A few weeks ago, there was a burst of press coverage of a Montana court ruling in favor of a group of teenagers who sued the state over its climate change policies.
A “landmark” decision said The New York Times. “Monumental,” according to the plaintiffs' lawyer. A ruling that joins a smattering of others in creating “a government duty to protect citizens from climate change” said NPR.
And so on.
Except the decision was decided on narrow grounds, and most critically, didn't put a Montana judge in charge of fighting climate change. Not because the plaintiffs didn't try to get that to happen. They did. But even judges have their limits when it comes to exercising power.
As the R Street Institute's Josiah Neeley writes, that's a big deal – and a sign that attempting to use the courts to set climate policy is a terrible thing to do:
A key issue in [Montana District] Judge Seeley's opinion is that of redressability—assuming the plaintiffs prove injury, would granting them their requested relief actually alleviate that injury? She noted that, in 2019, fossil fuel use in Montana resulted in the equivalent of 32 million tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Including additional emissions from fossil fuels processed or transported in or through Montana but consumed in other states, the court concludes that Montana's fossil fuel-based economy was responsible for 166 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2019.
Those sound like big numbers, but when you consider that global greenhouse gas emissions amounted to nearly 50 gigatons of CO2 equivalent in 2019, you realize that Montana's emissions accounted for only 0.2-0.3 percent of that total. Even if these emissions were totally eliminated, there would be no appreciable effect on the state's climate during the plaintiffs' lifetime. The Held decision itself does not propose to eliminate all or most of Montana's greenhouse gas emissions, only to add a requirement to the permitting process for future fossil fuel infrastructure. At most, then, the relief granted by the court can only reduce a small fraction of Montana's small fraction of global emissions—too little to have an appreciable effect on the climate.
But every little bit helps, right? Well, sure. But making a difference in global emissions requires action that exceeds the authority of any single judge or court. That would seem to diminish to near insignificance the supposedly “landmark” Montana ruling.
But if one is genuinely concerned about reducing global emissions, then what alternative is there? The most difficult, time-consuming and frustrating is doing so through the legislative process. The enormous upside, however, is that other views, insights and solutions – including those that rely on the power of markets and private sector innovation (the exact opposite of industrial policy) to bring about change.
It's little wonder some activists aren't keen on such a course and prefer to take their chances of winning big in a state court…like generations of trial lawyers and activists have done before them.
It's a terrible way to make policy. But it sure looks like an excellent way of earning fawning headlines.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.
READ NEXT: Virginia Governor Pardons Father Arrested During School Board Meeting
So what climate will your town become? Mini ice age? Desert? Tropical rain forest?
98 percent of the article is propaganda.
I find it difficult to understand why anyone would think a bunch of teenagers – you know, those young humans that you don’t trust with the car keys or firearms or alcoholic beverages – could be trusted to know the difference between the propaganda they are getting in school and actual, scientific facts and research. When are these leftist eco-activists going to admit that without CO2, just about sll life on the planet will cease to exist? Do they not know that a gas expelled by mammals with every breath they take should not be considered a pollutant nor a danger to the planet? We are carbon-based lifeforms. We take in oxygen and expel carbon dioxide. Plants on Earth take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen. It is an amazing co-dependency, probably one of the few that are beneficial to our existence. Deal with it! Quit trying to make people think it is bad for the planet.
The US has decreased the amount of hazardous gases produced by our use of fossil fuels over the last 50 years, thanks to scientific and engineering advances. How about convincing China to do the same? They produce more pollution today than the US ever did.