Judicial Climate Activism in Montana
A judge rules that feelings equate to facts in siding with young climate alarmists’ claim that fossil fuels are causing them emotional distress.
In a case that would make Greta Thunberg proud, 16 young people ages five to 22 successfully sued the state of Montana for failing to protect their right to a “clean and healthful environment.” Their entire case rested upon the utterly unmeasurable and unquantifiable claim that the Treasure State’s Environmental Policy Act has “harmed” them since it precludes local officials from incorporating “greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate” into their evaluation process when considering energy project approvals.
In other words, since Montana passed laws to prevent ecofascists from crushing the fossil fuel industry in the state, these children sued. Nothing like using gullible kids to promote a Marxist political agenda, which is what the climate change cult is really all about.
Indeed, given the judge’s reasoning, it was clear that these young people were merely used as props in a show trial — the outcome of which was decided before it began.
Judge Kathy Seely of the First District Court in Montana effectively based her “harm” ruling on a rationale that could be boiled down to this: The kids are so sad. Seely claimed, “Youth plaintiffs have experienced past and ongoing injuries resulting from the state’s failure to consider [greenhouse gas emissions] and climate change, including injuries to their physical and mental health, homes and property; recreational, spiritual and aesthetic interests; tribal and cultural traditions, economic security and happiness.”
Seely further enumerated, “Plaintiff’s mental health injuries stemming from the effects of climate change on Montana’s environment, feelings like loss, despair, and anxiety, are cognizable injuries.” Really? Just reading Seely’s ridiculous ruling causes feelings of despair and anxiety over the state of our nation’s judicial system.
Reading through the decision, we’re left wondering who Seely paid off to get her district judge gig. It is really that bad.
Making matters worse, while the plaintiffs had little other than feelings to offer, the state brought data and evidence to support its defense. The state even brought in world-renowned climatologist Judith Curry to back up its claims. Curry blasted the climate alarmist group Our Children’s Trust, the ecofascists behind the lawsuit, cogently observing, “There is no right to a ‘safe and stable climate,' for the simple reason that Earth’s climate is constantly out of equilibrium and evolving.”
Ignoring sound science and reasoned logic, the Leftmedia celebrated the verdict as a landmark, precedent-setting decision upon which judicial momentum can be built for furthering the Left’s war against fossil fuels.
Hopefully, however, the vacuous argument of elevating feelings as facts won’t play with the appellate courts. Children crying emotional distress over the climate change bogeyman they have been indoctrinated to fear should not sway any sober-minded judge. If it does, then a bed manufacturer could be held liable for the nightmares a child experiences over fears of the imaginary monster living under his bed.
Finally, if anyone is at fault for the emotional “trauma” these children are experiencing, is it not the Chick Little climate alarmists? People like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg have often literally screamed their apocalyptic vision of a near future world where the oceans rise and the earth burns. How many times have these charlatans claimed that earth will end in X number of years if we don’t immediately stop carbon emissions, only for the date to come and go without even a hint of remorse for the deceit they’ve peddled? And how many children suffer despair and anxiety because of this climate alarmism hysteria?
Start a conversation using these share links: