The 16 Held v. State of Montana youth plaintiffs. Photo composite courtesy of Our Children’s Trust.
By Susan Messer
As I write this, the air quality in Chicagoland (where I live) has over the past few days (June 27-29, 2023) ranked as the worst in the world, a result of fires burning in Quebec. The air is hazy, and those who are fortunate enough (I am one of them) to be able to, can protect their lungs by staying mostly indoors, windows closed and air purifiers running. Meanwhile, a brutal heatwave has spread across Texas and the southeast, testing the regional power grid and the bodies and spirits of those who live there.
But back to the title of this article—No Miracles Needed. It comes from a book by Mark Jacobson, Director of the Atmosphere/Energy program at Stanford University. The book’s subtitle is How Today's Technology Can Save Our Climate and Clean Our Air. It’s a theme Jacobson introduced during his testimony in Held v. Montana, the first of the youth climate cases to make it past many procedural hurdles over many years and arrive in a trial court in Helena, MT. There, over seven days (June 12-20, 2023), Judge Kathy Seeley heard from the 16 young plaintiffs as well as world-renowned experts (including Dr. Jacobson) on the effects of climate change in the world overall and specifically in Montana—temperatures warming, glaciers melting, rivers drying up, forests burning, air-quality alerts becoming more common.
Dr. Jacobson’s message, to greatly simplify, is that saving our climate and cleaning our air is doable. Scientists, engineers, and environmentalists have already envisioned, outlined, and in some cases, implemented solutions. The primary barrier, he and other expert witnesses in the Montana courtroom claimed, is the lack of government direction to move energy policy toward such solutions. Another is the current government policies and permitting processes that favor a fossil-fuel-based energy system.
In the Montana courtroom, in addition to the lineup of environmental scientists and engineers, a pediatrician testified that compared with adults, the developing bodies of young people are considerably more vulnerable to the harms of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. In addition, a psychiatrist explained the psychological impacts of climate change and environmental deterioration on young people, including anxiety and depression, and a former Montana legislator described her experience as the youngest delegate to the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention, when Montana became the only state in the nation to affirm a constitutional right to a clean and healthful climate. It is this constitutional right that underlies the Montana lawsuit.
The court also heard from the youth plaintiffs, who described the ways that climate change has affected their lives and limited their activities as athletes, vocalists, members of indigenous communities, and lovers of the outdoors. They are not seeking money. They are asking the court to declare that Montana's fossil fuel energy policies and actions violate their state constitutional rights, and they want the court to tell the government that it is unconstitutional to keep exploiting fossil fuels rather than transitioning to clean energy.
Dr. Steven Running testifies in court (photo by Robin Loznak/courtesy of Our Children's Trust).
Defending the state, Michael Russell, an assistant attorney general, said, “Montana’s emissions are simply too minuscule to make any difference. . . . Climate change is a global issue that effectively relegates Montana’s role to that of a spectator.” In response, several experts agreed that although climate change is a global issue, it most certainly is also a state and local issue, and that every bit of emission counts. Defending the goals of the young plaintiffs, Dr. Steven Running, Professor Emeritus of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences at the University of Montana, and winner of a Nobel Prize for his work on climate change, pointed out that many significant social movements have begun locally, even with one person, and the potential impact of such actors should not be overlooked.
The trial is now over, and so the decision is in the judge’s hands. Some legal observers say that even if Judge Seeley does declare a constitutional violation, she doesn't have to demand change. Jonathan Adler, environmental law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told ABC News he's not sure a judge even has the power to tell the government to address climate change, adding that the Held case "pushes the boundaries of what courts are capable of."
But why not push the boundaries, when the stakes are so high?