Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 43mm ~41:CITY OF OAKLAND BARBARA . PARKER SB #069722 City Attorney SB #167716 Special Counsel ERIN SB 231539 Senior Deputy City Attorney Ono Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oakland, Califomia Tel.: (510) 238?3601 Fax: (510) 238-6500 'Attarneyfar The People ofthe State ofCalz?form?a . [Other Counsel Listed on Signature Page] V. . BP P.L.C., a public limited company of England and Wales, CHEVRON CORPORATION, a. Delaware corporation, CONOCOPI-IILLIPS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC, '21 public limited company of England and Wales, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. page 4 FILED BY FAX ALAMEDA COUNTY September 19, 2017 CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT By Burt Moskaira, Deputy CASE NUMBER: RG17875889 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF I No. CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the Oakland City Attorney, Plaintiff and Real ?ms? COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE 010694-11 986494 V1 COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 5 EDOOQOW TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE . PARTIES 5 A. Plamn? 5 B. Defendants C. Defendants? connections to California. . . 9 IV. FOSSIL FUELS ARE THE PRMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. . 11 V. DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF FOSSIL FUELS AND HAVE CONTINUED TO DO SO EVEN AS GLOBAL WARMING HAS BECOME GRAVELY DANGEROUS. 15 - VI. DEFENDANT HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF I FOSSIL FUELS DESPITE HAVING FULL KNOWLEDGE FROM THEIR SCIENTIFIC STAFF, OR FROM API, THAT FOSSIL FUELS WOULD CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING. 16 VII. DESPITE THEIR EARLY KNOWLEDGE THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL AND POSED GRAVE THREATS, DEFENDANTS PROMO TED FOSSIL FUELS FOR PERVASIVE USE WHILE DOWNPLAYJNG THE REALITY AND RISKS OF GLOBAL WARMING. 2 1 A. Defendants borrowed the Big Tobacco playbook in order to . promote their products 22 B. Defendants? direct promotion of fossil ?lels. 25 I - . OAKLAND WILL INCUR SERIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE INJURIES THAT WILL REQUIRE BILLIONS IN EXPENDITURE-S T0 ABATE . . THE GLOBAL WARMING NUISANCE. 28 DL CAUSE OF ACTION: PUBLIC NUISANCE ON BEHALF OF THE . PEOPLE . 32 x. RELIEF REQUESTED 34 - 010694-11 935494 v: . COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 6 \Dm?aPlaintiff, the People of the State of California (?the People?), by and through the Oakland City Attorney, brings this action against Defendants BP p.l.c. Chevron Corporation (?Chevron?), ConocoPhillips Company onocoPhillips?), Exxon Mobil Corporation (?Exxon?), and Royal Dutch Shell (?Shell?) (collectively, ?Defendants?), and alleges as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Global- warming is here and it is harming Oakland new. Global warming causes accelerated sea level rise through thermal expansion of ocean water and melting of land-based ice. Sea levels are rising at rates unprecedented in the history of human civilization due to global weaning. Global warming-induced sea level rise already is causing ?ooding of low-lying areas of Oakland that border the San Francisco Bay, increased shoreline erosion, and salt water impacts to water treatment systems. Many of the Oakland residents who are likely to be most affected by climate change are low-income and!or people of color. As the US. government has pointed out, peeple of color, low-income group-?3, and certain immigrant groups are (eg, because of poverty, . chronic health conditions, and social isolation) potentially more ?vulnerable? to climate change . impacts, including heat waves, ?ooding, and degraded air quality. This is true-in Oakland, where ?socially vulnerable? individuals such as African Americans and Hispanics, tend to live at lower elevations most affected by sea level rise and higher Storm surges. The rapidly rising sea level . along the Paci?c coast and in San Francisco Bay,'moreover, poses an imminent threat of catastrophic storm surge ?ooding because any storm would be superimposed on a higher sea level. This threat to human safety and to public and private-property is becoming more dire every day as global warming reaches ever more dangerous levels and sea level rise accelerates. Oakland must take abatement action now to protect public and private property from this looming threat by building sea walls and other sea level rise adaptation infrastructure. Exhibits 1 and 2 to this I Complaint, showing ?ood events? projected intrusion into Oakland as a result of global-warming, 0 demonstrate just how stark the threat is.1 1 City of Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (June 7, 2015), 21184-85, available-or hm}. m?oakt358455pdfCOMPLAINT non PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 7 .1:This egregious state of affairs is no accident. Rather, it is an unlaw?tl public nuisance of the ?rst order. Defendants are the ?ve largest investor-ousted fossil fuel corporations in the world as measured by their historic production of fossil fuels. The use of fossil fuels oil, natural gas and coal is the primary source of the greenhbuse gas pollution that causes global I warming, a point that science established years ago. Defendants have produced massive amounts of fossil fuels for many years. And recent disclosures of internal industry documents demonstrate . that they have done so despite knowing since at least the late 1970s and early 19805 if not earlier that massive fossil fuel usage would cause dangerous global warming. It was at that time that scientists on their staffs or with whom they consulted through their trade association, the American Petroleum Institute investigated the science and warned them in stark terms that fossil fuel usage would cause global warming at a rate unprecedented in the history of human civilization and present risks of ?catastrophic? harm in coming decades. . 3. Undeterred by these stark warnings, Defendants proceeded to double-down on fossil ?rels. Most of the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere as a result of combustion of Defendants? fossil fuels' 15 likely attributable to their recent production - i a, to fossil fuels produced by Defendants since 1980. Even today, with the global warming danger level at a critical phase, Defendants continue to engage in massive fossil fuelproduction and execute longwterrn business plans to continue and even expand their fossil fuel production for decades into the future. . 4. I The global warning-induced sea level rise from past fossil fuel usage is an irreversible condition on any relevant time scale: it will last hundreds or even thousands of years. Defendants? planned production of fossil fuels into the fir?ting will exacerbate global warming," accelerate sea level rise even further, and require greater and more costly abatement actions to - protect Oakland. 5. Defendants, notably, did not simply produce fossil fuels. They engaged in large- . scale, sophisticated advertising and public relations campaigns to promote pervasive fossil fuel usage and to portray fossil fuels as environmentally responsible and essential to human well-being although they knew that their fossil fuels would contribute, and subsequently were contributing, 1 to dangerous global warming and associated acCelerated sea level rise. These promotional efforts 010594-11 986494 to - 2 - . . COWLAINTIFOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 8 chub"'24 . 25 26' 27 28 continue through today even in the face of overwhelming and incontrovertible scienti?c evidence that fossil fuels are altering the climate and global warming has become an existential threat to modern life. 6. Defendants? promotion of fossil fuels has also entailed denying mainstream climate science or downplaying the risks of global warming. During the 19905 and early 20003, Defendants stole a page from the Big Tobacco playbook and sponsored public relations campaigns, either directly or through the API or other groups, to deny and discredit the mainstream scienti?c consensus on global warming, downplay the risks of global warming, and even to launch unfounded attacks on the integrity of leading climate scientists. ?Uncertainty? of the science became. the constantly repeated mantra of this Big Oil public relations campaign just as - .?Doubt is our product? was the Big Tobacco PR theme. . Emphasizing ?uncertainty" in climate science, directly or through the API, has remained a focus of Defendants? efforts to promote their fuels even though they are well aware that the fundamental scienti?c facts of global warming are not in dispute and are a cause of grave danger through sea level rise. 7.. The purpose of all this promotion of fossil fuels and efforts to undermine mainstream climate science, like all marketing, was to increase sales and protect market share. It . succeeded. 8. And now it will cost billions of dollars to build sea walls and other in?astzrueture to protect human safety and public and private property in Oakland from global warming-induced sea level rise; A recent report by the State of California has rung the alarm bell as loudly as possible: . ?Previously underappreciated glaciological processes, examined in the research of the last ?ve years, have the potential to greatly increase the probability of extreme global sea-level rise (6 feet or Within the century" under businesses usual fossil fuel production and usage.2 Translatiom the planet?s enormbus ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are beginning to melt, like their much smaller but more numerous cousins, the mountain glaciers, hattebeen doing for i Griggs et al., Rising Seas'in California: an update on sea-level rise science, California Ocean Science Trust, at 16 (Apr. 201??) (?Rising Seas in California"), available at rise-scienceptif. - . 3 COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page _19_ many years, and slide into the ocean; and this new dynamic is ?mdanientally increasing the risk of catastrophic sea level rise. The report projects a risk of as much as ten feet of additional sea level rise along the coastline of San Francisco Bay by 2100, which would be catastrophic.3 Nearer?term risks include 0.3 to as much as 0.8 feet of additional sea level rise by 203 0,?1 which itself will require the building of sea walls and other costly infrastructure given the dynamics of storm surge and regular high tide ?ooding. 