This is interesting. I was starting to get the impression that no-one in power in the US so much as believes in the possibility of global warming, so this was a nice suprise.
12:29 22 July 04
NewScientist.com news service
Eight US states and New York City filed a lawsuit against five US power companies for their contribution to global warming, in a historic action on Wednesday.
The states - citing resistance from the federal government - are banding together to force the utility companies to cut their carbon dioxide emissions by at least 3 per cent per year for 10 years.
"If we do not act soon, the steps we will need to take to prevent global warming will be much greater and much harder," says New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
He says the companies - American Electric Power Company, the Southern Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy Inc, and Cinergy Corporation - were chosen because they are the five largest carbon dioxide emitters in the US, operating 174 power plants in 20 states.
"These companies together emit 650 million tons of carbon dioxide each year - 10 percent of the country's carbon dioxide and more than all of the UK," he adds.
The plaintiffs - which also include California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York state, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin - say the federal government has failed to take action on the problem.
Public nuisance
Carbon dioxide, unlike acid rain-producing sulphur dioxide, for example, is not listed as a "criteria" pollutant regulated by the federal Clean Air Act. Despite appeals to add it to the law, the current administration has refused.
"We're here because the federal government has abdicated its responsibility - as it did with tobacco - and the states are filling the breach," says Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, referring to a multi-billion-dollar settlement paid to states by tobacco companies.
The states are invoking a long-held "public nuisance" law aimed at protecting property owners from the actions of their neighbours. "Carbon dioxide doesn't respect state boundaries - we receive all of the pollution and none of the power" from out-of-state plants, Blumenthal says.
"It's the problem being attacked and the use of nuisance law that I think is remarkable here," Dan Esty, director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy in New Haven, Connecticut, told New Scientist. The law applies only in the absence of a comprehensive federal regulatory law, so Esty says the case will likely hinge on whether or not the Clean Air Act comprehensively accounts for greenhouse gases.
Piecemeal litigation
The suit is seeking no monetary damages - simply a steady reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over a decade. Spitzer said increasing the plants' efficiency, switching to cleaner-burning fuels, and using wind or solar power were among the "technologically and economically feasible" fixes his team had studied.
But power companies remain sceptical. "I would like to see their data on that," says Pat Hemlepp, spokesman for American Electric Power (AEP), the country's largest electricity generator. Switching from coal to natural gas, for example, would drive the price of natural gas even higher than it is, raising energy costs for consumers, he told New Scientist.
Outside observers believe the suit could start a trend. "If the states win the lawsuit, this would open up the door for other actions," says Nathan Alley, former editor of the New York University Environmental Law Journal. "Maybe Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency would decide that, rather than allowing this piecemeal litigation, they should include carbon dioxide in the Clean Air Act."
Maggie McKee
Anyone have any idea how it will turn out?
