February, 06 2009, 10:15am EDT
Landmark Global Warming Lawsuit Settled
Environmental groups and ‘cool cities’ force U.S. financing agencies to take action on climate as precedent-setting seven-year-old suit ends
WASHINGTON
A federal lawsuit that sought to force two U.S. agencies to address the
global warming implications of their overseas financing activities was
settled today after more than six years; the suit established important
legal precedents related to global warming.
Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the city of Boulder, Colorado, filed the suit (Friends of the Earth, Inc., et al. v. Spinelli, et al.)
in August 2002 and were later joined by the California cities of
Arcata, Santa Monica and Oakland. The plaintiffs alleged that
Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation illegally provided more than $32 billion in
financing and insurance to fossil fuel projects over 10 years without
assessing whether the projects contributed to global warming or
impacted the U.S. environment, as they were required to do under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Fossil fuel projects financed
by the two agencies from 1990 to 2003 produced cumulative emissions
that were equivalent to nearly eight percent of the world's annual
carbon dioxide emissions, or nearly one third of annual U.S. emissions
in 2003.
In August 2005, a federal judge found that the U.S. cities suffering
economic and other damages from climate change had standing to sue
under NEPA, opening up the courthouse doors for the first time to those
injured by climate change. Testimony from the case, which successfully
asserted that climate change is real and caused by human activities,
later informed the Mass. v EPA
decision, in which the Supreme Court held that carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases are pollutants that can be regulated under the Clean
Air Act.
Under the settlement agreed to today, the Export-Import Bank will begin
taking carbon dioxide emissions into account in evaluating fossil fuel
projects and create an organization-wide carbon policy. The Overseas
Private Investment Corporation will establish a goal of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions associated with projects by 20 percent over
the next ten years. Both agencies will commit to increasing financing
for renewable energy.
The settlement represents an important victory in the continuing
campaign to hold both agencies accountable for their contributions to
climate change. The settlement agreement was filed this morning in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
plaintiffs in the suit were represented by the law firm of Shems
Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders PLLC (Burlington, Vermont) and Natural
Heritage Institute (San Francisco, California).
Reactions from the plaintiffs:
"This settlement is a substantial victory for our climate. It
will force federal agencies to move away from fossil fuel projects and
account for the climate impacts of their lending. As President Obama
said in his inaugural address, 'We can no longer consume the world's
resources without regard to effect.' The settlement agreed to today is
a first step toward making Obama's vision a reality for these
institutions."
- Michelle Chan, Senior Policy Analyst, Friends of the Earth
"When we launched this lawsuit in 2003, we were deep in the Bush global
warming dark ages. We were able to prove that climate change harms
American cities and citizens and we forced these agencies to change
their behavior. Now that we have entered the brighter Obama age,
Greenpeace hopes that sweeping reform of global warming policy will
reach every corner of the government."
- Kert Davies, Research Director, Greenpeace
"This case was one of the very first climate change lawsuits and
established the framework for other climate change cases. The claims
here are no longer considered novel. The settlement reached today will
help ensure that the federal government takes a close look at its
contributions to climate change and that the courts are available if
the government fails in this critical obligation."
- Ron Shems, lead council for the plaintiffs
"For far too long, American tax dollars have funded highly
irresponsible and damaging fossil fuel projects in countries where
environmental laws simply don't exist. These projects have not only
hurt people in those countries-they have also contributed significantly
to global climate change, and in doing so, pose a direct threat to the
American people, the U.S. economy and the residents of Oakland. This
settlement represents a major step in the campaign to bring real
transparency and responsible environmental standards to energy projects
subsidized by our tax dollars. On behalf of the residents of Oakland,
California, I want to thank Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the
other plaintiffs for their work on this important case."
- Oakland City Attorney John Russo
"The city of Boulder is pleased with the outcome of this lawsuit. As
the first city to enact a carbon tax to address climate change, the
Boulder community is committed to the principles of environmental
sustainability and this result will further that impact. The coalition
forged in the lawsuit demonstrates that together, committed
organizations can make a positive difference toward protecting our
planet."
- Boulder City Manager Jane S. Brautigam
"The Arcata community is committed to leaving future generations a
safer, cleaner planet. This landmark victory reflects how local
leadership can take small steps to chart a more sustainable path. We
are proud to have been part of this forward thinking coalition and will
work to raise awareness about the need for immediate and long term
actions to mitigate our global footprint."
- Arcata Mayor Mark Wheetley
"Santa Monica has a strong commitment to protecting our environment.