9. This new information shows that the costs of dealing with global warming?induced sea level rise already immense will be staggering for the public entities that must protect their people and their coastlines. The City of Oakland already is taking action to adapt to accelerating sea level rise. In 2016, Oakland adopted a ?ve-year Local Hazard Mitigation Plan that analyzes risks from sea levelrise, identi?es mitigation measures and presents an implementation plan for the next ?ve years The plan warns that projected sea level rise in Oakland, absent adaptation, could ?substantially impact coastal areas" including low-lying coastal residences, the Port and Oakland International Airport. As set forth in the Plan, projected sea level rise in Oakland puts at risk property with a total replacement cost of between $22 and $38 billion. The magnitude of the I actions needed to abate harms from sea level rise, and the amount of property at risk, will' increase in light of the rapidly accelerating sea level rise and the increased scienti?c understanding of sea level rise processes as set forth in the 2017 report. 10. Defendants are substantial contributors to the public nuisance of global warming that 13 causing injury to the People and thus are jointly and severally liable. Defendants . . cumulative production of fossil ?rels over many years places each of them among the top sources of global warming pollution 1n the world. Upon inforniation and belief Defendants are, respeCtively, the ?rst (Chevron), second (Exxon), fourth (BP), sixth (Shell) and ninth (Conocol?hillips) largest cumulative producers of fossil fuels worldwide from the mid Nineteenth I Cenmry to present; most of Defendants global vvarrning pollution from the usage of their fuels has accinnulated' in the atmosphere since 1980. Defendants, moreover, are qualitatively different ?om '3 Id. at 26. 4 Id. 010594.11 9115494 v1 - 4 - I - COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 10 OOMJ other contributors to the harm given their in?house scientific resources, early knowledge of global weaning, commercial promotions of fossil fuels as bene?cent even in light of their knowledge to the contrary, and efforts to protect their fossil fuel market by downplaying the risks of global warming. l. The People seek an order requiring Defendants to abate the global warming?induced sea level rise nuisance to which they have contributed by ?mding an abatement program to build sea walls and other infrastructure that are urgently needed to protect human safety and public and private property in Oakland. The People do seek to impose liability on Defendants for their direct emissions of greenhouse gases and do r1_ot seek to restrain Defendants from engaging in their business operations. This case is, fundamentally, about shifting the costs of abating sea level rise harm one of global warming?s gravest harms back onto the companies. After all, it is Defendants who have pro?ted and will continue to pro?t by knowingly contributing to global warming, thereby doing all they can to help create and maintain a profound public nuisance. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. Jurisdiction rs proper in this Court because Defendants have contributed to the creation of a public nuisance in Oakland, and the Oakland City Attorney has the right and authority to seek abatement of that nuisance on behalf of the People of the State of California. 13. Venue rs proper in this county in accordance withsection 392(a)(l) of the California Code of Civil Procedure because the People allege injuries to real property located in this county. r11. PARTIES . A. Plaintiff 14, Plaintiff, the People of the State of California, by and through the Oakland City - Attorney, brings-this suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731, and Civil Code sections . 3479, 3480., 3491, and 3494, to abate the public nuisance caused by Defendants. I Defendants I 15. Defendant BP is apublic limited company registered' at England and Wales with its 5 headquarters 1n London, England, doing business in Califomia. BP was created' 111 1998 as a result of a merger between the Amoco Corporation (?Amoco?), a former U. S. corporation, and the British W494 V1 .. 5 .. . COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page .23.. 24 25 126.: 27 28 Petroleum Company p.1.c. BP is a multinational, integrated oil and gas company that explores for, produces, re?nes, markets and sells oil, natural gas and fossil fuel products. 16. BP controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production. BP, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts andfor controls operations relating to its subsidiaries? participation in the process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude oil, are produced, transported, re?ned, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or sold to consumers. BP also exercises control over company-wide decisions on production and use of fossil fuel reserves considering climate change impacts, management, direction, conduct and/or control is exercised through a variety of means, including through its employees? and! or agents? implementation of po licies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change generally and to production of fossil ?rels speci?cally. 17. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant .lS resPonsible for its subsidiaries? past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products. 18. Defendant Chevron is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located in San Ramon, California- Chevron?and its predecessors had their headquarters in San Francisco from 1879 to 2001. Chevron is a multinational, integrated oil and gas company that explores for, produces, re?nes, markets and sells oil, natural gas and fossil fuel products. - 19. Cheyron controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil ?iel production. Chevron, through its employees andJor agents, manages, directs, conducts andforcontrols operations relating to its subsidiaries? participation in the. process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude oil, are produced, transported, re?ned, stored, distributed, marketed, andf or sold to .__consumers. Chevron also exercises control over company-wide decisions on production and use of - fossil fuel reserves considering climate change impacts. Chevron?s management, direction, . conduct audior control is exercised through a variety of'means, including through its employees? and/or agents? implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change - generally and to production of fossil ?rels sp?ci?cally. 010694-11 enemy-1 - 6 - COMPLAINT .FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 12 LLOM result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant Chevron is responsible for its subsidiaries? past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products. 21. Defendant ConocoPhillips is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located in Houston, Texas, doing business in California. ConocoPhillips is a multinational oil and gas company that produces, markets and sells oil and natural gas and for many years also re?ned and sold ?nished oil products. I 22. ConocoPhillips controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production. ConocoPhillips, through its employees andfor agents, manages, directs, conducts and/or controls operations relating to .its subsidiaries? participation in the process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude oil, are produced, transported, re?ned, stored, distributed, marketed, andfor sold to consumers. ConocoPhillips also exercises control over company-wide decisions on production and use of fossil fuel reserves considering climate change impacts. ConocoPhillips? . management, direction, conduct andfor control is exercised through a variety of means, including through its employees? andfor agents? implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change generally and to production of fossil fuels speci?cally. 23. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant ConocoPhillips is responsible for its subsidiaries? past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products. i I I 24.? Defendant Enron is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business located 1n Irving, Texas, doing business' in the State of California. Exxon is a multinational, integrated oil and gas company that explores for, produces, re?nes, markets and sells oil, natural gas and fossil fuel products and, as recently as 2009 produced, marketed and sold coal. .25. Exxon controls cempany-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production. Exxon, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts andfor centrols operations relating to its subsidiaries? participation in the process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude oil, are produced, transported, re?ned, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or sold to consumers. 010694?1 '1 986494 v1 I 7 - COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page Exxon also exercise: control over company-wide decisions on production and use of fossil fuel reserves considering climate change impacts. Exxon?s management, direction, conduct andfor control is exercised through a variety of means, including through its employees and/or agents? implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change generally and to production of fossil fuels speci?cally. 26. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations relating to company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant Exxon is responsible for its subsidiaries? past and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products. 27. Defendant Shell is a public limited company registered in England and Wales With its headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands, doing business in California. Shell is a multinational, integrated oil and gas company that explores for, produces, re?nes, markets and sells oil, natural gas and fossil fuel- products. 28. Shell controls company-wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production. Shell, through its employees and/or agents, manages, directs, conducts 'andlor controls operations relating to its subsidiaries," participation in the process by which fossil fuels, including raw crude oil, are produced, transPorted, re?ned, stored, distributed, marketed, and/or sold to consumers. Shell also exercises control ever company-wide decisions on production and use of fossil ?le] reserves considering climate change inrpacts. Shell?s management, direction, conduct andfor control is exercised through a variety of means, including through its employees? and/or agents? implementation of policies, procedures, and programs relating to climate change generally and to production of fossil fuels speci?cally. 29. As a result of its management, direction, conduct and/or control of operations - relating to company~wide climate change policies and fossil fuel production, Defendant Shell is - responsible for. its subsidiaries? past-and current production and promotion of fossil fuel products. 30.. Defendants DOES ONE through TEN are sued herein under fictitious names- . Plaintiff does not at this time know the true names or capacities of said defendants, but prays that the samernay be alleged when ascertained. {11069441 986494 to - 3 - . - COWLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 14 name) ?oor-4mm Defendants? connections to California. - 31. Defendants have contributed to the creation of a public nuisance - global warming- induced sea level rise causing severe harms and threatening catastrophic harms in Oakland. 32. Each Defendant, directly and through its subsidiaries, substantially participates in the process by which raw crude oil is extracted from the ground, re?ned into fossil fuel products and delivered, marketed, and sold to California residents for use. 33. BP, through its subsidiaries: owns andfor operates port facilities in California for receipt of crude oil. BP, through its subsidiaries, also produces oil in Alaska, and upon information and belief, BP, through its subsidiaries, transports some of this crude oil to California. In addition, . BP operates 275 ARCO-licensed and?branded gasoline stations in California, including stations I located 1n Oakland BP oifers credit cards to consumers on its interactive website to promote sales I of gasoline and other products at its branded gasoline stations. web site maintain a page of I Amoco Stations Near Me? for California listing virtually every municipality in California and hundreds of such gas stations. BP promotes gasoline sales by offering, consumers, through its interactive web site, twenty??ve cents off every gallon of BP?branded gasoline for every $100 spent on 11 BP. Visa?Credit Card or BP Credit Card for the ?rst ninety days a consumer?s account - is open. I 34. Chevron, through its subsidiaries: produces oil in California, owns andfor- operates port facilities in CalifOrnia for receipt of crude oil, owns and operates two re?neries where crude oil is re?ned into ?nished fossil ?iel products including gasoline, and owns and operates approximately nine gasoline terminals in California. A gasoline terminal consists of enormous . 1 aboveground storage tanks that hold gasoline for distribution to retail gasoline stations and consumers. Chevron owns and operates the Richmond gasoline re?nery and related terminals in the San Francisco Bay Area. Chevron, through its subsidiaries, also produces oil in Alaska, and upon information and belief, some of this crude oil is supplied to California There also are II numerous Chevron-branded gasoline stations in California, including in Oakland. Chevron offers - credit cards to consumers through its interactive website, to promote sales of gasoline and other "Win -9- COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC N-UISANCE - Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 15 Ui-b-wbproducts at its branded gasoline stations. Chevron promotes gasoline sales by offering consumers three cents per gallon' in fuel credits ?every ?ll-up, every time at Chevron and Texaco stations?? 35. ConocoPhillips, through its subsidiaries: owns and/or operates port facilities to California for receipt of crude oil, and previously owned and operated a re?nery based 111 both Rodeo and Arroyo Grande, California, from 2001 to 2012, where crude oil was re?ned into ?nished fossil fuel products including gasoline. ConocoPhillips, through its subsidiaries, also produces oil in Alaska, and transports some of this crude oil to California 36. Exxon, through its subsidiaries: produces oil in California, owns and/or. operates port facilities in California for receipt of crude oil, and'previously owned and operated a re?nery in California until July 1, 2016, where crude oil was re?ned into ?nished fossil fool products including gasoline. Exxon owned the 'Benicia gasoline re?nery for 30 years "until 2000. Exxon, through its subsidiaries, also produces oil in Alaska, and upon information and belief, Exxon, through its subsidiaries, transports some of this crude oil to California. There also are numerous Exxon-branded gasoline stations in California, including in Oakland and the greater Bay Area. Exxon offers credit-cards to consumers, through its interactive website, to promote sales of gasoline and other products at its branded gasoline stations. Exxon promotes gasoline sales by o?ering consumers Monty-?ve cents off every gallon of gasoline at BretonTM or I MobilTM stations for the ?rst two "months and then six cents 011'" every gallon of Synergy gaSoline at 1 Breton- and Mobil-branded stations. 37. Shell, through its subsidiaries: owns andfor operates port facilities in California for receipt of crude oil, owns and operates a re?nery 111 California where crude oil is re?ned into ?nished fossil fuel products including gasoline, transports crude oil through a pipeline within California, and owns and operates approximately six gasoline terminals in California.- Since 1915,- Shell has owned a gasoline re?nery in Martinez, California, twenty-?ve miles nertheast of Oakland. There are numerous Shell-branded gasoline stations in California, including 111 Oakland. Shel] offers credit cards to consumers on its interactive website to promote sales of gasoline and other products at its branded gasoline stations. Shell promotes gasoline sales by offering 010594-11 9116494171 - -10? COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 16 use-exam 27'- 28 consumers, through its interactive web site, twenty-?ve cents off every gallon of Shell Fuel for-the first two months after they open an account. IV. FOSSIL FUELS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING. 38. Production of fossil fuels for combustion causes global warming. When used as intended, fossil fuels release greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (C02) and methane, which trap atmospheric heat and increase global temperatures. Carbon dioxide is by far the most important greenhouse gas because of the combustion of massive amounts of fossil ?lClS. 39. Scientists have known for many years that the use of fossil ?lels emits carbon I dioxide and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius, a Nobel-prize winning scientist, published calculations projecting temperature increases that would be caused by increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil ?lels. 40. I By 195 7, scientists at the Scripps Institute published a warning in the peer-reviewed literature that global warming ?may become signi?cant during future decades if industrial fuel I combustion continues to rise exponentially? and that ?[ll]urnan beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment? on the entire 13111116;5 I I 41. In 1960, scientist Charles D. Keeling published results establishing that annospheric - carbon dioxide concentrations were in fact rising.IS 42. By 1979, the National Academy of Sciences, which is charged with providing independent, objective scienti?c advice. to the United States government, concluded that there was ?incontrovertible evidence? that carbon dioxide levels were increasing in the atmosphere as a result - of fossil fuel use, and predicted that a doubling of annospheric carbon dioxide would cause an 5 Revelle, Roger, and Hans El Suess (1957]. ?Carbon Dior-tide Exchange between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric 002 During the Past Decades.? Teller 9: 1827, available . - -.?i90..l957.tb01849.xfeodf, - 6 Keeling, Charles D. (1960). ?The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances? of Carbon Dioxide I, . - in'the Atmosphere.? Te-Uus 12: 200-203, available at i 10. l. I was-? assrowl I - ll - I. FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 17 woodman-increase in global surface temperatrnes of between 1.5 and 4.5 i?C [2.7 and 8.1 with a - probable increase of 3 [5.4 43. 111 1988, NASA scientist Dr. James E. Hansen testi?ed to the US. Senate?s Energy. and Natural Resources Committee that ?[t]he greenhouse e??ect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.? 44. More recent research has con?rmed and expanded on these earlier ?ndings. In 1988, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess the scienti?c and technical information relevant to global warming, and to provide advice to all parties to the UN. Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the United States. The IPCC issues periodic assessment reports, which have become the standard scienti?c references on global warming. As Defendant Exxon has put it, the IPCC is ?the leading international - scienti?c authority on climate change.? 45. In 1990, the IPCC issued its First Assessment Report It stated that ?we are certain? that ?emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse carbon dioxide and methane, and- that ?these increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional I weaning of the Earth surface ?7 The FAR also predicted that a ?business as usual? scenario e. a ?iture in which fossil fuel production and associated emissions continue to increase) would cause global mean temperature during the next century to increase at a rate ?greater than that seen over the past 10, 000 years,? and ?will result 111 a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1 [1.8 above the present value by 2025 and [5 4 before the end of the next century? higher than temperamres have been in the last 150,000 years.8 The FAR also predicted that business as usual Would result in substantial sea as rise by 2100.9 7 bites: 11W tone far/we. lfipcc far we I sent pd? at Executive Summary Executive Summary xi mama?n 935494 I - 12 - . - COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 46. The FAR further stated ?with confidence? that continued emissions of carbon dioxide ?at present rates would commit us to increased concentrations for centuries ahead,? and that immediate reductions were required to stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations. In 1995, in its Second Assessment Report the IPCC concluded that the ?balance of evidence suggests a discernible human in?uence on global climate.? This causal ?nding was profoundly important as con?rmation that human-caused global warming had now been detected. By 2001, the IPCC strengthened its causal conclusion, stating that it was ?likely? [an IPCC term of art meaning a 66% to 90% chance of being true) that temperature increases already observed were attributable to human activity.? The U..S. National Academy of Sciences reviewed this ?nding and concluded that it was accurate. 