| Subject: Suit Blaming Automakers Over Gases Is Dismissed |
Author:
carbonicus
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 10:16:45 09/18/07 Tue
It is hard to fault this judge's constitutional reasoning. It will be interesting to see how this affects the New Hampshire decision.
I'd wager a legal challenge is in the works.
Suit Blaming Automakers Over Gases Is Dismissed
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: September 18, 2007
The courts do not have the authority or the expertise to decide injury lawsuits concerning global warming, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled yesterday in dismissing a suit brought by the State of California against six car companies.
The decision, by Judge Martin J. Jenkins, was welcome news for automakers, which had suffered a defeat last week in federal court in Vermont.
In last week’s decision, Judge William K. Sessions III endorsed Vermont’s regulations meant to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by cars and light trucks. More than a dozen states have similar regulations, and a lawsuit challenging such regulations in California is pending.
In the case decided yesterday, California claimed that the six car companies produced vehicles that accounted for more than 20 percent of human-generated carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30 percent of those in California.
The suit claimed that the emissions were a public nuisance and sought billions of dollars in damages.
Judge Jenkins wrote that a resolving of the questions presented in the suit was not a proper task for the courts.
“The adjudication of plaintiff’s claim would require the court to balance the competing interests of reducing global warming emissions and the interests of advancing and preserving economic and industrial development,” Judge Jenkins wrote.
The two decisions are not necessarily at odds. They collectively suggest that states may address climate change through their legislatures and executive branches but not through the courts.
Given national and international debate on the issues, Judge Jenkins wrote, “the court finds that injecting itself into the global warming thicket at this juncture would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government.”
Indeed, he continued, a decision from the court on awarding damages for increasing global warming could potentially undermine the choices of the political branches.
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer for the car companies, said Judge Jenkins had shown appropriate deference to the other branches of government.
“Our bottom-line point is that global warming presents exceedingly complex policy issues that must be addressed at the national and international levels by Congress and the president, not through lawsuits seeking damages in the federal courts,” Mr. Boutrous said. “We are pleased that Judge Jenkins agreed and dismissed this lawsuit.”
Kenneth P. Alex, a lawyer in the California attorney general’s office, said, “We’re disappointed with the ruling and are studying it closely.” He said no decision had been made about an appeal.
“We do understand,” Mr. Alex said, “that it is difficult for a district court judge to jump into a global warming dispute.”
Judge Jenkins wrote that the Constitution’s assignment of interstate commerce and foreign policy powers to Congress and the president rather than to the courts supported his decision.
He said he was reluctant in any event to expose automakers, utility companies and other industries to damages “for doing nothing more than lawfully engaging in their respective spheres of commerce within those states.”
He added that he would not know how to calculate the harms caused by the emissions even if he were to entertain the suit.
“The court is left without guidance in determining what is an unreasonable contribution to the sum of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere,” Judge Jenkins wrote, “or in determining who should bear the costs associated with global climate change that admittedly result from multiple sources around the globe.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/us/18pollute.html?ex=1347854400&en=1c9534f3606e5688&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 