February 7, 2024 • 34 mins
In a landmark legal victory, young climate activists, represented by Our Children's Trust, won the first-ever constitutional climate trial in the U.S.. In Montana v. Held, the court declared the state's laws promoting fossil fuels were unconstitutional. One of the plaintiffs, Claire Vlases, and a lawyer who fought the case join Chris to discuss the landmark legal victory and the need for systemic solutions to address climate change.
Show notes from Chris:
- To support or get involved, visit ourchildrenstrust.org.
- Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham at the London School of Economics produce a fabulous report each year on “Global trends in climate change litigation." The 2023 snapshot can be found here.
- Legal cases are driving changes around the world. In 2017, 23-year-old student Mark Leigh took his Australian superannuation (pension) fund to courtover their lack of transparency on how they were investing and protecting his money from climate risk.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's hard to feel like the power to make the
difference is in the hands of us when a lot
of the politicians are a lot older, and it's easy
to feel helpless in a situation like that, I think,
and for a while I really did. But that's something
that is so important about this Montana case and the
decision of Judge Seely, because it's the first time in
(00:23):
a really long time I've felt like the power is
transferred back to the youth. And if I consue my government,
and when so, can anyone ah fucked.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Welcome to Unfucking the Future. I'm Chris Turney. I'm a
climate scientist, and in my line of work it's easy
to get depressed by all the horrible news about the environment.
But I still believe and in spite of all that,
a better future is possible. And that's what this show
is all about, finding positive solutions to unfuck the mess
(01:01):
we're in. So let's get started.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Fucking the future.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
I want to pitch you a movie idea. In rural Montana,
a group of plucky teenagers are worried about the climate crisis.
They uncover obscure language in the state constitution that requires
the state to protect the environment. So what do they do.
They band together and sue the government. The government fights back,
(01:33):
claiming in court the climate change will actually be good
for Montana when the dust settles. The kids win, and
as a result, they set the scene for ending fossil
fuel production in the state and saving the world from
total climate armageddon. This might sound like a Hollywood fantasy,
and it actually happened. The case was known as helld
(01:55):
versus Montana.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
And in Montana today a landmark court decision a judge
siding with a group of young people who accuse the
state of violating their rights by supporting fossil fuels.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
That means that Montana must account for the climate impact
of fossil fuel production when releasing permits to developers, and
in effect, it could end fossil fuel pollution in the
state full stop. And it's all thanks to a group
of plaintiffs ages five to twenty two, who sued the
government for their right to a fair, clean future. Pretty
(02:29):
damn remarkable. Right today, we'll talk about how it all
happened and how you too can sue your government and
save the world in the process. To do that, we've
got not one, but two remarkable guests today. The first
is twenty year old Claire Vlasses. She's one of the
plaintiffs in the Montana lawsuit, and she's joined by Nate Bellinger.
(02:52):
He's one of the lawyers who worked on the case.
Both of them are associated with a group called Our
Children's Trust, for world only not for profit law firm
representing young people and their legal right to a future
free from fossil fuel pollution, which brings us back to Claire.
Claire Flashes is among the many plaintiffs working with Our
(03:14):
Children's Trust. Growing up in Bozeman, Montana, She's always been
an outdoors kid. Her upbringing really does sound pretty dreamy.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
I grew up in a little wild cabin next to
a creek. I have a big vegetable garden and raised
sheep and chickens and honey bees surrounded by months. It's beautiful.
It's a really beautiful place to go up. Sometimes I
would plant lake thousands of kale plants, and I have
to go to the farmer's market and try and sell
(03:43):
off all of it.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Some kids have a lemonade stand. Growing up, Claire had
a kale stand.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
But it worked out really well with my little sister
and I started a farm stand selling our vegetables on
the side of the road. It kind of moved up
selling at farmers markets to a restaurants, that kind of.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Thing so growing up, But I mean that sounds in
adyllic childhood. What was your first awareness of climate changing?
When did you first become aware that our maybe things
weren't how they should be.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
I think the first time I actually became really aware
of it was when I was in kindergarten. The river
that flows by my house nearly flooded our house, and
then the next year it was almost dry, and I
think just seeing that and those changes made it feel
really real. So then when I learned about it in school,
(04:36):
it just backed up my already existing beliefs about how
climate change can impact everyone.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
And I understand you actually took action early on at
middle school. Are you installing solar panels and the roof
of your school? And so I can tell me a
bit about that.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Sure, When I was in middle school, I wanted to
do something to help the environment, and I had an
independent study class, so I got to pick anything I
wanted to do, and my school was going through a
remodel right then, and I thought it would be appropriate
to include solar panels as part of that design. So
(05:12):
I presented the idea to my principal and he loved
it and took me straight away to a meeting that
day with the architects and contractors.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Claire was excited to talk of the builders, but in
that meeting she got her first taste of the dream
killing power of the establishment.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
I presented the idea and it was not well received.
It didn't seem feasible to to the you know, the
real the people who know what they're talking about, because
solar panels are pretty expensive and it was not in
the budget. So they told me that unless I could
(05:51):
raise hundreds of thousands of dollars that I could, you know,
maybe find a new independent study project.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
The adults assumed this would be the end of a conversation,
no more silly chats with twelve year old about solar panels,
but not for the first time, the underestimated Claire.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
I figured that if cost was the issue, I would
just raise the money myself. A seventh graders like the
perfect person to raise money, because you have no idea
how much one hundred and twenty thousand dollars actually is.
So I figured, you know, it was doable, So yeah,
I went. I started out pretty small, went to local businesses,
(06:30):
set out little jars for people to donate their change.
Had presented the idea to the school foundation and got
their support along with some seed money to get started.
I wrote a lot of grants, I gave a lot
of talks, and eventually I met with community members who
are were able to help me get to the finish line.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Okay, that's pretty awesome. Claire had done something nobody had
thought possible, and now her school was going to be
leading the way towards a clean energy future. Well not
so fast. Claire actually couldn't install all these solar panels
in her school, and that's because of a shitty little
law in Montana.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
There's a cap on how much kill hours of solar
energy that you can put into the buyback grid. It's
a bit complicated when you when I try to explain it,
but it basically discourages large buildings to put more than
fifty kilowatts on of solar panel arrays on it. So,
even though that only covered about a quarter of my
(07:34):
school's electricity, that's the month that we.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Did, which meant that even though the school had the
space and the money and the solar panels to cover
their electricity needs completely, they could only get twenty five percent.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
It was hard. I raised enough money and then it
had to get split up into other schools. I'm happy
to help everywhere, but it's frustrating that it wasn't. You know,
it wasn't because of me. It was because of my government.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
It was an important lesson for Claire. The fossil fuel
industry has built up its power over decades, influencing a
government to enact policies and regulations that protect that power,
which meant that if Claire was going to change the world,
she'd have to stop by changing the laws.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
After I finished my solar panel project in middle school,
a lot of doors opened for me in the environmental circles.
So I had an opportunity to help plan the city
of Bozeman sustainability initiatives to help them meet the Paris Accord.
I got to work with a lot of different nonprofits
and beyond boards of certain nonprofits.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
And then Claire found out about a group putting together
a blockbuster lawsuit in her state.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
And then when I heard about this case happening in Montana,
it got kind of passed along to me, and I
am imediately reached out to meet Our Children's Trust to
see if I could be a part of it.
Speaker 5 (09:06):
The cases that we work on, including in Montana, they're
constitutional cases, they're not traditional environmental law cases.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
That's Nate Ballinger from Our Children's Trust, very law firm
but also an advocacy organization, and they have a fantastic
strategy for deciding which case is to bring.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
We are seeking systemic solutions to the climate crisis. So
there are so many fossil fuel projects that are constantly
being proposed. Sometimes we call it whack a mole. So
what happens is, you know, one route for a pipeline,
maybe it's blocked and then the pipeline is built somewhere else.
Or a power plant is delayed based on some statutory victory,
(09:52):
but then you know there's some delay and then it
ends up being built later on. So there's just so
many of these projects coming up, and there's so permise
to challenge. We're trying to go after kind of that
broad picture energy policy and planning that governments do and
make sure that when they're doing that, they're taking into
account the need to protect children and their futures and
(10:16):
address the climate crisis, and that means we can't continue
to permit fossil fuels.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
The case Nate was working on in Montana was a
perfect example of his strategy. It wasn't challenging some project
or policy. It was taking on the state government itself,
and it had the potential to be transformative. To give
you a sense of how transformative, Nate sometimes compares the
case to another US legal battle, Brown versus Board of Education,
(10:47):
which is a pretty lofty comparison.
Speaker 5 (10:50):
Brown versus Board of Education obviously was the first time
where the courts declared that segregated school systems was unconstitutional
and cannot continue.
Speaker 4 (11:00):
You.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
So again, in both situations, too, you have governments, you know,
using the law to effectuate the harms. So in the
segregation context, there were laws that required segregation, and in
the fossil fuel cont contexts and climate context there are
laws promoting fossil fuel. So both instances you have governments
(11:24):
using the laws to affirmatively harm plaintiffs. At its core,
there about protecting the constitutional rights of children and youth.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
This connection to Brown versus Board of Education wasn't just
philosophical nat and his team studied the decision and they
modeled that case after it.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
You know, Brown versus Board of Education.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
The Supreme Court decision gets a lot of the attention,
but underlying that decision were trial court decisions from several states,
and we went back and we read through those trial
court decisions. We looked at the evidence presented in trial courts,
and a lot of that evidence is the same type
of evidence that we ended up presenting in our trial.
(12:08):
And so, for example, in Brown versus Board of Education,
they presented evidence about the psychological harms to children from
going to segregated schools, and in the Montana trial, we
presented evidence both from the plaintiffs themselves but also through
a psychiatrist about the harms to children from having to
(12:31):
live with climate disasters and having to live where your
government is affirmatively promoting fossil fuels. We looked to constitutional precedent,
including the segregation context, to figure out how to build
the constitutional cases, what type of evidence we need to
present at trial, and looking to the segregation cases has
certainly been a part of that.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
In June twenty twenty three, our Children's Trust made their
case to the court.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
We're fucking the future. Weird fucking the future.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
This was the first ever constitutional climate trial in US history,
and as part of that trial, we had twelve of
the sixteen plaintiffs testify, and we also had ten experts
testifying court, which is really really incredible.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Wow wow, now, Claire, you must were you nervous testifying?
What was it like being up there on the stand?
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Oh my gosh. Yeah, I mean I was nervous because
I knew how many people were listening and how important
it was. But I also wasn't nervous because or at
least not too nervous because I knew everything. I mean,
it's just the truth, right.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Claire drew support from her fellow plaintiffs. They were kids
from across Montana and they all had a shared passion
for the environment.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Everyone is so incredible. I got to know everyone at
trial very well, and yeah, everyone has really incredible stories.
One that stood out to me was the story of
sorry El. She's Native American and her indigenous community relies
a lot on oral traditions and storytelling, and a lot
of big ones are related to when snow falls and
(14:17):
stuff like that, and when there's less and less snow
falling that oral tradition can become lost.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
I want to pause on that because this was an
interesting point made in the trial, and it brings us
to a segment we like to call what the fuck
are you talking about?
Speaker 4 (14:36):
What the fuck are you talking about?
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Soil? Sandoval is a young woman who identifies as Salish
for Silish of indigenous peoples in North America who share
a common language Slish. When soil testified in the case,
she reminded the corp but the term also literally means
flesh and land. In other words, the Salish peoples and
(15:05):
their cultures are tied to the landscapes around them. For example,
Sorrel says. But the creation stories how people tell can
only be told when there is snow on the ground.
Here's a clip of us speaking about it.
Speaker 6 (15:19):
We have creation stories, coyote stories that are told during
the winter when snow is on the ground. And because
of climate change, that time that snow is on the
ground has become much much smaller, like a smaller interval,
So it's become harder and harder to tell these stories.
But it's really important because these stories they tell us
who we are as Salish people, and they tell us
(15:41):
our morals and our history and how we came upon
this land, and so being able to share that with
our community, with our children is very important, and not
being able to do that every year is really really hard.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
When I talked with Sabrina Albert about cultural arraga because
of obal heating, this is precisely what she was talking about.
Indigenous communities risk losing a crucial part of their identity
as the environment random changes. So that's what the fuck
we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
What the fuck are you're talking about?
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Okay, back to Claren Nate. After youth plaintiffs presented their
case to the court, it was a stage turn and
their approach was pretty shocking.
Speaker 7 (16:30):
You know.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
One surprise, I guess you could say, came towards the
end of our case. So the way the trial work is,
we presented our case for one week, the plaintiffs and
our experts testified, and then the State of Montana had
an opportunity to present their case and they were given
a week also to present their case, and they ended
(16:54):
up taking about two hours to present their case, and
so we were a little bit surprised by how brief
their case was and they had basically no expert testimony
to contradict any of our scientists or any of our
experts that testified. They didn't question any of our plaintiff's testimony.
(17:17):
And the fact that the State of Montana didn't dispute
any of our testimony was a little bit of a surprise,
but I think it also underscores the strength of that testimony.
At this point in time, twenty twenty three, in the
midst of a climate crisis that gets worse every year,
there is no justification for fossil fuels any longer.
Speaker 7 (17:40):
You know.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
The state had an opportunity to present evidence in terms
of why it matters, why it matters for their economy,
why it matters for their citizens, and they had no
evidence to present.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Maybe the state didn't really take the lawsuit seriously. Maybe
they assumed that there was no way the kids could win. Well,
if that, well, it's the case. They were in for
a rude awakening. In August twenty twenty three, the Judge
Mato ruling.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
I'm Kylie Gibson, our top stories We come on the
air live at five.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Montana judge sided with young environmental activists on Monday, and
first of its kind climate change trial.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Judge Kathy Seeley handed down her decision.
Speaker 4 (18:22):
They won.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
For those of you just rejoining us, we've been exploring
the landmark court case in Montana where young climate activists
challenged the state's promotion of fossil fuels and won. It
was a historic legal victory.
Speaker 5 (18:36):
This decision that we secured in August was the first
time in our nation's history where courts have reviewed the
constitutionality of government laws and conduct that promote fossil fuels,
and after conducting that review, determined that they were unconstitutional,
(18:57):
that it's unconstitutional for the state of mind Montana to
have laws on the book that promote fossil fuels, prohibit
the state from considering the impacts of fossil fuels, and
declared that those fossil fuel policies and conduct is violating
the constitutional rights of Montana's youth. We've never had a
decision like that in our nation's history, so it's a
(19:19):
really landmark decision.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Wow. So just to be clear, that's the first time
that the US has actually upheld a constitutional right to
be protected from climate change, that's right. Yeah, So what
does that mean for Montana moving forward? I mean, how
will the state have to change how it does business.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
Yeah, well, there's a few things that it means, and
the court's August order really spelled out what is unconstitutional.
And one thing that the Court made clear is that today,
right now, at the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions
and the atmosphere and the current levels of fossil fuel
extraction and production in Montana, that is unconstitutional. So what
(20:06):
that means is the state not only can't continue to
exacerbate their harms by further promoting fossil fuels, but they
actually need to start to transition away from fossil fuels
and eventually decarbonize their entire energy system. And we had
evidence at trial about how Montana can do that. By
twenty thirty five at the earliest, and no later than
(20:28):
twenty fifty, they can get one hundred percent of their
energy from renewable energy sources. So that's really the end
goal here.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
It's an ambitious goal, but of a moment it seems
totally possible. The bigger question now is whether our Children's
Trust can compete this success. The hope is to win
more court cases like Visa in other states.
Speaker 5 (20:49):
It was the first trial, the first win, but we
think there will be more. We're constantly working on new cases.
There's our federal case Juliana the United States, which has
a long procedural history, but the current status is we're
back on track and hoping to have a trial there
in twenty twenty four sometime.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
That case Nate is talking about, Juliana Versity United States.
It's a big deal because it's not just taking on
the state, it's taking on the federal government.
Speaker 5 (21:24):
The main difference from the Juliana case is that case
is based on the Federal Constitution, and so there are
claims in Juliana under the Fifth Amendment, which protects the
right to life, liberty, and property, and to ego protection
of law.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
If you'd like to learn more about it, Netflix has
an incredible documentary called You Feegov. It's an emotional rollercoaster.
Here's a clip from Betrayer.
Speaker 8 (21:52):
It's all been a matter of choices, and our feelings
of despair and dread and anxiety is all because of
choices that we had no participation in.
Speaker 5 (22:09):
And so it's based on the Federal Constitution, and it
goes after the federal government's policy of promoting fossil fuels
for at least the last fifty years, and we have
evidence in that case that the government has known of
the dangers of fossil fuels since the nineteen sixties and
(22:30):
they were warning about the catastrophic harms it would result
if we continue to this fossil fuel energy system. And
we've built this incredible record of how every government administration
since then has continued to promote fossil fuels and increase emissions.
And we're hoping that we'll get to trial sometime the
(22:51):
next year.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
I think one thing that really struck me watching the movie.
I think it's one of the plaintiffs, Nick Venner. Towards
the end of the film, the team will sitting together
and these reflecting on though we're still in not yet
at court, but maybe the path we've chidden will help
others even if the worst does come to pass.
Speaker 3 (23:10):
We can be the foundations for a lot of other
legal cases, and more importantly, we can show how the
current system is broken and the possible ways can be proved.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
It can be a beacon of hope to others.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
The stories of Juliana versus US and Hell versus Montana
are so inspiring. These young people from across the US
are standing up against their government and winning. They're taking
the lead on climate action instead of waiting for lawmakers
to act, although it doesn't mean that those lawmakers are
off the hook.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
So again, it speaks to that systemic solutions to climate
change that we need. We need all three branches of government,
and we need all levels of government too. We need
the federal government, we need the states, and we need
local governments all working together on this.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
And I to stand correct, the federal government's really fighting
this case. That's just surprised me because the Biden administration
seems to be so much more climate friendly than previous administrations.
Why doesn't the government want this to go to trial.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
Yeah, unfortunately, we're seeing a lot of the same litigation
tactics from the Biden administration as we saw under the
Trump administration, really fighting this case, trying to prevent the
case from going to trial, which is really disappointing. I
think the reason why they don't want the case to
(24:34):
go to trial. You know, in some ways you can
see what happens at trial in Montana that you put
the government in a position where they have to try
and justify their conduct. And you know, like the Biden administration,
a lot of the things. You hear them say, they
sound good, but when you get into court and you're
(24:55):
looking at their conduct, they don't always align. So they
might say they care about climlimate change, but their conduct
shows otherwise. And trial is an opportunity to kind of
peel back the layers of what they're saying in you know,
press statements and actually look at the conduct.
Speaker 4 (25:12):
And I think they don't want that to come to light.
Speaker 5 (25:15):
They don't want all the evidence to come out about
how they've known about the dangers of climate change for
decades and yet continue to promote fossil fuels. And that's
true across different administrations.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
Wherever Our Children's Trust wins their case against the federal government,
but work Claire and Native done in Montana has established
a terrifically important precedent, both in the US and around
the world.
Speaker 5 (25:40):
One thing that the judge made clear in Montana is
that you need a stable climate system in order to
enjoy your basic constitutional rights, including your right to safety,
health and happiness, your right to life, liberty, and property,
individual dignity, including as well as your right to a
(26:02):
clean and healthful environment. But that stable climate system is
necessary to the preservation of these other constitutional rights. So
the Montana wind is a really important precedent and roadmap,
I think, even in states that don't have an explicit
right to a clean and healthful environment.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
And do you think we'll ever get to the point
where burning fossil fuels is ruled unconstitutional?
Speaker 5 (26:24):
Yeah, I think we could get to that point. You know,
we were not advocating for an end of fossil fuels overnight.
You know, the experts that we work with and the
evidence that we've presented, you know, calls for a phase
out of fossil fuels, and so we understand that this
can't happen overnight, but you know, sometime within the next
(26:45):
you know, twenty five years or so, we have the
potential to have all of our energy coming from renewable
energy sources. And that's necessary in order to protect protect
our futures, protect the right of today's children, future generations.
I think it's important to remember that people don't need
(27:06):
fossil fuels. People need a way to turn on their lights,
to heat their homes, to power their transportation, and there's
other ways to do that without fossil fuels, and that
technology is available today. And just as we've done in
the past with other dangerous and harmful products. I think,
you know, we can move away from fossil fuels and
(27:28):
ultimately have them become illegal.
Speaker 3 (27:34):
We're fucking the future. We're fucking the future.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
So at this point you might be saying to yourself,
this is amazing. I wish I could sue my government
and help bring the fossil fuel era to an end. Well,
here's the good news. You can. Our Children's Trust is
constantly on the lookout for people willing to tell their
stories in court.
Speaker 5 (28:04):
So if anybody wants to get involved, there's a form
that you can fill out on our website for youth
in particular, a client intake form. So tell us where
you are, a little bit about why you're interested in
getting involved, and we'll get back to you. For anybody
else that wants to, you know, keep up to speed
(28:26):
on the case developments. You can go to our website
it's Our Children's Trust dot org, and you know, sign
up for our newsletter. We send regular case updates, and
you know, we work with an incredible network of supporters,
you know, scientists, medical experts, experts and renewable energy transition.
(28:48):
So there's ways for just about anybody to get involved,
So feel free to reach out and we'd love to
hear from you if you want to find a way
to support the cases.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
And for those people who are listening outside America, is
that something else that you can help with or you
can put people in contact or even help them start
a case of their own.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
This is definitely a global movement and we're working all
over the globe, so we you know, we've supported cases
and a number of different countries around the world and
before international courts, so you know, we were definitely love
to hear from people from from different countries as well.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
That's awesome. And just to be clear, do you have
to be young? I mean certain middle aged scientists is
out there interested in suing a government? Is that something
else that's possibility? I might have a plenty for you
if that's.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
The well, all of our plaintiffs are our youth.
Speaker 5 (29:41):
But there's always a way to get scientists and other
experts involved in supporting the cases.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Okay, so maybe not all of us can join a
landmark legal case. But that said, it's important to remember
how ended up here. She got her start in climate activism.
Guess solar panels installed at a School, and that's the
kind of project anyone can get involved in.
Speaker 1 (30:05):
I think everyone has a different capacity for making change,
or for advocacy or pursuing their passion, And even if
it's something really small, like really small, I think that's
really important. And I mean we all have different capacities
for doing that, and you know, even at different times.
So as long as people are maximizing all that they
(30:27):
can do at this given time, I think that's all
you can really ask for.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
And that brings us to the last segment of the episode.
It's called what the Fuck Can I Do?
Speaker 3 (30:38):
What the fuck.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Can I do?
Speaker 2 (30:42):
As you probably know by now, this is a time
where we focus on one specific thing you can do
to help in the fight against global heating, And as always,
we're joined by our friend Maggie Baird. Maggie, what did
you think of a story of Claire and Nate in
our Children's Trust?
Speaker 7 (30:57):
When Clear School told her solar panels were too expensive?
Speaker 9 (31:01):
What does she do?
Speaker 7 (31:02):
She went out and raised the money herself. I really
admire how she just kept going whenever she met an obstacle,
and we can all learn from that example. The fossil
fuel companies spend millions of dollars on lawyers and lobbyists.
They understand how important it is to influence the law
(31:24):
and the lawmakers, and we need to even the playing field.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
So what the fuck can we do to level this
playing field?
Speaker 10 (31:35):
Well, in this case, the easy and obvious answer is
to support the work of Our Children's Trust. Unfortunately, they
have a lot of amazing ways to do that even
if you don't have money. For example, if you're a
lawyer like Nate, you can volunteer to provide pro bono
legal work. If you're a student like Claire, they have
great resources for you, like how to write a letter
(31:56):
to your local.
Speaker 7 (31:56):
Or school newspaper. They even have resources for teachers to
help them teach about these issues in the classroom. Just
go to Our Children's Trust dot org to learn how
you can help.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Thanks, maggive 're just an incredible organization and making a
real difference.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
What fuck can I do?
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Oh fuck?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Okay, that's all for this episode. Next time I'm Fucking
the Future, we'll be speaking to psychologist doctor Lisa Van Sustron.
She studies how a climate crisis is affecting our mental health.
Spoiler alert is affecting us terribly, but even that may
have a positive side effect.
Speaker 9 (32:45):
Oh, it's even desirable, frankly to be outraged and angry.
Many studies show that that is the prelude to taking action.
That it is protective to be angry and outraged. They
are healthy emotions to an unhealthy.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Condition until then. I'm Chris Turney signing off from Sydney, Australia.
Thanks for joining me and I'm Fucking the Future.
Speaker 3 (33:10):
Weird Fucking the Future.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
I'm Fucking the Future is produced by Imagine Audio and
Awfully Nice for iHeart Podcasts and hosted by me Chris Turney.
The show is written by Meredith Bryan. I'm Fucking the
Future is produced by Amber von Schassen and Renee Colvert.
Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Carral Welker and Nathan Chloke are
the executive producers from Imagine Audio. Jesse Burton and Katie
(33:41):
Hodges are the executive producers from Awfully Nice. Sound design
and mixing by Evan Arnette, original music by Lilly Hayden
and producing services by Peter McGuigan. Sam Swinnerton wrote our
theme and all those fun jingles. If you enjoyed this episode,
be sure to rate and review I'm fucking the future
on Apple podcasts or whether you get your podcasts
It's hard to feel like the power to make the
difference is in the hands of us when a lot
of the politicians are a lot older, and it's easy
to feel helpless in a situation like that, I think,
and for a while I really did. But that's something
that is so important about this Montana case and the
decision of Judge Seely, because it's the first time in
(00:23):
a really long time I've felt like the power is
transferred back to the youth. And if I consue my government,
and when so, can anyone ah fucked.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Welcome to Unfucking the Future. I'm Chris Turney. I'm a
climate scientist, and in my line of work it's easy
to get depressed by all the horrible news about the environment.
But I still believe and in spite of all that,
a better future is possible. And that's what this show
is all about, finding positive solutions to unfuck the mess
(01:01):
we're in. So let's get started.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
Fucking the future.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
I want to pitch you a movie idea. In rural Montana,
a group of plucky teenagers are worried about the climate crisis.
They uncover obscure language in the state constitution that requires
the state to protect the environment. So what do they do.
They band together and sue the government. The government fights back,
(01:33):
claiming in court the climate change will actually be good
for Montana when the dust settles. The kids win, and
as a result, they set the scene for ending fossil
fuel production in the state and saving the world from
total climate armageddon. This might sound like a Hollywood fantasy,
and it actually happened. The case was known as helld
(01:55):
versus Montana.
Speaker 4 (01:57):
And in Montana today a landmark court decision a judge
siding with a group of young people who accuse the
state of violating their rights by supporting fossil fuels.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
That means that Montana must account for the climate impact
of fossil fuel production when releasing permits to developers, and
in effect, it could end fossil fuel pollution in the
state full stop. And it's all thanks to a group
of plaintiffs ages five to twenty two, who sued the
government for their right to a fair, clean future. Pretty
(02:29):
damn remarkable. Right today, we'll talk about how it all
happened and how you too can sue your government and
save the world in the process. To do that, we've
got not one, but two remarkable guests today. The first
is twenty year old Claire Vlasses. She's one of the
plaintiffs in the Montana lawsuit, and she's joined by Nate Bellinger.
(02:52):
He's one of the lawyers who worked on the case.
Both of them are associated with a group called Our
Children's Trust, for world only not for profit law firm
representing young people and their legal right to a future
free from fossil fuel pollution, which brings us back to Claire.
Claire Flashes is among the many plaintiffs working with Our
(03:14):
Children's Trust. Growing up in Bozeman, Montana, She's always been
an outdoors kid. Her upbringing really does sound pretty dreamy.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
I grew up in a little wild cabin next to
a creek. I have a big vegetable garden and raised
sheep and chickens and honey bees surrounded by months. It's beautiful.
It's a really beautiful place to go up. Sometimes I
would plant lake thousands of kale plants, and I have
to go to the farmer's market and try and sell
(03:43):
off all of it.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Some kids have a lemonade stand. Growing up, Claire had
a kale stand.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
But it worked out really well with my little sister
and I started a farm stand selling our vegetables on
the side of the road. It kind of moved up
selling at farmers markets to a restaurants, that kind of.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
Thing so growing up, But I mean that sounds in
adyllic childhood. What was your first awareness of climate changing?
When did you first become aware that our maybe things
weren't how they should be.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
I think the first time I actually became really aware
of it was when I was in kindergarten. The river
that flows by my house nearly flooded our house, and
then the next year it was almost dry, and I
think just seeing that and those changes made it feel
really real. So then when I learned about it in school,
(04:36):
it just backed up my already existing beliefs about how
climate change can impact everyone.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
And I understand you actually took action early on at
middle school. Are you installing solar panels and the roof
of your school? And so I can tell me a
bit about that.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Sure, When I was in middle school, I wanted to
do something to help the environment, and I had an
independent study class, so I got to pick anything I
wanted to do, and my school was going through a
remodel right then, and I thought it would be appropriate
to include solar panels as part of that design. So
(05:12):
I presented the idea to my principal and he loved
it and took me straight away to a meeting that
day with the architects and contractors.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Claire was excited to talk of the builders, but in
that meeting she got her first taste of the dream
killing power of the establishment.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
I presented the idea and it was not well received.
It didn't seem feasible to to the you know, the
real the people who know what they're talking about, because
solar panels are pretty expensive and it was not in
the budget. So they told me that unless I could
(05:51):
raise hundreds of thousands of dollars that I could, you know,
maybe find a new independent study project.
Speaker 2 (05:58):
The adults assumed this would be the end of a conversation,
no more silly chats with twelve year old about solar panels,
but not for the first time, the underestimated Claire.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
I figured that if cost was the issue, I would
just raise the money myself. A seventh graders like the
perfect person to raise money, because you have no idea
how much one hundred and twenty thousand dollars actually is.
So I figured, you know, it was doable, So yeah,
I went. I started out pretty small, went to local businesses,
(06:30):
set out little jars for people to donate their change.
Had presented the idea to the school foundation and got
their support along with some seed money to get started.
I wrote a lot of grants, I gave a lot
of talks, and eventually I met with community members who
are were able to help me get to the finish line.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
Okay, that's pretty awesome. Claire had done something nobody had
thought possible, and now her school was going to be
leading the way towards a clean energy future. Well not
so fast. Claire actually couldn't install all these solar panels
in her school, and that's because of a shitty little
law in Montana.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
There's a cap on how much kill hours of solar
energy that you can put into the buyback grid. It's
a bit complicated when you when I try to explain it,
but it basically discourages large buildings to put more than
fifty kilowatts on of solar panel arrays on it. So,
even though that only covered about a quarter of my
(07:34):
school's electricity, that's the month that we.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Did, which meant that even though the school had the
space and the money and the solar panels to cover
their electricity needs completely, they could only get twenty five percent.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
It was hard. I raised enough money and then it
had to get split up into other schools. I'm happy
to help everywhere, but it's frustrating that it wasn't. You know,
it wasn't because of me. It was because of my government.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
It was an important lesson for Claire. The fossil fuel
industry has built up its power over decades, influencing a
government to enact policies and regulations that protect that power,
which meant that if Claire was going to change the world,
she'd have to stop by changing the laws.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
After I finished my solar panel project in middle school,
a lot of doors opened for me in the environmental circles.
So I had an opportunity to help plan the city
of Bozeman sustainability initiatives to help them meet the Paris Accord.
I got to work with a lot of different nonprofits
and beyond boards of certain nonprofits.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
And then Claire found out about a group putting together
a blockbuster lawsuit in her state.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
And then when I heard about this case happening in Montana,
it got kind of passed along to me, and I
am imediately reached out to meet Our Children's Trust to
see if I could be a part of it.
Speaker 5 (09:06):
The cases that we work on, including in Montana, they're
constitutional cases, they're not traditional environmental law cases.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
That's Nate Ballinger from Our Children's Trust, very law firm
but also an advocacy organization, and they have a fantastic
strategy for deciding which case is to bring.
Speaker 5 (09:28):
We are seeking systemic solutions to the climate crisis. So
there are so many fossil fuel projects that are constantly
being proposed. Sometimes we call it whack a mole. So
what happens is, you know, one route for a pipeline,
maybe it's blocked and then the pipeline is built somewhere else.
Or a power plant is delayed based on some statutory victory,
(09:52):
but then you know there's some delay and then it
ends up being built later on. So there's just so
many of these projects coming up, and there's so permise
to challenge. We're trying to go after kind of that
broad picture energy policy and planning that governments do and
make sure that when they're doing that, they're taking into
account the need to protect children and their futures and
(10:16):
address the climate crisis, and that means we can't continue
to permit fossil fuels.
Speaker 2 (10:22):
The case Nate was working on in Montana was a
perfect example of his strategy. It wasn't challenging some project
or policy. It was taking on the state government itself,
and it had the potential to be transformative. To give
you a sense of how transformative, Nate sometimes compares the
case to another US legal battle, Brown versus Board of Education,
(10:47):
which is a pretty lofty comparison.
Speaker 5 (10:50):
Brown versus Board of Education obviously was the first time
where the courts declared that segregated school systems was unconstitutional
and cannot continue.
Speaker 4 (11:00):
You.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
So again, in both situations, too, you have governments, you know,
using the law to effectuate the harms. So in the
segregation context, there were laws that required segregation, and in
the fossil fuel cont contexts and climate context there are
laws promoting fossil fuel. So both instances you have governments
(11:24):
using the laws to affirmatively harm plaintiffs. At its core,
there about protecting the constitutional rights of children and youth.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
This connection to Brown versus Board of Education wasn't just
philosophical nat and his team studied the decision and they
modeled that case after it.
Speaker 4 (11:43):
You know, Brown versus Board of Education.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
The Supreme Court decision gets a lot of the attention,
but underlying that decision were trial court decisions from several states,
and we went back and we read through those trial
court decisions. We looked at the evidence presented in trial courts,
and a lot of that evidence is the same type
of evidence that we ended up presenting in our trial.
(12:08):
And so, for example, in Brown versus Board of Education,
they presented evidence about the psychological harms to children from
going to segregated schools, and in the Montana trial, we
presented evidence both from the plaintiffs themselves but also through
a psychiatrist about the harms to children from having to
(12:31):
live with climate disasters and having to live where your
government is affirmatively promoting fossil fuels. We looked to constitutional precedent,
including the segregation context, to figure out how to build
the constitutional cases, what type of evidence we need to
present at trial, and looking to the segregation cases has
certainly been a part of that.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
In June twenty twenty three, our Children's Trust made their
case to the court.
Speaker 3 (12:57):
We're fucking the future. Weird fucking the future.
Speaker 5 (13:09):
This was the first ever constitutional climate trial in US history,
and as part of that trial, we had twelve of
the sixteen plaintiffs testify, and we also had ten experts
testifying court, which is really really incredible.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
Wow wow, now, Claire, you must were you nervous testifying?
What was it like being up there on the stand?
Speaker 1 (13:32):
Oh my gosh. Yeah, I mean I was nervous because
I knew how many people were listening and how important
it was. But I also wasn't nervous because or at
least not too nervous because I knew everything. I mean,
it's just the truth, right.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
Claire drew support from her fellow plaintiffs. They were kids
from across Montana and they all had a shared passion
for the environment.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
Everyone is so incredible. I got to know everyone at
trial very well, and yeah, everyone has really incredible stories.
One that stood out to me was the story of
sorry El. She's Native American and her indigenous community relies
a lot on oral traditions and storytelling, and a lot
of big ones are related to when snow falls and
(14:17):
stuff like that, and when there's less and less snow
falling that oral tradition can become lost.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
I want to pause on that because this was an
interesting point made in the trial, and it brings us
to a segment we like to call what the fuck
are you talking about?
Speaker 4 (14:36):
What the fuck are you talking about?
Speaker 2 (14:43):
Soil? Sandoval is a young woman who identifies as Salish
for Silish of indigenous peoples in North America who share
a common language Slish. When soil testified in the case,
she reminded the corp but the term also literally means
flesh and land. In other words, the Salish peoples and
(15:05):
their cultures are tied to the landscapes around them. For example,
Sorrel says. But the creation stories how people tell can
only be told when there is snow on the ground.
Here's a clip of us speaking about it.
Speaker 6 (15:19):
We have creation stories, coyote stories that are told during
the winter when snow is on the ground. And because
of climate change, that time that snow is on the
ground has become much much smaller, like a smaller interval,
So it's become harder and harder to tell these stories.
But it's really important because these stories they tell us
who we are as Salish people, and they tell us
(15:41):
our morals and our history and how we came upon
this land, and so being able to share that with
our community, with our children is very important, and not
being able to do that every year is really really hard.
Speaker 2 (15:56):
When I talked with Sabrina Albert about cultural arraga because
of obal heating, this is precisely what she was talking about.
Indigenous communities risk losing a crucial part of their identity
as the environment random changes. So that's what the fuck
we're talking about.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
What the fuck are you're talking about?
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Okay, back to Claren Nate. After youth plaintiffs presented their
case to the court, it was a stage turn and
their approach was pretty shocking.
Speaker 7 (16:30):
You know.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
One surprise, I guess you could say, came towards the
end of our case. So the way the trial work is,
we presented our case for one week, the plaintiffs and
our experts testified, and then the State of Montana had
an opportunity to present their case and they were given
a week also to present their case, and they ended
(16:54):
up taking about two hours to present their case, and
so we were a little bit surprised by how brief
their case was and they had basically no expert testimony
to contradict any of our scientists or any of our
experts that testified. They didn't question any of our plaintiff's testimony.
(17:17):
And the fact that the State of Montana didn't dispute
any of our testimony was a little bit of a surprise,
but I think it also underscores the strength of that testimony.
At this point in time, twenty twenty three, in the
midst of a climate crisis that gets worse every year,
there is no justification for fossil fuels any longer.
Speaker 7 (17:40):
You know.
Speaker 5 (17:40):
The state had an opportunity to present evidence in terms
of why it matters, why it matters for their economy,
why it matters for their citizens, and they had no
evidence to present.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Maybe the state didn't really take the lawsuit seriously. Maybe
they assumed that there was no way the kids could win. Well,
if that, well, it's the case. They were in for
a rude awakening. In August twenty twenty three, the Judge
Mato ruling.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
I'm Kylie Gibson, our top stories We come on the
air live at five.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
Montana judge sided with young environmental activists on Monday, and
first of its kind climate change trial.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Judge Kathy Seeley handed down her decision.
Speaker 4 (18:22):
They won.
Speaker 2 (18:23):
For those of you just rejoining us, we've been exploring
the landmark court case in Montana where young climate activists
challenged the state's promotion of fossil fuels and won. It
was a historic legal victory.
Speaker 5 (18:36):
This decision that we secured in August was the first
time in our nation's history where courts have reviewed the
constitutionality of government laws and conduct that promote fossil fuels,
and after conducting that review, determined that they were unconstitutional,
(18:57):
that it's unconstitutional for the state of mind Montana to
have laws on the book that promote fossil fuels, prohibit
the state from considering the impacts of fossil fuels, and
declared that those fossil fuel policies and conduct is violating
the constitutional rights of Montana's youth. We've never had a
decision like that in our nation's history, so it's a
(19:19):
really landmark decision.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Wow. So just to be clear, that's the first time
that the US has actually upheld a constitutional right to
be protected from climate change, that's right. Yeah, So what
does that mean for Montana moving forward? I mean, how
will the state have to change how it does business.
Speaker 5 (19:42):
Yeah, well, there's a few things that it means, and
the court's August order really spelled out what is unconstitutional.
And one thing that the Court made clear is that today,
right now, at the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions
and the atmosphere and the current levels of fossil fuel
extraction and production in Montana, that is unconstitutional. So what
(20:06):
that means is the state not only can't continue to
exacerbate their harms by further promoting fossil fuels, but they
actually need to start to transition away from fossil fuels
and eventually decarbonize their entire energy system. And we had
evidence at trial about how Montana can do that. By
twenty thirty five at the earliest, and no later than
(20:28):
twenty fifty, they can get one hundred percent of their
energy from renewable energy sources. So that's really the end
goal here.
Speaker 2 (20:35):
It's an ambitious goal, but of a moment it seems
totally possible. The bigger question now is whether our Children's
Trust can compete this success. The hope is to win
more court cases like Visa in other states.
Speaker 5 (20:49):
It was the first trial, the first win, but we
think there will be more. We're constantly working on new cases.
There's our federal case Juliana the United States, which has
a long procedural history, but the current status is we're
back on track and hoping to have a trial there
in twenty twenty four sometime.
Speaker 2 (21:12):
That case Nate is talking about, Juliana Versity United States.
It's a big deal because it's not just taking on
the state, it's taking on the federal government.
Speaker 5 (21:24):
The main difference from the Juliana case is that case
is based on the Federal Constitution, and so there are
claims in Juliana under the Fifth Amendment, which protects the
right to life, liberty, and property, and to ego protection
of law.
Speaker 2 (21:41):
If you'd like to learn more about it, Netflix has
an incredible documentary called You Feegov. It's an emotional rollercoaster.
Here's a clip from Betrayer.
Speaker 8 (21:52):
It's all been a matter of choices, and our feelings
of despair and dread and anxiety is all because of
choices that we had no participation in.
Speaker 5 (22:09):
And so it's based on the Federal Constitution, and it
goes after the federal government's policy of promoting fossil fuels
for at least the last fifty years, and we have
evidence in that case that the government has known of
the dangers of fossil fuels since the nineteen sixties and
(22:30):
they were warning about the catastrophic harms it would result
if we continue to this fossil fuel energy system. And
we've built this incredible record of how every government administration
since then has continued to promote fossil fuels and increase emissions.
And we're hoping that we'll get to trial sometime the
(22:51):
next year.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
I think one thing that really struck me watching the movie.
I think it's one of the plaintiffs, Nick Venner. Towards
the end of the film, the team will sitting together
and these reflecting on though we're still in not yet
at court, but maybe the path we've chidden will help
others even if the worst does come to pass.
Speaker 3 (23:10):
We can be the foundations for a lot of other
legal cases, and more importantly, we can show how the
current system is broken and the possible ways can be proved.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
It can be a beacon of hope to others.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
The stories of Juliana versus US and Hell versus Montana
are so inspiring. These young people from across the US
are standing up against their government and winning. They're taking
the lead on climate action instead of waiting for lawmakers
to act, although it doesn't mean that those lawmakers are
off the hook.
Speaker 5 (23:42):
So again, it speaks to that systemic solutions to climate
change that we need. We need all three branches of government,
and we need all levels of government too. We need
the federal government, we need the states, and we need
local governments all working together on this.
Speaker 2 (23:59):
And I to stand correct, the federal government's really fighting
this case. That's just surprised me because the Biden administration
seems to be so much more climate friendly than previous administrations.
Why doesn't the government want this to go to trial.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
Yeah, unfortunately, we're seeing a lot of the same litigation
tactics from the Biden administration as we saw under the
Trump administration, really fighting this case, trying to prevent the
case from going to trial, which is really disappointing. I
think the reason why they don't want the case to
(24:34):
go to trial. You know, in some ways you can
see what happens at trial in Montana that you put
the government in a position where they have to try
and justify their conduct. And you know, like the Biden administration,
a lot of the things. You hear them say, they
sound good, but when you get into court and you're
(24:55):
looking at their conduct, they don't always align. So they
might say they care about climlimate change, but their conduct
shows otherwise. And trial is an opportunity to kind of
peel back the layers of what they're saying in you know,
press statements and actually look at the conduct.
Speaker 4 (25:12):
And I think they don't want that to come to light.
Speaker 5 (25:15):
They don't want all the evidence to come out about
how they've known about the dangers of climate change for
decades and yet continue to promote fossil fuels. And that's
true across different administrations.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
Wherever Our Children's Trust wins their case against the federal government,
but work Claire and Native done in Montana has established
a terrifically important precedent, both in the US and around
the world.
