Bengaluru (Aryavarth): In a significant win for climate action, a district court in Montana, United States, ruled this week that the state’s Environmental Policy Act was unconstitutional. The Act, which previously forbade consideration of climate impacts in proposed energy projects, was deemed to violate the right to a clean and healthful environment, as promised by the state’s constitution.
The case, known as Held v. Montana, was brought in 2020 on behalf of 16 young individuals aged 5 to 22. Julia Olson, a lawyer at the nonprofit law firm Our Children’s Trust, led the litigation.
The ruling, described as “truly historic” by Olson, represents the first significant victory in a series of climate change cases. Olson’s work centers around the right to a clean and healthy environment, and she emphasizes the essential role of science in these legal battles.
Montana’s constitution explicitly grants citizens the right to a clean and healthy environment. Approximately a dozen U.S. states have similar provisions. The Held v. Montana decision asserts a climate right that exists for youth.
The legal battle mirrors other civil rights movements, such as desegregation and gay marriage. Olson believes that state-level victories like this one build momentum across the country and influence federal decisions.
Science played a crucial part in the legal argument. Expert testimonies were called to present the best scientific evidence available. Many world-renowned scientists, who never testified before, took the stand to validate their work. Stanford’s Mark Jacobson remarked, “I’m just a scientist; nobody listens to me.” According to Olson, it was empowering for these experts to present their scientific findings in court, on behalf of the youth.
The science of climate change and its impacts on public health, particularly on young people, was essential in building the case. More studies on the specific harm to children caused by climate-related factors like heat, fire, smoke, and drought were cited.
Despite the victory, there are gaps in scientific understanding that need to be filled. More localized research and in-depth studies regarding specific targets, such as the 1.5 °C average warming target in the Paris agreement, could further strengthen future legal cases.
The best available science shows that the global carbon concentration needs to be below 350 parts per million to restore the Earth’s energy balance. Research focusing on this target is still lacking, according to Olson.
While celebrating the win in Montana, Olson recognizes that the fight is far from over. She is involved in various cases nationwide, including a pending federal case, Juliana v. United States.
When asked about her ultimate goal, Olson’s response was clear: winning against the United States government and having the U.S. fossil fuel energy system declared unconstitutional. “Then I’ll be able to take a little bit of a breather,” she said.
The Montana ruling is more than just a legal win; it represents hope for the younger generation, a validation of science, and an inspiration for climate activists. It sets a precedent that may well resonate across the nation and beyond, marking a significant step towards recognizing environmental rights and the urgent need for responsible climate policies.
