by Pete Jones

DENVER, the United States, June 20 (Xinhua) -- In just a few weeks, a Montana district court judge could redirect U.S. national policy away from continuing the age-old environmentally reckless pursuit of fossil fuel development.

The landmark Held v Montana case puts climate change in the headlights of America's judicial system. It ended Tuesday as Republican-hired defense attorneys unexpectedly rested their case, clinging to a weak defense that climate change should be legislatively addressed.

The state's position ignores 97 percent of global climate scientists who directly link human-caused fossil fuel development to climate change that had triggered wildfires, floods, and billions of U.S. dollars in losses and damages.

According to U.S. media sources, the scheduled two-week Montana trial that ended three days early is the first climate change trial in American history.

A ruling from state District Judge Kathy Seeley is expected sometime after the parties file their proposed findings in the case in early July.

The trial was "a publicity stunt staged by an out-of-state organization that is exploiting well-intentioned children," Emily Flower, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who defended the plaintiff's lawsuit, told the media.

The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys for Our Children's Trust, an Oregon environmental group that has filed similar lawsuits in every state since 2011 and raised more than 20 million dollars in contributions, according to the Guardian.

Held v Montana, filed in 2020 by 16 young Montanans aged 2-18, cited irreparable damage to their health and safety due to newly signed state laws that eliminated climate-change safeguards.

On Tuesday, the plaintiffs' attorney Nate Bellinger urged Seeley to strike down as unconstitutional a newly minted Montana law that prohibits state agencies from considering environmental effects when it weighs permits allowing the release of greenhouse gases. Bellinger said officials had violated a right to a clean and healthful environment, part of the Montana Constitution, by allowing companies to build power plants and expand coal mines, among other things.

"Like other monumental constitutional cases before, the state of Montana comes before this court because of a pervasive systemic infringement of rights," Bellinger told the court in his closing arguments Tuesday.

During the first-of-its-kind trial in the United States last week, the young plaintiffs gave dramatic testimony on how increased heat, smoke from wildfires, and drought affect their activities and mental health.

Sariel Sandoval, a member of the Bitterroot Salish, Upper Pend d'Oreille, and Dine Tribes and one of 16 youth plaintiffs, testified to the court that climate change affected her tribe's ceremonies and traditional food sources.

"The way we identify ourselves as Salish people, sqelixw, the root word translates to 'flesh and land,'" Sandoval said. "That really shows the importance in our role as human beings and our connection to the land and the natural environment."

Dr. Steven Running, a recognized expert in global ecosystem monitoring from the University of Montana, explained in court how climate impacts harm the plaintiffs and that the severity of their injuries would only worsen if Montana's reliance on fossil fuels continues.

He warned that Earth's energy imbalance would worsen during the plaintiffs' lifetimes, and the window to address the environmental damage is rapidly closing.

In the state's brief closing argument Tuesday, an attorney also argued that the climate change issue was much larger than Montana can address on its own and that "the case put on by the young plaintiffs was a weeklong airing of political grievances that properly belong in the legislature, not a court of law."

"Anyone who has any questions about the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' claims wasn't listening at trial last week," Julia Olson, the group's founder, said in response to Flower's statement. She noted that the evidence presented by the young plaintiffs and by scientists for the plaintiffs was largely uncontested by the state's attorneys.

"The trial has shown the facts are irrefutable," Olson told the Guardian. Enditem

Related

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)