SHER
EDLING LLP

 

 

JOHN C. BEIERS (SBN 144282)
jbeiers@smcg0v.org

PAUL A. OKADA (SBN 197100)
pokada@smcgov.org

DAVID A. SILBERMAN (SBN 211708)
dsilberman@smcgov. org

MARGARET V. TIDES (SBN 311177)
mtides@smc gov

SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL
400 County Center, 6th Floor

Redwood City, CA 94063

Tel: (650) 363?4250

Fax: (650) 363-4034

VICTOR M. SHER (SBN 96197)
vic@sheredling.com

MATTHEW K. EDLING (SBN 250940)


TIMOTHY SLOANE (SBN 292864)
tim@sheredling com

MARTIN D. QUINONES (SBN 293318)
mart y@sheredling. corn

SHER EDLING LLP

425 California Street, Ste. 810

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: (628) 231-2500

Fax: (628) 231-2929

Attorneys for Plainti?
The County of San Mateo, individually

111., ED

r?
Cl.? 
I

21117



?in? 21'! ?11; 
ll It} i ll:

01:} 

J11

and on behalf of the People of the State of California

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, individually
and on behalf of THE PEOPLE OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,
vs.

CHEVRON CHEVRON USA. 
EXXONMOBIL BP BP
AMERICA, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL
SHELL OIL PRODUCTS COMPANY
CITGO PETROLEUM 
CONOCOPHILLIPS
PHILLIPS 66; PEABODY
ENERGY TOTAL USA 
TOTAL SPECIALTIES USA ARCH
COAL, ENI ENI OIL GAS

 

CaseN0.1?C 1103.23 2
COMPLAINT FOR:

1. PUBLIC NUISANCE ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF 

PUBLIC 

STRICT LIABILITY FAILURE TO


STRICT LIABILITY DESIGN


PRIVATE 


NEGLIGENCE FAILURE TO
and

TRESPASS.

PP

9?

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 

COMPLAINT

 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

INC.; RIO TINTO PLC; RIO TINTO LTD.;
RIO TINTO ENERGY AMERICA INC.; RIO
TINTO MINERALS, INC.; RIO TINTO
SERVICES INC.; STATOIL ASA;
ANADARKO PETROLEUM CORP.;
OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORP.;
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORP.; REPSOL
S.A.; REPSOL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA
CORP.; REPSOL TRADING USA CORP.;
MARATHON OIL COMPANY; MARATHON
OIL CORPORATION; MARATHON
PETROLEUM CORP.; HESS CORP.; DEVON
ENERGY CORP.; DEVON ENERGY
PRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P.; ENCANA
CORP.; APACHE CORP.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
2
3

I.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

II.

PARTIES ................................................................................................................................ 4

4

A.

Plaintiffs ..................................................................................................................... 4

B.

Defendants ................................................................................................................. 6

5
6
7

III. AGENCY .............................................................................................................................. 22

8

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................... 23

9

V.

10
11

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 23
A.

Global Warming—Observed Effects and Known Cause ......................................... 23

B.

Sea Level Rise—Known Causes and Observed Effects .......................................... 28

C.

Attribution ................................................................................................................ 32

D.

Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand the Hazards Associated with and
Knew or Should Have Known of the Dangers Associated with the Extraction,
Promotion and Sale of Their Fossil Fuel Products. ................................................. 34

E.

Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Extraction,
Promotion and Consumption of Their Fossil Fuel Products and Instead
Affirmatively Acted to Obscure Those Harms and Engaged in a Concerted
Campaign to Evade Regulation................................................................................ 47

F.

In Contrast to Their Public Statements, Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate
their Awareness of and Intent to Profit from the Unabated Use of Fossil Fuel
Products.................................................................................................................... 63

G.

Defendants’ Actions Prevented the Development of Alternatives That Would Have
Eased the Transition to a Less Fossil Fuel Dependent Economy. ........................... 65

H.

Defendants Caused Plaintiffs’ Injuries .................................................................... 72

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION ......................................................................................................... 78

25

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Public Nuisance on Behalf of the People of the State of California) ................................. 78

26
27

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Public Nuisance on Behalf of San Mateo County) ............................................................. 81

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

i

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Strict Liability—Failure to Warn on behalf of San Mateo County) ................................... 84
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Strict Liability—Design Defect on behalf of San Mateo County) ..................................... 86
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Private Nuisance on behalf of San Mateo County) ............................................................ 90
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence on Behalf of San Mateo County) ..................................................................... 92

8
9
10
11

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ....................................................................................... 95
(Negligence - Failure to Warn on Behalf of San Mateo County) ........................................ 95
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass on Behalf of San Mateo County) ......................................................................... 96

12

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................... 98

13

VIII. JURY DEMAND ................................................................................................................. 99

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

ii

 1

I.

INTRODUCTION
1.

2

Defendants, major corporate members of the fossil fuel industry, have known for

3

nearly a half century that unrestricted production and use of their fossil fuel products create

4

greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes our climate. They have known for

5

decades that those impacts could be catastrophic and that only a narrow window existed to take

6

action before the consequences would not be reversible. They have nevertheless engaged in a

7

coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal and deny their own knowledge of those threats, discredit

8

the growing body of publicly available scientific evidence, and persistently create doubt in the

9

minds of customers, consumers, regulators, the media, journalists, teachers, and the public about

10

the reality and consequences of the impacts of their fossil fuel pollution. At the same time,

11

Defendants have promoted and profited from a massive increase in the extraction and consumption

12

of oil, coal, and natural gas, which has in turn caused an enormous, foreseeable, and avoidable

13

increase in global greenhouse gas pollution and a concordant increase in the concentration of

14

greenhouse gases, 1 particularly carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and methane, in the Earth’s atmosphere.

15

Those disruptions of the Earth’s otherwise balanced carbon cycle have substantially contributed

16

to a wide range of dire climate-related effects, including global warming, rising atmospheric and

17

ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, melting polar ice caps and glaciers, more extreme and

18

volatile weather, and sea level rise. 2 Plaintiffs, the People of the State of California and San Mateo

19

County, 3 along with the County’s residents, taxpayers, and infrastructure, suffer the consequences.
2.

20

Defendants are vertically integrated extractors, producers, refiners, manufacturers,

21

distributors, promoters, marketers, and sellers of fossil fuel products. Decades of scientific

22

research show that pollution from the production and use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products plays

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

1

As used in this Complaint, “greenhouse gases” refers collectively to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Where a source refers to a specific gas or gases, or when a process relates only to a specific gas or gases, this
Complaint refers to them by name.
2
Exhibit A, attached to this Complaint, is a timeline highlighting information alleged in the paragraphs below. The
timeline illustrates what the fossil fuel companies knew, when they knew it, and what they failed to do to prevent the
environmental effects that are now imposing real costs on people and communities around the country. The
information comes from key industry documents and other sources.
3
As used in this Complaint, “San Mateo County” refers to all areas within the geographic boundaries of the County,
including incorporated towns and cities.

COMPLAINT

1

 1

a direct and substantial role in the unprecedented rise in emissions of greenhouse gas pollution and

2

increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the mid-20th century. This dramatic increase in

3

atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases is the main driver of the gravely dangerous changes

4

occurring to the global climate.
3.

5

Anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas pollution, primarily in the form of

6

CO2, is far and away the dominant cause of global warming and sea level rise. 4 The primary source

7

of this pollution is the extraction, production and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas, referred

8

to collectively in this Complaint as “fossil fuel products.” 5
4.

9

The rate at which Defendants have extracted and sold fossil fuel products has

10

exploded since the Second World War, as have emissions from those products. The substantial

11

majority of all greenhouse gas emissions in history has occurred since the 1950s, a period known

12

as the “Great Acceleration.” 6 About three quarters of all industrial CO2 emissions in history have

13

occurred since the 1960s, 7 and more than half have occurred since the late 1980s. 8 The annual rate

14

of CO2 emissions from production, consumption and use of fossil fuels has increased by more than

15

60% since 1990. 9

16

5.

Defendants have known for nearly 50 years that greenhouse gas pollution from their

17

fossil fuel products has a significant impact on the Earth’s climate and sea levels. Defendants’

18

awareness of the negative implications of their own behavior corresponds almost exactly with the

19

Great Acceleration, and with skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions. With that knowledge,

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

4

See IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A.
Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Page 6, Figure SMP.3, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
5
See C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 632 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-scidata.net/8/605/2016/. Cumulative emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution to 2015 were 413 GtC
attributable to fossil fuels, and 190 GtC attributable to land use change. Id. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
and industry remained nearly constant at 9.9 GtC in 2015, distributed among coal (41 %), oil (34 %), gas (19 %),
cement (5.6 %), and gas flaring (0.7 %). Id. at 629.
6
Will Steffen et al., The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration (2015),
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053019614564785.
7
R. J. Andres et al., A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, Biogeosciences, 9, 1851
(2012), http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/.
8
R. J. Andres et al., A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, Biogeosciences, 9, 1851
(2012), http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/.
9
C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 630 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-scidata.net/8/605/2016/.
2
COMPLAINT

 1

Defendants took steps to protect their own assets from these threats through immense internal

2

investment in research, infrastructure improvements, and plans to exploit new opportunities in a

3

warming world.

4

6.

Instead of working to reduce the use and combustion of fossil fuel products, lower

5

the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, minimize the damage associated with continued high use

6

and combustion of such products, and ease the transition to a lower carbon economy, Defendants

7

concealed the dangers, sought to undermine public support for greenhouse gas regulation, and

8

engaged in massive campaigns to promote the ever-increasing use of their products at ever greater

9

volumes. Thus, each Defendant’s conduct has contributed substantially to the buildup of CO2 in

10

the environment that drives sea level rise.
7.

11

Defendants are directly responsible for 227.6 gigatons of CO2 emissions between

12

1965 and 2015, representing 20.3% of total emissions of that potent greenhouse gas during that

13

period. Accordingly, Defendants are directly responsible for a substantial portion of committed

14

sea level rise (that is, sea level rise that will occur even in the absence of any future emissions)

15

because of the consumption of their fossil fuel products.
8.

16

Extreme flooding events will more than double in frequency on California’s Pacific

17

coast by 2050. 10 Flooding and storms will become more frequent and more severe, and average

18

sea level will rise substantially along California’s coast, and in the San Francisco Bay Area

19

including San Mateo County. The County, bordered on two sides by water and among the most

20

vulnerable counties to sea level rise in California, has already spent millions of dollars to study

21

and mitigate the effects of global warming. Sea level rise already adversely affects the County and

22

jeopardizes San Mateo’s sewer systems, beaches, parks, roads, civil infrastructure, and essential

23

public services, and communities.

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

10

Sean Vitousek et al., Doubling of coastal flooding frequency within decades due to sea-level rise, Scientific
Reports, (May 18, 2017) (“Only 10 cm of SLR doubles the flooding potential in high-latitude regions with small
shape parameters, notably the North American west coast (including the major population centers Vancouver,
Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles), and the European Atlantic coast.”); USGS, In Next Decades, Frequency of
Coastal Flooding Will Double Globally (May 18, 2017), https://www.usgs.gov/news/next-decades-frequencycoastal-flooding-will-double-globally.
3
COMPLAINT

 9.

1

Defendants’ production, promotion, marketing, and use of fossil fuel products,

2

simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-

3

regulation and anti-science campaigns, actually and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
10.

4

Accordingly, the County brings claims against Defendants for Public Nuisance on

5

behalf of the People of California as well as itself, Strict Liability for Failure to Warn, Strict

6

Liability for Design Defect, Private Nuisance, Negligence, Negligent Failure to Warn,

7

and Trespass.
11.

8
9
10

By this action, the County seeks to ensure that the parties responsible for sea level

rise bear the costs of its impacts on the County, rather than Plaintiffs, local taxpayers or residents.
II.

PARTIES

11

A.

Plaintiffs

12

12.

Plaintiff, the People of the State of California (“the People”), by and through the

13

County Counsel of San Mateo County, brings this suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

14

731, and Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494, to abate the nuisance caused by sea

15

level rise in the County’s jurisdiction.
13.

16

Plaintiff County of San Mateo (“the County” or “San Mateo”) is a political

17

subdivision of the State of California. The County is located in the San Francisco Bay Area on the

18

central portion of the San Francisco Peninsula, with its county seat in Redwood City.
a.

19

The County is bordered by water on two sides, with the San Francisco Bay

20

to the East, and the Pacific Ocean to the West, and contains approximately 109 total miles of

21

ocean-and bay-adjacent coastline.
b.

22

Sea level has already risen significantly along both the County’s ocean side

23

and bay side. The County anticipates and is planning for significant sea level rise over 1992 levels

24

by the year 2100, 11 and the State of California projects possible sea level rise well above the

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

11

County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 26 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.

COMPLAINT

4

 1

County’s estimates in that same period under a “business-as-usual” emissions scenario. 12
c.

2

The sea level rise impacts on the County associated with an increase in

3

average mean sea level height include, but are not limited to, increased inundation (permanent)

4

and flooding (temporary) in natural and built environments with higher tides and intensified wave

5

and storm surge events; aggravated wave impacts, including erosion, damage, and destruction of

6

built structures, as well as natural features like cliffs, beaches and dunes, with consequent

7

landslides; changes in sediment supply that could alter or destroy natural coastal habitats like

8

beaches and wetlands, which would otherwise naturally mitigate sea level rise impacts; saltwater

9

intrusion on groundwater aquifers, agricultural land, and infrastructure; and magnification of other

10

climate change impacts, due to the superimposition on sea level rise on shifts in precipitation

11

patterns that result in more rain and attendant flooding; increased frequency and severity of storms

12

that cause erosion, flooding, and temporary sea level rise increases; and others. Compounding

13

these environmental impacts are cascading social and economic impacts, which are secondary and

14

tertiary injuries that arise out of physical sea-level rise injuries to the County.
d.

15

Accounting for population increases over that time (by the year 2100), San

16

Mateo is the only county on the West Coast with more than 100,000 residents at risk of three feet

17

of sea level rise. 13
e.

18

The County owns and operates civil infrastructure including, but not limited

19

to levees, stormwater and sewage transport systems, an airport, and roads. The County owns, leases

20

and/or controls real property within its jurisdiction. Much of the County’s infrastructure and real

21

property is on or near the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay coasts, and has already suffered

22

damage from rising sea levels and will suffer increasing damage in the future through rising sea

23

levels and through the exacerbation of natural climate phenomena such as coastal erosion and El

24

Niño.

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

12

Gary Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science
Trust, p. 26, Table 1(b) (April 2017), http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-anupdate-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf.
13
County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 29 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
COMPLAINT

5

 1

B.

Defendants

2

14.

Defendants’ are responsible for a substantial portion of the total greenhouse gases

3

emitted between 1965 and 2015. Defendants, individually and collectively, are responsible for

4

extracting, refining, processing, producing, promoting and marketing fossil fuel products, the

5

normal and intended use of which has led to the emission of a substantial percentage of the total

6

volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere since 1965. Indeed, between 1965 and

7

2015, the named Defendants extracted from the earth enough fossil fuel materials (i.e. crude oil,

8

coal, and natural gas) to account for more than one in every five tons of CO2 and methane emitted

9

worldwide. Accounting for their wrongful promotion and marketing activities, Defendants bear a

10
11

dominant responsibility for global warming generally and for Plaintiffs’ injuries in particular.
15.

When reference in this complaint is made to an act or omission of the Defendants,

12

unless specifically attributed or otherwise stated, such references should be interpreted to mean

13

that the officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives of the Defendants committed or

14

authorized such an act or omission, or failed to adequately supervise or properly control or direct

15

their employees while engaged in the management, direction, operation or control of the affairs of

16

Defendants, and did so while acting within the scope of their employment or agency.

17
18

16.

Chevron Entities
a.

Chevron Corporation is a multi-national, vertically integrated energy and

19

chemicals company incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its global headquarters and

20

principal place of business in San Ramon, California.

21

b.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a Pennsylvania Corporation with its principal place

22

of business located in San Ramon, California. Chevron USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of

23

Chevron Corporation.

24
25
26
27

c.

“Chevron” as used hereafter, means collectively, Defendants Chevron

Corp. and Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
d.

Chevron operates through a web of U.S. and international subsidiaries at all

levels of the fossil fuel supply chain. Chevron’s and its subsidiaries’ operations consist of

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

6

 1

exploring for, developing, and producing crude oil and natural gas; processing, liquefaction,

2

transportation, and regasification associated with liquefied natural gas; transporting crude oil by

3

major international oil export pipelines; transporting, storage, and marketing of natural gas;

4

refining crude oil into petroleum products; marketing of crude oil and refined products;

5

transporting crude oil and refined products by pipeline, marine vessel, motor equipment and rail

6

car; basic and applied research in multiple scientific fields including of chemistry, geology, and

7

engineering; and manufacturing and marketing of commodity petrochemicals, plastics for

8

industrial uses, and fuel and lubricant additives.

9
10

17.

ExxonMobil Corporation
a.

ExxonMobil Corporation (“Exxon”) is a multi-national, vertically

11

integrated energy and chemicals company incorporated in the State of New Jersey with its

12

headquarters and principal place of business in Irving, Texas. Exxon is among the largest publicly

13

traded international oil and gas companies in the world.

14

b.

Exxon consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all areas of the fossil

15

fuel industry, including exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture

16

of petroleum products; and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and

17

petroleum products. Exxon is also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity

18

petrochemical products.

19

c.

Exxon does substantial fossil fuel product related business in California,

20

and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded,

21

distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. Among other operations, more than 540 Exxon-,

22

Mobil-, or Esso-branded gas stations operate throughout the state, and Exxon owns and operates a

23

petroleum storage and transport facility in the San Ardo Oil Field in San Ardo, Monterey County,

24

California. From 1966 to 2016, Exxon owned and operated an oil refinery in Torrance, Los

25

Angeles County, California. Exxon Co. USA, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, operated a petroleum

26

refinery in Benicia, Solano County, California, from 1968 to 2000.

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

7

 1
2

BP Entities
a.

BP P.L.C. is a multi-national, vertically integrated energy and

3

petrochemical public limited company, registered in England and Wales with its principal place of

4

business in London, England. BP P.L.C. consists of three main operating segments: (1) exploration

5

and production, (2) refining and marketing, and (3) gas power and renewables.

6

b.

BP P.L.C. does substantial fossil-fuel related business in the United States,

7

by marketing through licensure; franchising its petroleum products in the U.S. under the BP,

8

ARCO and ARAL brands; and by operating oil and gas extraction and refining projects in the Gulf

9

of Mexico, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming.

10

c.

BP America, Inc., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP P.L.C. BP America

11

Inc. is a vertically integrated energy and petrochemical company incorporated in the State of

12

Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business in Houston, Texas. BP America,

13

Inc., consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including

14

exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture of petroleum products;

15

and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum products. BP is

16

also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity petrochemical products. BP America Inc.

17

is registered to do business in the State of California and has a registered agent for service of

18

process with the California Secretary of State.

19
20
21

SHER
EDLING LLP

18.

d.

Defendants BP P.L.C. and BP America, Inc. are collectively referred to

herein as “BP.”
e.

BP does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California, and a

22

substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed,

23

marketed, and/or sold in California. Among other operations, BP operates 275 ARCO-licensed

24

and branded gas stations in California and more than 70 compressed natural gas and liquefied

25

natural gas fueling stations, provides natural gas used to power more than 6.9 million California

26

households, and distributes and markets petroleum-based lubricants marketed under the “Castrol”

27

brand name throughout the state. From 2000 to 2013, BP also owned and operated an oil refinery

28

in Carson, Los Angeles County, California. BP’s marketing and trading business maintains an
COMPLAINT

8

 1

office in Irvine, Orange County, California. BP maintains an energy research center in San Diego,

2

San Diego County, California.

3

19.

a.

4

Royal Dutch Shell PLC is a vertically integrated, multinational energy and

5

petrochemical company. Royal Dutch Shell is incorporated in England and Wales, with its

6

headquarters and principle place of business in the Hague, Netherlands. Royal Dutch Shell PLC

7

consists of numerous divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates engaged in all aspects of the fossil fuel

8

industry, including exploration, development, extraction, manufacturing and energy production,

9

transport, trading, marketing and sales.
b.

10

Shell Oil Products Company LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Royal

11

Dutch Shell PLC. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is incorporated in the State of Delaware and

12

maintains its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is

13

registered to do business in the State of California and has a registered agent for service of process

14

in California. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is an energy and petrochemical company involved

15

in refining, transportation, distribution and marketing of Shell fossil fuel products.
c.

16
17

Defendants Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Oil Products Company LLC

are collectively referred to as “Shell.”
d.

18

Shell does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California, and

19

a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded,

20

distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. Among other endeavors, Shell operates a

21

petroleum refinery in Martinez, Contra Costa County, California; operates a distribution center in

22

Carson, California; and produces heavy oil and natural gas within the state. Shell also owned and

23

operated a refinery in Wilmington (Los Angeles), Los Angeles County, California from 1998 to

24

2007, and a refinery in Bakersfield, Kern County, California from 2001 to 2005. Shell also operates

25

hundreds of Shell-branded gas stations in California.

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

Shell Entities

20.

Citgo Petroleum Corporation (“Citgo”)
a.

Citgo is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of PDV America, Incorporated,

which is a wholly owned subsidiary of PDV Holding, Incorporated. These organizations’ ultimate
COMPLAINT

9

 1

parent is Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”), an entity wholly owned by the Republic of

2

Venezuela that plans, coordinates, supervises and controls activities carried out by its subsidiaries.

3

Citgo is incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintains its headquarters in Houston, Texas.

4

b.

Citgo and its subsidiaries are engaged in the refining, marketing, and

5

transportation of petroleum products including gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, petrochemicals,

6

lubricants, asphalt, and refined waxes.

7

c.

Citgo is registered to do business in the State of California and has

8

designated an agent for service of process in California. Citgo further does substantial fossil fuel

9

product-related business in California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are

10

extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For

11

instance, Citgo sells significant volumes of fossil-fuel derived consumer motor oils and automobile

12

lubricants through retail and wholesale distributers. Citgo further sells a wide variety of greases

13

and oils for use in construction, mining, agricultural, and metalworking machinery and vehicles,

14

and in many other industrial and commercial settings, through licensed distributors in California.

15
16

21.

ConocoPhillips Entities
a.

ConocoPhillips is a multinational energy company incorporated in the State

17

of Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. ConocoPhillips consists

18

of numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates engaged in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry,

19

including exploration, extraction, production, manufacture, transport, and marketing.

20

b.

ConocoPhillips

Company

is

100%

owned

by

ConocoPhillips.

21

ConocoPhillips Company is registered to do business in California and has a registered agent for

22

service of process in California.

23

c.

Phillips 66 is a multinational energy and petrochemical company

24

incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It

25

encompasses downstream fossil fuel processing, refining, transport, and marketing segments that

26

were formerly owned and/or controlled by ConocoPhillips. Phillips 66 is registered to do business

27

in the State of California and has a registered agent for service of process in California.

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

10

 d.

1
2

collectively referred to herein as “ConocoPhillips.”
e.

3

ConocoPhillips does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in

4

California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,

5

traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For instance, ConocoPhillips owns and

6

operates oil and natural gas terminals in California, owns and operates refineries in Arroyo Grande

7

(San Luis Obispo County), Colton (San Bernardino County), and Wilmington (Los Angeles

8

County), California, and distributes its products throughout California. Phillips 66 also owns and

9

operates oil refineries in Rodeo (Contra Costa County), Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), and

10

Wilmington (Los Angeles County), California, each of which was owned and operated by

11

ConocoPhillips and its predecessors in interest from 1997 to 2012.