47. The IPCC issued its most recent report, the Fifth Assessment, in 2013-14. .It states that it is ?extremely likely? (95% to 100% likely) that ?human in?uence has been the dominant . cause of the observed Warming since the mid-20th century.?11 48. The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by the combustion of fossil fuels - has been clearly documented and measured. Carbon dioiride from fossil fuels has a chemical ?ngerprint and is the culprit; natural sources of carbon dioxide were in balance prior to the use of - fossil fuels and are not a cause of the global warming problem. Today, due primarily to the combustion of fossil fuels produced by Defendants and others, the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is 410 ppm, higher than at any time during human civilization and likely higher than any level in millions of years. Theresult has been dramatic planetary warming: sixteen of earth?s seventeen warmest years in the 136-year' period of global temperature measurements have occurred . since 2001, and 2016 was the warmest year on record. As of July 2017, there Were 391 months in a row that were warmer than the twentieth century'average. The years 2014, 2015 and 2016 Were the'tbree hottest years ever recorded in California since modern temperature records were ?rst taken in 1895. California has warmed overl?. since 1895. I 49. Scientists typically use ?double 002,? or twice the pro?industrial level of annospheric carbon dioxide concentration, as 'a-standard reference for considering the warming irnpact'?f increased greenhouse gases. Double is 550 ppm. According toi'thc IPCC, double I IPCC, Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1, Summary for Policymakers at 10, available'at tariwgl fpd?WCrl 11 IPCC, Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers at 17, available at 121115 SPM FlNALpdfCOMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page .18_ will cause the global average surface air temperature to increase by 1.5 to 4.5 [2.7 to 8.1 over the pro-industrial level, a rate of warming that is unprecedented in the history of human civilization. By comparison, at the depths of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago, the global average temperature of the Earth was only seven to eleven degrees Fahrenheit cooler than today. Globally, approximately 1 [1.8 of the temperatme rise already has occurred, due primarily to carbon dioxide and methane emissions from the combustion and use of fossil fuels. I 50. Ongoing and future warming caused by past and ongoing use of massive quanti?es of fossil ?iels will cause increasineg severe harm to Oakland through accelerating sea level rise. in 2013, the IPCC projected ?iat between 2081 and 2100, the global average surface temperature will have increased by 4.7 to 3.6 under businesses?usual, a, with continued massive levels 1 of fossil fuel production. Global warming causes sea level rise by melting glaciers and sea ice, and by causing seawater to expand. This acceleration of sea level rise is unprecedented in the history of human civilization. Since 1990, the rate of sea level rise has more than doubled and it continues to accelerate. The rate of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets is increasing, and these ice sheets soon will become the primary contributor to global sea level rise. With production cf fossil fuels continuing on its businesses-usual trajectory, the resulting warming presents. a risk of ?Tapidly accelerating and effectively irreversible ice loss.? The melting of even a portion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the ?most'vulnerable major ice sheet in a Warming global climate,? will .. cause especially severe impacts in California. Rapid ice sheet loss on Antarctica due to global I _warrning rislcs a sea level rise in California of ten feet by 2100. This would be catastrophic for Oakland. 51'. TheEarth?s climate can undergo an abmpt'and dramatic change when a radiative . _forci_ng agent, such as carbon dioxide, causes the climate system to reach a tipping point. Defend-ants" massive production of fossil fuels increases the risk of reaching that tipping point, triggering a sudden and potentially catastrophic changef 1n climate. The rapidity of an abrupt climate shift would magnify all the adverse effects of global warming. Crossing a tipping point threshold also could lead to rapid disintegration of ice sheets on Greenland and/or Antarctica, I resulting in large and rapid increases in sea level rise. 010694-11 985494 COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCEH Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page DEFENDANTS HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE QUANTITIES OF FOSSIL FUELS AND HAVE CONTINUED TO DO SO EVEN AS GLOBAL WARMING HAS BECOME GRAVELY DANGEROUS. 52. For many years, Defendants have produced massive quanti?es of fossil fuels that, when combusted, emit carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas. Additionally, one of Defendants? primary fossil fuel products, natural gas, is comprised of methane, which is the second most important greenhouse gas and which, as Defendants know, routinely escapes into the atmosphere from facilities Operated by Defendants? customers and also consumers. The greenhouse gases from the usage of defendants? fossil fuels remain in the atmosphere for long periods of time: a substantial portion of carbon dioxide emissions remains in the atmosphere for over 1,000 years after they are emitted.12 As noted above, Defendants have produced such vast quantities of fossil fuels that they are ?ve of the ten largest producers in all of history, with most of the that has built up in the atmosphere from the use of their products dating from 1980 or later. The cumulative greenhouse gases inthe atmosphere attributable to each Defendant has increased the global temperature and contributed to Sea level rise, including in Oakland. 53. Once Defendants produce fossil fuels by, for example, extracting oil from the ground, those fossil fuels are used exactly as intended andernit carbon dioxide. 54. Despite their internal warnings,a'n overwhelming scienti?c censensus on the unfolding imminent catastrophe, and actual gravely dangerous impacts from global warming, . Defendants to this day maintain high levels of fossil fuel production. This production will intensify futm'e warming and exacerbate Oakland?s injuries from sea level rise. 55. Defendants? conduct will continue to cause ongoing and increasingly severe sea level rise harms to Oakland because Defendants are committed to a business model of massive . fossil. fuel production that they know causes a gravely dangerous rate of global warming. The following graph from a 2015 study published in the peer-reviewed scienti?c literature demonstrates the grave indifference Defendants BP, Shell and Etoton have for human safety and welfare, ?2 IPCC, Climate Change 2013, The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers'at'ES, available at mom - 15 - COWLAWT a PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 ON LUJN 23' .24- . 25' 26 2-7 23 010694-1l 986494 in page 21 w" I 4 a. we?? 1? fig?!? - ?air, )5 I 6 . Home: Emma; 1m? 3 19% ms zen:- m? 39"? 3015 3030 20:5 2030 sass - The graph compares the greenhouse gas emissions trajectory necessary to prevent global warming from exceeding a 2 l?C increase over the lire-industrial temperature 450 ?om International Energy Agency) to BP, Exxon and Shell?s projections of total worldwide future emissions that they. use to make long-term business plans.13 The 2 level of global warming is widely considered to be a red line of highly dangerous global warming Upon information and belief, all Defendants base their long-term business plans upon similar projections. VI. DEFENDANT HAVE PRODUCED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FOSSIL FUELS DESPITE HAVING FULL KNOWLEDGE FROM THEIR IN-HOUSE SCIENTIFIC STAFF, OR FROM API, THAT FOSSIL FUELS WOULD CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING. 56. For decades, Defendants have known that their fossil fuel products pose risks of 1. ?severe?, and even ?catastrophic? impacts on the. global climate through the work and warnings of their own scientists or through their trade association. Yet each Defendant decided to continue its Conduct and commit itself to massive fossil fuel production. This was a deliberate decision to place companyr pro?ts ahead of human safety and well?being and property, and to foist onto the public the costs of abating and adapting to the public nuisance of global warming. - 13 Frumhoff, et 211., The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers, Climatic Change, at 167 (2015), available at l067/5105 84?01%14725. .16; common FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 22 4:.2-6 27.- 28 57. The American Petroleum Institute is a national trade association that represents the interests of America?s oil and natural gas industry. At all relevant times, Defendants, their corporate predecessors andfor their operating subsidiaries over which they exercise substantial control, have been members of the API. On information and belief, the API has acted as Defendants? agent with respect to global warming, received funding from Defendants for the APPS global warming initiatives, and shared with Defendants the information on global warming described herein 58. Beginning in the 19505, the API repeatedly warned its members that fossil fuels posed a grave threat to the global climate. These warnings have included, for example, an admission in 1968 in an API report predicting that carbon dioxide emissions were ?almost certain? to produce ?signi?cant? temperature increases by 2000, and that these emissions were almost certainly attributable to fossil ?iels. The report warned of ?major changes in ?the earth?s environmen and a ?rise in sea levels,? and concluded: ?there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could beseiwere.?l4 Similar warnings followed in the ensuing decades, including reports commissioned by the in the 19803 that there was ?scienti?c consensus? thet catastrophic climate change would ensue unless API members changed their business models, and predictions that sea levels would rise considerably, with grave consequences, if atmospheric concentrations of continued to increase. 59. The warnings to Defendants included: a) In 1951, ?the API launched a project to research air pollution from petroleum attributed atmospheric carbon to fossilfuel sources. By 1968, the scienti?c consultant reported to the API that carbon dioxide emissions were ?almost certain? to produce ?signi?cant? temperature increases by 2000, and that these emissions were almost certainly attributable to fossil fuels. The report warned of ?major changes in the earth?s environment? and a ?4 E. Robinson 8; RC. Robbins, Final Report, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants, SR1 Project prepared for AmericanPen'oleurn Institute, at 109- 110, available at amass-11 3115494 v: i . 17 COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page Atmospheric Pollutants, SR1 Project I?ll-6755, prepared for American Petroleum Institute, at 109- I . 27 28 ?rise in sea levels and concluded: ?there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our entrironrnent could be severe.?15 b) In 1930, an API task force on climate change invited Dr. 1A. Laurman, a ?recognized expert in the ?eld of and climate,? to make a presentation to the API C02 and Climate Task Force. Attendees to the presentation included scientists and executives from Texaco (a predecessor to Chevron), Exxon and SOHIO (a predecessor to BP). Dr. Laurrnan informed the API task force that there was a ?Scienti?c Consensus on the Potential for Large Futtm: Climatic Response to Increased C02 Levels.? He informed the API task force in his presentation that, though exact temperature increases were dif?cult to predict, the ?physical facts agree on the probability of large effects 50 years away.? His own temperature forecast was of'a 2.5 [4.5 rise by 2035, which would likely have ECONOMIC and a 5 [9 it] rise by 2067, which would likely produce CATASTROPHIC He also Suggested that, despite uncertainty, IS NO in the time for acting. API minutes- show that the task force discussed tepics including ?the technical implications of energy source changeover," ?ground rules for energyr release of fuels and the cleanup of fuels as they . relateto C02 creation," and researching?ihe Market Penetration Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use?? - In March 1982, an API-cornmissioned report showed the average increase in global temperature from a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of C02 and projected, based upon I computer modeling, global warming of between 2 and 3.5 [3.6 to 6.3 The report projected *5 E. Robinson ac. Robbins, Final Report, some, Abmtdance, and Fate of Gaseous 110, available at h-Ltps?mnmokeand?tmesorg I ?6 (302 and Climate Task Force, Minutes of Meeting, at 1-2 Attachrnent B, available or Force?ltl?MeetinsifiZG?/e?i i 986%39?df. cram-n (restraint . . - 18 - . - . FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 24 mature potentially ?serious consequences for man? comfort and survival,? and noted that ?the height of the sea level can increase considerably.?17 60. In addition to the API information some of the Defendants produced their own internal analyses of global warming. For example, newly disclosed documents demonstrate that Exxon internally acknowledged in the late 1970s and early 19803 that its products posed a ?catastrophic? threat to the global climate, and that fossil ?Jel' use would have to be strictly limited to avoid severe harm. a) Exxon management was informed by its scientists in 1977 that there was an ?ovenvhelming?? consensus that fossil fuels were responsible for atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. The presentation-somatized a warning from a recent international scienti?c conference that IS PREMATURE TO LIMIT USE OF FOSSIL FUELS BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE The scientist warned management in a summary of his talk: ?Present thinking holds that man has a time window of ?ve to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.?18 - b) In a 1979 Exxon internal memo, an Exxon scientist calculated that 80% of fossil fuel reserves would need to remain in the ground and unburned to avoid greater than a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.? c) In a 1981 internal Exxon memo, a scientist and director at the Exxon Research and Engineering Cempany warned that ?it is possible? that emissions ?will later produce 17 . . mgie??warmiogiodfat 3,010694-11 - - 19 - COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth?s population)??1 11) A year later, the same scientist Wrote another memo to Exxon headquarters, which reported on a ?clear scienti?c consensus? that ?a doubling of atmospheric from its pre- "industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 i 1.5) [2.7 to 8.1 The clear scienti?c consensus was based upon computer modeling, which Exxon would later attack as unreliable and uncertain in an effort to undermine public con?dence in climate science.212 The memo continued: ?There is'unanimous agreement in the scienti?c community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about signi?cant changes in the earth?s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.? c) in November 1982, an Exxon hiternal report to management warned that ?substantial climatic changes?lcould occur if the average global temperature rose ?at least [1.8 i above [1982] levels,? and that ?[111] itigation of the ?greenhouse effect? would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion.? The report then warns Exxon management that ?there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered,? including the risk that ?if the Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land should melt, then this could cauSe a rise in sea level I on the order of 5 meters.? The report includes a graph demonstrating the expected future global warming from the ?002 effect? demonstrating a sharpdeparture from the ?Mange of natural ?uctuations." This graph is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.23 1) By 1983, Exxon had created its own climate models, which con?rmed the main conclusions item the earlier memos. Starting by at least the mid-1980s, Exxon used its own 2D httn: f/insideclimatenews :odf . 2] Cohen memo to Natkin at 1 (Sept. 2, 1982}, available at 22 See mine 11 76 23 M. Glaser, Memo to aw. Cohen et al. on ??02 Greenhouse Effect? Nov 12, 1932, at 2.12- 13, 28, available at . http: {insideclimatenews OEWiEQGreenhousei? e??Effe/ct ndf. truism-41 936mm - - -- . . COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 26 uoocuonmbw about the adverse health effects of smoking. Defendants campaign inevitably encouraged fossil 27 28 climate models, and governmental ones to gauge the impact that climate change Would have on its own business operations and subsequently took actions to protect its own business assets based upon these modeling results. 61. Exxon's early research and understanding of the global warming impacts of its business was not unique among Defendants. For example, at least as far back as 1970, Defendants Shell and BP began funding scienti?c research in England to examine the possible future climate changes from greenhouse gas emissions. Shell produced a ?lm on global warming in 1991, in which it admitted that here had been a ?marked increase [in global temperames] in the 1930s? and that the increase ?does accord with computer models based on the known atmospheric processes and predicted buildup of greenhouse gases.?24 It acknowledged a ?serious Warning? that had been ?endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists" in 1990. In the ?lm, Shell further admits I that by 2050 continued emissions of greenhouse gases at high levels would cause a global average temperature increase of 1.5 to 4 (2.7 to 7.2 that one meter of sea level rise was likely in the next century; that ?this could be disastrous;? and that there is a ?possibility of change faster than at any time since the end of the ice age, change too fast, perhaps, for life to adapt without severe - dislocation.? VII. DESPITE THEIR EARLY KNOWLEDGE THAT GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL AND POSED GRAVE THREATS, DEFENDANTS PROMOTED FOSSIL FUELS FOR PERVASIVE USE WHILE DOWNPLAYING THE REALITY AND RISKS OF GLOBAL WARMING. 62. Defendants have extensively promoted fossil fuel use in massive quantities through I . af?rmative advertising for fossil fuels and downplaying global Warming risks. First, Defendants promoted massive use of fossil ?iels by misleading the public about global warming by emphasizing the uncertainties of climate science and through the use of paid denialist groups and '-_-indiyidIial_s 5? a striking resemblance to Big Tobacco?s propaganda campaign to deCeive the public fuel consumption at levels that were_(as Defendants knew) certain to severely harm the public. 2? 0105944] swim . - - . . COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page -2.8 Second, Defendants? fossil fuel promotions through ?equent advertising for their fossil fuel products, including promotions claiming that consumption at current and even expanded levels is ?responsible? or even ?respectful" of the environment, have encouraged continued fossil fuel consumption at massive levels that Defendants knew would harm the public.25 A. Defendants borrowed the Big Tobacco playbook in order to promote their products. 63. Notwithstanding Defendants? early knowledge of climate change, Defendants have engaged in advertising and public relations campaigns intended to promote their fossil fuel products by downplaying the harms and risks of global warming. Initially, the campaign tried to show that global warming was not occurring. More recently, the campaign has sought to minimize the risks and harms from global warming. The campaign?s purpose and effecthas been to help Defendants continue to produce fossil fuels and sell their products on a massive scale. This campaign was executed in large part by front groups funded by Defendants, either directly or through API, and through statements made by Defendants directly. 64- One front group was the Global Climate coalition The GCC operated between 1989 and 2002. Its members included the API, and predecessors or subsidiaries of . . Defendants. William O?Keefe, former president of the GCC, was also a former executive of the 65. The GCC spent millions of dollars on campaigns to discredit climate science, including $13 million on one ad campaign alone. The GCC distributed a video to hundreds of - journalists which claimed that carbon dioxide emissions would increase crop productidn and feed the hungry people of the world. - 66. However, internal GCC documents admitted that their ?contrarian? climate theories were unfounded. In December 1995, the Science and Technology Advisory Committee whose members included employees of Mobil Oil Corporation (an Exxon predecessor) and API, drafted. a primer on the science of global wannin'g for GCC members. The 25 ConocoPhillips, the changing energy landscape, available at - - changinsenerav-landseaoe.asox; Chevron TV ad (2009), 5 I ?22? COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page primer concluded that-the contrarian theories ?do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced clir'nate change.? Due to this inconvenient conclusion, at its next meeting, in January 1996, the decided simply to drop this seven-page section of the report. Nonetheless, for years afterward, the GCC and its members continued to tout their contrarian theories about global wanning, even though the GCC had admitted internally these arguments were invalid. 