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
Here are the Final findings of the court in the racketeering lawsuit against the major cigarette manufacturers: The U.S. Government’s racketeering case against Big Tobacco
This is my version adapted to United Nations climate alarmism:
Based on the evidence presented in a hypothetical case against United Nations, the court may rule that:
– United Nations knew for fifty years or more that CO2 is primarily a plant fertilizer, but repeatedly stated that CO2 caused adverse climate change. United Nations publicly distorted and maximized the hazards of CO2 for decades.
– United Nations concealed and suppressed research data and other evidence showing CO2 has little effect on climate, and withheld information from the public and governments.
– United Nations acted this way to maintain revenue by keeping people alarmed and attracting new supporters, to avoid liability, and prevent reformation of the United Nations.
– United Nations falsely denied that they can and do control the information intended to create and sustain climate change alarmism.
– United Nations falsely marketed and promoted CO2 emission as harmful, to keep governments alarmed to sustain and increase the revenue to United Nations for administration of the climate funds and arbitrary projects financed by these funds.
– From the 1980s to the present, United Nations, using different methods, have intentionally marketed CO2 as harmful to young people under the age of 21 in order to recruit “replacement alarmists” who would ensure the future economic viability of the United Nations.
– United Nations publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that energy poverty is hazardous to the poor.
– At various times, United Nations attempted to, and did suppress and conceal scientific research relevant to their public.
Nice. Comprehensive. Shoe on other foot.
…and unlike the action against the oil companies, accurate.
I like it!!!
Subside free wind farms risk ruining industry reputation, warn executives
https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/151021/subside-free-wind-farms-risk-ruining-industry-reputation-warn-executives/
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.
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any stupider. Seriously?!
I wonder how the plaintiff’s lawyers will get to work to do their jobs of processing all the information required in this suit — ride horses? How shall they scribe all that information? — with ink pens that use only natural plant materials for the ink and pens made of feathers from non-endangered birds? How shall they illuminate their work spaces where all this information is being processed? — candles made of the finest wax? — set alight by striking together pieces of flint? — that’s a lot of wax, a lot of ink and feathers, a lot of horse crap to deal with.
Speaking of crap, …
California is a big oil producer 200 million barrels in 2015 (from EIA ) are they going to shut down all the oil well in the state?
Can a resident of San Francisco sue the city authority for wasting public funds by launching frivolous lawsuits?
Theoretically, yes. But practically not in the granola state, land of fruits, nuts, and flakes.
And California is also a large producer of crops …..
Those oil companies should refuse to provide products to those cities.
What a waste of public funds … maybe the oil companies should withdraw their products from sale in this state … & let see what happens then ..
Then again not many ‘normal people’ become politicians so what can you expect .. its usually those with some sort of agenda or crazy or fashionable deluded belief.
California is profiting from all of the oil derived products sold in California through sales taxes. Maybe California should be sued.
Quick fix – never sell another oz. of their products within any of those cities limits.
Wanna bet they’re looking for private sector jobs after the next election cycle?
And invest in areas around the city limits (BP probably has some loose change for community works) — you know, invest in start-ups, some community medical, educational, etc., but with the insistence that they have to stay out of the city.
The real culprits here are not the fossil fuel companies but the people that actually burn the fuel and add CO2 to the atmosphere. They are the ones that should be taken to court. The cities should sue everyone in the world that makes use of goods and or services that involve the use of fossil fuels that includes all people that have eaten food or worn clothing that has been provided for and transported by means involving the use of fossil fuels.
No. Since there is no demonstrable harm from either CO2 nor sea level rise the only real culprits are the idiot-child politicians who see big budget shortfalls and deep pockets. RICO the AGs because this is a shake down move on their parts.
Deep pockets.
Hmmm…who funds those who do these things?
Vexatious.
This frivolous lawsuit is breaking bogosity meters everywhere, and that’s expensive. Time for a lawsuit?
That is what communists do, blame the companies for every ill, proven or not, irregardless if the general populace benefitted from the products and services provided by the company.
Been smoking too much Yerba Buena perhaps?
George Vancouver sailed HMS Discovery into San Francisco Bay in 1792 and anchored ‘about a league below the Presidio in a place they called Yerba Buena’.
Follow around the people who filed the law suit and remind them not to use fossil fuels or they are hypocrites.
What a CROCK !
They probably already have the Judges picked out.
I suppose that they are counting on the victims caving in.
I hope each company counter sues for court cost.
Glad I’m not a taxpayer to any of those cities.
I hope the bills come due before the next election.
PS Aren’t they all “Sanctuary Cities” that might loose Federal funds?
Students of Law do not appear to have time in their legal studies to learn anything outside Law. They also rely on Legal Precedent only. So if an august body has given an opinion then they favour that opinion as common sense.
These lawyers in question seem politically aware though, and they may not consider scientific evidence which is contrary to the political consensus.
Consensus is a word they are used to since committees are reliant on consensus, imposed or otherwise, in business enterprises. They would be surprised to find out that science does not work by consensus and would point to committees on this and that appointed on scientific matters by politicians. So it appears to me that these people are not original thinkers because they do not question their own assumptions or the opinions of the establishments in which they work.
Case closed… Exxon even knew that the models were worse than they thought… as far back as 1978…
The cities should sue the California Air Resources Board since they are the regulatory agency that controls emissions into the atmosphere.
Yes! Maybe then the gullible voters in California will wake up and vote the crazies out. If they don’t, they deserve whatever happens.
Bring it on!
The real beginning of the end for the ‘climate’ industry.
I’m sooooo glad I left that toilet bowl.
Counter sue that the city knew that the sea could possible rise, yet continued to develop on the coast. Sigh. Hope they get their collective butts kicked.
So, worst case scenario, if and when a sea wall is required, the oil companies can pay for the top .2 inches of the wall.
How can they have profited handsomely when they have to be subsidized?
In order to prove harm they need to stop using all oil and gas in California. Stop using synthetics produced via oil and gas. And shut down their dirty offshore oil industry that continuously causes oil to wash up on beaches as well as shut down all other oil industries and gas and oil pipelines.
Saying it is bad and still use it is disingenuous.
Problem with the whole anti oil establishment. They ignore the benefits massively outweighs the unproven and want everyone else to stop using and suffer the high cost consequences first.
Very sad day that these egregious suits can be launched. Hope they lose and pay millions in costs as well as the companies costs.
I’ve been waiting for one of the cities in the central valley of CA to sue SF due to poor air quality. I believe it’s known that the air pollution from the Bay Area travels southward and collects at the bowl-shaped northern base of the grapevine.
You mean that aroma of patchouli and feet?
The Central Valley in California is east of the SF Bay area, and extends both north and south of it. It is downwind most of the time, though.