Publication Date
2006
Abstract
After political efforts have failed to deal with the problem of global climate change, some scholars have encouraged litigation as a possible solution to the problem. The case of Connecticut v. American Electric Power Co. represents one attempt to use the federal courts to combat greenhouse gas emissions. In American Electric eight state attorneys general and New York City sued five large out-of-state power companies for carbon dioxide emissions, basing the case on the federal common law theory of interstate public nuisance. This Note discusses the appropriateness of the interstate public nuisance theory and the obstacles to climate change litigation. The Note concludes that federal courts are not likely to venture into the climate change debate because of concerns about institutional competency and the risk of impinging on the foreign policy prerogatives of the executive branch. The Southern District of New York's recent decision in the American Electric case adopts similar reasoning to this Note and supports the conclusion that climate change litigation will fail because of separation of powers principles
Recommended Citation
Harper, Benjamin P.
(2006)
"Climate Change Litigation: The Federal Common Law of Interstate Nuisance and Federalism Concerns,"
Georgia Law Review: Vol. 40:
No.
2, Article 8.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/glr/vol40/iss2/8
