Court declines global warming case

In a May 20 ruling the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case in which the Chukchi Sea coastal village of Kivalina had sued multiple energy and utility companies for the impacts of global warming from fossil fuel use. The village claimed that recent coastal erosion threatening the village’s survival is a direct consequence of human-induced global warming. Companies sued included ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips.

According to court documents the village alleged that carbon dioxide produced by energy company actions has caused the Earth’s atmosphere to warm. Consequent loss of sea ice has left the village’s land exposed to massive erosion from storms, the village claimed. The village also claimed that rising sea levels as a consequence of the expansion of the ocean waters and the melting of glaciers and ice caps is destroying Kivalina’s land.

The California District Court originally dismissed the claim on the grounds that dealing with climate change is a political issue and because the court found that Kivalina had not demonstrated a causal connection between the energy companies’ actions and damage to the village. The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which found that the federal Clean Air Act and consequent actions of the Environmental Protection Agency to address greenhouse gas emissions supersede Kivalina’s ability to make a statutory claim against the energy companies as a “public nuisance.”

By declining to take the case, the Supreme Court has presumably in effect upheld the 9th Circuit’s position.

Although there has been a stream of court cases in recent years relating to climate change, the Kivalina case is somewhat unusual in that it has involved litigation under common law. Most cases have involved appealing government agency decisions under legislative schemes such as the National Environmental Policy Act.

—Alan Bailey