America’s most populous state, California, opened a new front in its struggle with climate change on Wednesday when it announced that it was suing the six largest carmakers in the United States for allegedly contributing to global warming.
In the unprecedented lawsuit, the state accused Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Chrysler and Nissan of creating a ”public nuisance” and costing it millions of dollars. Environmental campaigners hailed the lawsuit as a landmark event in the effort to deal with global warming.
The suit, filed in a US district court in northern California, alleges that vehicle emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, and argues that the car manufacturers should be held responsible for the past and future cost of combating this crisis.
”Global warming is causing significant harm to California’s environment, economy, agriculture and public health,” said the state’s Democratic attorney general, Bill Lockyer, who filed the complaint. ”The impacts are costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing … It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis.”
California is the largest car market in the US, with more than two million new vehicles registered every year, compared with about 2,5-million for the entire United Kingdom. Car sales in the state totalled $83-billion in 2005 according to the Automobile Alliance, an industry group representing carmakers. The 29-million registered vehicles in the state drive a total of 512-billion kilometres in the year.
The complaint further argues that monitoring and addressing the effects of global warming has cost the state millions of dollars. ”Global warming has already injured California, its environment, its economy, and the health and well-being of its citizens,” the complaint states, adding that dealing with global warming’s harmful effects in the future, ”will almost certainly cost millions more”.
Roda Verheyen, co-director of Friends of the Earth’s Climate Justice Programme, welcomed the development, saying: ”This was a case waiting to happen. It is the most significant piece of climate change litigation that has ever been brought.”
Daniel Becker, director of the Sierra Club’s global warming programme, said the lawsuit built on initiatives taken by California and other states: ”While the Bush administration continues to burrow its head in the sand, California has taken out a whole arsenal to combat emissions.”
He said California’s boldness stemmed in part from the attitude of its governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has been outspoken in his determination to combat global warming.
The Automobile Alliance in a statement said car manufacturers were already working to produce more fuel-efficient cars. Arguing that it needed more time to study the complaint, it noted that a similar suit, which saw energy companies sued on public nuisance grounds, had failed. ”Using nuisance suits to address global warming would involve the courts in deciding political questions beyond their jurisdiction,” the alliance said. ”This opens the door to lawsuits targeting any activity that uses fossil fuel for energy.”
The lawsuit comes as California aggressively pursues a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. A law passed in 2004 will force carmakers to reduce carbon dioxide exhaust emissions by 30%. That measure is currently being challenged by car manufacturers.
Last month the California state legislature approved a measure to force utilities to cut emissions, and the state has sued the federal government for failing to address the effects of global warming.
Suit cases: Guns, cigarettes and burgers
Over the last decade, some of the world’s biggest businesses have found themselves on the receiving end of lawsuits in America.
Guns
In 1998, New Orleans sued gunmakers to force them to cover police and hospital costs incurred by their weapons. It argued that the firearms industry was liable because it made ”unreasonably dangerous” products which lacked the safety mechanisms necessary to ensure only their owners could use them. A fortnight later, Chicago announced it had decided to sue 22 firearms manufacturers and distributors for flooding the local market with guns which they knew were likely to fall into criminal hands.
It filed a suit for $433-million, claiming that the industry constituted a public nuisance. The gun lobby denied liability, saying that most guns were sold legally, making it difficult to establish a chain of culpability. In January 2003, the families of two men killed by the Washington snipers sued the shop where the suspects bought their high-powered rifle.
Tobacco
In the late 1990s, thousands of smokers from Florida brought a class action against America’s five biggest cigarette makers for the damage to their health. The case was brought under the name of Howard Engle, an 86-year-old paediatrician with respiratory diseases and lymphoma. In 2000, a jury decided the tobacco companies should pay a punitive award of $145-billion. But the state’s appeal court decided that Florida’s smokers should not have been allowed to bring a class action. In July, Florida’s supreme court refused to reinstate the damages.
Fast food
In July 2002, Caesar Barber from New York sued McDonald’s, Wendy’s, KFC and Burger King for damages, claiming their food had made him obese. A month later, the parents of two teenagers from New York sued McDonald’s, alleging the chain was responsible for their health problems. A US district judge dismissed the cases ruling the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a clear link between their problems and McDonald’s. – Guardian Unlimited Â