Written by: Elektra Birchall
Date: 06/11/23
Governor Gavin Newsom of California announced at the end of September at Climate Week NYC that his Attorney General’s office would be suing “Big Oil”—Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, British Petroleum, and the American Petroleum Institute—‘for more than 50 years of deception, cover-up, and damage that have cost California taxpayers billions of dollars in health and environmental impacts.’ [1] The lawsuit is being filed as the public is becoming more aware of Big Oil’s role in fostering climate denial as well as the industry’s complicity in recent natural disasters. It holds them accountable for their deception and asks them to contribute to recovery efforts for future harms, as well as mitigation and adaptation infrastructure. This lawsuit is, insofar, the biggest legal challenge to Big Oil and offers an inspiring model for future litigation efforts.
The Context: Big Oil’s Deception
The lawsuit was filed a day after the Wall Street Journal reported on how Exxon executives internally sowed climate change denial, even while publicly conceding that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming. [2] Indeed, Exxon does have a long history of promoting climate denial—despite the fact that the company itself was once at the forefront of climate science.
In July of 1977, Exxon’s leaders received word from a senior company scientist, James F. Black, that CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels would warm the planet, and eventually endanger humanity. Black wrote that humans had a window of five to ten years “before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.” [3] Exxon responded to this report by extensively researching CO2 emissions and their climate change impacts. They assembled a brain trust of highly respected scientists, akin to Bell Labs, who conducted groundbreaking research—from studying how quickly the oceans could absorb atmospheric carbon, to developing more precise climate models—in order for the company to fully understand this existential threat to the oil industry. [4]
(Exxon’s Esso Atlantic tanker, on which, between 1979 and 1982, they sampled the ocean’s carbon dioxide levels. Source: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming/)
While the company understood that there were some uncertainties to climate science, especially in the realm of climate modelling, ‘they saw those uncertainties as questions they wanted to address, not an excuse to dismiss what was increasingly understood.’ [5] However, as oil prices collapsed in the mid-1980s and Congress began to openly discuss the issue of global warming, Exxon began to finance efforts to amplify doubt about climate science, even while knowing better than anyone just how much of a problem it was. Their actions included founding and leading the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance seeking to halt government efforts to cut emissions, as well as contributing funds to organisations like the American Petroleum Institute to push the narrative that climate science was too imprecise to warrant a decrease in fossil fuel emissions. To try and cast doubt over the Kyoto Protocol, in 1997, Exxon’s then-chairman and CEO Lee Raymond argued before the World Petroleum Congress that “it is unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now.” [6]
Exxon was not the only company to conduct deliberately misleading campaigns. British Petroleum also hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the narrative that climate change was a result of individual responsibility—resulting in the widespread use of the phrase “carbon footprint”—precisely because they knew it was their own fossil fuel extraction that had the greatest impact. [7]
This deception is a big focus of the Attorney General, Rob Bonta’s, case against Big Oil. It makes use of industry-funded reports which directly linked fossil fuel extraction and consumption to global warming and ecosystem damage. It presents clear evidence that oil companies suppressed that information to protect their profits, while spending billions of dollars on spreading disinformation and delaying the green transition. [8] Even today, the case argues that oil companies utilise greenwashing to promote harmful fossil products as “clean” or “low-emissions.” The lawsuit asks the court to levy financial penalties on Big Oil for lying to the public and put an end to their pernicious dis- and misinformation campaigns. [9]
Ryan Meyers, General Counsel of the American Petroleum Institute—-the domestic oil industry’s biggest lobby—has responded to the lawsuit, claiming that climate policy should be for Congress rather than for the courts to decide. Other defendants in the case made similar remarks. [10] Yet, one of the central claims of this lawsuit is that the oil industry’s years of disinformation campaigns have delayed such action from taking place, bringing the state of California, and the planet, closer to the brink of climate catastrophe.
The Context: Climate Change Hits Close to Home
While the effects of the fossil-fuel induced climate crisis are all-pervading, California has had first-hand experience of them on a scale not experienced by many states. The Indicators of Climate Change in California Report, released by California’s Environmental Protection Agency in 2022, demonstrated that the climate crisis is “uniquely taking a toll on the health and well-being of [California’s] people and on its unique and diverse ecosystems.” [11]
The most ubiquitous impacts have been the cases of extreme heat and multiyear drought, although the most obvious are the out-of-control wildfires that wreak havoc on the homes and lives of Californians annually. In September 2021, the entire state of California was in drought, and the last two decades were the driest in the past millennium; additionally, in 2020, the acreage burned by California wildfires was more than double that of any other year on record. [12] The rising temperatures and declining precipitation have resulted in repercussions for California’s freshwater supplies, as the snowfields and glaciers at its highest elevations are rapidly disappearing. This has ramifications on salmon populations, and irrigation for agriculture, a major element of the California economy. [13] On top of this, sea level rise and flooding are particularly pertinent problems in this region, which requires expensive adaptation infrastructure. [14] While this has huge repercussions for all Californians, indigenous populations are at an even higher risk, because of the threat to traditional diet and cultural practices caused by soil erosion, loss of wetlands, declining biodiversity, and changing animal migration patterns—all outcomes of anthropogenically-induced climate change. [15]
(A firefighter fights a wildfire in Madera County, California, on September 7, 2020. Climate change has made California’s wildfires more severe. Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-escalating-californias-wildfires/)
These catastrophes have, of course, an economic, as well as a physical dimension. This is exemplified by the home insurance crisis facing many Californians; over the past two years, several big insurers have scaled back their business in California to avoid paying for wildfire damage. Wildfires have caused more than $30 billion in insured losses in California since 2017. [16] As insurers have dropped customers altogether, Californians are left even more financially vulnerable. On top of this concern, the state is footing the bill for massive mitigation and adaptation projects.
