- The Washington Times - Tuesday, September 18, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge yesterday tossed out a lawsuit filed by California that sought to hold the world’s six largest automakers accountable for their contribution to global warming.

In its lawsuit filed last year, California blamed the auto industry for millions of dollars it expects to spend on repairing damage from global-warming induced floods and other natural disasters.

But District Judge Martin Jenkins in San Francisco handed California Attorney General Jerry Brown‘s environmental crusade a stinging rebuke when he ruled that it was impossible to determine to what extent automakers are responsible for global-warming damages in California. Many sources, including other industries and even natural sources, are responsible for emitting carbon dioxide.

“The court is left without guidance in determining what is an unreasonable contribution to the sum of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, or in determining who should bear the costs associated with global climate change that admittedly result from multiple sources around the globe,” Judge Jenkins wrote.

The judge also ruled that keeping the lawsuit alive would threaten the country’s foreign policy position.

The Bush administration has consistently opposed any international treaty — including the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — that would impose cuts on greenhouse gases.

“President George W. Bush opposes the protocol because it exempts developing nations who are major emitters, fails to address two major pollutants, and would have a negative economic impact on the United States,” Judge Jenkins wrote in his 24-page decision. To rule in favor of California would undermine the administration’s position, Judge Jenkins said.

Judge Jenkins said it’s up to lawmakers, rather than judges, to determine how responsible automakers are for global warming problems.

He ruled that a court “injecting itself into the global warming thicket at this juncture would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government.”

Ted Boutrous, who represented the automakers, said that the global warming issue “is very complicated and this court said it’s best left to national lawmakers to determine policy. We are pleased with the ruling.”

The state sued Chrysler Motor Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and the U.S. subsidiaries of Japan’s biggest manufacturers, Honda North America, Nissan North America and Toyota Motor North America.

Michigan’s attorney general also filed court papers backing the automakers, making many of the same arguments that Judge Jenkins ultimately adopted.

Michigan said its economy would be severely crippled if automakers were forced to pay damages to California for contributing to global warming. Michigan said such policy decisions should be left for federal lawmakers.

The lawsuit was originally filed by former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who was elected state treasurer in November 2006. Mr. Brown took over the lawsuit after his election as attorney general and he has made fighting global warming a priority.

Mr. Brown has successfully sued San Bernadino County to add a carbon emissions reduction scheme in its revised general plan. Last week, he wrested a $10 million agreement from oil giant ConocoPhillips Co. to reduce or offset its carbon output. He also has sent threatening letters to about a dozen state agencies demanding they take climate change into account when making development plans.

“We need to study this closely,” said Deputy Attorney General Ken Alex, who argued the state’s case. “We will give serious consideration to an appeal.”

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide