Litigation Over the Effects of Global Warming Heats Up

In June 2009 the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey bill to reduce carbon emissions through a series of cap-and-trade regulations.  The news this week that the Senate version of the bill has removed cap and trade has drawn a wave of commentary and analysis, some of which calls the Senate Democrats' efforts a legislative failure.  


While legislation stalls in Congress, a series of judicial decisions and ongoing litigation in the courts is shaping the potential liability for greenhouse gas emissions.  To learn more about what is happening in the courts and what it might mean for climate change, Big Think spoke with Michael Gerrard, Director of Columbia Law School's Center for Climate Change Law.

"I count a total of about 250 lawsuits and administrative cases on file aiming to reduce greenhouse gases or otherwise litigate climate related issues," said Gerrard.  Most of these cases are based on specific statutes, but a handful have been brought under the common law of nuisance, which stems from the "idea that the courts for centuries have been ordering abatement of smoke and other nuisances," said Gerrard.   

Big Think asked Gerrard for three examples of common law climate change litigation in the courts. 

Connecticut v. AEP

"The case that most eyes are upon is Connecticut v. American Electric Power," said Gerrard, "which is a suit brought by several states and cities against five large electric utilities seeking a court order that they reduce their greenhouse gas emissions."  Gerrard said the case was originally dismissed by the trial court in New York, but this was reversed by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the case could go forward.  "It is expected that the defendant utilities will ask the U.S. Supreme Court within the next few weeks to take the case," said Gerrard. 

Comer v. Murphy Oil

Another case being watched is Comer v. Murphy Oil, said Gerrard, which arises out of Hurricane Katrina.  This case was brought by a group of property owners in Mississippi who said that their property was damaged by Hurricane Katrina and that the hurricane was intensified by climate change.  The case is seeking money damages from a list of oil and chemical companies, said Gerrard.  He added that if the Connecticut v. AEP case and the Comer v. Murphy Oil survive in the U.S. Supreme Court, nuisance common law "will receive an enormous amount of attention because it is a completely different avenue for fighting greenhouse gases." 

Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil

A third case, Kivalina v. Exxon Mobil, claims that the village of Kivalina in Alaska is eroding into the sea because of global warming.  The village is suing several large companies for damages to allow them to relocate inland.  This case was brought to the federal court in San Francisco, Gerrard said, adding the court, like the trial courts in the Connecticut and Comer cases, dismissed the case on 'political question' grounds.  Of the ruling he explained, "It’s called a political question doctrine, which says that certain kinds of questions are not the domain of the judiciary."  This case is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

NASA astronomer Michelle Thaller on ​the multiple dimensions of space and human sexuality

Science and the squishiness of the human mind. The joys of wearing whatever the hell you want, and so much more.

Flickr / 13winds
Think Again Podcasts
  • Why can't we have a human-sized cat tree?
  • What would happen if you got a spoonful of a neutron star?
  • Why do we insist on dividing our wonderfully complex selves into boring little boxes
Keep reading Show less

How to split the USA into two countries: Red and Blue

Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.

Image: Dicken Schrader
Strange Maps
  • America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
  • Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
  • Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Keep reading Show less

Ideology drives us apart. Neuroscience can bring us back together.

A guide to making difficult conversations possible—and peaceful—in an increasingly polarized nation.

Sponsored
  • How can we reach out to people on the other side of the divide? Get to know the other person as a human being before you get to know them as a set of tribal political beliefs, says Sarah Ruger. Don't launch straight into the difficult topics—connect on a more basic level first.
  • To bond, use icebreakers backed by neuroscience and psychology: Share a meal, watch some comedy, see awe-inspiring art, go on a tough hike together—sharing tribulation helps break down some of the mental barriers we have between us. Then, get down to talking, putting your humanity before your ideology.
  • The Charles Koch Foundation is committed to understanding what drives intolerance and the best ways to cure it. The foundation supports interdisciplinary research to overcome intolerance, new models for peaceful interactions, and experiments that can heal fractured communities. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org/courageous-collaborations.