WGrace Gibson-Snyder started an independent project when she was 13 to encourage restaurants to avoid single-use plastic bottles. She discovered that youth activism allowed her to push adults to address the climate crisis seriously. Even though she was too young for voting, she could still be heard.
Gibson-Snyder and 15 other young people joined forces three years later to create a new approach in climate activism: to sue Montana for failing its generation to protect from the climate crisis’ irreversible harm.
Held v State of Montana The state legislature has prioritized the business interests and future of the fossil fuel industry over the needs of its citizens, argues the plaintiff. Their case will be heard next February and it will be the first of a series of youth-led climate suits to go to trial. Experts predict that a ruling in favor of the 16 youth plaintiffs could have wide-ranging implications across the country. It could also set guidelines for how politicians can protect extractive corporations’ interests.
The world is literally burning around them and nothing is being done to stop it, said Nate Bellinger a senior staff lawyer with Our Childrens Trust (a non-profit law company that represents the youth plaintiffs). The state is not doing enough and continues to promote the development of fossil fuels.
The 16 young plaintiffs, who were between two and 18 years old when they filed the suit in March 2020, already feel the effects of climate change. These include the dangerous air quality caused by wildfires and the severe drought that threatens their family-owned cattle ranches. Young people are a major force in the climate activism movement as they face increasingly dire environmental consequences.
Particularly in Montana, young activists are confronted by a political system deeply entangled with the fossil fuel industry. Experts say Montana officials have created state laws that favor the financial interests of energy companies, despite the fact that the science about the worsening effects of climate change is widely available.
The most notable change came in 2011, when the legislature made it easier to increase drilling for fossil fuels and stopped agencies from considering how future projects would impact climate change. This act effectively made it impossible to pass future climate legislation, as it placed a gag on questions about environmental impact. In the same year, Montana resigned from the Western Climate Initiative. This was an agreement between western countries and parts of Canada to reduce greenhouse gases emissions.
Anne Hedges is the director of policy-legislative affairs at the Montana Environmental Information Center. She says that the state legislature has impeded any progress made over the past two decades toward exploring non-extractive or renewable energy options.
[Legislators]She said that she doesn’t want anything to be able to compete with coal. The majority are determined to continue burning coal.
Montana is the sixth-largest producer of coal in the United States, with six coalmines and four coal plants owned by private parties. It also has four petroleum refineries, making it one of the most important. The largest oil and gas consumersUnited States. Montana has received close to $650m from oil and natural gas extraction on mostly public lands over the past eight years, making it the eighth highest recipient of such disbursements in the country.
Hedges insists on the fact that contributions from fossil fuel companies don’t just fill the pockets of elected officials but keep them in office. Over the past 20 year, nearly $450,000 in oil and gas campaign contributions has been made. Despite the increasing severity of climate change impacts such as drought, shorter winters, and increased pollution, members of the legislature don’t stop supporting fossil fuel companies.
For example, in 2020, the Montana Public Service Commission was established. This agency is responsible for supervising public utilities, pipelines, and other infrastructure. Foundto have undermined small solar projects in the state by favoring NorthWesternenergy, the primary energy utility firm of the state. Hedges claims that they are out of control. They only care about building new gas plants and keeping the Colstrip plant. [in south-east Montana]For ever.
Steve Fitzpatrick from Great Falls is one of the largest recipients fossil fuel contributions. He was a representative who pushed for contracts to keep power plants open during previous legislative sessions. Barry Usher from Billings is another Republican representative who sponsored legislation that extended funding to the state board for coal and reduced the tax rate for coal companies over objections from local governments, Hedges said.
Duane Annkney, a Republican senator hailing from Colstrip (a town of 2,500 residents in south-east Montana), who helped ConstructRosebud coalmine in 1980s. Hedges claims that Ankney has passed numerous bills that provide regulatory and financial benefits to the fossil fuel extraction sector. Try toA 2017 bill that eliminated the board of environmental reviews was vetoed.
The legislature also approves a governor’s nominee to the state Oil and gas board. Hedges states that they are there to approve the requests of the industry. She adds that the voices of constituents who live in or have a family in an area targeted for extraction are ignored. This board is only open to those who have a financial interest or are financially connected to oil and gas.
Matthew Goldberg, associate research scientist at Yale University’s Yale program on climate change communication, said that the oil and gas industry is especially adept at identifying their allies in state legislatures. Goldberg studied the motivations of oil and gas corporations to vote against the environment. He found that the fossil fuel extraction companies are not looking to persuade legislators through lobbying funds and campaign contributions, but rather to strengthen policies that harm the environment.
If this is a regular cycle, where they’re being, in some sense, rewarded to vote against the environment, then you can see where that can build up, Goldberg said.
Montana’s youth are part of a larger youth movement that seeks to end the grip of the fossil fuel industry on local and state government. However, activists have had mixed success so far. At least 17 Republican attorneys-general, including Montanas have tried to BlockJuliana v United States, a youth climate lawsuit that has been ongoing and earlier., The economic implications of a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could jeopardize state economies. The Juliana If a federal judge finds the young people have legal standing, the case could be brought to trial.
Gibson-Snyder is 18 years old and is about to start college in the fall. The case serves multiple purposes to increase government accountability, make young peoples voices heard and protect the environment.
Gibson-Snyder stated that they were hoping the courts would help the government fulfill their duty to protect constitutional rights of individuals, particularly youths, and that the courts would do so.