this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
289 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18986 readers
4274 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 26 points 8 months ago

Attorneys for the state argued that the volume of greenhouse gasses released from Montana fossil fuel projects was insignificant compared to global emissions and reducing them would have no effect on the climate.

"Your honor, my client's actions are so insignificant as compared with the national murder rate that jailing him will have absolutely no detectable effect on anything."

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 8 months ago (2 children)

an actual rare montana w? huh.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 39 points 8 months ago (4 children)

The state constitution has this in it:

The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.

This makes it possible to use state courts to force some level of environmental protection.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It'd be nice if our federal constitution said that...

[–] Hazzia@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Based on our current Supreme Court, they'd probably do SOME kind of mental gymnastics to justify ignoring it..

[–] Sabata11792@kbin.social 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

"They didn't have an environment 200 years ago like we do now, so taking that into consideration..."

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

".. And with the potential lower profit margin for the ultra rich.."

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 8 months ago

well definitely never expected that from montana :)

[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

We need to amend the US Constitution to something similar.

[–] greenhorn@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

Good thing corporations are persons - first time I've said that

[–] lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago

Believe it or not MT is one of the top 10 states for renewable energy. Something like 50%. Unfortunately the rest is coal.

[–] knobbysideup@sh.itjust.works 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Climate change or not, "pollution is fine so long as I am profiting off of it" is the real problem. At least the last administration's gutting of the EPA was somewhat reversed. Remember we used to have rivers on fire from toxic waste. Regulations fixed that.

[–] Bael422@lemmy.world 14 points 8 months ago

We also used to have acid rain regularly, and we tore a hole in the ozone. It's never a bad idea to watch the consequences of our actions and impose restrictions on them to keep us all safe and healthy.

[–] spider@aussie.zone 8 points 8 months ago

an attempt by the state's Republican governor to block a landmark climate ruling

oh, that guy

I'm shocked! /s

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

My understanding is that they won't have jurisdiction because it's about interpretation of the state constitution.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Excellent news.

We need to add those clauses to the Florida Constitution.

[–] TheBenCommandments@infosec.pub 1 points 8 months ago

Every state’s* constitution

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 8 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


(AP) — Montana’s Supreme Court has rejected an attempt by the state’s Republican governor to block a landmark climate ruling that said regulators must consider the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when issuing permits for fossil fuel development.

The state high court ruling means Montana officials must “immediately comply” with Seeley’s order pending the appeal, said Mark Bellinger, an attorney for Our Children’s Trust, which represented the 16 young plaintiffs who brought the case.

Director Chris Dorrington of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality said in a Wednesday statement that he was disappointed in the court’s ruling but declined to say whether the agency would analyze the effects of greenhouse gas emissions when evaluating permit applications.

The young plaintiffs who challenged the state environmental policy testified they were already feeling the consequences of climate change, with smoke from worsening wildfires choking the air they breathe, along with decreased snowpack and drought drying rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife and recreation.

Attorneys for the state argued that the volume of greenhouse gasses released from Montana fossil fuel projects was insignificant compared to global emissions and reducing them would have no effect on the climate.

Last year’s amendment by lawmakers forbid greenhouse gas emission analyses unless the federal government decided to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.


The original article contains 643 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!