A Montana court’s ruling in favor of climate change activists enjoyed a short burst of coverage when it was released last Monday. Legal scholars on both sides of the issue agreed it was likely to have little immediate impact in policy. However, it would be wrong to let the implications get swept away in the news cycle; the ruling is as much a legal strategy as it is a long-term psychological operation.
Montana District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of 16 young plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming their rights to a clean environment had been violated. They argued the state’s procedure to evaluate requests for fossil fuel permits is unconstitutional because it does not allow agencies to consider greenhouse gas emissions. Judge Seeley agreed, ruling that the plaintiffs had an unalienable right to “a clean and healthful environment” under the state constitution. (RELATED: Court Rules That State’s Promotion Of Oil And Gas Violated Residents’ Rights)
Read, listen, + watch the latest news about historic ruling in Held v. State of Montana, including interviews w/youth plaintiffs and @youthvgov attorneys: https://t.co/GgvlRjv2gh #YouthvGovMT #HeldMakesHistory pic.twitter.com/0QnW9gpVJj
— Our Children’s Trust (@youthvgov) August 18, 2023
The plaintiffs, aged five to 22, put a great deal of focus on the supposed psychological harms they incurred from climate change. Mica argued that he “gets frustrated when he is required to stay indoors during the summer because of wildfire smoke.” Claire expressed “fear and loss from glaciers melting, and anxiety over whether it is a safe world in which to have children.” Another claimed that, “climate anxiety is like an elephant sitting on her chest … [that] makes it hard for her to breathe.” While Seeley ruled that the psychological harms had no direct bearing on the case, she nevertheless held that, “[c]limate change can cause increased stress and distress which can impact physical health.”
The state largely allowed this publicity stunt to continue unimpeded. The state declined to even call its expert witnesses on climate science and mental health, with officials saying they are “not interested in wasting taxpayer resources and the court’s time in presenting unnecessary testimony.” It is a safe assumption that the Montana Supreme Court will overturn the ruling and similar cases have been repeatedly thrown out of federal court. Even liberals legal observers tempered their cheers of victory in comments to The Associated Press, noting that “the immediate impacts are limited” given Montana’s deep-red legislature.
The legal and scientific semantics of the case are perhaps the least important aspect, however. It does not matter whether the case gets thrown out in the short or medium term. Rather, it is an important cultural and psychological victory, the weight of which reveals the left’s long term intention to re-shape public consciousness around climate change. With climate change as the ultimate lodestar, the state has a blank check to play God as much as it would like.
As AP put it, “The ruling in this first-of-its-kind trial in the U.S. adds to a small number of legal decisions around the world that have established a government duty to protect citizens from climate change.” What does that really mean?
The left wants to establish protection from climate change as a human right — something that cannot be infringed upon by the state or any other private actor. Whereas human rights used to concern peoples’ freedom or rights “from” something, modern liberals now conceive of it as the freedom or right “to” something. In the modern era, those rights are often in conflict. (RELATED: Blue State Gov Seizes On Devastating Wildfires To Say America Should ‘Decarbonize Our Economy’)
DHS Secretary Mayorkas (Who presides over our open border) claims:
“[Climate change] is one of the most prominent threats that we face.”
Like the other robots in the Biden administration – not the fentanyl crisis – not the potential for nuclear war – climate change is the REAL… pic.twitter.com/JmuHzZaAEy
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 21, 2023
For example, when the government enshrines the “right to” be protected from COVID-19, someone else’s “freedom from” mask and vaccine mandates gets eroded. In the case of COVID, the legal mandates often got overturned or at least had their scientific foundations debunked, but the harm was already done. The culture built around the “right to” safety has drastically altered American life. There would surely be grassroots support for draconian public health measures if the government ever pronounced it necessary again.
So too, goes the operation on climate change. There is no limiting principle to the judge’s decision. The climate is always changing, and as we see with the deluded coverage of the Maui fires, any weather event can be attributed to climate change. Any change in weather can be said to cause harm from which the government must provide protection. If “harm” conflates subjective psychological trauma and physical damage, then government has the power to do just about anything in the name of fighting climate change. (RELATED: WALKER: Americans Deserve Better Than Climate Change Lies. Here’s What Really Caused The Maui Wildfires)
Rulings like this set the cultural tone more than the letter of the law. The state wants you to accept this framing of a human right. They pull on your heartstrings to convince you that children’s manufactured anxiety about climate change trumps your rights to freedom, equality and property under the Constitution. That way, as the pressure for “climate action” mounts, they won’t even have to rely on legal compulsion — millions will freely give up their rights without a second thought.