The Montana climate case and our obligation to the future
In mid-August, a group of young men from Montana won a groundbreaking lawsuit in the global fight to achieve environmental sustainability. Montana’s constitution requires the state to protect the environment for future generations.According to reports David Gales and Mike Baker inside New York Times:
“On Monday, a group of young men in Montana won a landmark lawsuit when judge ruled It is unconstitutional for the state to fail to consider climate change when approving fossil fuel projects… The ruling means Montana is a major coal and natural gas producing state, with a third of its energy coming from burning coal, Climate Change or Renewal Fossil Fuel Projects Must Be Considered When Deciding Whether to Approve…Montana Case around language in state constitutions The law guarantees residents’ “right to a clean and healthy environment” and imposes on the state and individuals the responsibility to maintain and improve the environment “for present and future generations.” Several other states have similar assurances, and young people in Hawaii, Utah and Virginia have filed lawsuits that are slowly making their way into courts. A federal case brought by the young man, which has been on hold for years, is moving forward again and is set to go to trial in Oregon in June.
I often focus on the pragmatic issues and trade-offs we must face as we transition to an environmentally sustainable economy, but today I want to focus on the ethical imperatives illustrated by this case. None of us built this planet and created the wealth that makes our lives and ways of life possible. But many of us are parents, and even grandparents, charged with creating new human life. It is a wonderful part of human existence that we derive joy and emotional sustenance from our children and their children. Many of us, while not creating human life, have cared for parents, friends, and pets and developed emotional bonds with these creatures. Many people have walked in the woods to experience and observe the natural world. Some people rely on nature for hunting and fishing and gain physical and emotional sustenance from their time in their natural environment. This joy and joy should never be taken for granted, and just as we restore our campsite to the state it was when we arrived, we must reasonably assume that we need to treat the earth in the same way. It seems to me that each of us has a moral obligation to ensure that new human and non-human life forms on this planet have the same opportunities to experience the natural world as we do.
This is not a new story.I often say that in the first environmental policy course I took in 1975 we discussed our responsibility to the future and read Robert Heilbroner Exploring the Human Prospect Subsequent explanations explain what descendants did for humans.During my senior year of high school (1970), the James Madison High School Yearbook (“The Log”) featured little Prince, He taught us to be “responsible for what we tame”.Write down our responsibilities to the future New York Times in 1975, Heilbroner wrote:
“Why should I lift a finger to affect things that no longer mean anything to me 75 years after my death than what happened 75 years before I was born? There is no rational answer to this dire question. No rational argument would lead me to care or do anything for my children and grandchildren. In fact, with every rational thought, the exact opposite is being imposed on us with irresistible force… I believe that future generations, In the face of famine, war and life-threatening–Earth’s carrying capacity… [humans will] Glimpse the void of a universe devoid of humans. I must at last believe that, when the executioner’s ax falls into their hands, these posterity will find the offspring to be of unearthly importance to them. “
Heilbroner has been thinking about future generations and his own interests for nearly half a century. Perhaps the case of Montana shows the need for “importance to future generations. “ I am inspired by the courage and perseverance of young people suing the government to protect their right to continue experiencing the natural world. In visions of the future where technology replaces nature, we leave the planet in ruins and can only simulate nature in experiential entertainment (e.g. Star Trek Holodeck). Then we leave this planet to plunder the resources of other planets.Climate change, dwindling US groundwater supplies, toxic substances and biodiversity loss are facts of life in the 21st centuryYingshi century. People my age don’t experience the long-term effects of this damage, but we’ve done it.
I have little patience for symbolic politics and destructive gestures (such as destroying art to protest environmental damage), but I have a lot of admiration for young people who use the law to communicate and establish the principles of natural rights.I am thrilled and deeply moved by the case in Montana Judge Casey Seeley’s ruling Supports young plaintiffs suing Montana and supports her decision that these young people have a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment, which includes climate as part of the environmental life support system.”
Some firmly believe that governments have no right to prevent the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. They make a convincing argument that the causes of global warming are global and that local actions alone cannot stop this form of environmental degradation. According to this view, state constitutions should focus on local pollutants that affect local conditions. But pollution knows no state or national borders, and our moral responsibility to our planet must begin with the following actions: our control. Moreover, a journey of a thousand miles always begins with one step.
Despite limited practical applications, such cases are landmarks. This is important because it signals a paradigm shift—a change in the way we see the world work. While the ideological and economic interests of promoting fossil fuel extraction will persist for some time, advances in renewable energy technology have already begun to drive fossil fuels out of the market. This form of environmental degradation will eventually disappear. But others will follow suit, not least the drive to develop land for housing and agriculture. Montana’s decision provides an opportunity to influence the environmental impact of these activities in the future.
We must focus on the future and the well-being of our descendants. Usually, environmental damage is reversible and ecology can be restored, but some damage is irreversible. As we strive to develop the land, we need to develop an ethic of reverence for the land and humility. Our goal should always be to minimize our impact. When the damage is severe and irreversible, we should seriously consider abandoning the development and focusing funds and efforts elsewhere. Many of our cities have abandoned investment-worthy buildings or even entire neighborhoods. It may well make more sense to develop abandoned “brownfields” than pristine “greenfields”. The cases brought by these young men from Montana should be on our minds as we think about them and others who will follow and work hard to ensure they inherit a planet they can live on.
