A lawsuit filed by California鈥檚 attorney general seeking to hold six car manufacturers responsible for the local impacts of climate change has been rejected by a federal judge.
A Supreme Court ruling that the US government鈥檚 Environment Protection Agency (EPA) should set greenhouse-gas emissions standards proved crucial to the federal judge鈥檚 decision.
The suit was filed by California鈥檚 attorney general in September 2006 and targeted General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, and US subsidiaries of Honda, Toyota, and Nissan.
Advertisement
It claimed cars made by the six companies generate more than 30% of human-generated carbon dioxide emissions in California, and should therefore be held accountable for millions of dollars that the state has spent on dealing with the impacts of car emissions (see California faces uphill battle on car emissions).
Guidance necessary
Had the car makers lost the suit, any funds awarded were to have gone towards addressing problems related to climate change, such as increased ozone pollution, rising sea levels, and an increased threat of wildfires.
But federal judge Martin Jenkins declared the issue of global warming and emissions standards should be decided in the political rather than legal arena.
In his ruling, which approves the car manufacturers鈥� move to dismiss the case, Jenkins writes that in order for his court to 鈥淸inject] itself into the global warming thicket鈥� it would need the 鈥減olitical branches of government鈥� to first make a decision regarding what level of emissions is admissible.
鈥淭he court is left without guidance in determining what is an unreasonable contribution to the sum of carbon dioxide in the Earth鈥檚 atmosphere,鈥� the judge writes.
鈥楴o emissions remedy鈥�
Jenkin鈥檚 ruling in part stems from the US Supreme Court decision, in April 2007, that the US Environment Protection Agency had the duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. A spokesperson for the EPA told 快猫短视频 that setting emissions standards 鈥渋s still in deliberation鈥� and that 鈥渋t could be quite some time鈥� before a decision is reached.鈥�
The case in April saw 11 states, led by Massachusetts, accusing the EPA of unlawfully refusing to regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses. The Supreme Court found in favour of the states, declaring that setting emissions standards for engines was the EPA鈥檚 responsibility.
Based on this ruling, Jenkins concluded that without further guidance from the US government, he could not determine whether the car makers鈥� emissions were unlawful.
鈥淲e understand why a district federal judge may not want to jump into a global warming thicket with both feet,鈥� says Ken Alex, California鈥檚 supervising deputy attorney general. 鈥淩ight now, because the political branches 鈥� the federal government, Congress, and the executive branch 鈥� have not acted, the state of California is left without a remedy.鈥�
Theodore Boutrous, lead lawyer for the auto makers, called Jenkins鈥� ruling 鈥渁bsolutely correct鈥� adding: 鈥淲e have said all along that global warming presents exceedingly complex policy issues that must be addressed at the national and international levels by Congress and the president, not the federal courts.鈥�
Climate Change 鈥� Want to know more about global warming: the science, impacts and political debate? Visit our continually updated special report.
