Held v. Montana, which concluded Tuesday, has been closely watched as it could bolster similar litigation that has been filed across the country.
It is the first case involving a constitutional claim against a state, and also represents a rare instance in which climate experts have been questioned on the witness stand.
Judge Kathy Seeley, who oversaw the trial in the state capital Helena, instructed lawyers for both sides to file post-trial written submissions within two weeks, after which she would render her verdict.
She has the power to declare as unconstitutional a state law preventing agencies from considering the impacts of greenhouse gasses when issuing permits for fossil fuel development.
Earlier, a large group of supporters waved placards and cheered the plaintiffs and their lawyers as they entered the courthouse, according to footage seen on social media.
- Closing arguments -
At the heart of the case is a provision within the fossil fuel friendly state's constitution that says: "The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations."
The youths, ranging in age from five up to 22, have said they have been harmed by the "dangerous impacts of fossil fuels and the climate crisis," with children "uniquely vulnerable" to its worsening impacts.
During his closing arguments, the plaintiffs' lawyer Nate Bellinger, of the nonprofit Our Children's Trust, said his clients "did not ask for money, but they asked only that their government embrace its constitutional responsibility to alleviate the harms of its own conduct."
While Montana argues climate change is a global issue, the plaintiffs "localized this harm in their backyards of felled, diseased trees; the melting of Montana's majestic glaciers; ...skies that are full of choking smoke, and rivers that run dry."
"The plaintiffs acknowledge that the work to stop and reverse climate change will be a lifetime journey, but they are asking this court for help," he said.
Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell on the other hand argued that the matter of energy policy should be decided by the people, through their representatives in the legislature.
"This case has received national attention in part because it has been billed or at least perceived as a sort of referendum on climate change. This is not supposed to be a town hall meeting or a popularity contest, it's a court of law," he added.
Russell said that while the state accepted that man-made emissions were responsible for warming, expert witnesses for the prosecution had not been able to quantify the extent to which Montana's laws were responsible for impacts on the ground.
- 'Compelling stories' -
The trial began on June 12 and concluded a few days earlier than expected after Montana declined to call to the stand several experts, including its only climate scientist, Judith Curry.
Curry has contested the scientific consensus on climate change, declaring for example "there's no emergency."
Over the course of proceedings, the court heard direct and emotional testimony from the plaintiffs about specific ways their health, emotional wellbeing, family finances and cultural traditions had been impacted.
Lead plaintiff Rikki Held, 22, whose family runs a ranch in Montana, said that their livelihoods and wellbeing had been increasingly impacted by wildfires, extreme temperatures and drought.
Claire Vlases, 20, said: "When I think about summer, I think about smoke. It sounds like a dystopian movie, but it's real life."
Lawyers for the plaintiffs also called renowned climate, health and psychiatry experts to testify.
These included eminent climatologist Steve Running, who was part of the UN body that won a Nobel prize in 2007.
Michael Gerrard, who founded the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told AFP the plaintiffs lawyers "did a wonderful job presenting and giving a human face to the case by having all these young people tell their own personal compelling stories."
Should the judge find in their favor, "we've seen in other cases that a favorable verdict in one jurisdiction can have a reverberating effect in many other places," said Gerrard. "It would be very energizing to young people and activists around the country."
Court mulls case against Spain govt over climate inaction
Madrid (AFP) June 20, 2023 -
Spain's Supreme Court on Tuesday began examining a case filed by Greenpeace and other environmental groups accusing the central government of insufficient action to tackle climate change, the court and NGOs said.
A spokeswoman confirmed the court had begun assessing the claim which was filed in September 2020 by Greenpeace, Spain's Ecologists in Action and Oxfam against "the government's failure" to act on its international commitments vis-a-vis climate change.
It is unclear when the court will deliver a ruling.
The claim was one of several legal initiatives filed by environmentalists in various European nations such as France, Germany and the Netherlands.
In the Netherlands, the courts forced the government in 2018 to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, and three years later, the French courts denounced the French government for its failings in the fight against global warming.
The case is "the first climate case against the State in Spain's history", Greenpeace said in a statement.
It seeks to push the court to take a stand on the "climate emergency" and to follow the stance of "other Supreme Courts in Europe by obliging the State and its administrations to comply with its international commitments," it said.
Concretely, the NGOs want the court to compel the Spanish government to step up its climate action to be aligned with the objectives of the 2015 Paris Agreement by not exceeding the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold for global warming.
"An affirmative ruling... will not only be a success in the legal battle against climate change but will also be a huge milestone in Spanish law regarding the public authorities' obligation to safeguard natural heritage and environmental standards," the NGOs' lawyer Jaime Doreste said in the statement.
The left-wing government of Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez declared a climate emergency in 2020 and a year later, passed a law to speed up the ecological transition and to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, in what claims is compliance with EU objectives.
But Greenpeace and other environmental NGOs say the law does not go far enough to comply with the Paris Agreement.
Related Links
Climate Science News - Modeling, Mitigation Adaptation
| Subscribe Free To Our Daily Newsletters |
| Subscribe Free To Our Daily Newsletters |
