[JURIST] The Supreme Court of Alaska [official website] on Friday ruled [opinion, PDF] that a lawsuit claiming that officials have failed in their obligations to address climate change was rightfully dismissed in 2012, but not for the reasons cited by the lower court. The plaintiffs in the case were six children who originally filed the law suit in 2011, claiming that the state had violated its duties under the Alaska Constitution and the public trust doctrine [text, PDF] by not taking steps to protect the atmosphere. In 2012 the Superior Court of Alaska denied their claims, holding that they were political questions best suited to be addressed by other branches of state government. On appeal, the state Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment but stated it erred in its interpretation of the public trust doctrine. One of the attorneys for the children stated [Alaska Dispatch News report] in regards to the holding, “[t]he Court did some really good things in this decision today by ruling that people have the right to be in court because of harms from climate disruption and by underscoring the importance of the constitutional public trust doctrine.” Despite the holding the children involved in the case plan to continue to find ways to persuade the state of Alaska to limit emissions in the state.

Greenhouse gas emissions and global warming [JURIST news archive] are controversial topics in the US. JURIST Guest Columnists Joseph Otis Minott and Jay Duffy argue that the much-advocated transition from coal to natural gas, particularly that obtained through hydraulic fracturing [JURIST backgrounder], may not deliver promised climate benefits [JURIST op-ed]. In 2011 a federal judge ruled that the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is not obligated to reduce green house gas emissions [JURIST report] in order to protect polar bears. Also that year the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the effects of global warming are not covered [JURIST report] by a standard liability insurance policy. The US Supreme Court in 2011 ruled [JURIST report] in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut [Cornell LII backgrounder] that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act [text] displace claims made under the federal common law of nuisance regarding whether electric utilities contributed to global warming. All eight justices agreed in rejecting the claims by eight states, New York City and three private land trusts invoking the federal common law for public nuisance against four power companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) [official website].