12

22.

Peabody Energy
a.

13

Peabody Energy Corporation (“Peabody”) is a multi-national energy

14

company incorporated in the State of Delaware and with its principal place of business in St. Louis,

15

Missouri. Through a diverse web of affiliates and subsidiaries, Peabody is the world’s largest coal

16

extractor by volume.
b.

17

Peabody does and has done substantial fossil fuel product-related business

18

in California, including exporting substantial volumes of coal through coal shipping terminals in

19

California, particularly from the ports of Long Beach (Los Angeles County), Stockton (San

20

Joaquin County), Richmond (Contra Costa County), and San Francisco. Peabody exported coal

21

mined from its western state mining operations through the Los Angeles Export Terminal while

22

that terminal was in operation from 1997 through 2003, and continues to export coal out of

23

California ports.

24
25

SHER
EDLING LLP

Defendants ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, and Phillips 66 are

23.

Total Entities
a.

Total E&P USA Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Total S.A.—a French

26

energy conglomerate—engaged in the North American segment of Total SA’s fossil fuel products-

27

related business. Total E&P USA Inc. and its subsidiaries are involved in the exploration for,

28

extraction, transportation, research, and marketing of Total S.A.’s fossil fuel products. Total E&P
COMPLAINT

11

 1

USA Inc. is registered to do business in the State of California and has designated an agent for

2

service of process in California.

3

b.

4

involved in the marketing and distribution of Total S.A.’s fossil fuel products. Total Specialties

5

USA Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas. Total

6

Specialties USA Inc. is registered to do business in the State of California and has designated an

7

agent for service of process in California. Total Specialties USA Inc. does substantial fossil fuel

8

product-related business in California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are

9

extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For

10

instance, Total Specialties USA Inc. maintains regular distributorship relationships with several

11

California distributors of Total fossil fuel products, including engine oils, lubricants, greases, and

12

industrial petroleum products.

13
14

24.

Arch Coal, Inc.
a.

Arch Coal, Inc. (“Arch Coal”) is a publicly traded company incorporated in

15

Delaware with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the second largest coal

16

producer in the United States, selling 128 million tons of coal in 2015, almost all of which it

17

extracted from mines owned by the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary. Arch Coal explores

18

for, extracts, produces, markets and distributes its fossil fuel products.

19

b.

Arch Coal’s conducts substantial fossil fuel product-related business in

20

California, including its ownership and long-term leasing of coal land in California. Arch Coal

21

furthermore has historically exported substantial volumes of coal mined from its western state

22

mines through California ports including Long Beach (Los Angeles County), Stockton (San

23

Joaquin County), Richmond (Contra Costa County), and San Francisco.

24

SHER
EDLING LLP

Total Specialties USA Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Total SA,

c.

Arch Coal also owns a 99% stake in Arch Western Resources, LLC, which

25

was created in a 1998 transaction under which Arch Coal absorbed all of Atlantic Ritchfield

26

Company’s domestic coal operations. Included in that transaction, Arch Western Resources

27

acquired a 9% ownership stake in the Los Angeles Export Terminal, a coal export terminal

28

operation in the Port of Los Angeles from 1997 through 2003. Arch Coal and Arch Western
COMPLAINT

12

 1

Resources both exported substantial volumes of coal, originating from their western state mining

2

operations, including mines in Colorado and Utah, through the Export Terminal until its closure.

3
4

25.

Eni Entities
a.

Eni S.p.A. (“Eni”) is a vertically integrated, multinational energy company

5

focusing on petroleum and natural gas. Eni is incorporated in the Republic of Italy, with its

6

principal place of business in Rome, Italy. With its consolidated subsidiaries, Eni engages in the

7

exploration, development and production of hydrocarbons; in the supply and marketing of gas,

8

liquid natural gas, and power; in the refining and marketing of petroleum products; in the

9

production and marketing of basic petrochemicals, plastics and elastomers; in commodity trading;

10
11

and in electricity marketing and generation.
b.

Eni Oil & Gas Inc. is incorporated in Texas, with its principal place of

12

business in Houston, Texas. Eni Oil & Gas Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni America Ltd.,

13

a Delaware corporation doing business in the United States. Eni America, Ltd. Is a wholly owned

14

subsidiary of Eni UHL Ltd., a British corporation with its registered office in London, United

15

Kingdom. Eni UHL Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni ULT, Ltd., a British corporation with

16

its registered office on London, United Kingdom. Eni ULT, Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of

17

Eni Lasmo Plc, a British corporation with its registered office on London, United Kingdom. Eni

18

Investments Plc, a British corporation with its registered office in London, United Kingdom, holds

19

a 99.9% ownership interest in Eni Lasmo Plc (the other 0.01% ownership interest is held by another

20

Eni entity, Eni UK Ltd, a British corporation with its registered office in London, United

21

Kingdom). Eni S.p.A owns a 99.99% interest in Eni Investments Plc. Eni UK Ltd. holds the

22

remainder interest in Eni Investments Plc. Collectively, these entities are referred to as “Eni.”

23

c.

Eni Oil & Gas Inc. is a successor-in-interest to Golden Eagle Refining

24

Company, Inc. (“Golden Eagle”). At times relevant to this complaint, Golden Eagle did substantial

25

fossil fuel-related business in California. Specifically, Golden Eagle owned and/or operated oil

26

refineries in Carson (Los Angeles County) and Martinez (Contra Costa County), California, and

27

owned and/or operated oil pipelines in or near Long Beach (Los Angeles County), California.

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

13

 1
2

Rio Tinto Group
a.

Rio Tinto PLC is incorporated in England and Wales, with its principal

3

place of business in London, England. Rio Tino Limited is incorporated in the Commonwealth of

4

Australia with its principle place of business in Melbourne, Australia. Collectively, these Rio Tinto

5

PLC and Rio Tinto Limited, along with their affiliates, divisions and subsidiaries, including those

6

described below, are referred to as “Rio Tinto.”

7

b.

Rio Tinto is a dual-listed, multinational, vertically integrated metals and

8

mining corporation. Through its vast network of affiliates and subsidiaries, Riot Tinto extracts an

9

array of metals and other commodities. Pertinent here, Rio Tinto explores for, extracts, produces,

10
11

transports and markets coal.
c.

Rio Tinto Energy America Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto,

12

incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Gillette, Wyoming.

13

Previously known as Kennecott Energy, Rio Tinto Energy America Inc. operates coal mines in

14

Wyoming and Montana.

15

d.

Rio Tinto does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California.

16

In 2007, for example, Hydrogen Energy California, a joint venture of BP and Rio Tinto, invested

17

$2.3 billion in a project to construct an experimental petroleum coke fired power plant in Kern

18

County, California.

19

e.

In addition, Rio Tinto’s subsidiary Rio Tino Minerals, Inc., operates the

20

largest open pit mine in California, where it extracts approximately 30% of the world’s refined

21

boron. Rio Tinto Minerals, Inc., has also registered substantial legislative and regulatory lobbying

22

activities in California related to Rio Tinto’s fossil fuel products business since at least 2005,

23

including lobbying directed at legislation and regulation regarding greenhouse gas pollution

24

policy, air quality standards, and energy efficiency standards, as well as California’s so-called

25

“cap-and-trade” carbon emissions program, such that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with

26

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

26.

f.

Rio Tinto Services Inc. is a Rio Tinto subsidiary incorporated in Delaware

and with its principal place of business in South Jordan, Utah. Rio Tinto Services, Inc. is registered
COMPLAINT

14

 1
2

to do business in California and has designated an agent for service of process in California.
27.

a.

3

Statoil ASA (“Statoil”) is an international, vertically integrated energy

4

company incorporated in the Kingdom of Norway and headquartered in Stavanger, Norway. The

5

Norwegian State is the majority shareholder in Statoil. Statoil’s operations consist of multiple

6

segments, including exploration, production, extraction, marketing, processing, and technology

7

support of its fossil fuel products, which include both petroleum and natural gas products.
b.

8

Statoil has substantial contacts with California arising out of the production,

9

marketing, and promotion of its fossil fuel products. For instance, Statoil partnered with the

10

University of California, Berkeley (Alameda County), to review management of the company’s

11

complex development projects; Statoil partnered on a methanol fueling station in Sacramento

12

(Sacramento County); Statoil was involved in a business project with a California company called

13

Quantum Technologies; and partnered with the University of California, San Diego’s (San Diego

14

County) Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

15
16

28.

Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
a.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”) is incorporated in the State

17

of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in The Woodlands, Texas. Anadarko is

18

a multinational, vertically integrated energy company comprised of multiple upstream and

19

downstream segments. These include exploration, production, gathering, processing, treating,

20

transporting, marketing, and selling fossil fuel products derived primarily from petroleum and

21

natural gas. In the United States, Anadarko entities operate fossil fuel product exploration and

22

production concerns in Texas, the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the Powder River Basin, Utah,

23

Colorado, and the Marcellus Shale Formation. Anadarko operates fossil fuel product production

24

and exploration activities internationally in Algeria, Ghana, Mozambique, and Columbia, among

25

others. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is registered to do business in California and has

26

designated an agent for service of process in California.

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

Statoil ASA

b.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is a successor-in-interest to HS Resources

Inc. (“HS”). HS was an energy company headquartered in San Francisco, San Francisco County,
COMPLAINT

15

 1

California. It owned natural gas reserves in Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and

2

along the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, which it extracted and imported to California. HS was

3

acquired by Kerr-McGee Corporation in 2001. Kerr-McGee was an energy exploration and

4

production company owning oil and natural gas rights in the Gulf of Mexico, Colorado, and Utah,

5

with its corporate headquarters in Oklahoma. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation acquired Kerr-

6

McGee Corporation in 2006.

7
8

Occidental Entities
a.

Occidental Petroleum Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated

9

energy and chemical company incorporated in the State of Delaware and with its principal place

10

of business in Houston, Texas. Occidental’s operations consist of three segments: Occidental’s

11

operations consist of three segments: (1) the exploration for, extraction of, and production of oil

12

and natural gas products; (2) the manufacture and marketing of chemicals and vinyls; and (3)

13

processing, transport, storage, purchase, and marketing of oil, natural gas, and power. Occidental

14

Petroleum Corporation is registered to do business in the State of California and has designated an

15

agent for service of process in the State of California.

16

b.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, a manufacturer and marketer of

17

petrochemicals, such as polyvinyl chloride resins, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Occidental

18

Petroleum Corporation. Occidental Chemical Corporation is registered to do business in the State

19

of California and has designated an agent for service of process in the State of California.

20
21
22

c.

Defendants Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Chemical

Corporation are collectively referred to as “Occidental.”
d.

Occidental does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in the State

23

of California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,

24

traded, distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. For instance, Occidental extracted and

25

transported its fossil fuel products from approximately 30,900 drilling locations within the San

26

Joaquin, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Sacramento Basins in California.

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

29.

e.

In addition, Occidental conducts has conducted substantial activities in the

state, including marketing and promotion; efforts to avoid or minimize regulation of greenhouse
COMPLAINT

16

 1

gas pollution in and from California; and efforts to influence statutory and regulatory debate

2

regarding fossil fuel consumption, electric power distribution, and greenhouse gas pollution

3

policies such that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and

4

substantial justice. Since 1999, Occidental Petroleum Corp. and its subsidiaries have reported more

5

than $4.6 million in lobbying expenditures directed at numerous statutory and regulatory proposals

6

before the California legislature and executive agencies, including the California Energy

7

Commission, California Air Resources Board, and California Public Utilities Commission, related

8

to its fossil fuel products business.

9
10

Repsol S.A.
a.

Repsol S.A. (“Repsol”) is a vertically integrated, multinational global

11

energy company, incorporated in the Kingdom of Spain, with its principal place of business in

12

Madrid, Spain. Repsol is involved in multiple aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including

13

exploration, production, marketing, and trading. Repsol engages in significant fossil fuel

14

exploration and production activities in the United States, including in the Gulf of Mexico, the

15

Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the Mississippi Lime in

16

Oklahoma and Kansas, the North Slope in Alaska, and the Trenton-Black River in New York

17

SHER
EDLING LLP

30.

b.

Repsol does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in the State of

18

California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,

19

traded, distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. For instance, Repsol subsidiary Repsol

20

Energy North America Corporation, incorporated in the State of Texas and with its principal place

21

of business in The Woodlands, Texas, is listed as a natural gas procurement, storage,

22

transportation, scheduling, and risk management provider by Pacific Gas and Electric, a California

23

utility. Repsol Energy North America Corporation is registered to do business in California and

24

has designated an agent for service of process in California. Repsol subsidiary Repsol Trading

25

USA Corporation, incorporated in the State of Texas and with its principal place of business in

26

The Woodlands, Texas, is also registered do business in California and has designated an agent

27

for service of process in California. Additionally, Repsol represents on its website that it is

28

engaging in strategic opportunities involving its fossil fuel products in California, which may
COMPLAINT

17

 1
2

consist of crude oil, gasoline, diesel, and/or jet fuel.
31.

a.

3

Marathon Oil Company is an energy company incorporated in the State of

4

Ohio and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Marathon Oil Company is

5

registered to do business in California and has designated an agent for service of process in

6

California. Marathon Oil Company is a corporate ancestor of Marathon Oil Corporation and

7

Marathon Petroleum Company.

8

b.

Marathon Oil Company is a successor-in-interest to Husky Oil Ltd.

9

(“Husky”), which it acquired in 1984. During times relevant to this Complaint, Husky operated oil

10

production facilities near Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), California, where it produced

11

nearly 1,100 barrels per day. During the period relevant to this litigation, Husky did substantial

12

fossil fuel product-related business in California.
c.

13

Marathon Oil Corporation is a multinational energy company incorporated

14

in the State of Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Marathon Oil

15

Corporation consists of multiple subsidiaries and affiliates involved in the exploration for,

16

extraction, production, and marketing of fossil fuel products.
d.

17

Marathon Petroleum Corporation is a multinational energy company

18

incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Findlay, Ohio. Marathon

19

Petroleum Corporation was spun off from the operations of Marathon Oil Corporation in 2011. It

20

consists of multiple subsidiaries and affiliates involved in fossil fuel product refining, marketing,

21

retail, and transport, including both petroleum and natural gas products.
e.

22
23
24
25

Defendants Marathon Oil Company, Marathon Oil Corporation, and

Marathon Petroleum Corporation are collectively referred to as “Marathon.”
32.

Hess Corporation
a.

Hess Corp. (“Hess”is a global, vertically integrated petroleum exploration

26

and extraction company incorporated in the State of Delaware with its headquarters and principal

27

place of business in New York, New York.

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

Marathon Entities

b.

Hess

is

engaged

in

the

COMPLAINT

exploration,

development,

production,
18

 1

transportation, purchase, marketing and sale of crude oil and natural gas. Its oil and gas production

2

operations are located primarily in the United States, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia,

3

Thailand, and Norway. Prior to 2014, Hess also conducted extensive retail operations in its own

4

name and through subsidiaries. Hess owned and operated more than 1,000 gas stations throughout

5

the United States, including in California during times relevant to this complaint. Prior to 2013,

6

Hess also operated oil refineries in the continental United States and U.S. Virgin Islands.

7

33.

a.

8

Devon Energy Corp. is an independent energy company engaged in the

9

exploration, development, and production of oil, and natural gas. It is incorporated in the State of

10

Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Devon is

11

engaged in multiple aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including exploration, development,

12

production, and marketing of its fossil fuel products.
b.

13

Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. is a Devon subsidiary registered

14

to do business in the State of California and with a designated agent for service of process in

15

California. Devon Energy does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California.
c.

16

Devon Energy Corp. is a successor-in-interest to the Pauley Petroleum

17

Company (“Pauley”). At times relevant to this complaint, Pauley did substantial fossil-fuel related

18

business in California. Specifically, this included owning and operating a petroleum refinery in

19

Newhall (Los Angeles County), California from 1959 to 1989, and a refinery in Wilmington (Los

20

Angeles, Los Angeles County), California from 1988 to 1992. Pauley merged with Hondo Oil and

21

Gas Co. (“Hondo”) in 1987. Subsequently, Devon Energy Corp. acquired Hondo in 1992.
d.

22
23
24
25

SHER
EDLING LLP

Devon Energy Corporation

Defendants Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. and Devon Energy

Corp. are collectively referred to as “Devon.”
34.

Encana Corporation
a.

Encana Corp. is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business

26

in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Encana is an extractor and marketer of oil and natural gas and has

27

facilities including gas plants and gas wells in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, and

28

New Mexico. By approximately 2005, Encana was the largest independent owner and operator of
COMPLAINT

19

 1

natural gas storage facilities in North America.
b.

2

Encana has done and continues to do substantial fossil fuel product-related

3

business in California. Between 1997 and 2006, Encana owned and operated the Wild Goose

4

Storage underground natural gas storage facility in Butte County, California. In 2003, Encana

5

began transporting natural gas through a 25-mile pipeline from the Wild Goose Station to a Pacific

6

Gas & Electric Co. (“PG&E”) compressor station in Colusa County, where gas entered the main

7

PG&E pipeline. Encana invested in a 100 billion cubic foot expansion of the facility in 2004,

8

bringing gas storage capacity at Wild Goose to 24 billion cubic feet.

9

35.

Apache Corporation
a.

10

Apache Corp. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its principal

11

place of business in Houston, Texas. Apache is an oil and gas exploration and production company,

12

with crude oil and natural gas exploration and extraction operations in the United States, Canada,

13

Egypt, and in the North Sea.
b.

14

During the time at issue, Apache extracted natural gas from wells developed

15

on approximately seven million acres of land held in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia,

16

Alberta, and Saskatchewan, and Apache did substantial fossil fuel product-related business in

17

California. Apache transported a substantial volume of the natural gas extracted from its Canadian

18

holdings to California, where it sold that gas to electric utilities, end-users, other fossil fuel

19

companies, supply aggregators, and other fossil fuel marketers. Apache directed sales of its natural

20

gas to California in addition to markets in Washington state, Chicago, and western Canada, to

21

intentionally retain a diverse customer base and maximize profits from the differential price rates

22

and demand levels in those respective markets.

23
24

36.

Doe Defendants
a.

The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or

25

otherwise of Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore

26

sue said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

27

Section 474. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

20

 1

fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts and occurrences herein

2

alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages were caused by such Defendants.

3

37.

Relevant Non-Parties: Fossil Fuel Industry Associations

4

38.

As set forth in greater detail below, each Defendant had actual knowledge that its

5

fossil fuel products were hazardous. Defendants obtained knowledge of the hazards of their

6

products independently and through their membership and involvement in trade associations.
39.

7

Each Defendant’s fossil fuel promotion and marketing efforts were assisted by the

8

trade associations described below. Acting on behalf of the Defendants, the industry associations

9

engaged in a long-term course of conduct to misrepresent, omit, and conceal the dangers of

10

Defendants’ fossil fuel products.

11

a.

The American Petroleum Institute (API): API is a national trade

12

association representing the oil and gas industry, formed in 1919. The following Defendants and/or

13

their predecessors in interest are and/or have been API members at times relevant to this litigation:

14

Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Statoil, Anadarko, Occidental, Repsol, Marathon,

15

EnCana, and Apache. 14
b.

16

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE): ACCCE

17

is a national coal industry trade association. Arch Coal and Peabody were part of the ACCCE at

18

times relevant to this complaint. 15
c.

19

The National Mining Association (NMA): NMA is a national trade

20

organization that advocates for mining interests, including coal mining. Arch Coal, Inc., Peabody

21

Energy, and Rio Tinto/Kennecott Utah Copper are all members. 16
d.

22

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA): WSPA is a trade

23

association representing oil producers in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. 17

24

Its members include, and at times relevant to this Complaint, have included, BP, Chevron, Shell,

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

14

American Petroleum Institute (API), Members, http://www.api.org/membership/members (as of June 1, 2017).
Energy and Policy Institute, ACCCE Members, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2199289-acccemembers.html (as of June 1, 2017).
16
National Mining Association (NMA), Members, http://nma.org/about-nma/member-list (As of June 1, 2017).
17
WSPA, What is WSPA, https://www.wspa.org/what-is-wspa (as of June 1, 2017).
15

COMPLAINT

21

 1

Occidental, and ExxonMobil. 18

2

e.

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) is a

3

national association of petroleum and petrochemical companies. At relevant times, its members

4

included, but were not limited to, BP Petrochemicals, BP Products North America, Chevron

5

U.S.A. Inc., CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Occidental Chemical

6

Corporation, Phillips 66, Shell Chemical Company, and Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA,

7

Inc. 19
f.

8

The Information Council for the Environment (ICE): ICE was formed

9

by coal companies and their allies, including Western Fuels Association and the National Coal

10

Association. Associated companies included Peabody, Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining

11

(Chevron), 20 and Island Creek Coal Company (Occidental).
g.

12

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC): GCC was an industry group formed

13

to oppose greenhouse gas emission reduction policies and the Kyoto Protocol. It was founded in

14

1989 shortly after the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting was held, and

15

disbanded in 2001. Founding members included the National Association of Manufacturers, the

16

National Coal Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the United States Chamber of

17

Commerce. The GCC’s early individual corporate members included Amoco (BP), API, Chevron,

18

Exxon, Ford, Shell Oil, Texaco (Chevron) and Phillips Petroleum (ConocoPhillips). Over its

19

existence other members and funders included ARCO (BP), BHP, the National Mining

20

Association, and the Western Fuels Association. The coalition also operated for several years out

21

of the National Association of Manufacturers’ offices.

22

III.

AGENCY
40.

23

At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant,

24

partner, aider and abettor, co-conspirator, and/or joint venturer of each of the remaining

25

Defendants herein and was at all times operating and acting within the purpose and scope of said

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

18

WSPA, Member List, https://www.wspa.org/member-list (as of June 1, 2017).
AFPM, Membership Directory, https://www.afpm.org/membership-directory/ (As of June 30, 2017).
20
Hereinafter, parenthetical references to Defendants indicate corporate ancestry and/or affiliation.
COMPLAINT
19

22

 1

agency, service, employment, partnership, conspiracy, and joint venture and rendered substantial

2

assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants, knowing that their conduct was wrongful

3

and/or constituted a breach of duty.

4

IV.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
41.

5

This court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants named herein is proper because

6

each Defendant maintains substantial contacts with California by and through their fossil fuel

7

business operations in this state, as described above, and because Plaintiffs’ injuries described

8

herein arose out of and relate to those operations and occurred in California.
42.

9
10

The Superior Court of California for San Mateo County is a court of general

jurisdiction and therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
43.

11

Venue is proper in San Mateo County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections

12

395 and 395.5 because the injury giving rise to the County’s claims occurred in San Mateo County.

13

V.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

14

A.

Global Warming—Observed Effects and Known Cause

15

44.

The Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented in human history.

16

45.

Atmospheric and ocean temperatures have both increased substantially since the

17

beginning of the global industrial revolution, and the rate of warming has also dramatically

18

increased since the end of World War II.
46.

19
20

In the geological short term, ocean and land surface temperatures have increased at

a rapid pace during the late 20th and early 21st centuries:
a.

