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
The Bunda cliff face along the Great Australian Bight near the South Australian-Western Australian border. Robbie Goodall / Moment / Getty Images
By Andy Rowel
For those fighting the oil industry, the good news keeps on coming this week.
<p>The Norwegian company, Equinor, has announced it is abandoning plans to drill for oil in the highly ecologically sensitive, Great Australian Bight, which has been a battleground between conservationists and the industry for years.<em></em></p>
<p>Off the country's southern coast, the area is a marine park home to one of the largest breeding populations of endangered southern right whales in the world. It is seen as a marine treasure.</p><p>Despite this, Equinor, which is two-thirds owned by the Norwegian Government, had been granted environmental approval back in December to drill about 400 kilometers off the South Australian coast. This was despite the fact that <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2016/10/11/victory-bp-abandons-drilling-in-the-great-australian-bight/" target="_blank">BP had abandoned plans</a> to drill there in 2016, and Chevron in 2017.</p><p>When these companies pulled out it was seen as a significant victory, so the decision by Equinor to press ahead was "met with an outcry from Traditional Owners and environmental activists," according to the Australian <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2020/02/25/weve-finally-won-mirning-elder-welcomes-equinors-withdrawal-bight?fbclid=IwAR3NlmNe3QjoVkGoIqgoyOt-hOfyRI0efy1FxbLeyjsj6KX3wV9cwIag8IY" target="_blank">NITV</a> news.</p><p>The news this week that Equinor was abandoning drilling due to it not being "commercially competitive" was met with joy by opponents of the plan.</p>
<p>The Great <a href="https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-25/equinor-abandons-plan-to-drill-for-oil-in-great-australian-bight/11997910?pfmredir=sm&fbclid=IwAR25n-3kvr74cCjtrO73BYttJahqcV8oquCQcAw_S8Ua8Kps6QsIleyWFCA" target="_blank">Australian Bight Alliance</a>, a coalition of environmental organizations along with the Mirning Indigenous people, had previously accused Equinor of refusing to formally consult with "key Indigenous groups and local governments."</p><p>Once the news broke, they were ecstatic.</p><p>Mirning Elder, Bunna Lawrie told <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2020/02/25/weve-finally-won-mirning-elder-welcomes-equinors-withdrawal-bight?fbclid=IwAR3NlmNe3QjoVkGoIqgoyOt-hOfyRI0efy1FxbLeyjsj6KX3wV9cwIag8IY" target="_blank">NITV news</a>, "It was just fantastic news to hear. To hear that news, it's going to be a collective future for all to enjoy and for our Mirning Elders and our people to continue to celebrate and to practice our culture and traditions and song and dance and our connection to that country."</p><p>The Wilderness Society's Peter Owen also told <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2020/02/25/weve-finally-won-mirning-elder-welcomes-equinors-withdrawal-bight?fbclid=IwAR3NlmNe3QjoVkGoIqgoyOt-hOfyRI0efy1FxbLeyjsj6KX3wV9cwIag8IY" target="_blank">NITV news</a> the decision was "fantastic," adding that "the Australian people have opposed drilling in the bight over a number of years. It's inappropriate to be expanding the fossil fuel industry when we're in the middle of a climate emergency and we should be transitioning away from fossil fuels."</p><p>Sarah Hanson-Young, the green Senator for South Australia, tweeted:</p>
<div id="1daf0" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="J7PIMY1582923912"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1232084168642723843" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Breaking!! Oil giant Equinor has scrapped plans to drill in South Australia’s gorgeous Great Australian Bight.
This… https://t.co/SRBFQ9qHV1</div> — Sarah Hanson-Young💚 (@Sarah Hanson-Young💚)<a href="https://twitter.com/sarahinthesen8/statuses/1232084168642723843">1582586731.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The fight is not over yet, though, as other smaller companies still have plans to drill in the Bight.</p><p>And despite the unprecedented bush fires that have ravaged parts of Australia, the Government is still determined to press ahead with drilling, if at all possible, too.</p><p>According to <a href="https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-25/equinor-abandons-plan-to-drill-for-oil-in-great-australian-bight/11997910?pfmredir=sm&fbclid=IwAR25n-3kvr74cCjtrO73BYttJahqcV8oquCQcAw_S8Ua8Kps6QsIleyWFCA" target="_blank">ABC,</a> the Federal Resources Minister, Keith Pitt, said the company's decision to withdraw was "disappointing" but "expressed support for future exploration in the Bight."</p><p>He added: "The Bight Basin remains one of Australia's frontier basins and any proposals for new oil and gas fields in this area will be assessed fairly and independently."</p><p>Amazingly, the Federal Government remains in denial.</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="http://priceofoil.org/2020/02/26/another-huge-win-as-equinor-pulls-out-of-drilling-the-australian-bight/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Oil Change International</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Seismic Blasting Approved in the Great Australian Bight, Posing ... ›
- An Oil Spill in the Great Australian Bight Could Be Twice as Bad as ... ›
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
Brenda Ekwurzel
By Brenda Ekwurzel
If you look at headlines from the last year, ExxonMobil, Chevron and other major fossil fuel companies have seemingly turned a new page on climate change. Recently, ExxonMobil received major kudos for giving $1 million to Americans for Carbon Dividends, a lobbying offshoot of the industry-backed Climate Leadership Council. Shortly before that, ExxonMobil, Chevron and Occidental Petroleum got good press for each pledging $100 million to the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, which amounts to less than one percent of their capital and exploration budget for 2018 (ExxonMobil's is $28 billion while Chevron's is $15.8 billion). Companies have also touted their support for the Paris climate agreement as well as their research and investments in renewables.
