The loss of climate realism and common sense – is Watt surprised?

On December 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court issued what climate activists hailed as a landmark decision in Held v. Montana. Sixteen young plaintiffs, backed by the wealthy advocacy group Our Children's Trust, told the court that state support for fossil fuel programs violated their constitutional right to a “clean and healthy environment.” The court voted 6 to 1 that this constitutional right extended to “a stable climate system.”

For those of us in the climate realist camp, this decision is not only disappointing, but a blow to rational decision-making and fundamental principles of American governance. Let's explore why.

At the heart of the court's ruling was a claim that Montana's greenhouse gas emissions were a “material factor” in the injuries to the plaintiffs. Really? Montana accounts for only 0.09% of global emissions, an amount so small that even under the most extreme emissions scenario, it would only result in 0.0018°C of warming. The idea that such a trivial contribution could cause meaningful harm to these plaintiffs is laughable. However, the court ignored the math and accepted the narrative.

About Montana CO₂ According to 2019 estimates, Montana accounts for 0.63% of U.S. emissions and 0.09% of global emissions. Expected warming 2^ohC. 0.09% of Montana’s emissions will account for 0.0018^ohC warming. There are other ways to do this calculation (and newer numbers), but no matter how you slice it, you can't come up with a significant amount of global warming caused by Montana's emissions.

Held v Montana Climate Lawsuit

As Dr. Judith Curry pointed out in expert analysis last year, this case is built on a house of cards. The plaintiffs rely heavily on worst-case climate projections, such as the discredited RCP8.5 scenario, and cherry-picked weather events to weave their story of impending doom. Their claims ignore historical climate change, which suggests Montana was facing severe droughts, wildfires and other extreme weather long before fossil fuels became a factor.

Curry's scathing criticism of the plaintiffs' approach highlights their reliance on emotion rather than evidence. By conflating Montana’s local climate problems with global phenomena, they bypass the inconvenient reality that the state’s emissions are statistically insignificant. Instead, they rely on the empty slogan “every ton of emissions matters,” which Curry disproves with simple arithmetic.

Let’s call it: judicial activism in the service of a radical environmental agenda. The Montana Supreme Court transcended its boundaries and transformed itself into a quasi-legislative body. Justice Jim Rice's dissent rightly warned that the ruling opened the door for courts to micromanage natural resource policy under the guise of constitutional interpretation. Such decisions belong to the legislature, where elected officials can be held accountable, rather than the courts.

The plaintiffs argue that a stable climate system is critical to their recreational activities, ranching livelihoods and overall well-being. While this sounds noble, it is not a reason to use litigation to reshape national energy policy. As Governor Greg Gianforte so aptly put it:

“This decision is nothing more than a declaration of open season on all of the above energy methods in Montana, which are key to providing affordable and reliable energy to homes, schools and businesses across the state.”

Montana Supreme Court affirms decision in Held, historic youth climate case

Additionally, the case sets a dangerous precedent for climate litigation across the country. By focusing on local emissions in isolation, it ignores the global nature of the assumed problem. If every state followed Montana's approach, we would end up with a series of conflicting rulings that inhibit energy development without any real benefit.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the case is how it exploited young people to push a broader agenda. The plaintiffs, many of whom are teenagers, are seen as the leading voices in the fight against climate change. But their understanding of these issues is rudimentary at best. As Dr. Curry has said before, these young plaintiffs are victims of an education system and media environment that bombards them with climate hysteria rather than scientific literacy.

Rather than encouraging their resilience and innovation, the case provided them with an apocalyptic narrative that stoked anxiety and exacerbated divisions. Climate change, whether natural or human-induced, is a challenge that humans are constantly adapting to. The idea that we can achieve a “safe and stable climate” through legislation or litigation is not only naive, but distracts from real solutions.

Montanans will bear the brunt of this decision. By removing state restrictions on greenhouse gas reviews, the courts have made energy projects more vulnerable to costly delays and frivolous litigation. This could lead to higher energy costs and reduced economic opportunities, especially in rural communities that rely on resource development.

What does the plaintiff get in return? A symbolic victory that serves no purpose. The court's ruling will not prevent China from building coal-fired power plants or India from increasing energy consumption. Instead, it sacrifices Montana’s energy independence and economic future on the altar of climate alarmism.

The Held v. Montana decision is a stark reminder that climate activism has permeated our legal and political systems. It prioritizes virtue signaling over scientific rigor, emotion over evidence, and centralized control over democratic process. For those who believe in climate realism, this ruling is a clarion call to stop climate alarmism from invading our courts and legislative bodies.

The way forward lies in pursuing policies that balance environmental stewardship with economic growth and energy reliability. Courts should insist on interpreting the law rather than rewriting it to align with activist agendas. Like the rest of the world, Montana will continue to face the challenges of climate change. The answer is not to hold back our energy systems, but to build a resilient, innovative society that can adapt to future developments.

Relevant