A federal judge here said environmental groups and four U.S. cities can sue federal development agencies on allegations the overseas projects they financially back contribute to global warming.
The decision Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White is the first to say that groups alleging global warming have a right to sue.
“This is the first decision in the country to say that climate change causes sufficient injury to give a plaintiff standing, to open the courthouse door,” said Ronald Shems, a Vermont attorney representing Friends of the Earth.
That group, in addition to Greenpeace and the cities of Boulder, Colo., Santa Monica, Oakland and Arcata, Calif., sued Overseas Private Investment Corp. and the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Those government agencies provide loans and insure billions of dollars of U.S. investors’ money for development projects overseas. Many of the projects are power plants that emit greenhouses gases that the groups allege cause global warming.
The coalition argues that the National Environmental Policy Act, the law requiring environmental assessments of proposed development projects in the United States, should apply to the U.S.-backed projects overseas. The U.S. law should apply, they say, because those developments are contributing to the degradation of the U.S. environment via global warming.
The two government agencies claimed that U.S. environmental regulations do not apply to overseas projects, and that the courts have no right to intervene in those agencies’ affairs.
Still, the judge’s ruling was narrow. White did not rule whether those agencies must perform environmental assessments of projects they help fund, but simply said the groups have a right to sue. If White’s decision stands, the issue of whether U.S. environmental rules apply to the projects backed by the agencies likely will be litigated, Shems said.
What’s ironic here is that had these same plaintiffs filed this same claim back in, say, 1971—and had they won the right to sue then—the same subsequent lawsuits they’d be filing would be based on the claim that US overseas projects are contributing to a coming ice age, NOT man-made global warming.
You’d think such a consideration might cause a federal judge pause—particularly if, as seems to be the case here, that judge is basing his decision at least partially on the controversial science of global climate change, which relies on highly unreliable model projections that, when we get right down to it, are quite limited in their ability to speak to man-made global warming.
But then, thinking doesn’t seem to have quite the same cachet it once did…
(h/t Kate)
****
update: As is often the case in these type stories, the AP has omitted important details; see here for more (thanks to DJ Quigley); and see Joe’s rejoinder here.
That bit where you accidently block-quoted the entire site in the first edit of this post was nearly as shameful as this ruling, Jeff.
On topic, I just have to shake my head. I’m beginning to think judges are worse than lawyers.
I guess we don’t need power anyway. This sort of crap if upheld will open floodgates for every power plant in America to be sued.
Great – SF district straight to 9th circuit, regardless of outcome. Somebody will appeal.
It’s a full-employment for lawyers plan!
The People’s Republic of Arcata strikes again.
judge, n. ant-brained loser with delusions of godhood brought on by wearing black dresses in public.
Turn off the lights in the developing world and close those factories! My little Johnnie has asthma in Boulder. Can’t the US get anything right?
Well, if 80% of juries cannot handle scientific facts, why would we expect more of our judges, particularly since they come from a pool of people with less scientific training than the pool of people from which jurists are drawn?
True enough. But is it fair to expect them to recognize their own limitations?
I just hope it gets some press when the defendants lawyers blow the doors off the whole global warming scam….
Bwahahahahahahahaha right.
I’ll be interested to see just how exactly they’ll manage to show that global warming has caused any demonstable harm to their cities or the members of Greenpeace.
The benefit of man-made global warming is that it is melting the dreaded man-made ice age. So what’s what the problem?
Is the opinion online anywhere? For the law nerds out there, I’m curious about how the judge handled Lujan. Scalia and friends put the kibosh on this kind of reasoning a while ago.
I haven’t found it yet, Charles, but you might try querying the folks at overlawyered.com.
And please do let me know if you find something.
The next phase is for the 3rd world countries that were having power plants financed by this project to sue the four cities and Greenpeace for keeping them mired in a world of poverty, high infant mortality, poor medical care, poor sanitation, etc.
After all, that’s what you get with limited power.
Jeff (& Charles)—The opinion is not available anywhere in data form; I’m e-mailing you a .pdf of it in case you can do anything with that.
Needless to say, the AP story is basically wrong. Relying on earlier 9th Circuit precedent, the court merely ruled that where, as here, a plaintiff is alleging a failure to conduct an environmental impact study, the plaintiff is not required to show any actual environmental harm (because that is the very thing that the impact study is supposed to determine). Also, because the court was ruling on defendant’s summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs’ evidentiary burden was minimal (in fact, practically non-existent: they got by with affidavits from “experts” that probably said “Hey, does it seem hot in here?”).
Without actually studying the relevant statutes, it appears that the only place the court may have erred is in holding that the statutes governing OPIC did not displace the NEPA.
Bottom line: This is not an out-of-control judge; this was a judge correctly following arguably-wacky-but-binding precedent.
Without actually studying the relevant statutes, it appears that the only place the court may have erred is in holding that the statutes governing OPIC did not displace the NEPA.
Since we’re talking overseas/non-US territory here, how exactly does this judge claim jurisdiction? What precedent gives him any jurisdiction to apply NEPA outside US territory? To claim jurisdiction, he must contend that US law over-rules the environmental laws of all other nations. ”Correctly following arguably-wacky-but-binding precedent”, my chapped ass. This judge blew it.
Joe: OPIC (the Overseas Private Investment Corp.) and ExIm (the Export-Import Bank of the U.S.) are created, owned, and funded by the U.S. government. Their financial activities are clearly (=T/W!) within the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal courts.
This story has a looong way to go before we see what happens substantively. BTW, in my past life a a lawyer, I wish I would have been able to use quiggs line:
That’s good.