Jerry Brown’s effort to sue automakers for the production greenhouse gas emissions through their vehicles, a holdover from Bill Lockyer’s tenure, has been thrown out of court.

In its lawsuit filed last year, California blamed the auto industry for millions of dollars it expects to spend on repairing damage from global-warming induced floods and other natural disasters.

But District Judge Martin Jenkins in San Francisco handed California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s environmental crusade a stinging rebuke when he ruled that it impossible to determine to what extent automakers are responsible for global-warming damages in California. Many culprits, including other industries and even natural sources, are responsible for emitting carbon dioxide.

“The court is left without guidance in determining what is an unreasonable contribution to the sum of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, or in determining who should bear the costs associated with global climate change that admittedly result from multiple sources around the globe,” Jenkins write.

The judge also ruled that keeping the lawsuit alive would threaten the country’s foreign policy position.

I didn’t know that judges were responsible for managing foreign policy decisions, but Jenkins also did say that it’s the responsibility of lawmakers and not the courts to “determine how responsible automakers are for global warming problems.”  To that end, another lawsuit that would allow lawmakers to do just that, to hold automakers responsible by mandating a curtailing of the greenhouse gas emissions their vehicles spew, has won a major victory (over):

A federal judge in Vermont gave the first legal endorsement yesterday to rules in California, being copied in 13 other states, that intend to reduce greenhouse gases emitted by automobiles and light trucks.

Ruling in a lawsuit against Vermont’s standards on those heat-trapping gases, the judge, William K. Sessions III, rejected a variety of challenges from auto manufacturers, including their contention that the states were usurping federal authority.

The ruling follows a decision by the United States Supreme Court in April that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide as air pollutants. The ruling in Vermont explicitly endorses the idea that California has the right to set its own regulations on the gases, and that other states, like Vermont, have the right to follow its lead.

The Vermont ruling merely follows the Supreme Court precedent, albeit to devastating effect.  The California case is pending, but it would be hard to see how the ruling could be any different.  Now it’s time for the EPA to allow the waiver that would enable the tailpipe emissions law to go into effect.  With even the White House Science Adviser acknowledging the man-made causes of global warming, it’s beyond time for the Cheney-Bush Administration to give states back the ability to manage their own air quality standards and contribution to climate change.  This lawsuit adds to the pressure on the EPA.

As a side note, last week Jerry Brown reached a settlement with Conoco-Phillips that would require the company to spend $10 million to offset the emissions created by their East Bay refinery expansion.

Brown told a news conference that the accord is believed to be the first time an oil refinery in the country has agreed to mitigate increased carbon emissions from an expansion project.

Brown is definitely using every option at his disposal in this fight.