Californian cities are fighting against Big Oil, citing flooding from climate change as the primary threat to coastal cities.
San Francisco and Oakland filed separate lawsuits against five oil companies including ExxonMobil
"These fossil fuel companies profited handsomely for decades while knowing they were putting the fate of our cities at risk," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
The lawsuits are apparently reminiscent of 1980s-era lawsuits against tobacco companies, which claimed that big oil players "knowingly and recklessly created an ongoing public nuisance that is causing harm now and in the future risks catastrophic harm to human life and property."
"Should this litigation proceed, it will only serve special interests at the expense of broader policy, regulatory, and economic priorities," said Chevron spokeswoman Melissa Ritchie.
This isn't the first recent lawsuit against oil behemoths that is rooted in the notion of climate change: prosecutors for New York and Massachusetts are also investigating Exxon over potentially misleading investor regarding the effects of climate change in a public statement.
A Harvard study further solidified this investigation by establishing that for around 40 or so years, Exxon purposely perpetuated doubt regarding the relevance and dangers of climate change, ignoring its own scientists claims that climate change was in fact a very real and imminent threat. "We conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public," the peer-reviewed study said.
Most recently, every bill except one that was held in contention by oil players failed to make the cut this year during the 2015-2016 session of state legislature in California, despite its perception as a "green" state.
Senate Bill 188, which attempts to prohibit new pipelines and other such infrastructure instituted to extract and develop oil, was abolished.
"California cannot control what happens in federal waters," said Senator Jackson, who came up with the bill. "But three miles from shore, where our power and jurisdiction lie, we can and will take strong and unequivocal action. SB 188 will prevent us from taking a step backward into the outdated, dirty and destructive energy policies of the past, and protect our coast from potential oil spills which could devastate our multi-trillion dollar coastal economy, our coastal waters and our marine life."
The problem is also that the Trump administration is stringently against the notion that climate change even exists. It's therefore going to be very hard for lobbyists to get bills that oppose big oil passed without facing governmental opposition and obstacles in the process.
Keeping that in mind, it is possible for protestors is to reach some sort of settlement with big oil companies that ensures future environmental considerations with minimal opposition. However, that is a high road neither stakeholder is willing to currently take, foreshadowing a long and drawn-out legal battle ahead.
