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
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular