Climate activists rally to urge politicians to stand against climate denial on Jan. 9, 2017 in New York. DON EMMERT / AFP via Getty Images
The attorney general for Washington, DC filed a lawsuit on Thursday against four of the largest energy companies, claiming that the companies have spent millions upon millions of dollars to deceive customers in about the calamitous effect fossil fuel extraction and emissions is having on the climate crisis, according to The Washington Post.
<p><br/></p>
<p>The suit names ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Chevron as the defendants, and argues that the companies "systematically and intentionally misled consumers in Washington, DC ... about the central role their products play in causing climate change," according to The Hill.</p><p>Karl A. Racine, the DC attorney general, said in a news conference on Thursday that the four companies painted a false picture of what effect their products had and therefore violated consumer protection laws.</p><p>"For decades, these oil and gas companies spent millions to mislead consumers and discredit climate science in pursuit of profits," Racine said in a <a href="https://oag.dc.gov/release/prepared-remarks-exxon-mobilbpchevronshell-lawsuit" target="_blank">statement</a>, as <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/dc-sues-exxonmobil-and-other-companies-deceiving-public-about-product-harm" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported. "OAG filed this suit to end these disinformation campaigns and to hold these companies accountable for their deceptive practices."</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/exxonmobil-climate-lawsuit-2641328126.html" target="_self">New York</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/massachusetts-sues-exxon-mobil-2641105588.html" target="_self">Massachusetts</a> have both sued ExxonMobil for fraud related to the climate crisis, though New York lost its case against the energy giant. California and Baltimore have filed similar suits. On Wednesday, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ExxonKochAPI_Complaint.pdf" target="_blank">complaint</a> in state court accusing ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, Flint Hills Resources and the American Petroleum Institute of consumer fraud, failure to warn, deceptive trade practices, and fraud and false advertising, as <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/minnesota-sues-oil-giants-over-climate-change-effects/amp/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a> reported.</p><p>Ellison's complaint said that Minnesota was already feeling the effects from the climate crisis as droughts, flooding and crop failures have damaged the state's economy. That has all happened while the companies named in the suit invested in public relations campaigns that denied the climate crisis and even promoted increased CO2 as a solution to world hunger, according to <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/minnesota-sues-oil-giants-over-climate-change-effects/amp/" target="_blank">Courthouse News</a>.</p><p>"Impacts from climate change hurt our low-income residents and communities of color first and worst. The impacts on farmers in our agricultural state are widespread as well," Ellison said in a statement. "Holding these companies accountable for the climate deception they've spread and continue to spread is essential to helping families to afford their lives and live with dignity and respect."</p>
<p>The two suits drew praise from environmental activists and the science community.</p><p>In a statement Thursday, Greenpeace USA climate campaign director Janet Redman said, "<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">Climate denial</a> is not a victimless crime. Now, one by one states and local governments are stepping up to hold the perpetrators accountable," as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/25/dc-sues-fossil-fuel-giants-decades-spending-millions-mislead-consumers-and-discredit" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a> reported. "Just yesterday it was Minnesota Attorney General Ellison standing up to big oil, today it's D.C. Attorney General Racine."</p>
<p>The Union of Concerned Scientists also issued a <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/dc-sues-exxonmobil-and-other-companies-deceiving-public-about-product-harm" target="_blank">statement</a> noting that the fossil fuel industry long knew about the devastating impacts of burning fossil fuels, but followed the Big Tobacco playbook and waged a disinformation campaign.</p><p>"When scientists, including some employed by ExxonMobil, warned that burning fossil fuels could catastrophically alter the climate, ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron and Shell funded decades-long disinformation campaigns designed to undermine climate science, while simultaneously unleashing an army of lobbyists to block state and federal policies that sought to limit global warming emissions to protect communities across the country," said Rachel Licker, senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in a <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/news/dc-sues-exxonmobil-and-other-companies-deceiving-public-about-product-harm" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>"As a result, the nation's capital and communities across the country and world now have to battle worsening floods, heat waves, wildfires and many other avoidable climate impacts," she added.</p>
<p>In the DC suit, Racine specifically mentioned the fossil fuel companies' strategy lifted from Big Tobacco. "The companies not only employed the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition — a fake grassroots citizen group created by Big Tobacco as part of the industry's misinformation campaign — they also funded and promoted some of the same scientists hired by tobacco companies," he said in a <a href="https://oag.dc.gov/release/prepared-remarks-exxon-mobilbpchevronshell-lawsuit" target="_blank">statement</a>.</p><p>The lawsuit also alleges that the companies have recently exaggerated their investments and commitments to renewable energy.</p><p>"Defendants have shifted their advertising strategies to mislead DC consumers into believing that buying Defendants' products supports companies committed to reducing and reversing the effects of climate change," the lawsuit asserts, as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/dc-attorney-general-sues-oil-and-gas-companies-alleging-industry-misled-public-about-climate-change/2020/06/25/7b633584-b705-11ea-a8da-693df3d7674a_story.html" target="_blank">The Washington Post</a> reported. "In fact, the opposite is true."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- 'Fossil Fuel Companies Knew': Honolulu Files Lawsuit Over Climate ... ›
- Climate Crisis Lawsuits Expanding Worldwide: 'A Global ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A general view of BP (British Petroleum) refinery in the Port of Rotterdam on April 23, 2020 in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Dean Mouhtaropoulos / Getty Images
Fossil fuel giant BP made headlines earlier this year when it announced it would target net zero emissions by 2050. Now, it is in the headlines again, since it announced on Monday that it would slash 10,000 jobs, roughly 15 percent of its workforce, as it struggles during a downturn in the oil market and transitions its practices towards renewable energy, as CNN reported.
