Eight young Alaskans are suing the state government, alleging that a massive new fossil fuel project violates their constitutional rights.
This case highlights the conflict between economic development and environmental protection in Alaska, the fastest-warming state in the U.S. The plaintiffs argue that the $38.7 billion Alaska LNG Project, proposed by the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbate climate change, infringing on their rights to a healthy environment.
The Alaska LNG Project
The Alaska LNG Project is a monumental endeavor aimed at exporting gas to Asia. It includes constructing a gas treatment plant on the North Slope, an 800-mile pipeline, and a liquefaction plant on the Kenai Peninsula.
According to the lawsuit, this project would nearly triple Alaska’s greenhouse gas emissions for decades. Scientists have consistently warned that continued fossil fuel extraction must be curtailed to secure a livable future.
Constitutional Violations
The plaintiffs, aged 11 to 22, argue that the project violates two sections of the Alaska constitution: the right to protected natural resources for current and future generations, and the right to be free from government infringement on life, liberty, and property. They assert that young people are uniquely vulnerable to climate change impacts, which threaten their health, cultural traditions, and access to natural resources.
Cultural and Environmental Impacts
Summer Sagoonick, the lead plaintiff and a member of the Iñupiaq tribe, expressed concerns about the project’s impact on her culture and environment. “The acceleration of climate change that this project will bring will affect what the land provides and brings to my culture,” she said. The village of Unalakleet, where Sagoonick resides, faces threats from climate-induced flooding, rapid permafrost thawing, and severe coastal erosion.
Government Response
Alaska’s Attorney General, Treg Taylor, dismissed the lawsuit as a misguided effort to block natural gas development. He argued that Alaska is experiencing a gas shortage and claimed that the state could develop gas more environmentally responsibly than other regions.
Legal Context and Precedent
The lawsuit was filed by Our Children’s Trust, a non-profit law firm known for its groundbreaking climate litigation. Last year, they secured a significant victory for young Montanans, where the court required state regulators to consider the climate crisis before approving fossil fuel projects. This case in Alaska is unique because it challenges a specific project rather than overall fossil fuel policies.
Broader Implications
The lawsuit’s broader implications extend beyond Alaska. Earlier this year, Montana’s Supreme Court upheld a decision requiring climate considerations in fossil fuel permitting. Our Children’s Trust has similar ongoing cases in Hawaii, Florida, Utah, and Virginia, and an amended federal complaint on behalf of California youth.
Real-Life Impact and Statistics
Alaska’s climate is warming twice as fast as the global average, with significant impacts on its ecosystems and communities. The state has experienced an increase in average annual temperatures of 3.6°F since the mid-20th century. Wildfires have become more frequent and severe, with the 2020 fire season being one of the worst on record, burning over 2.5 million acres. Melting permafrost is causing infrastructure damage estimated at over $1 billion per year.
Native Alaskan communities, such as the plaintiffs in this case, are particularly vulnerable. They rely on subsistence hunting and fishing, which are increasingly threatened by climate change. Fish populations, including salmon, are declining due to warmer waters and changing ecosystems. These changes not only affect food security but also disrupt cultural practices that have been passed down for generations.
Conclusion
The outcome of this lawsuit could set a significant precedent for future climate litigation. The youth plaintiffs hope to secure a ruling that fossil fuel infrastructure violates constitutional rights, paving the way for broader climate justice. As climate impacts intensify, cases like this underscore the urgent need for legal frameworks that protect the environment and future generations.
Credit: The Guardian US
