Arctic Marine Mammal Threatened by Global Warming and Oil Development 

SAN FRANCISCO— Today the Center for Biological Diversity formally notified Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne of its intent to file suit against him for refusing to process an Endangered Species Act listing petition for the Pacific walrus, imperiled by global warming and increasing oil development in its habitat in the Bering and Chukchi Seas off Alaska.

“The Arctic is in crisis from global warming. Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a stunning rate that vastly exceeds the predictions of the best climate models,” said Shaye Wolf, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity and lead author of the petition. “The Pacific walrus is an early victim of our failure to address global warming. As the sea ice recedes, so does the future of the Pacific walrus.”

The Pacific walrus is a well-known resident of the Arctic seas between Alaska and Siberia whose existence is intimately linked with the sea ice. The walrus, whose scientific name means “tooth-walking sea horse,” uses the sea ice as a platform from which to forage for clams and mussels in the relatively shallow waters over the continental shelf. Female walruses and their calves follow the sea ice year-round and rely on the safety of ice floes for nursing their calves and as essential resting platforms between foraging bouts since they cannot continually swim. All Pacific walrus are dependent on sea ice for breeding activities in winter.

However, this sea ice is rapidly shrinking and forcing the Pacific walrus into a land-based existence for which it is not adapted. In 2007, the early disappearance of summer sea ice pushed females and calves onto land on the Russian and Alaskan coasts in abnormally dense herds. As a result, calves suffered high mortality on land due to trampling by the dense herds. Walrus calves, unable to swim as long as adults, have also been observed abandoned by their mothers at sea, which has been attributed to the disappearance of the sea ice on which they would normally rest.

The impacts of global warming on the Pacific walrus will undoubtedly worsen in the coming years. Scientists expect that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer as early as 2012 and almost certainly by 2030. The Pacific walrus’s winter sea-ice habitat is projected to decline 40 percent by mid-century if current greenhouse gas emissions continue, and any remaining sea ice in winter will be much thinner and will not last as long. On top of this, warming sea temperatures and sea-ice loss appear to be decreasing the abundance of the Pacific walrus’s bottom-dwelling prey.

At the same time the sea-ice habitat of the walrus is melting away, the species’ most important foraging grounds are being auctioned off to oil companies to extract more fossil fuels that will further accelerate global warming and the melting of the Arctic. The Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193, held on February 6, 2008, resulted in 2.7 million acres of important Pacific walrus habitat being bid on by oil companies, thereby opening the door for oil and gas development in a significant portion of the Pacific walrus’s summer range. Numerous seismic surveys associated with oil leasing are planned in walrus habitat in the Chukchi Sea this summer.

Five other lease sales in the Pacific walrus’s habitat in the Chukchi, Beaufort, and Bering Seas are planned by 2012. Increased oil and gas development and the proliferation of shipping routes in the increasingly ice-free Arctic pose threats to the Pacific walrus due to the heightened risk of oil spills and rising levels of noise pollution and human disturbance.

“With rapid action to reduce carbon dioxide, methane, and black carbon emissions, combined with a moratorium on new oil-and-gas development and shipping routes in the Arctic, we can still save the Pacific walrus, the polar bear, and the entire Arctic ecosystem,” said Brendan Cummings, oceans program director for the Center. “But the window of opportunity to act is closing rapidly.”

The Pacific walrus is on a growing list of species for which the Center for Biological Diversity has sought Endangered Species Act protection due to global warming. The Center filed petitions for the Kittlitz’s murrelet in 2001, the staghorn and elkhorn corals in the Caribbean in 2004, the polar bear in 2005, 12 of the world’s penguin species in 2006, and the American pika and the ribbon seal in 2007. On May 14, 2008, in response to a court-ordered deadline, Secretary Kempthorne announced the listing of the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Oil and gas development, shipping, and greenhouse gas emissions affecting the Arctic would be subject to greater regulation under the Endangered Species Act if the Pacific walrus is listed. Listing of the Pacific walrus would not affect subsistence harvest of the species by Alaska natives, which is exempted from the law’s prohibitions.

The petition is available at http://www.biologicaldiversity.org.

The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution by consensus on 26 March 2008 recognising the threat that climate change poses to human rights. The resolution requests the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights conduct a detailed study on human rights and climate change. The views of States and other stakeholders are to be taken into account. The study is to be submitted to both the UN Human Rights Council and the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC. 

SAN FRANCISCO, California, February 26, 2008 (ENS) - The arctic coastal village of Kivalina and a federally recognised tribe, the Alaska Native village of Kivalina, are suing two dozen oil, coal and power companies that they claim have made the climate warmer, causing their land and homes to slide into the Chukchi Sea. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kivalina, Alaska]

Nine oil companies, as well as 14 power companies and one coal company are named in a lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

The village of Kivalina is located on the tip of an eight mile long barrier island located between the Chukchi Sea and a lagoon at the mouth of the Kivalina River 80 miles north of the Arctic Circle. It has been threatened by erosion caused by wave action and sea storms for several decades and a relocation committee was first formed by the community 20 years ago.

An Inupiat village numbering nearly 400 people, Kivalina is the only community in the area where people hunt bowhead whales. The hunters of Kivalina engage in spring whaling from openings in the sea ice - openings that have widened year by year until now open water appears during times when the sea used to ice over.

The original village was located at the north end of the Kivalina Lagoon but was relocated. Due to severe sea wave erosion during storms, Kivalina hopes to relocate again to a new site nearby and studies of alternate sites are ongoing.

Financing for the move is estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The community has encountered difficulties in choosing a new village site and funding the relocation effort.

"An increase in the frequency and intensity of sea storms, degradation and melting of permafrost, and accelerated erosion of the shoreline have recently forced the village into a state of emergency," according to a 2006 Relocation Master Plan written by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

"Sea storms have eroded the shoreline out from underneath several structures and threatens the airstrip. Emergency erosion control measures are in place, but will only slow the sea's inevitable reclamation of the island," the relocation plan states.

Funding problems aside, several sites identified as potential new village sites are problematic due to geophysical incompatibility with development, susceptibility to erosion or flooding, permittings, and social and cultural objections by various segments of the community.

Climate change scientist Dr. Gunter Weller of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks says Kivalina and another coastal village, Shishmaref, which is not part of the lawsuit, have suffered from erosion that he attributes to three factors, all deriving from global warming.

Permafrost has thawed, causing houses to slide off suddenly muddy cliffs, Weller said. Sea ice has thinned, creating expanses of open water that rise up in ever higher storm surges; and glaciers are melting, leading local sea levels to climb.

The townships must be relocated, at an estimated cost of more than $100 million, so they should stand a good chance of a court upholding a claim that they suffered damages because of global warming, Weller has said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Kivalina by two nonprofit law groups, Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment and the Native American Rights Fund, as well as six other law firms.

Named in the lawsuit are BP PLC, BP American Inc., BP Products North America, Inc., Chevron Corp. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., ConocoPhillips Co., ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Oil Co.

Also named were coal company Peabody Energy Corp., and power companies AES Corp., American Electric Power Co., Inc., American Electric Power Services Corp., DTE Energy Co., Duke Energy Corp., Dynegy Holdings, Inc., Edison International, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., Mirant Corp., NRG Energy, Pinnacle West Capital Corp., Reliant Energy Inc., The Southern Co., and Xcel Energy Inc.

Australian news items:

SBS World News Australia

The Age 

National Nine News

NELA (National Environmental Law Association) is to hold a conference in Fremantle, Western Australia on the Law of Climate Change. The conference will be held on 27-28 March 2008. Leading speakers will provide insight into the legal issues and challenges being generated by climate change.

To see the program and to register click here

SAN FRANCISCO— Today the Center for Biological Diversity filed a scientific petition with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect the Pacific walrus under the federal Endangered Species Act due to threats from global warming and growing oil and gas development throughout its range.

