[renewiltord]

AFAICT without being an expert:

1. The state constitution says it's got to provide a clean environment

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/Constitution/IX/1.htm (so short I won't provide a quote)

2. The Montana Environmental Policy Act in Montana has some exceptions written into it and in subsequent revisions

https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/Environmental/2021-m...

3. One of these exceptions is that it limits the scope of environmental review for some energy projects (Cmd-F "energy" in above link)

4. I didn't read the case docs so I don't know which particular limit or if something else was it violated the constitutional thing but something did according to the court.

I don't know what the things are that the folks are fighting against, but if it is one of those "everything must be environmentally reviewed" things that's used to stop windmills and nuclear plants from being built, then I'm on the other side of the kids. The article is that it's over fossil fuels, which sounds like the right target, but if someone else has details then please do share.

[qingcharles]

A statute can't generally over-rule or limit a constitutional provision, though. Statutes generally expand upon rights given in constitutions.

[phpisthebest]

>> things that's used to stop windmills

Why do you hate whales and birds? The environmental impact if windmills are pretty large

>The article is that it's over fossil fuels, which sounds like the right target,

MT has the largest coal reserves. Pretty sure that is target. The problem here like most of these things is the unintended consequences of these policies. Often they are only concerned with stopping the thing they believe is evil with no workable solutions as to what will replace it at all level, either from the energy demand stand point, economic fall out to the local economy, or the various other problems that some with regulatory change instead of market driven or natural change.

[sophacles]

> The environmental impact if windmills are pretty large.

Do you have any citation for this? Any source that hasn't been debunked thoroughly? Has anyone not currently under multiple indictments for fraud ever suggested this in a serious way?

[phpisthebest]

Is Michael Shellenberger currently under "multiple indictments for fraud" please cite those...

[sophacles]

I don't know who that is. Presumably someone you are using as an example of someone who seriously suggests that we should burn more coal to prevent windmills, possibly by some argument about windmills killing birds and whales... an argument that ignores all the birds, whales, humans, and other animals killed by coal.

[phpisthebest]

>I don't know who that is.

Nuclear Energy Advocate / Activist and author... Also has a new Documentary coming out about Wales and Wind.

>Presumably someone you are using as an example of someone who seriously suggests that we should burn more coal

Unlikely, he supports Nuclear as the resolution for Fossil Fuels.

[the_gastropod]

First, Shellenberger is not a scientist of any sort. He has a degree in Peace and Global Studies and another in Anthropology. Reading his writing, it's abundantly clear he doesn't understand the science he's writing about (as a hot tip for life: anyone claiming to have a tidy solution to highly complex and uncertain problems is both: probably wrong, and probably selling you something)

Like "Intelligent Design" practitioners, Shellenberger's work is not science. He starts with his conclusion in mind, and cherry-picks supporting evidence for it. And many of the things he cherry-picks are clearly in bad-faith and deliberately misleading. One such example, in his book "Apocalypse Never", he argues that climate change has no impact on fires, stating: "As for the Amazon, The New York Times reported, correctly, that the ‘fires were not caused by climate change.’" He cites this NYTimes article: [1] The entire point of the paragraph he snipped this quote from was the exact opposite. Here's the full quote:

> These fires were not caused by climate change. They were, by and large, set by humans. However, climate change can make fires worse. Fires can burn hotter and spread more quickly under warmer and drier conditions.

He's also just dead wrong about many things in this book. One easy example, he claims that "climate change so far has not resulted in increases in the frequency or intensity of many types of extreme weather". This is comically misinformed. There are countless peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the causal relationship. [2] [3] [4]

Shellenberger has a bad habit of either misunderstanding or purposefully misrepresents actual working scientists, while weirdly masquerading as if he is equally qualified. [5]

Is this criminal fraud? No. But Shellenberger seems like a grifter, selling the Breitbart crowd contrarian takes that they want to hear.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/23/world/americas/amazon-fir...

[2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1920849117

[3] https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/101/3/E303/345043/...

[4] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-can-no...

[5] https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/article-by-michael-sh...

[triceratops]

If a windmill can chop up whales the freaking largest mammal on the planet, I wouldn't dare stand in its way. Let us submit to our windmill overlords forthwith.

[phpisthebest]

Sound... not chop up. The sound is the problem

[triceratops]

Got it. So then you agree that we should start by banning luxury yachts, cruise ships, and fishing fleets? And then on to cutting offshore oil and gas drilling, or at least putting extremely strict sound limits on it.

Energy is crucial to our civilization, so cutting energy generation should be last on the list of priorities. If you really care about helping the whales, I'd suggest starting somewhere else first. Write your Congressperson to sponsor a bill eliminating all super yachts right now.

[renewiltord]

Well, birds poop on me, so that's a good reason. It's war with those bastards.