Local officials say global warming will hurt SM tourism
SAN FRANCISCO — The U.S. District Court heard oral arguments Friday in a precedent-setting lawsuit, joined by Santa Monica, that challenges taxpayer-funded projects that cause climate change.
Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the cities of Boulder, Colo., and Oakland, Santa Monica and Arcata, Calif., have all filed the suit on behalf of their members and citizens against two U.S. government agencies — the Export- Import Bank (Ex-Im) and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).
Judge Jeffrey S. White took the case under submission, and it’s unknown when he’ll make a ruling. Santa Monica city attorneys are hopeful that the questions Judge White asked point in their favor.
“The tentative ruling was to deny the government’s summary judgment, which is a motion to throw out the case,” said Deputy City Attorney Adam Radinsky. “The judge asked questions which called into question the government’s theory of its defense.”
The suit asserts that OPIC and Ex-Im breached the law when they financed more than $32 billion in projects without assessing their contribution to global warming or impact on the environment as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Key provisions of NEPA require all federal agencies to conduct an assessment of programs and project-specific decisions that have a significant effect on the human environment.
The projects, which were approved during the past 10 years, include oil fields, pipelines and coal-fired power plants and account for 32 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or 8 percent of worldwide GHG emissions annually. Projects include many of the largest new oil field developments in South America, Mexico, the Caspian region and Southeast Asia. Companies that have benefited from Ex-Im and OPIC funding include Exxon, Halliburton and Enron.
That output contributes to global warming, officials argue, which threatens to erode Santa Monica’s beaches and bluffs, batter the pier and overwhelm its state-of-the-art drainage system. In the lawsuit, they demand the fossil fuel projects be studied.
“The claim by the Bush administration lawyers that pollution from these projects is not having an impact is reminiscent of an era when tobacco scientists stated that smoking didn’t cause cancer and got away with it,” said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace.
The case was originally filed in 2002, and Santa Monica joined it in January of 2004.
Local officials said the stakes are high in Santa Monica. The health of a $788 million tourist industry that employs more than 11,000 workers and pumps nearly $24 million a year into city coffers is at stake, they argued, adding increased storm activity will not only lead to erosion but require more upkeep, and, in the case of the Palisades Bluffs, endanger motorists and pedestrians.
In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency released a report on the growing domestic impacts of global warming. According to the report, changes over the next few decades are expected to put southeastern coastal communities at greater risk of storm surges, prompt more severe heat waves, and reduce snowpack and water supplies in the West.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 3, 2005. Read the original PDF.