Latest news with #MontanaEnvironmentalInformationCenter
E&E News
28-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Montana lawmakers blunt group's historic court win on climate
Climate activists scored a pair of landmark legal victories in Montana over the past two years, giving momentum to similar youth-led efforts across the globe. Now state lawmakers have responded by targeting the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which helped propel the young activists to a courtroom win after they argued the law violated their constitutional right to a healthy environment. Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, signed a package of bills into law this month that rewrite sections of the 1971 law. Flanked by Republican lawmakers and the state's top environmental appointee, Gianforte said the legislation 'reduces red tape and provides certainty to small and large businesses across our state.' Advertisement The measures that were added to the law restrict the scope of environmental reviews related to greenhouse gases and declare that the analyses are for informational purposes only and can't be used to deny permits. 'No more fantasyland ideas from climate crusaders who think Montana can run on solar panels and wishful thinking,' state Sen. Wylie Galt said at a Republican leadership press conference as the bills advanced. Environmentalists, however, said the changes put the state increasingly at odds with the courts. 'They are attempting to unwind what is constitutionally guaranteed,' said Derf Johnson, deputy director of the Montana Environmental Information Center. 'Once again, we're passing laws that are clearly problematic in terms of what our constitution requires.' Republicans in the state House and Senate acknowledged that the legislation was a response to the state's loss in Held v. Montana, which Galt called a 'present to radical environmental activists.' In the case brought by 16 young people, a state court declared in August 2023 that lawmakers had violated the Montana Constitution by barring state agencies from considering the climate effects of fossil fuel projects. At issue was the Legislature's decision in 2011 to revise MEPA to exclude consideration of out-of-state climate emissions when weighing whether to approve projects such as power plants. In-state climate emissions were excluded by the Legislature in 2023, before the case went to trial. Later that year, Judge Kathy Seeley of the 1st Judicial District Court in Montana struck down the two emissions-related measures that were added to the environmental policy act, finding that youth in the state have a 'fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment.' The 2023 ruling was a major victory for the young people, who made history by securing a win in the nation's first climate trial brought by young plaintiffs. It also boosted other climate litigation, including a similar lawsuit in Hawaii that was settled last June when state officials reached an agreement with the youth. And it was upheld in December by the Montana Supreme Court, which found that the delegates who wrote the 1972 Montana Constitution intended to provide 'the strongest environmental protection provision found in any state constitution.' Neither ruling sat well with Republican lawmakers — who had filed their own friend of the court brief urging the high court to reject the case. 'In that Held decision, it was kind of like we had — and I'm going to say something a little spicy — a bunch of little Greta Thunbergs, it seemed like,' state Rep. Randyn Gregg, a Republican, said on a podcast in January as the legislative session opened. Held v. Montana 'didn't just make headlines, it sent shock waves through Montana's economy,' said state Rep. Greg Oblander, a Republican, calling it an 'open invitation for activists to weaponize our environmental laws against the very industries that keep Montana running.' 'Weaponizing and litigation' Republicans proposed a package of bills to counter the court rulings, arguing that MEPA was intended to provide guidance to government officials — not serve as a means to deter coal, oil and gas projects. 'In the Held v. Montana court case, they tried to twist MEPA into something it was never meant to be — a tool to deny permits and block development,' state House Speaker Brandon Ler (R) said as Gianforte signed the package into law earlier this month. Ler, who sponsored one of the bills, said his legislation underscores the idea that environmental reviews are only procedural: 'It's a way to gather facts, weigh impacts and make informed decisions — not dictate them,' he said. 'We're making it clear that Montana's environmental policy is about informed decision-making, and not weaponizing and litigation.' Most Montana environmental laws begin with a reference to the state constitution, but Ler's bill strikes that language from MEPA. Another bill sets guidelines for MEPA assessments, narrowing the scope so that it does not not include greenhouse gas emissions beyond the boundaries of a proposed plant. That would mean a coal mine's exports wouldn't be a factor, for example. A third bill does not revise MEPA, but prevents the state from adopting any clean air standards that are more stringent than federal ones. A parade of fossil fuel interests, business groups and unions supported the measure. Federal standards 'are more than adequate,' Dan Brooks of the Billings Chamber of Commerce told lawmakers. Eva Lighthiser, one of the 16 young challengers who testified at the Held trial, told lawmakers that it was wrong to prevent the state from regulating harmful greenhouse gases. 'This bill goes against our constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment,' she said. 'This bill evades the state's responsibility to uphold our constitutional rights.' Other legislative efforts aimed at blunting Held were not as successful. Less than a month after the Montana Supreme Court upheld the Held decision, the court cited the decision in a ruling that determined state officials had not conducted an adequate review of a controversial gas-fired power plant. That ruling, along with the court's decision to uphold Held, prompted lawmakers to call for partisan judicial elections, as well as a new court that would focus on business interests. Neither of the measures passed the Legislature. Our Children's Trust, the public interest law firm that represented the young people in Montana, said it plans to stay active in the state. 'The disdain lawmakers showed for the decision really affirms it's a momentous decision and will have significant effects in Montana,' said Nate Bellinger, supervising senior staff attorney at the Oregon-based firm. He noted that lawmakers did not alter the constitution, which says public officials have a constitutional duty to protect people's right to a clean and healthful environment. 'We will continue to be there, to help represent youth and enforce and uphold the right to a clean environment,' Bellinger said. 'If that means follow-up litigation, that's what it means.'
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawmakers accused of 'deeply troubling' tactics in court battle with young activists: 'It's going to take us years to unwind what they're doing here'
Montana lawmakers are pushing a series of legislative changes that critics say will undercut a historic court ruling that favored youth plaintiffs in a climate case, Inside Climate News recently reported. The Held v. Montana ruling was seen as a major win for young climate advocates. However, since the verdict, legislators have introduced bills that would limit the state's obligation to consider climate pollution in decision-making. The Held decision found that Montana residents have a constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, including protection from climate harm. Yet in response, some state legislators are fast-tracking measures that restrict how state agencies evaluate the release of polluting gases. Lawmakers aim to block courts from enforcing certain constitutional provisions through legislation like House Bill (HB) 971 and others that amend the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). HB 971 says state agencies shouldn't factor in planet-warming gas pollution in environmental reviews, while the MEPA requires them to carefully assess the environmental impact of major projects before giving permits. These changes could reshape how Montana evaluates and responds to climate-related risks. Legal experts and environmental advocates argue that these bills could roll back key protections affirmed by the ruling and limit the ability of residents to hold the government accountable for decisions affecting the climate. The urgency and volume of the proposals suggest a deliberate effort to sideline the court's judgment and limit the legal avenues available to implement initiatives for climate protection. As Anne Hedges, executive director of the Montana Environmental Information Center, warned, "It's going to take us years to unwind what they're doing here. And they [Republican lawmakers] know it; to them, that's a win." The youth plaintiffs' legal team is closely watching legislative changes as they unfold while Republican lawmakers defend the measures as necessary to limit judicial overreach. As a Reddit user shared, "It's deeply troubling that Montana Republicans are trying to roll back climate action after a court recognized the state's constitutional duty to protect a clean environment. … They need to be held accountable." Do you think governments should ban gas stoves? Heck yes! Only in new buildings Only in restaurants Heck no! Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. For now, advocates say the best way forward is to stay informed, support pro-climate leaders, and back candidates who prioritize environmental protection. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Climate programs will struggle for support, attention under Trump, speakers say
Reflecting on the first 95 days of President Donald Trump's administration, panelists at the opening session of the 2025 Society of Environmental Journalists conference were not hopeful for the future. Nada Wolff Culver, former principal deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management, said the landscape of climate change and covering the crisis is uncertain. '(There's been) a lot of undoing. (The Trump administration) is trying to get the word 'climate' out of our vocabulary,' Culver said. Culver, one of four panelists at the opening session of the conference in Tempe, said the term "climate" is often censored depending on the presidential administration in power. 'We're not going to have the same federal backstop as we have had in the past,' said Anne Hedges, executive director of Montana Environmental Information Center. The 'federal backstop' she was referring to was a lack of support in the federal government and higher-level judiciary spheres for climate change. This sentiment was echoed by Culver. '(There is) less certainty that the courts will be able to save and protect us,' Culver said. On the topic of uncertainty, Lena Gonzalez, majority leader of the California State Senate, said the process of accessing FEMA relief funds in the wake of the Palisades and Eaton fires was 'like a little chess game.' Gonzalez said her work in the Senate, attempting to pass environmentally minded climate crisis solution bills, has been similar to the chess dichotomy she mentioned. She said Senate Bill 1137, known as the Setbacks Bill, was specifically difficult to pass and implement in the Golden State. The measure, implemented in June 2024, created a more than 3,000-foot health protection zone around community gathering spaces such as homes and schools. The bill, Gonzalez said, is an example of legislation the Trump administration is fighting to eradicate. 'We're going to continue to push on this,' she said. 'Multi-state alignment (is necessary) when it comes to energy.' Emily Fischer, a professor at Colorado State University, spoke passionately about her role as an atmospheric scientist, but also as a mother of two children. 'We cannot afford to lose four years of progress,' she said, referring to the Biden administration's climate work between the first and second Trump administrations. 'Regardless of what's happened over the past 95 days, the science is the same,' Fischer said. Hedges said for every attempt at forward progress regarding the solutions to and coverage of the climate crisis, there is backward action. 'For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction,' she said to laughter in the audience. While all four panelists were passionate about the changes made by the current administration in how the climate crisis is addressed and covered, Culver said it is possible for researchers and journalists to 'work with' the Trump administration on climate crisis policy and legislative implementation. Bella Mazzilli is a reporter at State Press Magazine at Arizona State University, and is part of a student newsroom supported by The Arizona Republic. Coverage of the Society of Environmental Journalists conference is supported by Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust and the Arizona Media Association. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: SEJ conference speakers say climate programs will struggle under Trump
