On today’s episode of the 5 Things podcast: 16 Montana youths challenge the state in a groundbreaking climate-change trial
A groundbreaking climate-change trial known as Held v Montana recently wrapped up arguments with both sides eagerly awaiting a verdict in their favor. The case pits 16 young Montanans against the state in the first constitutional climate trial in US history. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies endanger their health and livelihoods while also threatening future generations. State officials, meanwhile, contend that Montana’s contributions to global warming are a drop in the bucket compared to other polluters and that they should not be held accountable. Nate Bellinger, an attorney with the non-profit Our Children’s Trust which brought the case, and Olivia Vesovitch, one of the young plaintiffs, join 5 Things to share their perspective.
Podcasts:True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below.This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Dana Taylor:
Hello and welcome to 5 Things. I’m Dana Taylor. Today is Sunday, July 23rd, 2023.
A groundbreaking climate change trial known as Held v. Montana recently came to a close with both sides eagerly awaiting a verdict in their favor. The case pits 16 young Montanans against the state in what’s been called the first constitutional climate trial in U.S. history. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies endanger their health and livelihoods, while also threatening future generations. State officials argue that Montana’s contributions to global warming are minuscule compared to other factors, and that they should not be held accountable.
Here to share their perspectives are Nate Bellinger, and attorney for the non-profit Our Children’s Trust, which brought the case, and Olivia Vesovitch, one of the young plaintiffs. Olivia and Nate, thank you for joining us.
Nate Bellinger:
Thank you for having us.
Dana Taylor:
So Nate, this case represents a more than decade-long effort on behalf of Our Children’s Trust to hold some level of the government, whether state or federal, accountable for failing to address climate change on behalf of the next generation. What was the tipping point that finally convinced a judge to let you have your day in court?
Nate Bellinger:
I think what we see in Montana is a real confluence of strong legal precedent. Our cases are based on constitutional rights, so we’re building on other constitutional cases and constitutional precedent. We have a climate crisis that is getting worse each passing month, and those are the facts that support our case and really significant harms to the plaintiff.
Dana Taylor:
What is the public trust doctrine, and did that play a role here?
Nate Bellinger:
So the public trust doctrine is an ancient legal doctrine dating back to Roman law that says governments have an obligation to protect essential natural resources for both present and future generations. And those essential natural resources include waters, traditionally, and we also argue they include the atmosphere, and that is part of the case in Montana. In Montana, the public trust doctrine is explicitly included in their constitution, and that is one of the claims that the State of Montana’s actions to promote fossil fuels are degrading Montana’s public trust resources, including its rivers and lakes, atmosphere and fish and wildlife resources, for example.
Dana Taylor:
In fact, the Montana Constitution has very specific language guaranteeing its citizens a “clean and helpful environment.” How did that clause make it into Montana’s Constitution in the first place, and did that play into your case?
Nate Bellinger:
Yeah, there’s a really interesting history to that. It was added in 1972 when Montana held a constitutional convention to rewrite their large parts of their entire constitution. And what the delegates saw back in 1972 was that Montana’s environment was already experiencing significant degradation, in large part from mining. And they thought that was a problem and they wanted to protect Montana’s environment for both present and future generations. And so there was lengthy debate about including the right to clean and healthful environment in the constitution. And what that debate shows is that the delegates in 1972 wanted to protect Montana’s environment, and they saw the environment in 1972 as already too degraded, and they thought it should only get cleaner from 1972 on. And that’s not the case with climate change, unfortunately. And one important note is that we had one of the delegates from 1972 as our first witness at trial, and she testified in part about the history of the Montana Constitution and the meaning of the clean and healthful environment.
Dana Taylor:
Olivia, first, what made you decide to become a plaintiff in this case?
Olivia Vesovitch:
I decided to become a plaintiff in this case because climate change is the fight of our lives. It’s the fight of my generation’s life, and it’s something that I care so deeply about. I was involved in a lot of youth activism in my local town of Missoula, Montana, which is where I’m from. I wanted to be heard.
Dana Taylor:
So Olivia, when did you first join the case and how has the case evolved since then?
Olivia Vesovitch:
I joined the case when I was 16 years old. I’m now 20. I was a junior in high school and I’m going to be a junior in college now. This case has completely changed. When I was 16, I had absolutely no idea how long it was going to take for our case to have our day in court. And I think when we get our judgment from a ruling from Judge Seeley, I know that everything is going to change. I think this is the turning point in climate justice.
Dana Taylor:
So Nate, I’ve read that the state has argued in part that Montana is really just a bit player in the phenomenon of global climate change. And as such, it really can’t be blamed for specific impacts of climate change. What’s your response to that?
Nate Bellinger:
My response to that is made clear from the testimony of our experts at trial about how Montana is responsible for a really significant amount of fossil fuel extraction, transportation and burning, and the greenhouse gas emissions that Montana is responsible for are nationally and globally significant. And that’s especially true when you have a situation where there’s already dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Dana Taylor:
So on the other hand, the fossil fuel industry supports a lot of economic activity in the state. What do you say to folks who say, “Listen, this isn’t Montana’s fight. The fossil fuel industry keeps food on our table and money in our pockets?”
