NHr?ll?lD?lh?ll?lh?l 

 

 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669
City Attorney

RONALD P. State Bar #184186

Chief Deputy City Attorney

YVONNE R. NIERE, State Bar #173594

Chief of Complex and Af?rmative Litigation
ROBB W. KAPLA, State Bar #238896
MATTHEW D. GOLDBERG, State Bar #240776
Deputv Citv Attomevs

City Hall, Room 234

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

San Francisco, California 94102-4602

Telephone: (415) 554-4748

Facsimile: (415) 554-4715

Email: brittanv.feitelber2@sfaovorg
Attorneys for Plaintiff

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

.. 


;gl an aranelnoo

19201?

CLERK OF THE COURT

av: GRIER
Deputy Clerk

acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney

DENNIS J. HERRERA

[Other Counsel Listed on Signature Page]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the San
Francisco City Attorney DENNIS J.
HERRERA,

Plaintiff and Real Party in Interest,
vs.

BP P.L.C., a public limited company of
England and Wales, CHEVRON
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,
CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, EXXON 
CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation,
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, a public limited
company of England and Wales, and DOES 1
through 10,

Defendants.

 



Case No.:

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISAN CE

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE

010694-11 986485 Vl

 



Nr?tI?IHHI?II?ar?nv?ta?nn?n


VI.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5
PARTIES 6
A. Plaintiff 6
B. Defendants 6
C. Defendants? Connections To California. 10
FOSSIL FUELS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. 12

DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF FOSSIL FUELS
AND HAVE CONTINUED TO DO SO EVEN AS GLOBAL WARIWIN HAS
BECOME GRAVELY DANGEROUS. 16

DEFENDANT HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOSSIL FUELS
DESPITE HAVING FULL KNOWLEDGE FROM THEIR SCIENTIFIC

STAFF, OR FROM THE API, THAT FOSSIL FUELS WOULD CAUSE GLOBAL
WARMING. 1 8

DESPITE THEIR EARLY KNOWLEDGE THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS
REAL AND POSED GRAVE THREATS, DEFENDANTS PROMOTED FOSSIL
FUELS FOR PERVASIVE USE WHILE DOWNPLAYING THE REALITY AND

RISKS OF GLOBAL WARMING. 23

A. Defendants Borrowed The Big Tobacco Playbook In Order To Promote Their
Products. 24

B. Defendants? Direct Promotion Of Fossil Fuels. 2 8

SAN FRANCISCO WILL INCUR SERIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE INJURIES THAT
WILL REQUIRE BILLIONS 1N EXPENDITURES TO ABATE THE- GLOBAL

WARMING NUISANCE 31
CAUSE OF ACTION: PUBLIC NUISANCE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE 37
RELIEF REQUESTED 39

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - I - 010694?11 986485 VI

 





Plaintiff, the People of the State of California (?the People?), by and through San Francisco
City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, brings this action against Defendants BP p.l.c. Chevron
Corporation (?Chevron?), ConocoPhillips Company (?ConocoPhillips?), Exxon Mobil Corporation
(?Exxon?), and Royal Dutch Shell (?Shell?) (collectively, ?Defendants?), and alleges as
follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Global warming is here and it is harming San Francisco now. Global warming
causes accelerated sea level rise through thermal expansion of ocean water and melting of land-
based ice. Sea levels are rising at rates unprecedented in the history of human civilization due to
global warming.I Global warming-induced sea level rise is already causing ?ooding of low-lying
areas of San Francisco, increased shoreline erosion, and salt water impacts to San Francisco?s
water treatment system.2 The rapidly rising sea level along the Paci?c coast and in San Francisco
Bay, moreover, poses an imminent threat of catastrophic storm surge ?ooding because any storm
would be superimposed on a higher sea level.3 This threat to human safety and to public and
private property is becoming more dire every day as global warming reaches ever more dangerous
levels and sea level rise accelerates. The City and County of San Francisco (?San Francisco? or
?City?) must take abatement action now to protect public and private property from this looming

threat by building sea walls and other sea level rise adaptation infrastructure. Exhibits 1 and 24 to

 

1 Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: an update on sea-level rise science, California Ocean
Science Trust, at 8 (Apr. 2017) (?Rising Seas in California?), available at


rise?science.pdf.

2 San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan at 6 (Mar. 2016), available at



3 Rising Seas in California at 16-17 (Apr. 2017); Climate Change Impacts in the United States:
The Third National Climate Assessment, southwest chapter at 469-70 (2014), available at


west_LowRes .pdf?download=1 .

4 San Francisco Sea Level Action Plan, at 2-7 2-9 (March 2016), available at



 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBIC NUISANCE - 1 - . 010694-11 986485 V1

 






this Complaint, showing ?ood events? projected intrusion into San Francisco as a result of global
warming, demonstrate just how stark the threat is.

2. This egregious state of affairs is no accident. Rather, it is an unlawful public
nuisance of the ?rst order. Defendants are the ?ve largest investor-owned fossil fuel corporations
in the world as measured by their historic production of fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels oil,
natural gas and coal is the primary source of the greenhouse gas pollution that causes global
warming, a point that scientists settled years ago.5 Defendants have produced massive amounts of
fossil fuels for many years. And recent disclosures of internal industry documents demonstrate that
they have done so despite knowing since at least the late 19705 and early 19805 if not earlier 
that massive fossil fuel usage would cause dangerous global warming. It was at that time that
scientists on their staffs or with whom they consulted through their trade association, the American
Petroleum Institute investigated the science and warned them in stark terms that fossil fuel
usage would cause global warming at a rate unprecedented in the history of human civilization and
present risks of ?catastrophic? harm in coming decades.

3. Defendants took these stark warnings and proceeded to double-down on fossil fuels.
Most of the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of Defendants? fossil
fuels is likely attributable to their recent production to fossil fuels produced by Defendants
since 1980. Even today, with the global warming danger level at a critical phase, Defendants
continue to engage in massive fossil fuel production and execute long~term business plans to
continue and even expand their fossil fuel production for decades into the future.

4. The global warming-induced sea level rise from pg; fossil fuel usage is an
irreversible condition on any relevant time scale: it will last hundreds or even thousands of years.

Defendants? planned production of fossil fuels into the future will exacerbate global warming,

 

5 See, e. 3., Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scienti?c Assessment, Report of an Ad Hoc Study
Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate to the Climate Research Board, Assembly of Mathematical
and Physical Sciences, National Research Council (1979), at vii, 4-6, available at
12 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 2 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 



to r?I h?I r?I? r?t 

accelerate sea level rise even further, and require greater and more costly abatement actions to
protect San Francisco.

5. Defendants, notably, did not simply produce fossil fuels. They engaged in large-
scale, sophisticated advertising and public relations campaigns to promote pervasive fossil fuel
usage and to portray fossil fuels as environmentally re5ponsible and essential to human well-being
even as they knew that their fossil fuels would contribute, and subsequently were contributing, to
dangerous global warming and associated accelerated sea level rise. These promotional efforts
continue through today even in the face of overwhelming scienti?c evidence that fossil fuels are
altering the climate and global warming has become an existential threat to modern life.

6. Defendants? promotion of fossil fuels has also entailed denying mainstream climate
science or downplaying the risks of global warming. During the 19905 and early 20005,
Defendants stole a page from the Big Tobacco playbook and sponsored public relations campaigns,
either directly or through the API or other groups, to deny and discredit the mainstream scienti?c
consensus on global warming, downplay the risks of global warming, and even to launch
unfounded attacks on the integrity of leading climate scientists. ?Uncertainty? of the science
became the constantly repeated mantra of this Big Oil PR campaign just as ?Doubt is our product?
was the Big Tobacco PR theme. Emphasizing ?uncertainty? in climate science, directly or through
the API, is still a focus of Defendants? efforts to promote their products even though Defendants
are well aware that the fundamental scienti?c facts of global warming are not in dispute and are a
cause of grave danger through sea level rise.

7. The purpose of all this promotion of fossil fuels and efforts to undermine
mainstream climate science was, like all marketing, to increase sales and protect market share. It
succeeded.

8. And now it will cost billions of dollars to build sea walls and other infrastructure to
protect human safety and public and private property in San Francisco from global warming-
induced sea level rise. A recent report by the California government has rung the alarm bell as
loudly as possible: ?Previously underappreciated glaciological processes, examined in the research

of the last ?ve years, have the potential to greatly increase the probability of extreme global sea-

 

 

 

COMPIAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - - 3 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 






 

 

level rise (6 feet or more) within this century? under business-as usual fossil fuel production and
usage.6 Translation: the planet?s enormous ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are beginning to
melt, like their much smaller but more numerous cousins, the mountain glaciers, have been doing
for many years, and slide into the ocean. This new dynamic is fundamentally increasing the risk of
catastrophic sea level rise. The report projects a risk of as much as ten feet of additional sea level
rise along San Francisco?s coastline by 2100, which would be catastrophic.7 Nearer-term risks
include 0.3 to as much as 0.8 feet of additional sea level rise by 2030,8 which itself will require the
building of sea walls and other costly infrastructure given the dynamics of storm surge and regular
high tide ?ooding.

9. This new information shows that the costs of dealing with global warming?induced
sea level?already immense?will be staggering for the public entities that must protect their
people and their coastlines. Even before the latest projections of accelerating sea-level rise, San
Francisco has already taken action to adapt. In 2016, San Francisco adopted an action plan
establishing a framework for assessing San Francisco?s exposure to sea level rise and identifying
actions the City must take to prevent sea level rise damage. The plan?s vision is to make San
Francisco a ?more resilient city in the face of immediate and long?term threats of sea level rise, by
taking measures to protect and enhance public and private assets, natural resources, and quality of
life for all.? The plan recommends that San Francisco conduct assessments to identify properties
and infrastructure vulnerable to sea level rise, and develop and implement adaptation plans to
protect them by raising infrastructure, building ?ood barriers and other infrastructure, and taking
other measures: San Francisco is in the process of doing so for identi?ed vulnerable areas such as
Ocean Beach and the San Francisco Port. As set forth in the action plan, continuing Bayside sea
level rise from global warming places at risk at least $10 billion dollars of public property within

San Francisco and as much as $39 billion of private property. The magnitude of the actions needed

 

6 Rising Seas in California Id.

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 4 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 






to abate harms from sea level rise, and the amount of property at risk, will increase in light of the
rapidly accelerating sea level rise and the increased scienti?c understanding of sea level rise
processes as set forth in the 2017 report.

