- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
- climate
- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
- climate
You must log in or register to comment.
Attorneys for the state argued that the volume of greenhouse gasses released from Montana fossil fuel projects was insignificant compared to global emissions and reducing them would have no effect on the climate.
“Your honor, my client’s actions are so insignificant as compared with the national murder rate that jailing him will have absolutely no detectable effect on anything.”
an actual rare montana w? huh.
The state constitution has this in it:
The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.
This makes it possible to use state courts to force some level of environmental protection.
It’d be nice if our federal constitution said that…
Based on our current Supreme Court, they’d probably do SOME kind of mental gymnastics to justify ignoring it…
“They didn’t have an environment 200 years ago like we do now, so taking that into consideration…”
“… And with the potential lower profit margin for the ultra rich…”
justify ignoring it…
Or interpreting "clean and healthful environment " in a way that allows them to ban porn.
well definitely never expected that from montana :)
We need to amend the US Constitution to something similar.
Good thing corporations are persons - first time I’ve said that
Believe it or not MT is one of the top 10 states for renewable energy. Something like 50%. Unfortunately the rest is coal.
Climate change or not, “pollution is fine so long as I am profiting off of it” is the real problem. At least the last administration’s gutting of the EPA was somewhat reversed. Remember we used to have rivers on fire from toxic waste. Regulations fixed that.
We also used to have acid rain regularly, and we tore a hole in the ozone. It’s never a bad idea to watch the consequences of our actions and impose restrictions on them to keep us all safe and healthy.
deleted by creator
SCotUS: “Hold my beer”.
My understanding is that they won’t have jurisdiction because it’s about interpretation of the state constitution.
Excellent news.
We need to add those clauses to the Florida Constitution.
Every state’s* constitution
This is the best summary I could come up with:
(AP) — Montana’s Supreme Court has rejected an attempt by the state’s Republican governor to block a landmark climate ruling that said regulators must consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when issuing permits for fossil fuel development.
The state high court ruling means Montana officials must “immediately comply” with Seeley’s order pending the appeal, said Mark Bellinger, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, which represented the 16 young plaintiffs who brought the case.
Director Chris Dorrington of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality said in a Wednesday statement that he was disappointed in the court’s ruling but declined to say whether the agency would analyze the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when evaluating permit applications.
The young plaintiffs who challenged the state environmental policy testified they were already feeling the consequences of climate change, with smoke from worsening wildfires choking the air they breathe, along with decreased snowpack and drought drying rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife and recreation.
Attorneys for the state argued that the volume of greenhouse gasses released from Montana fossil fuel projects was insignificant compared to global emissions and reducing them would have no effect on the climate.
Last year’s amendment by lawmakers forbid greenhouse gas emission analyses unless the federal government decided to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
The original article contains 643 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
