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