At this point energy companies are likely accustomed to being accused of causing global warming, but in a court of law? This may be relatively uncharted territory, but a dozen homeowners from the Gulf Coast are “suing energy companies for indirectly causing Hurricane Katrina. The real culprit is global warming . . .” writes E.B. Solomont for the Mother Nature Network online.Solomont’s article asks a simple question, “Who is liable when global warming is named in a lawsuit?” The aforementioned homeowners say electric companies bear responsibility, and therefore “should pay for damages incurred during Hurricane Katrina.”
USA Today ‘s Chris Joyner reports that 33 energy companies have been named as defendants in the lawsuit. The named companies include ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy. Joyner reports that the plaintiffs allege the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere by these companies contributed to global warming, which in turn “caused a rise in sea levels and increased air and water temperature fueling the Category 5 hurricane that destroyed their homes.”
Previously a Circuit Court judge sided with the energy companies in ruling that the question at hand was a political question and not a legal question to be handled by the Judicial branch. However, last month a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of appeals decided the case should continue. Joyner writes:
“The key to the appeal was in the legal strategy, said Robert Percival, director of the Environmental Law Program at the University of Maryland. Rather than asking the court to force the companies to stop emitting greenhouse gases, the lawsuit asks for a ruling on whether damage suffered by the homeowners can be traced back to those emissions, he said.”
While F. Gerald Maples, a New Orleans attorney representing the homeowners acknowledges the companies technically did nothing illegal, in his opinion the homeowners should still “be compensated for the damage allegedly caused by their actions [.]”
Joyner reports that the Mississippi case is but one in a number of cases on global warming that are testing the judiciary’s role in the debate on climate change. Joyner reports the 2nd Court of Appeals made a similar ruling in September in Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co., “siding with a coalition of eight states, New York City, and three land trusts in their lawsuit against several coal-burning utilities for emissions.”
There is also currently an appeal on a global warming case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. While the 5th Circuit ruling is good for the homeowners, former Environmental Protection Agency attorney William Walsh believes the homeowners are a long shot to actually win the case. ‘"Let's just assume for a moment that the court accepts global warming as being caused by various emissions. You then have to say that that emission caused, in a legal sense, Hurricane Katrina and was the primary cause of the actual injury,’ he said. ‘There are numerous hurdles here.”’
Still, the case moves forward.
Posted: 11/24/09
