1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

RIO TINTO ENERGY AMERICA INC.; RIO
TINTO MINERALS, INC.; RIO TINTOSERVICES 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; MARATHONOIL CORPORATION; MARATHONPETROLEUM CORP.; HESS CORP.; DEVON
ENERGY CORP.; DEVON ENERGYPRODUCTION COMPANY, L.P.; ENCANA
CORP.; APACHE CORP.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINTTABLE OF CONTENTS

1
2
3

I.

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

II.

PARTIES ................................................................................................................................ 44

A.

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

B.

Defendants ................................................................................................................. 55
6
7

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

8

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................................................................... 22

9

V.

10
11

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

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 andKnew 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. .............................................................................. 46

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.................................................................................................................... 62

G.

Defendants’ Actions Prevented the Development of Alternatives That Would Have
Eased the Transition to a Less Fossil Fuel Dependent Economy. ........................... 64

H.

Defendants Caused Plaintiffs’ Injuries .................................................................... 71

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

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION ......................................................................................................... 75

25

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(Public Nuisance on Behalf of the People of the State of California) ................................. 75

26
27

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Public Nuisance on Behalf of City of Imperial Beach) ...................................................... 78

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

i

1
2
3

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(Strict Liability—Failure to Warn on behalf of City of Imperial Beach) ............................ 81
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Strict Liability—Design Defect on behalf of City of Imperial Beach) .............................. 83

4
5
6
7
8

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Private Nuisance on behalf of City of Imperial Beach)...................................................... 87
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Negligence on Behalf of City of Imperial Beach) .............................................................. 90
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ....................................................................................... 92(Negligence - Failure to Warn on Behalf of City of Imperial Beach) ................................. 92

9
10
11

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Trespass on Behalf of City of Imperial Beach) .................................................................. 93
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................... 95

12

VIII. JURY DEMAND .................................................................................................................. 96
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

ii

1

I.

INTRODUCTION
1.

2

Defendants, major corporate members of the fossil fuel industry, have known for3nearly 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 for5

decades that those impacts could be catastrophic and that only a narrow window existed to take6

action before the consequences would not be reversible. They have nevertheless engaged in a7

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 the9minds 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

12of 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 and17

ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, melting polar ice caps and glaciers, more extreme and18

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

19Imperial Beach, 3 along with the City’s residents, taxpayers, and infrastructure, suffer the20

consequences.

21

2.

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

22

distributors, promoters, marketers, and sellers of fossil fuel products. Decades of scientific23

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

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

1As 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, thisComplaint 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 theenvironmental 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, “Imperial Beach” refers to all areas within the geographic boundaries of the City.
1COMPLAINT

1a direct and substantial role in the unprecedented rise in emissions of greenhouse gas pollution and2

increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the mid-20th century. This dramatic increase in3

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

4

occurring to the global climate.
3.

5Anthropogenic (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

7of this pollution is the extraction, production and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas, referred8

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 have13

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

19Great 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

1Defendants 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

6and 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, and8

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 in10

the environment that drives sea level rise.
7.

11

Defendants are directly responsible for 227.6 gigatons of CO2 emissions between

121965 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 (sea level rise that will occur even in the absence of any future emissions) because

15of the consumption of their fossil fuel products.
8.

16Extreme 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, including in Imperial Beach. The City,19

bordered on three sides by water, is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, and has already spent

20

significant funds to study and mitigate the effects of global warming. Sea level rise already21

adversely affects Imperial Beach and jeopardizes the City’s wastewater infrastructure, beaches,

22

roads, public transportation, schools, other civil infrastructure and essential public services, and23

communities.

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

10Sean 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 City brings claims against Defendants for Public Nuisance on

5behalf 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, and7

Trespass.

8

11.

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

9

and not Plaintiffs, local taxpayers and residents, bear the costs.

10

II.

PARTIES

11

A.

Plaintiffs

12

12.

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

13City Attorney for the City of Imperial Beach, brings this suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

14

section 731, and Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494, to abate the nuisance caused by15

sea level rise in the City’s jurisdiction.

16

13.

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach (“Imperial Beach” or “the City”), a municipal

17

corporation, is a political subdivision of the State of California. It is a city located in southwestern

18

San Diego County.

19a.

The City is bordered by water on three sides, with the Pacific Ocean to the20

West, San Diego Bay and Otay River to the North, and the Tijuana River and Estuary to the21

South. 1122b.

Sea level has already risen significantly along both the City’s ocean side23

and Bay side. The City anticipates and is planning for significant and destructive sea level rise by24

the year 2100. 12

25

c.

26

The sea level rise impacts on the City associated with an increase in averagemean sea level height include, but are not limited to, increased inundation (permanent) and

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

11
12Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016) p. 1-2.
Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016) p. 1-3.
COMPLAINT

4

1

flooding (temporary) in natural and built environments with higher tides and intensified wave and2storm surge events; aggravated wave impacts, including erosion, damage, and destruction of built

3

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

4changes in sediment supply that could alter or destroy natural coastal habitats like beaches and5wetlands, which would otherwise naturally mitigate sea level rise impacts; saltwater intrusion on

6groundwater aquifers, agricultural land, and infrastructure; and magnification of other climate

7

change impacts, due to the superimposition on sea level rise on shifts in precipitation patterns that8

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

9erosion, flooding, and temporary sea level rise increases; and others. Compounding these10environmental impacts are cascading social and economic impacts, which are secondary and11tertiary injuries to the City that will arise out of localized sea level rise-related damage.
d.

12

SHER
EDLING LLPThe City’s civil infrastructure that will be impacted by climate change and13

consequent sea level rise includes, but is not limited to, stormwater and sewage transport systems;

14roads, bike paths and public transit facilities; schools; and real property, such as beaches and parks

15

and related infrastructure; that are on or near the Pacific Ocean, and which have already suffered16

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

17levels and through the exacerbation of natural climate phenomena such as coastal erosion and El

18

Niño.

19

B.

Defendants

20

14.

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

21

emitted between 1965 and 2015. Defendants, individually and collectively, are responsible for22

extracting, refining, processing, producing, promoting and marketing fossil fuel products, the23normal and intended use of which has led to the emission of a substantial percentage of the total

24volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere since 1965. Indeed, between 1965 and25

2015, the named Defendants extracted from the earth enough fossil fuel materials (i.e. crude oil,26

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

27

worldwide. Accounting for their wrongful promotion and marketing activities, Defendants bear a28

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

5

1

15.

2

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

3

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

4authorized such an act or omission, or failed to adequately supervise or properly control or direct5

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

6

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

7

16.

Chevron Entitiesa.

8

Chevron Corporation is a multi-national, vertically integrated energy and9chemicals company incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its global headquarters and10

principal place of business in San Ramon, California.
b.

11

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

12of business located in San Ramon, California. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary

13of Chevron Corporation.
“Chevron” as used hereafter, means collectively, Defendants Chevron

14

c.

15

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

16

d.

Chevron operates through a web of U.S. and international subsidiaries at all17

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

18

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

19transportation, and regasification associated with liquefied natural gas; transporting crude oil by

20

major international oil export pipelines; transporting, storage, and marketing of natural gas;21

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

22transporting crude oil and refined products by pipeline, marine vessel, motor equipment and rail

23

car; basic and applied research in multiple scientific fields including of chemistry, geology, and24

engineering; and manufacturing and marketing of commodity petrochemicals, plastics for25

industrial uses, and fuel and lubricant additives.

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPWhen reference in this complaint is made to an act or omission of the Defendants,

17.

ExxonMobil Corporationa.

ExxonMobil Corporation (“Exxon”) is a multi-national, verticallyintegrated energy and chemicals company incorporated in the State of New Jersey with its
COMPLAINT

6

1

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

2

traded international oil and gas companies in the world.
b.

3
4fuel industry, including exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture

5of petroleum products; and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and6

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

7

petrochemical products.
c.

8

Exxon does substantial fossil fuel product related business in California,

9and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded,10

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

11

Mobil-, or Esso-branded gas stations operate throughout the state, and Exxon owns and operates a12

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

13

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

14Angeles County, California. Exxon Co. USA, an ExxonMobil subsidiary, operated a petroleum

15

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

16
17

18.

BP Entitiesa.

BP P.L.C. is a multi-national, vertically integrated energy and18

petrochemical public limited company, registered in England and Wales with its principal place of19business in London, England. BP P.L.C. consists of three main operating segments: (1) exploration

20

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

21b.

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

SHER
EDLING LLP

Exxon consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all areas of the fossilc.

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

26

Inc. is a vertically integrated energy and petrochemical company incorporated in the State of27

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

28

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

7

1

exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture of petroleum products;2

and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum products. BP is3also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity petrochemical products. BP America Inc.

4

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

5

process with the California Secretary of State.

6

d.

7

herein as “BP.”8e.

BP does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California, and a9substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed,

10marketed, and/or sold in California. Among other operations, BP operates 275 ARCO-licensed

11

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

12

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

13households, and distributes and markets petroleum-based lubricants marketed under the “Castrol”

14

brand name throughout the state. From 2000 to 2013, BP also owned and operated an oil refinery15

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

16

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

17

San Diego County, California.

18
19

19.

Shell Entitiesa.

Royal Dutch Shell PLC is a vertically integrated, multinational energy and20

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

21

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

22

consists of numerous divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates engaged in all aspects of the fossil fuel23

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

24

transport, trading, marketing and sales.

25

SHER
EDLING LLPDefendants BP P.L.C. and BP America, Inc. are collectively referred tob.

Shell Oil Products Company LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Royal26

Dutch Shell PLC. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is incorporated in the State of Delaware and27

maintains its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is28

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

8

1

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

2

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

3
4

are collectively referred to as “Shell.”d.

5Shell does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California, and6

a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded,7

distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. Among other endeavors, Shell operates a8

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

9Carson, California; and produces heavy oil and natural gas within the state. Shell also owned and10

operated a refinery in Wilmington (Los Angeles), Los Angeles County, California from 1998 to11

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

12

hundreds of Shell-branded gas stations in California.

13
14

20.

Citgo Petroleum Corporation (“Citgo”)
a.

Citgo is a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of PDV America, Incorporated,15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19b.

Citgo and its subsidiaries are engaged in the refining, marketing, and20transportation of petroleum products including gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, petrochemicals,

21

lubricants, asphalt, and refined waxes.

22

SHER
EDLING LLPDefendants Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Shell Oil Products Company LLC

c.

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

23

designated an agent for service of process in California. Citgo further does substantial fossil fuel24

product-related business in California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

9

1
2

and in many other industrial and commercial settings, through licensed distributors in California.
21.

a.

3

ConocoPhillips is a multinational energy company incorporated in the State

4

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

5of numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates engaged in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry,

6

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

7

ConocoPhillips

Company

is

100%

owned

by

ConocoPhillips.

8

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

9

service of process in California.

10c.

Phillips 66 is a multinational energy and petrochemical company

11

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

12encompasses downstream fossil fuel processing, refining, transport, and marketing segments that13

were formerly owned and/or controlled by ConocoPhillips. Phillips 66 is registered to do business14

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

15
16

Defendants ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, and Phillips 66 arecollectively referred to herein as “ConocoPhillips.”e.

17

ConocoPhillips does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in

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, ConocoPhillips owns and20

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

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

22County), California, and distributes its products throughout California. Phillips 66 also owns and23

operates oil refineries in Rodeo (Contra Costa County), Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), and24

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

25

ConocoPhillips and its predecessors in interest from 1997 to 2012.

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

ConocoPhillips Entities

22.

Peabody Energy Corporationa.

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

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

10

1

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

2extractor by volume.
b.

3

Peabody does and has done substantial fossil fuel product-related business4

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

5

California, particularly from the ports of Long Beach (Los Angeles County), Stockton (San6

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

7

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

8that terminal was in operation from 1997 through 2003, and continues to export coal out of

9

California ports.

10

23.

11

Total Entitiesa.

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

12energy conglomerate—engaged in the North American segment of Total SA’s fossil fuel products-

13

related business. Total E&P USA Inc. and its subsidiaries are involved in the exploration for,14

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

15

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

16

service of process in California.

17b.

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

agent for service of process in California. Total Specialties USA Inc. does substantial fossil fuel22

product-related business in California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are23

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

24

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

25

California distributors of Total fossil fuel products, including engine oils, lubricants, greases, and26

industrial petroleum products.

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

11

1

24.

a.

2

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

3

Delaware with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the second largest coal4

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

5extracted from mines owned by the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary. Arch Coal explores

6

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

7Arch Coal’s conducts substantial fossil fuel product-related business in

8

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

9

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

10

mines through California ports including Long Beach (Los Angeles County), Stockton (San11

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

12Arch Coal also owns a 99% stake in Arch Western Resources, LLC, which13

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

14

Company’s domestic coal operations. Included in that transaction, Arch Western Resources15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19
20

25.

Eni Entitiesa.

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

21

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

22

principal place of business in Rome, Italy. With its consolidated subsidiaries, Eni engages in the23

exploration, development and production of hydrocarbons; in the supply and marketing of gas,24

liquid natural gas, and power; in the refining and marketing of petroleum products; in the25

production and marketing of basic petrochemicals, plastics and elastomers; in commodity trading;26

and in electricity marketing and generation.

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPArch Coal, Inc.

b.

Eni Oil & Gas Inc. is incorporated in Texas, with its principal place ofbusiness in Houston, Texas. Eni Oil & Gas Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni America Ltd.,COMPLAINT

12

1a Delaware corporation doing business in the United States. Eni America, Ltd. Is a wholly owned

2

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

3

Kingdom. Eni UHL Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni ULT, Ltd., a British corporation with4

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

5

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

6

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

7

a 99.9%9 ownership interest in Eni Lasmo Plc (the other 0.01% ownership interest is held by

8another Eni entity, Eni UK Ltd, a British corporation with its registered office in London, United

9

Kingdom). Eni S.p.A owns a 99.99% interest in Eni Investments Plc. Eni UK Ltd. holds the10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

refineries in Carson (Los Angeles County) and Martinez (Contra Costa County), California, and15

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

16
17

26.

Rio Tinto Groupa.

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

18

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

19

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

20

PLC and Rio Tinto Limited, along with their affiliates, divisions and subsidiaries, including those21

described below, are referred to as “Rio Tinto.”22b.

Rio Tinto is a dual-listed, multinational, vertically integrated metals and23

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

24array of metals and other commodities. Pertinent here, Rio Tinto explores for, extracts, produces,25

transports and markets coal.

26
27

c.

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

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

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

13

1Previously known as Kennecott Energy, Rio Tinto Energy America Inc. operates coal mines in

2

Wyoming and Montana.
d.

3
4

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

5$2.3 billion in a project to construct an experimental petroleum coke fired power plant in Kern

6

County, California.
e.

7

In addition, Rio Tinto’s subsidiary Rio Tino Minerals, Inc., operates the8largest open pit mine in California, where it extracts approximately 30% of the world’s refined

9boron. Rio Tinto Minerals, Inc., has also registered substantial legislative and regulatory lobbying

10

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

11

including lobbying directed at legislation and regulation regarding greenhouse gas pollution

12

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

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

14

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
f.

15

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

16

and with its principal place of business in South Jordan, Utah. Rio Tinto Services, Inc. is registered17

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

18
19

27.

Statoil ASA
a.

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

20company incorporated in the Kingdom of Norway and headquartered in Stavanger, Norway. The

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

SHER
EDLING LLP

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

b.

