SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
western environmental law center
Western Groups Warn Democrats: 'No Deal With Devil on Permit Reform'
The coalition organizer called on party leaders "to withdraw from negotiations and stand with us and the public lands, waters, and wildlife of the West to build momentum for a progressive permit reform effort."
Apr 16, 2026
Amid permitting reform negotiations and votes in the Republican-led Congress this week, dozens of organizations from the US West on Thursday urged Democratic leaders to reject "a reactive capitulation to energy and technology industry demands and the Trump administration's deliberately engineered regulatory chaos."
"There is simply no precedent for what this administration has wrought, and permitting reform proposals under consideration—which scapegoat environmental laws—will only deepen the harm," warned 73 community, conservation, faith, and Indigenous groups in a letter to the top Democrats in each chamber, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), as well as those on two relevant Senate panels.
In December, 11 Democrats came under fire for voting with nearly all Republicans in the US House of Representatives to advance the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act. Led by retiring Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Committee on Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), it would amend the crucial National Environmental Policy Act, a frequent target of climate polluters and their allies in Congress.
With the SPEED Act pending in the Senate—where the GOP generally needs some Democratic support to advance legislation, due to its narrow majority and the filibuster rule—House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) took to the chamber's floor on Wednesday to promote three other bills. The FENCES Act, FIRE Act, and RED Tape Act, he said, "are an essential part of the committee's broader efforts on permitting reform and align with White House permitting priorities."
The House passed the FENCES and RED Tape bills on Thursday. Golden and Democratic Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Adam Gray (Calif.), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) joined Republicans in backing the former. Those Democrats, plus Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), also voted with the GOP for the latter.
Meanwhile, in the upper chamber, Republicans on Thursday passed a House-approved resolution to reverse a 20-year moratorium on mining in the watershed of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Still, Senate Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) told Politico's E&E News earlier this week that "we're making steady progress" on permitting reform talks, "and it would not be unreasonable to have something to show our caucuses by the August recess."
The coalition of Western groups argued Thursday that "given Congress' ideological composition and alignment with the Trump administration's agenda, any permitting legislation that could conceivably emerge from this Congress and be signed into law by the president would unacceptably erode bedrock community and environmental safeguards, exclude the public from federal decision-making, and diminish the transparency and accountability now demanded of government agencies by federal law."
The groups pointed to various examples, including what critics called President Donald Trump's recent $1 billion "taxpayer-funded bribe" to get TotalEnergies to cancel its planned wind farms in favor of oil and gas projects, as well as his so-called God Squad's unprecedented exemption allowing fossil fuel operations in the Gulf of Mexico to ignore policies intended to protect endangered species. The letter also stresses that "Congress has not checked this abuse—it has enabled it."
"Rather than press forward with ill-fated legislation in this fraught moment, we therefore ask that you stand with us in defense of climate action and the public lands, waters, and wildlife, and communities of the West," the coalition wrote to Whitehouse, Schumer, Jeffries, and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Martin Heinrich (D-NM).
"It is this fight—in this moment—that can build shared trust and set the conditions for constructive legislation that strengthens and revitalizes the federal government's capacity to serve the public interest," the coalition continued. "This means, to us, the build-out, protection, and restoration of green infrastructure (built or natural) and the full integration of ecological and community considerations into climate and energy policy as a precondition of our ability to thrive in kinship with an abundant world."
The letter urging "no deal with [the] devil on permit reform" was authored by Western Environmental Law Center executive director Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, who stressed in a statement that "the first rule of negotiation is that it's impossible to reach workable solutions with bad-faith actors."
"Today's Republican Congress has shown unprecedented hostility to climate, environmental, and community protections," he said. "It is glaringly obvious that any changes to our bedrock environmental laws signed by President Trump would sacrifice far too much and compromise the imperative to foster a just and equitable transition to an economy powered by renewable energy."
Schlenker-Goodrich called on Heinrich and Whitehouse "to withdraw from negotiations and stand with us and the public lands, waters, and wildlife of the West to build momentum for a progressive permit reform effort with stronger bargaining power after the midterm elections" in November.
Other signatories include leaders at the Center for Biological Diversity, Climate Justice Alliance, Friends of the Shasta River, GreenLatinos of New Mexico, Orange County Coastkeeper, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club Montana Chapter, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Umpqua Watersheds, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Wyoming Wilderness Association, and more.
"Deregulatory permitting reform right now only means the fossil fuel industry will be forever dominant in this nation, which is why they are the biggest cheerleader for making a deal now," said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Democrats must focus on fighting the lawless Trump administration and the fossil fuel industry, not cut deals with people that only seek to destroy clean energy and a livable future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Rules Rocky Mountain Wolves Wrongly Denied Endangered Species Protections
One advocate said the ruling "offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act."
