In Montana, It’s Youth vs. the State in a Landmark Climate Case

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/climate/montana-youth-climate-lawsuit.html

by gardenfelder • 3 years ago

21 5 3 years ago

oftenwrong• 3 years ago

Montana state Constitution ... 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.”

That seems like a very solid foundation for the case.

balderdash• 3 years ago

few comments:

1) i think its next to impossible to dis-aggregate the effects of climate change from multi-decade/century climate patterns. Not saying its not there, but that its incredibly hard to attribute perceived changes in our life time to specific causes.

2) i'd be much more amenable to the toxic pollution arguments here (arsenic etc), as it seems a bit vague to me that the change in climate for Montana brought on by global warming is actually bad (for them specifically vs. say pacific islanders who will be under water). my understanding is that we as a species will be net loosers from climate change, but there will be some localized winners (i'm looking at you canada/siberia).

3) I've got mixed feelings when "novel" legal arguments are brought forward, on the one hand people should have the right to be heard and access the courts, but the objective often seems to be to re-interpret the historical/practical/common understanding of a concept/word etc. and it feels like its really an attempt to use the courts as an end-run around democracy/legislating. as an aside i feel like people are absurdly hypocritical on this point, as they are all for legal challenges that would advance their cause celeb, but terrified/shocked/upset when a similar tactic is used to undermine one of their sacred cows.

nescioquid• 3 years ago

On your third point: I think the frequency with which courts have been asked to take up societal issues is a symptom of general, systemic legislative corruption and pusillanimity.

Pusillanimity on social issues (why abortion went to he courts and why HRC decided gay marriage is okay only after it went to the court). Corruption (mostly institutionalized) on everything else that matters to the donor class.

If we were living in a functioning democracy, I'd take your point about using courts as an "end-run". On the contrary, I consider going to the courts for redress on societal issues to be a lesser alternative to democracy.

4wsn• 3 years ago

I don't disagree with the patient's diagnosis, but my issue is with what would happen if we were living in, as you put it, "a functional democracy".

Contemporary democracy isn't new. Has it ever delivered what you claim it would if it were functional?

I could be wrong, but I can't think of a historical period where it did.

Seems to me like it's working as designed, if not what people think it's designed to do.

In Montana, It’s Youth vs. the State in a Landmark Climate Case

Related Stories