Big oil companies like to sue smaller municipalities in order to throw their weight around. Occasionally, human beings are able to sue back and get big oil companies to atone for a sliver of their greedy misdeeds. Right now, with the affects of climate change being felt all over the Untied States, San Francisco and Oakland have added their names to the lists of people suing big oil companies in order to hold them accountable.
In the latest lawsuits, the cities argue that ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell have known for decades about the climate risks created by their products while carrying out campaigns to "deceive consumers about the dangers."
"Global warming is here, and it is harming San Francisco now," San Francisco's lawsuit begins. "This egregious state of affairs is no accident."
This move is not unlike states that have begun to sue major opioid manufacturers in order to get some restitution; and states pay for the rising costs of dealing with the opioid crisis. The math is very simple. These companies in virtually every case knew the “problems” that their industry, unregulated, posed to communities, cities, states, countries, and entire continents—but they chose financial considerations over those warnings. It’s time to pay the piper.
“These fossil fuel companies profited handsomely for decades while knowing they were putting the fate of our cities at risk,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said. “Instead of owning up to it, they copied a page from the Big Tobacco playbook. They launched a multimillion-dollar disinformation campaign to deny and discredit what was clear even to their own scientists: Global warming is real, and their product is a huge part of the problem.”
The East Bay Times has a beauty of a “no comment” response from Chevron and Shell:
“Chevron welcomes serious attempts to address the issue of climate change, but these suits do not do that,” the company said in a statement. “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue that requires global engagement and action. Should this litigation proceed, it will only serve special interests at the expense of broader policy, regulatory and economic priorities.”
”Special interests.” That statement is the equivalent of saying “Hey, what’s done is done, let’s just move one—get away from my mega-yacht. The damage caused by these industries is impossible to truly put a price tag but let’s start with many hundred of billions and jail-time for C-suite executives, and work from there.