Just this week, youth won the climate lawsuit on Montana that basically said continued promotion of fossil fuels violated their rights to clean air and a clean environment.
district court struck down a provision in the Montana Environmental Policy Act that barred the state from considering climate impacts when permitting energy projects
This provision was to promote the use of fossil fuels. It’s not just that they weren’t required to consider climate impacts before, but they were straight up banned from considering them.
So, if they “consider” it, is that enough to qualify even if they choose oil over greener choices?
I just think we are so far beyond the need to “consider” things. We need to “reverse” things, and yeah this is good, but it’s never going to be enough at this rate.
I agree that there needs to be zero new extraction or other fossil fuels infrastructure. I’m dubious that the current Montana legislature would allow that.
So, not to dismiss the youth from trying, this lawsuit’s impact really did nothing and it’s not actually “paving the way” for anything—more like glancing up from a phone and eyeballing the direction.
Have there been any measurable improvements because of this? From what I see more climate-based laws are getting rolled back than forward.
Just this week, youth won the climate lawsuit on Montana that basically said continued promotion of fossil fuels violated their rights to clean air and a clean environment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/17/montana-climate-lawsuit-impact/
There’s still a ways to go in a state with a Republican legislature before the ramifications are felt, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Promotion? The article doesn’t say much about the details.
Lots more detail about the Montana climate lawsuit here.
It’s not so much about promotion of fossil fuels, as the state being required to consider the impact when they approve new extraction projects.
This provision was to promote the use of fossil fuels. It’s not just that they weren’t required to consider climate impacts before, but they were straight up banned from considering them.
So, if they “consider” it, is that enough to qualify even if they choose oil over greener choices?
I just think we are so far beyond the need to “consider” things. We need to “reverse” things, and yeah this is good, but it’s never going to be enough at this rate.
I agree that there needs to be zero new extraction or other fossil fuels infrastructure. I’m dubious that the current Montana legislature would allow that.
So, not to dismiss the youth from trying, this lawsuit’s impact really did nothing and it’s not actually “paving the way” for anything—more like glancing up from a phone and eyeballing the direction.
Thoughts and prayers! 🙃
It’s the first of many to go to trial. So I’d have to disagree
Well, I hope you’re right. I am just not very optimistic that we can do enough in time.
The US passed the Inflation Reduction Act in part due to the pressure from this. A lot of state and local policy changes have happened too.
Not every country is the same, and some places are in fact rolling back policy, but it’s on the whole, gotten us something instead of nothing.
Removed by mod