Montana loses fight against youth climate activists in landmark ruling | Hacker News Reader

Montana loses fight against youth climate activists in landmark ruling

arstechnica.com

154 pointstapper135 comments

Gotta start somewhere. I hope this contributes to some more momentum in the right direction, both legally and in the zeitgeist more broadly.

Was also surprised to read that Montana emits as much ghg’s as Ireland.

> Was also surprised to read that Montana emits as much ghg’s as Ireland.

Does Ireland have much industry to speak of? I was under the impression that most of Ireland's "industrial" output was effectively tax services. Montana is heavily weighted towards agri-industrial production, so it's not surprising to me that net energy usage per person is ~5x higher.

While agriculture makes up a larger percentage of Montana‘a economy industry overall is significantly lower as is the GDP per capita.

In terms of total GDP for each, Agriculture really doesn’t explain the discrepancy. What does is mostly transportation and heavy use of coal (44% vs 7%). Montana for example see a lot of out of state trucks cross the state. America is often praised for its rail network but it’s underutilized when you consider our geography and transportation needs.

Ireland is not some PO box tax haven, despite what folks like to say on HN... ;-)

We have significant pharma and agri-business, plus we make microchips (see Intel, Pfizer etc...)

      Pop  Land Cows/Herd Sheep
  ie 5.1M  7Mha 7.4M 2.5M 5.9M
  MT 1.1M 38Mha 2.2M 1.3M 200k
          without calves^

The intuition most people have is that CO2 is a people scale problem and Ireland has 5x Montana’s population, even though Montana is 5x more spacious. The cows are significant — methane is awful.

[edit: my Irish cow number was out by a factor of 3x, and I’ve separated cows-inc-calves from the adult herd.]

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverv...

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-clsjp/cro...

They have a large amount of cattle. Just read an article in the FT (would link but on mobile) about Ireland looking to cull 200k cows to help balance their methane emissions.

“They have a large amount of cattle”

Montana has more cows than humans.

Montana has more than twice as many cows as humans.

1.1 million residents and 2.6 million head of cattle.

Ireland has 7.5m head of cattle[1] - I think that qualifies as a "large amount". And you can add 6m head of sheep and over 1.5m pigs. About 40% of Ireland's CO2 equivalent comes from agriculture/agri-business.

[1] https://ahdb.org.uk/news/irish-cattle-and-sheep-numbers-rise...

Montana doesn’t even make the top ten list for cattle per state. It’s more that there is nobody there except cattle, not that it is a cattle dense location. That’s only about 3% of the cows in the US.

That's nothing.

At New Zealand's peak we had a 22 sheep to person ratio, now it's still 5 to 1.

New Zealand also has >2 to 1 ratio of cows to humans as well.

Ireland has over four and a half times the population of Montana, so the intensity should be higher.

My very-ignorant assumption would have been peat, although IDK whether the emissions are counted at source or burning site (also, IDK whether peat is still an export...)

The last peat burning plant shut down two years ago[1]. Industrial peat harvesting has ceased. A limited amount of peat harvesting is allowed but just at traditional/family/domestic scales.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lough_Ree_Power_Station

Montana also has a lot of coal reserves, which I assume they use some in state for power production. It’s funny because Montana also has lots of hydro.

“Gotta start somewhere”

We’re about 40 years into “getting started”.

One of the main problems was identified in 1985.

https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

In 1980, President Carter assembled top scientists in various domains to write a report of the problems we should expect to face in 2000. (If only politicians today were that forward-looking!) It was called the Global 2000 report and was a very thick volume. It does not mention global warming. The closest it comes is discussion of acid rain and of increased "desertification."

What I take from that is that in 1980, while there was some awareness of global warming, few scientists thought it would so quickly accelerate and become the central issue regarding the environment.

[0] Summary of the report: https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/pdf-archive/glob...