<p>But, as I and my colleagues have analyzed, this "support" is a PR distraction when these companies are keeping up business-as-usual. They intend to continue producing, marketing and selling fossil fuels at current levels for the foreseeable future, which runs counter to the <a href="http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf" target="_blank">steep reductions in carbon dioxide and methane emissions needed</a> to limit global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.</p><p>Tuesday the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/climate-accountability-scorecard-2018" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a scorecard</a>, which analyzed what eight major fossil fuel companies are saying they're doing about climate change, and just how much these companies are doing to drastically lower their emissions.</p><p>What did we find? Contrary to media reports and shiny company press releases, most of these major fossil fuel companies continue to mischaracterize climate science.</p><p>Why is this important? Any company that makes, markets and sells a product that is the primary cause of climate change has a responsibility to stay on top of and clearly communicate with the public scientific developments regarding their product. Misrepresenting climate science and underplaying the urgency of action allows companies to justify their business as usual practices all while climate impacts, including increasingly frequent and severe weather events such as Hurricanes Harvey and Florence, <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0747.1" target="_blank">get worse</a> and costlier. Releasing inaccurate statements allows companies to "check the box" for voicing belief in climate change, while continuing to funnel tens of tens of <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/exxonmobil-still-funding-climate-science-denier-groups" target="_blank">millions of dollars</a> to climate-denying politicians, trade associations and other industry groups that do the dirty work of opposing climate policies.</p><h3>Major Fossil Fuel Companies Fail to Accurately Represent Climate Science</h3><p>We measured whether companies consistently and accurately acknowledged the scientific evidence of climate change in their public platforms. Overall, they didn't do great.</p><p>We found that five of the eight companies we studied had made public statements on climate change that underplayed the need to urgently reduce emissions, emphasized scientific uncertainty and/or were blatantly incorrect. Only BP amended its statement after UCS and Barnard College called the company out for its deceptive language.</p><p>These statements are surprising since these companies have known about climate change for at least four decades now, which would be plenty of time to figure how to make it a priority to accurately convey the latest developments in climate science. Since 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued climate assessments which companies can rely on. The IPCC's Fifth Assessment (2014) represents the latest* mainstream scientific consensus on climate change and it clearly states that "It is <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause</a> of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." The <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20Synthesis%20Report/SPM/SPM.1_rev1-01.png" target="_blank">primary human influence is through the burning of fossil fuels</a>.</p><p>*(Earlier this month, this group released a special report detailing the impacts of a global average temperature increase of 1.5C relative to 2C above pre-industrial levels, and pathways to limit temperature increase to that level. See my colleagues' blog series about <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/tag/ipcc2018" target="_blank">what the report means</a> for us and for climate policy).</p><p>Let's see how oil and gas company statements on climate change stacked up.</p><h3>ExxonMobil</h3><p>ExxonMobil employs a dedicated climate change team and <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/technology/carbon-capture-and-storage/carbon-capture-and-storage/developing-cutting-edge-technology-carbon-capture-and-storage" target="_blank">boasts</a> about leading research around cutting-edge technology, such as carbon capture and storage. Yet the company's statements on climate change, including the one above, do not consistently reflect the current scientific consensus around the issue.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc1OTYwMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODIxNDAyMn0.sxAK8FOh2e-TJIoxqK23KvrZ_ETYfwHlpx4fKho13zw/img.jpg?width=980" id="e51e9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5c90c99e41fa4d7d61a36d554bda90f4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p>
<p>Contrary to ExxonMobil's claims, scientific understanding of the likelihood, magnitude and time frame of climate impacts as tied to human-caused climate change has advanced greatly. Research has over the last decade developed to the point where scientists can identify and <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/climate-attribution-science#.W84Qa2hKiUl" target="_blank">quantify the part human-caused climate change plays</a> in many types of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather">extreme weather</a> and other climate impacts. For many impacts, the likelihood is high; the magnitude is severe; and the timeframe is now. Scientists have shown, for example, that the likelihood of heat wave similar in magnitude to the one that hit Europe in 2003—during which over 30,000 people died—has <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074006" target="_blank">doubled</a>. Scientists have also shown that human-caused climate change made the record rainfall that hit Houston during Hurricane Harvey roughly <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9ef2" target="_blank">three times more likely</a> and 15 percent more intense.<br></p><p>No matter how much ExxonMobil talks about using <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathy-mulvey/2c-or-not-2c-unanswered-questions-in-exxonmobils-and-chevrons-climate-risk-reports" target="_blank">oil to lubricate wind turbines</a>, the company knows that most of its oil and gas are being burnt by cars, by energy generation, by human activity—which is the primary cause of climate change.</p><h3>Chevron</h3><p>Chevron's statement misrepresents the IPCC Fifth Assessment's conclusions, as mentioned earlier, that human activity is "extremely likely" to be the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">dominant driver of warming since the 1950s</a>, not simply one possible cause of many possible causes, as is implied by Chevron's phrase "due in part." Chevron's seemingly subtle shift in wording is significant because the report shows that the overwhelming majority of the world's top researchers agree that <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigTS-04.jpg" target="_blank">burning fossil fuels</a> is by far and away the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/SPM/FigSPM-05.jpg" target="_blank">largest contributor to climate change</a>. Injecting any doubt or uncertainty into that conclusion is disingenuous at best, and outright deceiving at worst.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc1OTYwOS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NDQ0MTIzOX0.KNMyBzuqaCxC2rImwpYnYYFE9E6oZ7KtDIU2BGY8ank/img.jpg?width=980" id="a7986" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0a3abefb6f6f49fdc842d3e443c5de04" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p><p><em><strong>Above:</strong> Chevron Corporation. 2018. Climate change resilience: A framework for decision making. Online <a href="http://www.chevron.com/-/media/shared-media/documents/climate-change-resilience.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>, accessed Oct. 15.</em></p>
