PDA

View Full Version : San Francisco and Oakland Suing Major Oil Companies Over Climate Change


mattsmith48
September 22nd, 2017, 10:35 AM
San Francisco and Oakland sued five major oil companies in the state courts on Wednesday in the latest attempts to hold fossil fuel producers accountable for the effects of climate change.

The parallel lawsuits call for the companies to pay what could become billions of dollars into a fund for the coastal infrastructure necessary to protect property and neighborhoods against sea level rise in the sister cities, which face each other across San Francisco Bay.

The moves follow similar lawsuits filed against 37 fossil fuel companies earlier this summer by three other coastal California communities at risk from sea level rise.

The flurry of litigation relies on the theory that the biggest and richest oil companies in the world should somehow be forced to pay the price for the damages that are becoming steadily more apparent from climate change, which the industry's critics say can be directly linked to the emissions that come from burning their products.

In the latest lawsuits, the cities argue that ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell have known for decades about the climate risks created by their products while carrying out campaigns to "deceive consumers about the dangers."

"Global warming is here, and it is harming San Francisco now," San Francisco's lawsuit begins. "This egregious state of affairs is no accident."

The lawsuits claim that the companies created the public nuisance of climate change impacts by producing fossil fuels, whose use is the principal cause of global warming.

"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 in announcing the lawsuits. "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."

Among other evidence, the city's lawsuit cites records uncovered by InsideClimate News in its 2015 investigation into Exxon's history of cutting-edge climate science research in the 1970s and '80s and how the oil giant's leadership then pivoted to pour resources into fighting climate policies. It also points to decades of scientific evidence connecting greenhouse gas emissions to impacts including rising global temperatures and sea level rise.

"Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue that requires global engagement and action," Chevron said in a statement after the lawsuits were filed Wednesday. "Should this litigation proceed, it will only serve special interests at the expense of broader policy, regulatory and economic priorities."

Herrera and Oakland City Attorney Barbara J. Parker said billions of dollars worth of property in their cities are within 6 feet of current sea levels—at least $10 billion in public property in San Francisco alone. In both cities, the sewer systems also face risks of damage and sewage overflows from rising sea levels. Low-lying runways are another vexing problem. The city attorneys also stressed that some of their most vulnerable residents are at risk.

"Global warming is an existential threat to humankind, to our ecosystems and to the wondrous, myriad species that inhabit our planet," Parker said. "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."

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20092017/san-francisco-oakland-sue-oil-giants-over-climate-change

PlasmaHam
September 22nd, 2017, 06:18 PM
Even if man-made climate change was real, I don't see this lasting a day in court.

mattsmith48
September 23rd, 2017, 09:43 AM
Even if man-made climate change was real, I don't see this lasting a day in court.

It does look bad for the oil companies, but it will probably last longer than a single day.

PlasmaHam
September 23rd, 2017, 10:18 AM
It does look bad for the oil companies, but it will probably last longer than a single day.
Stop the partisan nonsense. I'm trying to respectfully express my opinion on the matter, not enage in pointless and childish quips and wordplays. And you wonder why I wanted to leave...

As I was saying, I don't see this lasting a day in court. Numerous other cases have been brought up regarding companies needing to take responsibility for their products, i.e. gun manufacturers and soda companies. In nearly all cases, the companies were deemed not responsible as they were not responsible for the product's usage, the consumer is. I don't see this playing out any differently than those cases, especially since, as much as you want to claim other wise, you can't prove man-made climate change exists.

mattsmith48
September 23rd, 2017, 10:45 AM
Stop the partisan nonsense. I'm trying to respectfully express my opinion on the matter, not enage in pointless and childish quips and wordplays. And you wonder why I wanted to leave...

As I was saying, I don't see this lasting a day in court. Numerous other cases have been brought up regarding companies needing to take responsibility for their products, i.e. gun manufacturers and soda companies. In nearly all cases, the companies were deemed not responsible as they were not responsible for the product's usage, the consumer is. I don't see this playing out any differently than those cases, especially since, as much as you want to claim other wise, you can't prove man-made climate change exists.

There is a difference between gun manufacturers and oil companies, gun manufacturers didn't hide that their product could kill or hurt people, its what a gun is for. I think the comparison in the article with tobacco companies is more fair one. It is well known now that they tried to hide the negative effects of their product and payed off scientists to keep it secret and are responsible for conspiracy theories you and so many people believe in.

I personally think that suing them for sea level rise is not enough, they should also sue them for the drought and wild fires in California.

Babs
September 23rd, 2017, 04:03 PM
It does look bad for the oil companies, but it will probably last longer than a single day.

partisan nonsense.



where it at tho

Uniquemind
September 23rd, 2017, 09:29 PM
Im for it.

mattsmith48
September 23rd, 2017, 10:02 PM
where it at tho

What?

Babs
September 23rd, 2017, 11:28 PM
What?

there wasn't any partisan nonsense in your post, that's what i was referring to. i guess my post was a little vague.

Dmaxd123
September 27th, 2017, 06:44 PM
simple solution to help cut down on global warming.. ban ALL fossil fuels & products made from fossil fuels in California ;-)

i'm sure oil companies are also at fault when the waves erode the beach leading up to someone's fancy home and also at fault for an earthquake

although a funny thing is some parts of California had snow still on the ground in June (probably some spots keep it year round but I don't know for sure so won't go that far)

mattsmith48
September 27th, 2017, 07:52 PM
simple solution to help cut down on global warming.. ban ALL fossil fuels & products made from fossil fuels in California ;-)

Not only in California

i'm sure oil companies are also at fault when the waves erode the beach leading up to someone's fancy home and also at fault for an earthquake

Not earthquakes in California, but where they do fracking absolutely, they are responsible for the earthquakes there, and for the rivers catching on fire.

although a funny thing is some parts of California had snow still on the ground in June (probably some spots keep it year round but I don't know for sure so won't go that far)

They are called mountain and they all have snow on them because temperatures at the top are lower.

Stronk Serb
October 1st, 2017, 04:43 AM
What nonsense. I mean, the consumers are the most at fault for massive fossil fuel consumption. The companies are just trying to satisfy demand.

mattsmith48
October 1st, 2017, 12:08 PM
What nonsense. I mean, the consumers are the most at fault for massive fossil fuel consumption. The companies are just trying to satisfy demand.

Like the tobacco companies the oil companies did everything they could to hide the negative effects of their product, and like with cigarettes, fossil fuel as became so strong of an addiction that we are only starting to stop using them now.