Name:______________________________________

Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths

in a Landmark Climate Case
The court found that young people have a constitutional right to a
healthful environment and that the state must consider potential
climate damage when approving projects.
New York Times Link

A group of young people in Montana won a landmark lawsuit on Monday

when a judge ruled that the state’s failure to consider climate change
when approving fossil fuel projects was unconstitutional.

The decision in the suit, Held v. Montana, coming during a summer of record heat and deadly wildfires, marks
a victory in the expanding fight against government support for oil, gas and coal, the burning of which has
rapidly warmed the planet.

“As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that
marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of
human-caused climate chaos,” said Julia Olson, the founder of Our Children’s Trust, a legal nonprofit group
that brought the case on behalf of the young people. “This is a huge win for Montana, for youth, for democracy,
and for our climate. More rulings like this will certainly come.”

The ruling means that Montana, a major coal and gas producing state that gets one-third of its energy by
burning coal, must consider climate change when deciding whether to approve or renew fossil fuel projects.

The case is part of a wave of litigation related to climate change that is targeting companies and governments
around the globe. States and cities are suing companies like Exxon, Chevron and Shell, seeking damages from
climate disasters and claiming that the companies have known for decades that their products were responsible
for global warming. And individuals are now suing state and federal governments, claiming that they have
enabled the fossil fuel industry and failed to protect their citizenry.

Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Litigation at Columbia University,
said the Montana case would reverberate around the country.

“This was climate science on trial, and what the court has found as a matter of fact is that the science is right,”
Mr. Burger said. “Emissions contribute to climate change, climate harms are real, people can experience
climate harms individually, and every ton of greenhouse gas emissions matters. These are important factual
findings, and other courts in the U.S. and around the world will look to this decision.”

The Montana case revolved around language in the state Constitution that guarantees residents “the right to a
clean and healthful environment,” and stipulates that the state and individuals are responsible for maintaining
and improving the environment “for present and future generations.”
 Name:______________________________________

A handful of other states have similar

guarantees, and young people in Hawaii,
Utah and Virginia have filed lawsuits that
are slowly winding their way through
courts. A federal case brought by young
people, which had been stalled for years, is
once again moving, heading toward a June
trial in Oregon.

Warm Up Challenge:
Considering what we have learned about the Tragedy of the Commons, what common resource does this
lawsuit seek to protect?
Air quality

What are the benefits that will come with this type of legislation being passed?

Mental mindset of improving thange

Hisqualitywillimprove
Less habitat loss
What are the drawbacks that will come with this type of legislation being passed?
will he sitting in the dark once they eliminated coal as its 3 of
Monta
houses
I coal and fossil fuel prices will
go up
Loss of Jobs
What are your thoughts on this lawsuit? Do you agree/disagree with this decision? Why?

from political economi standpoint I see this as a lose because of

a

A lack of Jobs and how the rebuplicans will go out hard for a little to try
this is a
to get every 02 of coal But from a ehviormental standpoint
win as there will be less habitat loss