Our participation in this case and the important settlement that was
achieved results from our continuing advocacy of sound environmental
stewardship."
- Santa Monica Mayor Ken Genser
Resources:
Friends of the Earth: Michelle Chan, Senior Policy Analyst, Friends of the Earth, 202-427-3000 (in California)
Greenpeace: Kert Davies, Research Director, Greenpeace, 202-319-2455
Plaintiffs' Council: Ron Shems, Shems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders PLLC, 802-860-1003 ext 103
City of Oakland: Alex Katz, Oakland City Attorney's Office, 510-238-3148
City of Arcata: Mark Wheetley, Mayor, at (707) 845-7664, or Mark Andre, Director Environmental Services, at (707) 822-8184.
City of Boulder: City Manager's Office, 303-441-4020 or the City Attorney's Office, 303-441-3020.
City of Santa Monica: Adam Radinsky, Head, Consumer Protection Unit, Santa Monica City Attorney's Office, 310-458-8327
Background information about the case is available at https://www.foe.org/climatelawsuit.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
Trump Bid to Block $4.9 Billion With 'Pocket Rescission' Blasted as 'Authoritarianism 101'
"Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional scholar.
Aug 30, 2025
Democracy defenders and members of Congress are condemning US President Donald Trump's effort to use a "pocket rescission" process to block $4.9 billion in foreign aid as authoritarian and illegal.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Friday shared on social media Trump's letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) about the move. According to a White House fact sheet linked in a subsequent post, much of the money was headed for the US Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which Trump has gutted.
As The Associated Press explained:
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the president the authority to propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Congress can within 45 days vote on pulling back the funds or sustaining them, but by proposing the rescission so close to September 30 the White House argues that the money won’t be spent and the funding lapses.
What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 by Democratic then-President Jimmy Carter, and the Trump administration argues it's a legally permissible tool despite some murkiness as Carter had initially proposed the clawback well ahead of the 45-day deadline.
Shortly after the OMB social media posts, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that OMB Director Russ Vought was helping shutter USAID, writing on the platform X: "Since January, we've saved the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. And with a small set of core programs moved over to the State Department, USAID is officially in closeout mode. Russ is now at the helm to oversee the closeout of an agency that long ago went off the rails. Congrats, Russ."
Meanwhile, Rubio's former congressional colleagues and others are sounding the alarm over the administration's effort.
"America is staring down next month's government funding deadline on September 30," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). "It's clear neither Trump nor congressional Republicans have any plan to avoid a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown. With Trump's illegal 'pocket rescission': They seem eager to inflict further pain on the American people, raising their healthcare costs, compromising essential services, and further damaging our national security."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) also put pressure on GOP lawmakers, saying that "this is wrong—and illegal. Not only is Trump gutting $5 billion in foreign aid that saves lives and advances America's interests, but he's doing so using an unlawful 'pocket recission' method that undermines Congress' power of the purse. I urge my Republican colleagues to say hell no."
While most Republicans on Capitol Hill have backed Trump's endeavors to claw back funding previously appropriated by Congress, GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted against his $9 billion rescission package earlier this year.
Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also spoke out against Trump's new move, noting in a Friday statement that under the US Constitution, Congress has "the power of the purse," and the Government Accountability Office "has concluded that this type of rescission is unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act."
Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional scholar, similarly stressed that "Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed. Trump's 'pocket recissions' are lawless and absurd. If a president opposes legislative spending decisions, he can veto them, subject to override, but once passed, he must execute on them."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, declared in a Friday statement that with the pocket rescission move, the Trump administration "demonstrated yet again its contempt for Congress' power of the purse and the Constitution's separation of powers."
"With this Constitution-mocking action, the administration is bringing us closer to a shutdown on September 30, and it doesn't seem to care," Gilbert said. "We call on Congress to push back, pass and abide by appropriations packages, and fight the administration’s illegal impoundments that harm regular Americans."
"This is not just a constitutional crisis, it's a matter of global justice," she added. "The congressionally appropriated funds that the Trump administration illegally aims to cancel support economic development programs to empower the world's most vulnerable and impoverished, and address some of the ravage of catastrophic climate change in developing nations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Tariffs Bound for Supreme Court After Another Legal Loss
If the president's policies are struck down, the administration may have to repay billions of dollars in duties, which customs and trade experts warn "would be a logistical nightmare."
Aug 29, 2025
As working-class Americans endure the pain from US President Donald Trump's tariff war, the Republican signaled that he plans to keep fighting for the levies after a loss at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Trump is the first president to impose tariffs by citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. In a 7-4 ruling, the appellate court's majority found that most of his tariffs are illegal.