<p>If Chevron is going to quote the IPCC, the company should, at the very least, cut-and-paste from the panel's report.<br></p><h3>ConocoPhillips</h3><p>ConocoPhillips's statement on climate science suggests the last decade-worth of climate research, including the most recent IPCC report, simply doesn't exist.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc1OTY1My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwMjgyNzM2NX0.4G4A3TDGVhV-30tpGuoNFVJXOTYyBAOUlwOtJRdpu6U/img.jpg?width=980" id="0dc73" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0ed2af4d45418e3dd5d0c65dd4b95c8e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p>
<p><em>Above: ConocoPhillips. No date. Climate change position. Online <a href="http://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/climate-change-position_final.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>, accessed Oct. 15.</em></p><p>There are three major issues with the company's statement: 1) the claim that increasing atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases "can lead" rather than "are leading" to climate change, as has been established since at least the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/WGI_TAR_full_report.pdf" target="_blank">IPCC third assessment report</a>, is followed by 2) highlighting uncertainties on the first point, when there are none and 3) proposing that it is sufficient for the company to "manage" global warming emissions rather than reducing them. Alone, each of these statements is problematic and inaccurately represents the mainstream scientific consensus. Together, they subvert the public's understanding of climate science and supply the company with an alibi for continuing to extract, sell and profit off of fossil fuels.</p><h3>BP – Old and New</h3><p>When we analyzed BP's statements from 2018 we found similarly misinforming language. But when we pointed the problematic language out to company representatives (as we did with all eight companies studied), BP promptly made changes that brought its statement back in line with climate science. As you can see in the first attempt, BP emphasizes scientific uncertainty by referring to atmospheric carbon's "possible" climate impact. Svante Arrhenius, more than a century ago, published <a href="http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf" target="_blank">the fundamental scientific principle</a> that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration results in changes to Earth's temperature.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc1OTY0NS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNjM2MjYyNH0.ze2BliWfuwCrZ9kZse7UkccXcvMuSNpWdtSPGLEOils/img.jpg?width=980" id="41fec" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="49da4b500c1ddff22d1573dca0793ee9" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p>
<p><em><strong>Above: </strong>BP PLC. 2018a. Energy and the environment. Online <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180726132105/https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/primary-energy/energy-and-the-environment.html" target="_blank">here</a>, accessed May 22.</em></p><p>BP's new statement, on the other hand, is an excellent example of an accurate copy-and-paste. The company's new statement mentions the IPCC 5th Assessment and, unlike Chevron, gets its facts right in stating that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is extremely likely to be the primary driver of climate change.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc1OTYyOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMTU2OTMzMX0.p_30PRz1hsr4bX8bPVxPS3POQ493lcfMtW8msCiBJrs/img.jpg?width=980" id="fda98" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="68c0b856b48008436d6df9e373b1caf3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p>
<p><em><strong>Above: </strong>BP PLC. No date. Energy and the environment. Online <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy/primary-energy/energy-and-the-environment.html" target="_blank">here</a>, accessed Oct. 15.</em></p><h3>Shell</h3>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc1OTYxNi9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNzQ4NjQ5MH0.Sx2nuLbTGJyclYscAn2IsfWgCoXfO6jYhcYA1RzCZr8/img.png?width=980" id="bbb2d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8711915c1b0b9cfcfcd812d2630af269" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p>
<em></em><p><em><strong>Above: </strong>First quote: Royal Dutch Shell Corporation. No date. Climate change and energy transitions. Online <a href="http://www.shell.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change.html" target="_blank">here</a>, accessed, Oct. 15. Second quote: Royal Dutch Shell Corporation. 2018c. Energy Transition. Online <a href="http://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/shell-energy-transition-report.html" target="_blank">here</a>, accessed July 10.</em></p><p>Shell's PR machine has gone into overdrive recently in an effort to paint the company as a climate leader. While Shell falls short in a number of areas, its statements on climate science and the need to reach net-zero emissions are accurate and consistent. There's no equivocating, no hedging, no backsliding, no prevaricating and no hiding inaccurate climate statements on less popular pages of its website. Climate change is real, it's caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, and we need to make changes immediately. Check, check and check.</p><h3>Additional Studies on the Language of Climate Deception</h3><p>Several peer-reviewed academic papers have documented how fossil fuel companies have used public communications to mislead the public about the state of climate science and its implications. A <a href="https://qz.com/1276282/corporate-social-responsibility-reports-show-oil-companies-becoming-passive-about-climate-change-say-linguists/" target="_blank">University of Reading study</a> published this year showed that up until the mid-2000s, climate change was discussed as a problem with a solution; more recently fossil fuel company language has portrayed climate change as unpredictable and unknowable. Last year, <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f" target="_blank">Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes</a> analyzed 187 climate change communications by ExxonMobil and found that while company's scientists were quietly contributing to climate science and writing reports about it to company executives, the company was paying for advertisements that told a different story.</p><h3>Watchdogging Matters</h3><p>Whether through outright climate denial, sowing public confusion on climate science, or funding of third-party groups that spread climate disinformation, each of these companies has tried to obscure climate science. But, as we saw with BP, the threat of public exposure and pressure apparently pushed the company to correct its website. As with most companies, major fossil fuel companies want to avoid the reputational risk of being branded climate deniers. This is why public watchdogging really matters.</p><p>Fossil fuel companies need to acknowledge scientific evidence that shows </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">1. The extraction and burning of their product is the main driver of climate change and,</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">2. avoiding the worst climate impacts requires dramatic cuts to carbon emissions immediately.</p><p>UCS and members of our science network and supporters will continue to hold these companies accountable for what they (and their trade groups) say and do on climate change.</p><p> <em><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/author/brenda-ekwurzel#.W9BtXhNKjBI" target="_blank">Brenda Ekwurzel</a> is a senior climate scientist and the director of climate science at UCS.</em></p>
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
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
Seattle's snow-covered mountains and marine ecosystems are at risk due to climate change. Daniel Schwen / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0
King County, which covers the Seattle metropolitan area, followed the lead of 10 other cities and counties in the U.S. when it filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the world's five largest oil companies for damages incurred by climate change, a county press release announced.
