Companies knew for decades that their products caused climate change and posed ‘catastrophic’ risk, but misled the public and continued to make enormous profits
News provided by
City Attorney of San Francisco
13:15 ET
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 20, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker announced today that they had filed separate lawsuits on behalf of their respective cities against the five largest investor-owned producers of fossil fuels in the world. The lawsuits ask the courts to hold these companies responsible for the costs of sea walls and other infrastructure necessary to protect San Francisco and Oakland from ongoing and future consequences of climate change and sea level rise caused by the companies’ production of massive amounts of fossil fuels.
The defendant companies — Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell — have known for decades that fossil fuel-driven global warming and accelerated sea level rise posed a catastrophic risk to human beings and to public and private property, especially in coastal cities like San Francisco and Oakland, who have the largest shoreline investments on San Francisco Bay.
Despite that knowledge, the defendant companies continued to aggressively produce, market and sell vast quantities of fossil fuels for a global market, while at the same time engaging in an organized campaign to deceive consumers about the dangers of massive fossil fuel production.
The lawsuits filed Tuesday in the superior courts in San Francisco and Alameda Counties were developed with assistance from the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
Like the tobacco companies who were sued in the 1980s, these defendants knowingly and recklessly created an ongoing public nuisance that is causing harm now, and in the future risks catastrophic harm to human life and property, including billions of dollars of public and private property in Oakland and San Francisco.
“These fossil fuel companies profited handsomely for decades while knowing they were putting the fate of our cities at risk,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. “Instead of owning up to it, they copied a page from the Big Tobacco playbook. They launched a multi-million dollar disinformation campaign to deny and discredit what was clear even to their own scientists: global warming is real, and their product is a huge part of the problem. Now, the bill has come due. It’s time for these companies to take responsibility for the harms they have caused and are continuing to cause.”
“Global warming is an existential threat to humankind, to our ecosystems and to the wondrous, myriad species that inhabit our planet,” Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker said. “These companies knew fossil fuel-driven climate change was real, they knew it was caused by their products and they lied to cover up that knowledge to protect their astronomical profits. The harm to our cities has commenced and will only get worse. The law is clear that the defendants are responsible for the consequences of their reckless and disastrous actions.”
The fossil fuel industry’s own records show that the defendant companies have knowingly misled the American public and the world about the dangers of fossil-fuel driven climate change. Despite their knowledge of the scientific consensus on these issues, and despite warnings from their own internal scientists and/or scientists retained by their trade association, defendants continue to engage in massive fossil fuel production. They also continue to promote fossil fuels, and have developed multi-decade future business plans based upon increased fossil fuel usage even as global warming has progressed into a severe danger zone.
Defendants’ contributions to global warming have already caused sea levels to rise in San Francisco Bay and threatened imminent harm to San Francisco and Oakland from storm surges. In San Francisco, bayside sea level rise from global warming places at risk at least $10 billion of public property and as much as $39 billion of private property. It is also extremely vulnerable because it is surrounded by water on three sides. For example, the Ferry Building would be temporarily flooded during a 100-year extreme tide today, but could be flooded every day after 36 inches of sea level rise.
San Francisco and Oakland already have begun to suffer the consequences of climate change, although the most severe injuries by far are the injuries that will occur in the future — unless prompt action is taken to protect these cities and their residents from rising sea levels and other harms caused by global warming.
The lawsuits ask the courts to hold the defendants jointly and severally liable for creating, contributing to and/or maintaining a public nuisance, and to create an abatement fund for each city to be paid for by defendants to fund infrastructure projects necessary for San Francisco and Oakland to adapt to global warming and sea level rise. The total amount needed for the abatement funds is not known at this time but is expected to be in the billions of dollars.
The cases are: People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC 17-561370, filed Sept. 19, 2017. People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG17875889, filed Sept. 19, 2017.
View original content with multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/san-francisco-and-oakland-sue-top-five-oil-and-gas-companies-over-costs-of-climate-change-300522988.html
SOURCE City Attorney of San Francisco
HT | Bob
Hmm… Someone will need to sue all the politicians then. Because Oil company profits are a drop in the bucket compared to amount of revenue brought in via taxes on oil…
Politicians also granted the leases that the oil companies need in order to produce their product. Doesn’t this make them as responsible as the oil companies as due diligence should have required them to consider all aspects of their decision to allow the leases?
