In Montana, It’s Youth vs. the State in a Landmark Climate Case

>Montana state Constitution ... 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.”

That seems like a very solid foundation for the case.

few comments:

1) i think its next to impossible to dis-aggregate the effects of climate change from multi-decade/century climate patterns. Not saying its not there, but that its incredibly hard to attribute perceived changes in our life time to specific causes.

2) i'd be much more amenable to the toxic pollution arguments here (arsenic etc), as it seems a bit vague to me that the change in climate for Montana brought on by global warming is actually bad (for them specifically vs. say pacific islanders who will be under water). my understanding is that we as a species will be net loosers from climate change, but there will be some localized winners (i'm looking at you canada/siberia).

3) I've got mixed feelings when "novel" legal arguments are brought forward, on the one hand people should have the right to be heard and access the courts, but the objective often seems to be to re-interpret the historical/practical/common understanding of a concept/word etc. and it feels like its really an attempt to use the courts as an end-run around democracy/legislating. as an aside i feel like people are absurdly hypocritical on this point, as they are all for legal challenges that would advance their cause celeb, but terrified/shocked/upset when a similar tactic is used to undermine one of their sacred cows.