<p>"The science is undisputable: climate change is impacting our region today, and it will only cause greater havoc and hardships in the future," King County Executive Dow Constantine said in the press release. "The companies that profited the most from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuels</a> should help bear the costs of managing these disasters. <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil" target="_self">Big Oil</a> spent many decades disregarding and dismissing what is our most pressing generational challenge. We must hold these companies accountable as we marshal our resources to protect and preserve what makes this region great," he said. </p><p>In particular, King County is suing the companies for help with stormwater management, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/salmon" target="_self">salmon</a> restoration, and protecting public health, as well as other measures to adapt the region to climate change. </p><p>The companies named in the lawsuit are the same that fellow West Coast cities <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/san-francisco-sue-2487934170.html" target="_self">San Francisco and Oakland</a> are suing for similar reasons: <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>. </p><p>Overall, eight California cities and counties have sued a variety of oil companies for damages. The suits aren't limited to the West Coast. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/nyc-divestment-2524285373.html" target="_self">New York City</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-lawsuits-2561769770.html" target="_self">Boulder, Colorado</a>, together with Boulder County and San Miguel County, have also filed climate-related suits against oil companies this year. Since the Colorado cities and counties filed their lawsuit together, that would make King County the eleventh U.S. urban area to take on Big Oil. </p><p>"This is a moment of reckoning for the oil and gas industry," <a href="http://www.igsd.org/initiatives/the-center-for-climate-integrity/" target="_blank">Center for Climate Integrity</a> executive director Richard Wiles said in a statement responding to the new suit.</p><p>"Taxpayers are tired of paying for climate damages that the oil industry knowingly caused. And just like lawsuits against tobacco, lead, and asbestos manufacturers, they are taking action to recover costs," Wiles said.</p><p>The King County suit was filed in King County Superior Court and was developed by Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a firm that helped win a historic settlement against tobacco companies in the 1990s.<br></p><p>The <a href="https://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/elected/executive/constantine/news/documents/May_8_2018_lawsuit.ashx?la=en" target="_blank">lawsuit</a> further accuses the defendants of "[stealing] a page from the Big Tobacco playbook" during the 1990s and early 2000s by launching misinformation campaigns discrediting climate science and downplaying the risks of global warming. "'Uncertainty' of the science became the constantly repeated mantra of this Big Oil communications campaign just as 'Doubt is our product' was the Big Tobacco communications theme," the lawsuit said.</p><p>The county's attorneys said the oil companies might owe hundreds of millions of dollars into a fund to offset the impacts of climate change in the region.</p><p>According to the lawsuit, climate change is already impacting King County in the form of warmer temperatures, <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ocean-acidification" target="_self">ocean acidification</a>, increasing flood risk due to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise" target="_self">sea level rise</a>, less snow on the region's many mountains in the winter and less water in the summer. These impacts are only projected to worsen. </p><p>Parts of King County above the historic mean high tide line now experience regular flooding, and the water level of Puget Sound is projected to increase by as much as 56 inches by 2100, the press release reported. </p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Chevron Presents on Climate Science While Oil Companies Move to Dismiss Landmark Case
22 March 2018
Climate
A fire broke out at the Chevron refinery in Richmond, California in 2012. Pascal POGGI / Flickr
This was a big week for the suit brought by San Francisco and Oakland against the five largest investor-owned fossil fuel companies for the costs associated with adapting to climate change.
First, the five companies in question—Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell—filed a motion Tuesday to dismiss the case, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had dismissed similar cases in the past because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, not private companies, is responsible for setting and enforcing carbon dioxide levels, Forbes reported.
<p>But they didn't file in time to avoid participating in Wednesday's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-science-hearing-california-2544434233.html" target="_self">historic climate science tutorial</a>. U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, who is currently hearing the case, ordered both sides to answer a <a href="https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2017cv06011/318403/138" target="_blank">series of questions</a> about climate science in a two-hour presentation each. </p><p>Chevron was the only company whose lawyer actually presented at the tutorial. The other companies did not present as a show of their opposition to the court's jurisdiction, Alyssa Johl, an attorney and the founder of Climate Rights Collective, reported in a live tweet of the tutorial.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="fdc0a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="3R43621576662670"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="976532240271228928" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Judge Alsup interrupts Chevron lawyer to ask whether he represents all defendants or Chevron only... Boutrous makes… https://t.co/553TXSKZZs</div> — Alyssa Johl (@Alyssa Johl)<a href="https://twitter.com/AlyssaJohl/statuses/976532240271228928">1521658403.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p>Alsup, however, did not let the other companies off the hook, but gave their lawyers two weeks to file statements detailing any differences they had with the testimony of Chevron's lawyer.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="7a5f9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6IVAQ21576662670"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="976546924495958018" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Judge Alsup speaks directly to defendants who did not present... you cannot sit in silence. You have 2 weeks to acc… https://t.co/Hbh9oIh6tB</div> — Alyssa Johl (@Alyssa Johl)<a href="https://twitter.com/AlyssaJohl/statuses/976546924495958018">1521661904.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p>Chevron was represented by Theodore Boutrous, Jr., who did not attempt to deny the science behind climate change and based his presentation on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, which was published in 2013.<br></p><p>According to <a href="https://grist.org/article/fossil-fuels-are-the-problem-say-fossil-fuel-companies-being-sued/" target="_blank">Grist's Nathaniel Johnson</a>, the strategy behind this move was revealed when Boutrous cited part of the report which states that climate change is caused "largely by population and economic growth.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="5ba21" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2MDROU1576662670"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="976526523103506433" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Chevron's lawyer at #climatetutorial - "IPCC does not say it's the extraction of fossil fuels [that causes climate… https://t.co/PKoarhlgd9</div> — Jessica Wentz (@Jessica Wentz)<a href="https://twitter.com/jess_wentz/statuses/976526523103506433">1521657040.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p>"This appears to be the core of the oil companies' strategy," Johnson wrote in his write-up of the session. "First, believe everything the IPCC says. Second, the IPCC says the real problem is prosperity, economic growth! Therefore, blame the ones burning the oil—all we did was dig the stuff up."<br></p><p>Several observers also questioned Boutrous' reliance on five-year-old data in such a fast-moving field, since it played up the IPCC's "uncertainties" regarding the impacts of climate change, which have only gotten frighteningly more certain in the intervening years. </p><p>"Sea-level rise science from the past few years blows this out of the water," journalist Amy Westervelt noted in a tweet from the courtroom.