10. Defendants are substantial contributors to the public nuisance of global warming
that is causing injury to the People and thus are jointly and severally liable. Defendants?
cumulative production of fossil fuels over many years places each of them among the top sources
of global warming pollution in the world. Upon information and belief, Defendants are,
respectively, the ?rst (Chevron), second (Exxon), fourth (BP), sixth (Shell) and ninth
(ConocoPhillips) largest cumulative producers of fossil fuels worldwide from the mid Nineteenth
Century to present; most of Defendants? global warming pollution from the usage of their fuels has
accumulated in the atmosphere since 1980. Defendants, moreover, are qualitatively different from
other contributors to the harm given their in?house scienti?c resources, early knowledge of global
warming, cormnercial promotions of fossil fuels as bene?cent even in light of their knowledge to
the contrary, and efforts to protect their fossil fuel market by downplaying the risks of global
warming.

11. The People seek an order requiring Defendants to abate the global warming-induced
sea level rise nuisance to which they have contributed by funding an abatement program to build
sea walls and other infrastructure that is urgently needed to protect human safety and public and
private property in San Francisco. The People do n_ot seek to impose liability on Defendants for
their direct emissions of greenhouse gases and do n_ot seek to restrain Defendants from engaging in
their business operations. This case is, fundamentally, about shifting the costs of abating sea level
rise harm one of global warming?s gravest harms back onto the companies. After all, it is
Defendants who have pro?ted and will continue to pro?t by knowingly contributing to global
warming, thereby doing all they can to help create and maintain a profound public nuisance.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court because Defendants have contributed to the

creation of a public nuisance in San Francisco, and the San Francisco City Attorney has the right

and authority to seek abatement of that nuisance on behalf of the People of the State of California.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 5 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 






13. Venue is proper in this county in accordance with section the Code of

Civil Procedure because the People allege injuries to real property located in this county.
PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

14. Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, by and through the San Francisco
City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera, brings this suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731,
and Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494, to abate the public nuisance caused by
Defendants.

B. Defendants

15. Defendant BP is a public limited company registered in England and Wales with its
headquarters in London, England, doing business in California. BP was created in 1998 as a result
of a merger between the Amoco Corporation (?Amoco?), a former US. corporation, and the British
Petroleum Company p.l.c. BP is a multinational, integrated oil and gas company that explores for,
produces, re?nes, markets, and sells oil, natural gas and fossil fuel products.

16. BP controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production.9 BP,
through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts and/or controls operations relating
to its subsidiaries? participation in the process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude oil, are
produced, transported, re?ned, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or sold to consumers. BP also
exercises control over company-wide decisions on production and use of fossil fuel reserves
considering climate change impacts. management, direction, conduct and/or control is
exercised through a variety of means, including through its employees? and/or agents?
implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change generally and to
production of fossil fuels specifically.


l/

 

9 BP Responses to Climate Change 2016 Information Request from Carbon Disclosure Project
at 1, available at 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 6 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 

\DOOstUI-thi?t

NHF?Il?il?lHF?lHF?ll?dl?l


17. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations
relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant BP is
responsible for its subsidiaries? past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products.

18. Defendant Chevron is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business
located in San Ramon, California. Chevron and its predecessors had their headquarters in San
Francisco from 1879 to 2001. Chevron is a multinational, integrated oil and gas company that
explores for, produces, re?nes, markets, and sells oil, natural gas and fossil fuel products.

19. Chevron controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel
production.10 Chevron, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts and/or
controls operations relating to its subsidiaries? participation in the process by which fossil fuels,
including raw crude oil, are produced, transported, re?ned, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or
sold to consumers. Chevron also exercises control over company-wide decisions on production
and use of fossil fuel reserves considering climate change impacts. Chevron?s management,
direction, conduct and/or control is exercised through a variety of means, including through its
employees? and/or agents? implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to
climate change generally and to production of fossil fuels speci?cally.

20. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations
relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant Chevron is
responsible for its subsidiaries? past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products.

21. Defendant ConocoPhillips is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of
business located in Houston, Texas, doing business in California. ConocoPhillips is a
multinational oil and gas company that produces, markets, and sells oil and natural gas and for
many years also re?ned and sold ?nished oil products.

I 


 

1? Chevron Responses to Climate Change 2016 Information Request from Carbon Disclosure
Project at 2, available at 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 7 - 010694-11 986485 VI

 



NHI?ll?dl?ll?lI-?HD??Hh?l


22. ConocoPhillips controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel
production.11 ConocoPhillips, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts
and/or controls operations relating to its subsidiaries? participation in the process by which fossil
fuels, including raw crude oil, are produced, transported, re?ned, stored, distributed, marketed,
and/or sold to consumers. ConocoPhillips also exercises control over company-wide decisions on
production and use of fossil fuel reserves considering climate change impacts. ConocoPhillips?s
management, direction, conduct and/or control is exercised through a variety of means, including
through its employees? and/or agents? implementation of policies, procedures, and programs
relating to climate change generally and to production of fossil fuels speci?cally.

23. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of Operations
relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant
ConocoPhillips is responsible for its subsidiaries? past and current production and promotion of
fossil fuel products.

24. Defendant Exxon is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business
located in Irving, Texas, doing business in the State of California. Exxon is a multinational,
integrated oil and gas company that explores for, produces, re?nes, markets, and sells oil, natural
gas and fossil fuel products and, as recently as 2009 produced, marketed and sold coal.

25. Exxon controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production.12
Exxon, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts and/or controls operations
relating to its subsidiaries? participation in the process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude
oil, are produced, tran5ported, re?ned, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or sold to consumers.
Exxon also exercises control over company?wide decisions on production and use of fossil fuel
reserves considering climate change impacts. Exxon?s management, direction, conduct and/or

control is exercised through a variety of means, including through its employees and/or agents?

 

1? ConocoPhillips Responses to Climate Change 2016 Information Request from Carbon
Disclosure Project at 2, available at 

?2 Exxon Responses to Climate Change 2016 Information Request from Carbon Disclosure
Project at 1, available at 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 8 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 



implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change generally and to
production of fossil fuels speci?cally.

26. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations
relating to company-wide chate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant Exxon is
responsible for its subsidiaries? past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products.

27. Defendant Shell is a public limited company registered in England and Wales with
its headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, doing business in California. Shell is a multinational,
integrated oil and gas company that explores for, produces, re?nes, markets, and sells oil, natural
gas and fossil fuel products.

28. Shell controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production.l3
Shell, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts and/or controls operations
relating to its subsidiaries? participation in the process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude
oil, are produced, tran5ported, re?ned, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or sold to consumers.
Shell also exercises control over company-wide decisions on production and use of fossil fuel
reserves considering climate change impacts. Shell?s management, direction, conduct and/or
control is exercised through a variety of means, including through its employees? and/or agents?
implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change generally and to
production of fossil fuels speci?cally.

29. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations 
relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant Shell is
responsible for its subsidiaries? past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products.

30. Defendants DOES ONE through TEN are sued herein under ?ctitious names.
Plaintiff does not at this time know the true names or capacities of said defendants, but prays that
the same may be alleged when ascertained.



 

?3 Shell Responses to Climate Change 2016 Information Request from Carbon Disclosure
Project at 2, available at 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC - 9 - 010694?11 986485 V1

 



v?ai?Ir?Ii?nr?tr-nl?AHi?Ar?t


C. Defendants? Connections To California.

31. Defendants have contributed to the creation of a public nuisance global warming-
induced sea level rise causing severe harms and threatening catastrophic harms in San Francisco.

32. Each Defendant, directly and through its subsidiaries, substantially participates in
the process by which raw crude oil is extracted from the ground, re?ned into fossil fuel products
and delivered, marketed, and sold to California residents for use. I

33. BP, through its subsidiaries, owns and/or Operates port facilities in California for
receipt of crude oil. BP, through its subsidiaries, also produces oil in Alaska, and upon information
and belief, BP, through its subsidiaries, transports some of this crude oil to California. In addition,
BP operates 275 ARGO-licensed and?branded gasoline stations in California, including stations
located in San Francisco. BP offers credit cards to consumers on its interactive website to promote
sales of gasoline and other products at its branded gasoline stations. web site maintains a
page of Amoco Stations Near Me? for California listing virtually every municipality in
California and hundreds of such gas stations. BP promotes gasoline sales by offering, consumers,
through its interactive web site, twenty-?ve cents off every gallon of BP-branded gasoline for
every $100 spent on a BP Visa? Credit Card or BP Credit Card for the ?rst ninety days a
consumer?s account is open.

34. Chevron, through its subsidiaries, produces oil in California, owns and/or operates
port facilities in California for receipt of crude oil, owns and operates two re?neries where crude
oil is re?ned into ?nished fossil fuel products including gasoline, and owns and operates
approximately nine gasoline terminals in California. A gasoline terminal consists of enormous
aboveground storage tanks that hold gasoline for distribution to retail gasoline stations and
consumers. Chevron owns and operates the Richmond gasoline re?nery and related terminals in
the San Francisco Bay Area. Chevron, through its subsidiaries, also produces oil in Alaska, and
upon information and belief, some of this crude oil is supplied to California. There also are
numerous Chevron-branded gasoline stations in California, including in San Francisco. Chevron
offers credit cards to consumers through its interactive website, to promote sales of gasoline and

other products at its branded gasoline stations. Chevron promotes gasoline sales by offering

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 10 010694?11 986485 V1

 






consumers three cents per gallon in fuel credits ?every ?ll-up, every time at Chevron and Texaco
stations.?

35. ConocoPhillips, through its subsidiaries, owns and/or operates port facilities in
California for receipt of crude oil, and previously owned and operated a re?nery based in both
Rodeo and Arroyo Grande, California, from 2001 to 2012, where crude oil was re?ned into
?nished fossil fuel products including gasoline. ConocoPhillips, through its subsidiaries, also
produces oil in Alaska, and transports some of this crude oil to California, including San Francisco.

36. Exxon, through its subsidiaries, produces oil in California, owns and/or operates
port facilities in California for receipt of crude oil, and previously owned and operated a re?nery in
California until July 1, 2016, where crude oil was re?ned into ?nished fossil fuel products
including gasoline. Exxon owned the Benicia gasoline re?nery for 30 years until 2000. Exxon,
through its subsidiaries, also produces oil in Alaska, and upon information and belief, Exxon,
through its subsidiaries, transports some of this crude oil to California. There also are numerous
Exxon-branded gasoline stations in California, including in San Francisco and the greater Bay
Area. Exxon offers credit cards to consumers, through its interactive website, to promote sales of
gasoline and other products at its branded gasoline stations. Exxon promotes gasolines sales by
offering consumers twenty-?ve cents off every gallon of gasoline at ExxonTM or
MobilTM stations for the ?rst two months and then six cents off every gallon of Synergy gasoline at
Exxon- and Mobil-branded stations.

37. Shell, through its subsidiaries, owns and/or operates port facilities in California for
receipt of crude oil, owns and operates a re?nery in Californiazwhere crude oil is re?ned into
?nished fossil fuel products including gasoline, transports crude oil through a pipeline within
California, and owns and operates approximately six gasoline terminals in California. Since 1915,
Shell has owned a gasoline re?nery in Martinez, California, thirty miles northeast of San
Francisco. There are numerous Shell-branded gasoline stations in California, including in San
Francisco. Shell offers credit cards to consumers on its interactive website to promote sales of

gasoline and other products at its branded gasoline stations. Shell promotes gasolines sales by

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE 11 - 010694-11 986485 v1

 






offering consumers, through its interactive web site, twenty-?ve cents off every gallon of Shell
Fuel for the ?rst two months after they open an account.
IV. FOSSIL FUELS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING.

38. Production of fossil fuels for combustion causes global warming. When used as
intended, fossil fuels release greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (C02) and methane,
which trap atmospheric heat and increase global temperatures. Carbon dioxide is by far the most
important greenhouse gas because of the combustion of massive amounts of fossil fuels.

39. Scientists have known for many years that the use of fossil fuels emits carbon
dioxide and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius, a Nobel-prize
winning scientist, published calculations projecting temperature increases that would be caused by
increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels.14

40. By 1957, scientists at the Scripps Institute published a warning in the peer-reviewed
literature that global warming ?may become signi?cant during future decades if industrial fuel
combustion continues to rise exponentially? and that ?[h]uman beings are now carrying out a large
scale geophysical experiment? on the entire planet.?

41. In 1960, scientist Charles D. Keeling published results establishing that atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations were in fact rising.16

42. By 1979, the National Academy of Sciences, which is charged with providing
independent, objective scienti?c advice to the United States government, concluded that there was
?incontrovertible evidence? that carbon dioxide levels were increasing in the atmosphere as a result

of fossil fuel use, and predicted that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause an

 

?4 Arrhenius, Svante (1896). "On the In?uence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the
Temperature of the Ground." Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 41: 237-76, available
at 

'5 Revelle, Roger, and Hans E. Suess (1957). ?Carbon Dioxide Exchange between Atmosphere
and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric C02 During the Past Decades.? ellus
9: 18-27, available at 10.1 1 1 1/j.2153-
3490.1957.tb01849.x/epdf.

?5 Keeling, Charles D. (1960). ?The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide
in the Atmosphere.? ellus 12: 200-203, available at

1 1 1 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 12 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 






increase in global surface temperatures of between 1.5 and 4.5 [2.7 0F and 8.1 with a
probable increase of 3 [5 .4 

43. In 1988, NASA scientist Dr. James E. Hansen testi?ed to the US. Senate?s Energy
and Natural Resources Committee that ?[t]he greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is
changing our climate now.?18

44. More recent research has con?rmed and expanded on these earlier ?ndings. In
1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to
assess the scienti?c and technical information relevant to global warming, and to provide advice to
all parties to the UN. Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the United States.
The IPCC issues periodic assessment reports, which have become the standard scienti?c references
on global warming. As Defendant Exxon has put it, the IPCC is ?the leading international
scienti?c authority on climate change.?

45. In 1990, the IPCC issued its First Assessment Report It stated that ?we
are certain? that ?emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the
atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases,? including carbon dioxide and methane, and
that ?these increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional
warming of the Earth?s surface.?19 The FAR also predicted that a ?Business-as-Usual?
scenario a future in which fossil fuel production and associated emissions continue to
increase) would cause global mean temperature during the next century to increase at a rate
?greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years,? and ?will result in a likely increase in global

mean temperature of about 1 [1.8 above the present value by 2025 and 3 [5 .4 before

 

?7 See Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scienti?c Assessment, Report of an Ad Hoc Study
Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate to the Climate Research Board, Assembly of Mathematical
and Physical Sciences, National Research Council (1979), at vii, 16, available at


18 
?9 at Executive Summary xi.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 13 - 010694?11 986485 V1

 



l?dl?lI?Il?lI-HI-dl?II?ll?dl?i


the end of the next century? higher than temperatures have been in the last 150,000 years. 20 The
FAR also predicted that business-as-usual would result in substantial sea level rise by 2100.21

46. The FAR further stated ?with con?dence? that continued emissions of carbon
dioxide ?at present rates would commit us to increased concentrations for centuries ahead,? and
that immediate reductions were required to stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations.

47. In 1995, in its Second Assessment Report the IPCC concluded that the
?balance of evidence suggests a discernible human in?uence on global climate.? This causal
?nding was profoundly important as con?rmation that human-caused global warming had now
been detected. By 2001, the IPCC strengthened its causal conclusion, stating that it was ?likely?
(an IPCC term of art meaning a 66% to 90% chance of being true) that temperature increases
already observed were attributable to human activity.22 The US. National Academy of Sciences
reviewed this ?nding and concluded that it was accurate.23

48. The IPCC issued its most recent report, the Fifth Assessment, in 2013-14. It states
that it is ?extremely likely? (95 to 100 percent likely) that ?human in?uence has been the dominant
cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.?24

49. The increase in atmOSpheric carbon dioxide caused by the combustion of fossil fuels
has been clearly documented and measured. Carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has a chemical
?ngerprint and is the culprit; natural sources of carbon dioxide were in balance prior to the use of
fossil fuels and are not a cause of the global warming problem. Today, due primarily to the
combustion of fossil fuels produced by Defendants and others, the atmospheric level of carbon

dioxide is 410 ppm, higher than at any time during human civilization and likely higher than any

 

20 Id. at Executive Summary xi and 
2? Id. at Executive Summary xi.

2 IPCC, Third Assessment Report, Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers at 10,
available at 

23 National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources,
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, summary at 1 (2001), available at


2? IPCC, Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 17,
available at 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 14 - 010694?11 986485 V1

 






level in millions of years.25 The result has been dramatic planetary warming: sixteen of earth?s
seventeen warmest years in the 136?year period of global temperature measurements have occurred
since 2001, and 2016 was the warmest year on record.?5 As of July 2017, there were 391 months in
a row that were warmer than the 20th century average.? The years 2014, 2015, and 2016 were the
three hottest years ever recorded in California since modern temperature records were ?rst taken in
1895.28 California has warmed over 2 since 1895.29

50. Scientists typically use ?double or twice the pre-industrial level of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, as a standard reference for considering the warming
impact of increased greenhouse gases. Double C02 is 550 ppm. According to the IPCC, double
C02 will cause the global average surface air temperature to increase by 1.5 to 4.5 [2.7 to 8.1
over the pre-industrial level, a rate of warming that is unprecedented in the history of human
civilization. By comparison, at the depths of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago, the global average
temperature of the Earth was only seven to eleven degrees Fahrenheit cooler than today. Globally,
approximately 1 [1.8 of the temperature rise already has occurred, due primarily to carbon
dioxide and methane emissions ?om the combustion and use of fossil fuels.

51. Ongoing and future warming caused by past and ongoing use of massive quantities
of fossil fuels will cause increasingly severe harm to San Francisco through accelerating sea level
rise. In 2013, the IPCC projected that between 2081 and 2100, the global average surface

temperature will have increased by 4.7 to 8.6 under business-as-usual, with continued

 

25 Brian Kahn, We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for C02, Scienti?c American (Apr.

21, 2017), available at 
threshold-for?co2l.

2?5 Rising Seas in California at 14.

27 NCAA, Global Climate Report, July 2017, available at 
sotc/global/201707.

2'3 0AA, National Centers for Environmental Information, available at



29 NCAA, National Climatic Data Center, available at 

precip/state-tempsl; see also 


 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC - 15 - 010694?11 986485 V1

 




g?g??g??gomqmmauwHo

massive levels of fossil fuel production. Global warming causes sea level rise by melting glaciers

and sea ice, and by causing seawater to expand. 30 This acceleration of sea level rise is

unprecedented in the history of human civilization. Since 1990, the rate of sea level rise has more
than doubled and it continues to accelerate. The rate of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic

Ice Sheets is increasing, and these ice sheets soon will become the primary contributor to global

sea level rise. With production of fossil fuels continuing on its business-as-usual trajectory, the

resulting warming presents a risk of ?rapidly accelerating and effectively irreversible ice loss.?

The melting of even a portion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the ?most vulnerable major ice sheet

in a warming global climate,? will cause especially severe impacts in California. Rapid ice sheet

loss on Antarctica due to global warming risks a sea level rise in California of ten feet by 2100.31

This would be catastrophic for San Francisco.

52. The Earth?s climate can undergo an abrupt and dramatic change when a radiative
forcing agent, such as carbon dioxide, causes the climate system to reach a tipping point.
Defendants? massive production of fossil fuels increases the risk of reaching that tipping point,
triggering a sudden and potentially catastr0phic change in climate. The rapidity of an abrupt
climate shift would magnify all the adverse effects of global warming. Crossing a tipping point
threshold also could lead to rapid disintegration of ice sheets on Greenland and/or Antarctica,
resulting in large and rapid increases in sea level rise.

V. DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF FOSSIL FUELS
AND HAVE CONTINUED TO DO SO EVEN AS GLOBAL WARMING HAS
BECOME GRAVELY DANGEROUS.

53. For many years, Defendants have produced massive quantities of fossil fuels that,
when combusted, emit carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas. Additionally, one of
Defendants? primary fossil fuel products, natural gas, is composed of methane, which is the second
most important greenhouse gas and which, as Defendants know, routinely escapes into the

atmosphere from facilities operated by Defendants' customers and also consumers. The

 

3? IPCC, Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 11,
available at 

3? Rising Seas in California at 3?4, 13.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 16 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 



r?Ar?tr?nr?ar?nr?II?ti?ir?nr?t


greenhouse gases from the usage of defendants? fossil fuels remain in the atmosphere for long
periods of time: a substantial portion of carbon dioxide emissions remains in the atmosphere for
over 1,000 years after they are emitted.32 As noted above, Defendants have produced such vast
quantities of fossil fuels that they are ?ve of the ten largest producers in all of history, with most of
the carbon dioxide that has built up in the atmosphere from the use of their products dating from
1980 or later. The cumulative greenhouse gases in the atmosphere attributable to each Defendant
has increased the global temperature and contributed to sea level rise, including in San Francisco.

54. Once Defendants produce fossil fuels by, for example, extracting oil from the
ground, those fossil fuels are used exactly as intended and emit carbon dioxide.

55. Despite their internal warnings, an overwhelming scienti?c consensus on the
unfolding imminent catastrophe, and actual gravely dangerous impacts from global warming,
Defendants to this day maintain high levels of fossil fuel production. This production will intensify
future warming and San Francisco?s injuries from sea level rise.

56. Defendants? conduct will continue to cause ongoing and increasingly severe sea
level rise harms to San Francisco because Defendants are committed to a business model of
massive fossil fuel production that they know causes a gravely dangerous rate of global warming.
The following graph from a 2015 study published in the peer-reviewed scienti?c literature

demonstrates the grave indifference Defendants BP, Shell, and Exxon have for human safety and

welfare.







 

32 IPCC, Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 28,


 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 17 -- 010694?11 986485 V1

 








12 
mm
Shell-0mm

Shit-Mus.
to - u- M'"hm Emissions 

1990 1995 2000 NOS 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

The graph compares BP, Exxon and Shell?s projections of worldwide total future emissions33 
projections upon which they make long-term business plans to the IEA (?International Energy
Agency?) 450 emissions trajectory necessary to prevent global warming from exceeding a 2 
increase over the pre-industrial temperature.34 The 2 level of global warming is widely
considered to be a red line of highly dangerous global warming. Upon information and belief, all
Defendants base their long-term business plans upon similar projections.
VI. DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOSSIL FUELS
DESPITE HAVING FULL KNOWLEDGE FROM THEIR IN-HOUSE SCIENTIFIC
STAFF, OR FROM THE API, THAT FOSSIL FUELS WOULD CAUSE GLOBAL
WARMING.
57. For decades, Defendants have known that their fossil fuel products pose risks of
?severe? and even ?catastrophic? impacts on the global climate through the work and warnings of

their own scientists or through their trade association. Yet each Defendant decided to continue its

conduct and commit itself to massive fossil fuel production. This was a deliberate decision to

 

33 In gigatons of carbon per year.

34 Frumhoff, et al., The climate re5ponsibilities of industrial carbon producers, Climatic
Change, at 167 (2015), available at 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE 18 - 010694-11 986485 v1

 






place company pro?ts ahead of human safety and well-being and property, and to foist onto the
public the costs of abating and adapting to the public nuisance of global warming.

58. The American Petroleum Institute is a national trade association that
represents the interests of America?s oil and natural gas industry. At all relevant times,
Defendants, their corporate predecessors and/or their operating subsidiaries over which they
exercise substantial control, have been members of the API. On information and belief, the API
has acted as Defendants? agent with respect to global warming, received funding ?om Defendants
for the global warming initiatives, and shared with Defendants the information on global
warming described herein.

59. Beginning in the 19505, the API repeatedly warned its members that fossil fuels
posed a grave threat to the global climate. These warnings have included, for example, an
admission in 1968 in an API report predicting that carbon dioxide emissions were ?almost certain?
to produce ?significant? temperature increases by 2000, and that these emissions were almost
certainly attributable to fossil fuels. The report warned of ?major changes in the earth?s
environment? and a ?rise in sea levels,? and concluded: ?there seems to be no doubt that the
potential damage to our environment could be severe.?35 Similar warnings followed in the ensuing
decades, including reports commissioned by the API in the 1980s that there was ?scienti?c
consensus? that catastrophic climate change would ensue unless API members changed their
business models, and predictions that sea levels would rise considerably, with grave consequences,
if atmospheric concentrations of C02 continued to increase.

60. The warnings to Defendants included:

a) In 1951, the API launched a project to research air pollution from petroleum

products, and attributed atmospheric carbon to fossil fuel sources.36 By 1968, the scienti?c

 

35 E. Robinson R.C. Robbins, Final Report, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous
Atmospheric Pollutants, SRI Project PR-6755, prepared for American Petroleum Institute, at 109-
110, available at 

3?5 Charles A. Jones (1958) A Review of the Air Pollution Research Program of the Smoke and
Fumes Committee of the American Petroleum Institute, Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association, 8:3, 268-272, DOI: available at


 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 19 - 010694-11 986485 v1

 



No?ar?It?IHi?IHr?nv?si?ar?I

consultant reported to the API that carbon dioxide emissions were ?almost certain? to produce
?signi?cant? temperature increases by 2000, and that these emissions were almost certainly
attributable to fossil fuels. The report warned of ?maj or changes in the earth?s environment? and a
?rise in sea levels,? and concluded: ?there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our
environment could be severe.?37

b) In 1980, an API task force on climate change invited Dr. J.A. Laurman, a
?recognized expert in the ?eld of C02 and climate,? to make a presentation to the API C02 and
Climate Task Force. Attendees to the presentation included scientists and executives from Texaco
(a predecessor to Chevron), Exxon, and SOHIO (a predecessor to BP). Dr. Laurman informed the
API task force that there was a ?Scienti?c Consensus on the Potential for Large Future Climatic
Response to Increased C02 Levels.? He further informed the API task force in his presentation
that, though the exact temperature increases were dif?cult to predict, the ?physical facts agree on
the probability of large effects 50 years away.? His own temperature forecast was of a 2.5 [4.5
rise by 2038, which would likely have ECONOMIC and a 5 
[9 rise by 2067, which would likely produce CATASTROPHIC He
also suggested that, de5pite uncertainty, IS NO in the time for acting. API
minutes show that the task force discussed topics including ?the technical implications of energy
source changeover,? ?ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they relate
to CO2 creation,? and researching ?the Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New
Energy Source into World Wide Use.?38

In March 1982, an API-commissioned report showed the average increase in
global temperature from a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and projected, based

upon computer modeling, global warming of between 2 and 3.5 [3.6 to 6.3 The report

 

37 E. Robinson R.C. Robbins, Final Report, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous
Atmospheric Pollutants, SRI Project prepared for American Petroleum Institute, at 109-
110, available at 

38 CO2 and Climate Task Force, Minutes of Meeting, at 1-2 Attachment B, available at



 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 20 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 



NHr?tr?AI?IHp?th-Ir?Ir?tr?a


projected potentially ?serious consequences for man?s comfort and survival,? and noted that ?the
height of the sea level can increase considerably.?39

61. In addition to the API information, some of the Defendants produced their own
internal analyses of global warming. For example, newly disclosed documents demonstrate that
Exxon internally acknowledged in the late 19705 and early 19805 that its products posed a
?catastrophic? threat to the global climate, and that fossil fuel use would have to be strictly limited
to avoid severe harm.

a) Exxon management was informed by its scientists in 1977 that there was an
?overwhelming[]? consensus that fossil fuels were responsible for atmospheric carbon dioxide
increases. The presentation summarized a warning from a recent international scienti?c conference
that IS PREMATURE TO LIMIT USE OF FOSSIL FUELS BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE
The scientist warned management in a summary of his talk: ?Present thinking
holds that man has a time window of ?ve to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding
changes in energy strategies might become critical.?40

b) In a 1979 Exxon internal memo, an Exxon scientist calculated that 80% of
fossil fuel reserves would need to remain in the ground and unburned to avoid greater than a
doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.41

c) In a 1981 internal Exxon memo, a scientist and director at the Exxon
Research and Engineering Company warned that ?it is possible? that C02 emissions ?will

later produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the

earth?s population)?42

 

39 
at 5.

4? 1 977%Effects%2013tter%20%28198 1 %29.pdf.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 21 010594?11 986485 v1

 



.NHHl-dl?ll?lh-?I?li?lp?lp?I


d) A year later, the same scientist wrote another memo to Exxon headquarters,
which reported on a ?clear scienti?c consensus? that ?a doubling of atmospheric C02 from its pre?
industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 i 1.5) [2.7
to 8.1 The clear scienti?c consensus was based upon computer modeling, which Exxon
would later attack as unreliable and uncertain in an effort to undermine public con?dence in
climate science.44 The memo continued: ?There is unanimous agreement in the scienti?c
community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about signi?cant changes in
the earth?s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.?

e) In November 1982, an Exxon internal report to management warned that
?substantial climatic changes? could occur if the average global temperature rose ?at least 1 [1.8
above [1982] levels,? and that ?[m]itigation of the ?greenhouse effect? would require major
reductions in fossil fuel combustion.? The report then warns Exxon management that ?there are
some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered,? including the risk that ?if the
Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land should melt, then this could cause a rise in sea level
on the order of 5 meters.? The report includes a graph demonstrating the expected future global
warming from the effect? demonstrating a sharp departure from the ?[r]ange of natural
?uctuations.? This graph is attached hereto as Exhibit 33?5

f) By 1983, Exxon had created its own climate models, which con?rmed the
main conclusions from the earlier memos. Starting by at least the mid?19803, Exxon used its own
climate models and governmental ones to gauge the impact that climate change would have on its
own business operations and subsequently tool: actions to protect its own business assets based

upon these modeling results!?5

 

43 Cohen memo to Natkin at 1 (Sept. 2, 1982), available at 


44 See infra 76.

45 M. B. Glaser, Memo to R.W. Cohen et al. on Greenhouse Effect,? Nov. 12, 1982, at 2,
12-13, 28, available at 


46 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 22 - 010694?11 986485 v1

 






62. Exxon?s early research and understanding of the global warming impacts of its
business was not unique among Defendants. For example, at least as far back as 1970, Defendants
Shell and BP began funding scienti?c research in England to examine the possible future climate
changes from greenhouse gas emissions.47 Shell produced a ?lm on global warming in 1991, in
which it admitted that there had been a ?marked increase [in global temperatures] in the 19805? and
that the increase ?does accord with computer models based on the known atmospheric processes
and predicted buildup of greenhouse gases.?48 It acknowledged a ?serious warning? that had been
?endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists? in 1990. In the ?lm, Shell further admits
that by 2050 continued emissions of greenhouse gases at high levels would cause a global average
temperature increase of 1.5 to 4 [2.7 to 7.2 that one meter of sea level rise was likely in the
next century; that ?this could be disastrous;? and that there is a ?possibility of change faster than at
any time since the end of the ice age, change too fast, perhaps, for life to adapt without severe

dislocation.?

VII. DESPITE THEIR EARLY IGVOWLEDGE THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS
REAL AND POSED GRAVE THREATS, DEFENDANTS PROMOTED FOSSIL
FUELS FOR PERVASIVE USE WHILE DOWNPLAYIN THE REALITY AND

RISKS OF GLOBAL WARNHN G.

63. Defendants have extensively promoted fossil fuel use in massive quantities through
af?rmative advertising for fossil fuels and downplaying global warming risks. First, Defendants
promoted massive use of fossil fuels by misleading the public about global warming by
emphasizing the uncertainties of climate science and through the use of paid denialist groups and
individuals a striking resemblance to Big Tobacco?s propaganda campaign to deceive the public
about the adverse health effects of smoking. Defendants? campaign inevitably encouraged fossil
fuel consumption at levels that were (as Defendants knew) certain to severely harm the public.

Second, Defendants? fossil fuel promotions through frequent advertising for their fossil fuel

products, including promotions claiming that consumption at current and even expanded levels is

 

4" Sir Solly Zuckermau, Chief Scientist, Letter to Vice Chancellor, University of Bath, 9th May
1970, PRO ref CAB 163/272 #122885, ?Long-term climate changes and their effects.?

48 

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 23 - 010694-11 986485 v1

 



II-II?dII?ll-dh-?h??l?il?IHI?d


 

 

?responsible? or even ?respectful? of the environment, have encouraged continued fossil fuel
consumption at massive levels that Defendants knew would harm the public.49

A. Defendants Borrowed The Big Tobacco Playbook In Order To Promote Their

Products.

64. Notwithstanding Defendants? early knowledge of climate change, Defendants have
engaged in advertising and public relations campaigns intended to promote their fossil fuel
products by downplaying the harms and risks of global warming. Initially, the campaign tried to
show that global warming was not occurring. More recently, the campaign has sought to minimize
the risks and harms from global warming. The campaign?s purpose and effect has been to help
Defendants continue to produce fossil fuels and sell their products on a massive scale. This
campaign was executed in large part by front groups funded by Defendants, either directly or
through the API, and through statements made by Defendants directly.

65. One front group was the Global Climate Coalition The GCC operated
between 1989 and 2002. Its members included the API, and predecessors or subsidiaries of
Defendants. William O?Keefe, former president of the GCC, was also a former executive of the
API.50

66. The GCC spent millions of dollars on campaigns to discredit climate science,
including $13 million on one ad campaign alone. The GCC distributed a video to hundreds of
journalists, which claimed that carbon dioxide emissions would increase crop production and feed
the hungry people of the world.51

67. I-Iowever, internal GCC documents admitted that their ?contrarian? climate theories

were unfounded. In December 1995, the Science and Technology Advisory Committee

 

49 ConocoPhillips, the changing energy landscape, available at 

Chevron TV ad (2009), 

5" Jeff Nesmith, Industry Promotes Skeptical View of Global Warming, Cox News Service, May
28, 2003, available at 
?ID=4450&Method=Full.

51 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 24 - 010694?11 986485 

 



Nl??i?lr??l?ll?lh?IHI?ll?lr?l


whose members included employees of Mobil Oil Corporation (an Exxon
predecessor) and the API, drafted a primer on the science of global warming for GCC members.
The primer concluded that the contrarian theories ?do not offer convincing arguments
against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.? Due to this
inconvenient conclusion, at its next meeting, in January 1996, the GCC-STAC decided simply to
drop this seven-page section of the report. Nonetheless, for years afterward, the GCC and its
members continued to tout their contrarian theories about global warming, even though the GCC
had admitted internally these arguments were invalid.

68. In February 1996, an internal GCC presentation stated that a doubling of carbon
dioxide levels over pre-industrial concentrations would occur by 2100 and cause ?an average rate
of warming [that] would probably be greater than any seen in the past 10,000 years.? The
presentation noted ?potentially irreversible? impacts that could include ?signi?cant loss of life.?

69. Certain Defendants also funded another front group in the 19903, the Global
Climate Science Communications Team members included Exxon, Chevron,
and the API.52 A 1998 task force memo outlined an explicit strategy to invest millions of
dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming, directly emulating a similar
disinformation campaign by the tobacco industry. The memo stated: ?Victory Will Be Achieved
When,? among other things, ?Average citizens ?understand? (recognize) uncertainties in climate
science,? public ?recognition of uncertainty becomes part of the ?conventional wisdom.? and the

?Media ?understands? (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science.?53 The plan stated that

progress would be measured by the percentage of new articles that raise questions about climate

change.

70. Over at least the last nineteen years, Exxon in particular has paid researchers and

front groups to create uncertainties about basic climate change science and used denialist groups to

 

52 
communications?plan.pdf.

53 Global Climate Science Communications: Action Plan, Apr. 3, 1998, available at


plan.pdf.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 25 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 






attack well-respected scientists. These were calculated business decisions by Exxon to undermine
climate change science and bolster production of fossil fuels.54

71. Between 1998 and 2014, Exxon paid millions of dollars to organizations to promote
disinformation on global warming. During the early- to mid-19903, Exxon directed some of this
funding to Dr. Fred Seitz, Dr. Fred Singer, and/or Seitz and Singer?s Science and Environmental
Policy Project in order to launch repeated attacks on mainstream climate science and
IPCC conclusions, even as Exxon scientists participated in the Seitz, Singer, and SEPP had
previously been paid by the tobacco industry to create doubt in the public mind about the hazards
of smoking.56 Seitz and Singer were not climate scientists.

72. Exxon?s promotion of fossil fuels also entailed the funding of denialist groups that
attacked well-respected scientists Dr. Benjamin Santer and Dr. Michael Mann, maligning their
characters and seeking to discredit their scienti?c conclusions with media attacks and bogus studies
in order to undermine the 1995 and 2001 conclusion that human-driven global warming is
now occurring.

73. One of Defendants? most frequently used denialists has been an aerOSpace engineer
named Wei Hock Soon. Between 2001 and 2012, various fossil fuel interests, including Exxon and
the API, paid Soon over $1.2 million.57 Soon was the lead author of a 2003 article, which argued

that the climate had not changed signi?cantly. The article was widely promoted by other denial

 

5? 
role-in-global-warrning; Jeffrey Ball, Exxon Chief Makes A Cold Calculation on Global Warming,
The Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2005, available at 
SB111870440192558569.

55 Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big
Tobacco ?s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science, Jan. 2007, available at



56 


57 Justin Gillis John Schwartz, Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate
Researcher, New York Times (Feb. 21, 2015), available at


.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 26 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 



NNt?ir?Ai?ir?Il?II?Ir?nr?AHr?I
g?gagagwowmqom-hth-o

groups funded by Exxon, including via ?Tech Central Station,? a website supported by Exxon.58
Soon published other bogus ?research? in 2009, attributing global warming to solar activity, for
which Exxon paid him $76,106.59 This 2009 grant was made several years after Exxon had
publicly committed not to fund global warming deniers.60

74. Until recently, the website referred to global warming as ?possible man-made
warming? and claimed that the human contribution is ?uncertain.? The API removed this
statement from its web site in 2016 when journalistic investigations called attention to the 
misleading statements on global warming and its 19705/ 19805 task force on global warming.

