A landmark judgement in the US state of Montana has seen its Environmental Policy Act ruled unconstitutional because it does not consider the climate impacts of fossil fuel projects, setting an important precedent for similar cases nationwide.

After three years in the courts, the case brought by 16 youth, each of whom described the impacts of climate change on their lives, said the law violated their state constitutional rights to a clean and healthy environment.

"This court ruling is a step toward climate justice," said Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement on Monday. 

https://www.dw.com/en/historic-montana-climate-ruling-rides-wave-of-litigation/a-66227163

 

Judge Rules in Favor of Montana Youths in a Landmark Climate Case

The Montana case revolved around language in the state Constitution that 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.”

https://archive.ph/He43f

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/14/us/montana-youth-climate-ruling.html

Must have been a woke judge, IMO.

I expect it will get overturned on appeal.

 

Wonder where they got the money from to take the case to court?

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Must have been a woke judge, IMO.

I expect it will get overturned on appeal.

 

Wonder where they got the money from to take the case to court?

what is so hard to understand about this from the State Constitution?

The Montana case revolved around language in the state Constitution that 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.”

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Wonder where they got the money from to take the case to court?

The sinister forces behind Big Clean Air and Big Clean Water.

On 8/15/2023 at 8:57 PM, placeholder said:

what is so hard to understand about this from the State Constitution?

The Montana case revolved around language in the state Constitution that 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.”

5555555555555555

What idiot included something that is clearly impossible to do?

By all means do so if qualified by something like "will endeavour to provide a clean and healthful environment”

 

At this rate of idiocy, will we be seeing court cases against the government of the US for not upholding the Declaration of Independence which says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”?

NB it says "the pursuit of" and not "a right to" happiness, as they were not so stupid as to make that a right.

On 8/15/2023 at 9:02 PM, placeholder said:

The sinister forces behind Big Clean Air and Big Clean Water.

More like those hoping to get rich off the faux "it's all human's fault that the world is getting hotter" propaganda.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

5555555555555555

What idiot included something that is clearly impossible to do?

By all means do so if qualified by something like "will endeavour to provide a clean and healthful environment”

 

At this rate of idiocy, will we be seeing court cases against the government of the US for not upholding the Declaration of Independence which says “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”?

NB it says "the pursuit of" and not "a right to" happiness, as they were not so stupid as to make that a right.

Given that the Declaration of Independence is not only not a legal document, nor even a U.S. document, the point you are making is ridiculous.

As is your point about an idiot being responsible. Whoever was responsible is irrelevant. The words are in the Montana Constitution. As such, they have legal force.

16 hours ago, placeholder said:

Given that the Declaration of Independence is not only not a legal document, nor even a U.S. document, the point you are making is ridiculous.

As is your point about an idiot being responsible. Whoever was responsible is irrelevant. The words are in the Montana Constitution. As such, they have legal force.

Let's wait for the result of the appeal.

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Let's wait for the result of the appeal.

Whatever the results of that appeal may be, I doubt that any party to the appeal is going to be invoking the Declaration of Independence to support their case. Or claiming that the case should be dismissed because the author of a clause in the Constitution was an idiot.