In the old days they would have been hoping for a big settlement out of court, as the companies wouldn’t want to fight this.
But I think Chevron has demonstrated that they’re not playing that game any more.
Btw, if it goes to a San Francisco jury, I have no doubt that they will get an Eleventy Gazillion dollar award. But it will never stand up. (In a San Francisco Court, I imagine the only “evidence” allowed will be photoshopped picture of polar bears and little children crying)
twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back
of each one,
The oil companies know that if they give into the greenmail in this case, every city and state in the country will immediately file their own lawsuits.
If they go to court they will finally have to produce evidence. Looking forward to that.
Don’t hold your breathe – We are still waiting for Mann’s ‘evidence’
YES
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If California’s politicians don’t enact a stiff tax on all carbon fuels sold in California; if they don’t adopt a policy of imposing what amounts to a carbon fuel rationing scheme on all the citizens of their state; if they don’t force an end to the extraction of petroleum from the oil fields located within their state’s borders; and if they continue to allow the purchase of fossil-generated electricity from in-state and out-of-state sources, then they can be rightly accused of using the issue of climate change as nothing more than an excuse for shaking down the oil companies and for pursuing their own brand of California crony capitalism.
I am glad I am not paying property taxes in SF or Oakland. Spending that kind of money on a frivolous lawsuit, for both sides plus court costs, is just stupid and irresponsible. They have 0 chance of winning, although will just be another nail in the coffin for CAGW. Perhaps is is nonsense like this that triggers the population and media in turning the tide on this stupid debate, that we have had enough of these lies by elected retarded civil servants.
How long till one or more of our trolls start to claim that the fact that these politicians have brought suit is proof that global warming is real, dangerous and caused by man.
Aren’t all buyers of fossil fuels equally guilty? Don’t those cities consume those products too? Maybe those cities should sue themselves.
Those cities are probably also getting tax dollars from the gasoline tax at the pump
A ridiculous lawsuit in front of a ridiculous court. If they want to sue anybody, they should be suing the end user of the products. That is…..EVERYBODY.
A good lawyer can sink their ship on just the cumulative emissions issue, one would think. Without that piece of bad statistics they have no way to relate anything to emissions and with it they have a tool to relate everything to emissions.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3000932
Carbondioxide is not an important climate driver. Greenies, however, belief it is. And it appears that oil companies also kind of belief it is.
So, we have the situation that one group believers in fairies is sueing another group of believers in fairies for not having done anything about the fairies.
Good call. It has not passed me by that oil companies have at times quietly helped the GHG hoax along as they see coal as competition and they know planes and cars need their products so, until now, they have been let off the global warming hook.
Aren’t most of the fossil fuel companies also invested in alternate fuels as well.
Rhoda: They are heavy into wind and solar. All those subsidies and tax breaks allow them to build new NG plants.
Rhoda: Some of “the accused” are. At one time BP claimed to be “Beyond Petroleum”.
Another sign climate activists are shifting the battleground to the courts where a sympathetic judge, or even a jury can strike a blow, even when political persuasion has failed at the ballot box. Since both the science and the law are murky, and since big oil companies have deep pockets, opportunists are going to give it a shot.
Recent rulings from the DC Court of Appeals illuminate the struggle on the bench to deal with these issues, and how the particular case and circumstances can lead to surprising judgments.
On August 8, 2017 a ruling by the DC Court of Appeals was hailed by me as a “gamechanger”, since the text was the most sensible thinking from judges I have seen regarding the climate issue. Then August 22 we get a ruling from the same court coming down on the opposite, “same old, same old” side. Looking at the two rulings reveals how the judiciary is struggling with claims of global warming/climate change.
The details are in a post https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/08/23/judiciary-climate-confusion/
…sure sounds like a formula to keep the judges and attorneys un-gainfully employed.
What’s even more ludicrous is that government entities raise far more revenues per gallon sold from gas taxes than the oil industry.
The big joke here is that Fort Ross was built in the early 1850’s underneath the Golden Gate Bridge. The fort was protected by a seawall, and that seawall is still in place after all of these years, performing it’s duty of protecting the fort from the ravages of the sea. So the claim that there has been any costs to the city of SF due to rising seas is a false one from the outset. The only claim that the lawsuit may attempt to make is that there may be future costs due to AGW. Given that the seas have been steadily rising anyway for thousands of years, and will certainly continue to rise for some time in the future I do not see how the lawyers will be able to make their claim stick.
