facebook-pixel

Letter: Montana climate trial verdict: A step forward in confronting the climate predicament and upholding environmental rights

(Thom Bridge|Independent Record via AP) Youth plaintiffs in the climate change lawsuit, Held vs. Montana, arrive at the Lewis and Clark County Courthouse, on June 20, 2023, in Helena, Mont., for the final day of the trial.

The recent Montana climate trial ruling in favor of the 16 young environmentalists is a vital step towards confronting the pressing issue of our changing climate. Central to this trial and thanks to early environmentally concerned citizens, the Montana Constitution affirmed in 1972 that every Montanan has the right to a “clean and healthful environment.” Therefore, the plaintiffs asserted that the state is prohibited from harming the environment. This case tests the strength of Montana’s constitutional protections and may be the bedrock for more legal oversight.

However, it is disconcerting to read the state’s unbalanced argument against the plaintiffs.

The state contended that Montana’s efforts alone would have no effect on a global scale but fails to acknowledge the shared responsibility requiring every state and nation to take action. In contrast, the ruling acknowledged the interconnectedness of our global societies. Wildfire smoke, for instance, does not confine itself to one state or country, and the adverse impacts of rising temperatures killing crops in undeveloped countries is not exclusively attributed to their fossil fuel consumption. Montana, as a participant in the worldwide community, must contribute to alleviation of climate-related harm even if the contribution doesn’t completely reverse the problem.

Furthermore, the state downplays the local effects of fossil fuel pollution such as rising temperatures, drought, and wildfires that adversely harm their citizens. It is unjust for any state to dismiss its obligation for the safety and health of its communities.

Equally noteworthy is the state’s assertion that the legal framework advocated by the young activists being previously rejected in federal and state courts does not nullify the importance of legal action as a means for addressing climate change. Legal precedent evolves and this case may signal a growing need for legal strategies to tackle our climate predicament.

Here in Utah, there are many citizens working to uphold environmental rights. Let this case inspire you to keep moving forward!

Karen Jackson, Salt Lake City

Submit a letter to the editor