<p>In an email to staff on Monday that was also <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reinventing-bp-next-steps-bernard-looney/?trackingId=h8FmFLmIQ7mh3i9%2BTbC29w%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top" target="_blank">published on LinkedIn</a>, BP CEO Bernard Looney announced the layoffs, which mostly affect senior office-based positions and not front-line operational staff. He called it part of some "tough decisions" but said that "we must do the right thing for bp and this is that right thing," as <a href="https://earther.gizmodo.com/bp-ceo-calls-plan-to-lay-off-10-000-workers-the-right-t-1843954641" target="_blank">Gizmodo</a> reported.</p><p>BP currently employs 70,100 people. "We will now begin a process that will see close to 10,000 people leaving BP – most by the end of this year," Looney said in a statement, as <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bp-jobs-exclusive/exclusive-bp-to-cut-15-of-workforce-sources-idUSKBN23F1D9" target="_blank">Reuters</a> reported.</p>
<p>BP also said it will not give any raises to senior executives this year and it will not hand out any cash bonuses. Like all the world's top energy companies, BP has cut its 2020 spending plans after the coronavirus pandemic brought an unprecedented drop in demand for oil, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bp-jobs-exclusive/exclusive-bp-to-cut-15-of-workforce-sources-idUSKBN23F1D9" target="_blank">Reuters</a>.</p><p>In his <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reinventing-bp-next-steps-bernard-looney/?trackingId=h8FmFLmIQ7mh3i9%2BTbC29w%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top" target="_blank">email to staff</a>, Looney said: "The oil price has plunged well below the level we need to turn a profit. We are spending much, much more than we make - I am talking millions of dollars, every day," as the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-52966609" target="_blank">BBC</a> reported.</p><p>"It was always part of the plan to make BP a leaner, faster-moving and lower carbon company," wrote Looney. "Then the COVID-19 pandemic took hold. You are already aware that, beyond the clear human tragedy, there has been widespread economic fallout, along with consequences for our industry and our company."</p>
<p>The price of crude oil fell precipitously this year. It started the year at $66 per barrel, but dropped below $20 during the pandemic and has now inched its way up to $42 barrel. That slow recovery in the price and the continued low demand for oil means the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> industry is losing money hand over fist, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/business/bp-job-cuts/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>.</p><p>The drop in oil prices has accelerated the push toward renewable energy sources, Looney said on Monday, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/business/bp-job-cuts/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a>. "To me, the broader economic picture and our own financial position just reaffirm the need to reinvent [BP]," Looney wrote in his note to employees. "While the external environment is driving us to move faster — and perhaps go deeper at this stage than we originally intended — the direction of travel remains the same."</p>
<p>Prior to the coronavirus, demand for oil was expected to peak around 2040 due to the rise of electric cars, increased energy efficiency and a switch to alternative sources. That combination puts pressure on energy companies to decrease their reliance on fossil fuels. BP started out ahead in that department, having committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions from its global operations, as well as emissions that result from the oil and gas it produces, to net zero by 2050. BP wants to halve the carbon intensity of the products it sells by 2050, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/business/bp-job-cuts/index.html" target="_blank">CNN</a> reported.</p><p>The drop in demand has affected other companies, too. Chevron Corp, the second-largest U.S. oil producer, said that it would cut between 10 and 15 percent of its global workforce as part of an ongoing restructuring, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bp-jobs-exclusive/exclusive-bp-to-cut-15-of-workforce-sources-idUSKBN23F1D9" target="_blank">Reuters</a>. Also, Royal Dutch Shell cut its dividend and started a layoff process.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Fossil Fuel Industry Looks to Profit With Plastics - EcoWatch ›
- Oil Prices Fall Below Zero for First Time in History - EcoWatch ›
- Oil Refineries Face Shutdowns as Demand Collapses - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
BP CEO Bernard Looney speaks during an event in London on Feb. 12, where he declared the company's intentions to achieve "net zero" carbon emissions by 2050. DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS / AFP / Getty Images
British-based oil and gas giant BP set the most ambitious climate goal of any company in its industry yesterday when it announced that it will eliminate or offset all of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to The New York Times. Its ambitious plans included offsetting the burning of oil and gas it takes out of the ground.
<p>The company's chief executive Bernard Looney, who stepped into the top job this month, said the 111-year-old company must "reinvent" itself, a strategy that will eventually include more investment in alternative energy, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51475379" target="_blank">according to the BBC</a>.</p>
<p>"The world's carbon budget is finite and running out fast," CEO Bernard Looney said in a statement, as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/business/bp-net-zero/index.html" target="_blank">CNN reported</a>. "We need a rapid transition to net zero. We all want energy that is reliable and affordable, but that is no longer enough."</p>
<p>The pledge is a tacit acknowledgement of the pressure that fossil fuel producers face from the public and from investors who are either divesting or demanding action to stop the global <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-crisis" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a>. While the move is significant, Looney did not detail a plan for how BP would hit its ambitious target, as The New York Times reported.</p>
<p>"We are aiming to earn back the trust of society," Looney said at a news conference in London, as The New York Times reported. "We have got to change, and change profoundly." </p>
<p>While the details are scant, Looney did acknowledge that much of BP's business model and its priorities will have to change in response to the climate crisis and to the changing demands of the market economy, which is looking for affordable <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/renewable-energy">renewable energy</a>.</p>
<p>"This will certainly be a challenge, but also a tremendous opportunity. It is clear to me, and to our stakeholders, that for BP to play our part and serve our purpose, we have to change. And we want to change - this is the right thing for the world and for BP," Looney said as the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51475379" target="_blank">BBC</a> reported.</p>
<p>"Providing the world with clean, reliable affordable energy will require nothing less than reimagining energy, and today that becomes BP's new purpose," he added. "Reimagining energy for people and our planet. We'll still be an energy company, but a very different kind of energy company: leaner, faster moving, lower carbon, and more valuable."</p>
<p>Looney said that details would be revealed at a presentation in September. As CNN noted, the commitment is the most ambitious of any oil company. Shell set targets to rein in emissions while <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Chevron" rel="noopener noreferrer">Chevron</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ExxonMobil" rel="noopener noreferrer">ExxonMobil</a> are still far behind. </p>
<p>"They really are setting a new standard for what leadership looks like in the industry," Andrew Logan, senior director of oil and gas at Ceres, a nonprofit that lobbies for companies to take action on climate change, said as CNN reported.</p>
<p>Logan noted how important it was that BP acknowledged that it needs to offset the oil and the gas that consumers use, as <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oil-giant-bp-is-latest-to-pledge-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-2020-02-12" target="_blank">MarketWatch reported</a>. "There is no reason that Exxon and Chevron can't follow suit," he said. </p>
<p>The carbon footprint of the oil and gas that BP and other companies sell is massive. In its <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/who-we-are/reimagining-energy.html" target="_blank">own reporting</a>, BP said that the company emits about 55 million tons of greenhouse gases each year directly from its extraction operations and refineries. However, an additional 360 million tons each year is released when their extracted oil and gas is burned in vehicles or to heat homes, as The New York Times reported.</p>
<p>The plans drew a tepid response from environmental groups and even criticism from some who see fossil fuel extraction as something that needs to stop immediately. </p>
<p>"Unless BP commits clearly to stop searching for more oil and gas, and to keep their existing reserves in the ground, we shouldn't take a word of their P.R. spin seriously," Ellen Gibson, a campaigner for fossil-fuel divestment with the environmental group <a href="https://350.org/" target="_blank">350.org</a> in Britain, said as The New York Times reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Oil and Gas Operations Release 60 Percent More Methane than ... ›
- New U.S. Oil and Gas Emissions Could Nearly Erase Environmental ... ›
- Deepwater Horizon Also Spilled 'Invisible Oil,' Harming Far More Marine Life Than Previously Known - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
$20 Billion Fund in Denmark Divests From 10 Major Oil Companies, Citing 'Poor Returns'
06 September 2019
Energy
Aerial view of Denmark's Baltic Sea Coast. schneider_photografie / Pixabay
A Danish pension fund has said it would sell its stake in major oil companies as their business models are incompatible with the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement.
