The recent decision in Held v. Montana, is undoubtedly a monumental step in addressing the dire need for actionable climate change solutions. It not only highlights the state's responsibility to protect the environment for its citizens but also underscores the constitutional right to a stable climate system. By emphasizing CO2’s contributions to climate change and challenging the government's support of fossil fuels, the youth plaintiffs spotlighted the responsibility of states to adopt policies reflective of the broader concerns of environmental stability. However, it's important to scrutinize the blind spots in the plaintiffs' advocacy.
The narrative woven around concerns for Montana’s environment and the state’s precious natural resources ironically misses a significant contributor to climate change – the very animals that plaintiffs wish to continue to exploit in the sustained healthy environment they seek.
One plaintiff’s concern about the dwindling natural water and grass for cattle consumption is indeed valid, given the severe droughts and unpredictable weather patterns due to climate change. Yet, there's an undeniable irony in raising cattle and voicing concerns about their well-being without acknowledging the elephant (or rather, the cow) in the room: the significant methane emissions resulting from cattle production. Livestock, especially cattle, are responsible for about 15% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The methane they produce is over 85 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere compared to CO2 over a 20-year period. Experts predict that if our agricultural practices do not change, that alone will keep us over the PPM threshold that comes with extreme climate impacts.
The plaintiffs’ principal worries are, at their core, anthropocentric. They lament the threats to their cattle-raising business due to lack of natural water and grass. They express concerns about the adverse effects of climate change on their hunting and fishing pursuits. These concerns, while genuine, paint a picture of humans as the central victims of the changing climate.
Yet, what about the cattle, the fish, the game they hunt? Ironically, the lawsuit gives little to no regard to the animals' well-being or the ecological systems supporting them. Instead, the focus remains myopically on the human ability to exploit these creatures. Cattle, for instance, while being a significant source of methane emissions, also suffer the impacts of climate change. The droughts, the lack of grass, and the dwindling water sources affect them directly. It’s ironic that the very creatures whose exploitation contributes to the problem are also its silent victims, with no one in the courtroom to represent their interests.
The irony is not just limited to the narrative but also transcends to the lawsuit’s foundation. It’s paradoxical to champion a cause that demands climate responsibility while conveniently overlooking certain climate-damaging practices because they align with personal or economic interests.
It might be argued, from a pragmatic viewpoint, that the ends justify the means. If we don't secure a habitable climate, the inevitable result will be profound animal suffering, rendering any strides in animal welfare moot. However, this perspective, while compelling, poses a pivotal question: Is it genuinely essential to sideline animal concerns to champion climate advocacy?
A holistic approach to climate advocacy demands a thorough and honest assessment of all contributing factors, irrespective of their proximity to one’s lifestyle. Winning a case on concerns for the environment while ignoring significant contributors like methane emissions is like trying to patch a leaking boat while ignoring a giant hole at its base.
Moreover, when we speak of dwindling fish populations or disrupted habitats that affect hunting and fishing, isn’t it high time that courts begin to recognize the inherent interests of these animals? The injury to a fisherman's ability to catch a fish is but a secondary concern when compared to the primary harm—the direct threat to the fish's existence due to disrupted ecosystems, warmer waters, and pollution.
For our legal systems to truly address the climate crisis, the standing analysis must evolve. A comprehensive view of environmental justice must encompass not just human interests but the rights and well-being of all creatures that share our planet. By doing so, we can develop policies and litigation strategies that are not just about protecting human rights to exploit, but about ensuring that all creatures, great and small, can thrive in a sustainable world.
The Held v. Montana decision is undeniably significant. Still, for future cases, it's imperative that courts broaden their perspective. We must transition from an anthropocentric narrative to one that recognizes the rights and interests of animals, who too are directly threatened by the accelerating climate crisis. Only then will we truly address the multifaceted challenges of our changing planet.
In the end, while Held v. Montana offers hope for a more sustainable future in the state and sets a precedent for other states to follow, it's vital that we maintain a consistent and comprehensive stance on the issue. For true environmental justice, it's not enough to address only the concerns that align with our interests; we must confront and address the full spectrum of threats to our planet, even when it means questioning our own practices. Addressing the vast array of threats to our environment mandates a perspective that recognizes both our immediate interests and the voices of those that cannot represent themselves: the animals that share our planet.