In the Kivalina's case (Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon Mobile Corporation, Et Al.), the underlying claim- regulating greenhouse gas emissions- was not resolved because the case was dismissed based on the political question doctrine. In dismissing this case, the court notes the complexities of global warming? its lengthy timeline, its interacting chemical inputs, and its "multitude of alternative culprits," including millions of ordinary consumers. If the U. S. federal court system is not the best place to address this profoundly complicated phenomenon, what or who is responsible for addressing this issue? Should the issue be resolved through legislative action, global treaties, executive agency regulation or business self-regulation? Why?
The issue should be resolved by the US Congress and the Administration rather than by the courts. The US Federal Courts are required to address legal questions and not political questions. The political question is a doctrine that is linked to justiciability. The question is whether the issue of regulating greenhouse effect ...
The answer to this problem explains why some issues should be solved through legislation instead of courts . The references related to the answer are also included.