Appeals Court Reinstates Climate Change Injury Claims (CO2 a "Public Nuisance)

Utah Manufacturers Association ^ | 9/23/2009 | James Holtkamp

[mojito]

On September 21, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a decision reversing a lower court's dismissal of claims brought against several major electric utilities seeking to abate CO2 emissions from power plants owned by the utilities because of alleged injuries from global warming. State of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Company Inc., 2009 WL 2996729 (2d Cir. Sept. 21, 2009). Click here to view the decision. The case was brought by several states, New York City, and three non-profit conservation organizations. In 2005, a lower court dismissed the complaints on the basis that the claims were not "justiciable," i.e., that they were not within the province of the judiciary to resolve, but rather were political questions best left to the legislative and executive branches. Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 406 F. Supp.2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

The court of appeals decision allows the claims to go forward for trial. The plaintiffs allege that the CO2 emitted by large coal-fired power plants owned by the defendants is a "public nuisance" under federal common law and that it is causing and will cause damage to them and to their citizens. The injuries alleged include shoreline erosion from storms and sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of storms and other weather events, increased morbidity and mortality due to longer and more frequent heat waves, increased smog, increased wildfires, disruption of ecosystems, and decreased snow pack (in the case of California). The non-profit plaintiffs also allege that the lands they protect in trust will be less suitable for recreation as a result of climate change-induced injuries to ecosystems.

[mojito]

A really terrible decision that wil encourage eco-nuts and cap-and-taxers everywhere.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Once we get our government back, Americans really need to get these so-called “courts” under control. This kind of crap is not their job.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[your local physicist]

A terribly misguided decision. Another example of trial lawyers and judges gone wild.

[vrwc1]

I say bring it on!

Force the plaintiffs to prove the ridiculous claims that AGW causes "shoreline erosion from storms and sea level rise, increased frequency and severity of storms and other weather events, increased morbidity and mortality due to longer and more frequent heat waves, increased smog, increased wildfires, disruption of ecosystems, and decreased snow pack (in the case of California)."

Let's get all the evidence against AGW out in the open and let a jury decide. A good lawyer with astute, highly-credentialed scientific witnesses should be able to decimate the AGW alarmists.