21

2016 was the hottest year on record by globally averaged surface

22

temperatures, exceeding mid-20th century mean ocean and land surface

23

temperatures by approximately 1.69–1.78° F. 21 Eight of the twelve months

24

in 2016 were hotter by globally averaged surface temperatures than those

25

respective months in any previous year. October, November, and December

26
21

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

NOAA, Global Summary Information – December 2016, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summaryinfo/global/201612; NASA, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.

COMPLAINT

23

 1

2016 showed the second hottest average surface temperatures for those

2

months, second only to temperatures recorded in 2015. 22
b.

3

The Earth’s hottest month ever recorded was February 2016, followed
immediately by the second hottest month on record, March 2016. 23

4

c.

5

The second hottest year on record by globally averaged surface
temperatures was 2015, and the third hottest was 2014. 24

6

d.

7

The ten hottest years on record by globally averaged surface temperature

8

have all occurred since 1998, and sixteen of the seventeen hottest years have

9

occurred since 2001. 25
e.

10

Each of the past three decades has been warmer by average surface
temperature than any preceding decade on record. 26

11

f.

12

The period between 1983 and 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period
in the Northern Hemisphere since approximately 700 AD. 27

13

47.

14

The average global surface and ocean temperature in 2016 was approximately 1.7°

15

F warmer than the 20th century baseline, which is the greatest positive anomaly observed since at

16

least 1880. 28 The increase in hotter temperatures and more frequent positive anomalies during the

17

Great Acceleration is occurring both globally and locally, including in San Mateo County. The

18

graph below shows the increase in global land and ocean temperature anomalies since 1880, as

19

measured against the 1910–2000 global average temperature. 29

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

22

NASA, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.
23
Jugal K. Patel, How 2016 Became Earth’s Hottest Year on Record, N.Y. Times (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html.
24
NASA, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally.
25
Id.
26
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
27
Id.
28
NOAA, National Centers for Environmental Information, Climate at a Glance (Global Time Series) (June 2017)
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2016.
29
Id.
24
COMPLAINT

 Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, January - December

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

48.

13

The mechanism by which human activity causes global warming and climate

14

change is well established: ocean and atmospheric warming is overwhelmingly caused by

15

anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. 30
49.

16
17

otherwise radiate into space.
50.

18
19

Greenhouse gases are largely byproducts of humans’ burning fossil fuels to produce

energy, and using fossil fuels to create petrochemical products.
51.

20
21

When emitted, greenhouse gases trap heat within the Earth’s atmosphere that would

Human activity, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, is the primary cause of

global warming and its associated effects on Earth’s climate.
52.

22

Prior to World War II, most anthropogenic CO2 emissions were caused by land-use

23

practices, such as forestry and agriculture, which altered the ability of the land and global biosphere

24

to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere; the impacts of such activities on Earth’s climate were

25

relatively minor. Since the beginning of the Great Acceleration, however, both the annual rate and

26

total volume of human CO2 emissions have increased enormously following the advent of major

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

30

IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
25
COMPLAINT

 1

uses of oil, gas, and coal. The graph below shows that while CO2 emissions attributable to forestry

2

and other land-use change have remained relatively constant, total emissions attributable to fossil

3

fuels have increased dramatically since the 1950s. 31
Total Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source, 1860-2015:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

53.

As human reliance on fossil fuels for industrial and mechanical processes has

increased, so too have greenhouse gas emissions, especially of CO2. The Great Acceleration is
marked by a massive increase in the annual rate of fossil fuel emissions: more than half of all
cumulative CO2 emissions have occurred since 1988. 32 The rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
and industry, moreover, has increased threefold since the 1960s, and by more than 60% since

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

31

Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget 2016 (November 14, 2016),
www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/16/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2016.pdf, citing CDIAC; R.A. Houghton
et al., Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change (2012),
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/5125/2012/bg-9-5125-2012.html; Louis Giglio et al., Analysis of daily, monthly,
and annual burned area using the fourth-generation global fire emissions database (2013),
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrg.20042/abstract; C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016,
Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/.
32
R. J. Andres et al., A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, Biogeosciences, 9, 1851
(2012), http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/.

COMPLAINT

26

 1

1990. 33 The graph below illustrates the increasing rate of global CO2 emissions since the industrial

2

era began. 34
Cumulative Annual Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1751-2014:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

54.

15

Because of the increased use of fossil fuel products, concentrations of greenhouse

16

gases in the atmosphere are now at a level unprecedented in at least 800,000 years. 35 The graph

17

below illustrates the nearly 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration above pre-Industrial

18

levels since 1960. 36

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

33

C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 625, 630 (2016), http://www.earth-systsci-data.net/8/605/2016/ (“Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry have increased every decade from an
average of 3.1±0.2 GtC/yr in the 1960s to an average of 9.3±0.5 GtC/yr during 2006–2015”).
34
Peter Frumhoff, et al. The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers, Climatic Change 132:157171, 164 (2015).
35
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
36
C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 608 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-scidata.net/8/605/2016/.
27
COMPLAINT

 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Parts Per Million, 1960-2015:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

B.

Sea Level Rise—Known Causes and Observed Effects

55.

Sea level rise is the physical consequence of (a) the thermal expansion of ocean

15

waters as they warm; (b) increased mass loss from land-based glaciers that are melting as ambient

16

air temperature increases; and (c) the shrinking of land-based ice sheets due to increasing ocean

17

and air temperature. 37
56.

18
19

Of the increase in energy that has accumulated in the Earth’s atmosphere between

1971 and 2010, more than 90% is stored in the oceans. 38
57.

20

Anthropogenic forcing, in the form of greenhouse gas pollution largely from the

21

production, use and combustion of fossil fuel products, is the dominant cause of global mean sea

22

level rise since 1970, explaining at least 70% of the sea level rise observed between 1970 and

23

2000. 39 Natural radiative forcing—that is, causes of climate change not related to human activity—

24

“makes essentially zero contribution [to observed sea level rise] over the twentieth century (2%

25
26

37

NOAA, Is sea level rising, Ocean Facts http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html (as of June 1, 2017).
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
39
Slangen et al., Anthropogenic Forcing Dominates Global Mean Sea-Level Rise Since 1970, Nature Climate
Change, Vol. 6, 701 (2016).
38

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

28

 1

over the period 1900–2005).” 40
58.

2

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution is the dominant factor in each of the

3

independent causes of sea level rise, including the increase in ocean thermal expansion, 41 in glacier

4

mass loss, and in more negative surface mass balance from the ice sheets. 42
59.

5

There is a well-defined relation between cumulative emissions of CO2 and

6

committed global mean sea level. This relation, moreover, holds proportionately for committed

7

regional sea level rise. 43
60.

8
9
10

Nearly 100% of the sea level rise from any projected greenhouse gas emissions

scenario will persist for at least 10,000 years. 44 This owes to the long residence time of CO2 in the
atmosphere that sustains temperature increases, and inertia in the climate system. 45
61.

11

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution caused the increased frequency and

12

severity of extreme sea level events (temporary sea level height increases due to storm surges or

13

extreme tides, exacerbated by elevated baseline sea level) observed during the Great

14

Acceleration. 46 The incidence and magnitude of extreme sea level events has increased globally

15

since 1970. 47 The impacts of such events, which generally occur with large storms, high tidal

16

events, offshore low-pressure systems associated with high winds, or the confluence of any of

17

these factors, 48 are exacerbated with higher average sea level, which functionally raises the

18

baseline for the destructive impact of extreme weather and tidal events. Indeed, the magnitude and

19
20
40

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

Slangen et al., Anthropogenic Forcing Dominates Global Mean Sea-Level Rise Since 1970, Nature Climate
Change, Vol. 6, 701 (2016).
41
Id.
42
Id.
43
Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).
44
Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 361 (2016).
45
Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 360 (2016).
46
IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers, page 7, Table SPM.1 (2013), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf.
47
IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the IPCC, 290 (2013),
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.
48
Id.

COMPLAINT

29

 1

frequency of extreme sea level events can occur in the absence of increased intensity of storm

2

events, given the increased average elevation from which flooding and inundation events begin.

3

These effects, and others, significantly and adversely affect Plaintiffs, with increased severity in

4

the future.

5

62.

Historical greenhouse gas emissions alone through 2000 will cause a global mean

6

sea level rise of at least 7.4 feet. 49 Additional greenhouse gas emissions from 2001–2015 have

7

caused approximately 10 additional feet of committed sea level rise. Even immediate and

8

permanent cessation of all additional anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions would not prevent

9

the eventual inundation of land at elevations between current average mean sea level and 17.4 feet

10

of elevation in the absence of adaptive measures.
63.

11

The relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and committed sea level

12

rise is nearly linear and always positive. For emissions, including future emissions, from the year

13

2001, the relation is approximately 0.25 inches of committed sea level rise per 1 GtCO2 released.

14

For the period 1965 to 2000, the relation is approximately 0.05 inches of committed sea level rose

15

per 1 GtCO2 released. For the period 1965 to 2015, normal use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products

16

caused a substantial portion of committed sea level rise. Each and every additional unit of CO2

17

emitted from the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products will add to the sea level rise already

18

committed to the geophysical system.
64.

19

Projected onshore impacts associated with rising sea temperature and water level

20

include increases in flooding and erosion; increases in the occurrence, persistence, and severity of

21

storm surges; infrastructure inundation; public and private property damage; and pollution

22

associated with damaged control and waste infrastructure, and the lack thereof. All of these effects

23

significantly and adversely affect Plaintiffs.
65.

24
25

Sea level rise has already taken grave tolls on inhabited coastlines. For instance, the

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) estimates that nuisance

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

49

Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).

COMPLAINT

30

 1

flooding occurs from 300% to 900% more frequently within U.S. coastal communities today than

2

just 50 years ago. 50

3

66.

Nationwide, more than three quarters (76%) of flood days caused by high water

4

levels from sea level rise between 2005 and 2014 (2,505 of the 3,291 flood days) would not have

5

happened but for human-caused climate change. More than two-thirds (67%) of flood days since

6

1950 would not have happened without the sea level rise caused by increasing greenhouse

7

gas emissions. 51
67.

8

Regional expressions of sea level rise will differ from the global mean, and are

9

especially influenced by changes in ocean and atmospheric dynamics, as well as the gravitational,

10

deformational, and rotational effects of the loss of glaciers and ice sheets. 52 Due to these effects,

11

San Mateo County will experience significantly greater absolute committed sea level rise than the

12

global mean. 53
68.

13

The County’s assessments show that the San Francisco Bay Area and San Mateo

14

County are “particularly vulnerable to sea level rise and changes in salinity, temperature, and

15

runoff.” 54 This is because San Mateo’s topography, geography, and land use patterns make it

16

particularly susceptible to injuries from sea level rise; and because the California coast South of

17

Cape Mendocino, including San Mateo, is projected, due to its geophysical characteristics, to

18

experience a higher rate of sea level rise and a greater absolute amount of sea level rise than the

19

global mean. 55
69.

20

Given an emissions scenario in which the current rate of greenhouse gas pollution

21
22
50

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

NOAA, Is sea level rising, Ocean Facts, http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html, (as of June 1, 2017).
Climate Central, Sea Level Rise Upping Ante on ‘Sunny Day’ Floods (October 17, 2016),
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-increases-sunny-day-floods-20784.
52
Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 364, (2016).
53
See id., Figure 3(c).
54
County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 27 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
55
Global sea level rise is projected to be 82.7 cm (32.6 inches) above 2000 levels by 2100. See National Research
Council, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future (2012) at
page 107 at Table 5.2; page 117 at Table 5.3. The San Francisco Bay Area sea level rise is projected to be 91.9 cm
(36.2 inches) over 2000 by 2100. Id.
51

COMPLAINT

31

 1

continues unabated, sea level in the San Francisco Bay Area, including San Mateo County, will

2

rise significantly by the year 2100. 56
70.

3

San Mateo County’s sea level rise vulnerability analyses anticipate extreme sea

4

level rise events equivalent to a 1% annual-chance flood of 42-inches over and above expected

5

changes to the mean sea level height along the County. 57 Such an event, even with the minimum

6

anticipated sea level rise, would inundate thousands of acres of County land, 58 breach flood

7

protection infrastructure, 59 and swamp San Francisco International Airport 60 (located within the

8

County), among other impacts.
71.

9

Without Defendants’ fossil fuel-related greenhouse gas pollution, current sea level

10

rise would have been far less than the observed sea level rise to date. 61 Similarly, committed sea

11

level rise that will occur in the future would also be far less. 62

12

C.

Attribution

13

72.

“Carbon factors” analysis, devised by the International Panel on Climate Change

14

(IPCC), the United Nations International Energy Agency, and the U.S. Environmental Protection

15

Agency, quantifies the amount of CO2 emissions attributable to a unit of raw fossil fuel extracted

16

from the Earth. 63 Emissions factors for oil, coal, liquid natural gas, and natural gas are different

17

for each material but are nevertheless known and quantifiable for each. 64 This analysis accounts

18

for the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products, including non-combustion purposes that sequester

19
20
56

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

Gary Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science
Trust, p. 26, Table 1(b) (April 2017), http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-anupdate-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf.
57
See County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 46-7, 102 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
58
See id. at page 82-3.
59
See id. at page 97.
60
See id. at page 102.
61
Robert E. Kopp et al., Temperature-driven Global Sea-level Variability in the Common Era, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, No. 11, E1434-E1441, E1438 (2016),
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434.full.
62
Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).
63
See Richard Heede, Tracing Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions to Fossil Fuel and Cement
Producers, 1854-2010, Climatic Change 122, 232-33 (2014), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-0130986-y.
64
See, e.g., id.
32
COMPLAINT

 1

CO2 rather than emit it (e.g., production of asphalt).
73.

2

Defendants’ historical and current fossil fuel extraction and production records are

3

publicly available in various fora. These include university and public library collections, company

4

websites, company reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, company

5

histories, and other sources. The cumulative CO2 and methane emissions attributable to

6

Defendants’ fossil fuel products were calculated by reference to such publicly available

7

documents.
74.

8

While it is possible to distinguish CO2 derived from fossil fuels from other sources,

9

it is not possible to determine the source of any particular individual molecule of CO2 in the

10

atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic sources because such greenhouse gas molecules do not

11

bear markers that permit tracing them to their source, and because greenhouse gasses quickly

12

diffuse and comingle in the atmosphere. However, cumulative carbon analysis allows an accurate

13

calculation of net annual CO2 and methane emissions attributable to each Defendant by quantifying

14

the amount and type of fossil fuels products each Defendant extracted and placed into the stream

15

of commerce, and multiplying those quantities by each fossil fuel product’s carbon factor.
75.

16

Defendants, through their extraction, promotion, marketing, and sale of their fossil

17

fuel products, caused approximately 20% of global fossil fuel product-related CO2 between 1965

18

and 2015, with contributions currently continuing unabated. This constitutes a substantial portion

19

of all such emissions in history, and the attendant historical, projected, and committed sea level

20

rise associated therewith.
76.

21
22

Total cumulative emissions increased from 470 GtC in 2000 to 600 GtC gigatons

through 2015, representing an almost 30% increase in total emissions in only sixteen years. 65
77.

23

By quantifying CO2 and methane pollution attributable to Defendants by and

24

through their fossil fuel products, ambient air and ocean temperature and sea level responses to

25

those emissions are also calculable, and can be attributed to Defendants on an individual and

26

aggregate basis. Individually and collectively, Defendants’ extraction, sale, and promotion of their

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

65

See C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 633, table 10 (2016),
http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/.
COMPLAINT

33

 1

fossil fuel products are responsible for substantial increases in ambient (surface) temperature,

2

ocean temperature, sea level, extreme storm events, and other adverse impacts on Plaintiffs

3

described herein.

4

78.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions through 2015 have caused approximately 17.4 feet

5

of committed mean global sea level rise. 66 Defendants, through their extraction, promotion,

6

marketing, and sale of their fossil fuel products, caused a substantial portion of both those

7

emissions and the attendant historical, projected, and committed sea level rise.
79.

8

As explained above, this analysis considers only the volume of raw material

9

actually extracted from the Earth by these Defendants. Many of these Defendants actually are

10

responsible for far greater volumes of emissions because they also refine, manufacture, produce,

11

market, promote, and sell more fossil fuel derivatives than they extract themselves by purchasing

12

fossil fuel products extracted by independent third parties.
80.

13

In addition, considering the Defendants’ lead role in promoting, marketing, and

14

selling their fossil fuels products between 1965 and 2015; their efforts to conceal the hazards of

15

those products from consumers; their promotion of their fossil fuel products despite knowing the

16

dangers associate with those products; their dogged campaign against regulation of those products

17

based on falsehoods, omissions, and deceptions; and their failure to pursue less hazardous

18

alternatives available to them, Defendants, individually and together, have substantially and

19

measurably contributed to the Plaintiffs’ sea level rise-related injuries.

20

D.

Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand the Hazards Associated
with and Knew or Should Have Known of the Dangers Associated with the
Extraction, Promotion and Sale of Their Fossil Fuel Products.

81.

By 1965, concern about the risks of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

21
22
23

reached the highest level of the United States’ scientific community. In that year, President Lyndon

24

B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution reported that by the

25

year 2000, anthropogenic CO2 emissions would “modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

66

Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).

COMPLAINT

34

 1

such an extent that marked changes in climate . . . could occur.” 67 President Johnson announced

2

in a special message to Congress that “[t]his generation has altered the composition of the

3

atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of

4

fossil fuels.” 68
82.

5

These statements from the Johnson Administration, at a minimum, put Defendants

6

on notice of the potentially substantial dangers to people, communities, and the planet associated

7

with unabated use of their fossil fuel products. Moreover, Defendants had amassed a considerable

8

body of knowledge on the subject through their own independent efforts.
83.

9

In 1968, a Stanford Research Institute (SRI) report commissioned by the American

10

Petroleum Institute (“API”) and made available to all of its members, concluded, among

11

other things:

12

If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be
expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels,
warming of the oceans and an increase in photosynthesis. . . .

13
14

It is clear that we are unsure as to what our long-lived pollutants are doing to our
environment; however, there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our
environment could be severe. . . . [T]he prospect for the future must be of serious
concern. 69

15
16

84.

17

In 1969, Shell memorialized an on-going 18-month project to collect ocean data

18

from oil platforms to develop and calibrate environmental forecasting theories related to predicting

19

wave, wind, storm, sea level, and current changes and trends. 70 Several Defendants and/or their

20

predecessors in interest participated in the project, including Esso Production Research Company

21

(ExxonMobil), Mobil Research and Development Company (ExxonMobil), Pan American

22

Petroleum Corporation (BP), Gulf Oil Corporation (Chevron), Texaco Inc. (Chevron), and the

23

Chevron Oil Field Research Company.

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

67

President’s Science Advisory Committee, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the
Environmental Pollution Panel, page 9 (November 1965), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b4315678.
68
President Lyndon B. Johnson, Special Message to Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty
(February 8, 1965), http://acsc.lib.udel.edu/items/show/292.
69
Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants, Stanford
Research Institute (February 1968), https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16.
70
M.M. Patterson, An Ocean Data Gathering Program for the Gulf of Mexico, Society of Petroleum Engineers
(1969), https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-2638-MS.
35
COMPLAINT

 85.

1

In 1972, API members, including Defendants, received a status report on all

2

environmental research projects funded by API. The report summarized the 1968 SRI report

3

describing the impact of Defendants’ fossil fuel products on the environment, including global

4

warming and sea level rise. Industry participants who received this report include: American

5

Standard of Indiana (BP), Asiatic (Shell), Ashland (Marathon), Atlantic Richfield (BP), British

6

Petroleum (BP), Chevron Standard of California (Chevron), Cities Service (Citgo), Continental

7

(ConocoPhillips), Dupont (former owner of Conoco), Esso Research (ExxonMobil), Ethyl

8

(formerly

9

(Lukoil/ExxonMobil), Gulf (Chevron, among others), Humble Standard of New Jersey

10

(ExxonMobil/Chevron/BP), Marathon, Mobil (ExxonMobil), Pan American (BP), Phillips

11

(ConocoPhillips), Shell, Standard of Ohio (BP), Texaco (Chevron), Union (Chevron), Edison

12

Electric Institute (representing electric utilities), Bituminous Coal Research (coal industry research

13

group), Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association (presently the U.S. Oil & Gas Association, a

14

national trade association), Western Oil & Gas Association, National Petroleum Refiners

15

Association (presently the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association, a

16

national trade association), Champlin (Anadarko), Skelly (Lukoil/ExxonMobil), Colonial Pipeline

17

(ownership has included BP, Citgo, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron entities, among others)

18

and Caltex (Chevron), among others. 71
86.

19

affiliated

with

Esso,

which

was

subsumed

by

ExxonMobil),

Getty

In a 1977 presentation and again in a 1978 briefing, Exxon scientists warned the

20

Exxon Corporation Management Committee that CO2 concentrations were building in the Earth’s

21

atmosphere at an increasing rate, that CO2 emissions attributable to fossil fuels were retained in

22

the atmosphere, and that CO2 was contributing to global warming. 72 The report stated:

23

There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind
is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning
of fossil fuels . . . [and that] Man has a time window of five to ten years before the

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

71

American Petroleum Institute, Environmental Research, A Status Report, Committee for Air and Water
Conservation (January 1972), http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf.
72
Memo from J.F. Black to F.G. Turpin, The Greenhouse Effect, Exxon Research and Engineering Company (June
6, 1978), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1978-exxon-memo-on-greenhouse-effect-for-exxon-corporationmanagement-committee/.

COMPLAINT

36

 need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become
critical. 73

1
2

87.

3

Thereafter, Exxon engaged in a research program to study the environmental fate

4

of fossil fuel-derived greenhouse gases and their impacts, which included publication of peer-

5

reviewed research by Exxon staff scientists and the conversion of a supertanker into a research

6

vessel to study the greenhouse effect and the role of the oceans in absorbing anthropogenic CO2.

7

Much of this research was shared in a variety of fora, symposia, and shared papers through trade

8

associations and directly with other Defendants.
88.

9

Exxon scientists made the case internally for using company resources to build

10

corporate knowledge about the impacts of the promotion, marketing, and consumption of

11

Defendants’ fossil fuel products. Exxon climate researcher Henry Shaw wrote in 1978: “The

12

rationale for Exxon’s involvement and commitment of funds and personnel is based on our need

13

to assess the possible impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon business. Exxon must develop a

14

credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be

15

able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation.” 74 Moreover, Shaw emphasized the need to

16

collaborate with universities and government to more completely understand what he called the

17

“CO2 problem.” 75

18

89.

In 1979, API and its members, including Defendants, convened a Task Force to

19

monitor and share cutting edge climate research among the oil industry. The group was initially

20

called the CO2 and Climate Task Force, but changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task

21

Force in 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “API CO2 Task Force”). Membership included senior

22

scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company,

23

including Exxon, Mobil (ExxonMobil), Amoco (BP), Phillips (ConocoPhillips), Texaco

24

(Chevron), Shell, Sunoco, Sohio (BP) as well as Standard Oil of California (BP) and Gulf Oil

25
26

73

Id.
Henry Shaw, Memo to Edward David Jr. on the “Greenhouse Effect”, Exxon Research and Engineering Company
(December 7, 1978).
75
Id.
74

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

37

 1

(Chevron, among others). The Task Force was charged with assessing the implications of emerging

2

science on the petroleum and gas industries and identifying where reductions in greenhouse gas

3

emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products could be made. 76
90.

4

In 1979, API sent its members a background memo related to the API CO2 and

5

Climate Task Force’s efforts, stating that CO2 concentrations were rising steadily in the

6

atmosphere, and predicting when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt. 77
91.

7

Also in 1979, Exxon scientists advocated internally for additional fossil fuel

8

industry-generated atmospheric research in light of the growing consensus that consumption of

9

fossil fuel products was changing the Earth’s climate:

10

“We should determine how Exxon can best participate in all these [atmospheric
science research] areas and influence possible legislation on environmental
controls. It is important to begin to anticipate the strong intervention of
environmental groups and be prepared to respond with reliable and credible data. It
behooves [Exxon] to start a very aggressive defensive program in the indicated
areas of atmospheric science and climate because there is a good probability that
legislation affecting our business will be passed. Clearly, it is in our interest for
such legislation to be based on hard scientific data. The data obtained from research
on the global damage from pollution, e.g., from coal combustion, will give us the
needed focus for further research to avoid or control such pollutants.” 78

11
12
13
14
15
16

92.

17

That same year, Exxon Research and Engineering reported that: “The most widely

18

held theory [about increasing CO2 concentration] is that the increase is due to fossil fuel

19

combustion, increasing CO2 concentration will cause a warming of the earth’s surface, and the

20

present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects before the year

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

76

American Petroleum Institute, AQ-9 Task Force Meeting Minutes (March 18, 1980),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf (AQ-9 refers to the “CO2 and Climate” Task Force).
77
Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate
News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knewabout-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco.
78
Henry Shaw, Exxon Memo to H.N. Weinberg about “Research in Atmospheric Science”, Exxon Inter-Office
Correspondence (November 19, 1979),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Probable%20Legislation%20Memo%20(1979).pdf.

COMPLAINT

38

 1

2050.” 79 Further, the report stated that unless fossil fuel use was constrained, there would be

2

“noticeable temperature changes” associated with an increase in atmospheric CO2 from about 280

3

parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to 400 parts per million by the year 2010. 80 Those

4

projections proved remarkably accurate—atmospheric CO2 concentrations surpassed 400 parts per

5

million in May 2013, for the first time in millions of years. 81 In 2015, the annual average CO2

6

concentration rose above 400 parts per million, and in 2016 the annual low surpassed 400 parts

7

per million, meaning atmospheric CO2 concentration remained above that threshold all year. 82
93.

8

In 1980, API’s CO2 Task Force members discussed the oil industry’s responsibility

9

to reduce CO2 emissions by changing refining processes and developing fuels that emit less CO2.

10

The minutes from the Task Force’s February 29, 1980, meeting included a summary of a

11

presentation on “The CO2 Problem” given by Dr. John Laurmann, which identified the “scientific

12

consensus on the potential for large future climatic response to increased CO2 levels” as a reason

13

for API members to have concern with the “CO2 problem” and informed attendees that there was

14

“strong empirical evidence that rise [in CO2 concentration was] caused by anthropogenic release

15

of CO2, mainly from fossil fuel combustion.” 83 Moreover, Dr. Laurmann warned that the amount

16

of CO2 in the atmosphere could double by 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5° C (4.5º

17

F) rise in global average temperatures with “major economic consequences.” He then told the Task

18

Force that models showed a 5°C (9º F) rise by 2067, with “globally catastrophic effects.” 84 A

19

taskforce member and representative of Texaco leadership present at the meeting posited that the

20

API CO2 Task Force should develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of

21

fuels as they relate to CO2 creation.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

79

W.L. Ferrall, Exxon Memo to R.L. Hirsch about “Controlling Atmospheric CO2”, Exxon Research and
Engineering Company (October 16, 1979),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/CO2%20and%20Fuel%20Use%20Projections.pdf.
80
Id.
81
Nicola Jones, How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why it Matters, Yale Environment 360 (Jan. 26,
2017), http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters.
82
Id.
83
American Petroleum Institute, AQ-9 Task Force Meeting Minutes (March 18, 1980),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf (AQ-9 refers to the “CO2 and Climate” Task Force).
84
Id.

COMPLAINT

39

 94.

1

In 1980, the API CO2 Task Force also discussed a potential area for investigation:

2

alternative energy sources as a means of mitigating CO2 emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel

3

products. These efforts called for research and development to “Investigate the Market Penetration

4

Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.” Such investigation was

5

to include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing, and

6

requirements. 85
95.

7

By 1980, Exxon’s senior leadership had become intimately familiar with the

8

greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. In that year, Exxon Senior Vice President

9

and Board member George Piercy questioned Exxon researchers on the minutiae of the ocean’s

10

role in absorbing atmospheric CO2, including whether there was a net CO2 flux out of the ocean

11

into the atmosphere in certain zones where upwelling of cold water to the surface occurs, because

12

Piercy evidently believed that the oceans could absorb and retain higher concentrations of CO2

13

than the atmosphere. 86 This inquiry aligns with Exxon supertanker research into whether the ocean

14

would act as a significant CO2 sink that would sequester atmospheric CO2 long enough to allow

15

unabated emissions without triggering dire climatic consequences. As described below, Exxon

16

eventually scrapped this research before it produced enough data from which to derive a

17

conclusion. 87
96.

18

Also in 1980, Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil) reported to Esso and Exxon managers

19

and environmental staff that increases in fossil fuel usage aggravates CO2 in the atmosphere.

20

Noting that the United Nations was encouraging research into the carbon cycle, Imperial reported

21

that “[t]echnology exists to remove CO2 from [fossil fuel power plant] stack gases but removal of

22

only 50% of the CO2 would double the cost of power generation.” Imperial also reported that its

23

coordination department had been internally evaluating its and Exxon’s products to determine

24
25
85

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

Id.
Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate
News (Dec. 1, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-seniorexecutives-engage-and-warming-forecast.
87
Neela Banerjee et al., Exxon Believed Deep Dive Into Climate Research Would Protect Its Business, Inside
Climate News (Sept. 17, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-intoclimate-research-would-protect-its-business.
40
COMPLAINT
86

 1

whether disclosure of a human health hazard was necessary. The report notes that Section (8e) of

2

Toxic Substances Control Act, 55 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., requires that anyone who discovers that

3

a material or substance in commercial use is or may be a significant risk to human health must

4

report such findings to the Environmental Protection Agency within 15 days. Although greenhouse

5

gases are human health hazards (because they have serious consequences in terms of global food

6

production, disease virulence, and sanitation infrastructure, among other impacts), neither

7

Imperial, Exxon, nor any other Defendant has ever filed a disclosure with the U.S. Environmental

8

Protection Agency pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Exxon scientist Roger Cohen

9

warned his colleagues in a 1981 internal memorandum that “future developments in global data

10

gathering and analysis, along with advances in climate modeling, may provide strong evidence for

11

a delayed CO2 effect of a truly substantial magnitude,” and that under certain circumstances it

12

would be “very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the threat by the year 2000.” 88 Cohen

13

had expressed concern that the memorandum mischaracterized potential effects of unabated CO2

14

emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products: “. . . it is distinctly possible that the . . . [Exxon

15

Planning Division’s] scenario will produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for

16

a substantial fraction of the world’s population).” 89
97.

17

In 1981, Exxon’s Henry Shaw, the company’s lead climate researcher at the time,

18

prepared a summary of Exxon’s current position on the greenhouse effect for Edward David Jr.,

19

president of Exxon Research and Engineering, stating in relevant part:

20

•
•

21
22

“Atmospheric CO2 will double in 100 years if fossil fuels grow at 1.4%/ a2.
3oC global average temperature rise and 10oC at poles if CO2 doubles.
o Major shifts in rainfall/agriculture
o Polar ice may melt” 90

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

88

Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo to W. Glass about possible “catastrophic” effect of CO2, Exxon Inter-Office
Correspondence (Aug. 18, 1981), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1981-exxon-memo-on-possibleemission-consequences-of-fossil-fuel-consumption/.
89
Id.
90
Henry Shaw, Exxon Memo to E. E. David, Jr. about “CO2Position Statement”, Exxon Inter-Office
Correspondence (May 15, 1981),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Exxon%20Position%20on%20CO2%20%281981%29.pd
f.
41
COMPLAINT

 98.

1

In 1982, another report prepared for API by scientists at the Lamont-Doherty

2

Geological Observatory at Columbia University recognized that atmospheric CO2 concentration

3

had risen significantly compared to the beginning of the industrial revolution from about 290 parts

4

per million to about 340 parts per million in 1981 and acknowledged that despite differences in

5

climate modelers’ predictions, all models indicated a temperature increase caused by

6

anthropogenic CO2 within a global mean range of 4º C (7.2° F). The report advised that there was

7

scientific consensus that “a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from [] pre-industrial revolution value

8

would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [5.4 ± 2.7° F].” It went further,

9

warning that “[s]uch a warming can have serious consequences for man’s comfort and survival

10

since patterns of aridity and rainfall can change, the height of the sea level can increase

11

considerably and the world food supply can be affected.” 91 Exxon’s own modeling research

12

confirmed this, and the company’s results were later published in at least three peer-reviewed

13

scientific papers. 92

14

99.

Also in 1982, Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Manager distributed a primer on

15

climate change to a “wide circulation [of] Exxon management . . . intended to familiarize Exxon

16

personnel with the subject.” 93 The primer also was “restricted to Exxon personnel and not to be

17

distributed externally.” 94 The primer compiled science on climate change available at the time,

18

and confirmed fossil fuel combustion as a primary anthropogenic contributor to global warming.

19

The report estimated a CO2 doubling around 2090 based on Exxon’s long-range modeled outlook.

20

The author warned that the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet could result in global sea level rise

21
22
91

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

American Petroleum Institute, Climate Models and CO2 Warming: A Selective Review and Summary, LamontDoherty Geological Observatory (Columbia University) (March 1982),
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2805626/1982-API-Climate-Models-and-CO2-Warming-a.pdf.
92
See Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo summarizing findings of research in climate modeling, Exxon Research and
Engineering Company (September 2, 1982),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/%2522Consensus%2522%20on%20CO2%20Impacts%2
0(1982).pdf. (discussing research articles).
93
M. B. Glaser, Exxon Memo to Management about “CO2 ‘Greenhouse’ Effect”, Exxon Research and Engineering
Company (November 12, 1982),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhou
se%20Effect.pdf.
94
Id.

COMPLAINT

42

 1

of five feet which would “cause flooding on much of the U.S. East Coast, including the State of

2

Florida and Washington, D.C.” 95 Indeed, it warned that “there are some potentially catastrophic

3

events that must be considered,” including sea level rise from melting polar ice sheets. It noted

4

that some scientific groups were concerned “that once the effects are measurable, they might not

5

be reversible.” 96
100.

6

In a summary of Exxon’s climate modeling research from 1982, Director of

7

Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory Roger Cohen wrote that “the time

8

required for doubling of atmospheric CO2 depends on future world consumption of fossil fuels.”

9

Cohen concluded that Exxon’s own results were “consistent with the published predictions of more

10

complex climate models” and “in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased

11

atmospheric CO2 on climate.” 97
101.

12

At the fourth biennial Maurice Ewing Symposium at the Lamont-Doherty

13

Geophysical Observatory in October 1982, attended by members of API, Exxon Research and

14

Engineering Company president E.E. David delivered a speech titled: “Inventing the Future:

15

Energy and the CO2 ‘Greenhouse Effect.’” 98 His remarks included the following statement: “[F]ew

16

people doubt that the world has entered an energy transition away from dependence upon fossil

17

fuels and toward some mix of renewable resources that will not pose problems of CO2

18

accumulation.” He went on, discussing the human opportunity to address anthropogenic climate

19

change before the point of no return:

20

It is ironic that the biggest uncertainties about the CO2 buildup are not in predicting
what the climate will do, but in predicting what people will do. . . . [It] appears we
still have time to generate the wealth and knowledge we will need to invent the
transition to a stable energy system.

21
22
23
24
25

95

Id.
Id.
97
Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo summarizing findings of research in climate modeling, Exxon Research and
Engineering Company (September 2, 1982),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/%2522Consensus%2522%20on%20CO2%20Impacts%2
0(1982).pdf.
98
E. E. David, Jr., Inventing the Future: Energy and the CO2 Greenhouse Effect: Remarks at the Fourth Annual
Ewing Symposium, Tenafly, NJ (1982), http://sites.agu.org/publications/files/2015/09/ch1.pdf.
43
COMPLAINT
96

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

 102.

1

Throughout the early 1980s, at Exxon’s direction, Exxon climate scientist Henry

2

Shaw forecasted emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use. Those estimates were incorporated into

3

Exxon’s 21st century energy projections and were distributed among Exxon’s various divisions.

4

Shaw’s conclusions included an expectation that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would double in

5

2090 per the Exxon model, with an attendant 2.3–5.6º F average global temperature increase. Shaw

6

compared his model results to those of the U.S. EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, and the

7

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, indicating that the Exxon model predicted a longer delay

8

than any of the other models, although its temperature increase prediction was in the mid-range of

9

the four projections. 99
103.

10

During the 1980s, many Defendants formed their own research units focused on

11

climate modeling. The API, including the API CO2 Task Force, provided a forum for Defendants

12

to share their research efforts and corroborate their findings related to anthropogenic greenhouse

13

gas emissions. 100
104.

14

During this time, Defendants’ statements express an understanding of their

15

obligation to consider and mitigate the externalities of unabated promotion, marketing, and sale of

16

their fossil fuel products. For example, in 1988, Richard Tucker, the president of Mobil Oil,

17

presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers National Meeting, the premier

18

educational forum for chemical engineers, where he stated:

19

[H]umanity, which has created the industrial system that has transformed civilities,
is also responsible for the environment, which sometimes is at risk because of
unintended consequences of industrialization. . . . Maintaining the health of this
life-support system is emerging as one of the highest priorities. . . . [W]e must all
be environmentalists.

20
21
22
23

The environmental covenant requires action on many fronts…the low-atmosphere
ozone problem, the upper-atmosphere ozone problem and the greenhouse effect,

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

99

Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate
News (Dec. 1, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-seniorexecutives-engage-and-warming-forecast.
100
Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate
News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knewabout-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco.
44
COMPLAINT

 1

to name a few. . . . Our strategy must be to reduce pollution before it is ever
generated – to prevent problems at the source.

2

Prevention means engineering a new generation of fuels, lubricants and chemical
products. . . . Prevention means designing catalysts and processes that minimize
or eliminate the production of unwanted byproducts. . . . Prevention on a global
scale may even require a dramatic reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels—
and a shift towards solar, hydrogen, and safe nuclear power. It may be possible
that—just possible—that the energy industry will transform itself so completely
that observers will declare it a new industry. . . . Brute force, low-tech responses
and money alone won’t meet the challenges we face in the energy industry. 101

3
4
5
6
7

105.

8

In 1989, Esso Resources Canada (ExxonMobil) commissioned a report on the

9

impacts of climate change on existing and proposed natural gas facilities in the Mackenzie River

10

Valley and Delta, including extraction facilities on the Beaufort Sea and a pipeline crossing

11

Canada’s Northwest Territory. 102 It reported that “large zones of the Mackenzie Valley could be

12

affected dramatically by climatic change” and that “the greatest concern in Norman Wells [oil

13

town in North West Territories, Canada] should be the changes in permafrost that are likely to

14

occur under conditions of climate warming.” The report concluded that, in light of climate models

15

showing a “general tendency towards warmer and wetter climate,” operation of those facilities

16

would be compromised by increased precipitation, increase in air temperature, changes in

17

permafrost conditions, and significantly, sea level rise and erosion damage. 103 The authors

18

recommended factoring these eventualities into future development planning and also warned that

19

“a rise in sea level could cause increased flooding and erosion damage on Richards Island.”
106.

20

In 1991, Shell produced a film called “Climate of Concern.” The film advises that

21

while “no two [climate change projection] scenarios fully agree . . . [they] have each prompted the

22

same serious warning. A warning endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their

23

report to the UN at the end of 1990.” The warning was an increasing frequency of abnormal

24

weather, and of sea level rise of about one meter over the coming century. Shell specifically

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

101

Richard E. Tucker, High Tech Frontiers in the Energy Industry: The Challenge Ahead, AIChE National Meeting
(November 30, 1988), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754074119482?urlappend=%3Bseq=522.
102
Stephen Lonergan and Kathy Young, An Assessment of the Effects of Climate Warming on Energy
Developments in the Mackenzie River Valley and Delta, Canadian Arctic, Energy Exploration & Exploitation, Vol.
7, Issue 5 (Oct. 1, 1989), http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014459878900700508.
103
Id.
45
COMPLAINT

 1

described the impacts of anthropogenic sea level rise on tropical islands, “barely afloat even now

2

. . . [f]irst made uninhabitable and then obliterated beneath the waves. Wetland habitats destroyed

3

by intruding salt. Coastal lowlands suffering pollution of precious groundwater.” It warned of

4

“greenhouse refugees,” people who abandoned homelands inundated by the sea, or displaced

5

because of catastrophic changes to the environment. The video concludes with a stark admonition:

6

“Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that the wait for final proof would be

7

irresponsible. Action now is seen as the only safe insurance.” 104
107.

8

In the mid-1990s, ExxonMobil, Shell and Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil) jointly

9

undertook the Sable Offshore Energy Project in Nova Scotia. The project’s own Environmental

10

Impact Statement declared: “The impact of a global warming sea-level rise may be particularly

11

significant in Nova Scotia. The long-term tide gauge records at a number of locations along the

12

N.S. coast have shown sea level has been rising over the past century . . . . For the design of coastal

13

and offshore structures, an estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 m [1.64

14

feet] may be assumed for the proposed project life (25 years).” 105
108.

15

Climate change research conducted by Defendants and their industry associations

16

frequently acknowledged uncertainties in their climate modeling—those uncertainties, however,

17

were merely with respect to the magnitude and timing of climate impacts resulting from fossil fuel

18

consumption, not that significant changes would eventually occur. The Defendants’ researchers

19

and the researchers at their industry associations harbored little doubt that climate change was

20

occurring and that fossil fuel products were, and are, the primary cause.
109.

21

Despite the overwhelming information about the threats to people and the planet

22

posed by continued unabated use of their fossil fuel products, Defendants failed to act as they

23

reasonably should have to mitigate or avoid those dire adverse impacts. Defendants instead

24

adopted the position, as described below, that the absence of meaningful regulations on the

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

104

Jelmer Mommers, Shell made a film about climate change in 1991 (then neglected to heed its own warning), de
Correspondent (Feb. 27, 2017), https://thecorrespondent.com/6285/shell-made-a-film-about-climate-change-in1991-then-neglected-to-heed-its-own-warning/692663565-875331f6.
105
ExxonMobil, Sable Project, Development Plan, Volume 3 – Environmental Impact Statement
http://soep.com/about-the-project/development-plan-application/.
46
COMPLAINT

 1

consumption of their fossil fuel products was the equivalent of a social license to continue the

2

unfettered pursuit of profits from those products. This position was an abdication of Defendants’

3

responsibility to consumers and the public, including Plaintiffs, to act on their unique knowledge

4

of the reasonably foreseeable hazards of unabated production and consumption of their fossil

5

fuel products.

6

E.

Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Extraction,
Promotion and Consumption of Their Fossil Fuel Products and Instead
Affirmatively Acted to Obscure Those Harms and Engaged in a Concerted
Campaign to Evade Regulation.

110.

By 1988, Defendants had amassed a compelling body of knowledge about the role

7
8
9
10

of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and specifically those emitted from the normal use of

11

Defendants’ fossil fuel products, in causing global warming and sea level rise and the attendant

12

consequences for human communities and the environment. On notice that their products were

13

causing global climate change and dire effects on the planet, Defendants were faced with the

14

decision of whether to take steps to limit the damages their fossil fuel products were causing and

15

would continue to cause for virtually every one of Earth’s inhabitants, including the People of the

16

State of California, and the County of San Mateo and its citizens.

17

111.

Defendants at any time before or thereafter could and should reasonably have taken

18

any of a number of steps to mitigate the damages caused by their fossil fuel products, and their

19

own comments reveal an awareness of what some of these steps may have been. Defendants should

20

have made reasonable warnings to consumers, the public, and regulators of the dangers known to

21

Defendants of the unabated consumption of their fossil fuel products, and they should have taken

22

reasonable steps to limit the potential greenhouse gas emissions arising out of their fossil

23

fuel products.

24

112.

But several key events during the period 1988–1992 appear to have prompted

25

Defendants to change their tactics from general research and internal discussion on climate change

26

to a public campaign aimed at evading regulation of their fossil fuel products and/or emissions

27

therefrom. These include:

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

47

 a.

1

In 1988, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists

2

confirmed that human activities were actually contributing to global

3

warming. 106 On June 23 of that year, NASA scientist James Hansen’s

4

presentation of this information to Congress engendered significant news

5

coverage and publicity for the announcement, including coverage on the

6

front page of the New York Times.
b.

7

On July 28, 1988, Senator Robert Stafford and four bipartisan co-sponsors

8

introduced S. 2666, “The Global Environmental Protection Act,” to regulate

9

CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Four more bipartisan bills to significantly

10

reduce CO2 pollution were introduced over the following ten weeks, and in

11

August, U.S. Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush pledged that his

12

presidency would “combat the greenhouse effect with the White House

13

effect.” 107 Political will in the United States to reduce anthropogenic

14

greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the harms associated with

15

Defendants’ fossil fuel products was gaining momentum.
c.

16

In December 1988, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel

17

on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific panel dedicated to providing the

18

world’s governments with an objective, scientific analysis of climate

19

change and its environmental, political, and economic impacts.
d.

20

In 1990, the IPCC published its First Assessment Report on anthropogenic

21

climate change, 108 in which it concluded that (1) “there is a natural

22

greenhouse effect which already keeps the Earth warmer than it would

23

otherwise be,” and (2) that

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

106

See Peter C. Frumhoff et al., The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers, Climatic Change, Vol.
132, 161 (2015).
107
New York Times, The White House and the Greenhouse, May 9, 1998,
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/09/opinion/the-white-house-and-the-greenhouse.html.
108
See IPCC, Reports, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml.

COMPLAINT

48

 4

emissions resulting from human activities are substantially
increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse
gases carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse
effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the
Earth's surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will
increase in response to global warming and further enhance it. 109

5

The IPCC reconfirmed these conclusions in a 1992 supplement to

6

the First Assessment report. 110

1
2
3

7

e.

The United Nations began preparation for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de

8

Janeiro, Brazil, a major, newsworthy gathering of 172 world governments,

9

of which 116 sent their heads of state. The Summit resulted in the United

10

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an

11

international environmental treaty providing protocols for future

12

negotiations aimed at “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations in the

13

atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic

14

interference with the climate system.” 111

15

113.

These world events marked a shift in public discussion of climate change, and the

16

initiation of international efforts to curb anthropogenic greenhouse emissions – developments that

17

had stark implications for, and would have diminished the profitability of, Defendants’ fossil fuel

18

products.

19

114.

But rather than collaborating with the international community by acting to

20

forestall, or at least decrease, their fossil fuel products’ contributions to global warming, sea level

21

rise, and injuries to San Mateo and other coastal communities, Defendants embarked on a decades-

22

long campaign designed to maximize continued dependence on their products and undermine

23

national and international efforts like the Kyoto Protocol to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

109

IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Policymakers Summary (1990),
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf.
110
IPCC, 1992 IPCC Supplement to the First Assessment Report (1992),
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_90_92_assessments_far.shtml.
111
United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 2 (1992),
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
COMPLAINT

49

 115.

1

Defendants’ campaign, which focused on concealing, discrediting, and/or

2

misrepresenting information that tended to support restricting consumption of (and thereby

3

decreasing demand for) Defendants’ fossil fuel products, took several forms. The campaign

4

enabled Defendants to accelerate their business practice of exploiting fossil fuel reserves, and

5

concurrently externalize the social and environmental costs of their fossil fuel products. These

6

activities stood in direct contradiction to Defendants’ own prior recognition that the science of

7

anthropogenic climate change was clear and that the greatest uncertainties involved responsive

8

human behavior, not scientific understanding of the issue.
116.

9

Defendants took affirmative steps to conceal, from Plaintiffs and the general public,

10

the foreseeable impacts of the use of their fossil fuel products on the Earth’s climate and associated

11

harms to people and communities. Defendants embarked on a concerted public relations campaign

12

to cast doubt on the science connecting global climate change to fossil fuel products and

13

greenhouse gas emissions, in order to influence public perception of the existence of anthropogenic

14

global warming and sea level rise. The effort included promoting their hazardous products through

15

advertising campaigns and the initiation and funding of climate change denialist organizations,

16

designed to influence consumers to continue using Defendants’ fossil fuel products irrespective of

17

those products’ damage to communities and the environment.
117.

18

For example, in 1988, Joseph Carlson, an Exxon public affairs manager, described

19

the “Exxon Position,” which included among others, two important messaging tenets: (1)

20

“[e]mphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced

21

Greenhouse Effect;” and (2) “[r]esist the overstatement and sensationalization [sic] of potential

22

greenhouse effect which could lead to noneconomic development of non-fossil fuel resources.” 112
118.

23

In 1991, for example, the Information Council for the Environment (“ICE”), whose

24

members included affiliates, predecessors and/or subsidiaries of Defendants, including Peabody,

25

Ohio Valley Coal Company (Murray Energy), Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining (Chevron), and

26

Island Creek Coal Company (Occidental), launched a national climate change science denial

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

112

Joseph M. Carlson, Exxon Memo on “The Greenhouse Effect” (August 3, 1988),
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3024180/1998-Exxon-Memo-on-the-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf.
COMPLAINT

50

 1

campaign with full-page newspaper ads, radio commercials, a public relations tour schedule,

2

“mailers,” and research tools to measure campaign success. Included among the campaign

3

strategies was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” Its target audience included

4

older less-educated males who are “predisposed to favor the ICE agenda, and likely to be even

5

more supportive of that agenda following exposure to new info” as well as younger, lower-income

6

women likely to be “green” consumers but who “are also most likely to soften their support for

7

federal legislation after hearing new information on global warming.” 113 The effort focused on a

8

few select cities for their test marketing; these cities were selected on the basis that the majority of

9

their electricity came from coal, they were home to members of the U.S. House of Representatives

10

Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means committees, and they had low media costs. 114
119.

11

An implicit goal of ICE’s advertising campaign was to change public opinion and

12

avoid regulation. A memo from Richard Lawson, president of the National Coal Association asked

13

members to contribute to the ICE campaign with the justification that “policymakers are prepared

14

to act [on global warming]. Public opinion polls reveal that 60% of the American people already

15

believe global warming is a serious environmental problem. Our industry cannot sit on the

16

sidelines in this debate.” 115
120.

17

The following images are examples of ICE-funded print advertisements

18

challenging the validity of climate science and intended to obscure the scientific consensus on

19

anthropogenic climate change and induce political inertia to address it. 116

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

113

Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham,
(1991), http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf.
114
Id.
115
Naomi Oreskes, My Facts Are Better Than Your Facts: Spreading Good News about Global Warming (2010), in
Peter Howlett et al., How Well Do Facts Travel?: The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, 136-166. Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511762154.008.8.
116
Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham,
47–49 (1991), http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf.
51
COMPLAINT

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

SHER
EDLING LLP

121.

In 1996, Exxon released a publication called “Global Warming: Who’s Right?

12

Facts about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers.” In the publication’s preface,

13

Exxon CEO Lee Raymond stated that “taking drastic action immediately is unnecessary since

14

many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand the climate system.” The subsequent

15

article described the greenhouse effect as “unquestionably real and definitely a good thing,” while

16

ignoring the severe consequences that would result from the influence of the increased CO2

17

concentration on the Earth’s climate. Instead, it characterized the greenhouse effect as simply

18

“what makes the earth’s atmosphere livable.” Directly contradicting their own internal reports and

19

peer-reviewed science, the article ascribed the rise in temperature since the late 19th century to

20

“natural fluctuations that occur over long periods of time” rather than to the anthropogenic

21

emissions that Exxon and other scientists had confirmed were responsible. The article also falsely

22

challenged the computer models that projected the future impacts of unabated fossil fuel product

23

consumption, including those developed by Exxon’s own employees, as having been “proved to

24

be inaccurate.” The article contradicted the numerous reports circulated among Exxon’s staff, and

25

by the API, by stating that “the indications are that a warmer world would be far more benign than

26

many imagine . . . moderate warming would reduce mortality rates in the US, so a slightly warmer

27

climate would be more healthful.” Raymond concluded his preface by attacking advocates for

28

limiting the use of his company’s fossil fuel products as “drawing on bad science, faulty logic, or
52
COMPLAINT

 1

unrealistic assumptions”—despite the important role that Exxon’s own scientists had played in

2

compiling those same scientific underpinnings. 117
122.

3

In a speech presented at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing in 1997 at which

4

many of the Defendants were present, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond reiterated these views. This time,

5

he presented a false dichotomy between stable energy markets and abatement of the marketing,

6

promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products known to Defendants to be hazardous. He stated:

7

Some people who argue that we should drastically curtail our use of fossil fuels
for environmental reasons…my belief [is] that such proposals are neither prudent
nor practical. With no readily available economic alternatives on the horizon,
fossil fuels will continue to supply most of the world’s and this region’s energy
for the foreseeable future.

8
9
10
11

Governments also need to provide a stable investment climate…They should
avoid the temptation to intervene in energy markets in ways that give advantage
to one competitor over another or one fuel over another.

12
13

We also have to keep in mind that most of the greenhouse effects comes from
natural sources . . . . Leaping to radically cut this tiny sliver of the greenhouse pie
on the premise that it will affect climate defies common sense and lacks foundation
in our current understanding of the climate system.

14
15
16

Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change in
the 21st century and beyond. . . . It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the
middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are
enacted now or 20 years from now. It’s bad public policy to impose very costly
regulations and restrictions when their need has yet to be proven. 118

17
18
19
20

123.

Imperial Oil CEO Robert Peterson falsely denied the established connection

21

between Defendants’ fossil fuel products and anthropogenic climate change in the Summer 1998

22

Imperial Oil Review, “A Cleaner Canada”:

23

[T]his issue [referring to climate change] has absolutely nothing to do with
pollution and air quality. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential
ingredient of life on this planet. . . . [T]he question of whether or not the trapping

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

117

Exxon Corp., Global warming: who’s right?, (1996), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805542Exxon-Global-Warming-Whos-Right.html.
118
Lee R. Raymond, Energy – Key to growth and a better environment for Asia-Pacific nations, World Petroleum
Congress (October 13, 1997), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2840902/1997-Lee-Raymond-Speech-atChina-World-Petroleum.pdf.
53
COMPLAINT

 1

of ‘greenhouse gases will result in the planet’s getting warmer…has no connection
whatsoever with our day-to-day weather.

2

5

There is absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not the planet
is getting warmer, or, if it is, on whether the warming is the result of man-made
factors or natural variations in the climate. . . . I feel very safe in saying that the
view that burning fossil fuels will result in global climate change remains an
unproved hypothesis. 119

6

124.

3
4

Mobil (ExxonMobil) paid for a series of “advertorials,” advertisements located in

7

the editorial section of the New York Times and meant to look like editorials rather than paid ads.

8

These ads discussed various aspects of the public discussion of climate change and sought to

9

undermine the justifications for tackling greenhouse gas emissions as unsettled science. The 1997

10

advertorial below 120 argued that economic analysis of emissions restrictions was faulty and

11

inconclusive and therefore a justification for delaying action on climate change.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

119

Robert Peterson, A Cleaner Canada in Imperial Oil Review (Summer 1998),
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2827818-1998-Imperial-Oil-Robert-Peterson-A-Cleaner-Canada.html.
120
Mobil, When Facts Don’t Square with the Theory, Throw Out the Facts (1997) New York Times, A31 (August
14, 1997), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705550-mob-nyt-1997-aug-14-whenfactsdontsquare.html.
54
COMPLAINT

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

55

 125.

1

In 1998, API, on behalf of Defendants, among other fossil fuel companies and

2

organizations supported by fossil fuel corporate grants, developed a Global Climate Science

3

Communications Plan that stated that unless “climate change becomes a non-issue . . . there may

4

be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts.” Rather, API proclaimed that “[v]ictory

5

will be achieved when . . . average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate

6

science; [and when] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”121

7

The multi-million-dollar, multi-year proposed budget included public outreach and the

8

dissemination of educational materials to schools to “begin to erect a barrier against further efforts

9

to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future” 122—a blatant attempt to disrupt international efforts,

10

pursuant to the UNFCCC, to negotiate a treaty that curbed greenhouse gas emissions.
126.

11

Soon after, API distributed a memo to its members identifying public agreement on

12

fossil fuel role in climate change as its highest priority issue. 123 The memorandum illuminates

13

API’s and Defendants’ concern over the potential regulation of Defendants’ fossil fuel products:

14

“Climate is at the center of the industry’s business interests. Policies limiting carbon emissions

15

reduce petroleum product use. That is why it is API’s highest priority issue and defined as

16

‘strategic.’” 124 Further, the API memo stresses many of the strategies that Defendants individually

17

and collectively utilized to combat the perception of their fossil fuel products as hazardous. These

18

included:
a.

19

Influencing the tenor of the climate change “debate” as a means to establish

20

that greenhouse gas reduction policies like the Kyoto Protocol were not

21

necessary to responsibly address climate change;

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

121

Joe Walker, E-mail to Global Climate Science Team, attaching the Draft Global Science Communications Plan
(April 3, 1998), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communicationsplan.pdf.
122
Joe Walker, E-mail to Global Climate Science Team, attaching the Draft Global Science Communications Plan
(April 3, 1998), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communicationsplan.pdf.
123
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Allegations of Political Interference with Government
Climate Change Science, page 51 (March 19, 2007), https://ia601904.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG110hhrg37415/CHRG-110hhrg37415.pdf.
124
Id.
56
COMPLAINT

 b.

1

Maintaining strong working relationships between government regulators

2

and communications-oriented organizations like the Global Climate

3

Coalition, the Heartland Institute, and other groups carrying Defendants’

4

message minimizing the hazards of the unabated use of their fossil fuel

5

products and opposing regulation thereof;
c.

6

Building the case for (and falsely dichotomizing) Defendants’ positive

7

contributions to a “long-term approach” (ostensibly for regulation of their

8

products) as a reason for society to reject short term fossil fuel emissions

9

regulations, and engaging in climate change science uncertainty research;
and

10

d.

11

Presenting Defendants’ positions on climate change in domestic and
international forums, including by preparing rebuttals to IPCC reports.

12

127.

13

Additionally, Defendants mounted a campaign against regulation of their business

14

practices in order to continue placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce, despite

15

their own knowledge and the growing national and international scientific consensus about the

16

hazards of doing so. These efforts came despite Defendants’ recent recognition that “risks to nearly

17

every facet of life on Earth . . . could be avoided only if timely steps were taken to address climate

18

change.” 125

19

128.

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), on behalf of Defendants and other fossil fuel

20

companies, funded advertising campaigns and distributed material to generate public uncertainty

21

around the climate debate, with the specific purpose of preventing U.S. adoption of the Kyoto

22

Protocol, despite the leading role that the U.S. had played in the Protocol negotiations. 126 Despite

23

an internal primer stating that various “contrarian theories” [i.e., climate change skepticism] do

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

125

Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate
News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knewabout-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco.
126
Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate
News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knewabout-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco.

COMPLAINT

57

 1

not “offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-

2

induced climate change,” GCC excluded this section from the public version of the backgrounder

3

and instead funded efforts to promote some of those same contrarian theories over subsequent

4

years. 127
129.

5

The efforts by the Defendants and other fossil fuel interests to sow uncertainty and

6

prevent regulation have been successful. GCC and its cohorts staved off greenhouse gas regulation

7

in the U.S., as indicated by U.S. Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky’s talking points

8

compiled before a 2001 meeting with GCC representatives: “POTUS [President of the United

9

States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on [GCC’s] input.” 128 When GCC disbanded later that year,

10

it commemorated the occasion on its website by stating that “the industry voice on climate change

11

has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming.” 129
130.

12

A key strategy in Defendants’ efforts to discredit scientific consensus on climate

13

change and the IPCC was to bankroll scientists who, although accredited, held fringe opinions that

14

were even more questionable given the sources of their research funding. These scientists obtained

15

part or all of their research budget from Defendants directly or through Defendant-funded

16

organizations like API, 130 but they frequently failed to disclose their fossil fuel industry

17

underwriters. 131
131.

18

Creating a false sense of disagreement in the scientific community (despite the

19

consensus that its own scientists, experts, and managers had previously acknowledged) has had an

20

evident impact on public opinion. A 2007 Yale University-Gallup poll found that while 71% of

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

127

Gregory J. Dana, Memo to AIAM Technical Committee Re: Global Climate Coalition (GCC) – Primer on
Climate Change Science – Final Draft, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (January 18, 1996),
http://www.webcitation.org/6FyqHawb9.
128
Ken Brill, Briefing Memorandum to Under Secretary Dobriansky, Your Meeting with members of the Global
Climate Coalition, June 21, 2001, 9:10 – 9:50 a.m., United States Department of State (June 20, 2001),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Global%20Climate%20Coalition%20Meeting%20%2820
01%29.pdf.
129
Global Climate Coalition, A Voice for Business in the Global Warming Debate (April 3, 2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20030408231206/http:/globalclimate.org/index.htm.
130
Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years, Climate
Research 23, 88-110 (January 31, 2003), http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf.
131
Newsdesk, Smithsonian Statement: Dr. Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon, Smithsonian (February 26, 2015),
http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-statement-dr-wei-hock-willie-soon.

COMPLAINT

58

 1

Americans personally believed global warming was happening, only 48% believed that there was

2

a consensus among the scientific community, and 40% believed there was a lot of disagreement

3

among scientists over whether global warming was occurring. 132
132.

4

2007 was the same year the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report, in which

5

it concluded that “there is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750

6

has been one of warming.” 133 The IPCC defined “very high confidence” as at least a 9 out of 10

7

chance. 134
133.

8

Defendants borrowed pages out of the playbook of prior denialist campaigns. A

9

“Global Climate Science Team” (“GCST”) was created that mirrored a front group created by the

10

tobacco industry, known as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, whose purpose was to

11

sow uncertainty about the fact that cigarette smoke is carcinogenic. The GCST’s membership

12

included Steve Milloy (a key player on the tobacco industry’s front group), Exxon’s senior

13

environmental lobbyist; an API public relations representative; and representatives from Chevron

14

and Southern Company that drafted API’s 1998 Communications Plan. There were no scientists

15

on the “Global Climate Science Team.” GCST developed a strategy to spend millions of dollars

16

manufacturing climate change uncertainty. Between 2000 and 2004, Exxon donated $110,000 to

17

Milloy’s efforts and another organization, the Free Enterprise Education Institute and $50,000 to

18

the Free Enterprise Action Institute, both registered to Milloy’s home address. 135
134.

19

Defendants by and through their trade association memberships, worked directly,

20

and often in a deliberately obscured manner, to evade regulation of the emissions resulting from

21

use of their fossil fuel products. For instance, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

132

American Opinions on Global Warming: A Yale/Gallup/Clearvision Poll, Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication (July 31, 2007), http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/american-opinions-on-globalwarming//.
133
IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers, page 3 (emphasis in original), Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (2007), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.
134
Id.
135
Seth Shulman et al. Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture
Uncertainty on Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, 19 (January 2007),
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf.

COMPLAINT

59

 1

(ACCCE), on behalf of Defendants, hired a lobbying firm, which posed as various nonprofits and

2

sent letters to persuade members of Congress to vote against the American Clean Energy and

3

Security Act of 2009, which would have imposed a carbon cap and trade program in the U.S.136

4

Instead, the letters falsely and misleadingly purported to come from groups representing local

5

minority communities, including a local NAACP chapter and a Latino advocacy group. 137
135.

6

The same year, in 2009, a leaked email revealed a campaign by API to organize

7

“grass roots” rallies of “energy citizens” to coincide with the United States Congress’s August

8

recess, to oppose the Clean Energy and Security Act, the climate change bill that had just passed

9

the House and was headed to the Senate for debate. 138 Ostensibly intended to “allow people to

10

voice their concerns” and opposing the need for concerted efforts to combat climate change, emails

11

from API to its members state that “it’s important our views be heard,” and that “success for these

12

events will be the diversity of the participants expressing the same message,” which was ultimately

13

misleading and contrary to the acknowledged scientific consensus. 139 The purpose of the events

14

was to “put a human face” on the industry’s misleading and unsupported position and to reinforce

15

that misleading position in the minds of the public. The same emails to API members stated that

16

“our messages on [similar] legislation work extremely well and are very persuasive with the

17

general public and policy influentials.” Moreover, the email stated that API would “provide the

18

up-front resources to ensure logistical issues do not become a problem,” but insisted that member

19

companies “provide significant attendance.” 140
136.

20
21

Emails between American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (“AFPM”), a

national lobbying group, and the office of then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt evidence

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

136

Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #4: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Forged
Letters (2009) http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-4_ACCCEforged-letters.pdf.
137
Brian McNeill, Lobbying letters to Perriello found to be fakes, Richmond Times-Dispatch (Aug. 1, 2009)
http://www.richmond.com/news/lobbying-letters-to-perriello-found-to-be-fakes/article_3f8f5a2b-cf38-54d9-98f7ba21c4eb51fe.html.
138
Alex Kaplun, ‘Energy Citizens’ Take Aim at Climate Legislation, N.Y. Times (Aug. 12, 2009)
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/08/12/12greenwire-energy-citizens-take-aim-at-climate-legislatio-54732.html.
139
Phil Radford, Letter to Jack Gerard, President & CEO of API, Greenpeace (August 2009)
https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/GP%20API%20letter%20August%202009-1.pdf.
140
Id.

COMPLAINT

60

 1

an effort to influence EPA regulations that would have mitigated reliance on Defendants’ fossil

2

fuel products by requiring renewable fuel production. 141 BP Petrochemicals, BP Products North

3

America, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation,

4

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Phillips 66, Shell Chemical Company, Total Petrochemicals &

5

Refining USA, Inc., are among AFPM’s members.
137.

6

A 2014 presentation revealed that the Western States Petroleum Association, on

7

behalf of Defendants, among other fossil fuel companies, funded dozens of supposedly grassroots

8

organizations to block progressive energy regulation. 142 This practice is called “astroturfing”:

9

astroturf is meant to look like grass, but it is fake. Similarly, large companies and corporate

10

organizations like WSPA fund fake grassroots movements to gain credibility from the public, who

11

does not know the true source of the propaganda.
138.

12

Beyond direct interference, Defendants have funded dozens of think tanks, front

13

groups, lobbyists, and dark money foundations pushing climate change denial. These include the

14

Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, Frontiers for Freedom, Committee for a

15

Constructive Tomorrow, and Heritage Foundation. From 1998 to 2014 ExxonMobil spent almost

16

$31 million funding numerous organizations misrepresenting the scientific consensus that

17

Defendants’ fossil fuel products were causing climate change, sea level rise, and injuries to San

18

Mateo, among other coastal communities. 143 Several Defendants have been linked to other groups

19

that undermine the scientific basis linking Defendants’ fossil fuel products to climate change and

20

sea level rise, including the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (Arch Coal 144) and the Frontiers

21

of Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Center for the Study of Carbon

22

Dioxide and Global Change (Peabody Energy). 145

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

141

Email chain from Moskowitz to Eubanks, Renewable Fuel Standard -Background Information (July 13, 2013)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3472961-2013-Pruitt-and-American-Fuel-and-Petrochemical.html.
142
WSPA Priority Issues, Western States Petroleum Association (November 11, 2014)
https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/12/12/washington_research_council_-_cathy_reheis-boyd.pdf.
143
ExxonSecrets.org, ExxonMobil Climate Denial Funding 1998–2014 http://exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php.
144
Seth Shulman et al. Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture
Uncertainty on Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, 19 (January 2007),
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf.
145
In re: Peabody Energy Corporation, et al., (E.D. Mo.), Certificate of Service, Doc. Number 602, 140 (May 27,
2016), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2859772.
61
COMPLAINT

 139.

1

Exxon acknowledged its own previous success in sowing uncertainty and slowing

2

mitigation through funding of climate denial groups. In its 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report,

3

Exxon declared: “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research

4

groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on

5

how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally

6

responsible manner.” 146 Despite this pronouncement, Exxon remained financially associated with

7

several such groups after the report’s publication.
140.

8

Defendants could have contributed to the global effort to mitigate the impacts of

9

greenhouse gas emissions by, for example delineating practical policy goals and regulatory

10

structures that would have allowed them to continue their business ventures while reducing

11

greenhouse gas emissions and supporting a transition to a lower carbon future. Instead, Defendants

12

undertook a momentous effort to evade international and national regulation of greenhouse gas

13

emissions to enable them to continue unabated fossil fuel production.
141.

14

As a result of Defendants’ tortious, false and misleading conduct, reasonable

15

consumers of Defendants’ fossil fuel products and policy-makers, have been deliberately and

16

unnecessarily deceived about: the role of fossil fuel products in causing global warming and sea

17

level rise; the acceleration of global warming since the mid-20th century and the continuation

18

thereof; and about the fact that the continued increase in fossil fuel product consumption that

19

creates severe environmental threats and significant economic costs for coastal communities,

20

including San Mateo County. Reasonable consumers and policy makers have also been deceived

21

about the depth and breadth of the state of the scientific evidence on anthropogenic climate change,

22

and in particular on the strength of the scientific consensus demonstrating the role of fossil fuels

23

in causing both climate change and a wide range of potentially destructive impacts, including sea

24

level rise.

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

146

ExxonMobil, 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report (December 31, 2007).).
COMPLAINT

62

 1

F.

In Contrast to Their Public Statements, Defendants’ Internal Actions
Demonstrate their Awareness of and Intent to Profit from the Unabated Use
of Fossil Fuel Products.

142.

In contrast to their public-facing efforts challenging the validity of the scientific

2
3
4

consensus about anthropogenic climate change, Defendants’ acts and omissions evidence their

5

internal acknowledgement of the reality of sea level rise and its likely consequences. These actions

6

include, but are not limited to, making multi-billion-dollar infrastructure investments for their own

7

operations that acknowledge the reality of coming anthropogenic climate-related change. These

8

investments included (among others), raising offshore oil platforms to protect against sea level

9

rise; reinforcing offshore oil platforms to withstand increased wave strength and storm severity;

10

and developing and patenting designs for equipment intended to extract crude oil and/or natural

11

gas in areas previously unreachable because of the presence of polar ice sheets. 147
143.

12

For example, in 1973 Exxon obtained a patent for a cargo ship capable of breaking

13

through sea ice 148 and for an oil tanker 149 designed specifically for use in previously unreachable

14

areas of the Arctic.

15

144.

In 1974, Chevron obtained a patent for a mobile arctic drilling platform designed

16

to withstand significant interference from lateral ice masses, 150 allowing for drilling in areas with

17

increased ice floe movement due to elevated temperature.
145.

18

That same year, Texaco (Chevron) worked toward obtaining a patent for a method

19

and apparatus for reducing ice forces on a marine structure prone to being frozen in ice through

20

natural weather conditions, 151 allowing for drilling in previously unreachable Arctic areas that

21

would become seasonally accessible.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

147

Amy Lieberman and Suzanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, L.A. Times
(December 31, 2015) http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/.
148
Patents, Icebreaking cargo vessel, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (April 17, 1973)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3727571.
149
Patents, Tanker vessel, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (July 17, 1973)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3745960.
150
Patents, Arctic offshore platform, Chevron Res (August 27, 1974) https://www.google.com/patents/US3831385.
151
Patents, Mobile, arctic drilling and production platform, Texaco Inc. (February 26, 1974)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3793840.

COMPLAINT

63

 1

146.

Shell obtained a patent similar to Texaco’s (Chevron) in 1984. 152

2

147.

In 1989, Norske Shell, Royal Dutch Shell’s Norwegian subsidiary, altered designs

3

for a natural gas platform planned for construction in the North Sea to account for anticipated sea

4

level rise. Those design changes were ultimately carried out by Shell’s contractors, adding

5

substantial costs to the project. 153
a.

6

The Troll field, off the Norwegian coast in the North Sea, was proven to

7

contain large natural oil and gas deposits in 1979, shortly after Norske Shell

8

was approved by Norwegian oil and gas regulators to operate a portion of

9

the field.
b.

10

In 1986, the Norwegian parliament granted Norske Shell authority to

11

complete the first development phase of the Troll field gas deposits, and

12

Norske Shell began designing the “Troll A” gas platform, with the intent to

13

begin operation of the platform in approximately 1995. Based on the very

14

large size of the gas deposits in the Troll field, the Troll A platform was

15

projected to operate for approximately 70 years.
c.

16

The platform was originally designed to stand approximately 100 feet above

17

sea level—the amount necessary to stay above waves in a once-in-a-century

18

strength storm.
d.

19

In 1989, Shell engineers revised their plans to increase the above-water

20

height of the platform by 3–6 feet, specifically to account for higher

21

anticipated average sea levels and increased storm intensity due to global

22

warming over the platform’s 70-year operational life. 154
e.

23

Shell projected that the additional 3–6 feet of above-water construction
would increase the cost of the Troll A platform by as much as $40 million.

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

152

Patents, Arctic offshore platform, Shell Oil Company (January 24, 1984)
https://www.google.com/patents/US4427320.
153
Greenhouse Effect: Shell Anticipates A Sea Change, N.Y. Times (December 20, 1989)
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/greenhouse-effect-shell-anticipates-a-sea-change.html.
154
Id.; Amy Lieberman and Suzanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, L.A.
Times (December 31, 2015), http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/.
COMPLAINT

64

 1

G.

Defendants’ Actions Prevented the Development of Alternatives That Would
Have Eased the Transition to a Less Fossil Fuel Dependent Economy.

148.

The harms and benefits of Defendants’ conduct can be balanced in part by weighing

2
3
4

the social benefit of extracting and burning a unit of fossil fuels against the costs that a unit of fuel

5

imposes on society, known as the “social cost of carbon” or “SCC.”

6

149.

Because climatic responses to atmospheric temperature increases are non-linear,

7

and because greenhouse gas pollution accumulates in the atmosphere, some of which does not

8

dissipate for potentially thousands of years (namely CO2), there is broad agreement that SCC

9

increases as emissions rise, and as the climate warms. Relatedly, as atmospheric CO2 levels and

10

surface temperature increase, the costs of remediating any individual environmental injury—for

11

example infrastructure to mitigate sea level rise, and changes to agricultural processes—also

12

increases. In short, each additional ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere will have a greater net

13

social cost as emissions increase, and each additional ton of CO2 will have a greater net social cost

14

as global warming accelerates.

15

150.

A critical corollary of the non-linear relationship between atmospheric CO2

16

concentrations and SCC is that delayed efforts to curb those emissions have increased

17

environmental harms and will increase the magnitude and cost to remediate harms that have

18

already occurred or are locked in by previous emissions. Therefore, Defendants’ campaign to

19

obscure the science of climate change and to expand the extraction and use of fossil fuels greatly

20

increased and continues to increase the harms and rate of harms suffered by the County and

21

the People.

22

151.

The consequences of delayed action on climate change, exacerbated by Defendants’

23

actions, has already drastically increased the cost of mitigating further harm. Had concerted action

24

begun even as late as 2005, an annual 3.5% reduction in CO2 emissions to lower atmospheric CO2

25

to 350 ppm by the year 2100 would have restored earth’s energy balance 155 and halted future global

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

155
“Climate equilibrium” is the balance between Earth’s absorption of solar energy and its own energy radiation.
Earth is currently out of equilibrium due to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which prevent
radiation of energy into space. Earth therefore warms and move back toward energy balance. Reduction of global

COMPLAINT

65

 1

warming, although such efforts would not forestall committed sea level rise already locked in156

2

If efforts do not begin until 2020, however, a 15% annual reduction will be required to restore the

3

Earth’s energy balance by the end of the century. 157 Earlier steps to reduce emissions would have

4

led to smaller—and less disruptive—measures needed to mitigate the impacts of fossil fuel

5

production.

6

152.

The costs of inaction and the opportunities to confront anthropogenic climate

7

change and sea level rise caused by normal consumption of their fossil fuel products, were not lost

8

on Defendants. In a 1997 speech by John Browne, Group Executive for BP America, at Stanford

9

University, Browne described Defendants’ and the entire fossil fuel industry’s responsibility and

10

opportunities to reduce use of fossil fuel products, reduce global CO2 emissions, and mitigate the

11

harms associated with the use and consumption of such products:

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

A new age demands a fresh perspective of the nature of society and responsibility.
We need to go beyond analysis and to take action. It is a moment for change and
for a rethinking of corporate responsibility. . . .
[T]here is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and
serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a
discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration
of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.
The prediction of the IPCC is that over the next century temperatures might rise by
a further 1 to 3.5 degrees centigrade [1.8º – 6.3º F], and that sea levels might rise
by between 15 and 95 centimetres [5.9 and 37.4 inches]. Some of that impact is
probably unavoidable, because it results from current emissions. . . .

21

[I]t would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.

22

The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm is necessary to re-achieve energy balance, if the aim is to stabilize climate without
further global warming and attendant sea level rise. See James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate
Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature, 8
PLOS ONE 1, 4-5 (December 3, 2013), http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.
156
James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to
Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature, 8 PLOS ONE 1, 10 (December 3, 2013),
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.
157
James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to
Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature, 8 PLOS ONE 1, 10 (December 3, 2013),
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.
66
COMPLAINT

 1

between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven . . . but when
the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which
we are part. . . .

2
3

We [the fossil fuel industry] have a responsibility to act, and I hope that through
our actions we can contribute to the much wider process which is desirable and
necessary.

4
5

BP accepts that responsibility and we're therefore taking some specific steps.

6
7

To control our own emissions.

8

To fund continuing scientific research.

9

To take initiatives for joint implementation.

10

To develop alternative fuels for the long term.

11
12

And to contribute to the public policy debate in search of the wider global answers
to the problem.” 158

13

153.

Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the foreseeable, measurable harms associated

14

with the unabated consumption and use of their fossil fuel products, and despite the existence and

15

Defendants’ knowledge of technologies and practices that could have helped to reduce the

16

foreseeable dangers associated with their fossil fuel products, Defendants continued to market and

17

promote heavy fossil fuel use, dramatically increasing the cost of abatement. At all relevant times,

18

Defendants were deeply familiar with opportunities to reduce the use of their fossil fuel products,

19

reduce global CO2 emissions associated therewith, and mitigate the harms associated with the use

20

and consumption of such products. Examples of that recognition include, but are not limited to the

21

following:
a.

22

In 1963, Esso (Exxon) obtained multiple patents on technologies for fuel

23

cells, including on the design of a fuel cell and necessary electrodes, 159 and

24

on a process for increasing the oxidation of a fuel, specifically methanol, to

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

158

John Browne, BP Climate Change Speech to Stanford, Climate Files (May 19, 1997),
http://www.climatefiles.com/bp/bp-climate-change-speech-to-stanford/.
159
Patents, Fuel cell and fuel cell electrodes, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (December 31, 1963)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3116169.

COMPLAINT

67

 produce electricity in a fuel cell. 160

1

b.

2

In 1970, Esso (ExxonMobil) obtained a patent for a “low-polluting engine

3

and drive system” that used an interburner and air compressor to reduce

4

pollutant emissions, including CO2 emissions, from gasoline combustion

5

engines (the system also increased the efficiency of the fossil fuel products

6

used in such engines, thereby lowering the amount of fossil fuel product

7

necessary to operate engines equipped with this technology). 161
154.

8

Defendants could have made major inroads to mitigate Plaintiffs’ injuries through

9

technology by developing and employing technologies to capture and sequester greenhouse gases

10

emissions associated with conventional use of their fossil fuel products. Defendants had

11

knowledge dating at least back to the 1960s, and indeed, internally researched and perfected many

12

such technologies. For instance:

13

a.

The first patent for enhanced oil recovery technology, a process by which

14

CO2 is captured and reinjected into oil deposits, was granted to an ARCO

15

(BP) subsidiary in 1952. 162 This technology could have been further

16

developed as a carbon capture and sequestration technique;
b.

17

Phillips Petroleum Company (ConocoPhillips) obtained a patent in 1966 for

18

a “Method for recovering a purified component from a gas” outlining a

19

process to remove carbon from natural gas and gasoline streams; 163 and
c.

20

In 1973, Shell was granted a patent for a process to remove acidic gases,
including CO2, from gaseous mixtures.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

160

Patents, Direct production of electrical energy from liquid fuels, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (December 3,
1963) https://www.google.com/patents/US3113049.
161
Patents, Low-polluting engine and drive system, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (May 16, 1970)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3513929.
162
James P. Meyer, Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2EOR) Injection Well Technology,
American Petroleum Institute, page 1, http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/EHS/climate-change/Summary-carbondioxide-enhanced-oil-recovery-well-tech.pdf.
163
Patents, Method for recovering a purified component from a gas, Phillips Petroleum Co (January 11, 1966)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3228874.

COMPLAINT

68

 155.

1

Despite this knowledge, Defendants’ later forays into the alternative energy sector

2

were largely pretenses. For instance, in 2001, Chevron developed and shared a sophisticated

3

information management system to gather greenhouse gas emissions data from its explorations

4

and production to help regulate and set reduction goals. 164 Beyond this technological

5

breakthrough, Chevron touted “profitable renewable energy” as part of its business plan for several

6

years and launched a 2010 advertising campaign promoting the company’s move towards

7

renewable energy. Despite all this, Chevron rolled back its renewable and alternative energy

8

projects in 2014. 165

9

156.

Similarly, ConocoPhillips’ 2012 Sustainable Development report declared

10

developing renewable energy a priority in keeping with their position on sustainable development

11

and climate change. 166 Their 10-K filing from the same year told a different story: “As an

12

independent E&P company, we are solely focused on our core business of exploring for,

13

developing and producing crude oil and natural gas globally.” 167
157.

14

Likewise, while Shell orchestrated an entire public relations campaign around

15

energy transitions towards net zero emissions, a fine-print disclaimer in its 2016 net-zero pathways

16

report reads: “We have no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our

17

investment horizon of 10–20 years.” 168
158.

18

BP, appearing to abide by the representations Lord Browne made in his 1997

19

speech described above, engaged in a rebranding campaign to convey an air of environmental

20

stewardship and renewable energy to its consumers. This included renouncing its membership in

21

the GCC in 2007, changing its name from “British Petroleum” to “BP” while adopting the slogan

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

164

Chevron, Chevron Press Release – Chevron Introduces New System to Manage Energy Use (September 25,
2001) https://www.chevron.com/stories/chevron-introduces-new-system-to-manage-energy-use.
165
Benjamin Elgin, Chevron Dims the Lights on Green Power, Bloomberg (May 29, 2014)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-29/chevron-dims-the-lights-on-renewable-energy-projects.
166
ConocoPhillips, Sustainable Development (2013) http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainabledevelopment/Documents/2013.11.7%201200%20Our%20Approach%20Section%20Final.pdf.
167
ConocoPhillips Form 10-K, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Webpage (December 31, 2012)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1163165/000119312513065426/d452384d10k.htm.
168
Energy Transitions Towards Net Zero Emissions (NZE), Shell (2016),
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_L1nw8WLu0Bbi1QWnJRcHlZblE/view (as of June 2, 2017).

COMPLAINT

69

 1

“Beyond Petroleum,” and adopting a conspicuously green corporate logo. However, BP’s self-

2

touted “alternative energy” investments during this turnaround included investments in natural

3

gas, a fossil fuel, and in 2007 the company reinvested in Canadian tar sands, a particularly high-

4

carbon source of oil. 169 The company ultimately abandoned its wind and solar assets in 2011 and

5

2013, respectively, and even the “Beyond Petroleum” moniker in 2013. 170
159.

6

After posting a $10 billion quarterly profit, Exxon in 2005 stated that “We’re an oil

7

and gas company. In times past, when we tried to get into other businesses, we didn’t do it well.

8

We’d rather re-invest in what we know.” 171
160.

9

Even if Defendants did not adopt technological or energy source alternatives that

10

would have reduced use of fossil fuel products, reduced global greenhouse gas pollution, and/or

11

mitigated the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products, Defendants could

12

have taken other practical, cost-effective steps to reduce the use of their fossil fuel products, reduce

13

global greenhouse gas pollution associated therewith, and mitigate the harms associated with the

14

use and consumption of such products. These alternatives could have included, among other

15

measures:
a.

16

Accepting scientific evidence on the validity of anthropogenic climate

17

change and the damages it will cause people and communities, including

18

Plaintiffs, and the environment. Mere acceptance of that information would

19

have altered the debate from whether to combat climate change and sea

20

level rise to how to combat it; and avoided much of the public confusion

21

that has ensued over nearly 30 years, since at least 1988;
b.

22

Forthrightly communicating with Defendants’ shareholders, banks,

23

insurers, the public, regulators and Plaintiffs about the global warming and

24

sea level rise hazards of Defendants’ fossil fuel products that were known

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

169

Fred Pearce, Greenwash: BP and the Myth of a World ‘Beyond Petroleum,’ The Guardian, (November 20, 2008)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/20/fossilfuels-energy.
170
Javier E. David, ‘Beyond Petroleum’ No More? BP Goes Back to Basics, CNBC (April 20, 2013)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100647034.
171
James R. Healy, Alternate Energy Not in Cards at ExxonMobil (October 28, 2005)
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-27-oil-invest-usat_x.htm.
70
COMPLAINT

 1

to Defendants, would have enabled those groups to make material, informed

2

decisions about whether and how to address climate change and sea level

3

rise vis-à-vis Defendants’ products;
c.

4

Refraining from affirmative efforts, whether directly, through coalitions, or

5

through front groups, to distort public debate, and to cause many consumers

6

and business and political leaders to think the relevant science was far less

7

certain that it actually was;
d.

8

Sharing their internal scientific research with the public, and with other

9

scientists and business leaders, so as to increase public understanding of the

10

scientific underpinnings of climate change its relation to Defendants’ fossil

11

fuel products;
e.

12

Supporting and encouraging policies to avoid dangerous climate change,

13

and demonstrating corporate leadership in addressing the challenges of

14

transitioning to a low-carbon economy;
f.

15

Prioritizing alternative sources of energy through sustained investment

16

and research on renewable energy sources to replace dependence on

17

Defendants’ inherently hazardous fossil fuel products;
g.

18

Adopting their shareholders’ concerns about Defendants’ need to protect

19

their businesses from the inevitable consequences of profiting from their

20

fossil fuel products. Over the period of 1990-2015, Defendants’

21

shareholders proposed hundreds of resolutions to change Defendants’

22

policies and business practices regarding climate change. These included

23

increasing renewable energy investment, cutting emissions, and performing

24

carbon risk assessments, among others.

25

161.

Despite their knowledge of the foreseeable harms associated with the consumption

26

of Defendants’ fossil fuel products, and despite the existence and fossil fuel industry knowledge

27

of opportunities that would have reduced the foreseeable dangers associated with those products,

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

71

 1

Defendants wrongfully and falsely promoted, campaigned against regulation of, and concealed the

2

hazards of use of their fossil fuel products.

3

H.

Defendants Caused Plaintiffs’ Injuries

4

162.

Defendants individually and collectively extracted a substantial percentage of all

5

raw fossil fuels extracted globally since 1965.
163.

6

CO2 emissions that are attributable to fossil fuels that Defendants extracted from

7

the Earth and injected into the market are responsible for a substantial percentage of greenhouse

8

gas pollution since 1965.
164.

9

Defendants’ individual and collective conduct, including, but not limited to, their

10

extraction, refining, and/or formulation of fossil fuel products; their introduction of fossil fuel

11

products into the stream of commerce; their wrongful promotion of their fossil fuel products and

12

concealment of known hazards associated with use of those products; and their failure to pursue

13

less hazardous alternatives available to them; is a substantial factor in causing the increase in global

14

mean temperature and consequent increase in global mean sea surface height since 1965.
165.

15

Defendants have actually and proximately caused the sea levels to rise, increased

16

the destructive impacts of storm surges, increased coastal erosion, exacerbated the onshore impact

17

of regular tidal ebb and flow, caused saltwater intrusion, and caused consequent social and

18

economic injuries associated with the aforementioned physical and environmental impacts, among

19

other impacts, resulting in inundation, destruction, and/or other interference with Plaintiffs’

20

property and citizenry.
166.

21
22

Plaintiffs have already incurred, and will foreseeably continue to incur, injuries and

damages because of sea level rise caused by Defendants’ conduct.
167.

23

But for Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs would have suffered no or far less injuries

24

and damages than they have, and will foreseeably endure, due to expected anthropogenic sea level

25

rise.

26
27

168.

San Mateo County has experienced significant sea level rise over the last half

century attributable to Defendants’ conduct.

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

72

 169.

1

The San Francisco Bay Area, including San Mateo County, has experienced

2

significant sea level rise over the last half century attributable to Defendants’ conduct. 172 San

3

Mateo County will experience additional, significant, and dangerous sea level rise by 2100, 173 and

4

the increases will continue and accelerate. Additionally, San Mateo County will experience greater

5

committed sea level rise due to the “locked in” greenhouse gases already emitted. 174 The County

6

will suffer greater overall sea level rise than the global average. 175
170.

7

In addition to weather and climate changes already observed, the County is at an

8

increased risk of suffering extreme injuries in the future. For example, there is a 93% chance that

9

the County experiences a devastating three-foot flood before the year 2050, and a 50% chance that

10

such a flood occurs before 2030. Average sea level rise along the County’s shores are expected to

11

rise by almost three feet by the year 2100, causing multiple, predictable impacts, and exacerbating

12

the impacts of extreme events.
171.

13

San Mateo County published a Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analysis on April 5,

14

2017. The Assessment is the County’s first analysis of its overall vulnerability to sea level rise and

15

its impacts from permanent inundation, temporary flooding caused by storm events, erosion, and

16

saltwater intrusion. The Assessment formally identifies actual risks to the County expected with

17

three feet of sea level rise, and the consequences associated with taking no action to prevent or

18

mitigate the harms associated with those expected impacts.
172.

19

Areas of the County that already experience regular flooding and that will suffer

20

further due to elevated sea level include, but are not limited to, Pescadero (especially near

21

Pescadero and Butano Creeks), Half Moon Bay (especially near Denniston Creek), East Palo Alto,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

172

Griggs, et al. (CA Ocean Protection Council Science Advisory Team Working Group), Rising Seas in California:
An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science Trust (April 2017) p. 23, box 2, figure 2.
173
Gary Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science
Trust, p. 26, Table 1(b) (April 2017), http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-anupdate-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf.
174
Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 363-65 (2016).
175
Global sea level rise is projected to be 82.7 cm (32.6 inches) above 2000 levels by 2100. See National Research
Council, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future (2012) at
page 107 at Table 5.2; page 117 at Table 5.3. The San Francisco Bay Area sea level rise is projected to be 91.9 cm
(36.2 inches) over 2000 by 2100. Id.

COMPLAINT

73

 1

Menlo Park, and the Bayshore communities that adjoin the Bayfront and Highline Canals, the

2

Atherton Channel, and Belmont, San Mateo, Colma, San Francisquito and San Bruno Creeks. 176
a.

3

Among other County-owned facilities threatened by the rising water level,

4

San Mateo owns and operates the Coyote Point Recreation Area and Coyote

5

Point Marina, in the City of San Mateo on the shore of San Francisco Bay.

6

The recreation area includes a beach with swimming and wind-surfing

7

areas; several areas for picnicking; a youth playground; a Merchant Marine

8

Memorial; and houses a riflery range, a Wildlife Center, and the Coyote

9

Point Yacht club. The recreation area and Marina are at sea level, and the

10

recreation area is almost entirely flat, such that it is highly vulnerable to

11

inundation in the event of flooding.
b.

12

In addition, the County operates the James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve on

13

the Pacific Coast in the town of Moss Beach. The Fitzgerald Marine Reserve

14

covers three miles of shoreline, and encompasses a fragile, rocky intertidal

15

ecosystem featuring seaweed, crabs, sponges, anemones, sea stars,

16

mollusks, seals, and fish. The Reserve is a popular and scientifically and

17

ecologically important feature of the County, both for its residents and as

18

an attraction for visitors. Because the Reserve is an intertidal habitat and

19

includes partially submerged reefs, it is extremely sensitive to sea level

20

change, and could be permanently destroyed by inundation and flooding.
c.

21

The County further owns and operates critical civil infrastructure that will

22

be threatened with flooding and other harm from increase sea level rise,

23

including the County Center and Hall of Justice, a county animal shelter,

24

the San Carlos Airport, the Maple Street Shelter (a transitional and

25

emergency housing center), two county jails, and unincorporated residential

26

regions including portions of North Fair Oaks, and unincorporated mobile

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

176

See County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 66(April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
COMPLAINT

74

 1

home parks near Redwood City. Indeed, the unincorporated Harbor

2

Industrial Area adjacent to the City of Belmont is already vulnerable to

3

flooding today.
173.

4

Areas of the county that are already erosion hot spots and that will suffer further

5

erosion due to sea level rise include, but are not limited to, Middle and South Ocean Beach, Middle

6

and Lower Daly City, Manor District, Beach Boulevard, Sharp Park, Rockaway Cove, Linda Mar,

7

Princeton and the Pillar Point Harbor, El Granada County Beach, Mirada Road in Half Moon Bay,

8

and Año Nuevo State Park. 177

9

\\\

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

177

See County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 71, Figure 3A.2 (April
2017), http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
COMPLAINT

75

 174.

1

The following figure depicts the average high tide level on a daily basis with 1, 2,

2

and 3 feet of sea level rise. With different storm scenarios, much more area could be inundated.

3

As the image shows, much of the County, including some of its most critical infrastructure and

4

valuable Bay-front property, will be submerged at one foot of sea level rise. 178 Importantly, the

5

figure does not include inundation from storms or increased erosion; it shows only inundation

6

threats under average daily clear-weather high tides based on existing shoreline measurements.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

178

See County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 87 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
COMPLAINT

76

 175.

1

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants’

2

alleged herein, Plaintiffs have incurred millions of dollars of expenses related to planning for and

3

predicting future sea level rise injuries to its real property, improvements thereon, civil

4

infrastructure, and citizens, to preemptively mitigate and/or prevent such injuries. This includes

5

performing a Sea Level Vulnerability Assessment in 2017 at significant expense to the County,

6

which found that parcels of real property valued at a total of $23 billion situated on Plaintiff’s San

7

Francisco Bay shoreline will be threatened with serious or permanent inundation, and a need for

8

$910 million of infrastructural repair on its ocean coastline. Expected injuries include erosion of

9

ocean- and bay-adjacent public land, erosion and/or inundation of privately owned properties and

10

displacement of residents within the County.
176.

11

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged herein,

12

Plaintiffs have incurred sea level rise-related injuries and damages. These include infrastructural

13

repair and reinforcement of roads and beach access.
177.

14

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged herein,

15

Plaintiff’s real property has been inundated by sea water, causing injury and damages thereto and

16

to improvements thereon, and preventing free passage on, use of, and normal enjoyment of that

17

real property, or permanently destroying it. By way of example, Surfer’s Beach, one of Plaintiff’s

18

public beach properties near the city of Half Moon Bay, has lost 140 feet of accessible beach since

19

1964 due to erosion, which has been exacerbated and substantially contributed to by sea level rise

20

and increased extreme weather. 179
178.

21

Defendants’ conduct as described herein is therefore an actual, substantial, and

22

proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ sea level rise-related injuries.

23

\\\

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

179

See County of San Mateo, Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment, Public Draft, p. 87 (April 2017),
http://seachangesmc.com/current-efforts/vulnerability-assessment/.
COMPLAINT

77

 1

VI.

CAUSES OF ACTION

2

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

3

(Public Nuisance on Behalf of the People of the State of California)

4

(Against All Defendants)

5
6
7

179.

The People incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above, as

though set forth herein in full.
180.

Defendants, and each of them, by their affirmative acts and omissions, have created,

8

contributed to, and assisted in creating, a condition in San Mateo County, and permitted that

9

condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by, inter alia, increasing local sea level,

10

increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity and frequency of

11

storms and storm-related damage to the County and its residents.

12
13
14

181.

Defendants specifically created, contributed to, and/or assisted, and/or were a

substantial contributing factor in the creation of the public nuisance, by, inter alia:
a.

extracting raw fossil fuel products, including crude oil, coal, and natural gas

15

from the Earth, and placing those fossil fuel products into the stream of

16

commerce;

17

b.

affirmatively and knowingly promoting the sale and use of fossil fuel

18

products which Defendants knew to be hazardous and knew would lead to

19

global warming, sea level rise, more frequent and more intense flooding,

20

and more frequent and more intense storm surges;

21

c.

affirmatively and knowingly concealing the hazards that Defendants knew

22

would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products by

23

misrepresenting and casting doubt on the integrity of scientific information

24

related to climate change;

25

d.

disseminating and funding the dissemination of information intended to

26

mislead customers, consumers, elected officials and regulators regarding

27

known and foreseeable risk of climate change and its consequences, which

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

78

 1

follow from the normal, intended use and foreseeable misuse of

2

Defendants’ fossil fuel products;
e.

3

affirmatively and knowingly campaigning against the regulation of their

4

fossil fuel products, despite knowing the hazards associated with the normal

5

use of those products, in order to continue profiting from use of those

6

products by externalizing those known costs onto people, the environment,

7

and communities, including the People; and failing to warn the public about

8

the hazards associated with the use of fossil fuel products.

9

182.

The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects the

10

interests of the public at large. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency and

11

intensity, and increased flooding: (1) are harmful and dangerous to human health; (2) are indecent

12

and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person; (3) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free use

13

of the People’s property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property; and

14

(4) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes, rivers, bays,

15

streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways within San Mateo County.

16
17
18
19
20

183.

The People of the State of California have a common right to be free from the

increased severity of these hazards due to climate change and sea level rise.
184.

The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding

is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct because, inter alia,
a.

become so regular and severe that it will cause permanent inundation;

21
22

b.

the ultimate nature of the harm is the destruction of real and personal
property, rather than mere annoyance;

23
24

interference with the public’s rights as described above is expected to

c.

the interference borne is the loss of property and infrastructure within San

25

Mateo County, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s citizens as loss

26

of use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of tax dollars

27

away from other public services to sea level rise;

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

79

 d.

1
2

residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological, is not suitable for

3

regular inundation;
e.

4

the social benefit of placing fossil fuels into the stream of commerce is

5

outweighed by the availability of other sources of energy that could have

6

been placed into the stream of commerce that would not have caused sea

7

level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the external costs of

8

placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce, and rather

9

than striving to mitigate those externalities, Defendants instead acted
affirmatively to obscure them from public consciousness;

10

f.

11

the cost to society of each ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the

12

atmosphere increases as total global emissions increase, so that unchecked

13

extraction and consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and

14

costly than moderated extraction and consumption; and
g.

15

it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive

16

knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of

17

commerce and extensive scientific engineering expertise, to develop better

18

technologies and to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available

19

technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have

20

mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower

21

carbon economy.

22

185.

This public nuisance affects and/or interferes with the rights of an entire community

23

and/or the rights of a considerable number of persons in the State of California to health, safety,

24

peace, comfort, and convenience.

25

SHER
EDLING LLP

Plaintiff’s coastal property, which serves myriad uses including industrial,

186.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that

26

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

27

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and

28

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
COMPLAINT

80

 1

amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

2

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.

3

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, the

4

common rights enjoyed by the People of the State of California and by the general public in the

5

County of San Mateo have been unreasonably interfered with because Defendants knew or should

6

have known that their conduct would create a continuing problem with long-lasting significant

7

negative effects on the rights of the public.

8

188.

Defendants’ actions are a direct and legal cause of the public nuisance.

9

189.

The People of the State of California, acting through the County of San Mateo, have

10
11
12
13

a clearly ascertainable right to have the public nuisance created by Defendants abated.
190.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

the People of the State of California’s injuries as alleged herein.
191.

Wherefore, the People of the State of California pray for relief as set forth below.

14

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

15

(Public Nuisance on Behalf of San Mateo County)

16

(Against All Defendants)

17
18
19

192.

Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
193.

Defendants, and each of them, by their acts and omission, have created a condition

20

and permitted that condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by increasing sea level,

21

increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity and frequency of

22

storms, all of which have resulted in, and will continue to result in, injury to Plaintiff.

23

SHER
EDLING LLP

187.

194.

The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects the

24

interests of the public at large. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency and

25

intensity, and increased flooding: (1) are harmful and dangerous to human health; (2) are indecent

26

and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person; (3) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free use

27

of property within the County so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and

28

property; and (4) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes,
COMPLAINT

81

 1

rivers, bays, streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways within San

2

Mateo County.

3

195.

Plaintiff San Mateo County includes coastal communities with substantial numbers

4

of residents and citizens living on and near the coast, and substantial numbers of businesses and

5

amenities on or near the coast; the condition created by Defendants therefore affects substantial

6

numbers of people in Plaintiff’s communities at the same time.

7

196.

The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding

8

is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct. The seriousness of the

9

harm to Plaintiff San Mateo County outweighs the benefit of Defendants’ and each of their

10

conduct, because

11

a.

and severe as to be a permanent inundation;

12
13

b.

c.

the interference borne by Plaintiff is the loss of its property and

16

infrastructure, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s citizens as loss of

17

use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of tax dollars away

18

from other public services to sea level rise;

19

d.

Plaintiff’s coastal public and private property, which serves myriad uses

20

including industrial, residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological,

21

is not suitable for regular inundation;

22

e.

the burden on Plaintiff to mitigate and prevent the interference with its

23

property is significant and severe, as costs associated with addressing sea

24

level rise caused by Defendants are projected to be in the billions of dollars

25

over the next several decades;

26

SHER
EDLING LLP

the nature of the harm is the destruction of Plaintiff’s property, rather than
mere annoyance;

14
15

the interference with Plaintiff’s property is expected to become so regular

f.

the social benefit of placing fossil fuels into the stream of commerce, if any,

27

is outweighed by the availability of other sources of energy that could have

28

been placed into the stream of commerce that would not have caused sea
COMPLAINT

82

 1

level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the external costs of

2

placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce, and rather

3

than striving to mitigate those externalities, instead acted affirmatively to

4

obscure them from public consciousness;
g.

5
6

total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and

7

consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than

8

moderated extraction and consumption; and
h.

9

it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive

10

knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of

11

commerce and extensive scientific engineering expertise, to develop better

12

technologies and to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available

13

technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have

14

mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower

15

carbon economy.

16
17

197.

In addition to the harms suffered by the public at large, Plaintiff has suffered special

injuries different in kind. Among other harms,
a.

18

Plaintiff has been forced to spend or set aside significant funds to assess,

19

plan for, and enact infrastructure changes needed to mitigate rising sea

20

levels on Plaintiff’s publicly owned beaches and other public coastal

21

property;
b.

22

Plaintiff has had to plan for and provide additional emergency and other

23

public services in response to more frequent and more intense flooding and

24

storm surges on both properties owned by Plaintiff, and properties owned,

25

leased, and utilized by residents, citizens, and visitors to Plaintiff’s

26

communities.

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

the social cost of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as

198.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
COMPLAINT

83

 1

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and

2

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

3

amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

4

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.

5

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, the

6

County of San Mateo has been unreasonably interfered with because Defendants knew or should

7

have known that their conduct would create a continuing problem with long-lasting significant

8

negative effects on the rights of the public.

9

200.

Defendants’ actions are a direct and legal cause of the public nuisance.

10

201.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

11
12

San Mateo County’s injuries as alleged herein.
202.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

13

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

14

(Strict Liability—Failure to Warn on behalf of San Mateo County)

15

(Against All Defendants)

16
17
18

203.

Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
204.

Defendants, and each of them, extracted raw fossil fuel products, including crude

19

oil, coal, and natural gas from the Earth, and placed those fossil fuel products into the stream

20

of commerce.

21

205.

Defendants, and each of them, extracted, refined, formulated, designed, packaged,

22

distributed, tested, constructed, fabricated, analyzed, recommended, merchandised, advertised,

23

promoted and/or sold fossil fuel products, which were intended by Defendants, and each of them,

24

to be burned for energy, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or incorporated into

25

petrochemical products including fuels and plastics.

26

SHER
EDLING LLP

199.

206.

Defendants, and each of them, heavily marketed, promoted, and advertised fossil

27

fuel products and their derivatives, which were sold or used by their respective affiliates and

28

subsidiaries. Defendants received direct financial benefit from their affiliates’ and subsidiaries’
COMPLAINT

84

 1

sales of fossil fuel products. Defendants’ role as promoter and marketer was integral to their

2

respective businesses and a necessary factor in bringing fossil fuel products and their derivatives

3

to the consumer market, such that Defendants had control over, and a substantial ability to

4

influence, the manufacturing and distribution processes of their affiliates and subsidiaries.

5

Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and collectively knew or

6

should have known, in light of the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time, that fossil

7

fuel products, whether used as intended or misused in a foreseeable manner, release greenhouse

8

gases into the atmosphere that inevitably cause inter alia global warming, sea level rise, increased

9

intensity and frequency of nuisance flooding, and increased intensity and frequency of

10
11

storm surges.
208.

Throughout the times at issue and continuing today, fossil fuel products presented

12

and still present a substantial risk of injury to Plaintiff through the climate effects described above,

13

whether used as intended or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

14

209.

Throughout the times at issue, the ordinary consumer would not recognize that the

15

use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products causes global and localized changes in climate,

16

including those effects described herein.

17

210.

Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely

18

disseminated marketing materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time,

19

and advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations campaigns

20

and materials that prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing the risk that fossil fuel

21

products would cause grave climate changes, including those described herein.

22

211.

Defendants, and each of them, failed to adequately warn customers, consumers,

23

elected officials and regulators of known and foreseeable risk of climate change and the

24

consequences that inevitably follow from the normal, intended use and foreseeable misuse of

25

Defendants’ fossil fuel products.

26

SHER
EDLING LLP

207.

212.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that

27

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

28

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
COMPLAINT

85

 1

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

2

amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

3

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.

4

As a direct and proximate result of the defects previously described, fossil fuel

5

products caused Plaintiff San Mateo County to sustain the injuries and damages set forth in this

6

Complaint, including damage to publicly owned infrastructure and real property, and the creation

7

and maintenance of a nuisance that interferes with the rights of the County, its residents, and of

8

the People.

9
10
11

214.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

San Mateo County’s injuries as alleged herein.
215.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

12

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13

(Strict Liability—Design Defect on behalf of San Mateo County)

14

(Against All Defendants)

15
16
17

216.

Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
217.

Defendants, and each of them, extracted raw fossil fuel products, including crude

18

oil, coal, and natural gas from the Earth and placed those fossil fuel products into the stream of

19

commerce.

20

218.

Defendants, and each of them, extracted, refined, formulated, designed, packaged,

21

distributed, tested, constructed, fabricated, analyzed, recommended, merchandised, advertised,

22

promoted and/or sold fossil fuel products, which were intended by Defendants, and each of them,

23

to be burned for energy, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or incorporated into

24

petrochemical products including but not limited to fuels and plastics.

25

SHER
EDLING LLP

213.

219.

Defendants, and each of them, heavily marketed, promoted, and advertised fossil

26

fuel products and their derivatives, which were sold or used by their respective affiliates and

27

subsidiaries. Defendants’ received direct financial benefit from their affiliates’ and subsidiaries’

28

sales of fossil fuel products. Defendants role as promoter and marketer was integral to their
COMPLAINT

86

 1

respective businesses and a necessary factor in bringing fossil fuel products and their derivatives

2

to the consumer market, such that Defendants had control over, and a substantial ability to

3

influence, the manufacturing and distribution processes of their affiliates and subsidiaries.

4

220.

Throughout the time at issue, fossil fuel products have not performed as safely as

5

an ordinary consumer would expect them to because greenhouse gas emissions from their use

6

cause numerous global and local changes to Earth’s climate. In particular, ordinary consumers did

7

not expect that:
a.

8

of the industrial revolution, and by far the primary cause of global warming

9

acceleration in the 20th and 21st centuries;

10

b.

11

fossil fuel products are the primary cause of accelerating sea level rise since
the beginning of the 20th century;

12

c.

13

unmitigated use of fossil fuel products causes increased frequency and
intensity of nuisance flooding in coastal communities;

14

d.

15

fossil fuel products cause increased frequency and intensity of storm surges
in coastal communities;

16

e.

17

by increasing sea level rise, nuisance flooding, and storm surges, fossil fuel

18

products cause damage to publicly and privately owned coastal

19

infrastructure and buildings, including homes;
f.

20

the social cost of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as

21

total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and

22

consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than

23

moderated extraction and consumption; and
g.

24

for these reasons and others, the unmitigated use of fossil fuel products

25

present significant threats to the environment and human health and

26

welfare, especially in coastal communities.

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

fossil fuel products are the primary cause of global warming since the dawn

221.

Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely

disseminated marketing materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time,
COMPLAINT

87

 1

advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials, among

2

other public messaging efforts, that prevented reasonable consumers from forming an expectation

3

that fossil fuel products would cause grave climate changes, including those described herein.

4

222.

Additionally, and in the alternative, Defendants’ fossil fuel products are defective

5

because the risks they pose to consumers and to the public, including and especially to Plaintiff,

6

outweigh their benefits.

7

a.

the gravity of the potential harms caused by fossil fuel products is extreme;

8

global warming and its attendant consequences are guaranteed to occur

9

following the use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products because fossil

10

fuel products inherently release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and

11

global warming would continue to occur for decades even if all greenhouse

12

gas emissions ceased.

13

b.

the social benefit of the purpose of placing fossil fuels into the stream of

14

commerce is overshadowed by the availability of other sources of energy

15

that could have been placed into the stream of commerce that would not

16

have caused sea level rise and accordingly Plaintiff’s injuries; Defendants,

17

and each of them, knew of the external costs of placing their fossil fuel

18

products into the stream of commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate

19

those externalities, instead acted affirmatively to obscure them from public

20

consciousness.

21

c.

Defendants’ campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and the

22

climatic effects of fossil fuel products prevented customers, consumers,

23

regulators, and the general public from taking steps to mitigate the

24

inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating those

25

consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning.

26
27

d.

the cost to society of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases
as total global emissions increase so that unchecked extraction and

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

88

 1

consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than

2

moderated extraction and consumption.
e.

3

it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive

4

knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of

5

commerce, to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available

6

technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have

7

mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower

8

carbon economy, reduced global CO2 emissions, and mitigated the harms

9

associated with the use and consumption of such products.

10

223.

Defendants’ individual and aggregate fossil fuel products were used in a manner

11

for which they were intended to be used, or misused in a manner foreseeable to Defendants and

12

each of them, by individual and corporate consumers, the result of which was the addition of CO2

13

emissions to the global atmosphere with attendant global and local consequences.

14

224.

As a direct and proximate result of the defects in fossil fuel products described

15

herein, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint, including damage

16

to publicly and privately owned infrastructure and real property.

17

225.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that

18

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

19

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and

20

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

21

amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

22

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.

23
24
25

226.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

San Mateo County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
227.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

89

 1

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

(Private Nuisance on behalf of San Mateo County)

3

(Against All Defendants)

4
5
6
7
8

228.

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
229.

Plaintiff owns and manages extensive property within San Mateo County borders

that has been injured and will be injured by rising sea levels.
230.

Defendants, and each of them, by their acts and omission, have created a condition

9

on Plaintiff’s property, and permitted that condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by

10

increasing sea level, increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity

11

and frequency of storms.

12

231.

The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects Plaintiff’s

13

interest in its own coastal real property. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency

14

and intensity, and increased flooding are:

15

a.

harmful and dangerous to human health;

16

b.

indecent and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person;

17

c.

threatening to obstruct the free use of Plaintiff’s property and property

18

owned by Plaintiff’s residents and citizens, so as to interfere with the

19

comfortable enjoyment of life and property; and
d.

20

threatening to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes, rivers,

21

bays, streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways

22

within Plaintiff’s communities.

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation

232.

The condition described above created by Defendants’ conduct substantially

interferes with Plaintiff’s use and quiet enjoyment of its coastal properties.
233.

Plaintiff has not consented to Defendants’ conduct in creating the condition that has

led to sea level rise and its associated harms.
234.

The ordinary person, and the ordinary city or county in Plaintiff’s position, would

be reasonably annoyed and disturbed by Defendants’ conduct and the condition created thereby,
COMPLAINT

90

 1

because, inter alia, it infringes on Plaintiff’s ability to provide public space to residents and

2

visitors, and has forced Plaintiff to plan for and provide additional emergency and other public

3

services in response to more frequent and more intense flooding and storm surges on properties

4

owned by Plaintiff.

5

235.

The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding

6

is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct. The seriousness of the

7

harm to Plaintiff outweighs the benefit of Defendants’ and each of their conduct, because:

8

a.

and severe as to be a permanent inundation;

9
10

b.

c.

the interference borne by Plaintiff is the loss of its private and public

13

property and infrastructure, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s

14

citizens as loss of use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of

15

tax dollars away from other public services to sea level rise;

16

d.

Plaintiff’s coastal public and private property, which serves myriad uses

17

including industrial, residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological,

18

is not suitable for regular inundation;

19

e.

the burden on Plaintiff to mitigate and prevent the interference with its

20

property is significant and severe, as costs associated with addressing sea

21

level rise caused by Defendants are projected to be in the billions of dollars

22

over the next several decades;

23

SHER
EDLING LLP

the nature of the harm is the destruction of Plaintiff’s public and private real
and personal property, rather than mere annoyance;

11
12

the interference with Plaintiff’s property is expected to become so regular

f.

the social benefit of the purpose of placing fossil fuels into the stream of

24

commerce is overshadowed by the availability of other sources of energy

25

that could have been placed into the stream of commerce that would not

26

have caused sea level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the

27

external costs of placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of

28

commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate those externalities,
COMPLAINT

91

 1

Defendants acted affirmatively to obscure those costs from public

2

consciousness;
g.

3
4

total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and

5

consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than

6

moderated extraction and consumption;
h.

7

Defendants’ campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and the

8

climatic effects of fossil fuel products prevented customers, consumers,

9

regulators, and the general public from staking steps to mitigate the

10

inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating those

11

consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning; and
i.

12

It was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive

13

knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of

14

commerce, to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available

15

technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have

16

mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower

17

carbon economy, reduced global CO2 emissions, and mitigated the harms

18

associated with the use and consumption of such products.

19
20
21
22
23

236.

Defendants’ conduct was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, and a

substantial factor in the harms suffered by Plaintiff as described in this Complaint.
237.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

San Mateo County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
238.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

24

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25

(Negligence on Behalf of San Mateo County)

26

(Against All Defendants)

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

the social cost each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as

239.

Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
COMPLAINT

92

 1

Defendants knew or should have known of the climate effects inherently caused by

2

the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel products, including the likelihood and likely

3

severity of global and local sea level rise and its consequences, and including Plaintiff’s injuries

4

and damages described herein.

5

241.

Defendants, collectively and individually, had a duty to use due care in developing,

6

designing, testing, inspecting and distributing their fossil fuel products. That duty obligated

7

Defendants collectively and individually to, inter alia, prevent defective products from entering

8

the stream of commerce, and prevent reasonably foreseeable harm that could have resulted from

9

the ordinary use or reasonably foreseeable misuse of Defendants’ products.

10
11

242.

Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty of due care by, inter alia:
a.

allowing fossil fuel products to enter the stream of commerce, despite

12

knowing them to be defective due to their inevitable propensity to cause sea

13

level rise and its consequences;

14

b.

failing to act on the information and warnings they received from their own

15

internal research staff, as well as from the international scientific

16

community, that the unabated extraction, promotion and sale of their fossil

17

fuel products would result in material dangers to the public, including San

18

Mateo County;

19

SHER
EDLING LLP

240.

c.

failing to take actions including but not limited to pursuing and adopting

20

known, practical, and available technologies, energy sources, and business

21

practices that would have mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and

22

eased the transition to a lower carbon economy; shifting to non-fossil fuel

23

products, and researching and/or offering technologies to mitigate CO2

24

emissions in conjunction with sale and distribution of their fossil fuel

25

products; and pursuing other available alternatives that would have

26

prevented or mitigated the injuries to Plaintiff caused by sea level rise that

27

Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have foreseen would

28

inevitably result from use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products;
COMPLAINT

93

 d.

1

engaging in a campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and

2

the climatic effects of fossil fuel products that prevented customers,

3

consumers, regulators, and the general public from staking steps to mitigate

4

the inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating

5

those consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning.

6

243.

Defendants individual and collective acts and omissions were actual, substantial

7

causes of sea level rise and its consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages set forth

8

herein, as sea levels would not have risen to the levels that caused Plaintiff’s injuries but for

9

Defendants introduction of their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce.

10

244.

