Technologies

Gen Z Prevailed in a Climate Lawsuit. More Youth Trials Are on the Way

Young people fighting for a better future for the planet are beginning to discover that the law is on their side.

For two weeks in June, a Montana court heard from young people – 16 in total, ages 5 to 22 – and their families about the toll of extreme weather events caused by climate change on their health and other aspects of their lives.

They argued that the state of Montana had violated their constitutional rights to, among other things, a clean and healthful environment, by supporting a fossil fuel energy system and by failing to take action that would protect them against the harmful effects of climate change.

On Monday, after a two-month wait, they learned that they’d won.

In a landmark victory, Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in their favor, concluding in a 103-page decision that they’d proved significant injuries had occurred. Not only that, the decision in Held v. Montana said the case, launched in 2020, had shown that the Montana state government had been instrumental in causing these injuries and would be required to make changes to its conduct.

It’s a ruling that will likely have repercussions well beyond Montana’s state lines.

“We set the precedent not only for the United States, but for the world,” said 18-year-old Kian Tanner from Bigfork, Montana, in a statement.

It’s also another sign that Generation Z is finding new and forceful ways to make itself heard on climate issues. Gen Zers are using legal systems in the US and other countries to try to stem the damage being done by the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting greenhouse gases and to hold the responsible parties accountable.

Most young people are encouraged to avoid brushes with the legal system, but the plaintiffs in Montana, underpinned by legal team Our Children’s Trust, join a growing number of youth from around the world who are wielding the law to pressure governments into taking more radical action on climate.

Now that we’re regularly facing the impacts of human-caused climate change in our daily lives in the form of extreme weather events or breathing in smoke from forest fires, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed or powerless. But there are things we can do: recycle, cut down on car use, install solar panels and heat pumps, vote eco-friendly and support environmental campaigns. And litigate.

The Montana plaintiffs didn’t seek financial damages for the harms they’ve suffered due to climate change. Instead they wanted to change the current system – they sued over a law that prohibited the state from considering greenhouse gas emissions or climate change impacts when greenlighting fossil fuel projects.

“Young people are turning to court because they know that this isn’t about just the consumer choices that people make,” said Andrea Rodgers, senior litigation attorney at Our Children’s Trust, in an interview ahead of the verdict being issued. “This is about how we get energy, how we transfer goods, those kinds of systemic issues that governments really control.”

Monday’s decision is a game-changer, said Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and executive director with Our Children’s Trust, in a statement. “More rulings like this will certainly come.”

Here’s a look at some other prominent climate cases being driven by young people.

Kids vs. climate change

Way back in 2015, 21 young people filed a constitutional climate lawsuit against the federal government. They asserted that through government actions that cause climate change, it has violated the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

Known as Juliana v. The United States, the federal case (also backed by Our Children’s Trust) was delayed by opposition from the Department of Justice under the Trump administration. Then, in June of this year, US District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled that it can proceed to trial. Now the organizations supporting the young plaintiffs are asking the Biden administration not to delay the trial further.

“It’s long past time for the Department of Justice to end its opposition to the Juliana plaintiffs and youth climate justice,” said Zanagee Artis, founder and executive director of youth activist nonprofit Zero Hour. “Young Americans have the right to be heard by our nation’s courts, the branch of our government that has a duty to protect our constitutional right to a livable planet.”

For many years, courts were reluctant to hear and decide the merits of climate cases, said Rodgers. Just getting the Montana case to trial was a victory that signified “a real moment of change,” she added, that’s paved the way for trials to proceed both in the Juliana case and in another case that Our Children’s Trust is pursuing, in Hawaii.

Rodgers says the courts are now opening their doors to American youth because of the increasingly real and visceral impacts of climate change. “That does make a difference,” she said, “because it takes the injuries that the youth are experiencing … from being hypothetical to being real and tangible.”

Youth victories in and out of court

In the climate justice movement, young activists are key players in moving the needle on key issues, through protests, direct action and dialogues with politicians. But the combination of youth activism and legal action can be an especially potent mix.

In 2018, Indigenous climate activist and environmental engineer Yurshell Rodriguez, now 28, was one of 25 young people who successfully sued the government of Colombia for failing to reduce deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, thereby threatening their fundamental rights to a healthy environment, life, health, food and water. The lawsuit resulted in an intergenerational pact that meant the government had to consult with the plaintiffs, the affected communities and scientists to reduce deforestation in the Amazon.

“Activism sends a powerful message that the younger generation refuses to inherit a world plagued by environmental degradation and the consequences of inaction,” Rodriguez said in an interview. “But through lawsuits, we are raising awareness, mobilizing public support and challenging the status quo, compelling governments to prioritize sustainable policies, reduce carbon emissions and protect the planet for future generations.”

Young plaintiffs shouldn’t get discouraged if a judge rules against them, Rodriguez says – the awareness and public support a legal case can drive is also a positive result, which can in turn force the government’s hand.

In Europe in 2021, the People’s Climate Case, brought by 10 families including their children, was ultimately ruled inadmissible on a technicality by the Court of Justice of the European Union, but it spurred the EU to ramp up its fossil fuel reduction targets. “It’s all about kind of embarrassing the government into action,” said British human rights barrister Marc Willers.

There are always benefits to having young people tell their stories in open court alongside expert evidence and see states fail to defend their inaction, says Rodgers. “Even though there have been defeats and decisions that we consider to be unfavorable, it is still moving the ball forward.”

How to sue your government

No matter your age, it can be a “daunting prospect” to take on the state, even more so a fossil fuel giant that will throw everything it has at fighting your claim and attempting to discredit you, said Willers, who’s worked on a number of high-profile international environmental cases.

To bring a legal case, you’re going to need the support of sympathetic lawyers and an NGO or grassroots climate organization that knows the system and provides the necessary support, Willers said. He also advises forming a group, as the young people in the Montana and Juliana cases did, rather than going it alone, and finding a legal team that’s willing to spend time getting to understand your perspective.

In his work, Willers said, he’s found there are “real benefits to having young people involved in the litigation.” Children and youth can bring energy, positivity and unique viewpoints into the courtroom as representations of the future generations inheriting the Earth. They’re also often more knowledgeable about the issues than people give them credit for.

Lawyers and youth conferring in a Montana courtroom

Young people often have a sophisticated understanding of the science combined with a sense of frustration and impatience, said Rodgers. She cited the example of a climate activist who achieved worldwide renown in her teens. “Greta Thunberg probably expresses that most prominently, but she’s simply expressing the feelings of youth universally, in my experience.”

Mounting global pressure

There’s no sign of youth-led climate litigation slowing down, what with legal wins in Colombia and Montana; the first lawsuit involving individuals versus the federal government underway in the US; and a major trial due to kick off in France this September based on six children and young adults suing 32 European countries.

As in the Montana case, the plaintiffs in that European case, all from Portugal, aren’t seeking financial damages – even though they’re entitled to. Instead, they’re pursuing a legally binding decision from the European Court of Human Rights that would require the countries to take action against climate change.

The more these cases occur around the world, the more they build momentum and make the voices of youth harder to ignore, said Rodgers. “What’s really cool is seeing these young people inspiring one another and building off of one another’s work.”

Such cases are strengthened by the fast-evolving field of attribution science, which can increasingly draw direct lines between specific emissions and the harms they’re causing. Lawsuits lodged by individuals against companies or institutions will only continue to get stronger and more frequent as our understanding of the science of climate change improves, Willers predicts.

When taking the legal route, progress can be painfully slow, as the young people in the now 8-year-old Juliana case have discovered. Some of them are no longer the kids they were at the time the suit was filed. But with children more aware than ever of growing up in a world threatened by climate change, there will be no shortage of young people willing to fight for their rights.

Rodriguez, who’s been there herself, is supportive of other young people considering demanding accountability and pushing for new measures through legal action. She encourages them to see themselves as “custodians of the future” who can leverage their voices and rights to hold those in power responsible for safeguarding the environment.

“To all the young people I will just say: Our actions inspire hope and serve as a reminder that collective efforts are essential in tackling the complex challenges of this climate crisis,” she says. “Be the change you want to see.”

Technologies

What Amodei’s AI slowdown could mean for Anthropic’s imminent IPO

As Anthropic meets with prospective investors ahead of its potentially historic market debut, CEO Dario Amodei is pushing for a slowdown in AI.

Anthropic’s road to an IPO just got a lot bumpier.

While the Claude creator meets with prospective investors ahead of its potentially historic debut, co-founder and CEO Dario Amodei is pushing a concept that would seem to contradict those ambitious efforts: a slowdown.

Anthropic, valued at $965 billion earlier this year, confidentially filed its IPO prospectus in June, and has been widely expected to list its shares as soon as next month. Meanwhile, concerns about the power of advanced AI models has been intensifying for weeks, spilling into the mainstream as more researchers warn of potential threats of human extinction.

With that backdrop, Amodei wrote an essay over the weekend urging the AI industry to slow the pace of model development, proposing a three-step plan to temper how quickly model capabilities improve without “sacrificing commercial advantage or the United States’ lead in AI.”

It’s the latest challenge facing public market investors who are trying to determine what they’re willing to pay for a piece of a five-year-old company that’s already among the most valuable in the world and could seek a $2 trillion valuation in its IPO. Though Anthropic may have to accept a hit to revenue growth, some experts say an intentional slowdown could help Anthropic frame itself as a responsible actor, avoid future liability and address the public backlash towards AI that’s been brewing across the country.

“I don’t know that investors are necessarily going to see it as a negative,” Gil Luria, an equity analyst at D.A. Davidson, said in an interview. “Unless the companies are genuine and say, ‘OK, we’re not going to IPO, we’re not going to use any more compute, we’re not going to train any more models.’ That’s not what they’re saying.”

Anthropic has picked the Nasdaq as the exchange for its potential IPO, CNBC confirmed after Business Insider first reported the selection.

Amodei on Saturday proposed that model companies open up to third-party evaluators, frontier companies establish “common safety standards,” and that democratic countries coordinate with authoritarian governments “to the extent this is possible.”

His essay came after several industry researchers issued stern warnings last week about the technology’s growing potential to cause catastrophic harms.

President Donald Trump slammed Amodei in a post on Truth Social on Monday, writing that the only “control or ’guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades!”

“The Trump Administration has stopped AI ‘people’ from doing bad, or potentially bad, ‘things,” like Dario (Anthropic!), who is now pretending to be a ‘perfect little angel’ – and we will continue to do so!,” Trump wrote. “We already have tremendous CRIMINAL and REGULATORY power over these companies!”

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman expressed support for Amodei’s proposal, as did Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, which owns Grok creator xAI. SpaceX went public in June in the biggest IPO on record and is now valued at $2 trillion. OpenAI has confidentially filed its IPO prospectus, but has been under fire in recent months after its models escaped containment, accessed the open internet and breached open-source developer platform Hugging Face.

“Right now would be an ill-advised moment to go public,” Altman said in an interview with Fortune, reiterating that OpenAI won’t aim for an IPO until next year. Finance chief Sarah Friar told employees during an all-hands meeting last month that the AI lab “will be a public company in 2027.”

Lise Buyer, partner at IPO advisory firm Class V Group, said she doesn’t see the recent “we might obliterate you all” fears having an impact on IPO timing, but it could alter valuations, she said.

“The bet here is on the long term — now with tempering thoughts about control of the technology,” Buyer said in an email. “The dramatic growth and possibilities of these companies, now more publicly coupled with the potential very serious concerns and risks, will likely persist whether the IPO happens in Q4 or next year or whenever.”

Anthropic and OpenAI declined to comment for this story.

′Don’t see why growth would slow’

Anthropic hit $65 billion in annualized revenue in July, about a sevenfold increase from the prior year, as CNBC previously reported. The company has told some shareholders that it will generate an operating profit for a second straight quarter in the current period, according to two sources familiar who asked not to be named because the details are confidential. The Financial Times earlier reported the operating profit on Sunday.

Matt Murphy, a partner at Menlo Ventures and an Anthropic investor, called the growth rate “off the charts,” and said a public listing would bring more transparency around the business.

“Don’t see why growth would slow or any other reason to wait,” Murphy told CNBC.

That transparency could also help improve what has been dismal public sentiment around the technology.

More than half of Americans say they’re more concerned than excited about the growing use of AI in daily life, up from 37% in 2021, according to a recent report from the Pew Research Center. And confidence in AI executives is even worse, according to a CNBC Generation Lab survey of 18- to 34-year-olds. More than 75% of respondents said they don’t trust Amodei to act responsibly, while around 70% expressed those views about Altman.

“One could argue that sooner is better than later for a public offering as the accountability that comes with being a public company might be of a great interest to many,” Class V Group’s Buyer said.

Altimeter Capital CEO Brad Gerstner, whose firm is an investor in Anthropic and OpenAI, said in a post on X on Saturday that bringing more “transparency, scrutiny, accountability” and participation to AI companies is “crucial.” He said Anthropic will likely forge ahead with its IPO.

“The market knows how to price risk – see SpaceX,” Gerstner wrote. “There is huge appetite to invest in the AI leaders.”

Gerstner’s post came a day after he blasted public remarks from industry researchers, calling them “hyperbolic scare tactics” that are “hiding behind a political agenda,” in an interview with CNBC.

There are plenty of skeptics when it comes to Amodei’s latest positioning. One argument is that Anthropic benefits from stricter standards because it currently has the most advanced models and makes money from selling services, like Claude Code, that are powered by those models.

“That could actually favor Anthropic and OpenAI if smaller competitors cannot afford the rigorous safety, evaluation and security investments required for frontier-level models,” Arun Chandrasekaran, an analyst at Gartner, told CNBC in an email.

D.A. Davidson’s Luria agrees and said he thinks Anthropic and OpenAI are engaging in “monopolistic behavior.” OpenAI has reportedly asked members of Congress for guidance about whether a coordinated, industrywide slowdown would violate antitrust law, according to Wired.

“I’m highly suspicious of what Anthropic and OpenAI are doing,” Luria said. “It feels more and more like a ladder pull.”

What about the rest of tech?

Tech investors have other reasons to worry about the pace of development at OpenAI and Anthropic, because those companies are responsible for an outsized amount of AI infrastructure spending.

Anthropic has inked a flurry of multibillion-dollar compute deals this year, including with Nscale, Advanced Micro Devices, SpaceX, and Google. OpenAI told investors in February that it’s targeting roughly $600 billion in total compute spend by 2030. Both companies are heavy users of Nvidia’s graphics processing units.

“I would want to understand how the mix shifts between frontier training, post-training and inference as safety controls are integrated,” said Lo Toney, managing partner at Plexo Capital, and an Anthropic investor.

PitchBook analyst Harrison Rolfes is more concerned about reduced growth. He said valuations for model companies likely deserve a discount now, largely because it’s hard for investors to trust that they can safely commercialize their technology.

“Is the first thing that you want to do as a public company go handle a bunch of security issues and vulnerability issues?” Rolfes said. “No, you probably want to focus on expanding into all the markets that you promised all your investors.”

Gene Munster, managing partner at Deepwater Asset Management, told CNBC that any sort of perceived slowdown will be a negative because the market is “underwriting exponential uninterrupted improvements to the models.”

Still, Munster predicted that “nothing will change and the AI leapfrog game will continue.”

“AI’s long-term opportunity is too big for them to slow down,” Munster said. “I believe the comments were motivated to reduce the regulatory pressure.”

WATCH: Seems like Anthropic will beat OpenAI to IPO, says FirstMark’s Rick Heitzmann

Technologies

Iran Claims It Shot Down Advanced U.S. Drone Above Hormuz as Regional Conflict Escalates

Iran said its new aerospace defense system shot down an advanced MQ-1 drone over the Strait of Hormuz as the widening conflict disrupted shipping and pushed crude above $100 a barrel.

Iran’s military said it had destroyed an advanced American drone over the Strait of Hormuz, marking the latest exchange of warnings and strikes between Tehran and Washington as neither side shows signs of backing down.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said Monday that its “new advanced aerospace defense system” intercepted and shot down the MQ-1 drone above the strait, but offered no additional information about its mission. General Atomics manufactures the MQ-1, which has historically been operated primarily by the U.S. Air Force and CIA.

The incident came after a series of Iranian operations targeting U.S. unmanned naval systems in the Gulf. The war, now entering its seventh month, has shown little sign of easing, while diplomacy over the strategically vital waterway remains stalled.

On Sunday, President Donald Trump said the U.S. could continue its campaign against Iran and take control of its oil, comparing the possibility with the arrangement Washington reached with Venezuela earlier this year.

Speaking at the Irish Open golf championship in Ireland, Trump said the U.S. would eventually leave the war unless it chose to remain and retain access to oil, as it did under the Venezuela arrangement. He said revenue from that agreement, which gave Washington access to roughly one-fifth of Venezuela’s oil reserves, had “paid for the war many times.”

Under the August agreement, Venezuela transferred majority U.S. control of more than 65 billion barrels of oil reserves—more than twice America’s own reserves—in return for $209 billion for the state treasury. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the deal would also attract nearly $100 billion in private investment to revive the economy.

Trump said on Sunday that he expects the seven-month Iran war to end this year, potentially after the November midterm elections, and maintained that gasoline prices would “drop like a rock” once peace arrives.

The president said he would accept only the “right deal” and claimed Tehran had been “calling constantly” for peace negotiations, a claim Iran has previously rejected.

Hormuz Negotiations Stalled

A planned meeting in Oman between Gulf states and Iran to discuss potential agreements governing the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial route for global oil and gas shipments, has been postponed, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said on X on Sunday. He cited the need for “consensus.”

Officials from Iran and Gulf countries were expected to meet Monday and sign an agreement creating an Iran-Oman shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz, although no direct U.S.-Iran talks were taking place.

Since the war began in February, the Strait of Hormuz has faced an Iranian blockade followed by a U.S. naval blockade, helping keep global energy prices elevated.