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

25

marketing, and promotion of its fossil fuel products. For instance, Statoil partnered with the26

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

27complex development projects; Statoil partnered on a methanol fueling station in Sacramento

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

14

1Quantum Technologies; and partnered with the University of California, San Diego’s (San Diego

2

County) Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

3

28.

a.

4

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

5

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

6

a multinational, vertically integrated energy company comprised of multiple upstream and7

downstream segments. These include exploration, production, gathering, processing, treating,8transporting, marketing, and selling fossil fuel products derived primarily from petroleum and9natural gas. In the United States, Anadarko entities operate fossil fuel product exploration and

10

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

11

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

12and exploration activities internationally in Algeria, Ghana, Mozambique, and Columbia, among

13

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

14

designated an agent for service of process in California.
b.

15

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is a successor-in-interest to HS Resources16

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

17

California. It owned natural gas reserves in Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and18

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

19

acquired by Kerr-McGee Corporation in 2001. Kerr-McGee was an energy exploration and20

production company owning oil and natural gas rights in the Gulf of Mexico, Colorado, and Utah,21

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

22

McGee Corporation in 2006.

23
24

SHER
EDLING LLP

Anadarko Entities

29.

Occidental Entitiesa.

Occidental Petroleum Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated

25

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

26of business in Houston, Texas. Occidental’s operations consist of three segments: Occidental’s

27

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

28

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

15

1

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

2

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

3

agent for service of process in the State of California.
b.

45

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

6

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

7

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

8
9

Defendants Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Chemical

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

10

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

11

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

12

traded, distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. For instance, Occidental extracted and13transported its fossil fuel products from approximately 30,900 drilling locations within the San

14

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

15

In addition, Occidental conducts has conducted substantial activities in the16state, including marketing and promotion; efforts to avoid or minimize regulation of greenhouse17

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

18

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

19

policies such that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and20

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

21

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

22

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

23

Commission, California Air Resources Board, and California Public Utilities Commission, related24

to its fossil fuel products business.

25
26

SHER
EDLING LLP

Occidental Chemical Corporation, a manufacturer and marketer of30.

Repsol S.A.
a.

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

27

energy company, incorporated in the Kingdom of Spain, with its principal place of business in28

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

16

1

exploration, production, marketing, and trading. Repsol engages in significant fossil fuel2

exploration and production activities in the United States, including in the Gulf of Mexico, the3

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

4

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

5
6

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

7

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

8Energy North America Corporation, incorporated in the State of Texas and with its principal place

9of business in The Woodlands, Texas, is listed as a natural gas procurement, storage,

10transportation, scheduling, and risk management provider by Pacific Gas and Electric, a California

11

utility. Repsol Energy North America Corporation is registered to do business in California and12

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

13

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

14

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

15

for service of process in California. Additionally, Repsol represents on its website that it is16

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

17consist of crude oil, gasoline, diesel, and/or jet fuel.

18
19

SHER
EDLING LLP

Repsol does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in the State of31.

Marathon Entitiesa.

Marathon Oil Company is an energy company incorporated in the State of20

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

21

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

22

California. Marathon Oil Company is a corporate ancestor of Marathon Oil Corporation and23

Marathon Petroleum Company.

24b.

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

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

26

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

27

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

28

fossil fuel product-related business in California.
COMPLAINT

17

c.

1
2

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

3

Corporation consists of multiple subsidiaries and affiliates involved in the exploration for,4

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

5

Marathon Petroleum Corporation is a multinational energy company

6

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

7

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

8consists of multiple subsidiaries and affiliates involved in fossil fuel product refining, marketing,9

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

10
11
12

Defendants Marathon Oil Company, Marathon Oil Corporation, andMarathon Petroleum Corporation are collectively referred to as “Marathon.”
32.

Hess Corporationa.

13

Hess Corp. (“Hess”) is a global, vertically integrated petroleum exploration14

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

15

place of business in New York, New York.
b.

16

Hess

is

engagedinthe

exploration,

development,

production,

17transportation, purchase, marketing and sale of crude oil and natural gas. Its oil and gas production

18

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

19

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

20name and through subsidiaries. Hess owned and operated more than 1,000 gas stations throughout

21

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

22

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

23
24

SHER
EDLING LLPMarathon Oil Corporation is a multinational energy company incorporated

33.

Devon Energy Entitiesa.

Devon Energy Corp. (“Devon”) is an independent energy company engaged

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

development, production, and marketing of its fossil fuel products.
COMPLAINT

18

b.

1
2

to do business in the State of California and with a designated agent for service of process in3

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

4

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

5Company (“Pauley”). At times relevant to this complaint, Pauley did substantial fossil-fuel related

6business in California. Specifically, this included owning and operating a petroleum refinery in

7

Newhall (Los Angeles County), California from 1959 to 1989, and a refinery in Wilmington (Los8Angeles, Los Angeles County), California from 1988 to 1992. Pauley merged with Hondo Oil and9

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

10
11
12

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

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

Encana Corporationa.

13

Encana Corp. is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business14

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

15

facilities including gas plants and gas wells in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, and16

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

17

natural gas storage facilities in North America.
b.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

began transporting natural gas through a 25-mile pipeline from the Wild Goose Station to a Pacific22

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

23

PG&E pipeline. Encana invested in a 100 billion cubic foot expansion of the facility in 2004,24

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

25
26

SHER
EDLING LLP

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

35.

Apache Corporationa.

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

27

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

28

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

19

1

Egypt, and in the North Sea.
b.

2
3

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

4

Alberta, and Saskatchewan, and Apache did substantial fossil fuel product-related business in5

California. Apache transported a substantial volume of the natural gas extracted from its Canadian6

holdings to California, where it sold that gas to electric utilities, end-users, other fossil fuel7

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

8

gas to California in addition to markets in Washington state, Chicago, and western Canada, to9intentionally retain a diverse customer base and maximize profits from the differential price rates

10

and demand levels in those respective markets.

11

36.

Doe Defendantsa.

12

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

13otherwise of Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore

14

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

15

Section 474. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the16

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

17

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

18

37.

Relevant Non-Parties: Fossil Fuel Industry Associations

19

38.

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

20

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

21

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

22

SHER
EDLING LLP

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

39.

Each Defendant’s fossil fuel promotion and marketing efforts were assisted by the23

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

24

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

25

Defendants’ fossil fuel products.

26a.

The American Petroleum Institute (API): API is a national trade27

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

28

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

20

1

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

2

EnCana, and Apache. 13b.

3

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

4

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

5times relevant to this complaint. 14

6c.

The National Mining Association (NMA): NMA is a national trade7

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

8

Energy, and Rio Tinto/Kennecott Utah Copper are all members. 15d.

9

The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA): WSPA is a trade10

association representing oil producers in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. 16

11

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

12

Occidental, and ExxonMobil. 17

13e.

The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) is a14

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

15

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

16

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

17

Corporation, Phillips 66, Shell Chemical Company, and Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA,18

Inc. 18
f.

19

The Information Council for the Environment (ICE): ICE was formed20

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

21

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

22(Chevron), 19 and Island Creek Coal Company (Occidental).

23
24
25

13

American Petroleum Institute (API), Members, http://www.api.org/membership/members.
Energy and Policy Institute, ACCCE Members, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2199289-acccemembers.html.
15
National Mining Association (NMA), Members, http://nma.org/about-nma/member-list.
16
WSPA, What is WSPA, https://www.wspa.org/what-is-wspa.
17
WSPA, Member List, https://www.wspa.org/member-list.
18
AFPM, Membership Directory, https://www.afpm.org/membership-directory/.
19
Hereinafter, parenthetical references to Defendants indicate corporate ancestry and/or affiliation.
COMPLAINT
14

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

21

g.

1

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC): GCC was an industry group formed2

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

3

1989 shortly after the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting was held, and4disbanded in 2001. Founding members included the National Association of Manufacturers, the5

National Coal Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the United States Chamber of6

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

7

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

8existence other members and funders included ARCO (BP), BHP, the National Mining

9

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

10of the National Association of Manufacturers’ offices.

11

III.

AGENCY40.

12

At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant,13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

and/or constituted a breach of duty.

18

IV.

19

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
41.

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

20

each Defendant maintains substantial contacts with California by and through their fossil fuel21

business operations in this state, as described above, and because Plaintiffs’ injuries described22

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

23
24
25

42.

The Superior Court of California for Contra Costa County is a court of generaljurisdiction and therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
43.

Venue is proper in Contra Costa County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

26

sections 395 and 395.5, because Defendant Chevron maintains its corporate headquarters and27

principal place of business in Contra Costa County.

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

22

1

V.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

A.

Global Warming—Observed Effects and Known Cause

3

44.

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

445.

Atmospheric and ocean temperatures have both increased substantially since the5

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

6

increased since the end of World War II.

7
8

46.

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

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

9a.

2016 was the hottest year on record by globally averaged surface

10

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

11

temperatures by approximately 1.69–1.78° F. 20 Eight of the twelve months

12

in 2016 were hotter by globally averaged surface temperatures than those13

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

14

2016 showed the second hottest average surface temperatures for those15

months, second only to temperatures recorded in 2015. 21

16b.

The Earth’s hottest month ever recorded was February 2016, followed
immediately by the second hottest month on record, March 2016. 22

17
18

c.

The second hottest year on record by globally averaged surface
temperatures was 2015, and the third hottest was 2014. 23

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

20NOAA, 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.
21
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.
22
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.
23
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

d.

1

The ten hottest years on record by globally averaged surface temperature2

have all occurred since 1998, and sixteen of the seventeen hottest years have3

occurred since 2001. 24e.

4Each of the past three decades has been warmer by average surface
temperature than any preceding decade on record. 25

5

f.

6

The period between 1983 and 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period
in the Northern Hemisphere since approximately 700 AD. 26

7

47.

8

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

9

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

10least 1880. 27 The increase in hotter temperatures and more frequent positive anomalies during the

11

Great Acceleration is occurring both globally and locally, including in Imperial Beach. The graph12

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

13

against the 1910–2000 global average temperature. 28

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

24Id.
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
26
Id.
27
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.
28
Id.
25

COMPLAINT

24

Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, January - December

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

48.

The mechanism by which human activity causes global warming and climate

13

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

14anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. 29

15
16

49.

otherwise radiate into space.

17
18

50.

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

energy, and using fossil fuels to create petrochemical products.

19
20

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

51.

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

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

21

52.

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

22practices, such as forestry and agriculture, which altered the ability of the land and global biosphere23

to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere; the impacts of such activities on Earth’s climate were24

relatively minor. Since the beginning of the Great Acceleration, however, both the annual rate and25

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

26
27
29

28
SHER
EDLING LLP

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

COMPLAINT

25

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. 30
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 ismarked by a massive increase in the annual rate of fossil fuel emissions: more than half of all
cumulative CO2 emissions have occurred since 1988. 31 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

30

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/.
31
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. 32 The graph below illustrates the increasing rate of global CO2 emissions since the industrial

2

era began. 33
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 greenhouse16

gases in the atmosphere are now at a level unprecedented in at least 800,000 years. 34 The graph17

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

18

levels since 1960. 35

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

32C. 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 anaverage of 3.1±0.2 GtC/yr in the 1960s to an average of 9.3±0.5 GtC/yr during 2006–2015”).
33
Peter Frumhoff, et al. The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers, Climatic Change 132:157171, 164 (2015).
34
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
35
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

B.

Sea Level Rise—Known Causes and Observed Effects

14

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. 36
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. 37
57.

20

Anthropogenic forcing, in the form of greenhouse gas pollution largely from the21

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

22level rise since 1970, explaining at least 70% of the sea level rise observed between 1970 and

232000. 38 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

36

NOAA, Is sea level rising, Ocean Facts http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html.
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
38
Slangen et al., Anthropogenic Forcing Dominates Global Mean Sea-Level Rise Since 1970, Nature Climate
Change, Vol. 6, 701 (2016).
37

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

28

1

over the period 1900–2005).” 39
58.

2

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution is the dominant factor in each of the3

independent causes of sea level rise, including the increase in ocean thermal expansion, 40 in glacier4

mass loss, and in more negative surface mass balance from the ice sheets. 41
59.

5

There is a well-defined relation between cumulative emissions of CO2 and6committed global mean sea level. This relation, moreover, holds proportionately for committed

7

regional sea level rise. 4260.

8Nearly 100% of the sea level rise from any projected greenhouse gas emissions

9

scenario will persist for at least 10,000 years. 43 This owes to the long residence time of CO2 in the10

atmosphere that sustains temperature increases, and inertia in the climate system. 44
61.

11

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution caused the increased frequency and12severity 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. 45 The incidence and magnitude of extreme sea level events has increased globally

15

since 1970. 46 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

17these factors, 47 are exacerbated with higher average sea level, which functionally raises the18baseline for the destructive impact of extreme weather and tidal events. Indeed, the magnitude and19frequency of extreme sea level events can occur in the absence of increased intensity of storm

20
21

39

Id.
Id.
41
Id.
42
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).
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, 361 (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, 360 (2016).
45
IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers, page 7, Table SPM.1 (2013), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf.
46
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.
47
Id.
40

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

29

1events, given the increased average elevation from which flooding and inundation events begin.

2

These effects, and others, significantly and adversely affect Plaintiffs, with increased severity in3

the future.

4

62.

Historical greenhouse gas emissions alone through 2000 will cause a global mean5

sea level rise of at least 7.4 feet. 48 Additional greenhouse gas emissions from 2001–2015 have6

caused approximately 10 additional feet of committed sea level rise. Even immediate and7permanent cessation of all additional anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions would not prevent8

the eventual inundation of land at elevations between current average mean sea level and 17.4 feet9of elevation in the absence of adaptive measures.
63.

10

The relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and committed sea level11

rise is nearly linear and always positive. For emissions, including future emissions, from the year12

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

13

For the period 1965 to 2000, the relation is approximately 0.05 inches of committed sea level rose14

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

15caused a substantial portion of committed sea level rise. Each and every additional unit of CO2

16

emitted from the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products will add to the sea level rise already17

committed to the geophysical system.
64.

18

Projected onshore impacts associated with rising sea temperature and water level19

include increases in flooding and erosion; increases in the occurrence, persistence, and severity of20

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

21

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

22

significantly and adversely affect Plaintiffs.
65.

23

Sea level rise has already taken grave tolls on inhabited coastlines. For instance, the24

U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) estimates that nuisance25

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

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

48

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

1just 50 years ago. 49

266.

Nationwide, more than three quarters (76%) of flood days caused by high water3

levels from sea level rise between 2005 and 2014 (2,505 of the 3,291 flood days) would not have4

happened but for human-caused climate change. More than two-thirds (67%) of flood days since51950 would not have happened without the sea level rise caused by increasing greenhouse6

gas emissions. 50

767.

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

8

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

9

deformational, and rotational effects of the loss of glaciers and ice sheets. 51 Due to these effects,

10Imperial Beach will experience significantly greater absolute committed sea level rise than the11

global mean. 52
68.

12

The City is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise because its topography,

13

geography, adjacent oceanography, and land use patterns make it particularly susceptible to14

injuries from sea level rise; and because Imperial Beach is projected, due to its geophysical15

characteristics, to experience a higher rate of sea level rise and a greater absolute amount of sea

16

level rise than the global mean. 53
69.

17

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

18

continues unabated, sea level in the San Diego Area, including Imperial Beach, will rise19

significantly and dangerously by the year 2100. 54
70.

20Imperial Beach’s sea level rise vulnerability analyses anticipate extreme sea level

21
22

49

NOAA, Is sea level rising, Ocean Facts, http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html.
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.
51
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).
52
See id., Figure 3(c).
53Global sea level rise is projected to be 82.7 cm (32.6 inches) above 2000 levels by 2100. See National ResearchCouncil, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future (2012) atpage 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.
54
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.
50

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

31

1

rise events equivalent to a 1% annual-chance storm wave event. 55 Such an event, compounded by2

anticipated increases in mean sea level height along the City, would likely turn the entire area of3

the City bounded by the Pacific Ocean, the San Diego Bay, the Tijuana Estuary, and 8th Street,4

into an island surrounded on all sides by water. 56
71.

5

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

6

rise would have been far less than the observed sea level rise to date. 57 Similarly, committed sea

7level rise that will occur in the future would also be far less. 58

8C.

Attribution

972.

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

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

11

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

12

from the Earth. 59 Emissions factors for oil, coal, liquid natural gas, and natural gas are different

13

for each material but are nevertheless known and quantifiable for each. 60 This analysis accounts

14

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

15

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

16

73.

Defendants’ historical and current fossil fuel extraction and production records are17

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

18

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

19

histories, and other sources. The cumulative CO2 and methane emissions attributable to20

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

21

documents.

22
23
55

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016) p. 4-1.
Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016) p. 2-2.
57
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.
58
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).
59
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.
60See, e.g., id.
32
COMPLAINT
56

74.

1

While it is possible to distinguish CO2 derived from fossil fuels from other sources,2

it is not possible to determine the source of any particular individual molecule of CO2 in the3

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

4bear markers that permit tracing them to their source, and because greenhouse gasses quickly

5

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

6

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

7

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

8of commerce, and multiplying those quantities by each fossil fuel product’s carbon factor..
75.

9

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

10

fuel products, caused approximately 20% of global fossil fuel product-related CO2 between 196511

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

12of all such emissions in history, and the attendant historical, projected, and committed sea level

13

rise associated therewith.
76.

14
15

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. 61
77.

16

By quantifying CO2 and methane pollution attributable to Defendants by and17through their fossil fuel products, ambient air and ocean temperature and sea level responses to18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

described herein.

23

78.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions through 2015 have caused approximately 17.4 feet24of committed mean global sea level rise. 62 Defendants, through their extraction, promotion,

25

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

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP61

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/.
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).
33
COMPLAINT

1emissions and the attendant historical, projected, and committed sea level rise.
79.

2

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

3

actually extracted from the Earth by these Defendants. Many of these Defendants actually are4

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

5

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

6

fossil fuel products extracted by independent third parties.
80.

7

In addition, considering the Defendants’ lead role in promoting, marketing, and8selling their fossil fuels products between 1965 and 2015; their efforts to conceal the hazards of

9those products from consumers; their promotion of their fossil fuel products despite knowing the10

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

11

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

12

alternatives available to them, Defendants, individually and together, have substantially and13

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

14

D.

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

81.

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

15
16
17

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

18

B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution reported that by the19year 2000, anthropogenic CO2 emissions would “modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to

20

such an extent that marked changes in climate . . . could occur.” 63 President Johnson announced

21

in a special message to Congress that “[t]his generation has altered the composition of the22

atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of23

fossil fuels.” 64
82.

24
25

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

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

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

63President’s Science Advisory Committee, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of theEnvironmental Pollution Panel, page 9 (November 1965), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b4315678.
64
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.
34
COMPLAINT

1with unabated use of their fossil fuel products. Moreover, Defendants had amassed a considerable

2

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

3

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

4

Petroleum Institute (“API”) and made available to all of its members, concluded, among other5

things:6

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. . . .

7
8

It is clear that we are unsure as to what our long-lived pollutants are doing to ourenvironment; however, there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to ourenvironment could be severe. . . . [T]he prospect for the future must be of serious
concern. 65

9
10

84.

11

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

12

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

13

wave, wind, storm, sea level, and current changes and trends. 66 Several Defendants and/or their14

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

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

16

Petroleum Corporation (BP), Gulf Oil Corporation (Chevron), Texaco Inc. (Chevron), and the17

Chevron Oil Field Research Company.
85.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22Standard of Indiana (BP), Asiatic (Shell), Ashland (Marathon), Atlantic Richfield (BP), British

23

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

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

25(formerly

affiliated

with

Esso,

which

was

subsumedby

ExxonMobil),

Getty

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

65

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.
66
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1(Lukoil/ExxonMobil), Gulf (Chevron, among others), Humble Standard of New Jersey

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

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

4Electric Institute (representing electric utilities), Bituminous Coal Research (coal industry research

5group), Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association (presently the U.S. Oil & Gas Association, a6national trade association), Western Oil & Gas Association, National Petroleum Refiners

7

Association (presently the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association, a8national trade association), Champlin (Anadarko), Skelly (Lukoil/ExxonMobil), Colonial Pipeline

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

10

and Caltex (Chevron), among others. 67
86.

11

In a 1977 presentation and again in a 1978 briefing, Exxon scientists warned the12

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

13

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

14

the atmosphere, and that CO2 was contributing to global warming. 68 The report stated:

15

17

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 burningof fossil fuels . . . [and that] Man has a time window of five to ten years before theneed for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become
critical. 69

18

87.

16

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

19

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

20reviewed research by Exxon staff scientists and the conversion of a supertanker into a research

21

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

22

Much of this research was shared in a variety of fora, symposia, and shared papers through trade23

associations and directly with other Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

67American Petroleum Institute, Environmental Research, A Status Report, Committee for Air and Water
Conservation (January 1972), http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf.
68
Memo from J.F. Black to F.G. Turpin, The Greenhouse Effect, Exxon Research and Engineering Company (June6, 1978), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1978-exxon-memo-on-greenhouse-effect-for-exxon-corporationmanagement-committee/.
69
Id.
36
COMPLAINT

88.

1

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

2

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

3

Defendants’ fossil fuel products. Exxon climate researcher Henry Shaw wrote in 1978: “The4

rationale for Exxon’s involvement and commitment of funds and personnel is based on our need5

to assess the possible impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon business. Exxon must develop a6credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be7

able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation.” 70 Moreover, Shaw emphasized the need to8collaborate with universities and government to more completely understand what he called the9“CO2 problem.” 71

10

89.

In 1979, API and its members, including Defendants, convened a Task Force to11monitor and share cutting edge climate research among the oil industry. The group was initially12called the CO2 and Climate Task Force, but changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task

13

Force in 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “API CO2 Task Force”). Membership included senior14

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

15

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

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

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

18

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

19

emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products could be made. 72
90.

20

In 1979, API sent its members a background memo related to the API CO2 and21

Climate Task Force’s efforts, stating that CO2 concentrations were rising steadily in the22

atmosphere, and predicting when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt. 73

23
24
70

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPHenry Shaw, Memo to Edward David Jr. on the “Greenhouse Effect”, Exxon Research and Engineering Company(December 7, 1978).
71
Id.
72
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).
73
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.
37
COMPLAINT

91.

1

Also in 1979, Exxon scientists advocated internally for additional fossil fuel2

industry-generated atmospheric research in light of the growing consensus that consumption of3

fossil fuel products was changing the Earth’s climate:4“We should determine how Exxon can best participate in all these [atmosphericscience research] areas and influence possible legislation on environmental
controls. It is important to begin to anticipate the strong intervention ofenvironmental groups and be prepared to respond with reliable and credible data. It
behooves [Exxon] to start a very aggressive defensive program in the indicatedareas of atmospheric science and climate because there is a good probability thatlegislation affecting our business will be passed. Clearly, it is in our interest forsuch legislation to be based on hard scientific data. The data obtained from researchon the global damage from pollution, e.g., from coal combustion, will give us theneeded focus for further research to avoid or control such pollutants.” 74

5
6
7
8
9
10

92.

11

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

12

held theory [about increasing CO2 concentration] is that the increase is due to fossil fuel13

combustion, increasing CO2 concentration will cause a warming of the earth’s surface, and the14

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

15

2050.” 75 Further, the report stated that unless fossil fuel use was constrained, there would be

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

17

parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to 400 parts per million by the year 2010. 76 Those

18

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

19

million in May 2013, for the first time in millions of years. 77 In 2015, the annual average CO2

20

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

21

per million, meaning atmospheric CO2 concentration remained above that threshold all year. 78

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

74

Henry Shaw, Exxon Memo to H.N. Weinberg about “Research in Atmospheric Science”, Exxon Inter-OfficeCorrespondence (November 19, 1979),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Probable%20Legislation%20Memo%20(1979).pdf.
75
W.L. Ferrall, Exxon Memo to R.L. Hirsch about “Controlling Atmospheric CO2”, Exxon Research andEngineering Company (October 16 1979),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/CO2%20and%20Fuel%20Use%20Projections.pdf.
76
Id.
77
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.
78
Id.
COMPLAINT

38

93.

1

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

2

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

3

The minutes from the Task Force’s February 29, 1980, meeting included a summary of a4

presentation on “The CO2 Problem” given by Dr. John Laurmann, which identified the “scientific5consensus on the potential for large future climatic response to increased CO2 levels” as a reason

6

for API members to have concern with the “CO2 problem” and informed attendees that there was7“strong empirical evidence that rise [in CO2 concentration was] caused by anthropogenic release8of CO2, mainly from fossil fuel combustion.” 79 Moreover, Dr. Laurmann warned that the amount9of CO2 in the atmosphere could double by 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5° C (4.5º F)

10rise in global average temperatures with “major economic consequences.” He then told the Task

11

Force that models showed a 5°C (9º F) rise by 2067, with “globally catastrophic effects.” 80 A

12

taskforce member and representative of Texaco leadership present at the meeting posited that the13

API CO2 Task Force should develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of

14

fuels as they relate to CO2 creation.
94.

15

In 1980, the API CO2 Task Force also discussed a potential area for investigation:

16

alternative energy sources as a means of mitigating CO2 emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel17

products. These efforts called for research and development to “Investigate the Market Penetration

18

Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.” Such investigation was

19

to include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing,20

and requirements. 81

21

95.

By 1980, Exxon’s senior leadership had become intimately familiar with the22greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. In that year, Exxon Senior Vice President

23

and Board member George Piercy questioned Exxon researchers on the minutiae of the ocean’s

24role in absorbing atmospheric CO2, including whether there was a net CO2 flux out of the ocean

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

79American 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).
80
Id.
81
Id.

COMPLAINT

39

1

into the atmosphere in certain zones where upwelling of cold water to the surface occurs, because

2

Piercy evidently believed that the oceans could absorb and retain higher concentrations of CO2

3

than the atmosphere. 82 This inquiry aligns with Exxon supertanker research into whether the ocean

4

would act as a significant CO2 sink that would sequester atmospheric CO2 long enough to allow

5

unabated emissions without triggering dire climatic consequences. As described below, Exxon

6

eventually scrapped this research before it produced enough data from which to derive7

a conclusion. 83

896.

Also in 1980, Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil) reported to Esso and Exxon managers

9and environmental staff that increases in fossil fuel usage aggravates CO2 in the atmosphere.

10

Noting that the United Nations was encouraging research into the carbon cycle, Imperial reported

11

that “[t]echnology exists to remove CO2 from [fossil fuel power plant] stack gases but removal of

12

only 50% of the CO2 would double the cost of power generation.” Imperial also reported that its

13

coordination department had been internally evaluating its and Exxon’s products to determine

14

whether disclosure of a human health hazard was necessary. The report notes that Section (8e) of

15

Toxic Substances Control Act, 55 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., requires that anyone who discovers that16

a material or substance in commercial use is or may be a significant risk to human health must

17

report such findings to the Environmental Protection Agency within 15 days. Although greenhouse18

gases are human health hazards (because they have serious consequences in terms of global food19

production, disease virulence, and sanitation infrastructure, among other impacts), neither

20

Imperial, Exxon, nor any other Defendant has ever filed a disclosure with the U.S. Environmental

21

Protection Agency pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Exxon scientist Roger Cohen

22

warned his colleagues in a 1981 internal memorandum that “future developments in global data

23

gathering and analysis, along with advances in climate modeling, may provide strong evidence for

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

82

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.
83
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.

COMPLAINT

40

1

a delayed CO2 effect of a truly substantial magnitude,” and that under certain circumstances it

2would be “very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the threat by the year 2000.” 84 Cohen3

had expressed concern that the memorandum mischaracterized potential effects of unabated CO2

4emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products: “. . . it is distinctly possible that the . . . [Exxon

5

Planning Division’s] scenario will produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for6

a substantial fraction of the world’s population).” 85
97.

7

In 1981, Exxon’s Henry Shaw, the company’s lead climate researcher at the time,8

prepared a summary of Exxon’s current position on the greenhouse effect for Edward David Jr.,

9president of Exxon Research and Engineering, stating in relevant part:

10

•
•

11
12
13

98.

“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” 86

In 1982, another report prepared for API by scientists at the Lamont-Doherty

14

Geological Observatory at Columbia University recognized that atmospheric CO2 concentration

15

had risen significantly compared to the beginning of the industrial revolution from about 290 parts

16

per million to about 340 parts per million in 1981 and acknowledged that despite differences in

17

climate modelers’ predictions, all models indicated a temperature increase caused by18anthropogenic CO2 within a global mean range of 4º C (7.2° F). The report advised that there was19scientific consensus that “a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from [] pre-industrial revolution value

20

would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [5.4 ± 2.7° F].” It went further,

21

warning that “[s]uch a warming can have serious consequences for man’s comfort and survival

22

since patterns of aridity and rainfall can change, the height of the sea level can increase

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

84

Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo to W. Glass about possible “catastrophic” effect of CO2, Exxon Inter-OfficeCorrespondence (Aug. 18, 1981), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1981-exxon-memo-on-possibleemission-consequences-of-fossil-fuel-consumption/.
85
Id.
86
Henry Shaw, Exxon Memo to E. E. David, Jr. about “CO2Position Statement”, Exxon Inter-OfficeCorrespondence (May 15, 1981),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Exxon%20Position%20on%20CO2%20%281981%29.pd
f.

COMPLAINT

41

1

considerably and the world food supply can be affected.” 87 Exxon’s own modeling research

2

confirmed this, and the company’s results were later published in at least three peer-reviewed

3

scientific papers. 88

499.

Also in 1982, Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Manager distributed a primer on

5climate change to a “wide circulation [of] Exxon management . . . intended to familiarize Exxon

6

personnel with the subject.” 89 The primer also was “restricted to Exxon personnel and not to be

7

distributed externally.” 90 The primer compiled science on climate change available at the time,8

and confirmed fossil fuel combustion as a primary anthropogenic contributor to global warming.

9

The report estimated a CO2 doubling around 2090 based on Exxon’s long-range modeled outlook.

10

The author warned that the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet could result in global sea level rise

11

of five feet which would “cause flooding on much of the U.S. East Coast, including the State of

12

Florida and Washington, D.C.” 91 Indeed, it warned that “there are some potentially catastrophic

13

events that must be considered,” including sea level rise from melting polar ice sheets. It noted

14

that some scientific groups were concerned “that once the effects are measurable, they might not

15

be reversible.” 92

16

100.

In a summary of Exxon’s climate modeling research from 1982, Director of

17

Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory Roger Cohen wrote that “the time18

required for doubling of atmospheric CO2 depends on future world consumption of fossil fuels.”