67. In February 1996, an internal GCC presentation stated that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels over pre-industrial concentrations would occur by 2100 and cause ?an average rate of warming [that] would probably be greater than any seen in the past 10,000 years." The . presentation noted ?potentially irreversible? impacts that could include ?signi?cant loss of life.? 68. Certain Defendants also funded anotherfront group in the 19903, the Global Climate Science Communications Team members included Exxon, Chevron, and API A 1998 task force memo outlined an explicit strategy to invest millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming, directly emulating a similar disinformation campaign by the tobacco industry The memo stated: Victory Will Be Achieved 117171311? among other things,? Average citizens ?understand (recognize) uncertainties 1'11 climate sciences public? recognition of uncertamty becomes part ofrhe wisdom, and the . ?Media ?understands? (recognizes) uncertainties in "climate science. ?26 The plan stated that progress would be measured by the percentage of new articles that raise questions about climate- change. 69. Over at least the- last nineteon years, 13102011 in particular has paid researchers and front groups to create uncertainties about basic climate change science and used denialist groups to attack well-respected scientists. These were calculated business decisions by Exxon to undermine - climate change science and bolster production of fossil ?iels 70. - Between 1998 and 2014, Exxdn paid millions of dollars to organizations to promote I disinformation on global warming. During the early- to mid-19905, Exxon directed some of this 3" ?1nding to Dr. Fred Seitz, Dr. Fred Singer, and/or Seitz and, Singer?s Science and Environmental 1? Global Climate Science communications: Action Plan, Apr. 3, 1998. 010694-11 9115494111 - 23 - COMPLAINT nos rustic NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 29 U1 WOONJON Policy Project in order to launch repeated attacks on mainstream climate science and IPCC conclusions, even as Exxon scientists participated in the IPCC. Seitz, Singer and SEPP had previously been paid by the tobacco industry to create doubt in the public mind about the hazards of smoking. Seitz and Singer were not climate scientists. 71. I Exxon?s promotion of fossil ?iels also entailed the funding of denialist groups that attacked well-respected scientists Dr. Benjamin Santer and Dr. Michael Mann, maligning their . characters and seeking to discredit their scienti?c conclusions with media attacks and bogus studies in order to undermine the 1995 and 200] conclusion that human-driven global warming is now occurring. I 72. One of Defendants? most frequently used denialists has been an aerospace engineer named Wei Hock Soon. Between 2001 and 2012, various fossil fuel interests, including Exxon and API, paid Scion over $1.2 million. Soon was the lead author of a 2003 article which argued that the climate had not changed signi?cantly; The article was widely promoted by other denial groups funded by Em, including via ?Tech Central Station," a website supported by Exxon. Soon published other bogus ?research? in 2009, attributing global warming to solar activity, for which Exxon paid him $76,106. This 2009 grant was made several years after Exxon had publicly conmiitted not to fund global warming deniers. 73. Until recently, website referred to global warming as ?possible man-made warming?? and claimed that the human contribution is ?uncertain.? The API removed this statement from its. web site in 2016 when journalistic investigations called attention to the misleading statements on global warming and its 19705! 1980s task force on global warming. 74. In 2000, Exxon took out an advertisement on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times entitled ?Unsettled Science The advertisement claimed that ?scientists remain unable to con?rni" the proposition that ?humans are causing global warming. "27 This was six years after the - IPCC had continued the causal link betvveen planetary warming and anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions a historic moment in climate science? and some eighteen years after Exxon itself had 27 moss-1.11 9:151:94 v: - 24 COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page admitted in a 1982 internal memoranda to corporate headquarters that there was ?a clear scienti?c consensus? that greenhouse gas emissions would cause temperatures to rise. 75. On May 27, 2015, at Exxlon?s annual shareholder meeting, then-CEO Rex Tillerson misleadingly downplayed global warming?s risks by stating that climate models used to predict future impacts were unreliable: ?What if everything we do it turns out our models were really lousy and we achieved all of our objectives and it out the planet behaved differently because the modelsjust weren?t good enough to predict it?? But as noted above, in 1932 Exxon?s scienti?c staff stated, based upon the climate models, that there was a ?clear scienti?c consensus" with respect to the level of projected ?rture global warming and starting shortly thereafter Exxon relied upon the projections of climate models, including its ovm cliinate models, in order to protect its own business assets. 76. Until recently Exxon?s website continued to emphasize the ?uncertainty? of global warming science and impacts: ?current scienti?c understanding provides limited guidance on the I likelihood, magnitude, or time frame? of events like temperature extremes and sea level rise.28 Exxon?s insistence on ball certainty was clear misdirection, since Ems knew that the fundamentals of climate science were Well settled and showed global warming to present a clear and present danger. I I B. Defendants? direct promotion of fossil fuels. Defendants continue to promote massive fossil fuel use by the public notwithstanding that global warming is happening, that global ?arming is primarily caused by their fossil fuels, and that global warming is causing severe injuries. Defendants promote the massive use of fossil fuels through advertisements landing fossil hole as ?Tesponsible? and ?respectful?.? to the environment, identifying fossil fuels as the only way to sustain modern standards of living, and promoting sales of their fossil ?iels without quali?cation. Defendants and/or their U. S. subsidiaries are members of the APL The API also promotes the bene?ts of fossil fuel products on 2? Formerly found at has rename. emotion g1. coat; needs?niana aging a-clirnataehangeu business-risks. .. {110594-11 956494V1 - COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 31 seam-1'23 "24' 25 27- 28 I asht?ml. behalf of Defendants and its other members. Defendants? message to consumers is that fossil fuels may continue to be burned in massive quantities without risking signi?cant injuries. 78. Defendants bombard the public and consumers with the following advertisements, although these are a mere sliver of Defendants? extensive campaigns. Defendants? advertisements must be understood in their proper context as following Defendants? substantial early knowledge on global warming risks and impacts, and following a decades-long campaign of misleading statements on global warming that primed the pump for massive use of their fossil fuel products. a) Exxon?s ?Lights Across America? website advertisement states that natural gas is ?helping dramatically reduce America?s ernissions?m even though natural gas is a fossil fuel causing widespread planetary warming and harm to coastal cities like Oakland and the use of natural gas competes with wind and solar, which have no greenhouse gas emissions. b) In 2017, Shell?s CEO promoted massive fossil ?iel use by stating that the fossil fuel . industry could play a ?crucial ri?e? in lifting people out of poverty.? A Shell website promotion states: ?We are helping to meet the world?s growing energy demand while limiting COZ-ernissions, by delivering more cleaner-burning natural gas.?3 I BP touts natural gas on its website as ?a vital lower carbon energy source ?and as playing a ?crucial role? in a transition to a lower oarbonfutore.32 BP promotes continued massive fossil fuel use as enabling two billion people to be lifted out of poverty. 1 d) Chevron?s website implores the public that ?we produce safe, reliable energy products for people around the Ivrorld.?33- Chevron also promotes massive use of fossil fuels as. the key to lifting people out of poverty: ?Reliable and affordable energy is necessary for improving 29 I bites voutnbe eomfwatethl CBinoridelisFPLIerl-?li 7aavYGaEleI?n Adsindeswd tat O: 46). 3" Shel] can speech, Mar. 9, 2017, available shell html. 3} Shell United States, Transfonning Natural Gas, available at http: shell asieneravnand? 32 htto: naive! ho thembaseucase. 33 Chevron, Products and Services available at bites: chevron seriwgmices. omega-11 925494 v1 - 26 COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page standards of living, expanding the middle class and lifting people out of poverty. Oil and-natural gas will continue to ful?ll a signi?cant portion of global energy demand for decades to come even in a carbon-constrained scenario.? A prior Chevron advertisement still available on the web promotes Chevron fossil fuels on a massive scale by stating that ?our lives demand all.?34 e) ConocoPhillips promotes its fossil fuel products by stating that it ?responsibly suppl?es] the energy that powers modern life.?35 Similarly, ConocoPhillips has the following advertising slogan on its website: ?Providing energy to improve quality of life."36 79. Contrary to Defendants? claims that the use of massive amounts of fossil fuels is required to lift people out of poverty, the IPCC has concluded: ?Climate-change impacts are expected to exacerbate poverty in most developing countries and create new poverty pockets in countries with increasing inequality, in both developed and developing countries.?37 30. Defendants BP and Exxon have also used long-term energy forecasts and similar reports to promote their products under. the guise of expert, objective analysis. These forecasts have repeatedly sought to justify heavy reliance on fossil ?rels by overstating the cost of renewable energyDefendants? energy ferocasts are aimed in substantial part at consumers and are promoted tothe public through their respective websites and other direct media. Exxon continues 'i to promote its annual ?Outlook for Energy? reports in videos currently available on the internet. But Defendants? energy ?analyses? are self-serving means of promoting fossil ?rels and undercutting non?dangerous renewable energy and clean technologies. For example, Exxon has claimed in a recent forecast that natural gas is a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions I than wind or solar power while BP has claimed that solar and wind power will be more expensive 3? Chevron TV ad (2009), available a: 35 CouocoP-hillips, the changing energy landscape, ovaiiable at . . changingseaergyulandmapenaps. . - I - 36 ConocoPhillips, Producing energy, available at . - . . 