The Lawsuit and its Implications
Clearly the economic implications of the climate crisis are huge in California, and this is one of the main targets of the state’s lawsuit. As Attorney General Rob Bonta stated, “From extreme heat to drought and water shortages, the climate crisis [Big Oil] have caused is undeniable. It’s time they pay to abate the harm they have caused.” [17]
One of the unique features of the lawsuit is that it does not just seek a one-time payout from Big Oil for past wrongs, rather demands the creation of an abatement fund to pay for the damages caused by future climate-related disasters. [18] A similar case in Puerto Rico sought demands for a specific weather event, while the California suit is much broader by asking for a fund to contribute to recovery from extreme weather more generally, as well as mitigation and adaptation strategies. [19] This could present an innovative way of addressing the manifold harms that the oil industry has been, and continues to be, responsible for.
Part of what makes the lawsuit so exciting is that it may have a powerful influence on environmental litigation across the United States, and even the world. As Bonta proudly stated, with this lawsuit, “California becomes the largest geographic area and the largest economy to take these giant oil companies to court.” [20] This has quickly become one of the most significant legal challenges to the fossil fuel industry: California is the most populous state in the country, as well as a major producer of oil and gas, and the Attorney General’s office has a track record of bringing landmark cases that are emulated by smaller states. [21] Additionally, the highly visible impact of climate change in this region has brought the case even greater interest and urgency. Richard Wiles, the President of the Center for Climate Integrity, a nonprofit that tracks climate litigation, celebrated the move: “California’s case is the most significant, decisive, and powerful climate action directed against the oil and gas industry in U.S. history.” [22] Although the United States has unfortunately not been a leader in the fight for environmental justice, this highly visible lawsuit can serve as an inspiration for similar efforts in other nations, and even at an international level.
People of the State of California v. Big Oil is a lawsuit to watch out for. It presents a multitude of paths to climate justice, from exposing the oil industry’s past and current deception, to having them contribute to long-term recovery, or to simply addressing the very direct connection between fossil fuel extraction and climate catastrophe. It does not only provide legal insight, but genuine hope for the power of environmental law in shaping a brighter future.
Read the lawsuit in full.
Bibliography:
[1] “People of the State of California v. Big Oil.” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, CAWeb Publishing Service, 16 Sept. 2023, www.gov.ca.gov/2023/09/16/people-of-the-state-of-california-v-big-oil/.
[2] Kim, Juliana, and Michael Copley. “California’s Lawsuit Says Oil Giants Downplayed Climate Change. Here’s What to Know.” NPR, NPR, 17 Sept. 2023, www.npr.org/2023/09/16/1199974919/california-oil-lawsuit-climate-change.
[3] Banerjee, Neela, et al. “Exxon’s Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago.” Inside Climate News, Inside Climate News, 27 Apr. 2021, insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming/.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Kaufman, Mark. “The Devious Fossil Fuel Propaganda We All Use.” Mashable, Mashable, 9 July 2021, mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham.
[8] “People of the State of California v. Big Oil.” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Kim, Juliana, and Michael Copley. “Oil Giants Downplayed Climate Change”.
[11] Elam, Stephanie. “California’s Climate Crisis Is Intensifying Quickly and Taking a Heavy Toll on Residents, New Data Reveals.” CNN, Cable News Network, 3 Nov. 2022, edition.cnn.com/2022/11/02/us/california-climate-crisis-impact-report/index.html.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] “People of the State of California v. Big Oil.” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom.
[15] Elam, Stephanie. “California’s Climate Crisis Is Intensifying”.
[16] Copley, Michael, et al. “How Climate Change Could Cause a Home Insurance Meltdown.” NPR, NPR, 22 July 2023, www.npr.org/2023/07/22/1186540332/how-climate-change-could-cause-a-home-insurance-meltdown.
[17] “People of the State of California v. Big Oil.” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom.
[18] Gelles, David. “California Sues Giant Oil Companies, Citing Decades of Deception.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/business/california-oil-lawsuit-newsom.html.
[19] Ibid.
[20] “People of the State of California v. Big Oil.” Office of Governor Gavin Newsom.
[21] Gelles, David. “California Sues Giant Oil Companies”.
[22] Ibid.
Comments