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.

The article discusses the increased workload of law firms with California environmental practices due to the state's implementation of new emission regulations in 2013. It describes legal work arising from the state's first-ever carbon emissions auction in November 2012, including counseling and advising clients about offset programs. The expectation that such legal work would become more widespread if other states implement new environmental regulations is also mentioned.

The article reports that California plans to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2007 to force the EPA to act on the state's plans to impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from new trucks and cars. It includes an analysis of the complex legal issues surrounding the possible lawsuit, as well as the issues' implications for environmental policy.

The article reports that the U.S. District Court judge in Los Angeles, California has rejected the motion of the Kern County to dismiss the lawsuit that challenges the region's ban on land application of biosolids considering that it should not have been filed in Los Angeles. The court ruled that it was ok to file the case in the said state since the effect of the ban would handicap government agencies in the Los Angeles area. Furthermore, it has been noted that the lawsuit seeks to alter a ballot initiative passed by Kern County voters that limits the plaintiffs from recycling biosolids at two farm sites in the County including a 5,000 acre farm owned by Los Angeles.