The consensus has indeed been forced into extreme caution when it came to dire predictions, there were so many voices accusing scientists of crying wolf. If someone in 1980 would have said that a heat wave would kill a tenth of the number of people it did in 2003, they would have been called dangerous extremists. In this respect nothing has changed, Termination Shock will be mistaken for a piece of history, like Dafoe's journal of the plague year...

1985? It's been known since the 1850s that atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor contribute to the greenhouse effect.

I didn’t say we discovered the greenhouse effect in 1985.

I said we started addressing the issue about 40 years ago.

Actually, the Carl Sagan video is still worthwhile. He did an excellent job.

>I said we started addressing the issue about 40 years ago.

You said "One of the main problems was identified in 1985".

Yes, the global usage of coal. The fact that if India and China start using a lot of it…. Watch the video

Coal usage is at all time highs: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/coal-burning-capacity...

> We’re about 40 years into “getting started”.

This describes America way too accurately.

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing: after they've tried everything else." — Winston Churchill

I wish I had his confidence.

Has enormous coal mines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powder_River_Basin

I figured the legislature prohibited considering greenhouse gas emissions in a roundabout way, but nope... From the law itself (emphasis mine):

> (2) (a) Except as provided in subsection (2)(b), an environmental review conducted pursuant to subsection (1) may not include an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state's borders.

Context: Subsection (1) just defines the general what and why of an environmental impact statement. Subsection (2)(b) gives only two exceptions: If the project is being done jointly with a federal agency and the federal agency requires it, or if congress amends the Clean Air Act to define carbon dioxide as a regulated pollutant.

Source: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2023/billpdf/HB0971.pdf

From the article:

This prohibition, 16 plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 successfully argued, violates their constitutional right to a "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations."

1. I wonder if there are other activities that could be banned outright for violating Montanans constitutional right to "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations."

2. I also wonder if there are activities and goods that Montana is compelled to legalize using this same constitutional right.

Yeah, it's pretty vaguely worded. It has text about it being the responsibility of every Montanan to improve the environment, now and for the future. I'm not sure how they would measure or enforce that, and if lawsuits start popping off as a result, I think they will probably just amend the text of the constitution.

Iirc they had amended the Constitution specifically with vague wording because Montana has historically been exploited by large corporations, and they wanted to make it easy for citizens to protect the environment.

They could ban smoking under that law, perhaps.

Or even heat by burning wood?

The article says “as a result, statutes prohibiting climate impact analysis and remedies are now invalid and permanently enjoined”.

Page 6 of the ruling says that in March this year — three years after the suit was filed — the laws in question were repealed by the governor. Two weeks later Montana tried to have the case dismissed for “mootness”.

https://westernlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023.08.14...

I’d like to hear more about that.

Was the state was trying to unilaterally settle — and avoid a public trial — by saying “fine then, we’ll undo the law if you hate it so much, happy now?” and attempting to storm off in a sulk, only to be dragged out of their room and back into court?

More like having to fight established precedent in the courts is much more dangerous and expensive than to continue your lobbying efforts as you always have and write (or repeal) laws at your convenience.

Of course we aren't talking about the state of Montana at this point, but rather the "stakeholders" who are in the politicians' campaign chests and ears 24/7/365

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37123755

> This prohibition, 16 plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 successfully argued

A 5 year old being used in a lawsuit? Really?

Are the elderly prevented from making claims in the legal system?

5 year olds still have constitutional rights that can be violated

Yeah, I'm sure he or she would be able to articulate the meaning of the proper nouns you used in that sentence.

Less generous take would be "enviro-hobby parents pimp out their pre-K kids for a publicity stunt"

Keeping children out of our political system enables us to ignores their rights and needs. It's a form of discrimination.

Young people get thrown under the bus, politically, all over the west. Non-dischargeable loans, reduction in spending for youth clubs, completely ignoring their needs when it comes to city planning.

We are literally destroying the future of our society.

Sure, we shouldn't discount the opinions of a 15-year-old, they've probably got a novel perspective on things and there are issues that affect them that they can articulate an opinion on. But five? They've only just learned to walk and talk and they literally believe anything that their parents tell them. A five year old would believe that global warming was a scam invented by Martians if their parents told them so.

