Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Attorneys for the state argued that the volume of greenhouse gasses released from Montana fossil fuel projects was insignificant compared to global emissions and reducing them would have no effect on the climate.
"Your honor, my client's actions are so insignificant as compared with the national murder rate that jailing him will have absolutely no detectable effect on anything."
an actual rare montana w? huh.
The state constitution has this in it:
The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.
This makes it possible to use state courts to force some level of environmental protection.
It'd be nice if our federal constitution said that...
well definitely never expected that from montana :)
We need to amend the US Constitution to something similar.
Good thing corporations are persons - first time I've said that
Believe it or not MT is one of the top 10 states for renewable energy. Something like 50%. Unfortunately the rest is coal.
Climate change or not, "pollution is fine so long as I am profiting off of it" is the real problem. At least the last administration's gutting of the EPA was somewhat reversed. Remember we used to have rivers on fire from toxic waste. Regulations fixed that.
We also used to have acid rain regularly, and we tore a hole in the ozone. It's never a bad idea to watch the consequences of our actions and impose restrictions on them to keep us all safe and healthy.
SCotUS: "Hold my beer".
My understanding is that they won't have jurisdiction because it's about interpretation of the state constitution.
Excellent news.
We need to add those clauses to the Florida Constitution.
Every state’s* constitution
This is the best summary I could come up with:
(AP) — Montana’s Supreme Court has rejected an attempt by the state’s Republican governor to block a landmark climate ruling that said regulators must consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when issuing permits for fossil fuel development.
The state high court ruling means Montana officials must “immediately comply” with Seeley’s order pending the appeal, said Mark Bellinger, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, which represented the 16 young plaintiffs who brought the case.
Director Chris Dorrington of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality said in a Wednesday statement that he was disappointed in the court’s ruling but declined to say whether the agency would analyze the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when evaluating permit applications.
The young plaintiffs who challenged the state environmental policy testified they were already feeling the consequences of climate change, with smoke from worsening wildfires choking the air they breathe, along with decreased snowpack and drought drying rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife and recreation.
Attorneys for the state argued that the volume of greenhouse gasses released from Montana fossil fuel projects was insignificant compared to global emissions and reducing them would have no effect on the climate.
Last year’s amendment by lawmakers forbid greenhouse gas emission analyses unless the federal government decided to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
The original article contains 643 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!