There’s Rikki Held, 22, Grace Gibson-Snyder, 19, and the other fourteen: Lander and Badge B., Sariel S., Kian T., Georgianna F., Eva L., Mika K., Olivia V. ., Jeffrey and Nathaniel K., Claire V., Ruby and Lilian D. and Taleah H… Aged from 5 to 22 years old, these sixteen young Montana residents filed a lawsuit against this northern state on March 13, 2020. -western United States, believing that their right to a healthy environment had been violated. Earlier this week, the case, dubbed “Held vs. State of Montana,” has become the first climate change-related lawsuit in US history.

Despite the delaying maneuvers initiated by the State, the pleadings opened on Monday, June 12, before the court of justice in the capital, Helena. They are expected to last until June 23, before a decision is made on a date yet to be determined.

Rights Protected by the Montana Constitution

In effect, the plaintiffs claim that the “dangerous effects of fossil fuels and the climate crisis” have harmed them, with children being “singularly vulnerable” to these worsening effects. They argue that by supporting a fossil fuel-based energy system that contributes to the climate crisis, Montana is violating their constitutionally protected rights since 1972.

Indeed, Article II, Section 3 of the Montana Basic Law states that “all persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They understand the right to a clean and healthy environment. . . . while Article IX, Section 1 affirms that “The State and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthy environment in the State of Montana for present and future generations.” Besides Montana, five other states (Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island) mention environmental rights in their constitutions.

Two plaintiffs, Rikki Held and Grace Gibson-Snyder, told how their way of life had been directly affected by the wildfires. The first spoke of a fire that knocked out power lines and knocked out power to the family ranch for a month, causing livestock to die because his family could not pump water. The second mentioned a football match during his last year of high school, in 2021, canceled after twenty minutes due to the smoke from the fires.

The sixteen young people do not demand any compensation, but demand that a declaration be drawn up assuming that their rights have been infringed. This must be a first step towards action on the part of the elected representatives of the State.

Montana’s carbon footprint in debate

In his opening remarks, attorney Roger Sullivan discussed the effects of global warming on Montana’s youth. “Heat, drought, forest fires, air pollution, violent storms, disappearance of local wildlife, melting glaciers, loss of pillars and family and cultural traditions,” he listed, also referring to the medical damage and psychological. In addition, the lawyer argued that the state had conducted a disastrous energy policy, releasing 166 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere every year, the equivalent of a country like Argentina, while Montana has just over a million people.

Climatologist Steve Running, called to testify by the prosecution, presented Monday the scientific evidence of the responsibility of man in global warming. Montana, for example, is experiencing shorter winters lengthening the fire season, he noted.

Montana Attorney General Michael Russell said that during the trial the court will hear “guesses” about “what the future may hold, including sweeping and bombastic claims about a tragic fate that awaits us.” all “. According to him, the law at the heart of the trial proceedings cannot be the cause of the damages of which the plaintiffs claimed to be victims. “Montana’s [CO2] emissions are just too tiny to make a difference,” Russell said, calling climate change a “global issue” in which the state played a “mere bystander role.” “.

L’action de Our Children’s Trust

The beginnings of the Held vs State of Montana case date back to 2011, when the American environmentalist association Our Children’s Trust asked the Supreme Court of Montana to rule on the state’s obligation to fight against climate change. The Supreme Court refused to intervene, thus explaining to the association that it had to go to the courts of first instance. The NGO’s lawyers built a case, identified potential plaintiffs, cataloged the effects of climate change on the state, documented state support for the fossil fuel industry, and more.

The NGO, which has sued local state governments on behalf of young people in all fifty states of the United States, is also behind the Juliana v United States case. In 2015, twenty-one young Americans brought an action against the federal government for lack of protection against climate change, without reaching trial, the case is still pending.

Regarding the Held vs. State of Montana case, Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School explained in March to the New York Times that “there has been virtually no trial on climate change “. “It is the first that will address the effects of climate change and the measures to be taken, as well as the way in which the State could be led to modify its practices. »