For the five year old: is that not the point? Adults can, and do, things that are against their long term interests. Yet they have to go to adults to intercede, both because they have little autonomy and because they need someone to assess if it is against their long term interests.

Cases like this give them an opportunity to argue their position. It's not as though they are actually making the decisions.

> A five year old would believe that global warming was a scam invented by Martians if their parents told them so.

Millions of middle-aged and elderly Americans believe global warming is a scam because that's what conspiracy theorists told them. Have you seen the things these Q-Anon folk believe because some fool on the internet told them so?

Just as we trust parents to look after the needs of their children in every other way, we also trust them to defend their rights and privileges of citizenship. That includes suing if somebody infringes those rights and privileges.

Do you have kids?

I don't know about you but when I was five I was busied myself by picking my nose and playing my gameboy. If given a soapbox I would probably voice something to the effect of being allowed to do the former with unlimited access to the later.

I suspect there may be a reason in that in the present (and past) children really don't get the final say on anything really.

Edit: I responded to your pre-edit comment. I don't live in the city, have any debts, etc. nor am I child so I don't know the social state they are in.

A five year old child is a person who has rights. If those rights are being trampled on, then it’s 100% appropriate for the child’s guardians to seek legal recourse on their behalf (provided that it can be shown to the appropriate legal standard that the guardians are acting in the child’s interest, which seems like it wouldn’t be difficult in this case). What the child would say with a soapbox isn’t the relevant question.

I do not advocate for the oppression of children. Nothing I said have called into question the rights of a five year old. I never said that guardians can't advocate for their children.

In fact the only point I made that you addressed you said wasn't relevant. So I will repeat myself clearly for others that are confused. Five year olds can not be expected to advocate for themselves. Five year olds do not get the final say on decisions concerning them.

Edit: What children would say with their soapbox is very much relevant it illustrates my above points.

Furthermore is it common practice to do edits without annotations? They are really annoying to keep up with frankly. This is the 2nd in this chain alone.

Well, starting a lawsuit on behalf of children is the mechanism we have to prevent oppression of children. It’s not about giving them a soapbox and certainly not about giving them the final say. The legal system will not decide that five year olds deserve unlimited Game Boy access just because they claim to want that. It will (one would hope) decide that they deserve a future with a habitable planet because that’s been shown to be in their best interest after the arguments on all sides are weighed, whether the child understands it or not.

(As for edits, maybe you’re responding to someone other than me, but my comment was not edited in any way.)

Parents are charged with responsibility for their children, and therefore, parents must be the advocates for their childrens' interests, while exercising adult-level discretion.

This is essentially the same reason that women didn't have the vote in the past. They didn't need it. Because the man of the house was the representative of the entire family: husband, wife, children, servants, other relatives living on the land. A landowner could have a large family, and his vote represented the collective interests of the entire family. Western consumerism and individualism, killing off the concept of the family, has caused everyone to decide they need to individually represent themselves and their own selfish interests, rather than their family, neighborhood, community, employer, etc.

You compared parents' responsibility for their children to the past voting system where only the man of the house voted, representing the whole family. However, this comparison is flawed. Just because a man voted for the entire family in the past doesn't mean it was fair or right. Each person has unique needs and opinions, and it's not logical to assume one person can represent everyone's interests.

For example, imagine a family where the children have different hobbies and preferences from their parents. The parents might not always make choices that reflect what's best for each child individually. Similarly, a man voting for his entire family in the past wouldn't necessarily know or consider the unique needs of his wife, children, or servants. Individual voices matter, and while parents have a vital role in supporting their children, comparing this to historical voting practices doesn't make sense.

> it's not logical to assume one person can represent everyone's interests.

Actually that is the fundamental proposal of representative Democracy, so I have to lol at this proposition that your Senator or MP or MEP can't represent your interests. (No, not everyone's, but must represent constituents fairly throughout the district.)

See, you're speaking from a modern perspective of individualism, and that's exactly why "one family, one vote" won't work anymore. I have no particular interest in going back to that situation, because the whole world has changed around it, and it doesn't make any sense anymore. But I am just telling y'all why it made sense before, because of the remaining collectivism that united families under the same/similar/allied ideals and values.

Of course, as individualism deconstructs the family and splits us into one-man (one-woman) (Gnome Ann) islands, with our own ideals and values and votes, then the issues change. In the past, the issues may have been focused on legislation that affects the family as a unit, something that affects landowners in a certain favorable way, something that, say, encouraged procreation and childbearing. Or it encouraged farmers to grow a certain crop, or something. Or labor reforms improved the situation for a working man who was feeding a substantial family.

But nowadays, issues focus on indivuality, and what we can get for ourselves. The less relevant a family unit is to government, the more relevant is the individual, and the more likely that individuals fight for individual freedoms and individual rights, because the individual vote gives them that sovereign rule over their own household of one. So there's no going back, no. Feline suffrage is on the table.

I'm sorry, you're saying that in the same way children shouldn't need to vote, women shouldn't need to, vote? Or are you arguing that children should be involved like this and more, but just doing it obtusely?

> A landowner could have a large family, and his vote represented the collective interests of the entire family.

Then why didn't they let the lady of the household have the sole vote? Wouldn't her vote also represent the collective interests of the entire family?

Who is "they"

They can't be trusted. They are like children. God put the man over his household. The list goes on. This stuff is ingrained in a lot of people. Maybe progressivism is the fad.

Just say you want slavery back so we can ignore you. Servants? Their vote going to the landowning head of the family? Crazy town.

Corporations are working on corporate suffrage. Corporations are people, right? What's the diff?

Do imprisoned felons have the right to vote? Do they have a warden voting on their behalf?

It can be reasoned have a more significant claim to the future than some 85-year old.

Doesn't change the fact that a five year old is not going to understand this complicated issue enough to make a balanced argument.

Are you saying they can't testify about wanting to live in a future where Montana doesn't greenlight every fossil fuel project without an environmental impact review?

Or are you saying they don't know what those words mean?

I think you can get a meaningful testimony from them (yes, "I like hiking, I like swimming in our local lakes, I want policies that protect our environment because I want to continue to be able to enjoy it" - nothing here seems incredible for a five year old to say)

You might ask "ok but why? Isn't the case well represented by older kids? Isn't it well funded?"

I have no inside knowledge of this, but if a five year old's older sibling is participating, they might want to too? Does that make their testimony more or less valid? It shouldn't

Plaintiffs don't make any arguments in court, and do not have to have any understanding whatsoever of the legal issues in their case. That's a task for their lawyers.

Fortunately, we live in a adversarial legal system, where each side in a courtroom makes a self-serving argument, as opposed to a balanced one, and its up to the jury and judge to figure out a balanced path that reconciles those self-serving viewpoints.

(And if we're going to limit rights to people who can understand complicated issues and make balanced arguments about them, an awful lot of 85-yer olds are going to be in a bit of a pickle. I agree, though, that it would be interesting to explore excluding anyone who, say, needs to wear diapers from both political and legal processes... There is a minimum voting age, after all, why not a maximum one?)

Exactly. If the 5 year old can understand "These people are making climate change worse and will make the world hotter when I grow up." (which is in the capacity of most 5 year olds) then it's perfectly fine. There are adults who don't understand intricacies of their positions, why should a 5 year old?

How could individual make climate change worse?

An official government policy of "pretend climate change doesn't exist" is not a complicated issue.

Much more complicated is making policy because of climate change that is hardly defined precedent anyway. It's not priority for some.

Activist parents usually arrange these things as a PR move

It does seem weird that you can just hire random children for astroturfed legal campaigns like this, where the child has no direct connection to the case. Seems like that should probably fall afoul of child labor laws at some point.

