Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

‘It’s all we have’: young climate activists on the state of politics around the world

News Feed
Sunday, June 2, 2024

This year elections are taking place across the globe, covering almost half of the population. It is also likely to be, yet again, the hottest year recorded as the climate crisis intensifies. The Guardian asked young climate activists around the world what they want from the elections and whether politics is working in the fight to halt global heating.Adélaïde Charlier, 23, BelgiumElection dates: 3 June to 9 JuneAdélaïde Charlier. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA“We’re scared, because we have worked really hard for the past five years as a movement to [focus attention on] the climate emergency,” says Adélaïde Charlier. The European Union elections are anticipated to see the parliament swing sharply towards rightwing parties that oppose climate action.She says the EU’s green policies, some of which have already been blocked or weakened, are a scapegoat for the wider social change she sees as necessary to beat the climate crisis, but which are opposed by conservative groups. “We are questioning the norm and so I believe that this is a reaction to our vision, rather than to what [the policies] actually mean in our daily life.”The EU is often cited as a world leader on climate action. “I really believe there are [EU] politicians who want to fight to be ambitious. But the reality is that we are failing on our 2030 emissions target and still have companies, such as TotalEnergies, who are creating huge fossil fuel projects across the world.”Political inertia is seen as the biggest barrier to climate action and must be overcome, says Charlier, a political and social science graduate now at the College of Europe in Bruges. “Throughout my activism, I have seen politics not working to face the climate emergency. But the definition of politics is to organise ourselves as a society and I still believe that reinforcing democracy is the best way for us to solve this problem together.”She says halting global heating is not a challenge of technology. “Climate change has to be solved through systemic change – we have to change everything. Can we do this on the political level? We simply have to.”“We are trying to take the role of engaged citizens and right now we are really trying to mobilise young people to go and vote, while knowing that it isn’t enough. We will go and vote and actively hope for the best. But for the rest, we will fight for it. The climate movement started with the right to protest and we will continue to use it, because it’s in our DNA.”Adriana Calderón, 21, MexicoElection date: 2 JuneIn the Mexico election, the candidates’ campaign materials alone are a signal of how seriously they are taking the environment, says 21-year-old youth climate activist Adriana Calderón.The country is littered with them, hanging from lampposts, bridges and telephone wires. One NGO estimates that, by the end of the election cycle, 25,000 tonnes of “electoral garbage” will have been discarded in Mexico City alone. All made of plastic. “We can know from there how it’s going to go,” Calderón tells the Guardian.Mexico’s nearly 100 million voters go to the polls on 2 June, in mass elections with thousands of seats at play. Seats in local, regional and state governments and the country’s national congress are all up for grabs, as well as the presidency itself.Adriana Calderón (right) embraces fellow climate activists during a protest at Cop28. Photograph: Peter Dejong/APIn the lead to replace Andrés Manuel López Obrador is Claudia Sheinbaum, his anointed successor. Much of his popularity was built on social projects funded by oil and gas exploitation. Environmentalists expect more of the same from Sheinbaum – ironically a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientist.“She’s going to try to stay on the same track as her current party, which is keep relying on Pemex [Mexico’s state-owned petroleum company],” says Calderón. “They also want to explore lithium expansion with her through Pemex also, because lithium was nationalised in Mexico last year.”As the Guardian speaks to Calderón, from her home in Morelos, just south of Mexico City, she is sweltering in the region’s third heatwave of the year. Much of the country is gripped by water shortages. Last year, the west coast, a popular holiday destination, was battered by Hurricane Otis, the first category five storm ever to hit the country.Other candidates, such as the second-placed Xóchitl Gálvez, have spoken more extensively on the environment, referring to increasing private investment in the energy transition and reversing state exploitation of oil and gas.A third candidate, Jorge Álvarez Máynez, has made more environmental promises but seems unlikely to win.That leaves Mexico’s green voters stuck between a rock and a hard place. Calderón says. “I’m still debating with my friends about this and with my colleagues on the climate sphere, because, you know, it’s either going back to the old party which has some very bad things for the country or is it staying with the current government that is not helping climate at all?Lauren MacDonald, 23, UKElection date: 4 July“We desperately need a change to a government that is actually ready to take urgent action to tackle the climate crisis,” says Lauren MacDonald, a campaigner with Uplift. “Currently, we have a [Conservative] government completely hell bent on expanding oil and gas production in the North Sea, despite the absolutely catastrophic impacts burning this oil would have on our planet.”She says ministers have failed to sufficiently drive up the home insulation and renewable energy that would cut both energy bills and carbon emissions: “Instead, they are making matters worse by handing out billions of pounds in tax breaks to [oil companies].”A critical issue is ensuring that workers currently in the fossil fuel industry can move to clean energy jobs, a so-called just transition, as seen in Germany and Spain, says MacDonald. She is from Scotland, the centre of the UK oil and gas industry.The climate justice campaigner Lauren MacDonald. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian“Those workers and unions are right to be asking the big questions,” she says. “I think people are ready for a transition that puts workers and communities before the profit-driven energy giants.”The opposition Labour party has a huge lead in opinion polls ahead of the general election and has pledged to end new oil and gas exploration. “Labour is talking a good talk, but we’ll be looking very keenly at how that will be implemented,” says MacDonald. “There will still be a huge role for the climate movement to play.”She sees no alternative to political action to halt global heating. “The UK political system is not exactly inspirational, but governments need to tackle the climate crisis, because we can’t trust the oil and gas companies. Who else is going to do it?”But, she says, “whatever happens at the election, climate is not an issue that’s going to be solved overnight. It is going to take every facet of society doing everything that we can to actually implement change.”skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionAlexia Leclercq, 24, USElection date: 5 NovemberAlexia Leclercq“To be quite honest, I don’t know what to do in the election,” says environmental activist Alexia Leclercq.“On the one hand, we know the Biden administration has had significantly better environmental policies, with real-life consequences on our communities,” she says. “For example, under the Trump administration, policy rollbacks had a huge impact on frontline communities trying to fight petrochemical industries that cause a lot of severe health issues, especially in the South.“But I think on the other hand, with the genocide going on in Palestine, a lot of folks that are in the climate movement don’t feel morally OK to vote for Biden. It’s definitely challenging.”Leclercq says no climate activists want another term for Trump, who withdrew the US from the global UN climate agreement, but she says Biden’s term has had flaws: “Biden campaigned on ending the lease of federal lands for oil drilling but his track record is having given out more permits than Trump.”She says the presidential election really matters for her home state of Texas, which is simultaneously the heart of the US oil and gas industry, severely affected by worsening heatwaves and floods, and also a major renewable energy state.“The environmental impacts are severe, especially on communities of colour, but the state government isn’t going to be progressive for the foreseeable future – the petrochemical industry has such a strong stronghold on our state,” she says. “So federal environmental policies are extremely important – it’s basically the only thing we have.”Leclercq says lobbying and corporate donations dominate the US political system: “We have a so-called democracy but the biggest influence on our government is industry. People are making billions of dollars from the status quo and keep intending to do so.”“We’re trying our best to build people power and put on pressure, and I think that’s all that we can do at the moment,” she says. But she sees some hopeful signs: “Everywhere I go, I see a growing concern for climate, including Republican-voting farm owners, people you don’t think stereotypically care about climate. They’re seeing the impacts of the climate crisis on their livelihood on their ranch.”Disha Ravi, 25, IndiaElection dates: 19 April to 1 JuneDisha Ravi. Photograph: Jyothy Karat/The GuardianWith 970 million eligible voters and an election season spanning months, India liked to style its elections as the world’s biggest exercise in democracy. But this year there was another complicating factor. The stifling heat.Politicians have collapsed on stage. News anchors have blacked out live on air. With turnout down across the country, politicians have called on officials to open polling stations at 6am so voters can avoid temperatures reaching, in some parts, 47C.“Despite all of this, I don’t think climate change has been an issue that the contesting political parties have been rallying about,” says Disha Ravi, a 25-year-old Fridays For Future activist from Bangalore.This year, most parties’ manifestoes at least mention climate breakdown. “So that is a huge change,” says Ravi. “But it’s not something that’s being spoken about. It’s not a voting issue as of yet.”The governing BJP party of prime minister Narendra Modi was the frontrunner, and appears, according to exit polls, to have won a commanding majority. They have “made a lot of promises”, says Ravi, including net zero by 2070 and a beefed-up clean air programme.But their record is less positive. New coal mines, deforestation projects and environmentally destructive infrastructure plans have fuelled a boom India has enjoyed under their rule – the benefits of which has overwhelmingly accrued to the ultra-wealthy. And despite big talk on the environment, their manifesto was light on concrete measures.“They have no mention of coal in the whole text,” says Ravi. India relies on coal for 45% of its power, according to the IEA.Other parties, including Congress, formerly India’s longtime party of government, made bolder pledges. “And they’ve also most importantly, addressed the fact that there have been landslides happening and there has been ice melting in the Himalayas,” says Ravi. “Congress importantly and CPI, they both mention that the deregulated environmental norms, especially the forest rights that have been deregulated by the BJP, are going to be undone.” But with only an outside chance of victory, such pledges are worthless.The BJP’s big idea, meanwhile, is “Life”. “L-I-F-E, which expands to lifestyle for environment,” is a plan to centre individual Indians’ personal responsibility for climate, says Ravi. “And I think that’s putting the onus on people whose per capita emission is so much, so incredibly marginal.”If the exit polls are correct, Modi will have won by a large margin which fills Ravi with despair.“I don’t think we can handle another year of living like this.”

With elections affecting half the world’s population this year, campaigners offer their view on the chances of real changeThis year elections are taking place across the globe, covering almost half of the population. It is also likely to be, yet again, the hottest year recorded as the climate crisis intensifies. The Guardian asked young climate activists around the world what they want from the elections and whether politics is working in the fight to halt global heating. Continue reading...

This year elections are taking place across the globe, covering almost half of the population. It is also likely to be, yet again, the hottest year recorded as the climate crisis intensifies. The Guardian asked young climate activists around the world what they want from the elections and whether politics is working in the fight to halt global heating.

Adélaïde Charlier, 23, Belgium

Election dates: 3 June to 9 June

Adélaïde Charlier. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet/EPA

“We’re scared, because we have worked really hard for the past five years as a movement to [focus attention on] the climate emergency,” says Adélaïde Charlier. The European Union elections are anticipated to see the parliament swing sharply towards rightwing parties that oppose climate action.

She says the EU’s green policies, some of which have already been blocked or weakened, are a scapegoat for the wider social change she sees as necessary to beat the climate crisis, but which are opposed by conservative groups. “We are questioning the norm and so I believe that this is a reaction to our vision, rather than to what [the policies] actually mean in our daily life.”

The EU is often cited as a world leader on climate action. “I really believe there are [EU] politicians who want to fight to be ambitious. But the reality is that we are failing on our 2030 emissions target and still have companies, such as TotalEnergies, who are creating huge fossil fuel projects across the world.”

Political inertia is seen as the biggest barrier to climate action and must be overcome, says Charlier, a political and social science graduate now at the College of Europe in Bruges. “Throughout my activism, I have seen politics not working to face the climate emergency. But the definition of politics is to organise ourselves as a society and I still believe that reinforcing democracy is the best way for us to solve this problem together.”

She says halting global heating is not a challenge of technology. “Climate change has to be solved through systemic change – we have to change everything. Can we do this on the political level? We simply have to.”

“We are trying to take the role of engaged citizens and right now we are really trying to mobilise young people to go and vote, while knowing that it isn’t enough. We will go and vote and actively hope for the best. But for the rest, we will fight for it. The climate movement started with the right to protest and we will continue to use it, because it’s in our DNA.”

Adriana Calderón, 21, Mexico

Election date: 2 June

In the Mexico election, the candidates’ campaign materials alone are a signal of how seriously they are taking the environment, says 21-year-old youth climate activist Adriana Calderón.

The country is littered with them, hanging from lampposts, bridges and telephone wires. One NGO estimates that, by the end of the election cycle, 25,000 tonnes of “electoral garbage” will have been discarded in Mexico City alone. All made of plastic. “We can know from there how it’s going to go,” Calderón tells the Guardian.

Mexico’s nearly 100 million voters go to the polls on 2 June, in mass elections with thousands of seats at play. Seats in local, regional and state governments and the country’s national congress are all up for grabs, as well as the presidency itself.

Adriana Calderón (right) embraces fellow climate activists during a protest at Cop28. Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP

In the lead to replace Andrés Manuel López Obrador is Claudia Sheinbaum, his anointed successor. Much of his popularity was built on social projects funded by oil and gas exploitation. Environmentalists expect more of the same from Sheinbaum – ironically a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientist.

“She’s going to try to stay on the same track as her current party, which is keep relying on Pemex [Mexico’s state-owned petroleum company],” says Calderón. “They also want to explore lithium expansion with her through Pemex also, because lithium was nationalised in Mexico last year.”

As the Guardian speaks to Calderón, from her home in Morelos, just south of Mexico City, she is sweltering in the region’s third heatwave of the year. Much of the country is gripped by water shortages. Last year, the west coast, a popular holiday destination, was battered by Hurricane Otis, the first category five storm ever to hit the country.

Other candidates, such as the second-placed Xóchitl Gálvez, have spoken more extensively on the environment, referring to increasing private investment in the energy transition and reversing state exploitation of oil and gas.

A third candidate, Jorge Álvarez Máynez, has made more environmental promises but seems unlikely to win.

That leaves Mexico’s green voters stuck between a rock and a hard place. Calderón says. “I’m still debating with my friends about this and with my colleagues on the climate sphere, because, you know, it’s either going back to the old party which has some very bad things for the country or is it staying with the current government that is not helping climate at all?

Lauren MacDonald, 23, UK

Election date: 4 July

“We desperately need a change to a government that is actually ready to take urgent action to tackle the climate crisis,” says Lauren MacDonald, a campaigner with Uplift. “Currently, we have a [Conservative] government completely hell bent on expanding oil and gas production in the North Sea, despite the absolutely catastrophic impacts burning this oil would have on our planet.”

She says ministers have failed to sufficiently drive up the home insulation and renewable energy that would cut both energy bills and carbon emissions: “Instead, they are making matters worse by handing out billions of pounds in tax breaks to [oil companies].”

A critical issue is ensuring that workers currently in the fossil fuel industry can move to clean energy jobs, a so-called just transition, as seen in Germany and Spain, says MacDonald. She is from Scotland, the centre of the UK oil and gas industry.

The climate justice campaigner Lauren MacDonald. Photograph: Linda Nylind/The Guardian

“Those workers and unions are right to be asking the big questions,” she says. “I think people are ready for a transition that puts workers and communities before the profit-driven energy giants.”

The opposition Labour party has a huge lead in opinion polls ahead of the general election and has pledged to end new oil and gas exploration. “Labour is talking a good talk, but we’ll be looking very keenly at how that will be implemented,” says MacDonald. “There will still be a huge role for the climate movement to play.”

She sees no alternative to political action to halt global heating. “The UK political system is not exactly inspirational, but governments need to tackle the climate crisis, because we can’t trust the oil and gas companies. Who else is going to do it?”

But, she says, “whatever happens at the election, climate is not an issue that’s going to be solved overnight. It is going to take every facet of society doing everything that we can to actually implement change.”

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Alexia Leclercq, 24, US

Election date: 5 November

Alexia Leclercq

“To be quite honest, I don’t know what to do in the election,” says environmental activist Alexia Leclercq.

“On the one hand, we know the Biden administration has had significantly better environmental policies, with real-life consequences on our communities,” she says. “For example, under the Trump administration, policy rollbacks had a huge impact on frontline communities trying to fight petrochemical industries that cause a lot of severe health issues, especially in the South.

“But I think on the other hand, with the genocide going on in Palestine, a lot of folks that are in the climate movement don’t feel morally OK to vote for Biden. It’s definitely challenging.”

Leclercq says no climate activists want another term for Trump, who withdrew the US from the global UN climate agreement, but she says Biden’s term has had flaws: “Biden campaigned on ending the lease of federal lands for oil drilling but his track record is having given out more permits than Trump.”

She says the presidential election really matters for her home state of Texas, which is simultaneously the heart of the US oil and gas industry, severely affected by worsening heatwaves and floods, and also a major renewable energy state.

“The environmental impacts are severe, especially on communities of colour, but the state government isn’t going to be progressive for the foreseeable future – the petrochemical industry has such a strong stronghold on our state,” she says. “So federal environmental policies are extremely important – it’s basically the only thing we have.”

Leclercq says lobbying and corporate donations dominate the US political system: “We have a so-called democracy but the biggest influence on our government is industry. People are making billions of dollars from the status quo and keep intending to do so.”

“We’re trying our best to build people power and put on pressure, and I think that’s all that we can do at the moment,” she says. But she sees some hopeful signs: “Everywhere I go, I see a growing concern for climate, including Republican-voting farm owners, people you don’t think stereotypically care about climate. They’re seeing the impacts of the climate crisis on their livelihood on their ranch.”

Disha Ravi, 25, India

Election dates: 19 April to 1 June

Disha Ravi. Photograph: Jyothy Karat/The Guardian

With 970 million eligible voters and an election season spanning months, India liked to style its elections as the world’s biggest exercise in democracy. But this year there was another complicating factor. The stifling heat.

Politicians have collapsed on stage. News anchors have blacked out live on air. With turnout down across the country, politicians have called on officials to open polling stations at 6am so voters can avoid temperatures reaching, in some parts, 47C.

“Despite all of this, I don’t think climate change has been an issue that the contesting political parties have been rallying about,” says Disha Ravi, a 25-year-old Fridays For Future activist from Bangalore.

This year, most parties’ manifestoes at least mention climate breakdown. “So that is a huge change,” says Ravi. “But it’s not something that’s being spoken about. It’s not a voting issue as of yet.”

The governing BJP party of prime minister Narendra Modi was the frontrunner, and appears, according to exit polls, to have won a commanding majority. They have “made a lot of promises”, says Ravi, including net zero by 2070 and a beefed-up clean air programme.

But their record is less positive. New coal mines, deforestation projects and environmentally destructive infrastructure plans have fuelled a boom India has enjoyed under their rule – the benefits of which has overwhelmingly accrued to the ultra-wealthy. And despite big talk on the environment, their manifesto was light on concrete measures.

