During Friday’s CNN This Morning, the network covered 16 young people suing the state of Montana over climate change. Chief climate correspondent Bill Weir portrayed the young people as the heroes of a movie where they attempt to fend off the Republican-controlled government, despite admitting that the lawsuit would not change anything even if the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit merely singled out Montana Republicans and blamed them for the existence of fossil fuel. CNN called it “fascinating” and “such a great story.”
The case hinged on the following clause in the Montana state constitution: “The state shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.” Nate Bellinger, senior staff attorney for Our Children’s Trust claimed that fossil fuel-induced climate change forfeited the young people’s right to a healthful environment.
Weir dramatized the plight of the young people and villainized Republicans for not banning fossil fuels:
In big sky country, it's a story fit for a big screen. On one side, 16 young people from ranches, reservations, and boom towns across Montana, ranging in age from five to 22. On the other side, the Republican-led state of Montana, which lost a three-year fight to keep this case out of court but is still determined to let fossil fuels keep flowing, despite the warnings from science that burning them will only melt more glaciers, blacken more skies, and ravage more rivers.
He went on to exaggerate the effect of Montana’s fossil fuels on the environment and portrayed Republicans as willfully letting nature decay. He never mentioned inflation and the economic fallout Americans would face if the government banned fossil fuels.
Despite enthusiastic coverage of the lawsuit, He admitted that the trial would not better the environment or change policies. It was merely a public complaint against Montana for a global issue. “Judge Cathy Sealy doesn't have the power to shut down any extraction or usage of fossil fuels,” he admitted, “but a judgment for the young plaintiffs could set a powerful precedent for Our Children's Trust.” 
That precedent would double as anti-Republican and pro-government regulation propaganda.
Weir even seemed to taunt the Republicans:
I don't think that the Republicans have a chance to take that out of the constitution right now, but we'll see what kind of a defense they put up, whether they counter the science of climate change in all, whether they say, you know, the economy is just too dependent on this to do anything about it.
Instead of objectively reporting both sides of the trial, Weir asserted the only rebuttal to the young people’s suit was to reject the science or remove the clause. He continued, “But its - really is a tipping point as people try to use the courts to get some action because legislations have done nothing.”
The plaintiffs, along with their staunch advocate Weir, did not offer legislators a recommendation or solution. They merely complained about a global issue, blamed Montana Republicans, and sued the government to make a point. They attempted to prove that Montana violated constitutional rights and hurt their mental health because they, along with every other living being, lived in a world with climate change.
While Judge Cathy Sealy may still be deliberating on the case, CNN’s team already reached and reported their own verdict – in favor of Our Children’s Trust.
Subway sponsored CNN’s anti-Republican Coverage.
The Transcript is below, click "expand" to read.
CNN This Morning
6/16/2023
8:37 AM Eastern
ERICA HILL: Montana is emerging as a key climate battleground state right now. A fight there is brewing between the state itself and a group of kids who have now sued the state. And they’re arguing that its support of fossil fuels is in direct violation of their constitutional rights. CNN’s chief climate correspondent Bill Weir has more.
[Cuts to video]
BILL WEIR: In big sky country, it's a story fit for a big screen. On one side, 16 young people from ranches, reservations, and boom towns across Montana, ranging in age from five to 22. On the other side, the Republican-led state of Montana, which lost a three-year fight to keep this case out of court but is still determined to let fossil fuels keep flowing, despite the warnings from science that burning them will only melt more glaciers, blacken more skies, and ravage more rivers.
LAWYER: Based on the evidence you have seen, there is a point of harm for these youth plaintiffs. Harm now and accelerating harm in the future.
WEIR: And the whole plot pivots around the Montana constitution that promises the state shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.
NATE BELLINGER: They have filed seven different motions to try to have the case dismissed. None of those motions have been successful.
WEIR: While the first week included scientists testifying to the data –
PROSECUTOR: Dr. Stanford has fishing for Bull Trout in native Cutthroat Trout already been impacted by climate change?
DR. JACK STANFORD: Oh, very definitely.
WEIR: The emotion has come from plaintiffs laying out their stories of loss.
SARIEL SANDOVAL: You know, it's really scary seeing what you care for disappear right in front of your eyes.
BELLINGER: How does make you feel knowing that the state is not considering climate impacts in its permitting decisions?
SANDOVAL: Makes me feel like the state is prioritizing profits over people. Because they know that there is visible harm coming to the land and to the people, and they are still choosing to make money instead of care for Montanans.
WEIR: While the state's attorneys briefly question the plaintiff's ability to connect her mental health to the climate, they have mainly saved cross-examination for the experts.
PROSECUTOR: If the judge ordered that we stopped using fossil fuels in Montana, would that get us to the point where these plaintiffs are no longer being harmed in your opinion?
DR. STEVEN W. RUNNING: We can't tell in advance because what has been shown in history over and over and over again is when a significant social movement is needed, it often is started by one or two or three people.
RIKKI HELD: I know that climate change is a global issue, but Montanans need to take responsibility for our part in that, and we can’t just blow it off and not think about risk.
WEIR: Judge Cathy Sealy doesn't have the power to shut down any extraction or usage of fossil fuels, but a judgment for the young plaintiffs could set a powerful precedent for Our Children's Trust.
BELLINGER: I think we are really at a tipping point right now.
WEIR: The Oregon non-profit is also helping kids in Hawaii sue their state over tailpipe emissions. And they’ve revived Julianna v. United States, the federal case that could end up before the Supreme Court.
CLAIRE VLASES: I just recently graduated high school, but I think it's something everyone knows is that we have three branches of government for a reason. The judicial branch is there to keep a check on the other two branches, and that's what we are doing here.
WEIR: Claire Vlases grew up in beautiful booming Bozeman and, like the other kids too young to vote, she sees the courts as the only place for someone like her to have a voice.
VLASES: It's hard knowing the power to make a change is in the hands of other people, especially my government, and I hope that as a young person we might actually have a chance to make a difference and for my, for my life and for my kids' life, you know, not all hope may be lost.
[Cuts back to live]
WEIR: Yea.
POPPY HARLOW: It’s always the kids.
WEIR: Always the kids.
HARLOW: It's, it’s always the kids, right? In all of the state, like they have the highest stakes here.
WEIR: Exactly.
HARLOW: So I just said to you in the middle of the piece how can they lose given that language in the constitution is so explicit, but?
WEIR: Well, that language was put in in 1972. It's a fascinating convention where a hundred grassroots people, no politicians, came and rewrote the state's constitution. At the time that the evidence of environmental destruction was so great. They put that in. I don't think that the Republicans have a chance to take that out of the constitution right now, but we'll see what kind of a defense they put up, whether they counter the science of climate change in all, whether they say, you know, the economy is just too dependent on this to do anything about it. But its - really is a tipping point as people try to use the courts to get some action because legislations have done nothing.
HILL: It’s so interesting.
HARLOW: It’s fascinating, such great story. Bill, thank you.
WEIR: You bet.
