought by young people against the state of Montana, highlighting the impacts of the state’s energy policies on the environment and the health of its citizens. This connects to SDG 13, which focuses on taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. The article also mentions the mental health, physical health, and cultural resources of the youth plaintiffs, which relates to SDG 3 on good health and well-being. Additionally, the article mentions the need to protect clean air and water, which is relevant to SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation. Finally, the article mentions the harms to Montana’s environment and its citizens, which aligns with SDG 15 on life on land.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters
• SDG 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water, and soil pollution and contamination
• SDG 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services
• SDG 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials

Based on the article’s content, the specific targets that can be identified are related to strengthening resilience to climate-related hazards (SDG 13.1), reducing deaths and illnesses from pollution and contamination (SDG 3.9), conserving and restoring terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15.1), and improving water quality (SDG 6.3).

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator for SDG 13.1: Number of people affected by climate-related hazards and disasters
• Indicator for SDG 3.9: Number of deaths and illnesses attributed to pollution and contamination
• Indicator for SDG 15.1: Proportion of important sites for terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity that are covered by protected areas
• Indicator for SDG 6.3: Proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality

The article does not explicitly mention indicators, but based on the identified targets, indicators can be used to measure progress towards those targets. The indicators mentioned above can be used to measure the number of people affected by climate-related hazards and disasters (SDG 13.1), the number of deaths and illnesses attributed to pollution and contamination (SDG 3.9), the proportion of important sites for biodiversity covered by protected areas (SDG 15.1), and the proportion of bodies of water with good ambient water quality (SDG 6.3).

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: sourcenm.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.