Still No Judicial Remedy For Climate Change — Don’t Expect Advocates To Stop Trying

On Monday, Judge William Alsup dismissed the public nuisance case brought by the City of Oakland and the State of California against five major oil companies.  The suit sought payment of damages into a fund to be used for necessary adaptation expenditures to deal with sea level rise.   Why did he dismiss the case?  Simple.  The courts are not the right forum in which to address the problems of climate change.  The more complicated answer?  Because AEP v. Connecticut held that the Clean Air Act displaces federal common law claims for greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and because claims with respect to sales by the defendants outside of the United States could not be addressed by a U.S. court without violating the presumption against giving extraterritorial effect to U.S. laws. Here, plaintiffs seek to impose liability on five companies for their production and sale of fossil fuels worldwide. These claims — through which…

Read more detail on Recent Environmental Law posts –

This entry was posted in Environmental Law and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply