A Loss for Climate Realism and Common Sense – Watts Up With That?

On December 18, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court delivered what climate activists are hailing as a landmark ruling in Held v. Montana. Sixteen youth plaintiffs, backed by the well-heeled advocacy group Our Children’s Trust, convinced the court that their constitutional right to a “clean and healthful environment” was being violated by the state’s support for fossil fuel projects. The court’s 6-1 decision declared that this constitutional right extends to a “stable climate system.”

For those of us in the camp of climate realism, this decision is not just disappointing—it’s a blow to rational policymaking and the foundational principles of American governance. Let’s explore why.

The crux of the court’s ruling was the claim that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are a “substantial factor” causing harm to the plaintiffs. Really? Montana contributes a meager 0.09% to global emissions, an amount so small that it accounts for just 0.0018°C of warming under even the most extreme emissions scenarios​​. The notion that this infinitesimal contribution could meaningfully harm these plaintiffs is laughable. Yet, the court ignored the math and embraced the narrative.

With regards to Montana’s CO₂ emissions, based on 2019 estimates Montana produces 0.63% of U.S. emissions and 0.09% of global emissions.  For an anticipated warming of 2^oC, Montana’s 0.09% of emissions would account for 0.0018^oC of warming.  There are other ways to frame this calculation (and more recent numbers), but any way you slice it, you can’t come up with a significant amount of global warming that is caused by Montana’s emissions.

Held v Montana Climate Lawsuit

As Dr. Judith Curry pointed out in her expert analysis last year, this case was built on a house of cards. The plaintiffs relied heavily on worst-case climate projections like the discredited RCP8.5 scenario and cherry-picked weather events to weave their tale of impending doom. Their claims ignored historical climate variability, which shows that Montana has faced severe droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather long before fossil fuels were ever a factor​.

Curry’s damning critique of the plaintiffs’ approach highlighted their reliance on emotion rather than evidence. By conflating Montana’s localized climate issues with a global phenomenon, they bypassed the inconvenient reality that the state’s emissions are statistically insignificant. Instead, they leaned on the hollow mantra that “every ton of emissions counts,” a claim Curry dismantled with simple arithmetic​.

Let’s call this what it is: judicial activism in service of a radical environmental agenda. The Montana Supreme Court overstepped its bounds, transforming itself into a quasi-legislative body. Justice Jim Rice’s dissent rightly warned that this ruling opens the door for courts to micromanage natural resource policies under the guise of constitutional interpretation. Such decisions belong in the hands of legislatures, where elected officials can be held accountable—not in the courts​.

The plaintiffs argued that a stable climate system is essential for their recreational activities, ranching livelihoods, and general well-being. While that may sound noble, it’s hardly a justification for reshaping state energy policy through litigation. As Governor Greg Gianforte aptly put it:

“This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above-approach to energy, which is key to providing affordable and reliable energy to homes, schools, and businesses across our state.”

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

Moreover, this case sets a dangerous precedent for climate litigation nationwide. By focusing on local emissions in isolation, it ignores the global nature of the supposed issue. If every state were to adopt Montana’s approach, we’d end up with a patchwork of contradictory rulings, stifling energy development without delivering any tangible benefits.

One of the most unsettling aspects of this case is how it exploited young people to push a broader agenda. The plaintiffs, many of whom are teenagers, were presented as the face of the fight against climate change. But their understanding of the issues appears rudimentary at best. As Dr. Curry previously argued, these young plaintiffs are victims of an educational system and media landscape that bombards them with climate hysteria rather than scientific literacy​.

Instead of encouraging resilience and innovation, this case fed them an apocalyptic narrative that stokes anxiety and fuels division. Climate change, whether natural or human-influenced, is a challenge that humanity has always adapted to. The notion that we can legislate or litigate our way to a “safe and stable climate” is not just naïve—it’s a dangerous distraction from real solutions.

Montanans are the ones who will bear the brunt of this decision. By invalidating the state’s limitations on greenhouse gas reviews, the court has made energy projects more vulnerable to costly delays and frivolous litigation. This will likely lead to higher energy costs and reduced economic opportunities, particularly in rural communities that rely on resource development.

And what do the plaintiffs get in return? A symbolic victory that does nothing. The court’s ruling won’t stop China from building coal plants or India from increasing its 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 of how far climate activism has infiltrated our legal and political systems. It prioritizes virtue signaling over scientific rigor, emotion over evidence, and centralized control over democratic processes. For those who believe in climate realism, this ruling is a clarion call to push back against the encroachment of climate alarmism into our courts and legislatures.

The path forward lies in promoting policies that balance environmental stewardship with economic growth and energy reliability. Courts should stick to interpreting the law, not rewriting it to align with activist agendas. Montana, like the rest of the world, will continue to face challenges from climate variability. The answer isn’t to hobble our energy systems—it’s to build a resilient, innovative society capable of adapting to whatever the future holds.

Related