Montana Supreme Court Upholds Right To 'Stable Climate System' For Youngsters (theguardian.com)
- Reference: 0175697579
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/12/19/0024244/montana-supreme-court-upholds-right-to-stable-climate-system-for-youngsters
- Source link: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/18/montana-supreme-court-climate
> Montana's top court on Wednesday held that the state's constitution [1]guaranteed a right to a stable climate system and invalidated a law barring regulators from considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when permitting new fossil fuel projects. The Montana supreme court upheld a landmark trial court decision [2]last August in favor of 16 young people who said their health and futures were being jeopardized by climate change, which the state aggravates through its permitting of energy projects. The 6-1 decision, the first of its kind by a US state supreme court, came in the first lawsuit to go to trial nationwide by young environmental activists challenging state and federal policies they say are exacerbating climate change.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/18/montana-supreme-court-climate
[2] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/08/14/1756225/judge-rules-in-favor-of-montana-youths-in-landmark-climate-decision
Environmental activists: why shit costs more (Score:4, Interesting)
My town recently spent half a million dollars of taxpayer money litigating against the construction of a new power line. Because power lines are bad or something. The electric company spent a comparable amount of money defending against this litigation, and won anyway. After several years. The line is under construction now.
As both a taxpayer in my town and a customer of this electric company, I'm on the hook for my share for both the costs of litigation and the defense. Unsurprisingly, both my electric "delivery" rates and my property taxes have gone up.
The line is late. My costs are up. But I'm sure some treehugger feels good about itself and I know for certain some lawyers have a few extra Benjamins to light their cigars with.
Re: (Score:2)
> ... some tree-hugger ...
Because the 'beauty' of the suburb needs to be protected. Usually, tree-huggers don't spend this sort of money.
> ... power lines are bad ...
Because it changes the value of someone's house. There are stories of US HOAs banning cell-towers, then all phone-calls into the suburb suffering sound fade or being dropped.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bother, the nickname alone means he cannot comprehend anything more complicated than "money = good, libtard = bad." Certainly not something as complicated as direct consequences of their actions.
A red state did that? (Score:1)
...Something is off. Check the water for brain-altering pollutants that turn judges blue.
Re: (Score:2)
>> ...Something is off. Check the water for brain-altering pollutants that turn judges blue.
> Since it is a fly-over state, I would blame chemtrails :-)
Don't look up?
Barring considering emissions?! (Score:2)
"invalidated a law barring regulators from considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when permitting new fossil fuel projects"
How much of an asshole do you have to be to implement such a law? The US is full of imbeciles.
nope (Score:3)
this won't stand up under review, the State constitution can only apply to localized environmental effects. Emissions of CO2 don't cause a direct problem for the local environment or health. The global environment falls well outside of any State level jurisdiction.
Re:nope (Score:4, Insightful)
> this won't stand up under review,
The law suit was about the constitutionality of a State law regarding the parameters under which State officials make decisions about State regulations. The ruling was 6:1 by a full panel of the State supreme court. Whom do you think will review this?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably some corrupt federal judge whom supports the idea of "fuck yours; got mine."