The original Children’s Crusade to establish a Christian kingdom in Jerusalem evidently didn’t end well. Count me very skeptical that nine hundred years later the new Children’s Crusade to defeat climate change through lawsuits is going to accomplish anything.
In a 103-page order today in Held v. Montana, state district-court judge Kathy Seeley ruled that (1) sixteen Montana children had standing to challenge the constitutionality of Montana’s state energy system, and that (2) a state law that bars agencies from considering greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts for any project violates the children’s right to a clean and healthful environment under the state constitution.
States are free to depart from the standing principles that apply in federal courts, and I claim no particular knowledge of Montana standing law. That said, Judge Seeley undertakes to apply seemingly familiar doctrines of injury, causation, and redressability (see pp. 86-90), so I figured I’d briefly explain why her discussion of redressability—the ability of the court to grant relief that would remedy plaintiffs’ alleged injuries—strikes me as highly suspect.
According to Seeley, Montana accounts for total carbon-dioxide emissions of 166 million tons per year. Global emissions were over 37 billion tons in 2021. So Montana accounts for less than ½ of one percent of global carbon-dioxide emissions.
Further, it is anyone’s guess whether requiring Montana agencies to consider greenhouse gas emissions in issuing permits and approvals would result in any reduction in associated emissions. If Seeley herself has offered a guess, I missed it on my quick first read. So the likely effect of her order on Montana’s emissions might well be zero or infinitesimal.
Yet further, by Seeley’s own account, what matters far more than ongoing annual emissions is cumulative emissions over recent decades. So that makes it even less likely that her order would have any effect on the children’s alleged health injuries. (If it would have any effect,
In sum, Seeley’s order makes a very feeble case that she is able to redress plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, so it would seem that her ruling that they have standing to pursue their claims is unsound.
(Insofar as Justice Stevens’s controversial opinion for a five-justice majority in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) provides support for Seeley’s ruling on standing, the Montana supreme court would of course not have to apply that ruling to state standing rules.)