Eight states and New York City filed a public nuisance lawsuit Wednesday that sought a significant reduction in power-plant emissions of carbon dioxide, which the plaintiffs contended contributed to global warming and was therefore an increasing threat to their states' respective environmental and economic health.

Global warming poses a serious threat to our environment, our natural resources, our public health and safety, and our economy, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in a release. Requiring these major polluters to do their part is crucial to successfully fighting the threat.

The public-nuisance suit is the first of its kind filed over carbon dioxide, which is not labeled a pollutant by the Environmental Protection Agency but is considered a primary culprit in global warming. It is based on federal law that allows states to sue to protect their citizens from pollution even if it originates in another state.

In this case, the plaintiffs - California, New York, New York City, Iowa, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, New Jersey and Connecticut - argue that the 174 power plants operated by the five defendants in the case are responsible for 650 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted into the air every year. That represents 10 percent of the total carbon dioxide annually emitted by the country.

The eventual effects of CO2 pollution will be severe and significant - increasing asthma and heat-related illnesses, eroding shorelines, floods, and other natural disasters, loss of forests and other precious resources, said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. We must act ... quickly to stem global warming and safeguard both our environment and economy.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer told a news conference in Manhattan that a shrinking polar ice cap and increasingly warmer global temperatures were proof enough that global warming was a genuine threat that needed to be addressed sooner rather than later.

The science underlying our lawsuit is universally accepted, and the law is clear, Spitzer said. The defendants' contribution to global warming is beyond dispute. All that is lacking now is action.

The scientific merits of the entire global-warming phenomenon actually are hotly debated by advocates on both sides of the issue; however, the industry's response to the lawsuit was rooted more on legal grounds, specifically the authority of state prosecutors to barge in on what critics say is legislative matter.

Usually it is a state's legislature or Congress that sets policies through the democratic process, not lawyers in closed courtrooms, said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis. The fact is Congress, not states attorneys general, is charged with regulating interstate commerce and is on record as rejecting greenhouse-gas energy mandates.

Burnett, along with other industry representatives, also contended that carbon dioxide was a naturally occurring substance and said the idea of singling out individual companies in a lawsuit was wrong.

This action brings new meaning to the term 'nuisance lawsuit,' declared Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council. Given that every human emits carbon dioxide every day, the next thing we anticipate from these attorney generals is a collective demand to hold our breath.

The ERCC, which represents power producers in Washington, has long stressed the industry's desire to control pollution from its coal-burning plants, although they want it done in a controlled manner that will not pose undo hardships on the companies or lead to plants shutting down at a time when electricity demand in the United States continues to increase.

Filing lawsuits is not a constructive way to deal with this issue, Melissa A. McHenry, a spokeswoman for American Electric Power, told The New York Times.

American Electric Power is a defendant in the lawsuit along with Cinergy, the Southern Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority and Xcel Energy.

In order to preserve an acceptable timeline for reducing emissions of all kinds, the electricity industry has argued that a program of market-based incentives launched in 1990 worked well in cutting acid rain and will work just as well in cutting emissions of nitrous oxides, mercury and other pollutants.

Although they do not consider carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, the industry remains largely opposed to large-scale, mandatory cuts in emissions on the grounds that the costs and the uneven pace of advances in emissions-control technology require a longer timeline - unless, of course, the nation is willing to idle those power plants that aren't in compliance.

In order to maintain the clarity of the regulatory process, the power industry is leaning on the federal government to set a single set of standards for emissions controls established with full consideration of the economic effect of these potentially expensive upgrades.

While the industry prefers a more deliberate pace, the plaintiffs countered that the threat posed by global warming was real and imminent enough that power plants should, and could, immediately cut carbon dioxide output without any significant impact on power production.

Spitzer told reporters the plaintiff states did not try to negotiate any kind of a deal on carbon dioxide emissions with the companies; however, it was clear to him that the companies weren't willing to commit to any reductions.

Segal predicted Wednesday that the suit would be thrown out by a judge in the Manhattan court where it was filed; however, if it prevails it could give the states a lot of new weight in the delicate balancing act between global warming and the prodigious U.S. appetite for energy.

BOX: Eight states sue over power-plant CO2 New York (UPI) July 21, 2004 - Eight states Wednesday filed a public nuisance lawsuit over emissions of carbon dioxide from U.S. power plants they allege contribute to global warming.

The states are seeking a 3 percent annual reduction in CO2 emissions over the next 10 years by five companies the suit alleges are responsible for 10 percent of percent of the emissions in the United States.

The suit alleges CO2 is a major contributor to global warming, which allegedly poses threats to public health and the economy as well as to the environment.

Industry officials had earlier dismissed the lawsuit as election-year posturing and said many of the issues were already pending in federal court.

Nevertheless, the attorneys general who filed the action said Wednesday the technology exists to achieve the desired CO2 cuts at minimal cost to the companies.

The states joining the suit were: New York, California, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Vermont, Rhode Island and Iowa. New York City also joined as a plaintiff.

All rights reserved. Copyright 2004 by United Press International. Sections of the information displayed on this page (dispatches, photographs, logos) are protected by intellectual property rights owned by United Press International. As a consequence, you may not copy, reproduce, modify, transmit, publish, display or in any way commercially exploit any of the content of this section without the prior written consent of by United Press International.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express

Thanks for being here; We need your help. The SpaceDaily news network continues to grow but revenues have never been harder to maintain. With the rise of Ad Blockers, and Facebook - our traditional revenue sources via quality network advertising continues to decline. And unlike so many other news sites, we don't have a paywall - with those annoying usernames and passwords. Our news coverage takes time and effort to publish 365 days a year. If you find our news sites informative and useful then please consider becoming a regular supporter or for now make a one off contribution.
SpaceDaily Contributor $5 Billed Once credit card or paypal		SpaceDaily Monthly Supporter $5 Billed Monthly paypal only