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="58e96" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="XLTMMA1576662670"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="976535212334055425" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">This! Sea-level rise science from the past few years blows this out of the water. Seem disingenuous to present 5-ye… https://t.co/uEmHELQsCc</div> — Ida Tarbell (@Ida Tarbell)<a href="https://twitter.com/amywestervelt/statuses/976535212334055425">1521659112.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p>Even one of the scientists who presented for the cities, University of Illinois professor Don Wuebbles, who helped write the IPCC and the more recent 4th U.S. Climate Assessment, cast shade on Boutrous' reliance on the report.<br></p><p>"The science doesn't stop at 2012," Wuebbles said, according to the <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article206291454.html" target="_blank">McClatchy Washington Bureau</a>.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="ffc95" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="CYGMAQ1576662670"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="976546186378190848" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Wuebbles highlights the fact that #climatescience does not stop at 2012. Chevron lawyer cherrypicked data on sea le… https://t.co/b8VXxqAdhq</div> — Alyssa Johl (@Alyssa Johl)<a href="https://twitter.com/AlyssaJohl/statuses/976546186378190848">1521661728.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p>Two other scientists presented for the cities before Boutrous and Wuebbles spoke. The University of Oxford's Myles Allen spoke on the history of climate science and University of California, Santa Cruz professor Gary Griggs spoke on the relationship between climate change and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise" target="_self">sea level rise</a>, according to Alyssa Johl's live tweets.<br></p><p>Deborah Moore, western states campaign manager at the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a>, was a courtroom observer. She noted a part of Allen's testimony that might be particularly useful to the cities' case: it is, apparently, possible to directly link products sold by particular companies to the emissions they produced.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="853a6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="CHYOGU1576662670"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="976489583683584000" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Prof Allen notes 50% of emissions produced since ~1980 and that it is possible to trace CO2 emissions directly to p… https://t.co/3rNzeMR9Vb</div> — Deborah Moore (@Deborah Moore)<a href="https://twitter.com/debmoore_UCS/statuses/976489583683584000">1521648233.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p>But first, Alsup will have to decide if there will continue to be a case at all. According to Forbes, Alsup will likely hear the companies' motion to dismiss in April.</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
By Ken Kimmell
A major front in the climate change debate has moved to the courtroom, as I've previously discussed. Last week, plaintiffs in two separate cases won significant procedural victories—one against major fossil fuel companies, and a second against the Trump administration. Here are the latest developments and their implications.
<h4>Bay Area vs. Big Oil</h4><p>In this suit, <em><a href="https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2017/09/19/san-francisco-oakland-sue-top-five-oil-gas-companies-costs-climate-change/" target="_blank">The People of the State of California v. BP et al</a>., </em>the cities of San Francisco and Oakland sued five major oil companies (BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips and Shell), charging that these companies created a public nuisance by extracting and selling oil, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> and gas while misleading the public about the harms that these products cause.</p><p>The two cities filed in state court and under state law<em>.</em> This was an important strategic choice, as the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers California) had dismissed prior cases brought in federal court, holding that congress enacted the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/Clean-Air-Act">Clean Air Act</a> to comprehensively address the emission of greenhouse gases, and that therefore there was no role for federal lawsuits of this kind.</p><p>Citing the precedent of these earlier rulings, the defendant oil companies transferred the cities' cases to federal court, and argued that the cities' claims were preempted by federal law. In response, the cities claimed that they had a right to file in state court and that their claims under state law were not preempted by federal law, and they asked the judge to send the cases back to state court.</p><p>A federal district court judge issued a <a href="http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/files/2016/05/Cal-v-BP-removal-decision-ND-Cal-2018.pdf" target="_blank">decision</a> that neither side argued for. The court decided in the oil companies' favor that the case was properly in federal court, reasoning—with some logic—that climate change is an international problem, that state courts might apply inconsistent standards if allowed to adjudicate these cases, and that only the federal court could apply a uniform standard.</p><p>But, the court went on to find that the two earlier cases which had dismissed federal court suits did not apply to this case. The court found that while the Clean Air Act addresses the emissions from fossil fuel combustion, the San Francisco/Oakland case was not about emissions of pollutants, but rather an alleged scheme to sell a product<em> </em>through deception. The court reasoned—again with some logic—that the Clean Air Act offered no remedy for that conduct, and therefore did not preempt this lawsuit.</p><p>This part of the ruling was a major win for the plaintiffs, as it seems to take away the key defense of preemption that the oil companies seemed to be counting on.</p><p>On top of this, the court also <a href="http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180227_docket-317-cv-06011_notice.pdf" target="_blank">ordered</a> the parties to participate in a five-hour "climate science" tutorial for the court, to be held on Mar. 21. The judge ordered the parties to "trace the history of scientific study of climate change, beginning with scientific inquiry into the formation and melting of the ice ages, periods of historic cooling and warming, smog, ozone, nuclear winter, volcanoes and global warming." And further, to inform the court of "the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise and coastal flooding."</p><p>This is fascinating and highly unusual. As anyone who has seen a trial on television or in the movies knows, courts don't conduct tutorials; they oversee trials, in which lawyers present the testimony of witnesses under oath and each side gets to examine and cross examine. The sheer novelty of this procedure is a good sign for the plaintiffs. Why would the judge invest time and energy to learn about climate science unless he thought the plaintiffs' legal claims might rest on a durable foundation? Also, the fact that the court asked for a climate science timeline suggests the court is honing in on some key questions: what did the fossil fuel companies know about climate change, when did they know it, and how did their public statements square with the scientific consensus at the time?</p><p>All eyes will be on this climate science tutorial, which will presumably be open to the public. To my knowledge, this is the first time climate science will be presented to a court in this fashion, and it offers an excellent opportunity to highlight the longstanding and well-supported scientific consensus.</p><p>It is too early to confidently predict what lies ahead but, on the basis of the judge's initial opinion, one can say this: the courtroom door is open now on these issues as it never has been before.</p><h4>Kids sue to protect themselves and future generations.</h4><p>In this case, <a href="https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/us/federal-lawsuit/" target="_blank"><em>Juliana v. the United States</em></a>, a group of kids are suing the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump administration</a> for failing to protect them against the harms of climate change. I <a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/ken-kimmell/climate-change-goes-to-court" target="_blank">wrote about</a> the novelty of this case last fall, and its early success when a federal district court judge in Oregon ordered the case to trial, rejecting all the Trump administration's procedural defenses.</p><p>Since that time, the Trump administration asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to dismiss the case. This was an unusual move because, ordinarily, a party to a lawsuit cannot appeal until the trial court has issued a final judgment. In this case, however, the district court had not done so. Predictably, the court of appeals <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571d109b04426270152febe0/t/5aa0319753450acab4dac5bc/1520447895924/2018.03.07+Ninth+Circuit+Order+on+Trump+Mandamus+Petition.pdf" target="_blank">ruled</a> that the appeal was therefore premature, and sent the case back to the district court.</p><p>(Full disclosure: UCS joined a friend of the court brief on this issue, ably authored by <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> attorneys).</p><p>The case was originally set for trial in February, 2018, but the Trump administration's appeal delayed that. Presumably, the next step will be for the court to set another trial date.</p><p>This is not good news for the Trump administration. At a minimum, a trial on this will be a public relations nightmare in which an appealing group of kids, represented by experienced attorneys, will have the opportunity to question Trump administration officials in open court. They will no doubt ask questions that the administration will find extremely difficult to answer, such as: Why has the Trump administration sought to withdraw from the Paris agreement, rolled back regulations to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and promoted subsidies for coal? Does the Trump administration not accept climate science? Does it not care about the harm of runaway climate change?</p><p>Further down the line, if the plaintiffs are successful in district court and if the court of appeals or the supreme court affirms the ruling (all very big "ifs," of course), the Trump administration faces the prospect of being forced under court order to develop and implement a plan to address climate change.</p><h4>Chickens coming home to roost.</h4><p>These lawsuits and the apparent judicial receptiveness to them—at least so far—are not accidental. Courts are heavily influenced by historic context, and judges are no doubt well aware of the pressing urgency of climate change and the failure of the federal government to address it. With no solution in sight, it is not surprising that courts are increasingly willing to hear cases urging a strong judicial role.</p><p>Is it ideal that courts, rather than our elected representatives, would decide these issues? Of course not. Maybe it is time for those who have opposed having our elected leaders take action on climate to consider this question–would they prefer the courts to do that job?</p><p><em><a href="https://blog.ucsusa.org/author/ken-kimmell#.WqqFJpPwYcg" target="_blank">Ken Kimmell</a> is president of the <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/" target="_blank">Union of Concerned Scientists</a> and has more than 30 years of experience in government, environmental policy, and advocacy.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge links the two Pacific coast cities suing Big Oil over climate change. Phil Scott / Flickr
If you turn on the news, you might think that climate science has been on trial for decades. But now a San Francisco judge will give it an official day in court.
U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup, who is hearing a suit brought by the cities of Oakland and San Francisco against five big oil corporations, ordered a historic tutorial in which both parties will have a chance to present their view of the science behind climate change, the McClatchy Washington Bureau reported March 7.
<p>"This will be the closest that we have seen to a trial on climate science in the United States, to date," Michael Burger, head of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told the Bureau. </p><p>The hearing marks the most recent novel development in an already groundbreaking lawsuit. As <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/san-francisco-sue-2487934170.html" target="_self">EcoWatch reported</a>, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to sue the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels">fossil fuel</a> industry over climate change when it filed with Oakland against the five largest fossil-fuel producing corporations in September 2017.</p><p>The cities <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/san-francisco-and-oakland-sue-top-five-oil-and-gas-companies-over-costs-of-climate-change-300522988.html" target="_blank">claim</a> the companies named in the suit—<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>—"have known for decades that fossil fuel-driven global warming and accelerated <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/sea-level-rise">sea level rise</a> posed a catastrophic risk to human beings." They are therefore suing the companies for the costs of adapting to the climate challenge, such as the building of sea walls. </p><p>Alsup scheduled the hearing for March 21, and has asked each side to prepare a two-part presentation. </p><p>According to Alsup's order, "The first part will trace the history of scientific study of climate change," while "the second part will set forth the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise, and coastal <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/flooding">flooding</a>," the Bureau reported. </p><p><a href="https://earthrights.org/" target="_blank">EarthRights International</a> General Counsel Marco Simmons said the hearing was a positive development. "The court is forcing these companies to go on the record about their understanding of climate science, which they have desperately tried to avoid doing," he told the Bureau. </p><p>Still, Alsup's ruling was not entirely favorable to the cities, who had filed a motion to have the case tried in California courts, which have developed precedent around "public nuisance" law. </p><p>Alsup instead held that the case belonged in federal court. "[A] patchwork of fifty different answers to the same fundamental global issue would be unworkable," the court ruled, according to the <a href="http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2018/03/06/march-2018-updates-to-the-climate-case-charts/" target="_blank">Columbia Law Blog</a>. </p><p>The California cities' suit isn't the only historic climate case that will be decided in federal court. </p><p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled on Wednesday that the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> administration could not halt a suit brought by 21 children and teenagers against the federal government for failing to act on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier" target="_self">climate change</a>, The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/07/the-trump-administration-just-failed-to-stop-a-climate-lawsuit-brought-by-21-kids/?utm_term=.8dd016d38ab3" target="_blank">reported</a>. </p><p>These suits brought by cities, municipalities and children represent creative legal ways in which ordinary citizens are trying to hold powerful interests accountable for man-made <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier" target="_self">climate change</a>. And an accurate understanding of climate science is key to their success. </p><p>"We're looking forward to putting the federal government on trial on climate science and its dangerous fossil fuel policies," Julia Olson of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/our-childrens-trust" target="_self">Our Children's Trust</a>, the head lawyer in the children's case, told the Post. </p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="8760a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="CNWIJZ1576662841"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="956994014884003840" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">200+ Scientists Want Trump-Backer and Climate Denial Funder Rebekah Mercer Kicked Off Natural History Museum Board… https://t.co/3ipWLyniSY</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/956994014884003840">1517000127.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
Exposed: Chevron's Secretive Drilling Site in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
11 January 2018
Popular
Chevron's KIC-1 post, seen in front of the Brooks Mountain Range in northern Alaska. Jonathan Rosenblum
It's the middle of the frigid, long midnight at Tapkaurak Point, a spit of gravel curling out into the Beaufort Sea off the northern coast of Alaska. Up in the middle of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the largest remaining wilderness area in the U.S., the sun set weeks ago and won't peek above the horizon until the middle of January.
<p>If you were there now, bundled up against the minus-20-degree chill, you could climb the low bluff at Tapkaurak, turn away from the frozen sea, and in the dim light cast by the moon and the stars you'd take in the expansive <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/arctic">arctic</a> plain giving way to the craggy Brooks Range to the south. In the middle of the plain, if the aurora borealis is bright enough, you might see poking out of the snow cover an upright post—physically insignificant but utterly out of place in the treeless Arctic landscape.</p><p>The post isn't a trivial anomaly. It stands as a warning sign for all of us, advertising the ambitions of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/big-oil">Big Oil</a> to turn this place from a wilderness into an industrial profit mill. Wedged into last month's $1.5 billion tax cut law, which benefits mostly the 1 percent, is a provision opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to commercial oil drilling.</p><p>After decades of being denied access to the refuge, the oil companies have achieved a legislative milestone. And absent a movement of popular resistance combined with legal action, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will join the growing list of places around the world plundered by CEOs and a political elite who put profits before people and the planet. We can and must stop them.</p><p>Fourteen summers ago I was fortunate to visit Tapkaurak Point, and saw up close what the future holds for the refuge if Trump, Congress and Big Oil get their way. I landed my kayak at Tapkaurak toward the end of a two-week Arctic refuge paddling trip with three friends. We had gone down the Kongakut River and along the Beaufort coast toward the village of Kaktovik, arriving at Tapkaurak late in the evening in mid-July. We ascended the bluff. To the north, the gravel tidelands of the spit gave way to a lagoon, bounded by a long narrow reef. Beyond the reef lay the Beaufort pack ice. To the south of us spread miles of arctic plain, sedge grass lit up in brilliant gold by the midnight sun. Beyond, the peaks of the Brooks Range, wearing a new coat of white snow, stood out boldly against the blue sky. And then we saw the post.</p><p>We walked toward it, through marshy fields of just-thawed permafrost dotted with tufts of wispy Alaska cotton and bladder campion—a hardy purple-and-pink-striped Japanese lantern-shaped flower just a few inches high. Red-necked phalaropes, readying for their late-summer flight to South America, bathed in small pools of water.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzA2NTk4OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNDIzMjE1MH0.VpKLaDkXV9jCvMmQmMGnkI48QHF4vJhDlFm4z4Bb4L4/img.jpg?width=980" id="2f3b1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="efbb7a5ad3734f01d017cd70751095cf" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Alaska cotton is abundant in the Arctic tundra regions. Oil and gas development strips the landscape of vegetation and in the Arctic, destroys permafrost.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Jonathan Rosenblum</small></p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzA2NjAxOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5OTQyMjk4M30.m4YpawvjFaURMpPUTBLlrV2x9clw0xFA7qWqTAiGdRQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="2ad70" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ad65f96ad96a56250e7dc5a4fad9d031" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">The delicate bladder campion is a uniquely designed wildflower that blooms in late spring.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Jonathan Rosenblum</small></p><p>The tufts of dirt pushed up by permafrost were laced with small animal holes, and the snowy owl feathers scattered around were evidence that the birds had been hunting recently. The thousands of caribou who spend summers on the Arctic coast had already headed south into the Brooks Range, but sprinkled around the plain were antlers—shed after calving season, or perhaps the remnants of animals taken by predators.</p><p>Approaching the post we saw that it was a solid iron column, welded with the letters, "CHEVRON USA INC." This was the KIC-1 drilling site, the secretive test well Chevron was allowed to drill in 1986. Crews bored three miles down, at a cost of $40 million, before capping the site, dismantling the drilling platform and going home.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzA2NjA0My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0ODYwNzAwMn0.JQkSkWQAOED_bQA4vdeKMJ1V0hnFan8_R5H_CWC1hBs/img.jpg?width=980" id="25fd4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7a184c8310a09ea29250467da785755d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Chevron's KIC-1 post at the company's secretive test well</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Jonathan Rosenblum</small></p><p><a href="https://juneauempire.com/stories/040801/Ins_arctic1.html#.WkADo0xFw2w" target="_blank">Chevron executives know what the well found, but they aren't telling</a>. Years ago, a court gave the company the right to withhold the information from the public.</p><p>Even with Chevron's claim to have remediated the site, half-buried construction trash surrounds the post: Metal cans and grating, cloth, wood, and glass bottles, all of it ever-so-slowly deteriorating in the cold, dry Arctic. Trash does not compost up there—it lingers on.</p><p>Compared to the surrounding permafrost marshes, which were teeming with grasses, flowers and low shrubs, the land around the drilling site was mostly a bare brown, compacted from the weight of heavy vehicles and machinery that visited a generation earlier.</p><p>A short way to the south, more shapes rose from the plain. We slogged across the swampy ground to investigate. These weren't test drilling holes. It was an old Inupiat graveyard. The grave markers, in various stages of decay, were made of wood. "Raymond Nanolo, Dead August 12 1933." Another, name undistinguishable, had a 1922 date on it. They were trappers and hunters, people with tremendous ingenuity, self-reliance and stamina who walked lightly on the land, as their ancestors had for the last 3,000 years.</p><p>The next night, as we launched our boats off the gravel of Tapkaurak Point and headed west, I looked back at the arctic plain and the iron post. It was a small pinprick on the vast horizon. But even this tiny human experiment had left an indelible mark on the land, with its trashed-out site and barren ground.</p><p>What <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> and Congress aim to do is take the human destruction at Tapkaurak's KIC-1 site and expand it by many orders of magnitude. Even with new technologies like horizontal drilling, oil and gas production is a big deal, requiring powerful drills chewing through the earth, endless miles of pipes and electrical transmission lines reaching over the horizon, and slurries of mud and other waste. And then there are accidents.</p><p>For comparison, you could just look 120 miles west of Tapkaurak, at the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and the 800-mile <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines">pipeline</a> that extends from the fields to the south through Alaska. <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/p02s01-usgn.html" target="_blank">Those fields and pipeline at one point averaged 500 oil spills a year</a>.</p><p>It's no wonder that 70 percent of Americans, including a majority of Republicans, <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-oppose-drilling-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge/?utm_source=Yale+Program+on+Climate+Change+Communication&utm_campaign=2418476467-20171204_anwr&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_de6cdfce82-2418476467-326520565" target="_blank">oppose drilling in the Arctic refuge</a>.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="10faa" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="COGBE81576662099"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="944156858029363201" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Why Americans Will Never Agree on Oil Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge https://t.co/5jueNgalae… https://t.co/o4Q6ApFEIB</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/944156858029363201">1513939511.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>The Trump administration's Christmas gift isn't intended for anyone but a very narrow band of one percenters—Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who conditioned her tax bill "aye" vote to the Arctic drilling proviso, and the CEOs and major shareholders of Big Oil, who salivate at the idea of opening up the Arctic refuge to their profiteering.<br></p><p>Yet even with the passage of the law, resistance is not futile; indeed, it must be redoubled and join up with other fights to save the environment from oil profiteers. Two years ago, Shell Oil executives, facing a growing movement of mounting, creative protests and negative publicity, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/28/shell-ceases-alaska-arctic-drilling-exploratory-well-oil-gas-disappoints" target="_blank">pulled their drilling operations out of the western Alaskan Chukchi Sea</a>.</p><p>The Native American-led <a href="https://www.defunddapl.org/" target="_blank">DefundDAPL movement has persuaded</a> cities, organizations, tribes and individuals to withdraw more than $4 billion from Wells Fargo Bank because of its funding of the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dakota-access-pipeline">Dakota Access Pipeline</a>. <a href="https://standwithstandingrock.net/standing-rock-sioux-applauds-bnp-paribas-decision-divest-dapl/" target="_blank">Three European banks pulled their funding for DAPL</a> after the mass demonstrations at Standing Rock.</p><p>Now, a broad coalition of Native American and First Nation activists, including the DefundDAPL leadership, has <a href="https://lastrealindians.com/indigenous-leaders-launch-new-campaign-to-defund-all-four-proposed-tar-sands-pipelines/" target="_blank">launched a divestment campaign</a> aimed at funders of proposed <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/tar-sands">tar sands</a> pipelines in Canada. Through direct actions, including <a href="https://www.seattleweekly.com/news/activists-disrupt-over-100-bank-branches-across-seattle-for-financing-tar-sands-projects/" target="_blank">militant bank office takeovers</a>, the movement is building public awareness and pressing banks to withhold capital from these controversial projects.</p><p>Activist leaders recognize the need for hardball tactics.</p><p>"Big Oil, multinational corporations and their financial backers are not persuaded by moral and environmental arguments," explained Matt Remle, a Lakota Nation leader and co-founder of <a href="https://mazaskatalks.org/" target="_blank">Mazaska Talks</a> ("Mazaska" is a Lakota word for money). "They're capitalist and they are persuaded by one thing, money."</p><p>Just last month, <a href="https://lastrealindians.com/victory-wells-fargo-excluded-from-banking-contracts-divest-l-a-statement/" target="_blank">activists pushed the Los Angeles City Council to disqualify Wells Fargo from doing business with the city</a>.</p><p>These boycott movements, led by native peoples and environmental groups like <a href="https://350.org/" target="_blank">350.org</a>, are just getting going.</p><p>Now, with the latest congressional action, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge joins the list of places to defend with organizing, boycotts and direct action, in addition to legal challenges.</p><p>Big Oil and their political patrons are counting on the reality that few people outside of the native Inupiat and the occasional kayak tourist will ever get a chance to stand at Tapkaurak Point and take in the splendor of the surrounding wilderness, or stand in silent awe in the burial ground of a people who lived in harmony with the arctic since before the time of King Solomon, Jesus of Nazareth, or the Prophet Mohammed. Only a handful of us will ever spy that ominous totem standing in the near distance of the Arctic plain, warning us that this all could go away in a handful of years.</p><p>But you don't have to go there to recognize that what's at stake is a lot more than the risk of scarred ground, ruined vistas, desecrated grave sites and a polluted wilderness. Rather, the destruction of the Arctic refuge would stand as a totem to the triumph of the capitalist drive for profit over the humane stewardship of our planet. We must not let that happen.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.alternet.org/environment/chevron-has-secretive-drilling-site-arctic-national-wildlife-refuge" target="_blank">AlterNet</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less