[Note: This piece is also published at The Daily Caller]
Media overreactions to court decisions don’t get much more ridiculous than the one we’ve seen this week about the Montana state court ruling in favor of a non-profit’s claim that fossil fuel permitting by the state’s government might violate a vague passage in its constitution directing the government to “maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment.” This is language that could mean almost anything, but the judge in the case decided it means that Montana law that does not require regulators to consider possible “climate change” impacts in permitting decisions is unconstitutional.
The national media immediately hailed the decision as a major development that could devastate Montana’s oil, gas, and coal industries. Both the New York Times and Washington Post filed major, detailed stories on it, something they rarely do on state decisions out in Flyover Country. NPR filed a report calling the case “a landmark climate change trial,” claiming the “ruling follow[ed] a first of its kind trial.”
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Energy Transition Absurdities to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.