19

Cohen concluded that Exxon’s own results were “consistent with the published predictions of more

20
21
87

22
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.
88
See Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo summarizing findings of research in climate modeling, Exxon Research andEngineering Company (September 2, 1982),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/%2522Consensus%2522%20on%20CO2%20Impacts%20(1982).pdf (discussing research articles).
89
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.
90
Id.
91
Id.
92
Id.

COMPLAINT

42

1complex climate models” and “in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased2

atmospheric CO2 on climate.” 93
101.

3

At the fourth biennial Maurice Ewing Symposium at the Lamont-Doherty

4

Geophysical Observatory in October 1982, attended by members of API, Exxon Research and5Engineering Company president E.E. David delivered a speech titled: “Inventing the Future:

6

Energy and the CO2 ‘Greenhouse Effect.’” 94 His remarks included the following statement: “[F]ew

7people doubt that the world has entered an energy transition away from dependence upon fossil

8

fuels and toward some mix of renewable resources that will not pose problems of CO2

9accumulation.” He went on, discussing the human opportunity to address anthropogenic climate

10change before the point of no return:11

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 westill have time to generate the wealth and knowledge we will need to invent thetransition to a stable energy system.

12
13
14

102.

Throughout the early 1980s, at Exxon’s direction, Exxon climate scientist Henry

15

Shaw forecasted emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use. Those estimates were incorporated into

16

Exxon’s 21st century energy projections and were distributed among Exxon’s various divisions.

17

Shaw’s conclusions included an expectation that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would double in

18

2090 per the Exxon model, with an attendant 2.3–5.6º F average global temperature increase. Shaw

19

compared his model results to those of the U.S. EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, and the20

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, indicating that the Exxon model predicted a longer delay

21

than any of the other models, although its temperature increase prediction was in the mid-range of22

the four projections. 95

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

93Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo summarizing findings of research in climate modeling, Exxon Research andEngineering Company (September 2, 1982),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/%2522Consensus%2522%20on%20CO2%20Impacts%20(1982).pdf.
94
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.
95
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.

COMPLAINT

43

103.

1

During the 1980s, many Defendants formed their own research units focused on

2climate modeling. The API, including the API CO2 Task Force, provided a forum for Defendants

3

to share their research efforts and corroborate their findings related to anthropogenic greenhouse4

gas emissions. 96

5

104.

During this time, Defendants’ statements express an understanding of their

6

obligation to consider and mitigate the externalities of unabated promotion, marketing, and sale of7

their fossil fuel products. For example, in 1988, Richard Tucker, the president of Mobil Oil,

8

presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers National Meeting, the premier9

educational forum for chemical engineers, where he stated:

10[H]umanity, which has created the industrial system that has transformed civilities,
is also responsible for the environment, which sometimes is at risk because ofunintended consequences of industrialization. . . . Maintaining the health of thislife-support system is emerging as one of the highest priorities. . . . [W]e must all
be environmentalists.

11
12
13

The environmental covenant requires action on many fronts . . . the lowatmosphere ozone problem, the upper-atmosphere ozone problem and thegreenhouse effect, to name a few. . . . Our strategy must be to reduce pollution
before it is ever generated—to prevent problems at the source.

14
15

19

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 completelythat 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. 97

20

105.

16
17
18

In 1989, Esso Resources Canada (ExxonMobil) commissioned a report on the21

impacts of climate change on existing and proposed natural gas facilities in the Mackenzie River

22

Valley and Delta, including extraction facilities on the Beaufort Sea and a pipeline crossing

23

Canada’s Northwest Territory. 98 It reported that “large zones of the Mackenzie Valley could be

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

96

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.
97
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.
98
Stephen Lonergan and Kathy Young, An Assessment of the Effects of Climate Warming on Energy Developmentsin 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.
44
COMPLAINT

1

affected dramatically by climatic change” and that “the greatest concern in Norman Wells [oil2

town in North West Territories, Canada] should be the changes in permafrost that are likely to3

occur under conditions of climate warming.” The report concluded that, in light of climate models

4showing a “general tendency towards warmer and wetter climate,” operation of those facilities

5

would be compromised by increased precipitation, increase in air temperature, changes in6permafrost conditions, and significantly, sea level rise and erosion damage. 99 The authors

7

recommended factoring these eventualities into future development planning and also warned that8“a rise in sea level could cause increased flooding and erosion damage on Richards Island.”106.

9

In 1991, Shell produced a film called “Climate of Concern.” The film advises that

10

while “no two [climate change projection] scenarios fully agree, . . . [they] have each prompted11

the same serious warning. A warning endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their12

report to the UN at the end of 1990.” The warning was an increasing frequency of abnormal

13

weather, and of sea level rise of about one meter over the coming century. Shell specifically

14

described the impacts of anthropogenic sea level rise on tropical islands, “barely afloat even now,15

. . . [f]irst made uninhabitable and then obliterated beneath the waves. Wetland habitats destroyed

16

by intruding salt. Coastal lowlands suffering pollution of precious groundwater.” It warned of17“greenhouse refugees,” people who abandoned homelands inundated by the sea, or displaced

18

because of catastrophic changes to the environment. The video concludes with a stark admonition:

19“Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that the wait for final proof would be

20

irresponsible. Action now is seen as the only safe insurance.” 100
107.

21

In the mid-1990s, ExxonMobil, Shell and Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil) jointly

22

undertook the Sable Offshore Energy Project in Nova Scotia. The project’s own Environmental

23

Impact Statement declared: “The impact of a global warming sea-level rise may be particularly24

significant in Nova Scotia. The long-term tide gauge records at a number of locations along the

25
26

99

Id.
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.
100

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

45

1N.S. coast have shown sea level has been rising over the past century. . . . For the design of coastal2

and offshore structures, an estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 m [1.643feet] may be assumed for the proposed project life (25 years).” 101
108.

4

Climate change research conducted by Defendants and their industry associations

5

frequently acknowledged uncertainties in their climate modeling—those uncertainties, however,6

were merely with respect to the magnitude and timing of climate impacts resulting from fossil fuel7

consumption, not that significant changes would eventually occur. The Defendants’ researchers

8

and the researchers at their industry associations harbored little doubt that climate change was

9occurring and that fossil fuel products were, and are, the primary cause.
109.

10

Despite the overwhelming information about the threats to people and the planet11

posed by continued unabated use of their fossil fuel products, Defendants failed to act as they12

reasonably should have to mitigate or avoid those dire adverse impacts. Defendants instead

13

adopted the position, as described below, that the absence of meaningful regulations on the

14

consumption of their fossil fuel products was the equivalent of a social license to continue the15

unfettered pursuit of profits from those products. This position was an abdication of Defendants’

16

responsibility to consumers and the public, including Plaintiffs, to act on their unique knowledge

17of the reasonably foreseeable hazards of unabated production and consumption of their fossil

18

fuel products.

19

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

20
21
22
23

of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and specifically those emitted from the normal use of

24

Defendants’ fossil fuel products, in causing global warming and sea level rise and the attendant25

consequences for human communities and the environment. On notice that their products were26

causing global climate change and dire effects on the planet, Defendants were faced with the

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

101

ExxonMobil, Sable Project, Development Plan, Volume 3 – Environmental Impact Statement
http://soep.com/about-the-project/development-plan-application/.
COMPLAINT

46

1

decision of whether to take steps to limit the damages their fossil fuel products were causing and2

would continue to cause for virtually every one of Earth’s inhabitants, including the People of the3

State of California, and the City of Imperial Beach and its citizens.
111.

4

Defendants at any time before or thereafter could and should reasonably have taken5

any of a number of steps to mitigate the damages caused by their fossil fuel products, and their6

own comments reveal an awareness of what some of these steps may have been. Defendants should

7

have made reasonable warnings to consumers, the public, and regulators of the dangers known to

8

Defendants of the unabated consumption of their fossil fuel products, and they should have taken

9reasonable steps to limit the potential greenhouse gas emissions arising out of their fossil

10

fuel products.
112.

11

But several key events during the period 1988–1992 appear to have prompted

12

Defendants to change their tactics from general research and internal discussion on climate change

13

to a public campaign aimed at evading regulation of their fossil fuel products and/or emissions

14

therefrom. These include:a.

15

In 1988, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists

16

confirmed that human activities were actually contributing to global

17

warming. 102 On June 23 of that year, NASA scientist James Hansen’s

18

presentation of this information to Congress engendered significant news

19

coverage and publicity for the announcement, including coverage on the20

front page of the New York Times.
b.

21

On July 28, 1988, Senator Robert Stafford and four bipartisan co-sponsors

22

introduced S. 2666, “The Global Environmental Protection Act,” to regulate

23

CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Four more bipartisan bills to significantly

24

reduce CO2 pollution were introduced over the following ten weeks, and in

25

August, U.S. Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush pledged that his

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

102

See Peter C. Frumhoff et al., The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers, Climatic Change, Vol.
132, 161 (2015).

COMPLAINT

47

1

presidency would “combat the greenhouse effect with the White House2

effect.” 103 Political will in the United States to reduce anthropogenic

3

greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the harms associated with

4

Defendants’ fossil fuel products was gaining momentum.
c.

5

In December 1988, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel6

on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific panel dedicated to providing the7

world’s governments with an objective, scientific analysis of climate

8change and its environmental, political, and economic impacts.
d.

9

In 1990, the IPCC published its First Assessment Report on anthropogenic

10

climate change, 104 in which it concluded that (1) “there is a natural

11

greenhouse effect which already keeps the Earth warmer than it would

12

otherwise be,” and (2) that13

emissions resulting from human activities are substantially
increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhousegases carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) andnitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouseeffect, 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. 105

14
15
16
17
18

The IPCC reconfirmed these conclusions in a 1992 supplement to

19

the First Assessment report. 106e.

20

The United Nations began preparation for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de21

Janeiro, Brazil, a major, newsworthy gathering of 172 world governments,

22of which 116 sent their heads of state. The Summit resulted in the United

23

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

103

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.
104
See IPCC, Reports, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml.
105
IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Policymakers Summary (1990),
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf.
106
IPCC, 1992 IPCC Supplement to the First Assessment Report (1992),
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_90_92_assessments_far.shtml.

COMPLAINT

48

1

international environmental treaty providing protocols for future2

negotiations aimed at “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations in the3

atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic

4interference with the climate system.” 107
113.

5

These world events marked a shift in public discussion of climate change, and the6initiation of international efforts to curb anthropogenic greenhouse emissions – developments that7

had stark implications for, and would have diminished the profitability of, Defendants’ fossil fuel8

products.
114.

9

But rather than collaborating with the international community by acting to10

forestall, or at least decrease, their fossil fuel products’ contributions to global warming, sea level

11

rise, and injuries to Imperial Beach and other coastal communities, Defendants embarked on a12

decades-long campaign designed to maximize continued dependence on their products and13

undermine national and international efforts like the Kyoto Protocol to rein in greenhouse gas

14

emissions.

15

115.

Defendants’ campaign, which focused on concealing, discrediting, and/or

16

misrepresenting information that tended to support restricting consumption of (and thereby

17decreasing demand for) Defendants’ fossil fuel products, took several forms. The campaign

18

enabled Defendants to accelerate their business practice of exploiting fossil fuel reserves, and19

concurrently externalize the social and environmental costs of their fossil fuel products. These20

activities stood in direct contradiction to Defendants’ own prior recognition that the science of21

anthropogenic climate change was clear and that the greatest uncertainties involved responsive

22

human behavior, not scientific understanding of the issue.
116.

23

Defendants took affirmative steps to conceal, from Plaintiffs and the general public,24

the foreseeable impacts of the use of their fossil fuel products on the Earth’s climate and associated25

harms to people and communities. Defendants embarked on a concerted public relations campaign

26

to cast doubt on the science connecting global climate change to fossil fuel products and

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

107

United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 2 (1992),
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
COMPLAINT

49

1

greenhouse gas emissions, in order to influence public perception of the existence of anthropogenic

2

global warming and sea level rise. The effort included promoting their hazardous products through3

advertising campaigns and the initiation and funding of climate change denialist organizations,4designed to influence consumers to continue using Defendants’ fossil fuel products irrespective of

5those products’ damage to communities and the environment.
117.

6

For example, in 1988, Joseph Carlson, an Exxon public affairs manager, described

7

the “Exxon Position,” which included among others, two important messaging tenets: (1)8“[e]mphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced

9

Greenhouse Effect;” and (2) “[r]esist the overstatement and sensationalization [sic] of potential

10

greenhouse effect which could lead to noneconomic development of non-fossil fuel resources.” 108
118.

11

In 1991, for example, the Information Council for the Environment (“ICE”), whose

12

members included affiliates, predecessors and/or subsidiaries of Defendants, including Peabody,

13

Ohio Valley Coal Company (Murray Energy), Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining (Chevron), and14

Island Creek Coal Company (Occidental), launched a national climate change science denial

15

campaign with full-page newspaper ads, radio commercials, a public relations tour schedule,

16“mailers,” and research tools to measure campaign success. Included among the campaign

17strategies was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” Its target audience included

18

older less-educated males who are “predisposed to favor the ICE agenda, and likely to be even19

more supportive of that agenda following exposure to new info” as well as younger, lower-income

20

women likely to be “green” consumers but who “are also most likely to soften their support for

21

federal legislation after hearing new information on global warming.” 109 The effort focused on a

22

few select cities for their test marketing; these cities were selected on the basis that the majority of

23

their electricity came from coal, they were home to members of the U.S. House of Representatives

24

Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means committees, and they had low media costs. 110

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

108Joseph 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.
109
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.
110
Id.
50
COMPLAINT

119.

1

An implicit goal of ICE’s advertising campaign was to change public opinion and2

avoid regulation. A memo from Richard Lawson, president of the National Coal Association asked

3

members to contribute to the ICE campaign with the justification that “policymakers are prepared4

to act [on global warming]. Public opinion polls reveal that 60% of the American people already5

believe global warming is a serious environmental problem. Our industry cannot sit on the6sidelines in this debate.” 111
120.

7

The following images are examples of ICE-funded print advertisements

8challenging the validity of climate science and intended to obscure the scientific consensus on

9anthropogenic climate change and induce political inertia to address it. 112

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

121.

In 1996, Exxon released a publication called “Global Warming: Who’s Right?

21

Facts about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers.” In the publication’s preface,

22

Exxon CEO Lee Raymond stated that “taking drastic action immediately is unnecessary since

23

many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand the climate system.” The subsequent24

article described the greenhouse effect as “unquestionably real and definitely a good thing,” while

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

111

Naomi Oreskes, My Facts Are Better Than Your Facts: Spreading Good News about Global Warming (2010), inPeter Howlett et al., How Well Do Facts Travel?: The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, 136-166. Cambridge
University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511762154.008.8.
112
Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham,page 47-49 (1991), http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf.
51
COMPLAINT

1ignoring the severe consequences that would result from the influence of the increased CO2

2

concentration on the Earth’s climate. Instead, it characterized the greenhouse effect as simply

3“what makes the earth’s atmosphere livable.” Directly contradicting their own internal reports and4peer-reviewed science, the article ascribed the rise in temperature since the late 19th century to

5“natural fluctuations that occur over long periods of time” rather than to the anthropogenic

6

emissions that Exxon and other scientists had confirmed were responsible. The article also falsely

7

challenged the computer models that projected the future impacts of unabated fossil fuel product8

consumption, including those developed by Exxon’s own employees, as having been “proved to9

be inaccurate.” The article contradicted the numerous reports circulated among Exxon’s staff, and10by the API, by stating that “the indications are that a warmer world would be far more benign than

11

many imagine . . . moderate warming would reduce mortality rates in the US, so a slightly warmer

12

climate would be more healthful.” Raymond concluded his preface by attacking advocates for

13

limiting the use of his company’s fossil fuel products as “drawing on bad science, faulty logic, or

14

unrealistic assumptions” – despite the important role that Exxon’s own scientists had played in

15compiling those same scientific underpinnings. 113
122.

16

In a speech presented at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing in 1997 at which

17

many of the Defendants were present, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond reiterated these views. This time,18

he presented a false dichotomy between stable energy markets and abatement of the marketing,19

promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products known to Defendants to be hazardous. He stated:

20

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.

21
22
23
24

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.

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

113

Exxon Corp., Global warming: who’s right?, (1996), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805542Exxon-Global-Warming-Whos-Right.html.
COMPLAINT

52

1

We also have to keep in mind that most of the greenhouse effects comes fromnatural 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 foundationin our current understanding of the climate system.

2
3

Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change inthe 21st century and beyond . . . It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the
middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies areenacted 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. 114

4
5
6
7

123.

8
9
10

connection between Defendants’ fossil fuel products and anthropogenic climate change in theSummer 1998 Imperial Oil Review, “A Cleaner Canada”:[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 trappingof ‘greenhouse gases will result in the planet’s getting warmer . . . has no connection
whatsoever with our day-to-day weather.

11
12
13
14

There is absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not the planetis getting warmer, or, if it is, on whether the warming is the result of man-madefactors or natural variations in the climate. . . .I feel very safe in saying that the viewthat burning fossil fuels will result in global climate change remains an unproved
hypothesis. 115

15
16
17

124.

18
19
20
21
22
23

Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil) CEO Robert Peterson falsely denied the established

Mobil (ExxonMobil) paid for a series of “advertorials,” advertisements located in

the editorial section of the New York Times and meant to look like editorials rather than paid ads.
These ads discussed various aspects of the public discussion of climate change and sought toundermine the justifications for tackling greenhouse gas emissions as unsettled science. The 1997
advertorial below 116 argued that economic analysis of emissions restrictions was faulty andinconclusive and therefore a justification for delaying action on climate change.

24
25
114

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPLee 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.
115
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
116
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.
53
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 LLPCOMPLAINT

54

125.

1

In 1998, API, on behalf of Defendants, among other fossil fuel companies and2organizations supported by fossil fuel corporate grants, developed a Global Climate Science3

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.’”117

7

The multi-million-dollar, multi-year proposed budget included public outreach and the8dissemination of educational materials to schools to “begin to erect a barrier against further efforts

9

to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future” 118 – 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

12fossil fuel products’ role in climate change as its highest priority issue. 119 The memorandum

13

illuminates API’s and Defendants’ concern over the potential regulation of Defendants’ fossil fuel14

products: “Climate is at the center of the industry’s business interests. Policies limiting carbon

15

emissions reduce petroleum product use. That is why it is API’s highest priority issue and defined16

as ‘strategic.’” 120 Further, the API memo stresses many of the strategies that Defendants

17

individually and collectively utilized to combat the perception of their fossil fuel products as18

hazardous. These 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 not21

necessary to responsibly address climate change;

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

117

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.
118
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.
119Committee 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.
120
Id.
55
COMPLAINTb.

1

Maintaining strong working relationships between government regulators2and 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 fuel5

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;

10

and
d.

11

Presenting Defendants’ positions on climate change in domestic andinternational 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 the16

hazards of doing so. These efforts came despite Defendants’ recent recognition that “risks to nearly

17every facet of life on Earth . . . could be avoided only if timely steps were taken to address climate

18

change.” 121

19

128.

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), on behalf of Defendants and other fossil fuel20

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. 122 Despite

23

an internal primer stating that various “contrarian theories” [i.e., climate change skepticism] do

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

121

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.
122
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

56

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 backgrounder3

and instead funded efforts to promote some of those same contrarian theories over subsequent

4

years. 123
129.

5

The efforts by the Defendants and other fossil fuel interests to sow uncertainty and6

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

9States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on [GCC’s] input.” 124 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.” 125
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, 126 but they frequently failed to disclose their fossil fuel industry

17

underwriters. 127
131.

18

Creating a false sense of disagreement in the scientific community (despite the19consensus 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

123

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.
124
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.
125
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.
126
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.
127
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

57

1

Americans personally believed global warming was happening, only 48% believed that there was2

a consensus among the scientific community, and 40% believed there was a lot of disagreement

3

among scientists over whether global warming was occurring. 128
132.

42007 was the same year the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report, in which5

it concluded that “there is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750

6

has been one of warming.” 129 The IPCC defined “very high confidence” as at least a 9 out of 10

7chance. 130
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 the10tobacco industry, known as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, whose purpose was to11

sow uncertainty about the fact that cigarette smoke is carcinogenic. The GCST’s membership12

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. 131
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 from21

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

128American 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//.
129
IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers, page 3 (emphasis in original), Climate Change 2007: The PhysicalScience 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.
130
Id.
131
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

58

1(ACCCE), on behalf of Defendants, hired a lobbying firm, which posed as various nonprofits and2sent letters to persuade members of Congress to vote against the American Clean Energy and3

Security Act of 2009, which would have imposed a carbon cap and trade program in the U.S.132

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. 133
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 passed9

the House and was headed to the Senate for debate. 134 Ostensibly intended to “allow people to10voice their concerns” and opposing the need for concerted efforts to combat climate change, emails

11from API to its members state that “it’s important our views be heard,” and that “success for these12

events will be the diversity of the participants expressing the same message,” which was ultimately

13

misleading and contrary to the acknowledged scientific consensus. 135 The purpose of the events

14

was to “put a human face” on the industry’s misleading and unsupported position regarding the15cause of changes to the climate and to reinforce that misleading position in the minds of the public.

16

The same emails to API members stated that “our messages on [similar] legislation work extremely

17well and are very persuasive with the general public and policy influentials.” Moreover, the email

18

stated that API would “provide the up-front resources to ensure logistical issues do not become a19

problem,” but insisted that member companies “provide significant attendance.” 136
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

132

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.
133
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.
134
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.
135
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.
136
Id.

COMPLAINT

59

1

an effort to influence EPA regulations that would have mitigated reliance on Defendants’ fossil

2

fuel products by requiring renewable fuel production. 137 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

7behalf of Defendants, among other fossil fuel companies, funded dozens of supposedly grassroots

8organizations to block progressive energy regulation. 138 This practice is called “astroturfing”:

9

astroturf is meant to look like grass, but it is fake. Similarly, large companies and corporate

10organizations like WSPA fund fake grassroots movements in an effort to gain credibility from the11

public, who 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 the14Competitive 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

18

Imperial Beach, among other coastal communities. 139 Several Defendants have been linked to19other groups that undermine the scientific basis linking Defendants’ fossil fuel products to climate

20

change and sea level rise, including the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (Arch Coal 140) and21

the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Center for the Study

22of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (Peabody Energy). 141

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

137

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.
138
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.
139
ExxonSecrets.org, ExxonMobil Climate Denial Funding 1998-2014 http://exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php.
140
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.
141
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.
60
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 research4groups 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.” 142 Despite this pronouncement, Exxon remained financially associated with7

several such groups after the report’s publication.
140.

8

Defendants could have contributed to the global effort to mitigate the impacts of

9greenhouse 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 and16

unnecessarily deceived about: the role of fossil fuel products in causing global warming and sea

17level 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 that19

creates severe environmental threats and significant economic costs for coastal communities,

20

including Imperial Beach. 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 fuels23

in causing both climate change and a wide range of potentially destructive impacts, including sea

24level rise.

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

142

ExxonMobil, 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report (December 31, 2007).
COMPLAINT

61

1

F.

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

142.

In contrast to their public-facing efforts challenging the validity of the scientific234consensus about anthropogenic climate change, Defendants’ acts and omissions evidence their5internal 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 level9rise; 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 natural11

gas in areas previously unreachable because of the presence of polar ice sheets. 143
143.

12

For example, in 1973 Exxon obtained a patent for a cargo ship capable of breaking

13

through sea ice 144 and for an oil tanker 145 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, 146 allowing for drilling in areas with17

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 through20

natural weather conditions, 147 allowing for drilling in previously unreachable Arctic areas that

21

would become seasonally accessible.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

143

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/.
144
Patents, Icebreaking cargo vessel, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (April 17, 1973)https://www.google.com/patents/US3727571.
145
Patents, Tanker vessel, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (July 17, 1973)https://www.google.com/patents/US3745960.
146
Patents, Arctic offshore platform, Chevron Res (August 27, 1974) https://www.google.com/patents/US3831385.
147
Patents, Mobile, arctic drilling and production platform, Texaco Inc. (February 26, 1974)https://www.google.com/patents/US3793840.

COMPLAINT

62

1

146.

Shell obtained a patent similar to Texaco’s (Chevron) in 1984. 148

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

4level rise. Those design changes were ultimately carried out by Shell’s contractors, adding

5

substantial costs to the project. 149

6a.

The Troll field, off the Norwegian coast in the North Sea, was proven to7

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 of9

the field.
b.

10

In 1986, the Norwegian parliament granted Norske Shell authority to

11complete the first development phase of the Troll field gas deposits, and12

Norske Shell began designing the “Troll A” gas platform, with the intent to13

begin operation of the platform in approximately 1995. Based on the very

14large 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 above17

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. 150

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

148

Patents, Arctic offshore platform, Shell Oil Company (January 24, 1984)
https://www.google.com/patents/US4427320.
149
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.
150
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

63

e.

1

would increase the cost of the Troll A platform by as much as $40 million.

2
3

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

4
5

Shell projected that the additional 3–6 feet of above-water construction

6

the social benefit of extracting and burning a unit of fossil fuels against the costs that a unit of fuel7

imposes on society, known as the “social cost of carbon” or “SCC.”

8

149.

Because climatic responses to atmospheric temperature increases are non-linear,9and because greenhouse gas pollution accumulates in the atmosphere, some of which does not10

dissipate for potentially thousands of years (namely CO2), there is broad agreement that SCC

11

increases as emissions rise, and as the climate warms. Relatedly, as atmospheric CO2 levels and12

surface temperature increase, the costs of remediating any individual environmental injury—for

13

example infrastructure to mitigate sea level rise, and changes to agricultural processes—also

14

increases. In short, each additional ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere will have a greater net

15

social cost as emissions increase, and each additional ton of CO2 will have a greater net social cost16

as global warming accelerates.

17

150.

A critical corollary of the non-linear relationship between atmospheric CO2

18

concentrations and SCC is that delayed efforts to curb those emissions have increased

19

environmental harms and increase the magnitude and cost to remediate harms that have already20

occurred or are locked in by previous emissions. Therefore, Defendants’ campaign to obscure the21

science of climate change and to expand the extraction and use of fossil fuels greatly increased

22and continues to increase the harms and rate of harms suffered by the City and the People.

23

151.

The consequences of delayed action on climate change, exacerbated by Defendants’

24

actions, has already drastically increased the cost of mitigating further harm. Had concerted action

25

begun even as late as 2005, an annual 3.5% reduction in CO2 emissions to lower atmospheric CO2

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

64

1

to 350 ppm by the year 2100 would have restored earth’s energy balance 151 and halted future global

2

warming, although such efforts would not forestall committed sea level rise already locked in.152

3

If efforts do not begin until 2020, however, a 15% annual reduction will be required to restore the4

Earth’s energy balance by the end of the century. 153 Earlier steps to reduce emissions would have5

led to smaller – and less disruptive – measures needed to mitigate the impacts of fossil fuel6

production.

7

152.

The costs of inaction and the opportunities to confront anthropogenic climate

8change and sea level rise caused by normal consumption of their fossil fuel products, were not lost9

on Defendants. In a 1997 speech by John Browne, Group Executive for BP America, at Stanford

10

University, Browne described Defendants’ and the entire fossil fuel industry’s responsibility and11opportunities to reduce use of fossil fuel products, reduce global CO2 emissions, and mitigate the12harms associated with the use and consumption of such products:

13

A new age demands a fresh perspective of the nature of society and responsibility.

14

We need to go beyond analysis and to take action. It is a moment for change andfor a rethinking of corporate responsibility. . . .

15
16[T]here is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists andserious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is adiscernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentrationof carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.

17
18

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 riseby between 15 and 95 centimetres [5.9 and 37.4 inches]. Some of that impact isprobably unavoidable, because it results from current emissions. . . .

19
20
21
22
151

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP“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
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.
152
James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions toProtect 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.
153
James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions toProtect 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.
65
COMPLAINT

1[I]t would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.

2

The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link
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. . . .

3
4
5

7

We [the fossil fuel industry] have a responsibility to act, and I hope that throughour actions we can contribute to the much wider process which is desirable andnecessary.

8

BP accepts that responsibility and we're therefore taking some specific steps.

9

To control our own emissions.

10

To fund continuing scientific research.

6

11

To take initiatives for joint implementation.

12

To develop alternative fuels for the long term.
13
14

And to contribute to the public policy debate in search of the wider global answers
to the problem.” 154

15

153.

Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the foreseeable, measurable harms associated16with the unabated consumption and use of their fossil fuel products, and despite the existence and17

Defendants’ knowledge of technologies and practices that could have helped to reduce the18

foreseeable dangers associated with their fossil fuel products, Defendants continued to market and19

promote heavy fossil fuel use, dramatically increasing the cost of abatement. At all relevant times,

20

Defendants were deeply familiar with opportunities to reduce the use of their fossil fuel products,

21

reduce global CO2 emissions associated therewith, and mitigate the harms associated with the use

22

and consumption of such products. Examples of that recognition include, but are not limited to the23

following:24a.

In 1963, Esso (Exxon) obtained multiple patents on technologies for fuel

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

154John Browne, BP Climate Change Speech to Stanford, Climate Files (May 19, 1997),
http://www.climatefiles.com/bp/bp-climate-change-speech-to-stanford/.

COMPLAINT

66

1

cells, including on the design of a fuel cell and necessary electrodes, 155 and2

on a process for increasing the oxidation of a fuel, specifically methanol, to3

produce electricity in a fuel cell. 156
b.

4

In 1970, Esso (ExxonMobil) obtained a patent for a “low-polluting engine

5and drive system” that used an interburner and air compressor to reduce6

pollutant emissions, including CO2 emissions, from gasoline combustion

7

engines (the system also increased the efficiency of the fossil fuel products

8

used in such engines, thereby lowering the amount of fossil fuel product9

necessary to operate engines equipped with this technology). 157
154.

10

Defendants could have made major inroads to mitigate Plaintiffs’ injuries through11

technology by developing and employing technologies to capture and sequester greenhouse gases

12

emissions associated with conventional use of their fossil fuel products. Defendants had

13knowledge dating at least back to the 1960s, and indeed, internally researched and perfected many

14

such technologies. For instance:

15a.

The first patent for enhanced oil recovery technology, a process by which

16

CO2 is captured and reinjected into oil deposits, was granted to an ARCO17(BP) subsidiary in 1952. 158 This technology could have been further

18

developed as a carbon capture and sequestration technique;b.

19

Phillips Petroleum Company (ConocoPhillips) obtained a patent in 1966 for20

a “Method for recovering a purified component from a gas” outlining a

21

process to remove carbon from natural gas and gasoline streams; 159 and

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

155

Patents, Fuel cell and fuel cell electrodes, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (December 31, 1963)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3116169.
156
Patents, Direct production of electrical energy from liquid fuels, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (December 3,1963) https://www.google.com/patents/US3113049.
157
Patents, Low-polluting engine and drive system, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (May 16, 1970)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3513929.
158
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.
159
Patents, Method for recovering a purified component from a gas, Phillips Petroleum Co (January 11, 1966)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3228874.