The court said that "tariffs are a core congressional power" and "we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the reciprocal tariffs and trafficking tariffs."
The decision affirms a May ruling from the US Court of International Trade, which also found that Trump exceeded his authority.
Friday's ruling is paused until October 14, to give the White House time to appeal to the nation's highest court. Trump suggested he would do so in a post on his Truth Social platform, writing:
ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else. If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products. For many years, Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Politico noted that the Friday decision opens the door "for the administration to potentially have to repay billions worth of duties," and pointed to recent warnings from customs and trade experts "that repayments would be a logistical nightmare, and would likely trigger a wave of legal challenges from other businesses and industry groups seeking reimbursement."
Trump's latest legal loss on the tariff front follows various analyses and polling that show the harm his policies are causing. One Accountable.US report from this month highlights comments from grocery executives about passing costs on to consumers, and a recent survey found that 90% of Americans consider the price of groceries a source of stress.
Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee also released a related report earlier this month. As JEC Ranking Member Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said at the time, "While President Trump promised that he would expand our manufacturing sector, this report shows that, instead, the chaos and uncertainty created by his tariffs has placed a burden on American manufacturers that could weigh our country down for years to come."
Another mid-August analysis from the Century Foundation and Groundwork Collaborative details the surging cost of school supplies as American families prepared for the 2025-26 academic year. TCF senior fellow Rachel West said that "from his reckless tariffs to his budget law slashing food assistance and federal student loans, Trump's back-to-school message to America's families is crystal clear: Don't expect help, just expect less."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US 'Denying and Revoking' Visas of Palestinian Officials Ahead of UN General Assembly
The Palestinian presidency said the decision—which comes as more and more nations formally recognize Palestine's statehood—"stands in clear contradiction to international law and the UN Headquarters Agreement."
Aug 29, 2025
The Trump administration said Friday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio "is denying and revoking visas from members of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority" ahead of next month's United Nations General Assembly in New York.
The US State Department said Friday that "the Trump administration has been clear: It is in our national security interests to hold the PLO and PA accountable for not complying with their commitments, and for undermining the prospects for peace."
"Before the PLO and PA can be considered partners for peace, they must consistently repudiate terrorism—including the October 7 massacre—and end incitement to terrorism in education, as required by US law and as promised by the PLO," the statement continues.
No US administration in modern times has ever demanded that Israel repudiate its generations-long illegal occupation and settler colonization of Palestine, its ongoing genocide in Gaza, or any other violation of international law or human rights.
"The PA must also end its attempts to bypass negotiations through international lawfare campaigns, including appeals to the [International Criminal Court] and [International Court of Justice], and efforts to secure the unilateral recognition of a conjectural Palestinian state," the State Department added. "Both steps materially contributed to Hamas' refusal to release its hostages, and to the breakdown of the Gaza ceasefire talks."
The ICC last year issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and the forced starvation of Palestinians that is driving a famine that has killed at least hundreds of Palestinians and is starving hundreds of thousands more. The ICJ is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa—not the PA.
As for ceasefire talks, Matthew Miller, who served as a State Department spokesperson during the Biden administration, recently admitted that Israel habitually torpedoed ceasefire agreements each time they were nearing a conclusion in what he called a sustained effort to "try and sabotage" a deal. Miller repeatedly stood at his podium and told reporters that Hamas was to blame for thwarting a truce.
Miller added that Netanyahu openly admitted to US officials that he wanted to continue the Gaza war for "decades."
It is not clear which Palestinian officials will have their visas denied or revoked. The office of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in a statement responding to the US announcement that "this decision stands in clear contradiction to international law and the UN Headquarters Agreement—which effectively shields UN member-state officials from US immigration policies—particularly since the state of Palestine is an observer member of the United Nations."
This isn't the first time the US has blocked Palestinian officials from attending a General Assembly. In 1998, the Regan administration denied then-PLO Chair Yasser Arafat a visa and the General Assembly was convened in Geneva instead of New York. There have already been numerous calls to relocate this year's General Assembly to the Swiss city following the US move.
The US announcement comes as more and more countries formally recognize Palestinian statehood or move to do so amid Israel's genocidal assault, siege, and famine in Gaza, which, combined, have left more than 230,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and the strip in ruins.
Approximately 150 of the UN's 193 member states have officially recognized Palestine. Since October 2023, countries including Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and Spain have either recognized Palestine or announced their intent to do so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular