Connect with us

Montana

Youth lawsuit challenging Montana’s pro-fossil fuel policies is heading to trial

Published

on

Youth lawsuit challenging Montana’s pro-fossil fuel policies is heading to trial


HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana judge on Friday said a climate change lawsuit from young people challenging the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies will proceed to trial despite efforts by the state to derail the case.

The upcoming trial in Helena would be the first of its kind in the United States, according to experts in climate law who said the nation is lagging behind the rest of the world in terms of climate litigation.

However, because of prior rulings that limited the scope of the Montana case, a victory for the plaintiffs would not automatically alter the state’s regulation of fossil fuels.

Advertisement

Attorneys for the 16 young plaintiffs, ranging in age from 5 to 22, alleged state officials were trying to avoid the upcoming trial when Republican lawmakers in March repealed the state’s energy policy — one of two laws that the case challenges. The plaintiffs and their backers are hoping to use the two-week trial that’s set to start on June 12 to highlight the dangers of fossil fuel emissions that scientists say are making climate change worse.

People are also reading…

  • One of Omaha’s ‘grand homes’ comes with price tag of $5.25 million
  • Nebraska high school senior dies after collapsing at track practice
  • Mommy blogger Heather Armstrong, known as Dooce to fans, dead at 47
  • Wides, Out: Recruiting misfires, a receiver exodus and Nebraska’s speedy plan to fix it
  • Public asked to help find missing Omaha girl
  • Leslie Arnold mystery solved: Man who died in Australia was enigmatic Nebraska fugitive
  • Creighton forward Arthur Kaluma enters the transfer portal
  • Omaha Fox station, four others will no longer have local news
  • Hawaiian Bros. Island Grill first metro location set for Gretna
  • Alpine Inn celebrates 50 years of family ownership, plans on many more
  • Matt Rhule talks transfer portal, QBs, grass practice fields and embracing analytics
  • Gretna Superintendent Rich Beran retires, citing disagreements with school board
  • Traffic will soon flow on first section of new Fremont beltway
  • Former Nebraska quarterback Casey Thompson nearing reunion with former coach at FAU
  • Omaha-based firm announces plans for grocery store, retailers on vacant Civic Auditorium site

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, had asked state Judge Kathy Seeley to dismiss any part of the case touching on the cancelled energy policy. Attorneys for the state also wanted more time to offer legal arguments over recent amendments to a law that allows officials to ignore greenhouse gas emissions when approving fossil-fuel projects.

Advertisement

The judge was not swayed.

“I would suggest you continue to prepare for trial,” Seeley told attorneys at the end of a Friday court hearing. “I’m not intending to just stop everything so that we can spend months wrapped around that spoke.”

The case was brought in 2020 by attorneys for the environmental group Our Children’s Trust, which since 2010 has filed climate lawsuits in every state on behalf of youth plaintiffs. Many cases — including a previous one in Montana — have been dismissed.

The latest Montana lawsuit originally sought in part to repeal a state policy promoting coal, gas and oil development. Scientists say burning those fuels is largely driving climate change by releasing planet-warming carbon dioxide.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Philip Gregory, told The Associated Press the policy was repealed by the Legislature “not because the state has committed to changing its fossil fuel policy and actions, but because the state seeks to avoid standing trial.”

Advertisement

He said the state’s continued support for fossil fuels violates environmental protections in the Montana Constitution, which says the state “shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and all future generations.”

The lawsuit documents how the consequences of climate change already are being felt by the young plaintiffs, with smoke from worsening wildfires choking the air they breathe and drought drying rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife and recreation.

The state argued that the plaintiffs were resorting to “emotional appeals” about the dangers of climate change, regardless of whether their legal claims have merit. They should have challenged specific laws that allow state agencies to issue permits for fossil fuel projects, said Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell.

When plaintiff’s attorney Roger Sullivan said that Montana had never denied a fossil fuel development permit, Russell said projects that meet state requirements cannot be denied.

Judge Seeley already narrowed the scope of the case, ruling in 2021 that it was outside her power to issue a requested order that would have forced the state to craft a greenhouse gas reduction plan. The judge also said she could not order the state to complete an inventory of emissions caused by fossil fuels.

Advertisement

In both instances, Seeley said such work should be left to experts in the executive and legislative branches of government.

But Seeley said the court could declare that the state was in violation of the Constitution, without ordering that anything be done in response.

Sandra Nichols Thiam, an attorney with the Environmental Law Institute, said that could further the case of the failure of governments to address climate change.

“It’s highly significant that this case is going to trial at all,” Thiam said. “Getting all of this information on the record will be a major advancement in climate litigation.”

The sponsor of the measure that repealed the energy policy, Republican Rep. Steve Gunderson, did not return a call seeking comment. He said when it was under consideration before the Legislature that the policy was meaningless and outdated.

Advertisement

Costley reported from Washington.

Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Montana

94-year-old Iowa-based trucking company closes terminal in Montana

Published

on

94-year-old Iowa-based trucking company closes terminal in Montana


Family-owned Decker Truck Line Inc. of Fort Dodge, Iowa, confirmed that it has permanently closed its terminal in Missoula, Montana, citing findings from a thorough review of its operations and freight network as the main reason for the closure.

“This decision was not made lightly, but it is necessary due to the changing freight network patterns and the associated costs of operating a full terminal that is not being utilized sufficiently,” CEO Dale Decker said in a statement Tuesday about the closure. 

As many as 18 positions were eliminated at the Missoula terminal, according to NBC Montana.

Decker said a small group of drivers was also affected by the closure but added that the company will continue to utilize truck drivers in Montana to haul freight.

Advertisement

The trucking company said it plans to work with employees of the now-shuttered terminal to “explore relocation options” if they want to stay with Decker Truck Line.

“As our business continues to grow, our focus will shift more towards core regions. This strategy aims to enhance density in our well-established areas,” Decker said. “However, we will continue to require drivers residing in the Montana area, but we no longer consider it a strategic advantage for having a terminal in Missoula along with the associated overhead costs.”

The 94-year-old trucking company has around 790 company drivers and the same number of power units. It hauls general freight, refrigerated food and building materials, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s SAFER website.

Besides its home terminal in Fort Dodge, which has approximately 190 employees, Decker Truck Line operates terminals in Mediapolis, Iowa; Bessemer, Alabama; and Hammond, Indiana, as well as a maintenance facility in Des Moines, according to the company’s website.
 

“Although this location no longer offers sufficient value to warrant a terminal, expansion in other regions may prompt new investments in areas that do provide clear benefit to our network,” Decker said.

Advertisement

Do you have a news tip or story to share? Send Clarissa Hawes an email or message @cage_writer on X, formerly known as Twitter. Your name will not be used without your permission.

Wyoming trucking company pays $124,000 to settle sexual harassment suit

New Hampshire man created fake trucking, ag businesses to collect COVID funds
St. Louis trucking company, affiliate file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Why fight a 'clean and healthful' environment when it's good for all Montanans? • Daily Montanan

Published

on

Why fight a 'clean and healthful' environment when it's good for all Montanans? • Daily Montanan


Montanans are witnessing an inexplicably vicious attack on the ruling by the state’s Supreme Court that the plain language of the constitution guarantees “a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”  

What we haven’t heard is why a dirty and unhealthful environment is good for anybody — or the future of our state. 

Truly, why would anyone think they or their kids or grandkids would be better off with a degraded and toxic environment?  Yet, the court’s decision has sparked a misguided rebellion against the environmental laws that protect all Montanans — and an attack on the judiciary as if it’s some kind of enemy of the people.  

But it seems pretty clear that enemies of the people don’t rule to protect the people.  And ensuring that the laws passed by the Legislature comply with the Montana Constitution is the primary job of the Montana Supreme Court.  It’s the foundational checks-and-balances upon which our system of government relies to ensure the executive and legislative branches stay within constitutional mandates to preserve the rights of the people.

Advertisement

Making war on the environment is a dead-end street — which we’re increasingly finding out as the tragedies driven by atmospheric pollution stack up along with the hundreds of billions of dollars to deal with the aftermath. So, where’s the wisdom in deciding to protect polluters at the cost to the rest of the populace?

How about this little truth: Pollution does not discriminate between Republicans and Democrats, nor Independents, Libertarians, or any other organizational clusters regardless of what they call themselves.  Nor does polluted air or water recognize any boundaries — we all need clean air and water, which is not only a shared resource, but a shared responsibility to provide those vital necessities to nourish, not poison, our people. 

The fact is, we have many good environmental and conservation laws on the books that serve all our people well. There’s simply no good reason why one political party or another should be against those laws, none at all.  

Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes of the “environmental movement” was attaching itself at the hip with the Democratic Party.  Yet, in Montana’s history, it has often been Democrat governors who have been responsible for some of the worst environmental decisions. 

In the mid-1980s, Democrat Gov. Ted Schwinden cut the coal severance tax in half to supposedly make Montana competitive with Wyoming.  He succeeded in losing hundreds of millions of dollars for the Coal Tax Trust Fund, but it didn’t save the coal industry because distance to market was the deciding factor. 

Advertisement

Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer morphed into the “Coal Cowboy” within one year of taking office.  His mission?  Save the coal industry by peddling economically ridiculous proposals for coal-to-liquids when fracking was producing record amounts of cheap oil and gas. 

Democrat Gov. Steve Bullock allowed radioactive waste from the Bakken fracking operations to be disposed of in Montana’s landfills — because it’s illegal to do so in North Dakota.

Of course Republicans have their own rogue’s list of bad decisions and policies — but there’s not room in one column to cover all those.  

There’s absolutely no reason whatsoever why a clean environment should be partisan.  The great attractions of Montana are our clean rivers, our blue skies, and an abundance of fish and wildlife that are the envy of the nation and world.  The Constitution plainly states: “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana” — and that’s a legacy worth upholding. 

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Amendments to Montana House decorum rules cause debate – The Electric

Published

on

Amendments to Montana House decorum rules cause debate – The Electric


By Emma White | UM Legislative News Service

The Montana House of Representatives is working under a new set of rules after voting Jan. 14 along party lines to approve an amended resolution that spurred an emotional debate from both parties. 

House Majority Leader Steve Fitzpatrick, R-Great Falls, sponsored House Resolution 1, which sets the rules for the House in 2025. But at issue was an amendment to the bill that lays out decorum – or rules of conduct – as well as what discipline members might face if they break those rules. 

“A lot of people have expressed interest in having a decorum amendment which would establish kind of policies and procedures. I guess this is kind of like a human resources, step-by-step progression on what will happen if we have breaches of decorum,” Fitzpatrick said.

Advertisement

Fitzpatrick said the amendment was an attempt to provide a more narrow definition of decorum for the representatives, but Democrats expressed worries that the amendment would be used punitively.

Under the amendment, a representative would get one strike, then face a three day censorship, then expulsion.

But Rep. Jonathan Karlan, D-Missoula, pointed out a clause farther down in the bill that allows the representative to be censured or expelled on the first offense, if there is a majority vote. 

“I think that of course we are well aware that we’re not in the majority, and we’d be relying on the majority to just uphold our rights because with not even a party-line vote, we could expel somebody and there’s no limit on that,” Karlan said.

Fitzpatrick replied that the bill simply seeks to clarify the behaviors that are considered unacceptable in the chamber, such as personal attacks against character and using profane language, to clear up some of the ambiguity that can arise during controversial debate.

Advertisement

“We’re not interested in being the word police. We’re going to have good, vigorous debate in this room, but we can do it professionally, we can do it in the type of discussion that honors the people of Montana, so this I think is an appropriate amendment,” Fitzpatrick said.

The amendment to the rules comes after a contentious debate and a public protest during the 2023 session that led Republican leadership to censure Rep. Zooey Zephyr, D-Missoula. 

On the House floor Jan. 14, Zephyr pointed out that decorum standards were lowered from a super majority vote to a majority vote, which she said raises concerns about how the bill could be used.

“There is a risk we run when we lower to a simple majority, that the majority can deem at any time that if they think a certain stance is offensive, that they can silence dissent,” Zephyr said. “And to me that is inherently un-Democratic.”

Emma White is a reporter with the UM Legislative News Service, a partnership of the University of Montana School of Journalism, the Montana Broadcasters Association and the Greater Montana Foundation. White can be reached at emma.white@umconnect.umt.edu

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Trending