I assume that the young citizen is a resident of the state of Montana, and is potentially being harmed by the state. What other "direct connection" to atmospheric gasses and climate change do you need? That's what gives the child standing.

This talk of "hiring" is just trolling, but since you brought it up. Montana is currently considering weakening its child labor protections, so there's that.

https://www.epi.org/publication/child-labor-laws-under-attac...

The reason they're having success in Montana is because Montana's constitution says "The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations"

It would be nice if we could amend the US constitution with something similar.

The rich would carve out exceptions for themselves (e.g. private jets)

LOL no. We're not stapling positive rights and duties onto the back of the constitution

I want to know wyat this constitutional right to "clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations" is. Is it a state constitution thing? The article told us nothing about the case.

Montana Code Annotated 2021

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

ARTICLE II. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Part II. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Inalienable Rights

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0020/part_00...

Montana Code Annotated 2021

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

ARTICLE IX. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Part IX. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Protection And Improvement

Section 1. Protection and improvement. (1) The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.

(2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty.

(3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_00...

Yes, it's in the state constitution, Article IX https://courts.mt.gov/external/library/docs/72constit.pdf

Yes. The text is here, https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0000/article_0090/part_00... . It's very vague, probably intentionally, and the working interpretation is whatever the court just decided it is.

> “Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate—even the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses agreed that our state has no impact on the global climate," Flower said.

That Flower person just doesn't have a clue.

I guess it's a question of "absolutely none" vs "proportionally almost none". The legal issue being of environmental damage done to the state of Montana by climate change, the actions of Montanans do indeed have a negligible impact. (Population 1.1 million)

This argument could be extended to anything by just dividing up the target into smaller chunks, just because individuals have negligeable impact on global climate doesnt mean nobody has any responsibility to reduce emissions. No raindrop thinks itself responsible for the flood.

An individual gun, let alone bullet, kills so few people you can practically treat it as zero if you zoom out far enough. Therefore any regulation whatsoever is meaningless.

Yeah, this is a very convenient rhetorical device for someone looking to trivialize important issues in bad faith.

Cost-benefit analysis is where we need to go.

From the article:

Experts told Scientific American that Montana's emissions are significant given its population size, emitting in 2019 "about 32 million tons of carbon dioxide." That's "about as much as Ireland, which has a population six times larger," Scientific American reported.

Montana is not an island. Behaviors and precedents spread.

They have about the same share of the responsibility as they do of the consequences.

(actually greater share of the responsibility and lesser of the consequences, but still)

I guess it's a question of "absolutely none" vs "proportionally almost none".

So if you died of 1000 cuts and I inflicted 1 cut, then I am not guilty of any crime because proportionally my impact was almost none?

However negligible the impact, the State Constitution says what it says. Imagine if a local US government were to pass a law that totally banned the possession and ownership of firearms within city limits. They could analogously argue that this law does not violate the 2nd Amendment, because the right of the people to keep and bear arms in just this city has a negligible impact on “the security of a free State” overall.

What a ridiculous claim. Does this guy think there's just a single pollution factory in China doing all the damage? Whole Montana cannot be solely to blame, they can certainly share some blame just like any government that has any sort of greenhouse gas production within its jurisdiction. Oh wait, they aren't allowed to do environmental impact studies that consider greenhouse gas so there's no data to support the claim that Montana produces any!

Are there many car factories in Montana? Are there strip mines? Frakking oil fields? This is Montana not North Carolina

From the Reuters page for this story:

In a June trial, the youths had argued that despite its sparse population, Montana is responsible for an outsized share of global emissions. The state is a major producer of coal, oil and gas that is shipped elsewhere and is also the home of pipelines and other infrastructure needed to ship those fuels.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/montana-judge-h...

Just the coal power plants that TFA mentioned that got to skip regulatory evaluation because of friendly politicians.

I hate driving into Billings. Huge oil refinery or something right next to I94. Smells like poison.

Edit: found this link https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=MT#:~:text=Montan....

Are you seriously asking if there are strip mines in Montana? I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com