“They have no mention of coal in the whole text,” says Ravi. India relies on coal for 45% of its power, according to the IEA.

Other parties, including Congress, formerly India’s longtime party of government, made bolder pledges. “And they’ve also most importantly, addressed the fact that there have been landslides happening and there has been ice melting in the Himalayas,” says Ravi. “Congress importantly and CPI, they both mention that the deregulated environmental norms, especially the forest rights that have been deregulated by the BJP, are going to be undone.” But with only an outside chance of victory, such pledges are worthless.

The BJP’s big idea, meanwhile, is “Life”. “L-I-F-E, which expands to lifestyle for environment,” is a plan to centre individual Indians’ personal responsibility for climate, says Ravi. “And I think that’s putting the onus on people whose per capita emission is so much, so incredibly marginal.”

If the exit polls are correct, Modi will have won by a large margin which fills Ravi with despair.

“I don’t think we can handle another year of living like this.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Sloths, Salmon, and Autocrats: Our Most-Read Articles of the Year

Solutions to our environmental ills abound in these popular Revelator articles from 2024. The post Sloths, Salmon, and Autocrats: Our Most-Read Articles of the Year appeared first on The Revelator.

Environmental news stories tend to slip through the cracks during election years — and this year we saw that like none other. Still, this year brought more readers than ever to The Revelator. People wanted to know about the environmental threats the planet faces — and how to stop them. Solutions stories were particularly popular this year, a sign that people are done with putting up with the status quo. Maintaining that energy and drive will be difficult but essential in 2025. Here’s a list of some of our most popular articles of 2024. They cover people helping sloths and other endangered species, studying our blind spots, building environmentally conscious communities, looking at the threats of autocracy, and fighting climate change. They should all continue to offer inspiration and guidance in the troublesome year(s) ahead. Adapt, Move or Die? Plants and Animals Face New Pressures in a Warming World All the Plants We Cannot See Antarctica’s Looming Threat Anthrax in Zimbabwe: Caused by Oppression, Worsened by Climate Change Are Botanists Endangered? Building a Flock: How an Unlikely Birder Found Activism — and Community — in Nature Burning Trees: As the Biomass Industry Grows, Its Carbon Emissions Go Uncounted Coastal Restoration: Recycled Shells and Millions of Larvae — A Recipe for Renewed Oyster Reefs Conservation Works — and Science Just Proved It Environmental Change, Written in the DNA of Birds In France, One Group Seeks to Do the Unthinkable: Unite the Climate Movement The Monumental Effort to Replant the Klamath River Dam Reservoirs Out-of-Control Wildlife Trade Is Shackling a Key Climate Solution Rock and Roll Botany: An Endangered Plant Named After Legendary Guitarist Jimi Hendrix Salmon Have Returned Above the Klamath River Dams. Now What? The Shocking Truth About Sloths Six Lessons From the World’s Deadliest Environmental Disaster Titicaca in Crisis: Climate Change Is Drying Up the Biggest Lake in the Andes Water and Cooperation Breathe New Life Into Klamath Basin Wildlife Refuges What 70 Celebrity Tortoises Can Teach Us About Conservation Stories We’re thankful for our readers this past year. We look forward to bringing you more essential reporting in the months ahead. The post Sloths, Salmon, and Autocrats: Our Most-Read Articles of the Year appeared first on The Revelator.

We used Google’s AI to analyze 188 predictions of what’s in store for tech in 2025

At this time of year investment banks, advertising agencies, and seemingly every other business on the planet share their predictions on what is likely to unfold in the next 12 months. Journalists’ inboxes sag under the weight of unsolicited predictions for the year ahead. But separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to forecasts of the year ahead can be tricky. Use a technology that has come into its own in 2024—generative artificial intelligence—may help. NotebookLM, Google’s note-taking and research assistant, uses its Gemini large language model to synthesize information from a vast number of sources. More importantly for journalism, which tries to avoid errors, it also cites where it gets its information from. Fast Company fed 188 reports looking ahead to 2025 from a variety of industries into NotebookLM (because the tool has a limit of 50 sources per notebook, we were forced to divide it into four separate ones), then asked the chatbot to help pick out patterns in the information. What follows is a human-summarized version of AI’s analysis. AI will remain everywhere Artificial intelligence has changed the way we live and work in the last two years, and going into 2025, many of those 188 reports are in agreement that AI will continue to have a huge impact. The technology will be more actively integrated into business operations across sectors, a significant number agreed. “AI was the big story of 2023 and 2024, and that has not changed. In fact, AI adoption will likely begin to accelerate in 2025 as energy and commodities companies gain confidence in use cases that promote optimization and innovation,” wrote Publicis Sapient, a digital consultancy, in its 2025 outlook. But AI’s use will be deployed across industries. AI is predicted to shift from a “nice-to-have” to a “must-have” tool for B2B marketers, with adoption increasing for content creation, personalization, predictive analytics, and campaign optimization,” wrote EssenceMediacom, a GroupM marketing agency, in its look ahead. Banks like Barclays believe AI will play a significant role in financial markets, with investors deploying it to try to get ahead. CB Insights believes AI-powered weather prediction could transform the insurance industry in 2025. But others sound a note of caution: in its 2025 trends analysis, Zendesk highlights the risk of so-called “shadow AI” use by employees without their employers’ permission, noting in some industries such shadow use has grown 250%, causing security risks. S&P Global suggests that AI, particularly generative AI, is driving a shift towards focusing on product and service quality improvements and revenue growth—but others worry about the need to ethically develop AI, and to not assume that its training data is obtained officially. Sustainability challenges AI adoption Many reports said 2025 will see consumers and businesses prioritize sustainability—a challenge given the ubiquitous use of AI. Nearly two-thirds of organizations are concerned about the impact of AI and machine learning projects on their energy use and carbon footprint, according to S&P Global. Juniper Research highlights the rise of sustainable fintech as a differentiator for banks, with consumers seeking out financial institutions aligned with their values around climate change and social impact. Similar trends are seen in sectors like the travel industry, where it’s forecast that travelers will pay more for products and services that support biodiversity. Overall, business process management firm WNS Global Services points out that sustainability is no longer a niche concern, but an expectation from the mainstream. Consumers expect brands to lead in addressing environmental issues. Some 61% of US consumers believe that, according to Mintel, a market analyst. Some sectors are doing better than others: biotech ingredients are becoming more common in beauty products, with companies developing in the lab ingredients that replicate nature without depleting resources. Glycoproteins derived from lobsters are gaining traction, Mintel says, offering beauty benefits while supporting marine conservation. The world will remain weird One thing that many forecasts agree on is that they can’t agree on things. Everything from economic fluctuations, geopolitical shifts and the climate crisis are likely to vex us in 2025. The landscape will be volatile, with wildly divergent economic forecasts. UK bank NatWest anticipates market volatility stemming from shifts towards fiscal activism, terminal rates, and global protectionism. Nielsen, which predicts consumer behavior, believes normalized inflation levels and lower interest rates could improve consumer confidence and get us spending… but quickly adds: “However, as we have seen in frantic shifts of the recent past, these pockets of recovery can be fragile—and could evaporate as quickly as they sprout.” There’s also a split over interest rate trends worldwide. While multiple sources anticipate rate reductions, there’s uncertainty about the speed and extent of these cuts. AXA worries social tensions and movements could be a big risk to future growth, alongside climate change and geopolitical instability, while bank Allianz cautions readers about potential “disinflation hiccups” and raises concerns about the potential of geopolitical instability and cybersecurity problems in the year ahead. But consumers are more optimistic than pessimistic, says customer experience platform Disqo, with a particular Millennials, Black consumers, and “very liberal” individuals more eager for the year ahead than others. What will China do? Chinese influence will continue to rise, the reports agreed. Foresight Factory highlighted the growing popularity of Chinese brands such as Shein and Temu internationally continuing into 2025. Chinese culture could also become more influential, with trends like the celebration of Lunar New Year and the embrace of Chinese fashion and C-beauty becoming more common outside China. But China’s potential strength abroad is countered by worries of weakness at home. Geopolitical tensions, and the likelihood of tariff wars between the US and China, could impact global trade and integration, many worried. Multiple sources, from the IMF to Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan agree that China’s economic growth is slowing. Julius Bär suggested that China has entered a “balance sheet recession”, with a highly indebted private sector focused on saving rather than spending or investing. Chinese policymakers will take action to try and stimulate the economy, the forecasts believe. “There is a clear realization that exports can no longer be a reliable growth engine given the headwinds from trade tensions and tariff risks under the new US administration,” writes HSBC. Goldman Sachs estimates that US tariffs could subtract almost 0.7 percentage points from China’s growth in 2025. Invesco also highlights recent stimulus efforts, particularly in the housing market, where mortgage rate cuts aim to encourage borrowing and spending. Gen Z rules all—but is cautious “Gen Z are the ultimate entrepreneurs,” write financial consulting firm Mercer in their HR Trends for 2025 report. Youngsters cherish financial security and companies that have a demonstrated positive impact on society. Gen Z’s hope for financial security has been dubbed “muted desire” by Italian market researchers Nextatlas, and suggests a shift in consumption patterns towards more mindful spending habits. TikTok is Gen Z’s most used app, says DCDX, a Gen Z-specific research agency—which could spell trouble if it is banned in January in the United States. One tech tool they’re cautious about? ChatGPT and its ilk. Alongside other generations Gen Z is becoming more discerning about the limitations of generative AI, according to analysts Euromonitor International. Key among Gen Z’s concerns are cautions about the potential for AI-generated misinformation and its impact on job security. The oddest predictions More niche outlooks for 2025 include Bacardi’s prediction that loud nightclubs will be supplanted by more relaxed “listening bars”, where venues prioritize good music, high-quality sound systems and a laid-back experience. Futurist Jim Carroll believes cash will “have all but disappeared” by 2025, though whether “tofu tourists” (identified as an odd trend for 2025 by Lemongrass, a travel PR agency, and describing people who seek out vegan and plant-based travel experiences) will be able to pay for their egg- and dairy-free purchases using Apple Pay or Venmo in more remote areas of the world is yet to be known. They may well dig into their wallets and bring out physical cash for ugly cakes or pickle-flavored foods, both of which are pegged by social network Pinterest as key trends for next year.

At this time of year investment banks, advertising agencies, and seemingly every other business on the planet share their predictions on what is likely to unfold in the next 12 months. Journalists’ inboxes sag under the weight of unsolicited predictions for the year ahead. But separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to forecasts of the year ahead can be tricky. Use a technology that has come into its own in 2024—generative artificial intelligence—may help. NotebookLM, Google’s note-taking and research assistant, uses its Gemini large language model to synthesize information from a vast number of sources. More importantly for journalism, which tries to avoid errors, it also cites where it gets its information from. Fast Company fed 188 reports looking ahead to 2025 from a variety of industries into NotebookLM (because the tool has a limit of 50 sources per notebook, we were forced to divide it into four separate ones), then asked the chatbot to help pick out patterns in the information. What follows is a human-summarized version of AI’s analysis. AI will remain everywhere Artificial intelligence has changed the way we live and work in the last two years, and going into 2025, many of those 188 reports are in agreement that AI will continue to have a huge impact. The technology will be more actively integrated into business operations across sectors, a significant number agreed. “AI was the big story of 2023 and 2024, and that has not changed. In fact, AI adoption will likely begin to accelerate in 2025 as energy and commodities companies gain confidence in use cases that promote optimization and innovation,” wrote Publicis Sapient, a digital consultancy, in its 2025 outlook. But AI’s use will be deployed across industries. AI is predicted to shift from a “nice-to-have” to a “must-have” tool for B2B marketers, with adoption increasing for content creation, personalization, predictive analytics, and campaign optimization,” wrote EssenceMediacom, a GroupM marketing agency, in its look ahead. Banks like Barclays believe AI will play a significant role in financial markets, with investors deploying it to try to get ahead. CB Insights believes AI-powered weather prediction could transform the insurance industry in 2025. But others sound a note of caution: in its 2025 trends analysis, Zendesk highlights the risk of so-called “shadow AI” use by employees without their employers’ permission, noting in some industries such shadow use has grown 250%, causing security risks. S&P Global suggests that AI, particularly generative AI, is driving a shift towards focusing on product and service quality improvements and revenue growth—but others worry about the need to ethically develop AI, and to not assume that its training data is obtained officially. Sustainability challenges AI adoption Many reports said 2025 will see consumers and businesses prioritize sustainability—a challenge given the ubiquitous use of AI. Nearly two-thirds of organizations are concerned about the impact of AI and machine learning projects on their energy use and carbon footprint, according to S&P Global. Juniper Research highlights the rise of sustainable fintech as a differentiator for banks, with consumers seeking out financial institutions aligned with their values around climate change and social impact. Similar trends are seen in sectors like the travel industry, where it’s forecast that travelers will pay more for products and services that support biodiversity. Overall, business process management firm WNS Global Services points out that sustainability is no longer a niche concern, but an expectation from the mainstream. Consumers expect brands to lead in addressing environmental issues. Some 61% of US consumers believe that, according to Mintel, a market analyst. Some sectors are doing better than others: biotech ingredients are becoming more common in beauty products, with companies developing in the lab ingredients that replicate nature without depleting resources. Glycoproteins derived from lobsters are gaining traction, Mintel says, offering beauty benefits while supporting marine conservation. The world will remain weird One thing that many forecasts agree on is that they can’t agree on things. Everything from economic fluctuations, geopolitical shifts and the climate crisis are likely to vex us in 2025. The landscape will be volatile, with wildly divergent economic forecasts. UK bank NatWest anticipates market volatility stemming from shifts towards fiscal activism, terminal rates, and global protectionism. Nielsen, which predicts consumer behavior, believes normalized inflation levels and lower interest rates could improve consumer confidence and get us spending… but quickly adds: “However, as we have seen in frantic shifts of the recent past, these pockets of recovery can be fragile—and could evaporate as quickly as they sprout.” There’s also a split over interest rate trends worldwide. While multiple sources anticipate rate reductions, there’s uncertainty about the speed and extent of these cuts. AXA worries social tensions and movements could be a big risk to future growth, alongside climate change and geopolitical instability, while bank Allianz cautions readers about potential “disinflation hiccups” and raises concerns about the potential of geopolitical instability and cybersecurity problems in the year ahead. But consumers are more optimistic than pessimistic, says customer experience platform Disqo, with a particular Millennials, Black consumers, and “very liberal” individuals more eager for the year ahead than others. What will China do? Chinese influence will continue to rise, the reports agreed. Foresight Factory highlighted the growing popularity of Chinese brands such as Shein and Temu internationally continuing into 2025. Chinese culture could also become more influential, with trends like the celebration of Lunar New Year and the embrace of Chinese fashion and C-beauty becoming more common outside China. But China’s potential strength abroad is countered by worries of weakness at home. Geopolitical tensions, and the likelihood of tariff wars between the US and China, could impact global trade and integration, many worried. Multiple sources, from the IMF to Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan agree that China’s economic growth is slowing. Julius Bär suggested that China has entered a “balance sheet recession”, with a highly indebted private sector focused on saving rather than spending or investing. Chinese policymakers will take action to try and stimulate the economy, the forecasts believe. “There is a clear realization that exports can no longer be a reliable growth engine given the headwinds from trade tensions and tariff risks under the new US administration,” writes HSBC. Goldman Sachs estimates that US tariffs could subtract almost 0.7 percentage points from China’s growth in 2025. Invesco also highlights recent stimulus efforts, particularly in the housing market, where mortgage rate cuts aim to encourage borrowing and spending. Gen Z rules all—but is cautious “Gen Z are the ultimate entrepreneurs,” write financial consulting firm Mercer in their HR Trends for 2025 report. Youngsters cherish financial security and companies that have a demonstrated positive impact on society. Gen Z’s hope for financial security has been dubbed “muted desire” by Italian market researchers Nextatlas, and suggests a shift in consumption patterns towards more mindful spending habits. TikTok is Gen Z’s most used app, says DCDX, a Gen Z-specific research agency—which could spell trouble if it is banned in January in the United States. One tech tool they’re cautious about? ChatGPT and its ilk. Alongside other generations Gen Z is becoming more discerning about the limitations of generative AI, according to analysts Euromonitor International. Key among Gen Z’s concerns are cautions about the potential for AI-generated misinformation and its impact on job security. The oddest predictions More niche outlooks for 2025 include Bacardi’s prediction that loud nightclubs will be supplanted by more relaxed “listening bars”, where venues prioritize good music, high-quality sound systems and a laid-back experience. Futurist Jim Carroll believes cash will “have all but disappeared” by 2025, though whether “tofu tourists” (identified as an odd trend for 2025 by Lemongrass, a travel PR agency, and describing people who seek out vegan and plant-based travel experiences) will be able to pay for their egg- and dairy-free purchases using Apple Pay or Venmo in more remote areas of the world is yet to be known. They may well dig into their wallets and bring out physical cash for ugly cakes or pickle-flavored foods, both of which are pegged by social network Pinterest as key trends for next year.

How a fantasy oil train may help the Supreme Court gut a major environmental law

Even if the railway promoters win, here's why the train won’t get built.