COMPLAINT

67

c.

1

In 1973, Shell was granted a patent for a process to remove acidic gases,
including CO2, from gaseous mixtures.

2

155.

3

Despite this knowledge, Defendants’ later forays into the alternative energy sector

4

were largely pretenses. For instance, in 2001, Chevron developed and shared a sophisticated5

information management system to gather greenhouse gas emissions data from its explorations

6and production to help regulate and set reduction goals. 160 Beyond this technological7

breakthrough, Chevron touted “profitable renewable energy” as part of its business plan for several

8

years and launched a 2010 advertising campaign promoting the company’s move towards

9

renewable energy. Despite all this, Chevron rolled back its renewable and alternative energy

10

projects in 2014. 161

11

156.

Similarly, ConocoPhillips’ 2012 Sustainable Development report declared

12

developing renewable energy a priority in keeping with their position on sustainable development

13

and climate change. 162 Their 10-K filing from the same year told a different story: “As an

14

independent E&P company, we are solely focused on our core business of exploring for,15

developing and producing crude oil and natural gas globally.” 163
157.

16

Likewise, while Shell orchestrated an entire public relations campaign around17

energy transitions towards net zero emissions, a fine-print disclaimer in its 2016 net-zero pathways

18

report reads: “We have no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our

19

investment horizon of 10–20 years.” 164
158.

20
21

BP, appearing to abide by the representations Lord Browne made in his speech

described in paragraph 152, above, engaged in a rebranding campaign to convey an air of

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

160

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.
161
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.
162
ConocoPhillips, Sustainable Development (2013) http://www.conocophillips.com/sustainabledevelopment/Documents/2013.11.7%201200%20Our%20Approach%20Section%20Final.pdf.
163
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.
164
Energy Transitions Towards Net Zero Emissions (NZE), Shell (2016),
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_L1nw8WLu0Bbi1QWnJRcHlZblE/view.

COMPLAINT

68

1

environmental stewardship and renewable energy to its consumers. This included renouncing its

2

membership in the GCC in 2007, changing its name from “British Petroleum” to “BP” while3

adopting the slogan “Beyond Petroleum,” and adopting a conspicuously green corporate logo.

4

However, BP’s self-touted “alternative energy” investments during this turnaround included

5

investments in natural gas, a fossil fuel, and in 2007 the company reinvested in Canadian tar sands,

6a particularly high-carbon source of oil. 165 The company ultimately abandoned its wind and solar

7

assets in 2011 and 2013, respectively, and even the “Beyond Petroleum” moniker in 2013. 166
159.

8

After posting a $10 billion quarterly profit, Exxon in 2005 stated that “We’re an oil

9and gas company. In times past, when we tried to get into other businesses, we didn’t do it well.

10

We’d rather re-invest in what we know.” 167
160.

11

Even if Defendants did not adopt technological or energy source alternatives that

12

would have reduced use of fossil fuel products, reduced global greenhouse gas pollution, and/or

13

mitigated the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products, Defendants could

14

have taken other practical, cost-effective steps to reduce the use of their fossil fuel products, reduce

15

global greenhouse gas pollution associated therewith, and mitigate the harms associated with the16

use and consumption of such products. These alternatives could have included, among other17

measures:a.

18

Accepting scientific evidence on the validity of anthropogenic climate

19change and the damages it will cause people and communities, including

20

Plaintiffs, and the environment. Mere acceptance of that information would

21

have altered the debate from whether to combat climate change and sea

22level rise to how to combat it; and avoided much of the public confusion

23

that has ensued over nearly 30 years, since at least 1988;

24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

165Fred 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.
166
Javier E. David, ‘Beyond Petroleum’ No More? BP Goes Back to Basics, CNBC (April 20, 2013)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100647034.
167
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.
69
COMPLAINT1b.

Forthrightly communicating with Defendants’ shareholders, banks,

2

insurers, the public, regulators and Plaintiffs about the global warming and3

sea level rise hazards of Defendants’ fossil fuel products that were known4

to Defendants, would have enabled those groups to make material, informed

5

decisions about whether and how to address climate change and sea level

6

rise vis-à-vis Defendants’ products;

7c.

Refraining from affirmative efforts, whether directly, through coalitions, or8through front groups, to distort public debate, and to cause many consumers

9

and business and political leaders to think the relevant science was far less10

certain that it actually was;

11d.

Sharing their internal scientific research with the public, and with other12

scientists and business leaders, so as to increase public understanding of the13

scientific underpinnings of climate change its relation to Defendants’ fossil

14

fuel products;

15

e.

Supporting and encouraging policies to avoid dangerous climate change,

16

and demonstrating corporate leadership in addressing the challenges of17transitioning to a low-carbon economy;

18f.

Prioritizing alternative sources of energy through sustained investment

19

and research on renewable energy sources to replace dependence on

20

Defendants’ inherently hazardous fossil fuel products;

21g.

Adopting their shareholders’ concerns about Defendants’ need to protect

22

their businesses from the inevitable consequences of profiting from their

23

fossil fuel products. Over the period of 1990-2015, Defendants’24

shareholders proposed hundreds of resolutions to change Defendants’25

policies and business practices regarding climate change. These included

26

increasing renewable energy investment, cutting emissions, and performing

27

carbon risk assessments, among others.

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

70

161.

1
2

of Defendants’ fossil fuel products, and despite the existence and fossil fuel industry knowledge

3of opportunities that would have reduced the foreseeable dangers associated with those products,

4

Defendants wrongfully and falsely promoted, campaigned against regulation of, and concealed the5hazards of use of their fossil fuel products.

6

H.

Defendants Caused Plaintiffs’ Injuries

7

162.

Defendants individually and collectively extracted a substantial percentage of all8

raw fossil fuels extracted globally since 1965.

9

163.

CO2 emissions that are attributable to fossil fuels that Defendants extracted from10

the Earth and injected into the market are responsible for a substantial percentage of greenhouse11

gas pollution since 1965.

12

164.

Defendants’ individual and collective conduct, including, but not limited to, their

13

extraction, refining, and/or formulation of fossil fuel products; their introduction of fossil fuel14

products into the stream of commerce; their wrongful promotion of their fossil fuel products and15

concealment of known hazards associated with use of those products; and their failure to pursue

16

less hazardous alternatives available to them; is a substantial factor in causing the increase in global

17

mean temperature and consequent increase in global mean sea surface height since 1965.

18

165.

Defendants have actually and proximately caused the sea levels to rise, increased19

the destructive impacts of storm surges, increased coastal erosion, exacerbated the onshore impact

20of regular tidal ebb and flow, caused saltwater intrusion, and caused consequent social and21

economic injuries associated with the aforementioned physical and environmental impacts, among

22

other impacts, resulting in inundation, destruction, and/or other interference with Plaintiffs’

23

property and citizenry.

24
25

166.

Plaintiffs have already incurred, and will foreseeably continue to incur, injuries anddamages because of sea level rise caused by Defendants’ conduct.

26

SHER
EDLING LLP

Despite their knowledge of the foreseeable harms associated with the consumption

167.

But for Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs would have suffered no or far less injuries

27

and damages than they have, and will foreseeably endure, due to expected anthropogenic sea level

28

rise.
COMPLAINT

71

168.

1

The San Diego area, including Imperial Beach, has experienced significant sea level2

rise over the last half century attributable to Defendants’ conduct. 168 Imperial Beach will3

experience additional, significant, and dangerous sea level rise within the next eighty years given

4

unabated greenhouse gas emissions, 169 and the increases will continue and accelerate.

5Additionally, Imperial Beach will experience greater committed sea level rise due to the “locked

6in” greenhouse gases already emitted. 170 The City will suffer greater overall sea level rise than the7

global average. 171

8

169.

Imperial Beach finalized its Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analysis on October 5,

92016. 172 The Assessment is the City’s first analysis of its overall vulnerability to sea level rise and10

its impacts from permanent inundation, temporary flooding caused by storm events, erosion, and11

saltwater intrusion. The Assessment identifies actual risks to the City with various sea level rise

12

projections and the consequences associated with taking no action to prevent or mitigate the13

expected impacts. 173

14

170.

Land use impacts to the City associated are likely to include, but are not limited to:15

a. Coastal erosive forces compromising 683 residential, commercial and open

16

space parcels within the City. Economic vulnerability associated with17

erosion’s impact on real property is valued at over $106 million. Coastal

18

flooding will impact 1,538 parcels, and cause over $38 million in damages,

19

primarily to residential and commercial buildings. Regular tidal inundation

20
21
22
168

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

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.
169
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. 27, table 1(c).
170Peter 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).
171
Global sea level rise is projected to be 82.7 cm (32.6 inches) above 2000 levels by 2100. See National ResearchCouncil, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future (2012) atpage 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.
172
Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016).
173
See Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016) p. 1-3, table 1-1.

COMPLAINT

72

1

will damage 447 parcels including two elementary schools, and cost over2

$34 million.174

3b. Flooding of as much as 29.6 miles – approximately 40% – of the City’s

4roads, as well as erosive damage to 5.4 miles and regular tidal inundation

5of 4.3 miles of roads. 175

6c. Flooding of critical public transportation infrastructure, including 9 bus

7stops, 3.9 miles of bus route, and 3.8 miles of bicycle pathway. This8

infrastructure will also be compromised by erosion and regular tidal

9inundation. 176

10d. Damages to over 81,000 feet of wastewater transmission pipe, 9 pump

11

stations, and 311 manholes within the City. Over 24,000 feet of stormwater

12

pipes and 42 outlets will be impacted as well. 177

13

e. Bayside and West View Elementary Schools will be impacted by regular14

tidal inundation and coastal flooding, necessitating relocation of those15

school sites. Six buildings at Bayside Elementary are already exposed

16

during storm events and will become routinely exposed by tidal flooding

17with 1.6 feet of sea level rise. 178

18

f. Coastal flooding and tidal inundation will compromise known hazardous

19

materials sites within the City, including five businesses and two

20

underground storage tank sites. 179
171.

21
22

The following figure describes the extent of coastal flooding hazards in Imperial

Beach due to sea level rise to different elevations. As the image shows, much of the City, including

23
24
25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

174

Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016), Appendix A, p. A-2.
Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016), Appendix A, p. A-6.
176
Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016), Appendix A, p. A-8.
177
Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016), Appendix A, p. A10-12.
178
Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016), Appendix A, p. A-14
179
Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016), Appendix A, p. A16.
175

COMPLAINT73

1

some of its most critical infrastructure and valuable Ocean-, Bay-, and Estuary-front property, will2

be inundated with expected sea level increases. 180

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

172.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants’

18

alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred significant expenses related to planning for and predicting

19

future sea level rise injuries to its real property, improvements thereon, civil infrastructure, and20

citizens, in order to preemptively mitigate and/or prevent such injuries. This includes performing

21

a Sea Level Vulnerability Assessment in 2016 at significant expense to the City that describes the22extent of mitigation and adaptation measures the City must undertake in order to prevent

23

significantly more expensive sea-level rise related injuries.

24

173.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged herein,

25

Plaintiffs have incurred sea level rise-related injuries and damages. These include infrastructural

26

repair and reinforcement of roads and beach access.

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

180

Revell Coastal, 2016 City of Imperial Beach Sea Level Rise Assessment (September 2016), p. 4-5, figure 4-2.
COMPLAINT

74

174.

1
2

Plaintiffs’ real property has been inundated by sea water, causing injury and damages thereto and3

to improvements thereon, and preventing free passage on, use of, and normal enjoyment of that4

real property, or permanently destroying it.
175.

5

Defendants’ conduct as described herein is therefore an actual, substantial, and6

proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ sea level rise-related injuries.

7

VI.

CAUSES OF ACTION

8FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

9(Public Nuisance on Behalf of the People of the State of California)

10(Against All Defendants)

11
12
13

176.

The People incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above, as

though set forth herein in full.
177.

Defendants, and each of them, by their affirmative acts and omissions, have created,

14

contributed to, and assisted in creating, a condition in City of Imperial Beach, and permitted that15

condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by, inter alia, increasing local sea level,

16

increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity and frequency of17storms and storm-related damage to the City and its residents.

18
19
20

178.

Defendants specifically created, contributed to, and/or assisted, and/or were asubstantial 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

21

from the Earth, and placing those fossil fuel products into the stream of

22

commerce;23b.

affirmatively and knowingly promoting the sale and use of fossil fuel24

products which Defendants knew to be hazardous and knew would lead to25

global warming, sea level rise, more frequent and more intense flooding,26

and more frequent and more intense storm surges;

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged herein,c.

affirmatively and knowingly concealing the hazards that Defendants knew
would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products by
COMPLAINT

75

1

misrepresenting and casting doubt on the integrity of scientific information2

related to climate change;d.

3

disseminating and funding the dissemination of information intended to4

mislead customers, consumers, elected officials and regulators regarding

5

known and foreseeable risk of climate change and its consequences, which

6

follow from the normal, intended use and foreseeable misuse of7

Defendants’ fossil fuel products;e.

8

affirmatively and knowingly campaigning against the regulation of their

9fossil fuel products, despite knowing the hazards associated with the normal

10

use of those products, in order to continue profiting from use of those

11

products by externalizing those known costs onto people, the environment,

12

and communities, including the People; and failing to warn the public about

13

the hazards associated with the use of fossil fuel products.
179.

14

The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects the15

interests of the public at large. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency and16

intensity, and increased flooding: (1) are harmful and dangerous to human health; (2) are indecent

17

and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person; (3) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free use

18of the People’s property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property; and19(4) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes, rivers, bays,

20

streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways within City of Imperial

21

Beach.

22
23
24
25
26
27

180.

The People of the State of California have a common right to be free from theincreased severity of these hazards due to climate change and sea level rise.
181.

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.

interference with the public’s rights as described above is expected to
become so regular and severe that it will cause permanent inundation;

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

76

1

b.

property, rather than mere annoyance;

2
3

the ultimate nature of the harm is the destruction of real and personalc.

the interference borne is the loss of property and infrastructure within City

4of Imperial Beach, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s citizens as

5loss of use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of tax dollars

6

away from other public services to sea level rise;

7d.

Plaintiff’s coastal property, which serves myriad uses including residential,

8

infrastructural, commercial and ecological, is not suitable for regular9

inundation;10e.

the social benefit of placing fossil fuels into the stream of commerce is

11

outweighed by the availability of other sources of energy that could have12

been placed into the stream of commerce that would not have caused sea

13level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the external costs of

14

placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce, and rather

15

than striving to mitigate those externalities, Defendants instead acted

16

affirmatively to obscure them from public consciousness;17f.

the cost to society of each ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the18

atmosphere increases as total global emissions increase, so that unchecked

19

extraction and consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and20

costly than moderated extraction and consumption; and21g.

it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive

22

knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of23

commerce and extensive scientific engineering expertise, to develop better

24

technologies and to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available

25

technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have26

mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower

27

carbon economy.

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

77

1

182.

This public nuisance affects and/or interferes with an entire community's and/or a2

considerable number of persons in the State of California right to health, safety, peace, comfort,3

and convenience.

4

183.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that5

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

6

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and7

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

8amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

9obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.

10

184.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, the11common rights enjoyed by the People of the State of California and by the general public in the

12City of Imperial Beach have been unreasonably interfered with because Defendants knew or

13should have known that their conduct would create a continuing problem with long-lasting

14

significant negative effects on the rights of the public.

15

185.

Defendants’ actions are a direct and legal cause of the public nuisance.

16

186.

The People of the State of California, acting through the City of Imperial Beach,

17
18
19
20

have a clearly ascertainable right to have the public nuisance created by Defendants abated.
187.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

the People of the State of California’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
188.

Wherefore, the People of the State of California pray for relief as set forth below.

21

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

22(Public Nuisance on Behalf of City of Imperial Beach)23(Against All Defendants)

24
25
26
27

189.

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
190.

Defendants, and each of them, by their acts and omission, have created a conditionand permitted that condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by increasing sea level,

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

78

1

increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity and frequency of2storms, all of which have resulted in, and will continue to result in, injury to Plaintiff.
191.

3

The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects the4interests of the public at large. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency and5intensity, and increased flooding: (1) are harmful and dangerous to human health; (2) are indecent

6and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person; (3) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free use

7of the People’s property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property; and8(4) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes, rivers, bays,

9

streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways within City of Imperial

10

Beach.

11

192.

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach includes coastal communities with substantial

12

numbers of residents and citizens living on and near the coast, and substantial numbers of13

businesses and amenities on or near the coast; the condition created by Defendants therefore affects

14

substantial numbers of people in Plaintiff’s communities at the same time.

15

193.

The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding

16

is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct. The seriousness of the17

harm to Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach outweighs the benefit of Defendants’ and each of their18

conduct, because

19a.

and severe as to be a permanent inundation;

20
21

b.

the nature of the harm is the destruction of Plaintiff’s property, rather thanmere annoyance;

22
23

the interference with Plaintiff’s property is expected to become so regularc.

the interference borne by Plaintiff is the loss of its property and24

infrastructure, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s citizens as loss of25

use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of tax dollars away

26

from other public services to sea level rise;

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

79

d.

1

Plaintiff’s coastal public and private property, which serves myriad uses

2

including residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological, is not3suitable for regular inundation;e.

4

the burden on Plaintiff to mitigate and prevent the interference with its

5property is significant and severe, as costs associated with addressing sea

6level rise caused by Defendants are projected to be in the billions of dollars

7

over the next several decades;f.

8

the social benefit of the purpose of placing fossil fuels into the stream of

9commerce, if any, is outweighed by the availability of other sources of10energy that could have been placed into the stream of commerce that would

11

not have caused sea level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the12external costs of placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of

13

commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate those externalities, instead

14

acted affirmatively to obscure them from public consciousness;g.

15

the social cost of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as

16

total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and17

consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than18

moderated extraction and consumption; andh.

19

it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive

20

knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of21

commerce and extensive scientific engineering expertise, to develop better

22

technologies and to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available

23

technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have24

mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower

25

carbon economy.

26
27

194.

In addition to the harms suffered by the public at large, Plaintiff has suffered special

injuries different in kind. Among other harms,

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

80

a.

1
2

plan for, and enact infrastructure changes needed to mitigate rising sea

3

levels on Plaintiff’s publicly owned beaches and other public coastal

4

property;b.

5

Plaintiff has had to plan for and provide additional emergency and other6

public services in response to more frequent and more intense flooding and7

storm surges on both properties owned by Plaintiffs, and properties owned,

8leased, and utilized by residents, citizens, and visitors to Plaintiffs’

9communities.

10

195.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that

11

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

12

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and13

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

14

amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

15

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.

16

196.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, the City

17

of Imperial Beach has been unreasonably interfered with because Defendants knew or should have

18

known that their conduct would create a continuing problem with long-lasting significant negative

19

effects on the rights of the public.

20

197.

Defendants’ actions are a direct and legal cause of the public nuisance.

21

198.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

22
23City of Imperial Beach’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
199.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

24

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

25(Strict Liability—Failure to Warn on behalf of City of Imperial Beach)26(Against All Defendants)

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

Plaintiff has been forced to spend or set aside significant funds to assess,

200.

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
COMPLAINT

81

201.

1

Defendants, and each of them, extracted raw fossil fuel products, including crude2oil, coal, and natural gas from the Earth, and placed those fossil fuel products into the stream of3

commerce.

4

202.

Defendants, and each of them, extracted, refined, formulated, designed, packaged,

5

distributed, tested, constructed, fabricated, analyzed, recommended, merchandised, advertised,6

promoted and/or sold fossil fuel products, which were intended by Defendants, and each of them,7

to be burned for energy, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or incorporated into

8

petrochemical products including fuels and plastics.
203.

9

Defendants, and each of them, heavily marketed, promoted, and advertised fossil

10

fuel products and their derivatives, which were sold or used by their respective affiliates and11

subsidiaries. Defendants received direct financial benefit from their affiliates’ and subsidiaries’

12

sales of fossil fuel products. Defendants’ role as promoter and marketer was integral to their13

respective businesses and a necessary factor in bringing fossil fuel products and their derivatives

14

to the consumer market, such that Defendants had control over, and a substantial ability to

15

influence, the manufacturing and distribution processes of their affiliates and subsidiaries.
204.

16

Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and collectively knew or

17should have known, in light of the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time, that fossil

18

fuel products, whether used as intended or misused in a foreseeable manner, release greenhouse19

gases into the atmosphere that inevitably cause inter alia global warming, sea level rise, increased20

intensity and frequency of nuisance flooding, and increased intensity and frequency of storm

21

surges.

22

205.

Throughout the times at issue and continuing today, fossil fuel products presented

23

and still present a substantial risk of injury to Plaintiffs through the climate effects described above,24

whether used as intended or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

25

206.

Throughout the times at issue, the ordinary consumer would not recognize that the26

use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products causes global and localized changes in climate,27

including those effects described herein.

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

82

1

Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely2

disseminated marketing materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time,3

and advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations campaigns

4and materials that prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing the risk that fossil fuel5

products would cause grave climate changes, including those described herein.

6

208.

Defendants, and each of them, failed to adequately warn customers, consumers,

7

elected officials and regulators of known and foreseeable risk of climate change and the8consequences that inevitably follow from the normal, intended use and foreseeable misuse of

9

Defendants’ fossil fuel products.

10

209.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that

11

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

12

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and13

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

14

amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

15

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.

16

210.

As a direct and proximate result of the defects previously described, fossil fuel17

products caused Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach to sustain the injuries and damages set forth in18

this Complaint, including damage to publicly owned infrastructure and real property, and the19

creation and maintenance of a nuisance that interferes with the rights of the County, its residents,20

and of the People.

21

211.

22
23

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

City of Imperial Beach’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
212.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

24

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

25(Strict Liability—Design Defect on behalf of City of Imperial Beach)26(Against All Defendants)

27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

207.

213.

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
COMPLAINT

83

1

214.

Defendants, and each of them, extracted raw fossil fuel products, including crude2oil, coal, and natural gas from the Earth and placed those fossil fuel products into the stream of3

commerce.

4

215.

Defendants, and each of them, extracted, refined, formulated, designed, packaged,

5

distributed, tested, constructed, fabricated, analyzed, recommended, merchandised, advertised,6

promoted and/or sold fossil fuel products, which were intended by Defendants, and each of them,7

to be burned for energy, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or incorporated into

8

petrochemical products including but not limited to fuels and plastics.

9

216.

Defendants, and each of them, heavily marketed, promoted, and advertised fossil

10

fuel products and their derivatives, which were sold or used by their respective affiliates and11

subsidiaries. Defendants’ received direct financial benefit from their affiliates’ and subsidiaries’

12

sales of fossil fuel products. Defendants role as promoter and marketer was integral to their13

respective businesses and a necessary factor in bringing fossil fuel products and their derivatives

14

to the consumer market, such that Defendants had control over, and a substantial ability to

15

influence, the manufacturing and distribution processes of their affiliates and subsidiaries.

16

217.

Throughout the time at issue, fossil fuel products have not performed as safely as

17an ordinary consumer would expect them to because greenhouse gas emissions from their use

18cause numerous global and local changes to Earth’s climate. In particular, ordinary consumers did

19

not expect that:

20

a.

21

of the industrial revolution, and by far the primary cause of global warming

22

acceleration in the 20th and 21st centuries;

23

b.

25

c.

28

unmitigated use of fossil fuel products causes increased frequency andintensity of nuisance flooding in coastal communities;

26
27

fossil fuel products are the primary cause of accelerating sea level rise since
the beginning of the 20th century;

24

SHER
EDLING LLP

fossil fuel products are the primary cause of global warming since the dawnd.

fossil fuel products cause increased frequency and intensity of storm surges
in coastal communities;
COMPLAINT

84

e.

1
2

products cause damage to publicly and privately owned coastal

3

infrastructure and buildings, including homes;f.

4

the social cost of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as

5total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and6consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than

7

moderated extraction and consumption; andg.

8for these reasons and others, the unmitigated use of fossil fuel products

9present significant threats to the environment and human health and10welfare, especially in coastal communities.

11

218.

Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely12

disseminated marketing materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time,

13

advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials, among

14

other public messaging efforts, that prevented reasonable consumers from forming an expectation

15

that fossil fuel products would cause grave climate changes, including those described herein.

16

219.

Additionally, and in the alternative, Defendants’ fossil fuel products are defective

17

because the risks they pose to consumers and to the public, including and especially to Plaintiff,

18

outweigh their benefits.

19a.

the gravity of the potential harms caused by fossil fuel products is extreme;

20

global warming and its attendant consequences are guaranteed to occur

21

following the use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products because fossil

22

fuel products inherently release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and23

global warming would continue to occur for decades even if all greenhouse24

gas emissions ceased.

25

SHER
EDLING LLP

by increasing sea level rise, nuisance flooding, and storm surges, fossil fuelb.

the social benefit of the purpose of placing fossil fuels into the stream of26

commerce is overshadowed by the availability of other sources of energy

27that could have been placed into the stream of commerce that would not28

have caused sea level rise and accordingly Plaintiffs’ injuries; Defendants,
COMPLAINT

85

1and each of them, knew of the external costs of placing their fossil fuel2

products into the stream of commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate

3

those externalities, instead acted affirmatively to obscure them from public

4

consciousness.
c.

5

Defendants’ campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and the6climatic effects of fossil fuel products prevented customers, consumers,

7

regulators, and the general public from taking steps to mitigate the8inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating those9

consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning.
d.

10

the cost to society of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases

11

as total global emissions increase so that unchecked extraction and

12consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than

13

moderated extraction and consumption.
e.

14

it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive

15

knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of16

commerce, to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available

17

technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have18

mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower

19

carbon economy, reduced global CO2 emissions, and mitigated the harms

20

associated with the use and consumption of such products.

21

220.

Defendants’ individual and aggregate fossil fuel products were used in a manner

22

for which they were intended to be used, or misused in a manner foreseeable to Defendants and23

each of them, by individual and corporate consumers, the result of which was the addition of CO2

24emissions to the global atmosphere with attendant global and local consequences.

25

221.

As a direct and proximate result of the defects in fossil fuel products described26

herein, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint, including damage

27

to publicly and privately owned infrastructure and real property.

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT86

1Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that2

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

3

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and4

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

5amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

6

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.

7
8
9

223.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

City of Imperial Beach’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
224.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

10

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

11(Private Nuisance on behalf of City of Imperial Beach)

12(Against All Defendants)

13
14
15
16
17

225.

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
226.

Plaintiff owns and manages extensive property within City of Imperial Beachborders that has been injured and will be injured by rising sea levels.
227.

Defendants, and each of them, by their acts and omission, have created a condition18

on Plaintiff’s property, and permitted that condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by

19

increasing sea level, increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity

20

and frequency of storms.

21

SHER
EDLING LLP

222.

228.

The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects Plaintiff’s

22interest in its own coastal real property. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency

23

and intensity, and increased flooding are:24a.

harmful and dangerous to human health;25b.

indecent and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person;

26c.

threatening to obstruct the free use of Plaintiff’s property and property

27

owned by Plaintiff’s residents and citizens, so as to interfere with the28

comfortable enjoyment of life and property; andCOMPLAINT

87

d.

1

threatening to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes, rivers,

2bays, streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways

3

within Plaintiff’s communities.

4
5
6
7
8

229.

The condition described above created by Defendants’ conduct substantiallyinterferes with Plaintiff’s use and quiet enjoyment of its coastal properties.
230.

Plaintiff has not consented to Defendants’ conduct in creating the condition that has

led to sea level rise and its associated harms.
231.

The ordinary person, and the ordinary city or county in Plaintiff’s position, would

9

be reasonably annoyed and disturbed by Defendants’ conduct and the condition created thereby,

10

because, inter alia, it infringes on Plaintiff’s ability to provide public space to residents and11

visitors, and has forced Plaintiff to plan for and provide additional emergency and other public

12

services in response to more frequent and more intense flooding and storm surges on properties

13

owned by Plaintiff.

14

232.

The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding

15

is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of defendants’ conduct. The seriousness of the16

harm to Plaintiff outweighs the benefit of Defendants’ and each of their conduct, because:17a.

and severe as to be a permanent inundation;

18
19

b.

the nature of the harm is the destruction of Plaintiff’s public and private realand personal property, rather than mere annoyance;

20
21

the interference with Plaintiff’s property is expected to become so regularc.

the interference borne by Plaintiff is the loss of its private and public

22

property and infrastructure, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s

23

citizens as loss of use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of24

tax dollars away from other public services to sea level rise;

25d.

Plaintiff’s coastal public and private property, which serves myriad uses

26

including residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological, is not

27

suitable for regular inundation;

28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT88

1

the burden on Plaintiff to mitigate and prevent the interference with its

2property is significant and severe, as costs associated with addressing sea

3

level rise caused by Defendants are projected to be in the billions of dollars

4over the next several decades;5f.

the social benefit of the purpose of placing fossil fuels into the stream of6commerce is overshadowed by the availability of other sources of energy

7that could have been placed into the stream of commerce that would not8have caused sea level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the9external costs of placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of

10commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate those externalities,

11

Defendants acted affirmatively to obscure those costs from public

12

consciousness;13g.

the social cost each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as

14

total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and15

consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than16

moderated extraction and consumption;

17h.

Defendants’ campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and the18

climatic effects of fossil fuel products prevented customers, consumers,

19

regulators, and the general public from staking steps to mitigate the20inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating those

21

consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning; and

22

SHER
EDLING LLPe.

i.

it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive

23

knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of24

commerce, to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available

25

technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have26

mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower

27

carbon economy, reduced global CO2 emissions, and mitigated the harms

28

associated with the use and consumption of such products.
COMPLAINT

89

1
2
3
4
5

Defendants’ conduct was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, and asubstantial factor in the harms suffered by Plaintiff as described in this Complaint.
234.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

City of Imperial Beach’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
235.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

6

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

7(Negligence on Behalf of City of Imperial Beach)8(Against All Defendants)

9
10
11

236.

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
237.

Defendants knew or should have known of the climate effects inherently caused by

12

the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel products, including the likelihood and likely

13

severity of global and local sea level rise and its consequences, and including Plaintiff’s injuries

14

and damages described herein.

15

238.

Defendants, collectively and individually, had a duty to use due care in developing,

16

designing, testing, inspecting and distributing their fossil fuel products. That duty obligated17

Defendants collectively and individually to, inter alia, prevent defective products from entering

18

the stream of commerce, and prevent reasonably foreseeable harm that could have resulted from19

the ordinary use or reasonably foreseeable misuse of Defendants’ products.

20
21

239.

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

22

knowing them to be defective due to their inevitable propensity to cause sea

23level rise and its consequences;

24

SHER
EDLING LLP

233.

b.

failing to act on the information and warnings they received from their own

25internal research staff, as well as from the international scientific26

community, that the unabated extraction, promotion and sale of their fossil

27

fuel products would result in material dangers to the public, including City

28

of Imperial Beach;
COMPLAINT

90

c.

1
2

known, practical, and available technologies, energy sources, and business3

practices that would have mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and

4eased the transition to a lower carbon economy; shifting to non-fossil fuel5

products, and researching and/or offering technologies to mitigate CO2

6emissions in conjunction with sale and distribution of their fossil fuel7

products; and pursuing other available alternatives that would have

8

prevented or mitigated the injuries to Plaintiff caused by sea level rise that

9

Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have foreseen would

10

inevitably result from use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products;d.

11

engaging in a campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and12

the climatic effects of fossil fuel products that prevented customers,

13

consumers, regulators, and the general public from staking steps to mitigate

14

the inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating

15

those consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning.

16

240.

Defendants individual and collective acts and omissions were actual, substantial

17

causes of sea level rise and its consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages set forth18

herein, as sea levels would not have risen to the levels that caused Plaintiff’s injuries but for

19

Defendants introduction of their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce.

20

241.

Defendants individual and collective acts and omissions were proximate causes of21

sea level rise and its consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages set forth herein. No

22other act, omission, or natural phenomenon intervened in the chain of causation between

23

Defendants’ conduct and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, or superseded Defendants’ breach of24

their duties’ substantiality in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

25
26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLP

failing to take actions including but not limited to pursuing and adopting

242.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and each of their acts andomissions, Plaintiff sustained injuries and damages as set forth herein.
243.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

City of Imperial Beach’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
COMPLAINT

91

244.

1
2

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

3

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and4

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

5amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

6

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
245.

7

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

8

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

9(Negligence - Failure to Warn on Behalf of City of Imperial Beach)10(Against All Defendants)
246.

11
12

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
247.

13

Defendants knew or should have known, based on information passed to them from14

their internal research divisions and affiliates and/or from the international scientific community,

15of the climate effects inherently caused by the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel16

products, including the likelihood and likely severity of global warming, global and local sea level

17

rise, and their associated consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages described18

herein.

19

248.

Defendants knew or should have known, based on information passed to them from20

their internal research divisions and affiliates and/or from the international scientific community,

21

that the climate effects described above rendered their fossil fuel products dangerous, or likely to

22

be dangerous, when used as intended or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

23

249.

Throughout the times at issue, Defendants failed to adequately warn any consumers

24

or any other party of the climate effects that inevitably flow from the use or foreseeable misuse of25

their fossil fuel products.

26

SHER
EDLING LLPDefendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that250.

Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely27

disseminated marketing materials, refuted the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time,

28

advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials that
COMPLAINT

92

1

prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing the risk that fossil fuel products would cause

2

grave climate changes, undermining and rendering ineffective any warnings that Defendants may

3

have also disseminated.

4

Given the grave dangers presented by the climate effects that inevitably flow from5

the normal use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products, a reasonable extractor, manufacturer,

6

formulator, seller, or other participant responsible for introducing fossil fuel products into the7stream of commerce, would have warned of those known, inevitable climate effects.

8
9
10
11
12

252.

Defendants’ conduct was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and asubstantial factor in the harms suffered by Plaintiff as described in this Complaint.
253.

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

City of Imperial Beach’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
254.

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that13

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 and15

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.

18

255.

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

19

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20(Trespass on Behalf of City of Imperial Beach)21(Against All Defendants)

22
23
24
25
26

SHER
EDLING LLP

251.

256.

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
257.

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach owns, leases, occupies, and/or controls real

property within Plaintiff’s city boundaries and within communities located within the City.
258.

Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally, recklessly, or negligently caused

27

ocean waters to enter Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach’s property, by extracting, refining,

28

formulating, designing, packaging, distributing, testing, constructing, fabricating, analyzing,
COMPLAINT

93

1

recommending, merchandising, advertising, promoting, marketing, and/or selling fossil fuel2

products, knowing those products in their normal operation and use or foreseeable misuse would

3

cause global and local sea levels to rise, cause flooding to become more frequent and more intense,4and cause storm surges to become more frequent and more intense.
259.

5
6

Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach did not give permission for Defendants, or any ofthem, to cause ocean water to enter its property.
260.

7Plaintiff City of Imperial Beach has been and continues to be actually injured and8continues to suffer damages as a result of Defendants and each of their having caused ocean water9

to enter their real property, by inter alia submerging real property owned by Plaintiff, causing

10

flooding which has invaded and threatens to invade real property owned by Plaintiff and rendered11

it unusable, and causing storm surges and heightened waves which have invaded and threatened12

to invade real Property owned by Plaintiff and rendered it unusable.
261.

13

Defendants’ and each Defendant’s introduction of their fossil fuel products into the14

stream of commerce was a substantial factor in causing the injuries and damages to Plaintiff’s

15

public and private real property.
262.

16
17

Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff

City of Imperial Beach’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
263.

18

Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that19

their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

20

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and21

despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an

22amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants

23

obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
264.

24
25

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

\\\

26
27
28
SHER
EDLING LLPCOMPLAINT

94

EXHIBIT A

Truth or CO2nsequences
M

AJOR FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES have known thetruth for nearly 50 years: their oil, gas, and coalproducts create greenhouse gas pollution that warms
the planet and changes our climate. They’ve known for
decades that the consequences could be catastrophic andthat only a narrow window of time existed to take action
before the damage might not be reversible. They havenevertheless engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort
to conceal and contradict their own knowledge of thesethreats, discredit the growing body of publicly available
scientific evidence, and persistently create doubt in theminds of customers, consumers, regulators, the media,
journalists, teachers, and the general public about thereality 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, andImperial 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 andcommunities 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 magnitudeof 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.

DOCUMENTTEXT“RESTORING THE QUALITY OF
OUR ENVIRONMENT,” REPORT OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTIONPANEL, PRESIDENT’S SCIENCEADVISORY 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 causesignificant changes in the temperature and other properties of thestratosphere.”
The American Petroleum Institute commissions a reportfinding that:

FEB. 1968“SOURCES, ABUNDANCE, AND
FATE OF GASEOUS ATMOSPHERICPOLLUTANTS,” REPORT PREPAREDBY STANFORD RESEARCHINSTITUTE SCIENTISTS ELMERROBINSON AND R.C. ROBBINSFOR THE AMERICAN PETROLEUMINSTITUTE (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 fuelemanation 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 ourenvironment could be severe.”• “What is lacking, however, is an application of these CO2 datato air pollution technology and work toward systems in which
CO2 emissions would be brought under control.”

JUNE 6, 1978

PRESENTATION SHARED
WITH EXXON MANAGEMENTCOMMITTEE FROM EXXONRESEARCH AND ENGINEERINGSCIENCE ADVISOR, JAMES BLACK

Exxon Science Advisor James Black tells the company’s
Management Committee that “[T]here is general scientificagreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is
influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide releasefrom 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 ACTCongress passes the National Climate Policy Act to help
“the Nation and the world to understand and respond to naturaland man-induced climate processes and their implications.”

Truth or CO2nsequences
D AT EDOCUMENTTEXT

DEC. 7, 1978

CO2 RESEARCH PROPOSALFROM 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 thepossible impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon business.”
He argues that the company needs “a credible scientific team thatcan 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 EXXONEMPLOYEE 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 thefuture 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 PETROLEUMINSTITUTE’S (API’S) CO2
AND CLIMATE TASK FORCE:PRESENTATION BY DR. J.
LAURMANDr. J. Laurman tells API’s Climate Task Force that “there isa scientific consensus on the potential for large future climatic
response to increased CO2 levels” and that “remedial actions willtake a long time to become effective.”“REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ACTIVITIES FOR
1978-1979,” IMPERIAL OIL REPORTAn 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 thegreenhouse effect that is prepared at the request of Senior
VP and Director Morey O’Loughlin:

AUG. 18, 1981

APRIL 1, 1982

MEMO FROM ROGERCOHEN, DIRECTOR OF
EXXON’S THEORETICAL AND
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCELABORATORY, TO SCIENTISTWERNER GLASS“CO2 ‘GREENHOUSE’ EFFECT,”
INTERNALLY DISTRIBUTEDSUMMARY BY EXXON MANAGER
M.B. GLASER OF A TECHNICALREVIEW PREPARED BY EXXONRESEARCH AND ENGINEERINGCOMPANY’S COORDINATION AND
PLANNING DIVISION• “[I]t is very likely that we will unambiguously recognize thethreat by the year 2000 because of advances in climate
modeling and the beginning of real experimental confirmationof the CO2 effect.”• “Whereas I can agree with the statement that our best guessis that observable effects in the year 2030 will be ‘well shortof 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” findsthat “[T]here is concern among some scientific groups that oncethe effects are measurable, they might not be reversible and little
could be done to correct the situation in the short term” andthat “[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 ROGERCOHEN, DIRECTOR OF
EXXON’S THEORETICAL AND
MATHEMATICAL SCIENCELABORATORY, TO EXXONMANAGEMENT INCLUDINGPRESIDENT OF EXXONCORPORATION’S RESEARCH AND
ENGINEERING, E. E. DAVID JR.

“INVENTING THE FUTURE: ENERGYAND THE CO2 ‘GREENHOUSE’
EFFECT,” E. E. DAVID JR. REMARKSAT THE FOURTH ANNUAL EWINGSYMPOSIUM, TENAFLY, NJ

TEXTThe Director of Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical
Sciences Laboratory, Roger Cohen, summarizes the findingsof 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 theyear 2000.”• “[T]he results of our research are in accord with the scientificconsensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on
climate.”In a speech, E. E. David Jr., President of Exxon Research andEngineering 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 climatechange 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 forSpace Studies, tells Congress that the Institute’s greenhouseeffect research shows “the global warming is now large enoughthat 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, threechampioned by Republicans, to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions.

AUG. 3, 1988

“THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT,”
DRAFT WRITTEN BY JOSEPH M.
CARLSON, AN EXXON PUBLICAFFAIRS MANAGER

Despite declaring the Greenhouse Effect “one of the mostsignificant 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 runningfor President, says “[T]hose who think we are powerless to do
anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the ‘WhiteHouse effect’; as President, I intend to do something about it.”

THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL
ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) IS
FORMEDThe IPCC is formed in December 1988 by the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide policymakers withregular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change,
its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation andmitigation.

“GREENHOUSE EFFECT: SHELL
ANTICIPATES A SEA CHANGE,”
ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMESA New York Times article reports: “In what is considered
the first major project that takes account of the changes thegreenhouse effect is expected to bring, [Shell] engineers aredesigning 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 thatcome in a once-a-century storm - to 31 or 32 meters.”

DEC. 6, 1988

DEC. 20, 1989

Truth or CO2nsequences
D AT EDOCUMENTTEXT“CLIMATE OF CONCERN,”DOCUMENTARY PRODUCED AND
DISTRIBUTED BY SHELL

Shell releases a 30-minute educational video warning ofclimate 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 thecoal 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 CLIMATECHANGE: A PRIMER,” GLOBAL
CLIMATE COALITION’S (GCC)
INTERNAL PRIMER DRAFT,PREPARED BY GCC’S SCIENCETECHNICAL ADVISORYCOMMITTEE V. THEIR PUBLICLYDISTRIBUTED BACKGROUNDER,“SCIENCE AND GLOBAL CLIMATECHANGE: 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 scientificdisagreement 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 MOREQUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS,”
PUBLICATION FROM EXXONCORPORATION

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 SCIENCECOMMUNICATIONS ACTION
PLAN,” DRAFT BY THE AMERICANPETROLEUM 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 OCEANOGRAPHICINSTITUTION, TO PETERALTMAN, 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 DEPARTMENTOF STATE MEMO AND TALKING
POINTS

Talking points for State Department Undersecretary Paula
Dobriansky’s meeting with the Global Climate Coalition atAPI’s headquarters: “POTUS rejected Kyoto, in part, based on
input from you.”1991

Truth or CO2nsequences
D AT EDOCUMENTTEXT

SEPT. 26, 2002

LETTER FROM MICHAELMACCRACKEN, RETIRING SENIORSCIENTIST FROM THE OFFICE
OF THE US GLOBAL CHANGERESEARCH PROGRAM, TO EXXONCEO LEE RAYMOND: “RE: WITHREGARD TO THE EXXONMOBILFACSIMILE ON FEBRUARY 6, 2001
FROM DR. AG RANDOL TO MR.
JOHN HOWARD OF THE COUNCILON 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 ofadaptation had been a position of industry, but now when thiswas 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 madeunder uncertainty all the time--that is what executives are well
paid to do. In this case, ExxonMobil is on the wrong side of theinternational scientific community, the wrong side of the findingsof 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 allkinds of perspectives about what one might or might not do tostart 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 SCIENCEPROGRAM

Philip Cooney, Chief of Staff for the White House Council ofEnvironmental Quality and a former lawyer and lobbyist for theAmerican 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 scientificreports 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 WARMINGTO CUMULATIVE CARBON
EMISSIONS,” PUBLICATION BYDAMON 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, 2009EMAIL FROM API CEO JACKGERARD TO API’S MEMBERSHIPREGARDING A SERIES OF “ENERGYCITIZEN” RALLIES IN 20 STATESDURING THE END OF THE
CONGRESSIONAL RECESSThe American Petroleum Institute’s CEO, Jack Gerard,
emails API’s membership promising “up front resources” andencouraging turnout for “Energy Citizen” rallies in about
20 states. Gerard says they are “collaborating closely with theallied oil and natural gas associations” in order to “aim a loudmessage at those states’ U.S. Senators to avoid the mistakes
embodied in the House climate bill.”

NOV. 22, 2013

“TRACING ANTHROPOGENICCARBON DIOXIDE AND METHANEEMISSIONS 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 for25 percent of all emissions since 1965.

Truth or CO2nsequences
D AT EDOCUMENTTEXT

NOV. 11, 2014

“WSPA PRIORITY ISSUES,”PRESENTATION BY WESTERNSTATES PETROLEUM ASSOCIATIONPRESIDENT CATHERINE REHEISBOYD

The Western States Petroleum Association, a top lobbying
and trade association for the oil industry, describes in apresentation the “campaigns and coalitions [it has] activatedthat 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 andpolicymakers.”

SEPT. 2016“2016 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
SEA LEVEL RISE ASSESSMENT”

The City of Imperial Beach, California, releases a reportthat 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 LEVELRISE ASSESSMENT REPORTS

The State of California, along with San Mateo and Marin
Counties, release separate reports that assess the impactsof sea level rise on their communities, detailing the substantial
monetary losses, infrastructure and property damage, anddecrease in quality of life residents will face.

JUNE 26, 2017

“THE INCREASING RATE OF
GLOBAL MEAN SEA-LEVEL RISE
DURING 1993-2014,” CHEN, ET.AL.,
PUBLISHED IN NATURE CLIMATECHANGEA 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 climatechange and formulating coastal adaptation plans to mitigate theimpacts of ongoing sea level rise.”