Nate Bellinger:
Yeah, but I think that’s a talking point that we hear a lot from the fossil fuel industry and sometimes from people in government, but it’s just not true based on the facts presented at trial. And the fossil fuel in Montana does not play a significant role in the state’s economy compared to some other industries. For example, even when you look at jobs, it’s not a huge player. But what we do know is that transitioning Montana off of fossil fuels to renewable energy will create more jobs. It’ll save Montana’s taxpayers, it’ll clean up the air, it’ll save money on healthcare costs and save lives. So transitioning off of fossil fuels in Montana will be hugely beneficial for the state’s economy as a whole and for the economic well-being of individual Montanans.
Dana Taylor:
So if you were to emerge victorious in this fight, what are your best hopes for impacts, Nate?
Nate Bellinger:
Sure. So what we want the court to do is to declare, first of all that the plaintiffs have a fundamental right to a stable climate system. And that that stable climate system is being violated by the State of Montana’s actions to promote and perpetuate fossil fuels. And once we get that declaration of law, declaration of constitutional law, the state would then be required to change its conduct accordingly. And what we’ve presented evidence at trial is what the state should be doing is no longer continuing to permit new fossil fuel activities, new fossil fuel projects, but instead, transitioning off of fossil fuels towards renewable energies, and no later than 2050. So that’s what we want the court to do is declare constitutional rights, and then the state to transition its energy system in accordance with protecting the plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Dana Taylor:
So Olivia, how have your friends and family reacted to your involvement in the suit, and what’s it been like for them as the publicity around it has ramped up?
Olivia Vesovitch:
It has been surreal. My whole family, my entire friend group, everybody’s just been so excited and so proud of me and it’s been really heartwarming.
Dana Taylor:
I do want to ask if you’ve heard from other young people outside of the state or even the country who agree with your involvement with this case and some who don’t agree with your involvement in this case?
Olivia Vesovitch:
I have. I spoke to my environmental science class about this last year in school. One of my classmates was telling me that it was irresponsible of me to be a part of this case because I’m wasting taxpayers’ money. And I told him that it’s not a waste of taxpayer resources, that this is our state’s responsibility to care for its citizens.
Dana Taylor:
So Nate, there are hundreds, maybe thousands of other attorneys across the nation, indeed the world, working toward the same end goals. Is there a coalition that you’re working with? Are you coordinating your efforts anyway, either nationally or internationally?
Nate Bellinger:
So Our Children’s Trust is unique in what we do in the sense that all of our cases are based on protecting fundamental constitutional rights of youth. And we’re seeking remedies based on the best available science. And so in all of our cases, including in Montana, we work with local partners and we’re working on other cases in Virginia, Hawaii, Utah, we have a federal case. We’re always working on new cases, and we also are working on cases internationally as well.
Dana Taylor:
Well, Nate, let’s talk about the different outcomes here. First, what happens if you just flat out lose?
Nate Bellinger:
Well, I’m feeling optimistic about the outcome of the trial based on the way it went, based on the strong presentation of evidence from our plaintiffs and our experts. So I’m feeling optimistic and hopeful that we won’t lose. And I think if we did lose, it would be really devastating. It would send a signal to the plaintiffs, first and foremost, that the courts are not there to protect them, to have their back, even when government is knowingly taking actions to harm them.
Dana Taylor:
And what do you think the outcome will be if you do prevail?
Nate Bellinger:
If we do win, I think the outcome will be really significant. This is the first US Constitutional climate case of its kind. And as the first, this will be important precedent that will be looked to in other states, and I believe other countries around the world as well. And I think it will hopefully also set a scientific standard in order to protect the plaintiff’s constitutional rights from dangers of climate change.
Dana Taylor:
So Olivia, tell us what you’re going to work on next? If you lose, is fighting climate change an area that you see yourself focusing your career on or something else?
Olivia Vesovitch:
Climate change is going to be a lifelong fight for me. I will do whatever I can do. I’m actually going to school to be a teacher. My goal is to have the future generations have the same opportunities that the generations before us did, that I do right now, helping the youth work through those within the school system because our school systems are such a powerful way of helping our youth.
Dana Taylor:
What do you say to other young people who feel helpless in this fight against climate change?
Olivia Vesovitch:
I say we’re in this together. We are not alone. We are all fighting together and that’s the beauty of it. There is a giant web across the world of people that are working on this together.
Dana Taylor:
Okay. So Nate, what surprised you the most about this trial? What do you think people don’t understand about your story?
Nate Bellinger:
I think what surprised me was how short the state’s defense was. They were given a week to present their case and they took about three hours, and they had no climate scientists to defend them. They had one expert who was on the stand for about 10 minutes and two state employees. So they really didn’t have a defense, and I think that’s a testament in part to the importance of having these cases get to trial. Because when you’re in trial, there are rules of ethics and testimony is under oath, and it’s really hard to dispute climate science in a courtroom.
Dana Taylor:
Okay. And finally, Nate, when do you expect a ruling? What’s the timeline here?
Nate Bellinger:
It’s hard to say with certainty, but we’re hopeful that we’ll get a ruling within the coming weeks.
Dana Taylor:
Nate and Olivia, thank you so much for joining me.
Nate Bellinger:
Thanks again for having us.
Olivia Vesovitch:
Thank you.
Dana Taylor:
Thanks to Mark Sovel and Cherie Saunders for their production assistance. Our senior producer is Shannon Rae Green, and our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@usatoday.com. Thanks for listening. I’m Dana Taylor. Mark Sovel, filling in for Taylor Wilson, will be back tomorrow with another episode of 5 Things.