Aug 05, 2025
Conservationists cautiously celebrated a U.S. judge's Tuesday ruling that the federal government must reconsider its refusal to grant protections for gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains, as killing regimes in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming put the species at risk.
Former President Joe Biden's administration determined last year that Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for the region's wolves were "not warranted," sparking multiple lawsuits from coalitions of conservation groups. The cases were consolidated and considered by Montana-based District Judge Donald Molloy, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.
As the judge detailed in his 105-page decision, the advocacy groups argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) failed to consider a "significant portion" of the gray wolf's range, the "best available science" on their populations and the impact of humans killing them, and the true threat to the species. He also wrote that "for the most part, the plaintiffs are correct."
Matthew Bishop, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC), which represented one of the coalitions, said in a statement that "the Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the best available science, and that requirement is what won the day for wolves in this case."
"Wolves have yet to recover across the West, and allowing a few states to undertake aggressive wolf-killing regimes is inconsistent with the law," Bishop continued. "We hope this decision will encourage the service to undertake a holistic approach to wolf recovery in the West."
Coalition members similarly welcomed Molloy's decision as "an important step toward finally ending the horrific and brutal war on wolves that the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have waged in recent years," in the words of George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch.
Predator Defense executive director Brooks Fahy said that "today's ruling is an incredible victory for wolves. At a time where their numbers are being driven down to near extinction levels, this decision is a vital lifeline."
Patrick Kelly, Montana director for Western Watersheds Project, pointed out that "with Montana set to approve a 500 wolf kill quota at the end of August, this decision could not have come at a better time. Wolves may now have a real shot at meaningful recovery."
Breaking news! A federal judge in Missoula ruled USFWS broke the law when it denied protections for gray wolves in the western U.S. The agency must now reconsider using the best available science. A major step forward for wolf recovery.Read more: 🔗 wildearthguardians.org/press-releas...
[image or embed]
— Wolf Conservation Center 🐺 (@nywolforg.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 3:30 PM
Sierra Club northern Rockies campaign strategist Nick Gevock said that "wolf recovery is dependent on responsible management by the states, and Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have shown that they're grossly unsuited to manage the species."
Gevock's group is part of a coalition represented by the Center for Biological Diversity and Humane World for Animals, formerly called the Humane Society of the United States. Kitty Block, president and CEO of the latter, said Tuesday that "wolves are deeply intelligent, social animals who play an irreplaceable role in the ecosystems they call home."
"Today's ruling offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act," Block stressed. "These animals deserve protection, not abandonment, as they fight to return to the landscapes they once roamed freely.
While "Judge Molloy's ruling means now the Fish and Wildlife Service must go back to the drawing board to determine whether federal management is needed to ensure wolves survive and play their vital role in the ecosystem," as Gevock put it, the agency may also appeal his decision.
The original rejection came under Biden, but the reconsideration will occur under President Donald Trump, whose first administration was hostile to the ESA in general and wolves in particular. The current administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have signaled in recent months that they intend to maintain that posture.
WELC highlighted Tuesday that Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) "introduced H.R. 845 to strip ESA protections from gray wolves across the Lower 48. If passed, this bill would congressionally delist all gray wolves in the Lower 48 the same way wolves in the northern Rockies were congressionally delisted in 2011, handing management authority over to states."
Emphasizing what that would mean for the species, WELC added that "regulations in Montana, for example, allow hunters and trappers to kill several hundred wolves per year—with another 500-wolf quota proposed this year—with bait, traps, snares, night hunting, infrared and thermal imagery scopes, and artificial light."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Monumental Win': Montana Supreme Court Upholds Decision on Youth Climate Case
The court, said one attorney, "has affirmed the constitutional rights of youth to a safe and livable climate, confirming that the future of our children cannot be sacrificed for fossil fuel interests."
Dec 18, 2024
Youth plaintiffs celebrated on Wednesday after the Montana Supreme Courtupheld a judge's August 2023 decision that the state government's promotion of climate-wrecking fossil fuels violates the young residents' state constitutional rights.
"This ruling is a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change," said Rikki Held, the named plaintiff for Held v. State of Montana, in a statement. "We have been heard, and today the Montana Supreme Court has affirmed that our rights to a safe and healthy climate cannot be ignored."
Highlighting that "this will forever be in the court record, despite any continued rhetoric of denial coming from people in power in the state," Grace, another plaintiff, said, "I am thrilled that the Montana Supreme Court has sided with Montana citizens to protect the people and the places we love."
Another plaintiff, Olivia, welcomed the ruling as "a monumental win" and "a call to action for all Montanans."
