SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
There is something fundamentally wrong when young people have to sue their government for the right to a clean and healthful environment.
It’s official: 2023 was the hottest year on record. There is surprisingly little about it in the news, but lawyers are gearing up for a hot new year in court to do what they can to protect a livable climate. Climate litigation is the new game in town. The first big case was won by Urgenda in the Netherlands in 2019. Formed out of the words urgent and agenda, the Urgenda foundation and 900 Dutch citizens demanded that their government act according to the science. It took six years to win.
In 2021, Neubauer v. Germany resulted in the German government being forced to revise its 2019 climate law and tighten its targets for decarbonization. The German case was unique in that the highest court affirmed the government’s responsibility not only to its current citizens, but also to future generations.
In the U.S., recent successes in climate litigation are encouraging. Early this year, a judge in Oregon denied the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss a complaint agains the federal government by 21 young plaintiffs.
What will our grandchildren think, both of the young people in court and those opposing them?
It was reminiscent of last summer, when 16 young plaintiffs convinced a judge in Held v. State of Montana that their government must take the climate crisis much more seriously. The Washington Post called the decision “one of the strongest decisions on climate change ever issued by a court.” Of course, there is something fundamentally wrong when young people have to sue their government for the right to a clean and healthful environment. It should be any government’s priority and desire to protect the young.
Future generations devastated by climate impacts will look back on this period and see mostly elderly politicians mostly ignoring climate science—or worse, deliberately banning climate science from being considered. The fact that the Montana state prosecutor appealed the ruling within weeks underscored how much damage climate denial has done. What will our grandchildren think, both of the young people in court and those opposing them?
Now that 2023 has been declared the hottest on record, and possibly the warmest in over 100,000 years, you’d think even the most stubborn climate deniers would come to their senses. But of course, it’s not really the deniers we need to worry about. After all, even the well-funded machine that invented climate denial was never really based in denial; in fact, quite the contrary.
As Harvard historian of science Naomi Oreskes and others have been revealing for years (just watch the film Merchants of Doubt), fossil fuel giants found out decades ago—from the scientists they had hired—that their products were going to heat the planet. They knew their own scientists’ findings would require regulations and incentives that would favor renewable energies like solar and wind. So they simply invented the myth of climate change denial so they could keep raking in the dough.
They also found willing amplifiers of their myth by telling them that any regulation was a communist ploy that would ultimately not only hurt the economy but curtail all the freedoms Americans hold dear. They are not coming to their senses. They are running for office. They are exporting their ideology to Germany, to the U.K., the European Union, and beyond, even though they have started losing.
It is not just elected officials and fossil fuel executives who should be paying attention. Last summer, lawyers from Client Earth wrote a letter to the Global Public Policy Committee (GPPC) representing senior leaders of the world’s largest accounting firms—BDO, Deloitte, EY, Grant Thornton, KPMG, and PwC—pointing out that they are not doing what they pledged to do with regards to transparency around climate risk, neglectful omissions that could potentially expose them to lawsuits as well.
To be sure, climate litigation is only one tool in the toolbox, and its results can be mixed, as BBC reporter Isabella Kaminski recently concluded.
But we have long known that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies lied about what they knew about the danger of climate change, and they have rightly been facing increasing legal trouble. The fact that they keep lying and are even exporting their methods is particularly devastating at a time of mounting climate disruption and a rising death toll from extreme weather events.
The myth of climate denial and the rejection of climate protection measures are sold to voters everywhere under the guise of freedom. But they only protect the freedom of fossil fuel billionaires and polluting industries to keep profiting from harming us all. The truth shines brightly through the fog of deliberate misinformation when climate wins in court.
A growing number of young people, states, and cities are suing Big Oil and governments for failing to act on the crisis.
Across the globe, people are turning to the courts to combat the worsening climate emergency. Since 2015, cases around the world have doubled to over 2,000, according to a recent United Nations report.
They are also on the rise in the United States.
In a landmark trial in Montana, a judge ruled this summer that the state had violated the young plaintiffs’ “right to a clean and healthful environment”—a fundamental right enshrined in the Montana Constitution.
Litigation alone won’t solve the climate emergency. The environmental justice movement will need to keep sustained pressure on our elected officials.
The case, Held v. Montana, is the first constitutional climate suit in U.S. history to make it to trial. The nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust brought the legal challenge on behalf of 16 young people, ranging in age from five to 22, against the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies.
They argued that Montana’s energy policy had harmed Montana’s environment and failed to protect their rights, citing a law that prevented state agencies from considering climate impacts when approving projects. The court sided with the plaintiffs and held that this restriction violated the state’s constitution.
Throughout the trial, experts testified to the public health threats from climate change. And the plaintiffs, many of them children, provided impactful testimonies on how Montana’s changing climate had hurt them both physically and mentally.
Some described experiencing severe allergies and respiratory illnesses due to increased air pollution and wildfire smoke. Others had witnessed their homes damaged by floods, suffered isolation from not being able to safely recreate outside, and expressed anguish over their futures knowing that glaciers are melting in the state they call home.
The Montana court set an important precedent by recognizing that a safe and stable climate is integral to the enjoyment of all other rights. This decision can inform other cases seeking to hold governments—along with fossil fuel companies—accountable for harms caused by climate change.
Young people are also pursuing constitutional climate cases in Hawaii, Virginia, and Utah.
Other states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island, along with cities like Boulder, Colorado, and Baltimore, Maryland, are suing for damages from Big Oil for allegedly concealing or misrepresenting the dangers of burning fossil fuels.
California filed suit this September against five of the largest oil and gas companies in the world for engaging in a “decades-long campaign of deception” about climate change. California is the largest oil-producing state and economy to take such legal action against Big Oil.
The lawsuit alleges that Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, and their trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, have all known for more than 50 years that burning fossil fuels would lead to global warming.
Yet rather than warn the public, the complaint details how the companies chose to publicly downplay and deny the dangers to the environment while aggressively promoting their products in California.
Through this lawsuit, California Attorney General Rob Bonta seeks to hold the fossil fuel companies financially responsible for contributing to climate-related damages in the state, create a fund to finance climate mitigation, and prevent these companies from further misleading the public. This approach is similar to that used against the tobacco industry.
Climate-related lawsuits face complex legal obstacles, like proving causality between fossil fuel industry practices and resulting harms. But if successful, they can make Big Oil pay for its well-documented role in the climate disaster—and ultimately transform how these companies do business.
Litigation alone won’t solve the climate emergency. The environmental justice movement will need to keep sustained pressure on our elected officials, many of whom have either enabled this crisis or been far too reluctant to act on it.
Together, this combination of litigation and grassroots advocacy sends a powerful message to policymakers that, in the words of Montana plaintiff Rikki Held, “We can’t keep passing on the climate crisis to future generations.”
It will take an extended commitment to community organizing to expand the Held ruling into tangible relief as a vital state constitutional protection for nature.
The 16 child plaintiffs in
Held v. State of Montana, the Children's Trust lawsuit over the meaning of Montana's state constitutional right to a healthy environment, won an important decision on August 14. But as these things unfortunately go, its significance as more than just a hard-fought, symbolic feel-good ruling remains an open question.
A state court judge in Montana found the "Plaintiffs have a fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, which includes climate as part of the environmental life-support system" and that "Montana's GreenHouse Gas (GHG) emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana's environment and harm and injury to the Youth Plaintiffs." This doesn't sound so earth-shattering unless you realize that our system only grudgingly acknowledges that we all have a right to a clean and healthful environment. The judge also ruled that a recent Montana law "prohibiting analysis of GHG emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate, as well as how additional GHG emissions will contribute to climate change... violates Youth Plaintiffs' right to a clean and healthful environment and is unconstitutional on its face." Translation: The system had to be told by a court that climate chaos is real and that you can't change reality just by passing a law to deny it.
The decision also makes it clear that regular people have legal standing to unlock the power in their state constitution to protect the environment, and that they might also do it in ways that are stronger than federal environmental regulations. At least six other states besides Montana—Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, and Pennsylvania—have similar environmental rights etched into their state constitutions. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) has pursued a trial for more than eight years over the constitutionality of a fracking injection well ban passed by the people of Grant Township, Indiana County, Pennsylvania, under the state Environmental Rights Amendment. Based on our experiences, it will take an extended commitment to community organizing to expand the Held ruling into tangible relief as a vital state constitutional protection for nature.
The Held decision struck down reactionary lawmaking and will result in better information for critical decisions affecting the environment, but leaves it to the people, the legislature, and the governor to figure out how to reduce the carbon emissions driving our planetary emergency.
Held interpreted Montana's Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which is similar to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to require an environmental impact statement before permitting a mining and petroleum extraction project. But simply compiling a more detailed statement doesn't mean the agency or public can block a project, nor does it even imply that serious conditions can be imposed on the permitted activity. The industry-owned Montana legislature had made it illegal to consider what more fracking permits and rare metal mining would add to the carbon burning that's driving climate chaos. As a result, there are nearly zero ways to reduce 166,000,000 tons of annual greenhouse gasses emitted in Montana.
The Held trial lasted a week, and the plaintiffs provided expert testimony connecting the present climate chaos to human industrialization and its effects on human, particularly child, health. At the trial's conclusion, the court struck down the state law prohibiting consideration of how a new mining or drilling project contributes to climate chaos, when assessing environmental harms.
While it is now unconstitutional in Montana for permitting agencies to ignore climatological effects, that doesn't mean that drilling and mining permits will suddenly become easy to deny. For one thing, Held v. State of Montana is being appealed by the state government to the Montana Supreme Court, which has proven to be friendly to extractive industries over the decades. The trial court's interpretation of the state's responsibility to its youth could be reversed or diluted.
Even if the child plaintiffs win the appeal, it's a fact that the courts simply don't have much power to tell Montana what to do. The judge ruled earlier in the case that while she has the power to issue a formal declaration of the plaintiffs' rights, she does not have the authority to order specific relief. (Part 3 of the ruling states: "The Court found that Plaintiffs' requests for the Court to order Defendants to develop a remedial plan, to retain jurisdiction over the matter until Defendants complied with the remedial plan, and, if necessary, appoint a special master to assist the Court in reviewing the remedial plan, exceeded the Court's authority under the political question doctrine.") The ruling finds the State of Montana must consider climate chaos effects in permitting decisions, but the court cannot order the explicit road to get there.
The Held decision struck down reactionary lawmaking and will result in better information for critical decisions affecting the environment, but leaves it to the people, the legislature, and the governor to figure out how to reduce the carbon emissions driving our planetary emergency. Since we know the legislature and governor are highly likely to oppose and undercut the needed changes, the people must be the change agents.
So, from now on, environmental assessments in agency permit decisions in Montana need to include a lot more detail about climate-damaging effects, but the goal is limited to "better" decisions by the agencies, not the power to veto. Better information about the negative effects of any new projects will presumably cause more serious consideration of the negative as well as positive effects, not only of oil and gas production and of environmental damage from mining, but also of the greenhouse gas effects of industrial wind and solar power generation. All industrial scale energy projects have negative impacts that require weighing benefits against risks. By approving the legal standing of the plaintiffs as individual citizens to invoke the Montana Constitution, the court expanded the public's ability to leverage the constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.
The Held decision will hopefully be seen in time as a springboard for expanding democratically-decided directions as the climate crisis burgeons. It is an invitation for expanding long-term environmental organizing. A clear victory for Grant Township at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on PA's Environmental Rights Amendment will empower local communities in a gritty, tangible way that Held doesn't. It will take years to get to that level of definition of the Montana constitutional provision and will require continued citizen organizing, litigation, and legislation over many years for there to be measurable positive reductions of Montana's greenhouse gas contributions. And, of course, Montana is only one of 50 states.
While the decision does seem to open up the possibility that citizens could challenge the adequacy of conditions imposed on environmental permits that allow land, water, and air destruction from oil and gas extraction and mining, the system itself poses other pitfalls to be reckoned with. For example, MEPA allows economic burdens on the mining or mineral extraction firms to be taken into consideration in permitting. A company's economic stake in having a project go forward must be taken into account, something that could make it nearly impossible to deny any permit.
By continuing to treat minerals as necessary economic assets combined with the Takings Clause in the 5th Amendment to the federal Constitution, (remember corporations have a large collection of constitutional rights including 5th Amendment rights), a permit that is denied based on Held may allow the extraction companies to claim public takings, and the taxpayers may be liable to compensate them. This is not a criticism of the victory, but is instead a reminder of the sobering dominance of property ownership in our culture and legal system.
CELDF certainly hopes this ruling holds up on appeal. It's more than a feel-good ruling, but it is fragile, and needs better definition to understand its usefulness. This case could be reversed on appeal, and it may be greeted with legal or ideological reluctance by courts unwilling to concede substance to Montana's MEPA law. And undoubtedly, the Montana legislature will try again to undercut and weaken the decision legislatively.
My advice to those celebrating this decision is, take a five minute break and exchange hugs and high-fives, but recognize that this is the beginning, not the end, of a journey for those kids in Montana. Then get back down to it. Held is important. How significant it turns out to be will be up to the people and youth of Montana, if they stay engaged.