Welcome back to another Movement Monday in which we discuss all things climate. I typically offer a quick action you can take on behalf of a frontline community experiencing the worst effects of the climate crisis, but today am content to share two pieces of good news.

On December 26, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Climate Change Superfund Act. From the press release from Senator Liz Krueger who sponsored the bill in the Senate, this legislation “…will use the polluter-pays model exemplified by existing federal and state superfund laws to collect $75 billion over twenty-five years for climate change adaptation from the parties most responsible for causing the climate crisis – big oil and gas companies.”

This is very good news because, as is stated in the press release, New York is the 10th largest economy in the world. The final paragraph reads:

The Climate Change Superfund Act isn’t just necessary—it’s popular. According to a poll from Data for Progress, a whopping 89% of New Yorkers support fossil fuel companies covering at least some of the cost for climate damages. Another poll found that 70% of New York voters support the Climate Change Superfund Act, including majorities across party lines. Nationally, 89% of Democratic voters support the Climate Superfund approach, and 53% of New York voters are more likely to vote for candidates who support passing a Climate Superfund bill. 

Go here to read the press release in its entirety.

The second piece of good news is that on December 18, the Montana Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 16 young people who in 2020 filed a lawsuit (Held v. Montana), charging the state with violating their constitutional rights by favoring fossil fuel development over the health and well-being of the citizenry. The Supreme Court decision upheld an earlier lower court decision, 6-1. It was the first state supreme court decision of this kind.

Supporters gather to greet plaintiffs as they arrive for the nation’s first youth climate change trial at Montana’s First Judicial District Court on June 12, 2023 in Helena, Montana
(William Campbell / Getty Images)

Per an EcoWatch article, Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah are set to hear similar cases (as are Pakistan, Uganda, Colombia, Australia and New Zealand).

Hatch Magazine also wrote about Montana’s Supreme Court decision, and I want to highlight this paragraph [emphasis mine]:

In its 6-1 majority ruling upholding the plaintiffs’ case, the court used sometimes strikingly affirmative language. Regarding whether Montana’s constitutional responsibility to guarantee its residents a “clean and healthful environment” includes the state including climate-related impacts in its decision making, the court was unequivocal, stating that the “plaintiffs showed at trial—without dispute—that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future. The State and its agencies have previously acknowledged such current and future impacts to the Montana environment stemming from climate change, many of which can already be increasingly seen today.3 Plaintiffs showed that climate change does impact the clear, unpolluted air of the Bob Marshall wilderness; it does impact the availability of clear water and clear air in the Bull Mountains; and it does exacerbate the wildfire stench in Missoula, along with the rest of the State.”

We’ve seen how difficult it is to force climate action at the federal level**, so these wins on the state level are very encouraging. It’s possible to use our local might to push for meaningful action!

Thank you for reading this far. Solidarity! ✊🏾

**I’ve written before about Juliana v. United States, the constitutional lawsuit brought by young people, here and here. Go here for an updated  timeline from Our Children’s Trust, one of the legal teams representing the 21 young people in that case.