Plaintiff Georgi similarly asserted that "this is a time for Montana to embrace the future—clean energy offers economic benefits and new jobs," and added that "we look forward to working with the state to implement this transition and ensure that Montana leads the way in tackling the climate crisis."
Plaintiff Kian pointed to other ongoing cases across the globe, declaring that "this ruling is not just a win for Montana—it's a signal to the world that youth-led climate action is powerful and effective."
"We hope this decision inspires others across the country and beyond to stand up for their rights to a livable climate," Kian continued. Just as the youth plaintiffs in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation secured historic climate justice through a settlement this past June, the eyes of the world are now on us, seeing how youth-driven legal action can create real change."
In Montana, the state government appealed District Court Judge Kathy Seeley's historic ruling in favor of the 16 young plaintiffs to the state's highest court, which heard arguments in July. Wednesday's 6-1 decision—only Justice Jim Rice dissented—is the first of its kind for a state supreme court.
The majority's 70-page opinion discusses the drafters of the Montana Constitution, which says in part that "the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations," and "the Legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty."
Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote that the court's majority rejects "the argument that the delegates—intending the strongest, all-encompassing environmental protections in the nation, both anticipatory and preventative, for present and future generations—would grant the state a free pass to pollute the Montana environment just because the rest of the world insisted on doing so."
"The district court's conclusion of law is affirmed: Montana's right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system, which is clearly within the object and true principles of the framers' inclusion of the right to a clean and healthful environment," the chief justice added.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs joined the young Montanans in applauding the opinion. Nate Bellinger of Our Children's Trust said that "this is a monumental moment for Montana, our youth, and the future of our planet."
"Today, the Montana Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutional rights of youth to a safe and livable climate, confirming that the future of our children cannot be sacrificed for fossil fuel interests," he added. "This is a victory for young people and for generations to come. The court said loud and clear: Montana's Constitution does not grant the state a free pass to ignore climate change because others fail to act—this landmark decision underscores the state's affirmative duty to lead by example."
Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center, noted that "the Montana Supreme Court's decision compels the state to carefully assess the greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts of all future fossil fuel permits."
"Specifically, Montana's regulatory agencies must now evaluate the potential harm to the environment and the health and safety of the state's children from any new fossil fuel projects, and determine whether the project can be justified in light of the ongoing unconstitutional degradation of Montana's environment, natural resources, and climate," she explained. "This ruling clarifies that the constitution sets a clear directive for Montana to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, which are among the highest in the nation on a per capita basis, and to transition to a clean, renewable energy future."
Whether the state government will comply with the decision remains to be seen. In a statement to The Hill, a spokesperson for Republican Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen's office called the ruling "disappointing, but not surprising" and claimed that the court majority "yet again ruled in favor of their ideologically aligned allies and ignored the fact that Montana has no power to impact the climate."
Separately, Knudsen on Tuesday filed his 59th lawsuit against the Biden administration, challenging its plan to halt federal coal production in the Powder River Basin, which the attorney general said would "effectively kill Montana's coal industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Government Sued Over 'Unethical Destruction' of Wolf Population
"The Fish and Wildlife Service is thumbing its nose at the Endangered Species Act and letting wolf-hating states sabotage decades of recovery efforts," said one conservation leader.
Apr 08, 2024
A pair of conservation coalitions on Monday made good on their threats to sue the U.S. government over its denial of federal protections for gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains, where state killing regimes "put wolves at obvious risk of extinction in the foreseeable future."
The organizations filed notices of their plans for the lawsuits in early February, after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that Endangered Species Act protections for the region's wolves were "not warranted." The Interior Department agency could have prevented the suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana by reversing its decision within 60 days but refused to do so.
"The Biden administration and its Fish and Wildlife Service are complicit in the horrific war on wolves being waged by the states of Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana," declared George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch, one of 10 organizations represented by the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC).
"Idaho is fighting to open airstrips all over the backcountry, including in designated wilderness, to get more hunters to wipe out wolves in their most remote hideouts," Nickas noted. "Montana is resorting to night hunting and shooting over bait and Wyoming has simply declared an open season."
"These states are destroying wolf families in the northern Rockies and cruelly driving them to functional extinction via bounties, wanton shooting, trapping, snaring, even running over them with snowmobiles."
Brooks Fahy, executive director of Predator Defense, another WELC group, pointed out that "these states are destroying wolf families in the northern Rockies and cruelly driving them to functional extinction via bounties, wanton shooting, trapping, snaring, even running over them with snowmobiles. They have clearly demonstrated they are incapable of managing wolves, only of killing them."
KC York, founder and president of Trap Free Montana, also represented by WELC, said that "Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming know that they were let off the hook in their brutal and unethical destruction of wolves even acknowledged as such by the service."
