▲ 154 points

Montana loses fight against youth climate activists in landmark ruling

arstechnica.com

by tapper·3y ago·135 comments·view on hn ↗

135 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.

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...)

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...

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

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

This describes America way too accurately.

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