{"id":263259,"date":"2023-06-22T09:46:22","date_gmt":"2023-06-22T07:46:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=263259"},"modified":"2023-06-22T09:46:25","modified_gmt":"2023-06-22T07:46:25","slug":"held-v-montana-climate-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=263259","title":{"rendered":"Held v Montana Climate Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Climate Etc.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

by Judith Curry<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

My reflections on the Held v Montana Climate Lawsuit \u2013 the inside story, my written expert report and why I didn\u2019t testify at the trial.  Don\u2019t believe the PR about this case from Our Children\u2019s Trust, which the mainstream media has accepted uncritically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the case is about<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This case has received substantial national and international press.  Here is the summary of the lawsuit provided by climatecasechart:<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Youth Plaintiffs Filed Climate Lawsuit Against Montana Asserting Violations of State Constitutional Rights.<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sixteen young people filed a lawsuit in Montana state court asserting climate change-based claims under the Montana constitution against the State of Montana, its governor, and state agencies. In particular, the case challenges the constitutionality of Montana\u2019s fossil fuel-based State Energy Policy and the \u201cClimate Change Exception\u201d in the Montana Environmental Policy Act. The plaintiffs allege that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were \u201calready triggering a host of adverse consequences in Montana, including dangerously increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, increasing droughts and extreme weather events, increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires, increasing glacial melt, and causing numerous adverse health risks, especially to children,\u201d and that defendants had continued \u201cto act affirmatively to exacerbate the climate crisis\u201d despite their awareness that the plaintiffs were living under \u201cdangerous climatic conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm.\u201d The plaintiffs seek a declaration that their right to a clean and healthful environment includes a right a stable climate system, as well as declarations that the State Energy Policy and the Climate Change Exception violate the Public Trust Doctrine and constitutional provisions that protect the right to a clean and healthful environment; the right to seek safety, health, and happiness; and the right to individual dignity and equal protection. They also seek injunctive relief in the form of orders directing the defendants to prepare an accounting of Montana\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions and to develop and implement a remedial plan to reduce emissions \u201cconsistent with the best available science and reductions necessary to protect Youth Plaintiffs\u2019 constitutional rights from further infringement \u2026 , and to reduce the cumulative risk of harm to those rights.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case was filed in 2020.  A history of the case is provided at the website for Our Children\u2019s Trust<\/a> (lawyers for the Plaintiffs), including the full text of the Complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a quick summary of the trial strategies:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 Our Children\u2019s Trust regards this case as a referendum on the climate change inaction by state governments in the U.S., focusing on how this causing serious harm to children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2022 The State of Montana views this to be a boring case about procedural law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My role<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In September 2022, I entered into an agreement with the State of Montana to be an expert witness in this case, including preparing written testimony for submission, being deposed, and testifying at trial.  The deadline for my written testimony was Oct 31.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I did not sign a formal agreement with the state of Montana, so I have no legal restrictions on what I say about the case.  However, as a general practice I do not discuss my clients publicly and would never repeat anything said to me in private.  Since my name has appeared in numerous media articles in conjunction with this case, my involvement is hardly a secret. I have received numerous queries from reporters to make a statement, which I have turned down.  I regard it as unprofessional to comment publicly on a case that I am involved with, either before or during the trial.  This blog post comprises my post-trial statement about the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The full text of my written expert report can be found here [MT Curry report<\/a>], addressing the points that the lawyers asked me to.  From the Conclusions of my report:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Based on the evidence presented in this report, the Plaintiffs\u2019 challenge of these two laws is based on the following mistaken assumptions and assertions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n