Defendants individual and collective acts and omissions were proximate causes of

11

sea level rise and its consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages set forth herein. No

12

other act, omission, or natural phenomenon intervened in the chain of causation between

13

Defendants’ conduct and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, or superseded Defendants’ breach of

14

their duties’ substantiality in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

15
16
17
18
19

245.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and each of their acts and

omissions, Plaintiff sustained injuries and damages as set forth herein.
246.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

San Mateo County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
247.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that

20

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

21

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and

22

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

23

amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

24

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.

25

248.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

94

 1

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2

(Negligence - Failure to Warn on Behalf of San Mateo County)

3

(Against All Defendants)
249.

4
5

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
250.

6

Defendants knew or should have known, based on information passed to them from

7

their internal research divisions and affiliates and/or from the international scientific community,

8

of the climate effects inherently caused by the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel

9

products, including the likelihood and likely severity of global warming, global and local sea level

10

rise, and their associated consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages described

11

herein.

12

251.

Defendants knew or should have known, based on information passed to them from

13

their internal research divisions and affiliates and/or from the international scientific community,

14

that the climate effects described above rendered their fossil fuel products dangerous, or likely to

15

be dangerous, when used as intended or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

16

252.

Throughout the times at issue, Defendants failed to adequately warn any consumers

17

or any other party of the climate effects that inevitably flow from the use or foreseeable misuse of

18

their fossil fuel products.

19

253.

Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely

20

disseminated marketing materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time,

21

advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials that

22

prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing the risk that fossil fuel products would cause

23

grave climate changes, undermining and rendering ineffective any warnings that Defendants may

24

have also disseminated.

25

SHER
EDLING LLP

Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation

254.

Given the grave dangers presented by the climate effects that inevitably flow from

26

the normal use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products, a reasonable extractor, manufacturer,

27

formulator, seller, or other participant responsible for introducing fossil fuel products into the

28

stream of commerce, would have warned of those known, inevitable climate effects.
COMPLAINT

95

 1
2
3
4
5

255.

Defendants’ conduct was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and a

substantial factor in the harms suffered by Plaintiff as described in this Complaint.
256.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

San Mateo County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
257.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that

6

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

7

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and

8

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

9

amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

10
11

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
258.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

12

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

13

(Trespass on Behalf of San Mateo County)

14

(Against All Defendants)

15
16
17
18
19

259.

Plaintiff San Mateo County incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
260.

Plaintiff San Mateo County owns, leases, occupies, and/or controls real property

within Plaintiff’s county boundaries and within communities located within the County.
261.

Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally, recklessly, or negligently caused

20

ocean waters to enter Plaintiff San Mateo County’s property, by extracting, refining, formulating,

21

designing, packaging, distributing, testing, constructing, fabricating, analyzing, recommending,

22

merchandising, advertising, promoting, marketing, and/or selling fossil fuel products, knowing

23

those products in their normal operation and use or foreseeable misuse would cause global and

24

local sea levels to rise, cause flooding to become more frequent and more intense, and cause storm

25

surges to become more frequent and more intense.

26
27

262.

Plaintiff San Mateo County did not give permission for Defendants, or any of them,

to cause ocean water to enter its property.

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

96

 263.

1

Plaintiff San Mateo County has been and continues to be actually injured and

2

continues to suffer damages as a result of Defendants and each of their having caused ocean water

3

to enter their real property, by inter alia permanently submerging real property owned by Plaintiff,

4

causing flooding which have invaded and threatens to invade real property owned by Plaintiff and

5

rendered it unusable, and causing storm surges which have invaded and threatened to invade real

6

Property owned by Plaintiff and rendered it unusable.
264.

7

Defendants’ and each Defendant’s introduction of their fossil fuel products into the

8

stream of commerce was a substantial factor in causing the injuries and damages to Plaintiff’s

9

public and private real property.
265.

10
11

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

San Mateo County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
266.

12

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that

13

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

14

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and

15

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

16

amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

17

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
267.

18
19

\\\

20

\\\

21

\\\

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

COMPLAINT

97

 SHER
EDLING LLP

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

l.
2.
3.

or otherwise;

Compensatory damages in an amount according to proof;
Equitable relief to abate the nuisances complained of herein;

Reasonable attorneys? fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 1021.5

4. Punitive damages;
5. Disgorgement of pro?ts;
6. Costs of suit; and
7. For such and other relief as the court may deem proper.
Dated: July 1_7, 2017 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

   
  

C. BEIERS, County Counsel

A. OKADA, Chief Deputy

. ID A. SILBERMAN, Chief Deputy
RGARET V. TIDES, Deputy

SHER EDLING LLP

VICTOR M. SHER
MATTHEW K. EDLING
TIMOTHY R. SLOANE
MARTIN D. QUINONES

Attorneys for The County of San Mateo,
individually and on behalf of the People of the
State of California

 

COMPLAINT 98

 

SHER
EDLING LLP

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff San Mateo County demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Dated: July 2017 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

By: 51

C. BEIERS, County Counsel

IL A. OKADA, Chief Deputy
ID A. SILBERMAN, Chief Deputy
RGARET V. TIDES, Deputy

   
  

SHER EDLING LLP

VICTOR M. SHER
MATTHEW K. EDLING
TIMOTHY R. SLOANE
MARTIN D. QUINONES

Attorneys for The County of San Mateo,
individually and on behalf of the People of the
State of California

 

COMPLAINT

99

 

EXHIBIT A

Truth or CO2nsequences
M

AJOR FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES have known the
truth for nearly 50 years: their oil, gas, and coal
products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms
the planet and changes our climate. They’ve known for
decades that the consequences could be catastrophic and
that only a narrow window of time existed to take action
before the damage might not be reversible. They have
nevertheless engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort
to conceal and contradict their own knowledge of these
threats, discredit the growing body of publicly available
scientific evidence, and persistently create doubt in the
minds of customers, consumers, regulators, the media,
journalists, teachers, and the general public about the
reality and consequences of climate change.

D AT E

NOV. 5, 1965

This timeline highlights information, alleged in the
Complaints filed by San Mateo County, Marin County, and
Imperial Beach, that comes from key industry documents
and other sources. It illustrates what the industry knew,
when they knew it, and what they didn’t do to prevent the
impacts that are now imposing real costs on people and
communities around the country. While the early warnings
from the industry’s own scientists and experts often
acknowledged the uncertainties in their projections, those
uncertainties were typically about the timing and magnitude
of the climate change impacts – not about whether those
impacts would occur or whether the industry’s oil, gas,
and coal were the primary cause. On those latter points,
as these documents show, they were quite certain.

DOCUMENT

TEXT

“RESTORING THE QUALITY OF
OUR ENVIRONMENT,” REPORT OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
PANEL, PRESIDENT’S SCIENCE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE

President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee
finds that “[P]ollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon
dioxide content of the air” and “[M]an is unwittingly conducting
a vast geophysical experiment” by burning fossil fuels that are
injecting CO2 into the atmosphere. The committee concludes
that by the year 2000, we could see “measurable and perhaps
marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause
significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the
stratosphere.”
The American Petroleum Institute commissions a report
finding that:

FEB. 1968

“SOURCES, ABUNDANCE, AND
FATE OF GASEOUS ATMOSPHERIC
POLLUTANTS,” REPORT PREPARED
BY STANFORD RESEARCH
INSTITUTE SCIENTISTS ELMER
ROBINSON AND R.C. ROBBINS
FOR THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM
INSTITUTE (API)

• “[A]lthough there are other possible sources for the additional
CO2 now being observed in the atmosphere, none seems to
fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel
emanation theory.”
• “Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by
the year 2000, and these could bring about climatic changes.”
• “There seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our
environment could be severe.”
• “What is lacking, however, is an application of these CO2 data
to air pollution technology and work toward systems in which
CO2 emissions would be brought under control.”

JUNE 6, 1978

PRESENTATION SHARED
WITH EXXON MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE FROM EXXON
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
SCIENCE ADVISOR, JAMES BLACK

Exxon Science Advisor James Black tells the company’s
Management Committee that “[T]here is general scientific
agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is
influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release
from the burning of fossil fuels” and that “[M]an has a time
window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions
regarding changes in energy strategy might become critical.”

SEPT. 17, 1978

CONGRESS PASSES NATIONAL
CLIMATE POLICY ACT

Congress passes the National Climate Policy Act to help
“the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural
and man-induced climate processes and their implications.”

 Truth or CO2nsequences
D AT E

DOCUMENT

TEXT

DEC. 7, 1978

CO2 RESEARCH PROPOSAL
FROM EXXON RESEARCH AND
ENGINEERING’S ENVIRONMENTAL
AREA MANAGER, HENRY SHAW

Exxon scientist Henry Shaw proposes that the company
initiate a comprehensive research program “to assess the
possible impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon business.”
He argues that the company needs “a credible scientific team that
can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject
and be able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation.”
An Exxon internal study finds that:

OCT. 16, 1979

“CONTROLLING THE CO2
CONCENTRATION IN THE
ATMOSPHERE,” STUDY BY EXXON
EMPLOYEE STEVE KNISELY

• “The present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause
dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050.”
• “[R]ecognizing the uncertainty, there is a possibility that an
atmospheric CO2 buildup will cause adverse environmental
effects in enough areas of the world to consider limiting the
future use of fossil fuels as major energy sources.”
• “The potential problem is great and urgent.”

FEB. 29, 1980

AUG. 6, 1980

MEETING MINUTES FROM
THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM
INSTITUTE’S (API’S) CO2
AND CLIMATE TASK FORCE:
PRESENTATION BY DR. J.
LAURMAN

Dr. J. Laurman tells API’s Climate Task Force that “there is
a scientific consensus on the potential for large future climatic
response to increased CO2 levels” and that “remedial actions will
take a long time to become effective.”

“REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ACTIVITIES FOR
1978-1979,” IMPERIAL OIL REPORT

An internal “Review of Environmental Protection Activities
for 1978-1979” by Imperial Oil, which was distributed widely
to Exxon/Esso Corporate Managers, finds that
“[T]echnology exists to remove CO2 from stack gases but
removal of only 50% of the CO2 would double the cost of power
generation.”
Exxon Strategic Planning Manager Roger Cohen comments
on an internal assessment of CO2 emissions and the
greenhouse effect that is prepared at the request of Senior
VP and Director Morey O’Loughlin:

AUG. 18, 1981

APRIL 1, 1982

MEMO FROM ROGER
COHEN, DIRECTOR OF
EXXON’S THEORETICAL AND
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE
LABORATORY, TO SCIENTIST
WERNER GLASS

“CO2 ‘GREENHOUSE’ EFFECT,”
INTERNALLY DISTRIBUTED
SUMMARY BY EXXON MANAGER
M.B. GLASER OF A TECHNICAL
REVIEW PREPARED BY EXXON
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
COMPANY’S COORDINATION AND
PLANNING DIVISION

• “[I]t is very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the
threat by the year 2000 because of advances in climate
modeling and the beginning of real experimental confirmation
of the CO2 effect.”
• “Whereas I can agree with the statement that our best guess
is that observable effects in the year 2030 will be ‘well short
of catastrophic’, it is distinctly possible that the [Planning
Division’s] scenario will later produce effects that will indeed
be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s
population).”

An internal Exxon “CO2 ‘Greenhouse Effect’ Summary” finds
that “[T]here is concern among some scientific groups that once
the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible and little
could be done to correct the situation in the short term” and
that “[M]itigation of the ‘greenhouse effect’ could require major
reductions in fossil fuel combustion.”

 Truth or CO2nsequences
D AT E

SEPT. 2, 1982

OCT. 1982

DOCUMENT
MEMO FROM ROGER
COHEN, DIRECTOR OF
EXXON’S THEORETICAL AND
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCE
LABORATORY, TO EXXON
MANAGEMENT INCLUDING
PRESIDENT OF EXXON
CORPORATION’S RESEARCH AND
ENGINEERING, E. E. DAVID JR.

“INVENTING THE FUTURE: ENERGY
AND THE CO2 ‘GREENHOUSE’
EFFECT,” E. E. DAVID JR. REMARKS
AT THE FOURTH ANNUAL EWING
SYMPOSIUM, TENAFLY, NJ

TEXT
The Director of Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical
Sciences Laboratory, Roger Cohen, summarizes the findings
of their research in climate modeling:
• “[O]ver the past several years a clear scientific consensus has
emerged regarding the expected climatic effects of increased
atmospheric CO2.”
• “It is generally believed that the first unambiguous CO2-induced
temperature increase wiIl not be observable until around the
year 2000.”
• “[T]he results of our research are in accord with the scientific
consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on
climate.”
In a speech, E. E. David Jr., President of Exxon Research and
Engineering Company, states: “It is ironic that the biggest
uncertainties about the CO2 buildup are not in predicting what
the climate will do, but in predicting what people will do. . .[It]
appears we still have time to generate the wealth and knowledge
we will need to invent the transition to a stable energy system.”
The summer of 1988 sees a flurry of activity around climate
change policy:

SUMMER 1988

PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE
GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND
EFFORTS TO COMBAT IT RAMP UP

• Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, tells Congress that the Institute’s greenhouse
effect research shows “the global warming is now large enough
that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause
and effect relationship with the greenhouse effect.”
• At least four bipartisan bills are introduced in Congress, three
championed by Republicans, to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions.

AUG. 3, 1988

“THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT,”
DRAFT WRITTEN BY JOSEPH M.
CARLSON, AN EXXON PUBLIC
AFFAIRS MANAGER

Despite declaring the Greenhouse Effect “one of the most
significant environmental issues for the 1990s,” Carlson writes
that Exxon’s position should be to “emphasize the uncertainty
in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced
Greenhouse Effect.”

AUG. 31, 1988

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W.
BUSH CAMPAIGN SPEECH IN
MICHIGAN

Vice President George H.W. Bush, in a speech while running
for President, says “[T]hose who think we are powerless to do
anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the ‘White
House effect’; as President, I intend to do something about it.”

THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL
ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) IS
FORMED

The IPCC is formed in December 1988 by the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide policymakers with
regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change,
its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and
mitigation.

“GREENHOUSE EFFECT: SHELL
ANTICIPATES A SEA CHANGE,”
ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES

A New York Times article reports: “In what is considered
the first major project that takes account of the changes the
greenhouse effect is expected to bring, [Shell] engineers are
designing a huge platform that anticipates rising water in the
North Sea by raising the platform from the standard 30 meters the height now thought necessary to stay above the waves that
come in a once-a-century storm - to 31 or 32 meters.”

DEC. 6, 1988

DEC. 20, 1989

 Truth or CO2nsequences
D AT E

DOCUMENT

TEXT

“CLIMATE OF CONCERN,”
DOCUMENTARY PRODUCED AND
DISTRIBUTED BY SHELL

Shell releases a 30-minute educational video warning of
climate change’s negative consequences ranging from sea level rise
and wetland destruction to “greenhouse refugees.” It concludes:
“Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that the wait
for final proof would be irresponsible. Action now is seen as the
only safe insurance.”

MAY 1991

INFORMATION COUNCIL FOR
THE ENVIRONMENT (ICE) PR
CAMPAIGN

The Information Council for the Environment (ICE), formed by the
coal industry, launches a national climate change science denial
campaign with data collection, full-page newspaper ads, radio
commercials, a PR tour, and mailers.

DEC. 1995

“PREDICTING FUTURE CLIMATE
CHANGE: A PRIMER,” GLOBAL
CLIMATE COALITION’S (GCC)
INTERNAL PRIMER DRAFT,
PREPARED BY GCC’S SCIENCE
TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE V. THEIR PUBLICLY
DISTRIBUTED BACKGROUNDER,
“SCIENCE AND GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE: WHAT DO WE KNOW?
WHAT ARE THE UNCERTAINTIES?”

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a fossil fuel industry
group, drafts an internal primer analyzing “contrarian
theories” and concluding that they do not “offer convincing
arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas
emission-induced climate change.” However, a publicly distributed
version excluded this section while focusing on scientific
disagreement and uncertainty by citing some of those same
contrarian scientists.

FALL 1996

“GLOBAL WARMING: WHO’S
RIGHT? FACTS ABOUT A DEBATE
THAT’S TURNED UP MORE
QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS,”
PUBLICATION FROM EXXON
CORPORATION

An eight-page Exxon publication questions the negative impact
the greenhouse effect might have and plays up the uncertainty.
The introductory statement by Lee Raymond, Exxon’s chairman
and CEO, claims that “[S]cientific evidence remains inconclusive as
to whether human activities affect global climate.”

APRIL 3, 1998

“GLOBAL SCIENCE
COMMUNICATIONS ACTION
PLAN,” DRAFT BY THE AMERICAN
PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (API)

The American Petroleum Institute develops a multi-million
dollar communications and outreach plan to ensure that
“climate change becomes a non-issue.” It maintains that “[V]ictory
will be achieved when...uncertainties in climate science [become]
part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”

DEC. 11, 2000

LETTER FROM LLOYD KEIGWIN,
SENIOR SCIENTIST AT THE
WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC
INSTITUTION, TO PETER
ALTMAN, NATIONAL CAMPAIGN
COORDINATOR FOR EXXONMOBIL

A senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Lloyd Keigwin, sends a letter to Exxon’s Peter Altman,
summarizing their email and phone conversations regarding
Exxon’s misleading use of Keigwin’s study results.
“The sad thing is that a company with the resources of
ExxonMobil is exploiting the data for political purposes when they
could actually get much better press by supporting research into
the role of the ocean in climate change.”

JUNE 20, 2001

“YOUR MEETING WITH MEMBERS
OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE
COALITION,” US DEPARTMENT
OF STATE MEMO AND TALKING
POINTS

Talking points for State Department Undersecretary Paula
Dobriansky’s meeting with the Global Climate Coalition at
API’s headquarters: “POTUS rejected Kyoto, in part, based on
input from you.”

1991

 Truth or CO2nsequences
D AT E

DOCUMENT

TEXT

SEPT. 26, 2002

LETTER FROM MICHAEL
MACCRACKEN, RETIRING SENIOR
SCIENTIST FROM THE OFFICE
OF THE US GLOBAL CHANGE
RESEARCH PROGRAM, TO EXXON
CEO LEE RAYMOND: “RE: WITH
REGARD TO THE EXXONMOBIL
FACSIMILE ON FEBRUARY 6, 2001
FROM DR. AG RANDOL TO MR.
JOHN HOWARD OF THE COUNCIL
ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY”

Michael MacCracken, the former director of the National
Assessment Coordination Office of the US Global Change
Research Program, writes to Exxon CEO Lee Raymond in
response to ExxonMobil’s criticism of a US climate change
assessment: “In my earlier experience, arguing for study of
adaptation had been a position of industry, but now when this
was attempted, ExxonMobil argued this was premature. Roughly,
this is equivalent to turning your back on the future and putting
your head in the sand—with this position, it is no wonder
ExxonMobil is the target of environmental and shareholder
critics...Certainly, there are uncertainties, but decisions are made
under uncertainty all the time--that is what executives are well
paid to do. In this case, ExxonMobil is on the wrong side of the
international scientific community, the wrong side of the findings
of all the world’s leading academies of science, and the wrong
side of virtually all of the world’s countries as expressed, without
dissent, in the IPCC reports...To call ExxonMobil’s position out of
the mainstream is thus a gross understatement. There can be all
kinds of perspectives about what one might or might not do to
start to limit the extent of the change, but to be in opposition
to the key scientific findings is rather appalling for such an
established and scientific organization.”

OCT. 21, 2002

MARKUPS BY PHILIP COONEY,
CHIEF OF STAFF FOR THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ON
A DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR
THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE
PROGRAM

Philip Cooney, Chief of Staff for the White House Council of
Environmental Quality and a former lawyer and lobbyist for the
American Petroleum Institute with no scientific credentials, edits a
Draft Strategic Plan for the US Climate Change Science Program
to introduce uncertainty about global warming and its impacts. In
2005, Cooney resigns after being accused of doctoring scientific
reports and is hired by Exxon. A Union of Concerned Scientists
report published samples of Cooney’s edits (p.56).

JUNE 11, 2009

“THE PROPORTIONALITY
OF GLOBAL WARMING
TO CUMULATIVE CARBON
EMISSIONS,” PUBLICATION BY
DAMON MATTHEWS PUBLISHED
IN NATURE

Damon Matthews publishes seminal research in the peerreviewed Nature journal showing a linear relationship between
greenhouse gas emissions and increasing global temperatures.

AUG. 12, 2009

EMAIL FROM API CEO JACK
GERARD TO API’S MEMBERSHIP
REGARDING A SERIES OF “ENERGY
CITIZEN” RALLIES IN 20 STATES
DURING THE END OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL RECESS

The American Petroleum Institute’s CEO, Jack Gerard,
emails API’s membership promising “up front resources” and
encouraging turnout for “Energy Citizen” rallies in about
20 states. Gerard says they are “collaborating closely with the
allied oil and natural gas associations” in order to “aim a loud
message at those states’ U.S. Senators to avoid the mistakes
embodied in the House climate bill.”

NOV. 22, 2013

“TRACING ANTHROPOGENIC
CARBON DIOXIDE AND METHANE
EMISSIONS TO FOSSIL FUEL AND
CEMENT PRODUCERS, 1854-2010,”
PUBLICATION BY RICK HEEDE
PUBLISHED IN CLIMATIC CHANGE

Rick Heede, co-founder and director of the Climate
Accountability Institute, authors a peer-reviewed study
revealing that 90 producers of oil, natural gas, coal, and cement
– the “carbon majors” – are responsible for 63 percent of
cumulative industrial CO2 and methane emissions worldwide
between 1751 and 2010. Just 28 companies are responsible for
25 percent of all emissions since 1965.

 Truth or CO2nsequences
D AT E

DOCUMENT

NOV. 11, 2014

“WSPA PRIORITY ISSUES,”
PRESENTATION BY WESTERN
STATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION
PRESIDENT CATHERINE REHEISBOYD

The Western States Petroleum Association, a top lobbying
and trade association for the oil industry, describes in a
presentation the “campaigns and coalitions [it has] activated
that have contributed to WSPA’s advocacy goals and continue
to respond to aggressive anti-oil initiatives in the West,”
including investment “in several coalitions that are best suited
to drive consumer and grassroots messages to regulators and
policymakers.”

SEPT. 2016

“2016 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
SEA LEVEL RISE ASSESSMENT”

The City of Imperial Beach, California, releases a report
that assesses the city’s vulnerability to sea level rise and identifies
adaptation strategies, along with estimated costs, to address
those impacts.

APRIL 2017

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
MARIN COUNTY, AND
SAN MATEO COUNTY SEA LEVEL
RISE ASSESSMENT REPORTS

The State of California, along with San Mateo and Marin
Counties, release separate reports that assess the impacts
of sea level rise on their communities, detailing the substantial
monetary losses, infrastructure and property damage, and
decrease in quality of life residents will face.

“THE INCREASING RATE OF
GLOBAL MEAN SEA-LEVEL RISE
DURING 1993-2014,” CHEN, ET.AL.,
PUBLISHED IN NATURE CLIMATE
CHANGE

A new peer-reviewed study confirms that the rate of sea level
rise is accelerating and concludes that, for coastal communities,
it “highlights the importance and urgency of mitigating climate
change and formulating coastal adaptation plans to mitigate the
impacts of ongoing sea level rise.”

JUNE 26, 2017

TEXT