BY DAVID FLEMING:

A recent Montana court decision on environmental rights may soon have significant legal and economic implications on Connecticut, especially if the state adopts a “green amendment.”

On Aug. 14, Montana District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of 16 “youth plaintiffs” (between the ages of 5 and 22), who argued in Held v. Montana that the state legislature had violated their constitutional rights by passing legislation friendly to fossil fuels in recent years.

Two particular policies drew the plaintiffs’ ire. Since 2011, the Montana legislature has forbidden state agencies from considering the cost of carbon emissions for economic development under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). And this past April, the state legislature repealed the Montana Energy Plan, which had “promote[d] energy efficiency, conservation, production and consumption of a reliable and efficient mix of energy sources” since 1993.

The plaintiffs argued that these recent actions were taken without consideration for the environmental rights of residents, especially those of younger generations.

The case will likely be appealed to the Montana Supreme Court, but one thing is clear: climate decision-making through the judiciary suddenly looks more viable than just a few months ago. Since at least 2010, young persons from across the country have attempted to sue the federal and state governments over a perceived lack of action surrounding climate change. Until now, those attempts were never successful.

Even with a supermajority in the House and Senate, Connecticut legislators have been reluctant to seriously consider impeding economic development dependent on fossil fuels en masse. Therefore, finding one sympathetic judge would be a much easier lift for Connecticut’s environmental activists than convincing dozens of legislators.

The probability of beating the government through climate litigation on a state-by-state basis hinges in large part on two factors. First, the right to environmental protection as outlined in a state’s constitution. Second, having state-based environmental planning requirements that mirror the federal National Environmental Policy Act.

Connecticut is one of 20 states with such planning requirements, making it an attractive judicial target. The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) was enacted in 1972 and “requires every state agency to develop a list of agency actions that have significant impacts on the environment, and it provides a process by which those agencies review their proposed actions to determine whether to move forward with them in light of the effects on the environment.”

On the other hand, Connecticut is also one of 43 states that do not have environmental rights enshrined in the state constitution in some form. Therefore, the state is less vulnerable than Montana to judicial challenges in regards to constitutional language — at least for now.

In 1972, Montana rewrote their constitution to include some rather progressive provisions. Article IX, Section 1 of Montana’s Constitution declares, “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations. (2) The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty. (3) The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.”

Montana’s Article IX sounds incredibly similar to the “green” amendment proposed in Connecticut’s last legislative session:

“Each person of the state of Connecticut shall have an individual right to clean and healthy air, water, soil and environment; a stable climate; and self-sustaining ecosystems; for the benefit of public health, safety and the general welfare. The state shall not infringe upon these rights. The state shall protect these rights equitably for all people regardless of race, ethnicity, tribal membership status, gender, socioeconomics or geography. The state, municipalities, and any political subdivision thereof, shall serve as trustee of the natural resources of Connecticut, among them being its waters, air, flora, fauna, soils, and climate; and shall conserve, protect, and maintain these resources for the benefit of all people, including present and future generations. The rights stated in this section are inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible, are among those rights reserved to the people, and are equivalent with all other inalienable rights.”

Legal experts ascribe much of the ruling’s success to Montana’s clear constitutional language regarding environmental rights.

If Connecticut were sued successfully in court along climate lines, many construction projects could become dependent on judicial outcomes. This could further slow an economy that just regained all the jobs it lost during COVID.

A host of difficulties immediately emerge when “positive rights” — which require sacrifices by or resources from others, rather than just a guarantee of noninterference by government — are extended to something so nebulous as “environmental rights.” This is especially true when the science and politics of climate change come into play.

As a hypothetical but plausible scenario, if the amendment is enacted, Connecticut Resident 1 might enjoy uninhibited views of landscapes and wildlife from her back porch. However, Connecticut Resident 2 could emphasize his “right to a stable climate” as a reason to import solar panels and wind turbines into that pristine landscape. At this point, it would be entirely up to the discretion (and political leanings) of the judge to rule in one resident’s favor.

As it stands now, after Montana’s ruling, Connecticut is vulnerable to climate-based litigation. Passing the green amendment would only accelerate the likelihood of climate litigation and set up a showdown between economic development and the loudest anti-development voices on the fringes of Connecticut discourse.

David Flemming joined the Yankee Institute in April 2023 after working for five years as an energy policy analyst at the Ethan Allen Institute in Vermont. 

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy