Letters to the editor June 25

Montana climate trial

The 16 young Montanans suing to protect their right to a clean and healthful environment might be the world’s last best chance to save the planet from the climate crisis. The Legislature and the executive branches have failed to do their duty, and now it is up to a judge to make them do the right thing for us all.

Montana’s Constitution is unique. In Article II, under the Declaration of Rights, it lists a “right to a clean and healthful environment” first, before all the other rights. Later, Article IX goes beyond that to describe a duty we all share: “The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.”

The 16 young Montanans and their supporters have made a powerful case. The evidence is overwhelming, their cause is just, and the law is clear. Critics of the children’s case argue that the amount of Montana’s greenhouse emissions are too small to matter and that nothing we do will make a difference, but if a Montana judge rules that the state has a duty to maintain and improve the environment for the children, other judges around the world might follow her precedent.

That’s why this case matters.

The right to a clean and healthful environment is implicit in the right to life. The Montana Constitution only makes explicit what is already a given in every other right. If we all die in a polluted land, the rights to speech, assembly, and religion matter little. We all need a healthy environment to live, to enjoy freedom in.

This is just common sense, implicit in every notion of freedom, and judges everywhere could start following what we have made explicit in Montana.

— Wade Sikorski, Willard

Food programs and tax cuts

I wonder if your readers were as astonished as I was at your article on June 2 noting that the state had declined $10 million in federal funds for food programs for children, due to “administrative” costs. Are you kidding me?

I get that with economies of scale and a limited population in our vast state results in challenges in covering costs for otherwise “free” money; however, maybe the governor and Legislature could have deferred some of the tax cuts they happily enacted to instead provide meals for needy children?

I haven’t the faintest idea if the “administrative” costs excuse was actually “cover” for some other, ideologically based thinking, but, frankly, that dog don’t hunt. Especially since the tax cuts diminished a surplus that instead have pushed more costs to the local level, causing schools to ask voters to enact tax levies and county commissioners to consider property tax increases.

I can’t wait to pose a question or two on this subject at some future candidates’ night when these folks stand for election next year. Provided they show up, of course. No more free rides, my friends. Accountability is a you-know-what, right?

— Scott Plotkin, Kalispell