“The Arctic is in crisis from global warming. Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a stunning rate that vastly exceeds the predictions of the best climate models,” said Shaye Wolf, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity and lead author of the petition.“ The Pacific walrus is an early victim of our failure to address global warming. As the sea ice recedes, so does the future of the Pacific walrus.”

The Pacific walrus is a well-known resident of the Arctic seas between Alaska and Siberia whose existence is intimately linked with the sea ice. The walrus, whose scientific name means “tooth walking sea horse,” uses the sea ice as a platform from which to forage for clams and mussels in the relatively shallow waters over the continental shelf. A walrus can consume as many as 6,000 clams in a single multi-hour foraging session. Female walruses and their calves follow the sea ice year-round and rely on the safety of ice floes for nursing their calves and as essential resting platforms between foraging bouts since they cannot continually swim. All Pacific walrus are dependent on sea ice for their breeding activities in winter.

However, this sea ice is rapidly shrinking and forcing the Pacific walrus into a land-based existence for which it is not adapted. In 2007, the early disappearance of summer sea ice pushed females and calves onto land in abnormally dense herds. As a result, females and young were forced to abandon large regions of their at-sea feeding grounds, and calves suffered high mortality on land due to trampling by the dense herds. Walrus calves, unable to swim as long as adults, have also been abandoned by their mothers at sea, which has been attributed to the disappearance of the sea ice on which they would normally rest.

The impacts of global warming on the Pacific walrus will undoubtedly worsen in this century. Scientists expect that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer as early as 2012. The Pacific walrus’s winter sea-ice habitat is projected to decline 40 percent by mid-century if current greenhouse gas emissions continue, and any remaining sea ice in winter will be much thinner and will not last as long. On top of this, warming sea temperatures and sea-ice loss appear to be decreasing the abundance of the Pacific walrus’s bottom-dwelling prey. Habitat loss of this magnitude will undoubtedly commit Pacific walrus to population declines and an increased risk of extinction.

At the same time the sea-ice habitat of the walrus is melting away, its most important foraging grounds are being auctioned off to oil companies to extract more fossil fuels that will further accelerate global warming and the melting of the Arctic. The Chukchi Lease Sale 193, held on February 6, 2008, resulted in 2.7 million acres of important Pacific walrus being bid on by oil companies, thereby opening the door for oil and gas development in a significant portion of the Pacific walrus’s summer range. Five other lease sales in the Pacific walrus’s habitat in the Chukchi, Beaufort and Bering Seas are planned by 2012. Increased oil and gas development and the proliferation of shipping routes in the increasingly ice-free Arctic pose threats to the Pacific walrus from the heightened risk of oil spills and rising levels of noise pollution and human disturbance.

“With rapid action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, combined with a moratorium on new oil and gas development and shipping routes in the Arctic, we can still save the Pacific walrus, the polar bear, and the Arctic ecosystem,” added Wolf. “But the window of opportunity to act is closing rapidly.”

The Pacific walrus joins a growing list of species for which the Center for Biological Diversity has sought Endangered Species Act protection due to global warming. The Center filed petitions for the Kittlitz’s murrelet in 2001, the staghorn and elkhorn corals in the Caribbean in 2004, the polar bear in 2005, 12 of the world’s penguin species in 2006, and the American pika and the ribbon seal in 2007.

Oil and gas development, shipping, and greenhouse gas emissions affecting the Arctic would be subject to greater regulation under the Endangered Species Act if the walrus is listed. Listing of the Pacific walrus would not affect subsistence harvest of the species by Alaska Natives, which is exempted from the law’s prohibitions.

The petition is available at http://www.biologicaldiversity.org.

The Blue Wedges Coalition has lodged an application to have federal approval for the Port Phillip Bay channel deepening project quashed. The court action is based upon federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett's 15-page statement for approving the project. Blue Wedges Coalition argues that the approval is invalid as the minister failed to notify federal Climate Change Minister Penny Wong that the project would raise water levels.

View media on this application here.

Blue Wedges has won the right to challenge the decision and the hearing will be held on 20 February 2008.

View media on this win here

The Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace initiated legal action against the Bush administration on 9 January 2008 by submitting a formal notice of intent to sue the administration for missing the deadline to decide whether or not polar bears will be listed under the Endangered Species Act due to global warming. The notice of intent to sue must be sent prior to filing a lawsuit in the federal court.

Press Release click here

On 2 January 2008, the California Attorney General's office announced it is suing the United States Environmental Protection Agency "for 'wrongfully and illegally' blocking the state's landmark tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions standards."

Press release click here

Petition click here

On 11 December 2007, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California ruled in favour of the State of California in a case levied against the State by the automobile industry in an attempt to strike down the State's greenhouse gas law that regulates emissions from automobiles. Judge Anthony W. Ishii held that California's greenhouse gas law does not conflict with federal law by setting fuel economy standards, or with federal foreign policy, as long as California obtains the Clean Air Act waiver from EPA.

Judgement click here

The NSW Land & Environment Court has linked climate change with the principles of ESD in a recent case, Walker v. Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 741.

Justice Peter Briscoe overturned a decision by the Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, to allow the property developer Stockland to build homes and an aged-care facility at beachside Sandon Point, 14 kilometres north of Wollongong.

Justice Biscoe found Mr Sartor had failed to consider "whether changed weather patterns would lead to an increased flood risk in connection with the proposed development in circumstances where flooding was identified as a major constraint on development of the site."

The judgment acknowledges that climate change needs to be considered in relation to all developments but particularly coastal developments. The judgment also requires developers to tailor projects to meet principles of ecologically sustainable development in order to get building approval from a council or the Government.

Media coverage click here

15 November 2007: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) violated the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by exempting SUVs and pickup trucks frm fuel-economy standards. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires that the NHTSA set corporate average fuel-economy (CAFE) standards at the maximum feasible level. The court's decision in the case requires that teh NHTSA undertake a full environmental review of the gas-mileage standards.

Judgement click here

On 5 November 2007, the State of California filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in federal court in Washington D.C. The suit asks a judge to order the Environmental Protection Agency to act on California's request that it be allowed to set limits on motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases. California, under the federal Clean Air Act, will be allowed to set limits that are more strict than those set by the federal government if the EPA grants the state a waiver. California submitted its application for that waiver in December 2005, and the EPA has not yet acted on it.

California's Complaint click here

The Environmental Defenders Office (EDO) - acting for Anvil Hill Project Watch Association Inc - has commence d a new legal action against the proposed Anvil Hill coal mine. The case relates to the decision by the Commonwealth govt to not declare AnvilHill a 'controlled action' under the Federal EPBC Act.

The EDO will argue that the Commonwealth was wrong to find that a measurable impact on matters of national environmental significance was necessary, above and beyond the contribution that the Project's greenhouse gas emissionswill make to climate change. We believe that this is the first time acoal mine in NSW has faced such a challenge.

The documents relevant to the new Anvil Hill case are at http://www.envlaw.com.au/anvil.html

Friends of the Earth Canada has launched a landmark lawsuit against the Government of Canada for abandoning ts international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Filed in Federal Court in Ottawa by Canada ’s foremost environmental law organisation, Sierra Legal, the lawsuit alleges that the federal government is violating Canadian law by failing to meet its binding international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Canadan is second only to Austria, worldwide, in the staggering size of its failure to meet its Kyoto target, with its greenhouse gas emissions more than 34% above its 6% reduction target. Last month, the Canadian Government set greenhouse reduction targets of 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, which would leave Canada about 39% above the Kyoto target for 2008-2012.

In October 2006, an international legal opinion was presented to the Canadian government indicating that Canada had failed to show demonstrable progress” in achieving its Kyoto target, as required by 2005. This failure, along with others, activated a legal duty on the Environment Minister under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to act to prevent air pollution that violates an international agreement inding on Canada . The lawsuit is an application for judicial review, seeking enforcement of this duty.

Germanwatch Raises Complaint Against Volkswagen

Climate Damaging Business Strategy Violates OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises

Bonn, 7 May 2007: Today, the environmental and development organisation Germanwatch raised a complaint against the Volkswagen Corporation. Germanwatch accuses the company of violating the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

http://www.germanwatch.org/presse/2007-05-07e.htm

Massachusetts also brought the case that led the Supreme Court to rule on April 2 that US environmental officials have the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions -- a stinging defeat for the Bush administration.

"We intend to continue to press the federal government to live up to its statutory responsibilities to address excess emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants," Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said.

In a statement, Coakley said she disagreed with the Department of Energy's assertion that it lacked statutory authority to move the new standards forward. As a result, she said, tougher rules would be delayed until 2010 due to the Department of Energy's interpretation of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. "The Commonwealth (of Massachusetts) disagrees with the new interpretation," she said.

The proposed new standard would have affected products that account for a significant share of US energy consumption and are commonly used in offices, schools and hotels, she said. Tightening standards for air conditioning products alone could save about 2.913 quadrillion BTUs (a basic unit of thermal energy) over 27 years, eliminating the need for several major power plants, she said, quoting federal studies.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, which is based in New York, filed a parallel challenge in the 2nd U.S Circuit Court of Appeals. Earthjustice, a nonprofit, public interest law firm, is handling the case for NRDC.

The Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) is holding a seminar on "Liability for GHG [Greenhouse Gas] emissions from coal mined in Queensland" in Brisbane on 3 May 2007.

Further information is available here.

On 13 April 2007, the expert panel on the Kooragang Coal Terminal Expansion released their recommendations.

"The Panel recognises the historic value of the coal industry in generating wealth and stimulating regional development. However, the scale of the coal industry development in the Hunter Valley, and the efficiency of the coal supply chain and export of coal through the NCIG CET in the Port of Newcastle, now has the potential to introduce adverse externalities at the regional and global scale ..... mechanisms such as those outlined in the NSW Greenhouse Plan need to be implemented to reduce the potential adverse impacts such as those related to the enhanced greenhouse emissions and climate change contributed to by the NCIG Project"

The Panel recommendations are:

1. to establish a regional cumulative impact assessment study of the overall social, ecological and economic cost and benefit of the coal mining industry and coal supply chain in the Hunter Valley

2. that the Planning Dept "consider how the scale of carbon dioxide emissions from final combustion of coal exported through the NCIG CET could be offset in NSW using a portfolio of approaches outlined in the NSW Greenhouse Plan".

3. that the DoP "lead discussions with othe NSW Government agencies, in particular with the NSW Greenhouse Office, to consider how to rapidly develop and implement the range of innovative funding and technology mechanisms in the NSW Greenhouse Plan. The primary aim would be to focus on how to remove barriers and enhance the uptake of eerngy efficiency and renewable technologies....."

4. establish a levy of $1/ton on new coal exports to set up a Hunter Valley Ethical Coal Trust ('ethical coal'?) that would finance sustainable development activities in the Hunter Valley.

In a landmark 5:4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

The case follows a petition in 1999 by a coalition of 19 environmental groups, 12 US States, several cities and a territory asking the EPA to regulate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicles, describing them as "pollutants". The EPA responded four years later, under the threat of legal action, by denying the petition.

In response to the petitioner's denial, the petitioners sought review of the EPA's decision in the Federal Appeals Court in Washington DC. On July 15 2005, the three-judge panel issued a divided decision that failed to decide decisively the core legal question of whether the EPA has the authority to regulate global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act.

In a majority judgment in the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens found: (i) that the applicants had standing to challenge the EPA's decision; (ii) that the Clean Air Act did give the EPA the authority to regulate exhaust pipe emissions of greenhouse gases; and (iiI) that the EPA must review its argument that it has the discretion not to regulate emissions. The majority found that the EPA's "laundry list" of reasons for failing to regulate, including foreign policy considerations, must be more closely tied to the purposes of the Clean Air Act.

The court's four conservative judges dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts particularly focused on the applicants' lack of standing. He contended that their grievances would be better resolved through Congress than the federal courts, though, significantly, he alleged that his position involved "no judgment" on whether global warming exists.

The Supreme Court's judgment reflects not only growing scientific consensus, but also increasing political awareness of climate change in the U.S..

On 13 March 2007, the British Government published its Draft Climate Change Bill, the first of its kind in the world. The Bill, if passed by Parliament, will commit the British government to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bill commits the Government to a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050, but the Opposition may pressure the Government into a reduction in the order of 80%. An interim target sets reductions at between 26 per cent and 32 per cent by 2020, while binding five-year "carbon budgets" will be fixed 15 years ahead to ensure ongoing progress.

A Committee on Climate Change, appointed by the Government, will provide independent expert advice. Additionally, Ministers have promised to make an annual progress reports to parliament.

The Bill ensures that, if targets are missed, the Government could face judicial review. Environmental activist groups would be able to apply for such review, allowing judges to "name and shame" the Government or force it to buy more carbon credits to permit higher emissions.

Mighty River Power has abandoned its controversial proposal to refire the disused Marsden B power plant on coal. The company cited regulatory uncertainty for its decision. The decision follows a long saga of protest and litigation surrounding Mighty River's application with the Northland Regional Council for consent to redevelop the power plant.

In February 2005, Greenpeace protestors brought national attention to the issue by occupying the roof of the plant for nine days. Nonetheless, the Regional Council granted consent for Mighty River's proposal. In response, Greenpeace, with other community and environmental groups, lodged an appeal to the Environment Court. In subsequent appeals, argument was centred on the issue of whether climate change impacts needed to be considered in any approval of the refiring of the plant. While the Environment Court held that climate change was an irrelevant consideration in approving Marsden B, the High Court overturned the decision on appeal.

Concurrent with the litigation, the Department of Conservation (DOC) heard submissions on whether Mighty River Power could access conservation land to build and operate a coal conveyor belt. At the official hearing on January 2007, DOC received over 1,400 written submissions. Almost all of these opposed the plan.

On 14 November 2006, a coalition of conservation groups filed suit against the U.S. Government for refusing to complete a National Assessment of the impact of global warming on the environment, economy and health of the United States.

The assessment, due in November 2004, is required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

The last National Assessment, Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, was issued in October 2000. That report concluded that humans are contributing significantly to climate change and that current global warming is "unprecedented".

The attorneys bringing the case believe not only that the Bush administration was central in killing the report, but also that it was influential in burying the findings of the 2000 report.

In April 2005, at the request of Senators John Kerry and John McCain, the U.S. Government Accountability Office investigated the Bush administration's failure to produce a 2004 assessment. It concluded: (i) that the Bush administration had failed to complete a National Assessment for 2004 as required by the Change Research Act 1990; (ii) that the administration explicitly refuses to complete a single National Assessment; and (iii) that the administration's "piece-meal" approach lacks an explicit plan for assessing the effects of human-induced climate change.

Germanwatch and BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) have begun a legal action to force the German government to disclose the contribution to climate change made by projects supported by the German taxpayer through its export credit agency Euler Hermes AG. They allege that the German Government has not acted in conformity with its obligations under freedom of information legislation.

Hermes is a public agency that supplies government-backed guarantees and insurance to German corporations that seek to expand their businesses in developing countries. It provides billions of dollars of funding support for energy, mining and transport projects around the world on behalf of the German taxpayer. The complainants allege that these projects give rise to greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change.

Germanwatch and Friends of the Earth Germany have lobbied the German government to disclose information on these projects since 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was agreed upon, using German laws based on European Union legislation on freedom of environmental information.

The German government has refused to disclose the information for a variety of reasons, including an argument that climate change information of the type in question is not subject to the Environmental Information Act as it does not fulfil any direct mandate of environmental protection.

Germanwatch and Friends of the Earth Germany allege that the reasons put forward by the government are spurious and have taken legal action to ensure that the information is freely available to the public.