• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • RvTV95XBeo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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! 🙃