A court ruling means government agencies must protect citizens from the impacts of climate change in one US state.

A policy used to assess permits for fossil fuel projects has been deemed unconstitutional by the court in Montana, following a case involving 16 plaintiffs aged 5 to 22 years old.

A Montana judge ruled that state agencies violated citizens' constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment by permitting the development of fossil fuel projects. 

The contested policy used to evaluate fossil fuel permits was declared unconstitutional for its omission of greenhouse gas emission effects assessment.

This verdict, if upheld, could establish a significant legal precedent, although initial impacts might be restricted. State officials have affirmed their intention to contest the decision through an appeal.

This decision adds to the small yet significant number of global legal rulings that mandate governments to protect their citizens from climate change.

District Court Judge Kathy Seeley, in her ruling, emphasised that Montana's emissions and climate change had demonstrated a substantial link to environmental impacts and harm to the youth.

Prominent legal scholar David Dana lauded the outcome as a “remarkable win” for the young climate activists and anticipated its utilisation as a guidepost for similar cases across other states.

Notably, Montana is among the few US states with environmental safeguards enshrined in its constitution.

State authorities attempted to halt the trial through several dismissal motions, all of which were rejected by Judge Seeley.

Julia Olson, the attorney representing the youth, hailed the decision as a triumph “for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate”.

Amidst ongoing wildfires fueled by fossil fuel pollution, the judgement is seen as a pivotal shift towards addressing the repercussions of climate change.

A spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has criticised the ruling as “absurd” and affirmed their intent to appeal. 

Flower contended that the plaintiffs' arguments had previously been rejected in multiple jurisdictions.

Montana's argument rested on the premise that even if the state ceased all carbon dioxide production, it would have negligible global impact due to contributions from other regions.

The young plaintiffs, ranging from ages 5 to 22, presented evidence during the two-week trial in June, illustrating how escalating carbon dioxide emissions were responsible for more extreme temperatures, increased droughts, wildfires, and reduced snowpack. 

These alterations adversely affected their mental and physical well-being.

Carbon dioxide emissions, stemming from fossil fuel combustion, exacerbate atmospheric heat retention, thus driving climate change.

Recent data from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration indicates record-high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, underscoring the urgency of addressing emissions.

As climate-related lawsuits proliferate globally, including those against the fossil fuel industry, this Montana case may show the potency of the courts as a catalyst for climate action.