75. In 2000, Exxon took out an advertisement on the Op?Ed page of the New York
Times entitled ?Unsettled Science.? The advertisement claimed that ?scientists remain unable to
con?rm? the proposition that ?humans are causing global warming?? This was six years after the
IPCC had con?rmed the causal link between planetary warming and anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions a historic moment in climate science and some 18 years after Exxon itself had
admitted in a 1982 internal memoranda to corporate headquarters that there was ?a clear scienti?c
consensus? that greenhouse gas emissions would cause temperatures to rise.

76. On May 27, 2015, at Exxon?s annual shareholder meeting, then-CEO Rex Tillerson
misleadingly downplayed global warming?s risks by stating that climate models used to predict
future impacts were unreliable: ?What if everything we do it turns out our models were really lousy
and we achieved all of our objectives and it turned out the planet behaved differently because the
models just weren?t good enough to predict it?? But as noted above, in 1982 Exxon?s scienti?c
staff stated, based upon the climate models, that there was a ?clear scienti?c consensus? with

respect to the level of projected future global warming and starting shortly thereafter Exxon relied

 

53 Smoke, Mirrors Hot Air at 13-14.

59 
201 1 .html.

6? 1 21 18963 80_ExxonMobil__2007_


61 
unsettledsciencepdf.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 27 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 



I?nr?Ir?Ir?tI?Ir?Ih-Ir?Ar?nI?t


upon the projections 'of climate models, including its own climate models, in order to protect its
own business assets.

77. Until recently, Exxon?s website continued to emphasize the ?uncertainty? of global
warming science and impacts: ?current scienti?c understanding provides limited guidance on the
likelihood, magnitude, or time frame? of events like temperature extremes and sea level rise.62
Exxon?s insistence on certainty was clear misdirection, since Exxon knew that the
fundamentals of climate science were well settled and showed global warming to present a clear
and present danger.63

B. Defendants? Direct Promotion Of Fossil Fuels.

78. Defendants continue to promote massive fossil fuel use by the public
notwithstanding that global warming is happening, that global warming is primarily caused by their
fossil fuels, and that global warming is causing severe injuries. Defendants promote the massive
use of fossil fuels through advertisements landing fossil fuels as ?responsible? and ?respectful? to
the environment, identifying fossil fuels as the only way to sustain modern standards of living, and
promoting sales of their fossil fuels without quali?cation. Defendants and/or their US.
subsidiaries are members of the API. The API also promotes the bene?ts of fossil fuel products on
behalf of Defendants and its other members.?54 Defendants? message to consumers is that fossil
fuels may continue to be burned in massive quantities without risking signi?cant injuries.

79. Defendants bombard the public and consumers with the following advertisements,
although these are a mere sliver of Defendants? extensive campaigns. Defendants? advertisements

must be understood in their proper context as following Defendants? substantial early knowledge

 

?52 Formerly found at 


?53 See IPCC, Climate Change 2014, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Summary for
Policymakers, available at 


54 API, Consumer Information, available at 
information.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE 28 - 010694-11 986485 v1

 






on global warming risks and impacts, and following a decades-long campaign of misleading
statements on global warming that primed the pump for massive use of their fossil fuel products.

a) Exxon?s ?Lights Across America? website advertisement states that natural
gas is ?helping dramatically reduce America?s emissions?65 even though natural gas is a fossil fuel
causing widespread planetary warming and harm to coastal cities like San Francisco and the use of
natural gas competes with wind and solar, which have no greenhouse gas emissions.

b) In 2017, Shell?s CEO promoted massive fossil fuel use by stating that the
fossil fuel industry could play a ?crucial role? in lifting people out of poverty.?56 A Shell website
promotion states: ?We are helping to meet the world?s growing energy demand while limiting
C02 emissions, by delivering more cleaner-burning natural gas.?67

c) BP touts natural gas on its website as ?a vital lower carbon energy source?
and as playing a ?crucial role? in a transition to a lower carbon future.68 BP promotes continued
massive fossil fuel use as enabling two billion people to be lifted out of poverty.69

d) Chevron?s website implores the public that ?we produce safe, reliable energy
products for people around the world.?70 Chevron also promotes massive use of fossil fuels as the
key to lifting people out of poverty: ?Reliable and affordable energy is necessary for improving
standards of living, expanding the middle class and lifting pe0ple out of poverty. Oil and natural

gas will continue to ful?ll a signi?cant portion of global energy demand for decades to come 

 

55 1 CB p_
0:46).

66 Shell CEO speech, Mar. 9, 2017, available at 


67 Shell United States, Transforming Natural Gas, available at 


68 
sustainability-report-ZO 6.pdf; 

69 BP energy outlook, available at 


7? Chevron, Products and Services, available at 
serv1ces.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE 29 - 01069441 986485 v1

 



even in a carbon-constrained scenario.?71 A prior Chevron advertisement still available on the web
promotes Chevron fossil fuels on a massive scale by stating that ?our lives demand oil??2

e) ConocoPhillips promotes its fossil fuel products by stating that it
?responsibly suppl[ies] the energy that powers modern life.?73 Similarly, ConocoPhillips has the
following advertising slogan on its website: ?Providing energy to improve quality of life.?4

80. Contrary to Defendants? claims that the use of massive amounts of fossil fuels is
required to lift people out of poverty, the IPCC has concluded: ?Climate change will exacerbate
multidimensional poverty in most developing countries . . . . [and] will also create new poverty
pockets in countries with increasing inequality, in both developed and developing countries.?75

81. Defendants BP and Exxon have also used long-term energy forecasts and similar
reports to promote their products under the guise of expert, objective analysis. These forecasts
have repeatedly sought to justify heavy reliance on fossil fuels by overstating the cost of renewable
energy.

82. Defendants? energy forecasts are aimed in substantial part at consumers and are
promoted to the public through their respective websites and other direct media. Exxon continues
to promote its annual ?Outlook for Energy? reports in videos currently available on the intemet.
But Exxon?s energy ?analyses? are self?serving means of promoting fossil fuels and undercutting
non?dangerous renewable energy and clean technologies. For example, Exxon has claimed in a
recent forecast that natural gas is a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than wind or

solar power while BP has claimed that solar and wind power will be more expensive in 2050 than

 

7? Chevron, managing climate change risks, available at 


7" Chevron TV ad (2009), available at 

73 ConocoPhillips, the changing energy landscape, available at




74 ConocoPhillips, Producing energy, available at 


75 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, at 797, available at
13_FlNAL.pdf.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 30 - 010694-11 986485 v1

 



natural gas or coal even though wind and solar are already cheaper than natural gas or coal in some
circumstances??6 Exxon and BP also have understated in recent ?forecasts? the expected market
share of electric vehicles even as electric vehicle technology has taken off, prices have dr0pped and
GM announced (in 2015) that it was investing billions in electric cars because the ?future is
electric.?77

83. Defendants? reports also promote their fossil fuel products by warning consumers of
supposed downsides to reducing fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions. For example,
Exxon?s most recent report claims that the costs of carbon dioxide reductions are ?ultimately borne
by consumers and taxpayers.?

84. These reports by BP and Exxon, and a similar one by Shell, predict massive
increases in fossil fuel use over roughly the next 15 years.78 This is part of a larger strategy of
?mak[ing] the case for the neceSsary role of fossil fuels,? as chief executive stated in a

moment of candor in 2015.79

SAN FRANCISCO WILL IN CUR SERIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE INJURIES
THAT WILL REQUIRE BILLIONS IN EXPENDITURES TO ABATE THE
GLOBAL WARMING NUISANCE.
85. According to a 2012 California governmental report, by 2050, California is

projected to warm by approximately 27? above the average temperature in 2000, regardless 47; General Motors, Press Release, GM Employees on
Mission to Transform Transportation (May 7, 2015), available at 




78 
future/J cr_content/par/relatedtopics. stream! 144847705 1486/0803 2d76 lef7 d8 1a4d3b lb6df86200 
e9a64eS 

79 
group-chief-executive.html.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 3 1 - 010694-11 986485 v1

 



P??I?lr?lh?ll?il?li?Ii?li?lr?l


the level of future emissions, a rate of warming three times greater than over the last century.80 By
2100, California?s average temperatures could increase by 8.6 if not more.81 San Francisco?s
average annual temperatures are currently projected to increase by up to 5.5 by 2100.82 San
Francisco?s average summertime high temperature (based upon 1986?2005 data) is projected to
increase from 68.61 to 76.17 by 2100, making San Francisco?s summers similar to those now
experienced in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, approximately 400 miles south of San
Francisco.83 Continued production of massive amounts of fossil fuels will exacerbate global
warming, increase sea level rise and result in grave harm to San Francisco.

