Search

A case filed in San Francisco, California, with the Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the cities of Boulder, Colorado, and Oakland, California, as plaintiffs, seeks to force two government agencies to assess the total impact on climate of the projects they finance. Litigation may soon be the weapon of choice for those concerned about human-induced global warming. In the San Francisco case, the plaintiffs charge that the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the Export-Import Bank of the United States (ExIm) have provided $32 billion in loans, insurance and loan guarantees for oil pipelines, oil drilling and other fossil-fuel endeavors that will ultimately result in the emission of 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide over the life of the projects. The lawsuit does not attempt to cancel ongoing projects but asks only that OPIC and ExIm determine the "cumulative impact" on the climate of every future project. Such a review, asserts Jon Sohn of Friends of the Earth, is required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The plaintiffs are confronted with many hurdles. They will have to demonstrate that they face harm from global warming and, in particular, from the agencies' actions. The cities contend that their water supplies are in jeopardy. Scientific uncertainties over such claims can be partly overcome by aggregating harm done over a large span of space and time, contends David Grossman, a recent graduate of Yale Law School and now a law clerk in Anchorage. In a paper to be published in the 'Columbia Journal of Environmental Law,' Grossman argues that tort litigation over global warming--in which communities or states seek damages from oil companies, electric utilities and automobile manufacturers--is entirely feasible. INSET: WHOSE FAULT IS IT ANYWAY?.

On 7 July 2004, the California's Air Resources Board received their final public comments on a draft proposal to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles. Their final "Environmental Justice Workshop on Climate Change" was held on 13 July 2004, ending a series of workshops that offered communities an opportunity to discuss the proposed regulation, which is designed to reduce GHG emissions by 30 percent. The regulation is driven by California's Vehicle Global Warming Law, which requires the state to "develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles" by January 1, 2005.

The article discusses the politics of climate control and the initiatives of the State of California to respond to the plea of Al Gore for the world community to take decisive action to reduce emissions. California sued the feds and demanded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to permit the state to limit auto emissions. 700 mayors also signed an agreement that obligates cities to achieve 7% reduction by 2012. Despite the actions, many acknowledges that the efforts are insufficient to avoid significant consequences from global warming.

The article reports that San Francisco, California Mayor Gavin Newsom has signed an ordinance to reduce the single largest source of diesel pollution in the city, namely bulldozers, cranes and other heavy construction equipment. According to the rule, city contractors performing major projects will be required to use cleaner equipment and fuel that contains a minimum of 20 percent biodiesel. Also, contractors must notify schools and hospitals near construction sites before starting a project.

The article informs that the Planning and Conservation League (PCL), National Wildlife Federation's California affiliate, has thwarted attempts of developers to weaken the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Since the late 1960s, the PCL has been involved with the establishment and defense of the CEQA--California's premier environmental law. The CEQA protects species and special habitat areas from adverse development by requiring environmental impact reports, public input and mitigation measures to offset ecological degradation. Earlier this year, developers sought to weaken the CEQA, but their attack was blunted by the PCL and a diverse coalition of environmentalists, trade unions, social justice groups and affordable housing proponents.

Presents the thoughts of the author about a environmental initiative, 'Big Green,' that California voters will decide on. Details of the proposal, including stringent controls on pesticides and preservation of redwood stands; Industry's prediction of economic disaster if the initiative is passed; Other California initiatives that show environmental protection is not economic suicide, including the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act; Effect of Big Green on the state's trading partners; Effects of Big Green on the federal Clean Air Law.