Last month’s Second Circuit ruling allowing claims that global warming maybe a public nuisance was just a first. Click here to view a previous post on this story. Two other federal courts have recently ruled on similar issues involving greenhouse gases and public nuisance.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 16th ruled that a class-action lawsuit filed against oil, coal, and chemical companies could continue. In this case, the plaintiffs continued that the defendants’ greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming, this added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, and this caused the plaintiffs’ property to be destroyed. The three-judge panel agreed with the reasoning of the Second Circuit’s earlier decision. The Fifth Circuit’s decision reversed an earlier ruling by the Southern District of Mississippi that had dismissed the case on standing and political question grounds. Click here to view the opinion by the three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit.
Finally, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California reached the opposite conclusion. In this case, an Alaskan Eskimo village sued oil and gas companies, under federal common law of public nuisance, for causing global warming that has lead to the Arctic sea ice that protects the village to become smaller and requiring the village to be relocated. The district judge disagreed with the Second Circuit’s reasoning holding that this nuisance claim required the courts to make a public policy decision on who should ear the costs of global warming. Click here, to view district court’s opinion.
For more on these decisions, click here to view an article on the N.Y. Times Greenwire by Jennifer Koons. Also click here to view an article post on Grist covering the two decisions.
Posted: 10/22/09