86. Global warming has caused and continues to cause accelerated sea level rise in San
Francisco Bay and the adjacent ocean with severe, and potentially catastrophic, consequences for
San Francisco. Scientists recently concluded that coastal California is already experiencing
impacts from accelerated sea level rise, including ?more extensive coastal ?ooding during storms,
periodic tidal ?ooding, and increased coastal erosion?? In the last 100 years, the California coast
has experienced sea level rise of 6.7 to 7.9 inches.85

87. Storms with their attendant surges and ?ooding occur on top of and superimposed
on sea level rise, causing storm surges to be greater, extend farther inland, and cause more

extensive damage including greater inundation and ?ooding of public and private property in San

 

30 Our Changing Climate 2012, Vulnerability Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from
Climate Change in California, at 2, available at 


31 Id.

82 SF. Dept. of Public Health, San Francisco?s Climate and Health Adaptation Framework at 8
(2017), available at 


33 Climate Central, available at 
emissions-1001-cities-16583 (Aug. 1, 2014).

34 Rising Seas in California at 3.

85 Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment,
southwest chapter at 469 (2014), available at 
.pd?download=l

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 32 - 010694-11 986485 v1

 



r?Ar?ah-nn?ar-dr?nr?tn?Ir?Av?t


Francisco.86 By 2050, for example, a ?100-year ?ood? in San Francisco is expected to occur on
average once every year and by 2100 to occur 92 times per year or almost twice per week.87 A
100-year ?ood event normally that is, without global warming has a 1% chance of happening
every year. Under this same scenario, the 500-year storm surge ?ood would occur, by 2050, once
every four years and, by 2100, 42 times per year or almost once per week.88 Even with lower
levels of future fossil fuel production, there will be substantial increases in ?ood frequencies in San
Francisco due to past and ongoing fossil fuel combustion.39

88. Accelerated sea level rise in California is causing and will continue to cause
inundation of both public and private property located within San Francisco. San Francisco is
extremely vulnerable to accelerated sea level rise, storm surges, and inundation because it is
surrounded by water on three sides the Paci?c Ocean to the west and San Francisco Bay to the
north and east.90 Rising bay and coastal water levels are already affecting San Francisco through
coastal ?ooding of low-lying shorelines, increased shoreline erosion, and salt water impacts on its
wastewater treatment systems.? Sea levels in and around San Francisco rose approximately eight
inches during the past century and accelerated due to global warming.92 But with accelerated sea
level rise, they are currently projected to increase by up to 24 inches by 2050 and 66 inches by

2100, if not higher.93 Storm surge added on top of these greatly elevated sea levels could produce a

 

85 San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan, Executive Summary at 4 (2016) Plan

Executive Summary?), available at 
1 

87 Buchanan, et a1., Amplification of ?ood frequencies with local sea level rise and emerging
?ood regimes, Environmental Research Letters (2017), supplementary material table 6.

33 Id.
89 Id. at supplementary material table 5.

9? See S.F. Dept. of Public Health, San Francisco?s Climate and Health Adaptation Framework
at 8 (2017), available at 


91 SLR Plan Executive Summary at 9.

97' S.F. Dept. of Public Health, San Francisco?s Climate and Health Adaptation Framework at 8
(2017), available at 


93 Id. at 9.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 33 - 010694-11 986485 Vl

 



Hr?Ir?Ir?II?iHHr?Ii?ta?t


combined rise of up to 66 inches by 2050 and 108 inches by 2100.94 As sea level rises, average
daily high tides will extend further inland and cause more extensive ?ooding.95 Without adaptation
measures, daily tides could permanently inundate six percent of San Francisco?s land by 2100.96
And all of these projections are an understatement in light of a new, 2017 report that sea level is
likely to rise faster than projected and could reach as much as a catastrophic ten feet by the end of
the century.97

89. San Francisco must adapt now to ongoing sea level rise to abate ongoing damage to
property, facilities, and equipment, with risks of increasingly severe damage in the future. In
particular, San Francisco must improve, protect, move, and build infrastructure to adapt now to
past and ongoing sea level rise. For example:

a) San Francisco is planning to fortify its Seawall to protect itself ?om sea
level rise. The Seawall is the foundation of over three miles of San Francisco waterfront stretching
from Fisherman?s Wharf to Mission Creek. In 2016, San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee
announced an initial investment of $8 million over the next two years to initiate City efforts to
fortify the Seawall?8 Short-term seawall upgrades are expected to cost more than $500 million.
Long-terrn upgrades to the seawall are projected to cost $5 billion.99

b) A signi?cant portion of the combined sewer and storm water infrastructure
on the west side of San Francisco is at severe risk of shoreline erosion caused by sea level rise.
This infrastructure, including the Westside Transport Box, Westside Pump Station, Lake Merced
Tunnel, and the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant, is located along Ocean Beach on San

Francisco?s western shore. Most of this infrastructure, including much of the Oceanside plant, is

 

94 Id.

95 San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan, at 2-3 (2016), 


96 Id.

97 Rising Seas in California.

98 

99 

%20Seawall%20Presentation.pdf.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 34 - 010694-11 986485 v1

 



located underground. Because San Francisco has a city-wide combined sewer system designed
to handle both storm water and sewer water this infrastructure is large in size and scale. Sea level
rise and corresponding shoreline erosion threatens to damage this infrastructure. As a result, San
Francisco has helped to develop plans to protect this infrastructure at an estimated cost of
approximately $350 million.100 The costs and logistics of relocating this infrastructure would be
far greater.

c) Shoreline erosion along Ocean Beach also threatens roads, pathways, private
pr0perties, and buildings along the shore all of which San Francisco?s citizens have long used
and enjoyed. Protecting these properties through construction of a seawall and/or other shoreline
armoring infrastructure will be extremely expensive. San Francisco?s plan for protecting its
combined sewer infrastructure along Ocean Beach calls for closing a portion of the Great Highway
south of SloatBoulevard.1m

d) Sea level rise also interferes with San Francisco?s stormwater infrastructure
through inundation of the City?s stormwater outfalls along the ocean and San Francisco Bay.102 As
a result of sea level rise, 27 of San Francisco?s 29 stormwater discharge locations between the
Golden Gate Bridge and the City?s southern border on San Francisco Bay will be underwater daily
by 2050 or before.103 As those outfalls are more frequently submerged by sea water, they cannot
be used to discharge stormwater as intended, causing backups in the system and ?ooding elsewhere
in San Francisco. Saltwater intrusion into San Francisco?s water treatment facilities also interferes

with effective treatment function at those facilities, reducing their capacity and causing further

backups. Stormwater system outfalls cannot simply be elevated because that would interfere with

the hydraulic gradient of the entire system. As a result, San Francisco is developing costly plans to

protect its stormwater outfalls and water treatment facilities with back?ow preventers and pumping

 

100 Of?ce of the Mayor (2012), Mayor Lee Celebrates SPUR Ocean Beach Master Plan,
available at 

101 See Ocean Beach Master Plan, at and executive summary at 6.
102 SLR Plan at 2?5.
103 CSD Back?ow Prevention and Monitoring, 263.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 35 - 010694?11 986435 V1

 






equipment. To address current and short?term impacts of sea level rise on its Bayside stormwater
system outfalls, for example, San Francisco has developed an interim back?ow prevention plan
projected to cost a minimum of $10 million. Long-term back?ow prevention at these outfalls, and
at others, will cost more.

90. San Francisco faces other ongoing and likely injuries as a result of sea level rise,
including threats to Port infrastructure and operations, a risk of saltwater intrusion into the City?s
groundwater wells used for drinking water, and both direct and indirect impacts to public health,
housing and city services.104 Sea level rise, storm surges, and ?ood inundation induced by global
warming will disproportionately impact some of San Francisco?s most vulnerable residents,
including those in the Bayview/Hunters Point neighborhood.105 The same sea level rise also
threatens some of San Francisco?s most iconic and valuable buildings. For example, the Ferry
Building would be temporarily ?ooded during a 100-year extreme tide today, but could be ?ooded
every day after 36 inches of sea level rise.106 Each of these ongoing and likely injuries, and others,
requires San Francisco to plan for and implement costly protections.

91. San Francisco is already experiencing, and working to abate, current harms caused
by sea level rise. But while harms to San Francisco and its residents have commenced, additional
far more severe injuries will occur in the future if prompt action is not taken to protect San
Francisco and its residents from rising sea levels. Indeed, the sea level rise harms in?icted on San
Francisco by global warming are insidious partly because they are projected to continue, and to
worsen, far into the future. Pervasive fossil fuel combustion and greenhouse gas emissions to date
will cause ongoing and future harms regardless of future fossil fuel combustion or future
greenhouse gas emissions. Future production and use of fossil fuels will exacerbate sea level rise

and require even greater expenditures to abate the injuries. San Francisco must plan for and adapt

 

?04 S.F. Dept. of Public Health, San Francisco?s Climate and Health Adaptation Framework at

12 (2017), available at 


105 Id. at 14.
?06 SLR Plan Executive Summary at 2?5.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 36 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 





sea level rise future harms now to ensure that abatement of ongoing and future sea level rise
harms is done most ef?ciently and effectively and in order to protect human well-being and public
and private property before it is too late. Additionally, the signi?cant infrastructure needed to
abate global warming requires long lead times for planning, ?nancing, and implementation.

Planning to abate the known and projected adverse effects of global warming on San Francisco and

. its citizens remains underway, and will continue. Sea level rise impacts in the future are imminent

in the context of planning for and carrying out large-scale, complex infrastructure projects to
protect San Francisco from sea level rise.

92. Sea level rise, storm surges, and ?ooding caused by global warming threaten not
only the physical infrastructure and property of San Francisco and its citizens, but also the safety,
lives, daily way of life, sense of community, and security of San Francisco residents.1?7 A severe
storm surge coupled with higher sea levels caused by global warming could occur at any time,
potentially resulting in the loss of life and extensive damage to public and private property. The
risk of catastrophic sea level rise harm to San Francisco and its citizens will increase, just as rising
sea levels will continue to cause regular damage, the longer concrete action is not taken to abate the
harms and effects of sea level rise.

93. Building infrastructure to protect San Francisco and its residents, will, upon
information and belief, cost billions of dollars.

IX. CAUSE OF ACTION: PUBLIC NUISAN CE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE

94. The People incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs.

95. The People of the State of California, acting by and through the San Francisco City
Attorney, bring this claim seeking abatement pursuant to California public nuisance law, including
section 731 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494 of the Civil
Code.