<p>MP Pension, a $20 billion pension for Danish M.A's, M.Sc.'s and Ph.D's who are employed in public sector universities and upper secondary schools, said it would dump its stakes in 10 of the world's largest oil companies, including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, PetroChina, Rosneft and Royal Dutch Shell.</p><p>The divestments amount to nearly $100 million, or 0.5 percent of the fund's total portfolio.</p><p>"We found that none of the oil majors has a business model that is compatible with the goals of Paris Agreement and thus we decided to sell them all," Anders Schelde, the fund's chief investment officer, told DW. "We put them all on our blacklist, our exclusion list."</p><p>The fund reviewed the corporate strategies of the companies to figure out how serious they were about tackling climate change, their capital expenditure to see if they were building new <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" rel="noopener noreferrer">fossil fuel</a> projects and finally their lobbying efforts to ensure they remained in sync with the climate goals.</p><h2>Dirty Investments</h2><p>MP Pension's decision comes as asset managers across the world review their investments in oil and gas and coal companies at a time the world is struggling to limit the global average temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial times as agreed in Paris in 2015.</p><p>In March, Norway's <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/norways-1-trillion-wealth-fund-to-remain-invested-in-big-oil-stocks/a-47824733" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">$1 trillion asset manager</a> — the world's biggest sovereign fund — said it would shed its stakes in oil and gas explorers and producers. But the fund fell short of expectations that it would dump all its oil and gas investments for good. It said it would remain invested in Big Oil companies such as Shell, BP, Total and ExxonMobil, in which it owns significant stakes.</p><p>The Norwegian government stressed the move was based solely on financial considerations rather than <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate concerns</a> and that it did not reflect any particular view of the oil industry's future prospects.</p><p>MP Pension's latest announcement is part of a decision the fund made in 2016 that its investment strategy should be aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement.</p><p>But the fund's latest move is not only based on climate concerns.</p><p>"Our first and foremost concern is future investment returns," Schelde said. "The companies that we are divesting in have delivered poor returns in the past 4-5 years and we feel for the next 10-20 years they would continue to be poor."</p><h2>Sticking With Fossil Fuels</h2><p>MP Pension does not plan to completely move away from investments in fossil fuel companies.</p><p>"We are not ditching fossil fuels entirely. For example, we do not exclude companies that focus on gas because we feel gas is an intermediary fuel that we will be needing to replace for instance <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" rel="noopener noreferrer">coal</a>, which has a carbon intensity roughly double that of gas," Schelde said.</p><p>"We realize that fossil fuels will remain part of the energy mix for many years, even 100 years. But we need to bring down the amount of carbon that we emit in the atmosphere."</p><p>The company has also prepared an "inclusion" list that would include fossil fuel companies making good progress toward a greener future.</p><p>"So far there are no companies on that list. It's still empty. But I hope it grows as we move forward," Schelde said.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/danish-pension-fund-dumps-oil-majors-on-climate-change-concerns/a-50288283?maca=en-VAM_volltext_ecowatch-28485-html-copypaste" target="_blank">DW</a></em>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Greenpeace Activists Stop BP Rig Bound for North Sea, Stalling Plan to Drill for 30 Million Barrels of Oil
10 June 2019
Climate
Three Greenpeace climbers climbed a BP oil rig in Cromarty Firth, Scotland on Sunday to stop it from proceeding to the North Sea where the company was planning to extract oil. Photo: Greenpeace
By Julia Conley
Three Greenpeace campaigners halted a British Petroleum oil rig off the coast of Scotland on Sunday as it prepared to leave for the North Sea to drill oil wells.
<p>Carrying enough provisions to last several days aboard the rig, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-change">climate</a> action advocates pulled up to the 27,000-ton vessel in small boats as it attempted to leave Cromarty Firth, bound for the Vorlich oil field where <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bp">BP</a> plans to access up to 30 million barrels of oil.</p><p>The campaigners unfurled a banner reading "Climate Emergency" after climbing the rig.</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: Two activists are blocking a <a href="https://twitter.com/BP_plc?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BP_plc</a> oil rig from setting out to the North Sea where it intends to drill for 30 million barrels of oil. We're in a <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ClimateEmergency?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ClimateEmergency</a> - the age of oil is over. RT to show your support! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NoMoreOil?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NoMoreOil</a></p>— Greenpeace UK (@GreenpeaceUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/GreenpeaceUK/status/1137791758866292736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>Despite recent studies from the world's top climate scientists <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/08/un-experts-warn-climate-catastrophe-2040-without-rapid-and-unprecedented-global" target="_blank">warning</a> that governments must transition to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a> sources and end their dependence on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuels</a> to stem the effects of the climate crisis, the UK's Oil and Gas Authority last week <a href="https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/uk-awards-37-areas-in-latest-offshore-licensing-round/" target="_blank">awarded</a> 37 license areas to 30 companies.<br></p><p>"The approval threatens to result in scores of new projects at exactly the time we need to halt the growth of new oil and gas production," said Greenpeace.</p><p>The new licenses suggest that the country is not following its recent <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/01/activism-works-uk-parliament-makes-history-declaring-climate-emergency" target="_blank">declaration</a> of a climate emergency with concrete action, as campaigners have demanded.</p><p>"The government may be bent on draining the North Sea of every last drop of oil but this clearly contradicts their climate commitments," said one of the activists who boarded the rig, who was identified as Jo.</p><p>"The perverse idea we must maximize our oil and gas reserves cannot continue," she added. "That means the government must seriously reform the Oil and Gas Authority and instead invest heavily in the crucial work of helping oil communities like those in Scotland move from fossil fuels to the industries that will power our low carbon future."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">"The numbers that we're seeing are already huge, but it's clear that this is just the tip of the iceberg" <a href="https://t.co/GnjZbaigkx">https://t.co/GnjZbaigkx</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/BusinessGreen?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BusinessGreen</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateGroup?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ClimateGroup</a></p>— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch) <a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/status/1137162467438714881?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 8, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/09/greenpeace-campaigners-stop-bp-rig-bound-north-sea-stalling-fossil-fuel-giants-plan" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Oil Spill Continuing for 14 Years Could Become Nation's Worst Environmental Disaster
02 January 2019
Insights + Opinion
WWLTV / YouTube screenshot
By Andy Rowell
It may be a New Year, but there is an old oil spill that keeps on spilling. The trouble is that you will probably have never have heard about the spill.
But you need to know. Because, for more than 14 years, some 10,000 to 30,000 gallons of oil have leaked daily from a sunken oil rig owned by Taylor Energy into the Gulf of Mexico, about 12 miles south of the mouth of the Mississippi River.
<p>The disaster began way back in September 2004, when the company's oil platform, known as MC-20 Saratoga, was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan. Although the company contained some of the pollution caused by the loss of the platform, it did not stop all the leaks.</p><p>Unless the oil spill is stopped, the sunken rig could carry on leaking for 100 years, becoming America's worst environmental disaster. Even now, if you take the high end of the leak estimate, the site may have released an estimated 150 million gallons of oil. This is silently creeping towards the estimated 200 million gallons spilled by <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bp">BP</a> during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010.</p><p>Back in November last year, the U.S. Coast Guard directed Taylor Energy to implement a new containment plan which "must eliminate the surface sheen and avoid the deficiencies associated with prior containment systems." In theory the company could be fined $40,000 a day for failing to comply.</p><p>As you would expect, the company responsible for the spill, Taylor Energy not only disputes the figures concerning the leaks, but even whether it is to blame for the leak itself. Over the years it has tried to dismiss the leak as nothing more than a mere "<a href="https://www.nola.com/environment/2018/12/coast-guard-and-taylor-energy-disagree-over-source-of-14-year-gulf-oil-leak.html" target="_blank">trickle</a>." That is hardly surprising because it could cost an estimated $1 billion to fix.</p><p>The bottom line is that this a slow unseen disaster that could have been stopped years ago. As NOLA reports, some six years ago, Skytruth, an environmental group based in Shepherdstown, measured the oil sheen coming from the platform at over 20 miles long and urged the authorities to act. However, it was not until 2016 that the U.S. authorities <a href="https://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2017/07/federal_damage_assessment_for.html" target="_blank">began investigating</a> the ongoing pollution.</p><p>Dustin Renaud, communications director for the <a href="https://healthygulf.org" target="_blank">Gulf Restoration Network</a> told <a href="https://www.nola.com/environment/2018/11/coast-guard-orders-taylor-energy-to-stop-14-year-oil-leak.html" target="_blank">NOLA</a>, "The time to clean this up was 14 years ago. Taylor Energy has shown nothing but negligence all this time."</p><p>He is rightly not the only one concerned about what is going on. Writing in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/28/worst-oil-disaster-youve-never-heard-of-taylor-energy-gulf-of-mexico?utm_term=RWRpdG9yaWFsX0d1YXJkaWFuVG9kYXlVUy0xODEyMjg%3D&utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GuardianTodayUS&CMP=GTUS_email&fbclid=IwAR3qKco91mgaAARlrbal8H5XhNi2UjFXlUps2wRuCdWG4JVdm03ZdPXzODw" target="_blank">The Guardian</a> at the end of last year, Janis Searles Jones, the CEO of <a href="https://oceanconservancy.org/" target="_blank">Ocean Conservancy</a> and Philippe Cousteau, from <a href="http://earthecho.org" target="_blank">EarthEcho International</a>, said the thought of the spill carrying on for decades is a "nightmare scenario that should terrify anyone who cares about the health of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildlife">wildlife</a> and people who live along the Gulf coast."</p><p>Taylor Energy's tricks continue. Just before Christmas, according to <a href="https://www.nola.com/environment/2018/12/taylor-energy-sues-contractor-chosen-to-fix-its-14-year-old-oil-leak.html" target="_blank">NOLA</a>, "The company <a href="https://www.nola.com/business/2018/12/taylor-energy-sues-to-block-order-to-contain-14-year-old-oil-leak-in-gulf-of-mexico.html" target="_blank">filed a federal lawsuit</a> in New Orleans asking the court to toss out a recent <a href="https://www.nola.com/environment/2018/11/coast-guard-orders-taylor-energy-to-stop-14-year-oil-leak.html" target="_blank">Coast Guard order to contain the leak</a>." The company said that "containing the leak is unnecessary."</p><p>And the ongoing spill has not stopped the <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/417905-trumps-half-baked-offshore-drilling-plan-is-not-safe" target="_blank">pro-oil Trump</a> administration attempting to open vast amounts of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/offshore-oil-drilling">offshore areas for drilling</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="d9b1b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BD0KN81576662838"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1054457420083351553" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The Largest U.S. #Oil Spill You've Probably Never Heard of Is Still Leaking After 14 Years @skytruth… https://t.co/2zcNw2GmUG</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1054457420083351553">1540237214.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2019/01/02/15-year-old-oil-spill-could-become-bigger-than-deepwater-horizon/" target="_blank">Oil Change International</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A healthy vegan snack board of fruit, vegetables, dips, nuts and olives. Enrique Díaz / 7cero / Getty Images
By Chloë Waterman
As the Trump administration's dangerous deregulatory agenda leads us closer to climate catastrophe, cities, counties and businesses are stepping up to address the crisis. Last month, Gov. Jerry Brown and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg released their "Fulfilling America's Pledge" plan, laying out the top climate strategies for subnational governments and businesses, at the Global Climate Action Summit.
<p>Unfortunately, their high-profile report omitted a major solution and a big component of the climate crisis: <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/">food</a> consumption.</p><p><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agriculture">Agriculture</a> produces an astounding <a href="http://getmoreeducation.org/Content/Modules/Module1/2_Garnett_Carbon_Emissions_and_Food_Miles.pdf" target="_blank">one-third</a> of all global greenhouse gas emissions. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/meat-consumption">Meat</a> and dairy alone generate about <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf" target="_blank">half</a> of those food-related emissions—more than the combined tailpipe discharges from every plane, train, car, bus and boat around the world. We simply cannot meet our emissions reduction goals if we do not address meat and dairy consumption, even if all 10 strategies in the America's Pledge plan are successful. High meat-consuming countries like the U.S. must lead the way.</p><p>Combined, the world's top five meat and dairy companies <a href="https://www.iatp.org/new-research-shows-industrial-livestock-industry-creating-climate-crisis" target="_blank">create more emissions</a> than <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">ExxonMobil</a>, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell">Shell</a> or <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bp">BP</a>. According to a July <a href="https://www.iatp.org/emissions-impossible" target="_blank">report</a> from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and GRAIN, only two of the top 35 meat and dairy companies have made robust commitments to reduce their supply chain emissions. None of the nine U.S. companies on the list—Tyson Foods, Cargill, Hormel Foods, Perdue Farms and others—even report their supply chain emissions. </p><p>These nine companies produce most of their meat in Iowa, Texas, Arkansas, North Carolina and Georgia—states lacking progressive climate policies. However, the majority of their consumers live in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia and other cities. As centers of consumption, cities must confront their role in driving <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/factory-farming">factory farming</a>. </p><p>That's why a coalition of 45 public health and environmental organizations wrote an <a href="https://medium.com/@foodandclimatecoalition/how-we-are-still-in-cities-and-counties-can-include-food-in-climate-action-e67f54f88f5a" target="_blank">open letter</a> to the 280 cities and counties that are members of <a href="https://www.wearestillin.com" target="_blank">We Are Still In Coalition</a>, urging them to incorporate meat and dairy reduction into their climate strategies.</p><p>Project Drawdown—a climate change mitigation project initiated by Paul Hawken and worked on by a team of more than 200 scholars, scientists, policymakers and activists—names "plant-rich diet" as the fourth most impactful climate mitigation strategy, just after reducing <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/food-waste">food waste</a>, a related strategy also omitted by America's Pledge.</p><p> The most direct way cities, counties, universities and school districts can shift diets is by leveraging their massive purchasing power to buy more <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/vegetarian">plant-based foods</a>, measurably reducing their carbon footprint and improving health. For example, public schools serve seven <em>billion</em> meals a year. If every single public school swapped out a beef burger for a protein-rich veggie burger on the school lunch menu just once a month, it would save 1,407,533,657 pounds of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq, the equivalent of over 1.5 billion fewer miles driven.<br></p><p>In addition to public institutions slashing meat from their menus, the food industry must step up to the climate action plate. A <a href="http://www.mightyearth.org/meat-scorecard" target="_blank">recent report</a> from Mighty Earth found that 19 of the 23 top U.S. food companies have no commitments for mitigating the environmental impacts of their meat supply. Large restaurant chains, grocery retailers and foodservice management companies like <a href="https://www.realmealscampaign.org/" target="_blank">Aramark, Sodexo and Compass Group</a> should be tracking and reducing their supply chain carbon footprints and moving to plant-forward menus. </p><p> Climate-friendly diets are not only a high impact strategy—they are also cost-effective, making them an obvious place for cities, counties and businesses to focus their climate mitigation efforts. For example, a <a href="https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/research/clf_publications/pub_rep_desc/balanced_menu.html" target="_blank">pilot analysis</a> of Health Care Without Harm's "Balanced Menus: Less Meat Better Meat" program found that four San Francisco Bay Area hospitals collectively saved about $400,000 per year. A 2017 <a href="https://foe.org/resources/shrinking-carbon-water-footprint-school-food/" target="_blank">analysis</a> from Friends of the Earth found that Oakland Unified School District saved $42,000 (and improved student meal satisfaction) by reducing the meat and dairy on their menus by 30 percent. </p><p>The Global Climate Action Summit took small steps toward realizing the value of shifting diets by announcing a new initiative to cut food sector emissions by 25 percent by 2030, including "Climate-friendly Diets" in its <a href="https://climatelandchallenge.org/" target="_blank">30x30 Forests, Food, and Land Challenge</a> and even serving plant-forward cuisine. Following the summit, California took a step of its own when Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill making California the first state to require plant-based options in health care facilities and state prisons. </p><p>At the international level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's <a href="https://ipcc.ch/news_and_events/pr_181008_P48_spm.shtml" target="_blank">report</a> released last week warned that the window for fending off the worst impacts of climate change is closing quickly and recommended "[limiting] demand for greenhouse-gas intensive foods through shifts to healthier and more sustainable diets." Yet, in contrast, America's Pledge missed a huge opportunity by omitting food consumption from the "Fulfilling America's Pledge" plan. </p><p>If we truly want to fulfill America's pledge and solve the climate crisis, we must move away from meat- and dairy-intensive diets. Cities, counties, states, businesses, universities, school districts and hospitals can lead the way by shifting toward plant-forward foods to change the main course of climate change and help rescue our ailing planet.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="22ef3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="Z9BFO01576661894"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="983457106627096577" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Going Vegan Is the Best Thing You Can Do for the Planet, New Study Proves https://t.co/M1vtznpcll @ForksOverKnives @TheVeganSociety</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/983457106627096577">1523309420.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Chloë Waterman serves as senior food campaigner at <a href="https://foe.org/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth U.S.</a> where she implements policy and markets campaigns to advance a sustainable and just food system.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A train at Metro-North Railroad's Croton-Harmon station, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy on Oct. 30, 2012. Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York / CC BY 2.0
A federal judge ruled on Thursday in favor of a motion by five big oil companies to dismiss a lawsuit brought against them by New York City, which demanded they pay the costs of adapting the city's infrastructure to climate change, The New York Times reported.
