In this Note, I argue that advocates should not turn away from climate change litigation in their fight against climate change, even though such litigation presently has a low success rate. Climate change litigation has the potential to diminish some of the cognitive barriers that have, so far, rendered climate-related political action and movement building inadequate. These cognitive barriers include ignorance, uncertainty and risk discounting, and mistrust. The act of litigating itself, even with a hostile or noncooperative judiciary, could encourage the movement building needed to spur other branches and levels of government into action. Juliana v. United States is a high-profile piece of climate change litigation, and many advocates were disappointed by the case's dismissal for lack of standing by the Ninth Circuit. Its dismissal is often framed as a moment of reckoning for the future of climate change litigation. This Note investigates what value, if any, cases like this add to the climate change movement, even if the litigation is ultimately unsuccessful.