96. Defendants? production and promotion of massive quantities of fossil fuels, and

their promotion of those fossil fuels? pervasive use, has caused, created, assisted in the creation of,

 

?07 Rising Seas in California at 6.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 37 - 010694?11 986485 v1

 



Nt?tr?nr?ti?Ir?Ar?Ir?Ai?tl?IH


contributed to, and/or maintained and continues to cause, create, assist in the creation of, contribute
and/or maintain to global wanning-induced sea level rise, a public nuisance in San Francisco.
Defendants, both individually and collectively, are substantial contributors to the global warming-
induced sea level rise and the People?s attendant injuries and threatened injuries. The People?s
injuries and threatened injuries from each Defendant?s contributions to global warming are
indivisible injuries. Each Defendant?s past and ongoing conduct is a direct and proximate cause of
the People? injuries and threatened injuries. Defendants each should have known that this
dangerous global warming with its attendant harms on coastal cities like San Francisco would
occur before it even did occur, and each Defendant in fact did have such knowledge. Each
Defendant has at all relevant times been aware, and continues to be aware, that the inevitable
emissions of greenhouse gases from the fossil fuels it produces combines with the greenhouse gas
emissions from fossil fuels produced by the other Defendants, among others, to result in dangerous
levels of global warming with grave harms for coastal cities like San Francisco. Defendants were
aware of this dangerous global warming, and of its attendant harms on coastal cities like San
Francisco, even before those harms began to occur. Defendants? conduct constitutes a substantial
and unreasonable interference with and obstruction of public rights and property, including, inter
alia, the public rights to health, safety and welfare of San Francisco residents and other citizens
whose safety and lives are at risk from increased storm surge ?ooding and whose public and

private property, is threatened with widespread damage from global warming-induced sea level

rise, greater storm surges, and ?ooding.

97. Defendants, individually and collectively, are substantial contributors to global
warming and to the injuries and threatened injuries suffered by the People. Defendants have
caused or contributed to accelerated sea level rise from global warming, which has and will

continue to injure public property and land located in the City of San Francisco, through increased

inundation, storm surges, and ?ooding, and which threatens the safety and lives of San Francisco

residents. Defendants have in?icted and continue to in?ict injuries upon the People that require the
People to incur extensive costs to protect public and private property, against increased sea level

rise, inundation, storm surges, and ?ooding.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 38 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 



98. Defendants have promoted the use of fossil fuels at unsafe levels even though they
should have known and in fact have known for many years that global warming threatened severe
and even catastrophic harms to coastal cities like San Francisco. Defendants promoted fossil fuels
and fossil fuel products for unlimited use in massive quantities with knowledge of the hazard that
such use would create.

99. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the People for committing a public
nuisance. The People seek an order of abatement requiring Defendants to fund a climate change
adaptation program for San Francisco consisting of the building of sea walls, raising the elevation
of low-lying property and buildings and building such other infrastructure as is necessary for San
Francisco to adapt to climate change.103

X. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, the Pe0ple pray for judgment and an order against each Defendant, jointly
and severally, as follows:

1. Finding Defendants BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and Shell jointly and
severally liable for causing, creating, assisting in the creation, of, contributing to, and/or
maintaining a public nuisance;

2. Ordering an abatement fund remedy to be paid for by Defendants to provide for

infrastructure in San Francisco necessary for the People to adapt to global warming impacts such as

sea level rise;

3. Awarding attorneys? fees as permitted by law;
4 Awarding costs and expenses as permitted by law;
5. Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and
6 Awarding such other relief as this Court deems just and pr0per.




 

The People also do not seek abatement with reSpect to any federal land.

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - 39 - 010694-11 986485 V1

 



t?IHI?ar?At?r?nr?tl?ur?AJ?a
$388?E8B88omqo?memmHQ

Dated: September 19, 2017

DENNIS J. HERRERA

City Attorney

RONALD P. 

Chief Deputy City Attorney

YVONNE R. MERE

Chief of Complex and Af?rmative Litigation
ROBE W. KAPLA

MATTHEW D. GOLDBERG

Deputy City Attorneys

Byle "?77 

 

DENNI J. 
City Att ey

Attorneys for Plaintiff
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

. acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney

DENNIS J. HERRERA

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE

- 40 - 010694?11 986485 v1

 






Of Counsel
[Counsel Listed in Alphabetical Order]

STEVE W. BERMAN (pro hac vice application to be submitted)


EMERSON HILTON (pro hac vice application to be submitted)


HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

1918 Eighth Ave. Suite 3300

Seattle, WA 98101

Tel. (206) 623?7292

Fax (206) 623-0594

SHANA E. SCARLETT (bar no. 217895)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202

Berkeley, California 94710

Tel. (510) 725-3000

Fax (510) 725?3001

MATTHEW F. PAWA (pro hac vice application to be submitted)


BENJAMIN A. KRASS (pro hac vice application to be submitted)


WESLEY KELMAN (pro hac vice application to be submitted)
wesk@hbss1aw.com

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

1280 Centre Street, Suite 230

Newton Centre, Massachusetts 02459

Tel.: (617) 641-9550

Fax: (617) 641-9551

Attorneys for Plaintiff

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney
DENNIS J. HERRERA

 

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE 41 -

010694-11 986485 Vl

 

Exhibit 1: Map showing San Francisco sea level rise vulnerability zone

Source: San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan, p. 2-7 (March 2016)

 

  
 
 
 
 
  

1

. =2


?x


Er? 2-7

  
   
     
     

Flsherman?din . Mission
I V'pit-3?- Bay
as . 

It." 

San Francisco

          
     

?Lurk. 
. .51,EnAucisagf?. 3

.1: assesses: - -

      
     
   
 
 



.   action energemw?y .l
. . . .

 
    
    
 

tryPolnt

 

Legend 0 3.400 5.300 
- Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Zone F93

NO TE: Zone represents upper range (unlike/M but possible). end-of-century projections for permanent SLR inundation (up to 66 inches)
plus temporary ?ooding due to a FOO-year extreme storm up to 42 inches) for a total of 108 inches above today's average high tide.

Map Disclaimer: The Inundatlon maps and the assocrated analyses are Intended as level tools to illustrate the potential
for inundation and coastal flooding under a variety of future sea level rlse and storm surge scenarios The maps depict 
future inundation that could occur If nothing is done to adapt or prepare for sea level rise over the next century. The maps do
not represent the exact location of flooding. The maps relied on a 'l-m digital elevation model created from LEDAR data collected
In 2010 and 2011. Although care was taken to capture all relevant topographic features and coastal st'uctures that may Impact
coastal Inundatlon, It IS that structures narrower than the l?m honzontal map scale may not be fully represented The
maps are based on model outputs and do not account for all of the complex and dynamic San Bay processes or future

such as erosron, subSIdence, future construction or shoreline protection upgrades. or other changes to San Francisco
Bay or Open Coast. For more context about the maps and analyses. including a description of the data and methods used, piease
see the Climate Stressors and Impacts Report: Baysrde Sea Level Rise lnundatlon Mapping Memorandum, March 2014
and FEMA Open California Coast Sea Level Rise PllOt Study, San County, 2015.

Data Source Bayslde SSIP lnundatlon Mapping. 2015 Sea Level Rlse Pilot Study. 20l5

Exhibit 2: Map showing sea level rise vulnerability zone
Downtown to Central Bayshore detail

Source: San Francisco Sea Level Rise Action Plan, p. 2-7 (March 2016)

SCIENCE OF SEA LEVEL RISE 2-9

SLR VULNERABILITY TO CENTRAL BAYSHORE DETAIL
THROUGH END-OF-CENTURY WITHOUT ANY ADAPTATION MEASURES OR ACTIONS

San 

Francisco

 

Paci?c . 
ocean ranc SCO

Bay

 

 







me



 

re






fa; 
fie?

San FranCIsco
Bay

If

Pier 70

 

See page 2-7 for
Map Disclaimer

 

 


-. -: -- . -- - 1: {aw-l.



 

Legend 0 1.000 2.000
- Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Zone Feet (No;

 

 

 

Data Source: Bayside-SFPUC SSIP lnundation Mapping. 2015. Westside-FEMA Sea Level Rise Pilot Study, 2015.

NO TE: Zone represents upper range (unlikely. but possible), end-of-century projections for permanent SLR inundation (up to 66
inches) plus temporary flooding due to a TOO-year extreme storm (up to 42 inches) for a total of 708 inches above today's MHHW.
See Appendix for complete set of San Francisco SLR Vulnerability Zone maps and public land ownership information.

SAN FRANCISCO SEA LEVEL RISE ACTION PLAN

Exhibit 3: ?Range of Global Mean Temperature From 1850 to the Present with the Projected
Instantaneous Climatic Response to Increasing C02 Concentrations?

Source: M.B. Glaser, Memo for Exxon management (Nov. 12, 1982), pp. 1, 28



EXOLAESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY

 

PO. BOX 101. FLORHAM PARK. NEW JERSEY 07932

M. B. GLASER Cable: ENGHEXKON. N.Y.
Manager

Environmental AHBIIB Programs

November 12, 1982

?g92 "Greenhouse" Effect

82EAP 266

To: See Distribution List Attached

Attached for your information and guidance is briefing
material on the C02 "Greenhouse" Effect which is receiving increased
attention in both the scientific and p0pular press as an emerging
environmental issue. A brief summary is provided along with a more
detailed technical review prepared by CPPD.

The material has been given wide circulation to Exxon
management and is intended to familiarize Exxon personnel with the
subject. It may be used as a basis for discussing the issue with
outsiders as may be appropriate. However, it should be restricted
~to?Exxon personnel and not distributed externally.

Very truly yours,

Mae/div

M. B. GLASER 4
MBG:rva H. N. WEINBERG
NOV 1 5 1982

Attachments



Change of global mean temperature - 

-28?

Figure 9?

Range of Glohal Mean Temperature From 1850 to the Present
with the Projected Instantaneous Climatic Reaponse to
- - Increasing 002 Concentrations;

 

 

   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 3\l


.??yrA .
2 . 
/Expected 
range of 
fluctuations
including 
changes
Range of
natural 
. fluctuations
. . gauchanges without (climatic noise)
(:02 effect 
. 
-1 
_2 I '1
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100

Year