Native American people in Kivalina want to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for alleged destruction of their village

This article is more than 8 years old

This article is more than 8 years old

A native American community in remote Alaska this week revived legal efforts to hold some of the world's largest energy companies accountable for allegedly destroying their village because of global warming.

The so-called "climigration" trial would be the first of its kind, potentially creating a precedent in the US courts for further climate change-related damages cases.

Attorneys acting for the 427 Inupiat people living in Kivalina made representations before an appeals panel in San Francisco on Monday, to claim climate change-related damages from Exxon Mobil, BP America, Chevron, Shell, Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal provider, and America's largest electricity-generating companies including American Electric Power and Duke Energy.

Kivalina's location at the tip of a barrier reef 70 miles north of the Arctic Circle puts the village on the frontline of extreme weather from the Chukchi Sea, which normally freezes over from November to June.

"Kivalina's existence as a community depends on the sea ice that forms around the village in fall, winter, and spring. This protects it from the coastal storms that batter the coast of the Chukchi Sea," Kivalina's lawyers told the panel.

"However, due to global warming, this landfast sea ice forms later in the year, attaches to the coast later, breaks up earlier, and is less extensive and thinner, subjecting Kivalina to greater coastal storm waves, storm surges and erosion.

"Houses and buildings are in imminent danger of falling into the sea. Critical infrastructure is threatened with permanent destruction."

A 2006 report from the US Army Corps of Engineers concluded that Kivalina must be relocated because of global warming.

In 2008, the whaling community first launched a legal attempt to claim up to $400m in damages from the energy companies to help them relocate.

Lawyers argued that carbon emissions from America's major energy companies caused a public nuisance from pollution. But the northern district court of California dismissed the case in 2009 as the decision was a "political question" that could only be answered by the executive branch of government, not the judiciary.

On Monday, counsel for the defendants told the court that the dismissal in 2009 was correct because "greenhouse gases allegedly cause harm only when the emissions of billions of entities accumulate worldwide, over many decades ... Plaintiffs might just as well have targeted steel mills in Pennsylvania... or a defendant class of all US car and truck owners."

The plaintiffs' counsel, Matthew Pawa, said that he was hopeful that the court would reinstate the trial.

"It's the same argument that we've been making all along, which is that this is a proper question for the courts to hear and we should be allowed our day in court."

The appeal judges will decide whether to reinstate the case over the coming months.