A judge for the King County Superior Court [official website] in Washington on Tuesday dismissed [text, PDF] a lawsuit alleging that the state’s failure to protect people from climate change is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, brought by a group of youth activists, focuses on the harmful effects of natural gas and diesel fuels on the planet’s climate. They alleged the state’s goal of reducing 50 percent of emissions by 2050 “is grossly inadequate” and the state should instead strive for 96 percent by 2030.

The court rejected the activists’ argument, saying it is not the role of the judicial system to “second-guess the wisdom of the legislature.” Judge Michael Scott wrote:

The relief sought by Plaintiffs would require the Court to usurp the roles of the legislative and executive branches of our state government. Plaintiffs ask the court to order and oversee the development of a far-ranging climate action plan that would involve a complex regulatory scheme. Any climate action plan and regulatory regime would require the assessment of numerous costs and benefits, balancing many interests, and resolving complex social, economic, and environmental issues. This policy-making is the prerogative and the role of the other two branches of government, not of the judiciary.

The court also addressed the claim that Washington’s citizens have a constitutional right to “a healthful and pleasant environment, which includes a stable climate system that sustains human life and liberty.” Scott said there is no state constitutional right to a healthy environment, and, with the exception of few outlier cases, the court has never recognized such a right.