"They set the stage for other states to follow," York warned. "We are already witnessing the disturbing onset of giving the fox the key to the hen house and abandoning the farm. The maltreatment is now destined to worsen for these wolves and other indiscriminate species, through overt, deceptive, well-orchestrated, secretive, and legal actions."
The other organizations in the WELC coalition are Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Friends of the Clearwater, International Wildlife Coexistence Network, Nimiipuu Protecting Our Environment, Protect the Wolves, Western Watersheds Project, and WildEarth Guardians.
The second lawsuit is spearheaded by the Center for Biological Diversity, Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, and Sierra Club, whose leaders took aim at the same three states for their wolf-killing schemes.
"The states of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming act like it's 1880 with the most radical and unethical methods to kill as many wolves as possible in an effort to manage for bare minimum numbers," said Sierra Club northern Rockies field organizer Nick Gevock. "This kind of management is disgraceful, it's unnecessary, and it sets back wolf conservation decades, and the American people are not going to stand by and allow it to happen."
"Rather than allow states to cater to trophy hunters, trappers, and ranchers, the agency must ensure the preservation of wolves."
Margie Robinson, staff attorney for wildlife at the Humane Society of the United States, stressed that "under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot ignore crucial scientific findings. Rather than allow states to cater to trophy hunters, trappers, and ranchers, the agency must ensure the preservation of wolves—who are vital to ensuring healthy ecosystems—for generations to come."
The Center for Biological Diversity's carnivore conservation program director, Collette Adkins, was optimistic about her coalition's chances based on previous legal battles, saying that "we're back in court to save the wolves and we'll win again."
"The Fish and Wildlife Service is thumbing its nose at the Endangered Species Act and letting wolf-hating states sabotage decades of recovery efforts," Adkins added. "It's heartbreaking and it has to stop."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups to Sue Feds for Refusing to Protect Wolves in Western US
"The current killing regimes in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming put wolves at obvious risk of extinction in the foreseeable future, and this core population is key to wolf survival in the West."
Feb 07, 2024
Two coalitions of conservation groups on Wednesday filed notices of their intent to sue the U.S. government for not granting federal endangered or threatened species protections to gray wolves in the northern Rocky Mountains or across the western United States.
The notices, sent to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland and Fish and Wildlife Service Director Martha Williams, give the FWS 60 days to change its finding that Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for the region's wolves are "not warranted," or face two lawsuits. The agency's finding was
announced last week and published in the Federal Register Wednesday.
Since a congressional legislative rider and court battles stripped the area's wolves of ESA protections over a decade ago, states have stepped up their killing efforts while local and national groups have fought to protect the animals—including with a pair of petitions calling on FWS to reconsider the issue, which led to the service's latest finding.
"It's beyond frustrating that federal officials are harming wolf recovery by denying wolves in the northern Rockies the powerful federal protections they deserve," declared Andrea Zaccardi, carnivore conservation legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, which has partnered with the Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, and the Sierra Club.
"Unlike the Fish and Wildlife Service, we refuse to sanction the annual slaughter of hundreds of wolves."
"Unlike the Fish and Wildlife Service, we refuse to sanction the annual slaughter of hundreds of wolves," she continued. "Allowing unlimited wolf killing sabotages decades of recovery efforts in the northern Rockies, as well as those in neighboring West Coast and southern Rockies states."
Nick Gevock, Sierra Club field organizer for the northern Rockies, specifically called out FWS for failing to recognize the impacts of policies in Idaho and Montana, asserting that "the regimens these states have pursued are reminiscent of the 1800s effort to eradicate wolves, and they have no place in modern wildlife management."
In recent years, Montana legislators have
advanced various measures opposed by conservationists and experts, including a "bounty program" law to reimburse hunters and trappers for their expenses. In Idaho, the state can use taxpayer money to hire private contractors to kill wolves, and there is no limit on how many wolf tags hunters can obtain.
"Nearly 30 years after wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park, wolves in the region are once again in danger of extinction," said Margie Robinson, staff attorney for wildlife at the Humane Society of the United States. "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must make decisions that protect precious native wildlife for generations to come, rather than allowing states to cater to trophy hunters, trappers, and ranchers."
Yellowstone stretches across parts of Idaho and Montana but is largely in Wyoming, which has come under fire for designating gray wolves as "predatory animals" across much of the state, meaning they can be killed without a license.
Members of the coalition represented by the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) also blasted all three states' policies. Erik Molvar, a wildlife biologist and executive director of the Western Watersheds Project, warned that "the current killing regimes in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming put wolves at obvious risk of extinction in the foreseeable future, and this core population is key to wolf survival in the West."
Both coalitions argue that the FWS ignored "the best available science" and should not rely on the states' wolf tallies. Molvar said that "even if the states' population estimates were defensible—and they aren't, according to recent scientific analyses—the feds are underestimating the extinction agendas of anti-wolf state governments and the small and tentative state of recovering wolf populations elsewhere in the West."
Brooks Fahy, executive director of Predator Defense, also part of the WELC coalition, stressed that "Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have become the poster children for what happens when politics trumps science."
"They are cruelly driving wolves in the northern Rockies to extinction via wanton shooting, trapping, snaring, even driving over them with a snowmobile," Fahy said. "Science shows us the importance of intact pack structures. Each family member has a vital role to play and they grieve each loss."
Joining the Molvar and Fahy's groups are the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Friends of the Clearwater, International Wildlife Coexistence Network, Nimiipuu Protecting Our Environment, Protect the Wolves, Trap Free Montana, WildEarth Guardians, and Wilderness Watch.
"It's deeply concerning to hear that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decided not to list gray wolves, a sacred species to Native Americans in the western U.S., under the Endangered Species Act, while ignoring traditional sacred religious beliefs of traditional Native Americans," said Roger Dobson of Protect the Wolves.
"It's important to protect these intelligent and family-oriented predators to maintain ecosystem health, and to protect Native American sacred religious beliefs," Dobson added. "Hopefully, the service will take steps to address the problems with their determination before it's too late for these native wildlife species, before violating Indigenous religious beliefs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is Huge': Judge Sides With Montana Youths in Historic Climate Ruling
"As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today's ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation's efforts to save the planet," said one attorney representing 16 young plaintiffs.
Aug 14, 2023
Climate advocates on Monday expressed hope that an unprecedented ruling by a state judge in Montana, siding with 16 young residents who argued the state violated their constitutional rights by promoting fossil fuel extraction, will mark a sea change in the outcomes of climate lawsuits.
In Held v. State of Montana, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled that rights of the plaintiffs—who range in age from 5 to 22— have been violated by the Montana Environmental Policy Act because the law has prevented the state from assessing the climate impacts of mining projects.
Fossil fuel emissions including Montana's "have been proven to be a substantial factor" in heating the planet and causing pollution, Seeley said in the nation's first ruling on a constitutional, youth-led lawsuit regarding the climate.
Because the Montana Constitution guarantees residents a "clean and healthful environment," the state's environmental policy law violates the document, said Seeley.
"This is HUGE," said meteorologist Eric Holthaus.
"This is a landmark decision establishing enforceable principles of intergenerational justice."
Julia Olson, founder of Our Children's Trust, the non-profit law firm that helped represent the plaintiffs, called the victory a "sweeping win" that could have reverberating effects on the hundreds of lawsuits that have been filed in the U.S. arguing against the continued extraction of fossil fuels.
"As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today's ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation's efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos," said Olson in a statement.
In their defense, state attorneys argued that Montana's fossil fuel emissions are insignificant compared to global emissions, but Seeley said in her ruling that the state's per capita emissions are "disproportionately large" and rank in the top six per capita emissions in the United States.
The state also ultimately rested its case on the argument that the state legislature should take up the issue of the environmental law rather than the judiciary—an admission, said Michael Gerrard of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, that the climate science underpinning the plaintiffs' case was indisputable.
"Everyone expected them to put on a more vigorous defense," Gerrard told The Washington Post Monday. "And they may have concluded that the underlying science of climate change was so strong that they didn't want to contest it."
During the trial, the plaintiffs testified about their own suffering due to pollution and extreme weather, while climate experts explained the connection between the state's fossil fuel activities and planetary heating, the wildfires and scorching heat that have overwhelmed parts of the West, and other extreme weather.
"Judge Seeley's decision comes at a time when we're seeing the impacts of climate change accelerate—from low streamflows and lake levels to unprecedented heat waves, floods, and wildfires," said Melissa Hornbein, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center, which along with McGarvey Law also represented the plaintiffs. "These are the climate realities the youth plaintiffs and expert witnesses told us about on the stand, while the state disclaimed any responsibility and dismissed them."
"We're relieved that the court recognized that these youth plaintiffs are already feeling the impacts of the climate crisis, as well as the dangers threatening their future if the state doesn't take meaningful action to address it," Hornbein added. "We're also delighted that Judge Seeley recognized Montana's significant role as an emitter on the global stage, as well as its ability—constrained only by a resistant government—to rectify its disproportionate contribution to the climate crisis."
The Sunrise Movement, the youth-led climate action organization, said the ruling is "proof that our generation is unstoppable—we have the power to bring down the fossil fuel industry and win a Green New Deal."
As Common Dreams reported last month, lawsuits around the world have emerged as a key driver of climate action as a wide range of plaintiffs—from children in the U.S. to senior citizens in Switzerland—have argued that their human rights have been violated by the companies and lawmakers that have promoted fossil fuel production despite scientific evidence of the danger it poses.
Out of approximately 2,200 worldwide climate cases, about three-quarters have been filed in the United States, according to the United Nations Environment Program and the Sabin Center, and the number of legal challenges has more than doubled since 2017.
The outcome of the Montana case could "open up the floodgates for more climate lawsuits," said Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said that the next plaintiff to file a case against the fossil fuel industry should be the federal government, to hold companies accountable "for their role in the climate crisis."
"This is a landmark decision establishing enforceable principles of intergenerational justice," said Roger Sullivan, an attorney at McGarvey Law. "Simply stated, the government elected by this generation must abide its obligation to pass on a stable climate system to future generations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Proposal for Fossil Fuel Leasing on Public Lands Called 'Massive Climate Failure'
"President Biden is blowing an opportunity to end oil and gas extraction on public land as the world reels from one climate catastrophe to the next," said a Center for Biological Diversity campaigner.
Jul 20, 2023
Years after U.S. President Joe Biden campaigned on a promise to ban new oil and gas leases on public lands, his administration earned fresh criticism from green groups on Thursday with a proposal to update regulations for the federal fossil fuel leasing program.
The U.S. Department of the Interior unveiled a proposed rule for the outdated fiscal terms of the onshore oil and gas leasing program. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Tracy Stone-Manning said it "aims to ensure fairness to the taxpayer and balanced, responsible development as we continue to transition to a clean energy economy."
However, advocacy organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity slammed the rule as a "massive climate failure."
"This is a cowardly proposal that fails the basic climate imperative of ending fossil fuel expansion and phasing out production," said Taylor McKinnon, the center's Southwest director. "President Biden is blowing an opportunity to end oil and gas extraction on public land as the world reels from one climate catastrophe to the next. This dangerous plan would ravage more of the landscape with fracking while sealing our fate of increasing megafires, more preventable heat deaths, a shrinking Colorado River, and runaway wildlife extinctions."
The center is among more than 500 groups that responded to the rule with a letter urging Biden to "rapidly phase down federal fossil fuel extraction and production on public lands" to near-zero by 2030, as part of the global effort to meet the 2015 Paris climate agreement's 1.5°C goal.
"Any rule that fails to phase out oil and gas production on public lands will sacrifice human lives, ecosystems, and entire species at the altar of fossil fuel corporations and their insatiable quest for profit," McKinnon warned. "It will be another shameful addition to Biden's record alongside the Willow project, his thousands of new drilling permits, and his rollback of environmental laws to enable illegal fossil fuel pipelines."
Biden successfully challenged former President Donald Trump three years ago in part by pledging to take the climate emergency seriously and reverse the Republican's attacks on the planet. While the Democrat has certainly made some progress, particularly compared with his predecessor, he has also come under fire for failing to live up to what he promised as a candidate.
The BLM's new proposal comes as both Biden and Trump are running in the 2024 presidential contest and as much of the Northern Hemisphere is dealing with extreme heat intensified by global warming that has been largely driven by fossil fuels.
"Even as record heatwaves bake the country and floods ravage eastern states, the Biden administration continues to cozy up to Big Oil," said Nicole Ghio at Friends of the Earth. "President Biden can't be a climate leader unless he addresses the root cause of the climate crisis: fossil fuels. Turning a blind eye to his broken leasing program proves once again that Biden is content to fiddle away while the world burns."
As the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) highlighted Thursday, the BLM "telegraphed its modest intentions for the proposed rule in its November 2021 Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Program, which we noted at the time failed to live up to its billing as a 'comprehensive review' responding to the climate crisis."
Several campaigners sounded the alarm over that report, which was produced in response to a Biden executive order. One critic said that "greenlighting more fossil fuel extraction, then pretending it's OK by nudging up royalty rates, is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic," a sentiment that was echoed by a WELC senior attorney on Thursday.
"Following months of consecutive climate disasters, the Bureau of Land Management's determination to rearrange deck chairs instead of deploying lifeboats is deeply disturbing," said WELC's Melissa Hornbein. "Coming from an administration that kicked off its tenure with some of the loftiest climate rhetoric of any government on the global stage, Interior's obdurate reaffirmation of the status quo is staggering."
Some advocacy groups were more tempered in their responses to the rule, while still stressing the need to end such leasing.
"These changes were badly needed—to put it mildly—and will help make onshore leasing more fair to taxpayers and hold industry accountable for its harms," said Josh Axelrod, senior policy advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The agency is aiming to limit leasing to areas with existing development and the most viable resources, and is clarifying how it will implement fiscal reforms in the Biden administration's historic climate law."
"But we can't continue to lease our public lands for fossil fuels while facing climate and biodiversity emergencies—and what is truly key moving forward is for the agency to forge an approach for measuring and mitigating the program's impact on climate," Axelrod added.
Public Citizen president Robert Weissman similarly said that "these rules are a welcome change from the long-standing status quo of policies that provide giveaways to the oil and gas industry. Antiquated rules incentivize oil and gas corporations to shirk their obligation to clean up the mess they create, leaving old, rusty wells pocking the national landscape and foisting the cleanup bill on taxpayers."
"Today's proposed rules would impose realistic financial requirements on oil and gas corporations to pay for the remediation of old, decrepit wells, as federal law requires," Weissman pointed out.
"While these rules are helpful, the Biden administration's proposal continues with the climate-destroying practice of leasing federal lands for drilling, which is entirely out of sync with the administration's climate goals," he emphasized. "But as long as drilling exists on public property, corporate polluters should be held to a high standard for operating and cleaning up their wells."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Groups Defend Biden Decision to Delay Oil and Gas Drilling Leases
"The energy sector should be looking to the future of justly sourced renewable energy, not pushing outdated technology that exploits people and the planet."
Feb 08, 2023
More than a dozen groups intervened in a case in Wyoming on Wednesday to defend the Biden administration's decision to postpone the sale of oil and gas leases in the state, arguing that numerous court ruling and settled laws have affirmed the U.S. Interior Department is free to determine when such sales will go forward—or whether they will at all.
The legal groups Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center are representing 17 national and local groups in the case, in which the state of Wyoming and two industry trade groups sued the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in December over its postponement of sales that had been planned for 2021 and 2022.
The BLM currently has several sales scheduled for 2023, covering nearly half a million acres, but as Friends of the Earth (FOE) said in a press statement Wednesday, the groups "want the court to order the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the BLM to hold lease sales every three months across the West"—despite warnings from energy experts and scientists that fossil fuel extraction must be phased out in order to avoid the worst effects of the climate emergency.
"Today's filing demonstrates that we refuse to sit back and allow Big Oil to push for policies that perpetuate dirty energy," said Hallie Templeton, legal director for FOE. "The law is crystal clear: the federal government holds broad authority over whether, when, and how to lease public lands for oil and gas development. The energy sector should be looking to the future of justly sourced renewable energy, not pushing outdated technology that exploits people and the planet."
FOE is joined by groups including the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Citizens for a Health Community, and the Western Organization of Resource Councils in defending the Biden administration's decision.
A U.S. District Court ruling in Wyoming in September 2022 affirmed that the administration can postpone the sales, and the U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that the agencies "have broad discretion to determine the timing and scope of lease sales, including not holding them at all," FOE said in the press statement.
Bob LeResche, a Powder River Basin Resource Council board member and chair of the Western Organization of Resource Councils, noted that the industry has already "stockpiled" more than 9,000 approved federal drilling permits.
"Forcing Interior to lease without fully weighing public impacts is industry’s attempt to continue looting public resources by accumulating excess leases at bargain basement prices," said LeResche. "The industry could continue drilling and producing as normal for decades even with no new leases."
The postponement represents a correction of BLM's longtime practice of "blindly" leasing public lands for oil and gas drilling "without actually understanding the impacts of development," said Peter Hart, an attorney with Wilderness Workshop.
"Now the agency is working to reevaluate its oil and gas management and to assess impacts, like those that new development will have on the climate," he added. "It just makes sense to pause new leasing until the program is brought into this century, and it is well within the agency’s authority."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'These Kids Can't Wait': New Win in Youth Climate Lawsuit in Washington
Judge orders state Department of Ecology to create new rules to cap emissions by end of 2016
Apr 29, 2016
The young activists suing the U.S. government over its role in climate change scored another victory in court on Friday. A judge in Seattle ordered the Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) to announce an emissions reduction rule by the end of the year and recommend to the state legislature that those targets be reached in 2017.
King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill also ordered the department to consult with the young plaintiffs on crafting those recommendations.
"This is an urgent situation," Hill said in issuing the order. "These kids can't wait."
The DOE withdrew its proposal to cap emissions in February, following a landmark ruling in November 2015 that found the state's current standards fail to "preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality for the current and future generations."
Friday's ruling is "the first time [that] a U.S. court not only recognized the extraordinary harms young people are facing due to climate change but ordered an agency to do something about it," said Andrea Rodgers, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center who represents the young plaintiffs. The DOE "is now court-ordered to issue a rule that fulfills its constitutional and public trust duty to ensure Washington does its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the planet."
The case in Washington is one of several similar legal battles underway in the U.S., all supported by the environmental advocacy group Our Children's Trust, as youth activists take U.S. agencies to court to demand action over climate change. An Oregon judge ruled earlier this month that a complaint filed by more than a dozen young plaintiffs against the federal government--referred to by advocates as "the most important lawsuit on the planet right now"--can go to trial.
"It was absurd for [the DOE] to withdraw its proposed rule to reduce carbon emissions," petitioner Aji Piper, 15, who is taking part in both the state and federal lawsuits, said in a statement on Friday. "Especially after Judge Hill declared last fall that our 'very survival depends upon the will of [our] elders to act now...to stem the tide of global warming.'"
Julia Olson, executive director and chief legal counsel at Our Children's Trust, added, "This case explains why youth around this country, and in several other countries, are forced to bring their governments to court to secure a healthy atmosphere and stable climate. Despite clear scientific evidence and judicial recognition of the urgency of the climate crisis, Washington and most governments across the U.S. and other countries are failing to take correspondingly urgent, science-based action."
"That failure unfairly consigns youth to a disproportionately bleak future against which they can only reasonably ask the courts to step in to address this most sensitive issue of our time," Olson said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Kids Are Alright As Washington Judge Delivers Youth Climate Win
'We may have won a battle, but we're still fighting a bigger war,' says 14-year-old petitioner
Jun 25, 2015
Citing what she called the "historical lack of political will to respond adequately to the urgent and dire acceleration of global warming," a judge in Washington state handed a group of eight young petitioners a landmark win this week, ordering the Department of Ecology (ECY) to consider statewide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions based on best available science.
"The effect of this decision is that for the first time in the United States, a court of law has ordered a state agency to consider the most current and best available climate science when deciding to regulate carbon dioxide emissions," said Andrea Rodgers of the Western Environmental Law Center, attorney for the youth petitioners, who are in elementary, middle, and high school.
"I'm not going to sit by and watch my government do nothing. We don't have time to waste. I'm pushing my government to take real action on climate, and I won't stop until change is made."
--Zoe Foster, 13
The kids acted with the help of a NASA climate scientist and Our Children's Trust, an Oregon-based nonprofit orchestrating a global, youth-driven legal campaign to establish the right to a healthy atmosphere and stable climate.
"This is a decision of immense national significance," said Julia Olson, executive director of Our Children's Trust, which has similar cases going around the country. "Judge Hill acknowledges the urgent and dire acceleration of global warming, refuses to accept any more bureaucratic delay, and mandates that the State consider and act in just two weeks on the youth's scientific evidence that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide must be reduced to 350 [parts per million]."
Last June, the youth filed a petition for rulemaking to ECY, requesting that the agency adopt a rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions in Washington according to what scientists say is needed to protect our oceans and climate system. They also asked the agency to inform the state legislature that existing laws related to greenhouse gas reductions must be revised based on current climate science.
In August of last year, ECY denied the petition--without explanation, though it did not dispute the underlying scientific basis for petitioners' plea.
Arguing that they have a fundamental right to a healthy environment and that they are faced with increasing harms posed by climate destabilization and ocean acidification, the young petitioners filed an appeal of the denial "to vindicate this right on behalf of themselves and future generations," as a press release explains.
"Kids understand the threats climate change will have on our future," said 13-year-old petitioner Zoe Foster. "I'm not going to sit by and watch my government do nothing. We don't have time to waste. I'm pushing my government to take real action on climate, and I won't stop until change is made."
In her decision issued Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill offered vindication indeed.
"Judge Hill acknowledges the urgent and dire acceleration of global warming, refuses to accept any more bureaucratic delay, and mandates that the State consider and act in just two weeks time on the youth's scientific evidence that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide must be reduced to 350 ppm."
--Julia Olson, Our Children's Trust
"Washington State's existing statutory limits should be adjusted to better reflect the current science," her opinion reads. "The limits need to be more aggressive in order for Washington to do its part to address climate risks."
In response to the ruling, the youth's climate expert, NASA scientist Dr. Pushker Kharecha, said: "This encouraging court decision reminds us that there is still good basis for optimism about legal strategies" that aim to require governments take stronger action on climate.
"The court directed [ECY] to apply the agency's own findings that climate change presents an imminent threat to Washington and demands immediate action," added Rodgers. "The ball is now in [ECY]'s court to do the right thing and protect our children and future generations."
The agency must report back to the court by July 8.
In the meantime, "the court's decision brings a feeling of triumph," said 14-year-old petitioner Aji Piper. "But I know there is still a lot of work to be done. We may have won a battle, but we're still fighting a bigger war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy