Officials in Montana sought to downplay an unprecedented trial over a state’s obligations to protect residents from the climate crisis, saying on Monday that a victory by the young plaintiffs in the case would not change approvals for fossil fuel projects.
Attorneys for Montana’s Republican attorney general began laying out their defense following a week of testimony that was often highly personal and evocative in state court from more than a dozen young people who sued the state in 2020.
The 16 plaintiffs, ranging in age from five to 22 years old, say they’re being harmed by wildfire smoke, excessive heat and other effects of the heating climate, driven by human activity in the industrial age.
They’re asking a judge to declare unconstitutional a state law that prevents agencies from considering the effect of greenhouse gases when they issue permits for fossil fuel development.
Experts say greenhouse gas emissions from coal, oil and natural gas are making the Earth hotter and the leading body on climate policy warns that this is pushing the world to the brink of irrevocable damage that only swift and drastic action can avert.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys say Montana has never denied a permit for a fossil fuel project, but the state’s lead environmental regulator testified in court on Monday that practices involving the issuing of permits would not change if the young environmentalists win their case.
“We do not have the authority to not permit something that fully complies with the law,” said the department of environmental quality (DEQ) director, Chris Dorrington. “We are not the ones that created the law. We are the ones that implement the law.”
State officials also drew a distinction between the law being challenged – a provision of the Montana Environmental Protection Act that they characterized as “procedural” – and regulatory acts such as the Clean Air Act of Montana.
Only regulatory acts can be used as the basis for permit rejections, and those don’t allow permits to be denied in Montana based on climate impacts, said the DEQ air, energy and mining division administrator, Sonja Nowakowski.
The young plaintiffs testified over five days last week that the climate crisis is marring their lives, with smoke from worsening wildfires choking the air they breathe. Meanwhile drought is drying up rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife and recreation.
Olivia Vesovich, 20, a student at the University of Montana who grew up in Missoula, said she suffers from breathing problems that make wildfire smoke nearly unbearable.
As her respiratory reactions grew worse during the frequent smoke events that have shrouded Missoula, Vesovich said her mother in recent years started taking them on long trips during fires to find cleaner air.
“It feels like it’s suffocating me, like if I’m outside for [just] minutes,” Vesovich said. “Climate change is wreaking so much havoc on our world right now and I know that will only be getting worse.”
In prior rulings, state district judge Kathy Seeley significantly narrowed the scope of the case. Even if the plaintiffs prevail, Seeley has said she would not order officials to formulate a new approach to climate action.
Instead, the judge could issue what’s called a “declaratory judgment”, saying officials violated the state constitution. That would set a new legal precedent of courts weighing in on cases typically left to other government branches.