The ruling comes nearly a month after a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed a similar case brought by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco.
<p>In his decision Thursday, Judge John F. Keenan of United States District Court for the Southern District of New York echoed the reasoning of Federal Judge William Alsup when he dismissed the San Francisco and Oakland case.</p><p>While both judges acknowledged the reality of climate change, they thought that crafting policy around it was too large an issue for the courts to settle.</p><p>"Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government," Keenan wrote in his <a href="https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/91-nyc-climate-lawsuit-decision/9dd09306b7148fac9ae3/optimized/full.pdf#page=1" target="_blank">decision</a>. </p><p>But environmentalists pointed out that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> companies like the defendants had done everything in their power to stop the other branches of government from acting.</p><p>"There is a grave irony here. The fossil fuel company defendants claimed in court—and the judge apparently agreed—that it is entirely up to Congress and the President to address climate change. But these same defendants and their trade groups have fought successfully against even modest laws and regulations to cut the carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels that causes global warming," <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> President Ken Kimmel <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/press/2018/new-york-city-climate-lawsuit-dismissal-leaves-taxpayers-alone-shoulder-massive-climate#.W1E7RdhKg8b" target="_blank">said in a statement</a> reported by <a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/07/19/new-york-city-climate-suit-john-keenan/" target="_blank">Climate Liability News</a>.</p><p>Like San Francisco, New York City spokesperson Seth Stein said the city would appeal the decision. </p><p>"The mayor believes big polluters must be held accountable for their contributions to climate change and the damage it will cause New York City. We intend to appeal this decision and to keep fighting for New Yorkers who will bear the brunt of climate change," he told The New York Times. </p><p>The city had argued that the defendants―<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/chevron" target="_self">Chevron</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conocophillips" target="_self">ConocoPhillips</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon" target="_self">ExxonMobil</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bp" target="_self">BP</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/shell" target="_self">Royal Dutch Shell</a>―had known about the risks posed by burning fossil fuels since the 1950s and had "engaged in an overt public relations campaign intended to cast doubt on climate science," an argument Keenan acknowledged in his decision. </p><p>The cases brought by New York, San Francisco, Oakland and other municipalities attempt to sue oil companies using state public nuisance law that allows courts to find defendants liable for interfering with the use of property, according to The New York Times.</p><p>Attempts to sue oil companies over climate change under federal nuisance law led to a Supreme Court decision in 2011 ruling that the Clean Air Act displaced nuisance law on the federal level and put the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/epa" target="_blank">EPA</a>) in charge of dealing with the issue.</p><p>The new batch of lawsuits argues state nuisance law still applies, but Keenan rejected the idea that state law would apply to the city's lawsuit, saying climate change was an area of "federal concern," The New York Times reported.</p><p>However, environmental law experts said judges trying similar cases in state courts might rule differently. </p><p>"The cases that are either filed in federal court or—as with the San Francisco and Oakland cases—removed to federal court are decided under federal law," University of California Los Angeles environmental law professor Ann Carlson told Climate Liability News. "Federal nuisance law is much less favorable for the cities and counties than state law is. The state courts are where we are likely to see interesting and perhaps surprising rulings."</p><p>There are currently similar cases pending in courts in California, Washington, Colorado and Rhode Island, Climate Liability News reported.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="25b02" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="B7I3O21576662662"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1011626717054668800" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Judge Throws Out Historic Climate Liability Cases Brought by Oakland and San Francisco https://t.co/uWjK3UJaNg… https://t.co/xKX1zFKNTL</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1011626717054668800">1530025579.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Vehicle charging points at a railway station in France. François GOGLINS via Wikimedia Commons
By Paul Brown
Oil and gas companies have underestimated probable electric vehicle sales and the effect they will have on their own businesses and profits, a new report says.
If the car manufacturers' projections of future sales of electric cars are correct, then demand for oil will have peaked by 2027 or even earlier, sending the price of oil in a downward spiral as supply exceeds demand, said Carbon Tracker (CT), an independent financial think-tank carrying out in-depth analysis on the impact of the energy transition on capital markets.
<p>It said <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> companies have taken into account some engine fuel efficiencies and the effect they would have on oil demand, but not the expected increase in electric vehicles themselves. There is a big mismatch between forecasts of EV market penetration from vehicle manufacturers and from oil majors, said Laurence Watson, a CT data scientist.</p><p>"The oil industry is underestimating the disruptive potential of electric vehicles, which could reduce oil demand by millions of barrels a day. Increases in fuel efficiency will also eat into oil demand and the industry's profits. The oil majors' myopic position presents a serious investor risk," he told the <a href="https://climatenewsnetwork.net" target="_blank">Climate News Network</a>.</p><p><strong>Expectations Far Lower</strong></p><p>The report looks at all the projections of the oil majors, including <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon">Exxon</a> and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bp">BP</a>, and says their figures for electric vehicle growth in the 2020s are 75 percent to 250 percent smaller than those expected by the global car manufacturers that have announced targets.</p><p>Electric vehicle sales in China alone, a figure bolstered by government intervention, are expected to be seven million a year by 2025. These, plus the three million a year aim of Volkswagen by the same date, would exceed oil industry estimates for sales for the whole world.</p><p>There are immense variables taken into account in the report. These include the number of miles driven by the average electric vehicle and the sort of car it replaces.</p><p>These variables depend on the influence of various governments' policies to reduce oil in transportation in order to keep global temperature rise below 2°C beyond pre-industrial levels. The need to reduce <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">air pollution</a> also strongly favours the introduction of electric vehicles in cities.</p><p><strong>More Demand Reduction</strong></p><p>Another of the imponderables is the increasing efficiency of the internal combustion engine, which in itself also reduces demand for oil. It follows a growing trend already well-established in several countries, including Sweden, which from 2019 will produce <a href="https://climatenewsnetwork.net/sweden-blazes-trail-to-electric-cars/" target="_blank">no more vehicles powered by internal combustion alone</a>.</p><p>The take-up of electric vehicles is crucial to the future of the oil industry because transportation takes up 50 percent of total oil demand. About half of the demand from transport is from light passenger vehicles, those that are most likely in the short term to switch to electricity.</p><p>Heavy-duty transport, aviation and shipping are also beginning to switch, but it is cars that will make the early difference.</p><p>The report argues that it is not total oil demand that matters but the difference between supply and demand. The 2014 crash in the oil price was caused by a surplus of 2 million barrels of oil a day, mainly because of a boom in U.S. shale production.</p><p>To get the price back up in order to improve oil company profits took the combined efforts of <a href="http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/" target="_blank">the OPEC oil countries</a> and the Russian government in cutting production, a process that needed three years.</p><p>According to the CT report, demand for oil will fall by 8 million barrels of oil a day by 2030 because of the expected deployment of electric vehicles, meaning that the oil-producing countries will have to constantly reduce their production in order to keep prices up.</p><p>The report argues that although oil demand will continue to be very large, the peak demand will have been reached around 2025. Demand displacement by electric vehicles "will significantly disrupt oil and gas company business models. Furthermore, we believe that when global oil demand peaks this will fundamentally alter investors' approach to the industry."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="a67f3" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7KIAJC1576662838"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="913156344563343360" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Electric Vehicles Will Soon Be Cheaper Than Gas Guzzlers https://t.co/3SJEi1Jnsf @EV_Research @EVdotcom</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/913156344563343360">1506548412.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://climatenewsnetwork.net/electric-vehicle-sales-promise-shock-for-big-oil/" target="_blank">Climate News Network</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Pexels
Global carbon dioxide emissions from energy use increased 1.6 percent in 2017 following three years of stagnation, according to a new report from British oil giant BP.
The analysis, published Wednesday, further emphasizes worldwide failure to meet the goals struck by the Paris agreement to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
<p>
Spencer Dale, the BP's chief economist, told the
<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-13/global-emissions-hit-record-with-paris-deal-targets-in-limbo" target="_blank">Guardian</a> that the globe's emissions rise was "slightly worrying" and a "pretty big backward step."
</p><p>
<span></span>"It suggests to me we are not on a path to the Paris climate goals," he added.
</p><p>
The report, called the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, also pointed out that the world's fuel mix has "strikingly" not changed in the last 20 years.
</p><p>
"I am more worried by the lack of progress in the power sector over the past 20 years, than by the pickup in carbon emissions last year," Dale noted to the Guardian.
</p><p>
The report revealed that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions was driven by a 2.2 percent increase in global energy demand last year, as well as increased
<a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> consumption for the first time in four years, led by growing demand in India and China.
</p><p>
"Together, China and India accounted for nearly half of the increase in global carbon emissions," a press release for the study stated. "EU emissions were also up (1.5 percent) with just Spain accounting for 44 percent of the increase in EU emissions."
</p><p>
In contrast, emissions declines were led by the U.S. (-0.5 percent)—the third year in a row that the nation's emissions declined, although the fall was the smallest over those three years. The UK and Denmark reported the lowest carbon emissions in their history.
</p><ul class="ee-ul">
</ul><p>
<span></span>While <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable power</a> generation grew by 17 percent, with wind and solar driving much of that growth, the success of clean energy was clouded by the world's increased appetite for fossil fuels. Oil demand grew by 1.8 percent and natural gas consumption up 3 percent and production up 4 percent, BP found.
</p><p>
"2017 was a year where structural forces in the energy market continued to push forward the transition to a lower carbon economy, but where cyclical factors have reversed or slowed some of the gains from prior years," said Bob Dudley, BP group chief executive, in a statement. "These factors, combined with rising demand for energy, has resulted in a material increase in carbon emissions following three years of little or no growth."
</p><p>
"As we have said in our Energy Outlook, our Technology Outlook and now our Statistical Review, the power system must decarbonize," he said. "We continue to believe that gains in the power sector are the most efficient way to drive down carbon emissions in coming decades."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="ae875" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BJAN3B1576683811"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1003690532818673665" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">2017 was a record-breaking year for #renewables, but more needs to be done to meet #ParisAgreement goals… https://t.co/TitHKDKkX8</div> — Earth Alliance (@Earth Alliance)<a href="https://twitter.com/earthalliance/statuses/1003690532818673665">1528133445.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
Storage tanks on the hillside at the Chevron refinery above Point Richmond, CA. Shayan (USA) / CC BY 2.0
By Jason Mark
Can any one group of actors be held responsible for the damages caused by global climate change?
That was the central question argued in federal court on Thursday as attorneys representing San Francisco and Oakland tried to beat back efforts by ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell to have a judge throw out a potentially groundbreaking climate change related lawsuit.