3-7 IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Working Group 111 Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Summary for PoliCymakers at 20, avaiiable at fipcc wg3 ar? fuilpdf. - Wan - -27- COMPLAINT FOR-PUBLIC - - Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 2050 than natural gas or coal even though wind and solar are already cheaper than natural gas or coal in some circumstances. Exxon and BP also have understated in recent ?forecasts? the I expected market share of electric vehicles even as electric vehicle technology has taken off, prices have dropped and GM announced (in 2015) that it was investing billions in electric cars because the ?futime is electric.? 82. Defendants? reports also promote their fossil fuel products by warning consumers of supposed downsides to reducing fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions. For example, Enron?s most recent report claims that the costs of carbon dioxide reductions, are ?idtimately . borne by consumers and taxpayers.? 83. These reports by BP and Exxon, and .a similar one by Shell, predict massive increases in fossil fuel use over roughly the next 15 years. This is part of a larger strategy of - "?Inak?ng] the case for the necessary role of fossil fuels,? as chief executive stated in a . moment of candor in 2015. OAKLAND WILL INCUR SERIOUS CLIDPIATE CHANGE INJURIES THAT WILL REQUIRE BILLIONS IN EXPENDITURES TO ABATE THE GLOBAL WARMING a NUISANCE. - 84,- According to a 2012 California governmental report, by 2050, California is . projected to warm by approximately 2.7 DF above the average temperature in 2000, regardless of the level of future emissions, a rate of warming three times greater thanover the last century. By 2100, California?s average temperannes could increase by 8.6 if not more. Oakland?s average .surnnrertime high temperature is projected to increase from 72.36 to 79.61 by 2100, making - Oakland?s summers similar to'those now experienced in Vista, CA, some 400 miles to the south. I Continued production of massive amounts of fossil fuels will exacerbate global wanning, increase sea level rise and result in grave harms to Oakland. 85.. Global weaning has ceased and continues to cause accelerated sea level rise. in San .- Francisco Bay and the adjacent ocean'with severe, and potentially catastrophic, consequences for. Oaldand. Scientists recently concluded that coastal California is already experiencing impacts from accelerated sea level rise, including ?more extensive coastal ?ooding during storms, periodic - . {310594-11 9:254va . ?28? COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISAN CE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 34 tidal ?ooding, and increased coastal erosion.? In the last 100 years, the California coast has experienced sea level rise of 6.7 to 7.9 inches. 86. Storms with their attendant surges and ?ooding occur on top of and superimposed on sea level rise, causing storm surges to be greater, extend farther inland, and cause more extensive damage including greater inundation and ?ooding of public and private property in Oakland. A 100-year ?ood event is, an event that without global wanning normally has a 1% - chance of happening every year. But by 2050, a ??lOD-year ?ood? in the Oakland vicinity is expected to occur on average once every 2.3 years and by 2100 to occur 44 times per year or almost once per week. Similarly, the SOD-year storm surge ?ood would occur 13 times per year by .2100. Even with lower levels of future fossil fuel production, there will be substantial increases in ?ood frequencies in Oakland due to past and ongoing fossil fuel combustion. 87. . Accelerated sea level rise in California is causing and will continue to cause inundation of both public and private property located within Oakland. Oakland is projected to experience up to 66 inches of sea level rise by 2100, putting at risk thousands of City residents. Sea level ties of even 16 inches will put at risk numerous city facilities, including schools, ?re stations, health care facilities, and homeless shelters located-in low-lying areas of Oakland. Projected sea level rise in Oakland threatens property with a total replacement cost of between $22 and $38 billion. The-Oakland International Airport is located at only 5.6 feet above sea leVel and is one of I the four lowest-lying airports in the country. The 2014 National Climate Assessment, produced by over 3-00 experts and the National Academy of Sciences, speci?cally identi?ed Oakland?s airport . as threatened by sea level rise; it is more than a foot lower than New York-LaGuardia, which was ?ooded during Hurricane Sandy, a one?in-260 year event Sea level rise and related ?ooding also inrminently threaten Oakland?s sewer system. Rising sea levels imminently threaten to prevent water from discharging properly from the sewer. system, which will cause sewage to back up and ?ood certain sections of the city. Oakland has already begun to feel mjury from sea level rise, - althoughits most severe injuries by far are the injuries that will occur in the ?lters if prompt action is not taken to protect Oakland and its residents horn rising sea levels caused by global warming. The sea level rise projection is an understatement in light of anew, 2017 reportthat sea level son PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 35 WOO-NICE likely to rise faster than projected and could reach as much as a catastrophic ten feet by the end of the century.38 88. Oakland must adapt now to ongoing sea level rise to abate ongoing damage to property, facilities, and equipment, with risks of increasingly severe damage in the future. Oakland is actively planning to protect itself from sea level rise because it recognizes that the ongoing harms will imminently become more severe absent adaptation. The City of Oakland already is taking action to adapt to accelerated sea level rise. In 2016, for example, Oakland adopted a ?ve- year Local Hazard W?gation Plan that analyzes risks from sealevel rise, identi?es mitigation measures to reduce those risks, and contains a ?ve-year implementation plan. Oakland has been working to identify speci?c infrastructure necessary for adaptation, including upgrades to sewer and storm water infrastr-ucnrre, protecting Oakland International Airport, and armoring Oakland?s coast. For example, signi?cant flood protection infrastructure is planned for the airport, including the Old Earhart Road Floodwall Improvement (estimated to cost $800,000) and improvements to - the existing, 4. 5-mile Airport Perimeter Dike (estimated to cost $55 million). Oakland also plans . to complete a $2 million Sea Level Vulnerability and Assessment Improvement Plan for the Port of Oakland, and it is working with the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission on a regional study of sea level rise risk. The magnitude of the actions needed to abate harms ?om sea level rise and the amount of property at risk will increase in light of the rapidly accelerating sea level rise. 89. Oakland 13 already experiencing, and working to abate, current harms caused by sea level rise. But while harms to-Oakland and its residents have commenced, additional far more severe injuries will occur in the future if prompt. action is not taken to protect Oakland and its residents from rising sea levels. Indeed, thesea level rise harms in?icted 011 Oakland by global warmingare insidious partly because they are projected to continue, and to worsen, far into the ?iture. Pervasive fossil fuel combustion and greenhouse gas emissions to date will cause ongoing i and future harms "regardless of ?iture fossil ?le] combustion or future greenhouse gas emissions. Future production and use of fossil fuels will exacerbate sea level rise and require even greater 3'3 Rising Seas in California 'er - ?30- COWLAIHT FOR PUBLIC NLHSANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 24.- 25 26 21 '28 expenditrues to abate the injuries. Oakland must plan for and adapt to sea level rise future harms . now to ensure that abatement of ongoing and future sea level rise harms is done as ef?ciemly and effectively as possible and in order to protect human well-being and public and private property before it is too late. Additionally, the significant infrastructure needed to abate global warming requires long lead times for planning, ?nancing, and implementation. Planning to abate the imam and projected adverse effects of global warming on Oakland and its citizens remains underway, and will continue. Sea level rise impacts in the future are imminent in the context of planning for and carrying out large? scale, complex infrastructure projects to protect Oakland from sea level rise. 90. Sea level rise, storm surges, and ?ooding caused by global warming threaten not only the physical infrastructure and property of Oakland and its citizens, but also the safety, lives, daily way of life, sense of community, and security of Oakland residents. A severe storm surge coupled with higher sea levels caused by global "warming could occur at any time, potentially resulting in the loss of life and extensive damage to public and private property. The risk of catastrophic sea level rise harm to Oakland and its citizens will increase, just as rising sea levels will continue to cause regular damage, the longer concrete action is not taken to abate the harms I and effects of sea level rise. I 91 . Many of the Oakland residents who are likely to be most a?ectcd by climate change are low-income andfor people of color. As- the US. government has pointed out, people of color, . low-income groups, and certainirnrnigrant groups are-(eg, because of poverty, chronic health conditions, and social isolation) ?Wlnerable? to climate change impacts, including heat waves, ?ooding, and degraded air quality. This is true in Oakland, where ?socially vulnerable? individuals such as A?ican Americans, Hispanics and other people of color tend to live at lower elevations most affected by sea level rise and higher storm surges. These populations also face challenges due to the legacies of slavery, such as redlining, predatory mortgage and other I I lending, systemic racism and discrimination in securing insurance and other assets that would protect them ?'om the consequences of global warming and the ensuing climate change. More I affluent residents live farther from the Bay and at higher elevations. For example, of the City of I Oakland population that lives on land within three vertical feet of the current local high tide line, *in .11- . COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE - Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page .26- 27 28 more than 70% have been categorized as having high ?social vulnerability.? This makes it all the more imperative fer the People to act now to prevent harm, as those most vulnerable have the fewest resources to protect themselves. 92; Building in?astructure to protect Oakland and its residents, will, upon information and belief, cost billions of dollars. I IX. CAUSE-0F ACTION: PUBLIC NUISANCE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE 93. The People incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs. I 94. The People of the State of California, acting by and through the Oakland City Attorney, bring this claim seeking abatement pursuant to California public nuisance law, including section 731 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494. 95. DefendantsI production and promotion of massive quantities of fossil fuels, and their promotion of those fossil fuels? pervasive use, has caused, created, assisted in the creation contributed to, and/or maintained and continues to cause, create, assist in the creation of, contribute andfor maintain to global warming-induced sea level rise, a public nuisance in Oakland. Defendants, both individually and collectively, are substantial contributors to the global warming- induced sea level rise and the People?s attendant injuries and threatened injuries. The People?s injuries and threatened injuries from each Defendant?s conu'ibutions to global warming are indivisible mjnries. Each Defendant past and ongoing conduct is a direct and proximate cause of - the People 5 injuries and threatened mjuries. Defendants each should have known that this dangerous global warming with its attendant hanns on coastal cities like Cakland would occur before it even did occur, and each Defendant in fact did have such knowledge. Each Defendant has at all relevant times been aware, and continues to be aware, that the inevitable emissions of greenhouse gases from the fossil fuels it produces combines with the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels produced by the other Defendants, among others, to result' in dangerous levels of global warming with grave hanns for coastal cities like Oakland. Defendants were aware of this dangerous global warming, and of its attendant henna on coastal cities like Oakland, circa before I - I - those harms began to occur; Defendants? conduct constitutes a substantial and unremnable W94 COMPLAINTFOR PUBLIC NUISANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 38 interference with and obstruction of public rights and property, including, inter alto, the public rights to health, safety and welfare of Oakland residents and other citizens whose safety and lives are at risk from increased storm surge ?ooding and whose public and private property, including key infrasnucnne properties such as Oakland International Airport, is threatened with widespread damage from global warming-induced sea level rise, greater storm surges, and ?ooding. 96. Defendants, individually and collectively, are substantial contributors to global warming and to the injuries and threatened injuries suffered by the People. Defendants have caused or contributed to accelerated sea level rise from global warming, which has and will continue to injure public property and land located in the Cit)r of Oakland, including Oakland Intemational Airport, through increased inundation, stonn surges, and ?ooding, and which threatens the safety and lives of Oakland residents. Defendants have in?icted and continue to in?ict injuries upon the People that require the People to incur extensive costs to protect public and private property, including Oakland International Airport, against increased sea level rise, inundation, storm surges and ?ooding. 97. Defendants have promoted the use of fossil fuels at unsafe levels even though they should have known and in fact have known for many years that global warming threatened severe and even catastrophic harms to coastal cities like Oakland. - Defendants pronrotedfossil fuels and fossil?rel products for unlimited use in massive quantities with knowledge of the hazard that such usewould create. 98. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the. People for committing a public nuisance. The People seek an order of abatement requiring Defendants to fund a climate change adaptation program for, Oakland consisting of the building of sea walls, raising the elevation of I low-lying property and buildings and building such other infrastructure as is necessary for Oakland I: to adapt to climate change.39 . I I 35' The People also do not seek abatement with respect to any federal land. 01069441 986494 COWLA FOR PUBLICNUI SANCE Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 18RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, the People pray forjudgment and an order against each Defendant, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. Finding Defendants BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Emma, and Shell jointly and severally liable for causing, creating, assisting in the creation, of, contributing to, andfor maintaining a public nuisance; 2. Ordering an abatement fund remedy to be paid for by Defendants to provide for infrastructure in Oakland necessary for the People to adapt to global warming impacts such as sea level rise; 3. - 4.- 5.. 6. Awarding attorneys? fees as permitted by law; Awarding costs and expenses as pennitted by law; Awarding pre- and post-j udgnient interest as permitted by law; and Awarding such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Dated: September 19, 2017 Respect?rlly submitted, UPARKEIL City Attorney bparker@oaldandcityattorney- org One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor Oaldand, California Tel. 510.238.3601 Fax 510.238.6500 - Attorney for Plaintz?" 010694-11 936494 in - - ?l4 - COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC HUISANCE - Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 40 1 Of Counsel: [Conrad Listed in Alphabetical Order] STEVE W. HERMAN (pro hac vice application to be submitted) EMERSON HILTON (pro hac vice application to be submitted) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Ave. Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel. (206) 623?7292 Fax (206) 623-0594 8 SHANA E. SCARLETT (bar no. 217895) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 9 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, California 94710 10 Tel. (510) 725-3000 Fax (510) 725-3001 MATTHEW F. PAWA (pro hac vice application to be submitted) 12 BENJAMIN A. KRASS (pro hac vice application to be submitted) 13 WESLEY KELMAN (pro hac vice application to be submitted) 14 HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 15 1280 Centre Street, Suite 230 - - - Newton Centre, Massachusetts 02459 16 Tel; (617) 641-9550 Fax: (617) 641-9551 11 1: I Attorneysfor The People .19 20 .21 ?2COMPLAINT FOR PUBLIC Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 41 Exhibit 1: Map showing projected sea level rise, 43-inch scenario, West Oakland detail Source: City of Oakland 2016-2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (June 2016), p. 84 Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page ?531 ?rs-c?qugin-a i? (in.95(?35 E, 3 i: Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 43 Exhibit 2: Map showing projected sea level rise, 48-inch scenario, East Oakland detail Source: City of Oakland 2016?2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (June 2016), p. 85 Figure 9.2 Projected Sea-Level Rise 48-lnch scenario, East Oakland Detall 85 m?mi ig'iwmu Eliapc?'! Fine m-mns?mmn 3a] . Puiku Strum; Arm Lodai Hazard-Mitigation Plan 20% im-mnm. Prpjected Sea Level Rise~ 2050 Scenarim hati?akiand 591nm: BED-E: ml: is {an- Mame: mamas gag-E; hair; ma mam; Mamh'im?. Sep 19 2017 O3 02PM Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 44 Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 45 Exhibit 3: ?Range of Global Mean Temperature From 1850 to the Present with the Projected Instantaneous Climatic Response to Increasing C02 Concentrations? Source: MB. Glaser, Memo for Exxon management (Nov. 12, 1982), pp. 1, 28 Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 page 46 3 . a 1112 SEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY M3. 30X NEWJERSEY 0?932 M. B. GLASEH Came: ENGREKXON. Manager Emironmentai Mfos?u Programs .November 12, 1932 "Greenhouse" Effect 2 266 To: See Distribution List Attached Attached for your informa.tion and guidance is briefing material on the C02 "Greenhouse" Effect which is receiving i.ncreased attention in both the scientific and popular press as an emerging environmental issue. A br.ief summary is provided along with a more detailed technical review prepared by CPPD. The material has been given wide circulation-to Exxon management and is int.enoed to familiarize Exxon personnel with the subject. It may be used as a basis for discussing the issue with outsiders as may be appropriate. However, it should be restricted -to~Exxon personnel and not ?istributed externally. Very truly yours, 27-51%? M. B. GLASER MBG:rva sages-a- 95 a :E?mW?uwaWWgE Eu gig? t?i??E?rWW? 3 3. Attachments gw?f??r? Sep 19 2017 Hagens Berman 15107253001 Change o?.global.mean temperature page 47 -23- gum 9? Range af' Global. Mean Temperature From 1850 to the Present with the ?rajected Instantaneous Climatic Response to w-Incraasing 002 Concentratiansz 33? '1 [Expected range of 3 fluctuations including C02 effy/ A gr" Observed 53351 A 1\ - Range? of . natural - 0. m. fluctu-atians - E?ast changes 3&5sz (c1 imatic noise1850 1900 1950 2800 2050 2100 ha: