WE ARE NO DEBTORS! WE ARE CREDITORS OF A HISTORICAL, SOCIAL AND ECOLOGICAL DEBT!
|
|
CLIMATE DEBT - Lawsuits point to climate change litigation threat |
|
|
Friday, 23 October 2009 |
|
Lawsuits point to climate change litigation threat
Oct 22, 2009
Paula Dittrick
OGJ Senior Staff Writer
HOUSTON, Oct. 22 -- A climate change litigation threat appears to be
looming for the oil and gas industry in the wake of a US Supreme Court
decision allowing the regulation of greenhouse gases as air pollutants.
Federal courts recently issued conflicting decisions in climate change
litigation. One case involved Murphy Oil USA, and another case involved
ExxonMobil Corp. and others. Power companies face the same issues.
The recent litigation all stems from an Apr. 2, 2007, decision in which
the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has
authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. That
ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Massachusetts and several other
states, US cities, and environmental groups.
On Sept. 21, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in San
Francisco allowed a coalition of eight states, New York City, and
environmental groups to sue coal-burning utilities over climate change.
The San Francisco ruling later was cited in the Murphy Oil ruling.
Anthony Cavender of the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP law firm in
Houston said, “Given that the Obama administration has already advocated
for tighter regulations related to the environment as a whole, and in
particular for tougher policies governing carbon emissions, many
plaintiffs may now feel that the time is right to file such suits.”
Murphy Oil suit
On Oct. 16, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit in New Orleans said residents and land owners along the Gulf
Coast in Mississippi could seek relief for Hurricane Katrina damages
presumed to be related to global warming.
The appeals court ruling in the case of Ned Comer vs. Murphy Oil USA
reversed a decision from the US District court for the Southern District
of Mississippi, which had dismissed the case.
The appeals court ruled that Comer could assert claims that Murphy Oil
operations caused greenhouse gas emissions and contributed to global
warming and a rise in sea levels that consequently strengthened
Hurricane Katrina.
Comer and others, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, argued they
had the legal standing to litigate these claims based on the 2007
Supreme Court decision.
Judge James Dennis in New Orleans wrote that the court arrived at its
decision independently but that the “Second Circuit’s reasoning [in
Connecticut vs. AEP] is fully consistent with ours, particularly in its
careful analysis of whether the case requires the court to address any
specific issue that is constitutionally committed to another branch of
government.”
ExxonMobil suit
Separately, the US District Court for the Northern District of
California in late September dismissed a climate change lawsuit that
Inupiat Eskimos living in Kivalina, Alas., near the Arctic Circle filed
against ExxonMobil.
The plaintiffs alleged that 24 oil, energy, and utility companies
emitted greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and
consequently diminish sea ice that protects their village from winter
storms and erosion.
The California court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and because the Inupiat Eskimos could not prove the
companies caused any injury. An attorney for the town of Kivalina has
said he plans to appeal.
Sheila Harvey, a partner with Pillsbury’s climate change and
sustainability team in Washington, DC, said that while each case must be
individually evaluated on the merits of evidence, she noted that “The
decision in Kivalina is more in keeping with how courts have
traditionally ruled—often dismissing these types of cases as ‘nuisance
suits’ filed by plaintiffs for no other purpose than to cause headaches
for companies they politically or personally disagree with.”
|
|
|
|
|
