HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Attorneys for Republican officials in Montana pressed the state Supreme Court on Wednesday to overturn a landmark climate ruling that said regulators were violating residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment by allowing oil, gas and coal projects without regard for global warming.
Last year’s ruling by a state district judge was considered a breakthrough in attempts by young environmentalists and their attorneys to use courts to leverage action on climate change. It must be upheld by the state’s high court to set lasting legal precedent.
Attorneys for state officials, including Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, told justices Wednesday that greenhouse gases from Montana are insignificant on a global scale.
They also argued that climate change is too broad a problem to solve through the courts and noted that state law prohibits the denial of fossil-fuel projects based on their carbon dioxide emissions.
“Global climate change is a complex issue that can’t be solved by a judicial decision,” state attorney Dale Schowengerdt said.
Arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs, attorney Roger Sullivan recounted trial testimony from scientists that every ton of greenhouse gases emitted exacerbates climate change.
“The temperature goes up day by day,” Sullivan said. “If nothing is done, it will be much hotter 50 years from now, when these young plaintiffs are my age, because of this climate emergency to which the state of Montana is a substantial contributing factor.”
The seven justices took the case under advisement. A decision could take weeks or months.
If the ruling stands, it could nudge fossil fuel-friendly Montana to adopt policies more protective to the environment and potentially influence future climate litigation in other states such as Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York, which like Montana have state constitutional protections for the environment.
“The bottom line is whatever the state Supreme Court decides, it’s more likely to have an influence,” said Syracuse University professor David Driesen, an expert on environmental law. “Other states that have those provisions will consider it. They don’t have to follow it.”
Officials in Hawaii who faced a similar lawsuit from young environmentalists recently agreed to a settlement that includes an ambitious requirement to decarbonize the state’s transportation system over the next 21 years. And in April, Europe’s highest human rights court ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a ruling with potential implications across the continent.
Those cases and the Montana lawsuit have resulted in a small number of rulings establishing a government duty to protect citizens from climate change. Driesen said the effects of the litigation on energy policies have been largely indirect, but as the rulings accumulate, it could increase political pressure on energy companies to invest in cleaner technologies.
The young plaintiffs in the case testified at trial that their lives have been profoundly affected by climate change: that worsening wildfires foul the air they breathe, while decreased snowpack and drought deplete rivers that sustain farming, fish, wildlife and recreation.
Environmental activists have cited the district court ruling in lawsuits challenging permits for a natural gas power plant, an oil refinery, a pipeline and a coal mine, court records show.
However, most of those lawsuits haven’t yet been served on state officials as the activists wait for the high court to weigh in, said Derf Johnson, of the Montana Environmental Information Center, a plaintiff in the cases.
State regulators in response to last year’s ruling started analyzing some climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions in mid-March. No projects have been denied as a result, said Rebecca Harbage, spokesperson for the state Department of Environmental Quality.
The reviews cover on-site emissions, such as from heavy equipment at a coal mine or a pumping station along an oil pipeline. They don’t consider the emissions from burning the fuels if that occurs out of the state.
District Judge Kathy Seeley said in her August 2023 ruling that it would be up to the Legislature to determine how to bring policies into compliance.
Individuals and organizations filed briefs in support of the plaintiffs ahead of Wednesday’s oral arguments, including Native American tribes, health experts, outdoor recreation businesses, and athletes such as acclaimed mountaineer Conrad Anker.
Republican legislative leaders, oil and gas interests, natural resource developers, the Montana Chamber of Commerce and the state’s largest utility, NorthWestern Energy, are supporting the state. NorthWestern is building a gas-fired power plant along the Yellowstone River near Billings that has figured prominently in the dispute over greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate.
June brought record warm global temperatures for the 13th straight month and also was the 12th straight month that was 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than pre-industrial times, according to European climate service Copernicus.
Montana’s Constitution requires agencies to “maintain and improve” a clean environment. A law signed by Gianforte last year said environmental reviews may not consider climate impacts unless the federal government makes carbon dioxide a regulated pollutant.
___
Brown reported from Billings.
Source: post
