A “public interest” law firm exploiting children to advance the goals of the global “climate change” movement just won a major court victory in Montana, potentially setting the stage for undermining the economy those children will eventually depend on for jobs, food, and other needs. The decision was ridiculed as “absurd” by the Montana Attorney General’s office. But much more is expected.
The controversial opinion, issued by Montana District Court Judge Kathy Seeley this week, claimed the state’s policy for issuing oil and gas permits was unconstitutional because it did not consider the supposed effects of “greenhouse gas emissions.” It is the first ruling by an American court purporting to establish a government duty to stop alleged man-made “climate change.”
“Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury,” the judge claimed, falsely, saying the brainwashed children exploited as props in the case would be “harmed” by emissions of the gas of life. In reality, unchallenged peer-reviewed studies have shown solar activity can explain all observed warming.
The organization and attorneys behind the lawsuit, known as “Our Children’s Trust,” have filed similar lawsuits in every American state looking for a judicial activist to make a favorable ruling. In a statement released after their victory in Montana, the group celebrated the decision as a “huge win” for “youth, for democracy, and for our climate.”
“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 executive director Julia Olson in a statement, falsely attributing natural disasters that have always plagued humanity to relatively insignificant human CO2 emissions.
Legal experts not directly involved in the case did suggest the ruling was significant. “To be sure, it is a state court not a federal court and the ruling is based on a state constitution and not the US Constitution, but it is still clearly a major, pathbreaking win for climate plaintiffs,” Harvard Law School Professor Richard Lazarus was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.
The exploitation of children for litigation is gaining steam as part of a coordinated, United Nations-backed strategy to bypass legislative bodies and elected representatives in implementing “climate” tyranny. In fact, just last month, the UN boasted in a press release that the number of court cases is on the issue surging and has become “an integral part of securing climate action and justice.”
According to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the number of climate change court cases has more than doubled since 2017 and is growing worldwide. The controversial UN agency, which is being groomed to become a global EPA-style government agency, also argued that the “climate litigation” and the legal precedent being established in the cases was “forming an increasingly well-defined field of law.”
“Climate policies are far behind what is needed to keep global temperatures below the 1.5°C threshold, with extreme weather events and searing heat already baking our planet,” said Inger Andersen, Executive Director of UNEP. “People are increasingly turning to courts to combat the climate crisis, holding governments and the private sector accountable and making litigation a key mechanism for securing climate action and promoting climate justice.”
Late last year, this writer interviewed “youth” delegates to the UN “climate” summit in Egypt who demanded a ruling from the UN’s “International Court of Justice” on the issue. “Youth” climate-justice activist Mert Taner Kumru said the global kangaroo court must rule on it because people’s “human rights” are supposedly endangered by human emissions of CO2, a gas exhaled by all people.
Government schools are indoctrinating children to believe the gas of life — the very gas they exhale — is toxic pollution that must be regulated and controlled by governments and the UN. From a scientific perspective, it is ludicrous, as most U.S. adults surveyed already know. Unfortunately, naïve children and activist courts may be used to impose the totalitarian agenda instead. Americans must say no.