<p>The nearly three-hour hearing was the latest round in a burgeoning effort by cities and counties nationwide to hold major <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> producers accountable for climate change-related damages. Last year, seven California cities and counties sued the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil">oil majors</a>, claiming that their production and sale of fossil fuels—even as they were aware of the risks of CO2 emissions—constitute a public nuisance. Since then, similar suits have been filed by New York City; Boulder and two Colorado counties; and King County, Washington, home to the city of Seattle. (For more, see SIERRA's May/June cover story, "<a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2018-3-may-june/feature/the-case-for-climate-reparations" target="_blank">The Case for Climate Reparations</a>.") </p><p>Thursday's hearing represented the first major test of such lawsuits as Judge William Alsup considered whether the Oakland and San Francisco complaint should move forward. The defendants challenged the lawsuit on a broad range of grounds, forcing Judge Alsup, a Clinton-appointee known for being an idiosyncratic jurist, to say at one point, "There are a lot of arguments here. As soon as I focus on one, you run off to another one." </p><p>The defendants' arguments for dismissing the suit centered on two main questions: whether the Federal District Court for Northern California is an appropriate jurisdiction to decide the case, and, of larger concern, whether the lawsuits might be displaced by existing federal laws and policies. </p><p>Arguments hinged on a welter of legal terms such as "general jurisdiction" versus "personal jurisdiction" versus "specific jurisdiction," while also touching on the distinctions between a holding company and an operating company. (Lawyers for Royal Dutch Shell maintained that the Netherlands-based multinational corporation is a holding company, and therefore has no agents in California.) In the course of the arguments it became clear that the very scale of the contested issue—global climate change—further complicates the questions of jurisdiction. The defendants argued that it's hard, if not impossible, to establish direct causation for a specific harm when the source of that harm is billions of people burning fossil fuels worldwide. </p><p>"[The plaintiffs] have decided that they do not want to and cannot disaggregate the conduct that leads to their harm," Jaren Janghorbani, an attorney representing ExxonMobil, said. "They cannot attribute any of the harm they are alleging to the company's activities in California." </p><p>Jonathan Hughes, a lawyer representing BP, echoed that point. "The amount [of CO2 emissions from its California operations] that could be attributed to BP would be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent. And under the but-for argument, if BP hadn't produced any fossil fuels, would they have still suffered an injury? The answer is yes. We are talking about a speck in the ocean." </p><p>In response, Benjamin Krass, a lawyer representing San Francisco and Oakland, said the oil company attorneys were "muddying up" the but-for argument—the principle of tort law that establishes liability. "The end result of the defendants' argument is that a company that does business everywhere should be held accountable nowhere." </p><p>In the end, Judge Alsup said he didn't have enough information to make a decision on the jurisdiction question. He gave both sides at least 60 days for a discovery process and depositions to establish whether each of the defendants has sufficient business operations in California for the two California cities to claim injury. </p><p>That left Chevron, the only defendant headquartered in California, to argue for dismissal based on the merits of the case. Chevron attorney Theodore Boutrous, Jr. began by saying that the cities' claims stretch federal common law and that "the plaintiffs are asking this court to throw caution to the wind." Boutrous went on to argue that a complex issue like climate change "should be committed to those who write the laws rather than those who interpret them." And Congress, Boutrous argued, has again and again passed laws in favor of fossil fuel production. "Congress has made clear that energy production is not a public nuisance; it is a public necessity." </p><p>As a rebuttal, Steve Berman, the lead counsel for the two cities, argued that the cities' complaints are not nearly as novel as the defendants make it seem—but instead merely the application of ancient laws to contemporary circumstances. "The law of nuisance has been around forever, and it has responded to changes in mankind. What we are doing is applying hundreds of years of law to a new situation." Berman later said, "We allege that this was a deliberate nuisance, based on phony science." </p><p>The San Francisco and Oakland case has generated a great deal of attention among legal scholars and climate change activists. In March, Judge Alsup held an unusual "<a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/tell-it-judge-big-oil-climate-change-science-lawsuit" target="_blank">climate science tutorial</a>" as a preliminary step in the case—an event that attracted so big a crowd, the court had to reserve an overflow room. The case has also become a proxy battle of sorts. Fifteen states with Republican attorneys general—including Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Louisiana—filed <a href="http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180419_docket-317-cv-06011_amicus-motion-1.pdf" target="_blank">an amicus brief</a> in support of the oil corporations' position. Meanwhile, California, New Jersey and Washington filed <a href="http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180503_docket-317-cv-06011_amicus-motion-1.pdf" target="_blank">their own brief</a> backing the cities' arguments. </p><p>The federal government has also weighed in. Two weeks ago the U.S. Department of Justice filed <a href="http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180510_docket-317-cv-06011_amicus-brief-1.pdf" target="_blank">a brief</a> supporting the five oil companies, and on Thursday, Eric Grant, a deputy assistant attorney general, was given time to express the federal government's opposition to the San Francisco and Oakland suits. "It is upon Congress, not the courts, to prescribe policy in areas of special interest," Grant said. "As this court knows, in respect to domestic emissions, the kind of national policy-making sought by plaintiffs is inappropriate … [Climate change] is a complex issue involving trade-offs affecting a nation of more than 300 million people. Individual federal district courts lack the competence to undertake that task." </p><p>The federal government's arguments appeared to give Judge Alsup pause, even as he continued to express exasperation with the legal maneuverings of some of the defendants. "There is no court in the history of the universe that has extended this [federal common law] to global warming," the judge said. "The United States is pointing to Supreme Court language that judges like me have to move slowly … There's no doubt there will be some sea rise. But will it be in 75 years or 25 years? We don't know." </p><p>To which Berman, the plaintiff's attorney, responded, "That's what the trial is for. Today we're talking about a motion to dismiss."</p><p>Whether the case will ever make it to a trial is, of course, now in the hands of Judge Alsup.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="235c8" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="LCASES1576662665"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="976831137187270657" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Chevron Presents on Climate Science While Oil Companies Move to Dismiss Landmark Case https://t.co/5G7gd1Ondw… https://t.co/7LzfhEl7y3</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/976831137187270657">1521729666.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/climate-litigation-against-big-oil-heats" target="_blank">SIERRA</a> magazine.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less