Court allows groups to sue government over global warming

WASHINGTON - In a landmark judgement a court in California has allowed a coalition of environmental groups to sue the US government over global warming - the first time a court has recognised the potentially disastrous impact of climate change.

A judge in San Francisco gave permission for the two groups, along with four US cities, to sue two federal development agencies that provide billions of dollars in loans to fund projects overseas.

Some of the projects are power plants that emit greenhouse gases while others include pipeline projects that allow the transfer of oil.

"This is really the first time a US court has given a plaintiff the right to go to court solely on the global warming issue," Geoff Hand, a Vermont-based lawyer involved in the case, told The Independent.

"It's a great advance."

Mr Hand said the case would not strictly be an examination of global warming science, but he added: "We have dealt with the jurisdiction issues - the case will now go the merits. It essentially puts the onus onto the government and means they have to show that global warming is not happening. It will have to provide evidence to say it is not happening."

The lawsuit was brought by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, along with the cities of Boulder, Colorado and the Californian cities of Oakland, Santa Monica and Arcata.

In the filing the cities argued that the impact of global warming - including rising sea levels and warmer ocean temperatures - would have a negative impact on their communities.

The coastal city of Arcata said: "Arcata is presently suffering and will continue to suffer, these consequences. [The government agencies' actions] increase the risk that Arcata's interests are and will continue to be harmed by climate change."

Jerry Brown, the mayor of Oakland, said: "Tragically, the federal government is violating federal law, which requires an assessment of cumulative impacts. This injures the citizens of Oakland, and every person in this country."

The lawsuit names two government agencies - the Overseas Private Investment Corp and the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

It claims that eight per cent of the all the world's greenhouse gases come from projects supported by these two agencies.

The projects listed by the plaintiffs include the Sakhalin oil field off the coast of Russia's Sakhalin Island, one of the largest offshore developments in history; the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline which stretches around 600 miles from Doba to the Cameroon port of Kribi and the Cantarell oilfields in Mexico.

The lawsuit argued that National Environmental Policy Act - which requires environmental assessments of proposed development projects in the United States - should apply to the US-backed projects overseas.

The law should apply, it was argued, because those developments contribute to the degradation of the US environment as a result of global warming.

In his ruling US District Judge Jeffrey White said the plaintiff's "evidence is sufficient to demonstrate it is reasonably probable that emissions from projects supported by OPIC and the Export-Import Bank will threaten plaintiffs' concrete interests".

Norman Dean, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth, said: "This ruling is a wake-up call for the federal government to tackle the growing environmental and human impacts of global warming."

Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, said: "This case once again highlights the fact that global warming pollution doesn't recognise political borders."

A spokeswoman for the Export-Import Bank, Linda Formella, told the Associated Press that the agency, which supported nearly US$18bn in exports last year, does not comment on pending litigation.

- THE INDEPENDENT