abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

24 Sep 2012

Leigh Jones, National Law Journal [USA]

Alaskan village loses appeal in global warming case against oil giants [USA]

Residents of an Alaskan village threatened by an eroding coastline have lost an appeal in a closely watched case against some of the biggest oil producers in the world. The U.S. Court of Appeals...found that the village of Kivalina could not recover money damages from ExxonMobil..., BP..., Chevron...and other energy companies [including ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, AES, Duke Energy, and Edison International] for greenhouse gas emissions that the plaintiffs said threaten the destruction of their northwest Alaskan coastal homes...In reaching its decision, the court relied on a case decided last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Connecticut v. American Electric Power...the justices held that the Clean Air Act, instead of nuisance claims, provided a way to stop the energy companies from emitting greenhouse gases. The Ninth Circuit panel ruled similarly, even though the Kivalina plaintiffs sought monetary damages as opposed to the injunction at issue in the Supreme Court case.

Part of the following timelines

USA: Alaskan village loses appeal in case against BP & other energy firms over emissions that allegedly caused climate change, contributed to erosion of its land

Kivalina lawsuit (re global warming)