More than that, enter into SF Bay and on the south side there is the St Francis Yacht Club. To the north across the Bay from there is the town of Sausalito. All of the seawalls protecting the St Francis Yacht Club which was founded in 1927, and the harbor and town of Sausalito were built back in the early 1900s. All of those seawalls are still 100% functional after all of this time.
Are you sure about that name? Fort Ross is a town well north of SF, and when I lived in the area, the brick fortress under the bridge was called Fort Point.
Thanks Tom. I meant to say Fort Point. Not enough sleep last night.
San Francisco’s tide gauge shows absolutely no trend or increase in sea level since 1980.
Using facts and evidence again – 97% of all climate scientists say that’s not allowed
California generally doesn’t let facts get in the way of beliefs. Your observation is far too rational–tipping points, dontcha know?
The old order changeth, yielding place to new and God fulfills himself in many ways. … Oh, my boys, my boys, we’re at the end of an age. We live in a land of weather forecasts and breakfasts (Brexits?) that set in.
Although Mr Steele would make an excellent witness for the defense.
I dunno Jim, NOAA disagrees, showing 1.94 millimeters a year over 119 years:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290
But there must be quite a current across the bay, with Alameda showing only .72 millimeters a year over 117 years:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414750
: > )
Make that 77 years for Alameda. Point should survive the exaggeration.
Pretty disingenuous since he specifically said “since 1980” and the trend line is calculated over 119 years.
Ridiculous of course, but… consider the implications for the good guys – DISCOVERY!!! – on all “studies” sited in support of this nonsense.
The companies should counter sue and nail them to the wall for good – recent example Chevron.
Good grief, I suggest they immediately stop the sale of all petroleum products in the litigious areas otherwise it will only make things worse for themselves and the climate.
Are you sure the date on this wasn’t April 1??
If, like the UK, the big oil companies own petrol stations, they should immediately announce their closure in SF. Then wait for the city lawsuits demanding they re-open them
Most of the US stations are privately owned, and not by big oil. Only exception is Citgo, owned by PDVSA of Venezuela.
If actual data means anything in a California court of law, then perhaps the PSMSL.org website (or the NOAA version – same data for the USA) will be instructive to the Court. The PSMSL data shows about 150 mm of sea level rise in San Francisco since 1850; not a typo, 1850. That’s about 1 mm/year for over 150 years. There is no inflection in the data for recent decades, or any group of decades. Sounds to me like these cities are committing a RICO crime.
The prophecy of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is true and profitable.
These are the same mystics who believe that babies are delivered by stork at the time of viability. Also, that “judge people by the content of their character” actually means “judge people by the color of their skin” (a.k.a. “diversity”). Conflation of logical domains is the beginning, not the end of catastrophic anthropogenic progressive corruption.
..and all I see is “future” and “might be” or “could cause”…all speculation on crap…
It’s a scramble for money. It’s a political ploy to throw up in a TV campaign ad. It’s ridiculous attention-grabbing stuff.
It would be really nice if they stopped making up baloney and just admit that they (meaning SF/governorship) are incompetent greedy jerks who don’t know how to manage money, so they want more of YOURS.
Of course, SanFran being a major shipping port and all that, it could have a negative impact on incoming cargo ships. Yeah, that’s it – they could go to New York or Houston or Corpus Christie or Chicago – you know: cities that would welcome their parking fees.
With plenty of pre-trial publicity and a bit of judge shopping…it’s Bob’s your uncle.
This is hive (Oakland San Francisco) from which much virtue signaling emanates. I can recall a certain Willie Brown driving a pavement roller over the mean ol’ black rifles in a demonstration of true kalifornia nutbagism. Hey, there is a reputation to embellish, what better way than strike at the heart of the mean ol’ capitalist system with a law suit. My reaction, go ahead, take that BIG bite! Now, START CHEWING because there is a long way to go before this gets swallowed.
There are plenty of historical examples of courts enabling political/social movements with rulings that a favorable to said movements. Do not underestimate the unscrupulous capacity of courts.
Andrew
Thats why Gorsuch to SCOTUS was a big deal.
If they don’t aggresively counter sue for the cost of defending these crank lawsuits, pretty soon every city and state across the country will try to get a few bucks by filing one of these.