Speaker 5 (25:40):
One thing that the judge made clear in Montana is
that you need a stable climate system in order to
enjoy your basic constitutional rights, including your right to safety,
health and happiness, your right to life, liberty, and property,
individual dignity, including as well as your right to a
(26:02):
clean and healthful environment. But that stable climate system is
necessary to the preservation of these other constitutional rights. So
the Montana wind is a really important precedent and roadmap,
I think, even in states that don't have an explicit
right to a clean and healthful environment.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
And do you think we'll ever get to the point
where burning fossil fuels is ruled unconstitutional?
Speaker 5 (26:24):
Yeah, I think we could get to that point. You know,
we were not advocating for an end of fossil fuels overnight.
You know, the experts that we work with and the
evidence that we've presented, you know, calls for a phase
out of fossil fuels, and so we understand that this
can't happen overnight, but you know, sometime within the next
(26:45):
you know, twenty five years or so, we have the
potential to have all of our energy coming from renewable
energy sources. And that's necessary in order to protect protect
our futures, protect the right of today's children, future generations.
I think it's important to remember that people don't need
(27:06):
fossil fuels. People need a way to turn on their lights,
to heat their homes, to power their transportation, and there's
other ways to do that without fossil fuels, and that
technology is available today. And just as we've done in
the past with other dangerous and harmful products. I think,
you know, we can move away from fossil fuels and
(27:28):
ultimately have them become illegal.
Speaker 3 (27:34):
We're fucking the future. We're fucking the future.
Speaker 2 (27:45):
So at this point you might be saying to yourself,
this is amazing. I wish I could sue my government
and help bring the fossil fuel era to an end. Well,
here's the good news. You can. Our Children's Trust is
constantly on the lookout for people willing to tell their
stories in court.
Speaker 5 (28:04):
So if anybody wants to get involved, there's a form
that you can fill out on our website for youth
in particular, a client intake form. So tell us where
you are, a little bit about why you're interested in
getting involved, and we'll get back to you. For anybody
else that wants to, you know, keep up to speed
(28:26):
on the case developments. You can go to our website
it's Our Children's Trust dot org, and you know, sign
up for our newsletter. We send regular case updates, and
you know, we work with an incredible network of supporters,
you know, scientists, medical experts, experts and renewable energy transition.
(28:48):
So there's ways for just about anybody to get involved,
So feel free to reach out and we'd love to
hear from you if you want to find a way
to support the cases.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
And for those people who are listening outside America, is
that something else that you can help with or you
can put people in contact or even help them start
a case of their own.
Speaker 5 (29:05):
This is definitely a global movement and we're working all
over the globe, so we you know, we've supported cases
and a number of different countries around the world and
before international courts, so you know, we were definitely love
to hear from people from from different countries as well.
Speaker 2 (29:24):
That's awesome. And just to be clear, do you have
to be young? I mean certain middle aged scientists is
out there interested in suing a government? Is that something
else that's possibility? I might have a plenty for you
if that's.
Speaker 4 (29:36):
The well, all of our plaintiffs are our youth.
Speaker 5 (29:41):
But there's always a way to get scientists and other
experts involved in supporting the cases.
Speaker 2 (29:47):
Okay, so maybe not all of us can join a
landmark legal case. But that said, it's important to remember
how ended up here. She got her start in climate activism.
Guess solar panels installed at a School, and that's the
kind of project anyone can get involved in.
Speaker 1 (30:05):
I think everyone has a different capacity for making change,
or for advocacy or pursuing their passion, And even if
it's something really small, like really small, I think that's
really important. And I mean we all have different capacities
for doing that, and you know, even at different times.
So as long as people are maximizing all that they
(30:27):
can do at this given time, I think that's all
you can really ask for.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
And that brings us to the last segment of the episode.
It's called what the Fuck Can I Do?
Speaker 3 (30:38):
What the fuck.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Can I do?
Speaker 2 (30:42):
As you probably know by now, this is a time
where we focus on one specific thing you can do
to help in the fight against global heating, And as always,
we're joined by our friend Maggie Baird. Maggie, what did
you think of a story of Claire and Nate in
our Children's Trust?
Speaker 7 (30:57):
When Clear School told her solar panels were too expensive?
Speaker 9 (31:01):
What does she do?
Speaker 7 (31:02):
She went out and raised the money herself. I really
admire how she just kept going whenever she met an obstacle,
and we can all learn from that example. The fossil
fuel companies spend millions of dollars on lawyers and lobbyists.
They understand how important it is to influence the law
(31:24):
and the lawmakers, and we need to even the playing field.
Speaker 2 (31:30):
So what the fuck can we do to level this
playing field?
Speaker 10 (31:35):
Well, in this case, the easy and obvious answer is
to support the work of Our Children's Trust. Unfortunately, they
have a lot of amazing ways to do that even
if you don't have money. For example, if you're a
lawyer like Nate, you can volunteer to provide pro bono
legal work. If you're a student like Claire, they have
great resources for you, like how to write a letter
(31:56):
to your local.
Speaker 7 (31:56):
Or school newspaper. They even have resources for teachers to
help them teach about these issues in the classroom. Just
go to Our Children's Trust dot org to learn how
you can help.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
Thanks, maggive 're just an incredible organization and making a
real difference.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
What fuck can I do?
Speaker 1 (32:18):
Oh fuck?
Speaker 2 (32:25):
Okay, that's all for this episode. Next time I'm Fucking
the Future, we'll be speaking to psychologist doctor Lisa Van Sustron.
She studies how a climate crisis is affecting our mental health.
Spoiler alert is affecting us terribly, but even that may
have a positive side effect.
Speaker 9 (32:45):
Oh, it's even desirable, frankly to be outraged and angry.
Many studies show that that is the prelude to taking action.
That it is protective to be angry and outraged. They
are healthy emotions to an unhealthy.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Condition until then. I'm Chris Turney signing off from Sydney, Australia.
Thanks for joining me and I'm Fucking the Future.
Speaker 3 (33:10):
Weird Fucking the Future.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
I'm Fucking the Future is produced by Imagine Audio and
Awfully Nice for iHeart Podcasts and hosted by me Chris Turney.
The show is written by Meredith Bryan. I'm Fucking the
Future is produced by Amber von Schassen and Renee Colvert.
Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Carral Welker and Nathan Chloke are
the executive producers from Imagine Audio. Jesse Burton and Katie
(33:41):
Hodges are the executive producers from Awfully Nice. Sound design
and mixing by Evan Arnette, original music by Lilly Hayden
and producing services by Peter McGuigan. Sam Swinnerton wrote our
theme and all those fun jingles. If you enjoyed this episode,
be sure to rate and review I'm fucking the future
on Apple podcasts or whether you get your podcasts
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.