This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The state of Utah has come up with its share of boondoggles over the years, but one of the more enduring is the Uinta Basin Railway. The proposed 88-mile rail line would link the oil fields of the remote Uinta Basin region of eastern Utah to national rail lines so that up to 350,000 barrels of waxy crude oil could be transported to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The railway would allow oil companies to quadruple production in the basin and would be the biggest rail infrastructure project the U.S. has seen since the 1970s. But in all likelihood, the Uinta Basin Railway will never get built. The Uinta Basin is hemmed in by the soaring peaks of the Wasatch Mountains to the west and the Uinta Mountains to the north. Running an oil train through the mountains would be both dangerous and exorbitantly expensive, especially as the world is trying to scale back the use of fossil fuels. That’s why the railway’s indefatigable promoters, including the state’s congressional delegation, will probably fail to get the train on the tracks. However, they have succeeded in one thing: providing an activist Supreme Court the opportunity to take a whack at the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, one of the nation’s oldest environmental laws. Enacted in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental and public health effects of such things as highway construction, oil drilling, and pipeline construction on public land. Big polluting industries, particularly oil and gas companies, hate NEPA for giving the public a vehicle to obstruct dirty development projects. They’ve been trying to undermine it for years, including during the last Trump administration. Last week, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, former Solicitor General Paul Clement channeled those corporate complaints when he told the justices that NEPA “is designed to inform government decision-making, not paralyze it.” The statute, he argued, had become a “roadblock,” obstructing the railway and other worthy infrastructure projects through excessive environmental analysis. “NEPA is adding a juicy litigation target for project opponents,” Clement told the court.   But NEPA has almost nothing to do with why the Uinta Basin Railway won’t get built. “The court is doing the dirty work for all of these industries that are interested in changing our environmental laws,” Sam Sankar, a senior vice president at Earthjustice, said in a press briefing on the case, noting that Congress already had streamlined the NEPA process last year. Earthjustice is representing environmental groups that are parties in the case. “The fact that the court took this case means that it’s just issuing policy decisions from the bench, not deciding cases.” The idea of building a railway from the Uinta Basin to refineries in Salt Lake City or elsewhere has been kicking around for more than 25 years. As I explained in 2022, the basin is home to Utah’s largest, though still modest, oil and gas fields: Locked inside the basin’s sandstone layers are anywhere between 50 and 321 billion barrels of conventional oil, plus an estimated 14 to 15 billion barrels of tar sands, the largest such reserves in the U.S. The basin also lies atop a massive geological marvel known as the Green River Formation that stretches into Colorado and Wyoming and contains an estimated 3 trillion barrels of oil shale. In 2012, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported to Congress that if even half of the formation’s unconventional oil was recoverable, it would “be equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.” Wildcat speculators, big oil companies, and state officials alike have been salivating over the Uinta Basin’s rich oil deposits for years, yet they’ve never been able to fully exploit them. The oil in the basin is a waxy crude that must be heated to 115 degrees to remain liquid, a problem that ruled out an earlier attempt to build a pipeline. The Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, a quasi-governmental organization consisting of the major oil-, gas-, and coal-producing counties in Utah, has received $28 million in public funding to plan and promote the railway as a way around this obstacle. The coalition is one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court case. “We don’t have a freeway into the Uinta Basin,” Mike McKee, the coalition’s former executive director, told me back in 2022. “It’s just that we have high mountains around us, so it’s been challenging.” Of course, there is no major highway from the basin for the same reason that the railway has never been built: The current two-lane road from Salt Lake City crests a peak that’s almost 10,000 feet above sea level, which is too high for a train to go over. So the current railway plan calls for tunneling through the mountain. But going through it may be just as treacherous as going over it. Inside the unstable mountain rock are pockets of explosive methane and other gases, not all of which have been mapped. None of this deterred the Seven County coalition from notifying the federal Surface Transportation Board, or STB, in 2019 that it intended to apply for a permit for the railway. The following year, the board started the environmental review process, including taking comments from the public. In December 2021, the STB found that the railway’s transportation merits outweighed its significant environmental effects. It approved the railway, despite noting that the hazards from tunneling “could potentially cause injury or death,” both in the railway’s construction and operation. It recommended that the coalition conduct some geoengineering studies, which it had not done. Among the many issues the board failed to consider when it approved the project was the impact of the additional 18 miles of oil train cars that the railway would add to the Union Pacific line going through Colorado, including Eagle County, home to the ski town of Vail. Along with creating significant risks of wildfires, the additional trains would run within feet of the Colorado River, where the possibility of regular oil spills could threaten the drinking water for 40 million people. The deficiencies in the STB’s environmental impact statement prompted environmentalists to ask the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the STB decision, as did Eagle County. Read Next Can you tell if a ‘bomb train’ is coming to your town? It’s complicated. John McCracken In August 2023, the appeals court invalidated the STB’s approval of the railway. Among the many problems it found was the STB’s failure to assess “serious concerns about financial viability in determining the transportation merits of a project.” A 2018 feasibility study commissioned by the coalition itself had estimated that the railway would cost at least $5 billion to construct, need 3,000 workers, take at least 10 years to complete, and require government bond funding because the private sector had little incentive to invest in the railway.   As Justin Mikulka, a research fellow who studies the finances of energy transition at the New Consensus think tank, told me in 2022, “If there were money to be made, someone would have built this railroad 20 years ago.” The appeals court was also skeptical that the railroad had a future: “Given the record evidence identified by petitioners — including the 2018 feasibility study — there is similar reason to doubt the financial viability of the railway.” Indeed, the plan approved by the STB claims the railway construction would cost a mere $2 billion, to be paid for by a private investor. So far, however, only public money has gone into the project. The private investor, which is also one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court case, is a firm called DHIP Group. When I wrote about the railway in 2022, DHIP’s website showed involvement in only two projects: the Uinta Basin Railway and the Louisiana Plaquemines oil export terminal, which had been canceled in 2021. Today, the long-dead Louisiana project is still listed on its website, but the firm has added a New York state self-storage facility to its portfolio — a concrete box that’s a far cry from a complex, multibillion-dollar infrastructure project. DHIP’s website also touts its sponsorship of the Integrated Rail and Resources Acquisition Corporation, a new company it took public in 2021 with a $230 million IPO. But in a March 2024 SEC filing, the company disclosed that the New York Stock Exchange had threatened to delist it, because in the three years since the IPO, it has done … nothing. (The company has managed to hang on.) Environmental concerns notwithstanding, DHIP seems unlikely to come up with $2 billion to build the railway. A spokesperson for DHIP did not respond to a request for comment. Even if environmentalists had never filed suit to block it, the railway probably would have died under the weight of its own unfeasibility. Instead, the Seven County coalition appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appeals court had erred when it required the STB to study the local effects of oil wells and refineries that it didn’t have the authority to regulate. In July, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case. Now the court stands poised to issue a decision with much broader threats to environmental regulation by considering only one question raised by the lower court: Does Supreme Court precedent limit a NEPA analysis strictly to environmental issues that an agency regulates, or does the law allow agencies to weigh the wider impacts of a project, such as air pollution or water contamination, that may be regulated by other agencies? During oral arguments in the case, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed frustration with Clement’s suggestion that the court prevent NEPA reviews from considering impacts that were “remote in time and geography.” She suggested that such an interpretation went against the heart of the law, noting, for instance, that if a federal agency allowed a car to go to market, “it could go a thousand miles and 40 states away and blow up. That’s a reasonably foreseeable consequence that is remote in geography and time.” A federal agency, she implied, should absolutely consider such dangers. “You want absolute rules that make no sense,” Sotomayor told Clement. Sotomayor seemed to be alone, however, in her defense of NEPA, and the majority of the other seven justices seemed inclined to require at least some limits to the statute. (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case because his former patron, Denver-based billionaire Philip Anschutz, had a potential financial interest in the outcome of the case. His oil and gas company, Anschutz Exploration Corporation, has federal drilling leases in Utah and elsewhere and also filed an amicus brief in the case.) While the justices seemed inclined to hamstring NEPA, such a ruling would be a hollow victory for the Utah railway promoters that brought the case. When the appeals court voided the STB decision approving the railway, it cited at least six other reasons it was unlawful beyond the NEPA issue. None of those will be affected by a Supreme Court decision in the Seven County coalition case. The STB permit will still be void, and the oil train will not get out of the station. There will be winners in the case, however, most likely the big fossil fuel and other companies whose operations would benefit from less environmental scrutiny, should the court issue a decision reining in NEPA. For instance, the case could lead the court to strictly limit the extent of environmental harms that must be considered in future infrastructure projects, meaning that the public would have a much harder time forcing the government to consider the health and environmental effects of oil and gas wells and pipelines before approving them. “This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin Railway,” Earthjustice’s Sankar said. “The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to obvious health consequences of government decisions.” The court will issue a decision by June next year. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How a fantasy oil train may help the Supreme Court gut a major environmental law on Dec 22, 2024.

Texas regulators shelve an electricity market reform proposal they say does too little to shore up grid

The Public Utility Commission found that the performance credit mechanism, a financial tool the Legislature capped at $1 billion, would only marginally improve reliability of the state power grid.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news. The Public Utility Commission on Thursday shelved the performance credit mechanism, a controversial idea that was designed to bring more power onto the state grid and increase its reliability. “I don’t believe that the PCM, as currently designed, will provide the reliability benefits needed in the ERCOT market,” PUC Chair Thomas Gleeson wrote in a Dec. 18 memo that the rest of the commission endorsed on Thursday. The performance credit mechanism represented a complex change to the way Texas’ electricity market works. The idea would have required electricity providers — the companies, co-ops and municipal utilities that sell power to people — to pay more to generators that committed to having electricity available when grid conditions get tight. Electricity providers then could have passed those extra costs onto consumers. The goal was to incentivize companies to build more of what are known as dispatchable power facilities. Dispatchable power sources, such as natural gas, nuclear and coal-fired plants, can turn on any time and fill in the gaps in supply when demand for power is high — unlike renewable sources that depend on sun and wind. Amid concerns that the tool would lead to skyrocketing electricity bills without guaranteeing greater reliability, the Legislature last year imposed a $1 billion cap on how much it could cost consumers. That cap, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages the state grid, was the parameter that “most significantly limits the effectiveness of the PCM.” ERCOT and an independent market monitor found this year that with the $1 billion limit, the proposal would have only minimally improved the grid’s reliability, estimating that it would lead to an extra 780 megawatts of generation — far short of the 10,000 megawatts needed to meet the state’s reliability standard. The most important Texas news,sent weekday mornings. A coalition of consumer advocates, oil and gas lobbyists and environmental activists had demanded the cost limit to protect consumers from higher electricity bills. Companies that operate gas-fueled power plants had opposed a cap, saying it would reduce or kill the effectiveness of the credits. The PUC on Thursday pointed to other mechanisms that commissioners said would do more to increase reliability. “While reconsideration of the PCM may be appropriate in the future,” Gleeson wrote in his memo, “at this point I believe our collective resources are best directed toward implementing other market design initiatives.” Those measures include tools to streamline how ERCOT procures power and a new ancillary services program that can offer power to smooth out uncertainty on the grid. In August, the PUC adopted a grid reliability standard that said a major power outage due to inadequate power supply could take place no more than once every decade on average; any outage must last less than 12 hours; and the amount of power lost during any hour of an outage could not exceed the level that could be safely rotated through rolling blackouts. Beginning in 2026, ERCOT must conduct an assessment every three years of whether the system is meeting the reliability standard — an opportunity, the PUC said, to evaluate the effects of changes implemented by the agency and the Legislature since Winter Storm Uri in 2021 and to consider any other measures that may be needed.

Montana Supreme Court upholds youth climate activists' victory

Montana’s Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a 2023 ruling siding with young climate activists who asserted the state government violated their right to a healthy environment. In August 2023, Montana’s First Judicial District sided with the 16 plaintiffs, who cited a state constitutional provision guaranteeing “a clean and healthful environment” to argue the state violated...

Montana’s Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a 2023 ruling siding with young climate activists who asserted the state government violated their right to a healthy environment. In August 2023, Montana’s First Judicial District sided with the 16 plaintiffs, who cited a state constitutional provision guaranteeing “a clean and healthful environment” to argue the state violated that right with a law that barred weighing climate impacts during the approval process for energy projects. The state supreme court upheld the finding in a 6-1 ruling Wednesday, writing, “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.” Justice Jim Rice, who was appointed by former Gov. Judy Martz (R), was the only dissent. The court rejected an argument from Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) that state-level efforts will have no effect without action from the rest of the world, comparing that argument to “the old ad populum fallacy: ‘If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?’” The plaintiffs’ attorney, Melissa Hornbein of the Western Environmental Law Center, hailed the decision as “a monumental moment” for young people and the state. “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,” she said. Knudsen’s office criticized the decision in a statement, with Montana Justice Department Press Secretary Chase Scheuer calling the ruling “disappointing, but not surprising.” “The majority of the state Supreme Court justices yet again ruled in favor of their ideologically aligned allies and ignored the fact that Montana has no power to impact the climate,” Scheuer said. Montana Supreme Court justices are directly elected to eight-year terms but midterm replacements are appointed by the governor. Two of Montana’s governor-appointed judges were named by Gov. Steve Bullock (D), while Rice is the only justice appointed by a Republican.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.