In a week marked by critical climate litigation and ongoing energy debates, two stories from opposite sides of the Atlantic illustrate the mounting tensions between environmental activism and entrenched fossil fuel interests. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s administration continues to defend its reliance on Russian oil and gas, even as the European Union intensifies efforts to cut such imports. Meanwhile, in the United States, a group of youth plaintiffs presses forward with a federal lawsuit, Lighthiser v. Trump, challenging executive orders that bolster fossil fuel development. Both cases underscore the complex interplay of law, politics, and energy policy in a world grappling with the climate crisis.
On October 4, 2025, Hungary remains a conspicuous outlier within the EU. While most European nations have moved swiftly to reduce or eliminate Russian energy imports since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Hungary has not only maintained but increased its intake of Russian oil and gas. According to the Associated Press, Orbán’s government insists that the country’s landlocked geography and legacy infrastructure make Russian supplies indispensable. Orbán argued in September, “If Hungary is cut off from Russian oil and natural gas, then immediately, within a minute, Hungarian economic performance will drop by 4%. This would be catastrophic, the Hungarian economy would be on its knees.”
That stance has drawn criticism from energy experts and political opponents alike. László Miklós, a chemical engineer and former director of corporate relations at the national oil company MOL, told AP, “There is no rational explanation for Orbán's government's reluctance to seek alternative fuel sources and ample infrastructure is already in place to supply Hungary with affordable, non-Russian oil and gas.” He added, “Disconnection from Russian energy in an integrated European market should not be a problem, all conditions are there. It's the intention that is missing.”
The EU, for its part, imposed an embargo on Russian oil in 2022 and set a goal to phase out all Russian oil and gas imports by the end of 2027. However, recognizing the logistical challenges for certain member states, the bloc granted temporary exemptions for pipeline supplies to Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Hungary, which receives most of its crude via the Druzhba pipeline, also has access to the Adria pipeline from Croatia. While MOL claims that recent tests show the Adria pipeline cannot reliably deliver the 14 million tons of crude oil Hungary requires annually, the Croatian operator Janaf disputes this, asserting its capacity to meet both Hungary’s and Slovakia’s needs.
Despite government claims of existential economic threats, other landlocked countries have diversified their energy sources. The Czech Republic, for example, celebrated its “oil independence day” after boosting the capacity of an Italian pipeline, ending its reliance on Russian oil. Miklós points out that even if the Adria pipeline cannot supply all of Hungary’s needs, it could still significantly reduce dependence on Russia: “It is possible to bring oil from elsewhere, the Adria pipeline has been available for several decades.”
Hungarian officials, however, frame the EU’s push as disconnected from geographic realities. Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó posted in September, “We can dream about buying gas and oil from places that are not connected by pipelines, but we cannot heat our homes, boil water or run factories with dreams.”
Economists and analysts challenge the government’s dire warnings about consumer costs. Borbála Takácsné Tóth, an analyst at the Regional Centre for Energy Policy Research, told AP that Hungary pays market-based prices for Russian gas, similar to what other countries pay for non-Russian sources. Her modeling suggests that breaking from Russian gas would cause only a “temporary increase of 1.5 to 2 euros per megawatt hour, a price hike she called ‘minimal, below 5%.’” Nonetheless, Orbán claimed in May that ending Russian energy imports would double household electricity bills and nearly triple gas bills—a prospect that stokes public anxiety.
Despite the rhetoric, MOL has invested $500 million in refinery upgrades to diversify crude oil sourcing by the end of 2026. “We will be (in) a much better position to have a more diverse crude oil sourcing capability,” the company stated. Miklós believes EU regulations will eventually force Hungary’s hand: “Things will clearly never be the same again, because the European Union has learned that, to put it simply, Russia cannot be trusted. It is a matter of political will to break away from Russian energy sources. There is a small price to pay for this, which every other European country is paying.”
While Hungary clings to the status quo, across the Atlantic, the next generation is taking the climate fight to federal court. During the week of October 3, 2025, a preliminary hearing unfolded in Montana for Lighthiser v. Trump, a youth-led lawsuit challenging three executive orders from the Trump administration that prioritize fossil fuel development. The orders in question include “Unleashing American Energy,” which favors fossil fuels over renewables; the declaration of a “National Energy Emergency,” expediting fossil fuel infrastructure; and the revitalization of the coal industry by designating coal as a mineral on public lands.
The plaintiffs, represented by Our Children’s Trust, argue these orders violate the Fifth Amendment by endangering their life and liberty and exceed the President’s statutory authority. As environmental law expert Pat Parenteau described on Living on Earth, “The youth plaintiffs are saying, if you take all of these together and all the actions that are required to implement them, they are jeopardizing our life and our freedom under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Judge Christensen, overseeing the case, expressed skepticism about granting a sweeping preliminary injunction to halt the orders. He questioned the practicality and scope, asking, “Are you asking me to monitor everything the Trump administration is doing every day, because I can’t do that?” Parenteau noted, “It’s very doubtful that Judge Christensen is going to order the kind of injunction that the plaintiffs would like to see him order.” Still, the judge may allow the case to proceed in a narrower form, potentially focusing on discrete actions like recent EPA decisions to stop requiring industrial polluters to report greenhouse gas emissions.
This legal strategy reflects lessons learned from earlier youth climate cases. In 2023, Held v. Montana became the first U.S. climate lawsuit to secure a trial victory, thanks to explicit environmental protections in the state constitution. By contrast, Juliana v. United States faltered on procedural grounds, with courts ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the federal government over fossil fuel policies. The government’s motion to dismiss Lighthiser echoes those arguments, stating, “Plaintiffs maintain they are injured by climate change, but they fail to show how their requested declaratory and equitable relief will redress those injuries.”
Despite legal hurdles, the youth plaintiffs remain undeterred. Eva Lighthiser, the lead plaintiff, told Living on Earth, “Growing up and seeing the effects of climate change firsthand has been really frightening to see... knowing that there was a way, a route for me to take action, that could make change, it made it kind of feel like a no-brainer to me.”
As governments and courts wrestle with the demands of a warming world, these parallel stories—Hungary’s energy defiance and American youth pressing for climate accountability—highlight the enduring friction between established power and calls for urgent change. The coming months will reveal whether legal and political systems can adapt, or if the status quo will persist, even as the climate clock ticks on.