A June agreement between Washington and Tehran broke down over disputes concerning the waterway. Meanwhile, a sustained offensive by Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels in recent days has strengthened the group’s leverage over another critical shipping route, the Bab el-Mandeb.

Iranian strikes regularly target vessels considered non-compliant, while the U.S. periodically bombs sections of the Iranian coastline to challenge the Islamic Republic’s control of the strait.

Oil prices climbed above $100 a barrel again for the first time since May and rose further on Monday after Saudi Arabia shut a major east-west energy pipeline following damage caused by Iraqi drones.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures gained 2.3% to $102.39 a barrel. Brent crude, the international benchmark, rose 2.4% to $107.11 a barrel.

Technologies

Sam Altman Details Potential Risks of Rapid AI Advancement, Calls for Industry Pace

OpenAI chief Sam Altman has outlined potential dangers of rapid AI advancement and advocated for an industry-wide slowdown to prevent catastrophic outcomes.

OpenAI chief Sam Altman has made his most detailed comments yet on how artificial intelligence safety frameworks could work, after he joined Anthropic’s Dario Amodei and Elon Musk in calling for an industry slowdown over the weekend.

Safety concerns over the technology have hit fever pitch since an Anthropic researcher quit last week, warning that those building it believed that it could “kill us all by the end of the decade” and prompting other employees at the lab and rival OpenAI to warn of catastrophic risks.

AI bosses have since shown a rare display of unity, with both Altman and Musk on Saturday backing an essay from Amodei that urged AI companies to slow how quickly they improve their most advanced models.

AI stocks were down Monday as investors digested the comments. U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed the CEOs’ warning on Sunday, saying a slowdown was not needed and would jeopardize America’s lead in AI over China.

Sam Altman sets out 2 ways AI could go ‘very badly’

“We welcome a federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements for frontier AI,” Altman said in a post on X just after midnight on Monday, adding that “no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness.”

Altman warned of two ways AI progress could go “very badly,” including losing “control of the future to AI” and too much power concentrating around a single person or company.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Washington are scrambling to address calls for safeguards.

This all comes as Anthropic and OpenAI gear up for what’s expected to be historic initial public offerings. Altman ruled out going public in 2026 in an interview with Fortune published Saturday.

Amodei’s three-step proposal

Many AI safety fears revolve around models developing the ability to improve their own performance, a technique known as recursive self-improvement, or RSI.

“Since roughly this summer, AI has been advancing drastically faster, driven primarily by AI’s growing ability to build the next generation of AI,” said Amodei in his essay. “Left unchecked, it could outrun our ability to understand and control these systems, and so must be pursued very carefully, if at all.”

Amodei proposed a three-step plan aimed at tempering the pace of development without “sacrificing commercial advantage or the United States’ lead in AI.”

The plan involves each frontier AI company giving “employee-like access” to external evaluators — which he said Anthropic was committing to now. Amodei also called for frontier AI labs to establish common safety standards, limit the rate of unchecked AI progress and attempt to coordinate efforts globally.

On Saturday, Altman said in a brief X post he agreed with Amodei that AI companies should “pace the frontier.” He added that “committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same.”

“Consistent rules to manage frontier risk so that we can maximize the benefits are a good idea (and we are excited by ideas like independent auditors),” Altman said in his Monday post. But, he added, “When we talk about ‘pacing,’ we do not mean ‘stopping.’ Progress has been rapid and will continue to be.”

“Pacing will be well worth this cost; no amount of American competitive pressure should justify recklessness, or let capabilities get ahead of alignment and monitoring,” he concluded.

“Where we will need the help of our government is for international coordination. But first we should do what we can ourselves.”

International cooperation

Coordinating AI safety measures and an industry slowdown with rival AI developers in China will likely pose big challenges.

The U.S. and China remain locked in a battle for AI supremacy, with tensions ratcheting up as Chinese models have become more advanced and their global adoption grows.

Amodei said Sunday that the “toughest dilemma” about his proposal is what happens if adversarial nations choose not to do the same.

“The more long-term thing would be working together to put a speed limit on the rate of AI progress,” Amodei told CBS News’ “Sunday Morning.”

“I think that’s going to be very difficult because the incentives to pull ahead and the military advantage that you get from that are so large. And honestly, I don’t know if it’s possible, but we should try.”

The Anthropic CEO’s essay has drawn criticism in China, with the state-owned Global Times writing on Monday that “Amodei’s proposals seek to portray China’s legitimate development in AI as a threat and further fuel confrontation between China and the US in the field.”

China’s Foreign Ministry said on Monday that the CEOs’ comments were “fearmongering.”