I appreciate the recent letter to the Beacon highlighting the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Held v. State, which affirmed Montanans’ constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment, including a stable climate system. The letter suggested that “the Supreme Court created a new right to a stable climate system and declared that the State of Montana must guarantee this right to all Montanans — even though more than 99% of the carbon emissions they say are causing climate change come from outside Montana.”
It is worth remembering that the Montana Supreme Court’s role is not to invent rights based on personal preference, but to interpret and apply the laws of our state constitution. In this case, the Court examined how the constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthful environment applies to the facts presented, and ruled accordingly. Whether one agrees with the outcome or not, the decision reflects the Court’s responsibility to resolve conflicts within the framework of Montana’s laws, not to legislate from the bench. That judicial principle reminds us that the Court’s role is to apply Montana’s Constitution faithfully. In this case, our constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthful environment has been interpreted to include climate stability, which underscores the importance of considering the practical risks Montana faces today Flathead Lake, for example, has struggled to reach full pool in recent summers. In 2023 and again in 2025, low water levels disrupted recreation, hurt local businesses, and complicated irrigation for nearby farms. While no single year proves a trend, repeated shortages suggest that changing climate patterns could make such conditions more common.
Another area worth considering is the cost of property insurance. Montana homeowners have seen premiums rise sharply, with average costs climbing to nearly $3,800 per year in 2024 — well above the national average. Much of this increase is tied to wildfire risk and severe weather. Even if Montana’s share of global emissions is small, insurers are already pricing in climate-related risks, and property owners are feeling the financial impact.
Farmers and ranchers, too, are seeing climate-related challenges. Recent flash droughts, grasshopper infestations, and extreme hail have damaged crops and strained livestock operations. The River Road East Fire in 2023 burned 17,000 acres of ranchland, and producers in Missoula reported garlic “literally cooking” in overheated soils. These examples don’t guarantee future outcomes, but they illustrate how climate variability is already affecting livelihoods.
Taken together, these recent effects — low lake levels, rising insurance costs, and agricultural stress—highlight risks worth considering. Just as an individual voter knows with near certainty that their single ballot will not decide an election, yet chooses not to sit out and instead joins the collective that makes the decisive decision, Montana faces a similar choice. Our state’s share of global emissions may be small in absolute terms, but because we produce and burn significant amounts of coal, our per‑capita emissions are outsized relative to many other states. When combined with the actions of other states and nations, Montana’s efforts to mitigate climate change become part of the collective work that matters. The decisive choice before Montanans is whether to stand aside and let others determine the future, or to step forward and help shape the climate we all depend on. And true to our character, Montanans pitch in by nature — the question now is whether we will do so in the fight for a stable climate.
Henry Stewart
Bigfork