
Oakland and SF sue five oil companies for damages from rising seas - smokielad
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cities-sue-big-oil-for-damages-from-rising-seas/
======
alethiophile
This is pretty classic nuisance extortion through the courts. What were the
oil companies meant to do in order to avoid this lawsuit? Shut down their
entire businesses? So that instead Oakland could sue the new oil companies
that would inevitably spring up, since our entire civilization still runs on
the stuff?

Also, though the article doesn't say it outright, it looks as if there's not
even given any evidence of current damages, just hundred-year-out projections.
(And the record of long-term predictions in this domain is certainly not
precise enough to base legal arguments on.) So they're meant to pay now for
hypothetical damages that may happen later, as punishment for providing the
energy that runs our whole society. Okay?

~~~
pascalxus
This law suit is absolutely ridiculous. What's next, let's sue farmers for
farming cows that belch methane into the atmosphere? Or how about we sue all
parents for creating people, since people create so much environmental damage.
No matter where you stand on the policy of climate change, this law suit sets
a dangerous presedent: Using the courts to afflict political change that
should be done through other means.

I'm all for reducing climate change. But there are ways to do that. First of
all, get rid of all the oil subsidies! That's the first thing that should be
done. Then, tax the oil industry and others pollutants proportionately to the
amount of climate change produced, perhaps measured by the amount of resultant
Co2.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
I'm just here to play devils advocate, I don't know how I feel about this
suite.

That said, oil companies have known about the effects of climate change for a
while, have known that their products cause it, and then with that knowledge
funded climate change disinformation campaigns to persuade public policy.

You can liken it to a drug company knowing about the effects of thermeldahyde
on pregnant women, but still pushing it as a cure for morning sickness.

~~~
lliamander
Yes, but the cities of Oakland and SF use fossil fuels and energy made from
fossil fuels, correct? The harm isn't in extracting the oil from the ground,
it's in burning it. There are a whole host of people guilty of that, including
everyone who puts fuel into their internal combustion powered car and turns
the thing on.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
Yes, however the confounding factor is that the large oil companies have spent
a lot of money convincing people that these actions are harmless, despite
internal data saying otherwise. In a world where these companies kept their
mouth shut about climate research, then I don't see how they'd be at fault.

~~~
BFatts
Over a period of how many years? If it's been, say 2-5 years, is that enough
time for us to say "they've known and done nothing about it" effectively? Or
are we just whining because we like to bitch?

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
Exxon has known since 1977[1].

[1][https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-
about-...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-
climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Up until now, oil and fossil fuels have done way, way more good than harm to
humans. They have enabled farming techniques that can produce food for
billions of people. They have enabled global distribution of goods. They have
enabled mass commercial air travel. They have enabled the greatest lifting of
people out of poverty in human history. Abundant, reliable electricity most
often powered by fossil fuels enabled the digital revolution.

This suit is very disingenuous and nothing but political grandstanding.

~~~
haltingthoughts
Oil companies have been compensated for those benefits by people paying for
oil. They have largely not had to pay for those harms. Allowing them to be
sued brings their compensation more in line with what it should be.

------
assblaster
Shouldn't the cities be suing individuals who use the fuels? The oil companies
are merely manufacturing a product that can be used, it's the responsibility
of end-users for the destruction they cause.

The equivalent would be states suing gun companies for manufacturing handguns
that are used in crimes, even though those same guns are used by police
officers to uphold the law.

Don't energy companies produce energy resources that help impoverished people
obtain clean drinking water and protect against environmental threats?

~~~
dgllghr
At least in the case of Exxon, the company actively engaged in a
misinformation campaign regarding climate change and its link to oil. This is
more similar to how the tobacco companies operated in regards to cancer.

~~~
maxlybbert
Interestingly, once the states started getting large payments from the tobacco
company settlement, they became interested in the long-term health of those
companies.

------
FreeInFlorida
And yet, there has been no increase in the rate of sea level rise for as long
as records have been kept.

Here's the sea level data for San Francisco, CA since Abraham Lincoln was
President:

[https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station....](https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290)

Nice consistent trend going back 167 years. 1.94mm/year, +/\- 0.19mm, for as
long as we have been keeping records.

There is NO increase in the rate of sea level rise here, or anywhere in the
US, that is above long-run trends going back to the start of record keeping. A
quick glance at official government data will prove it. In fact, many West
Coast stations (as well as Hawaii), show a decrease in sea level, due to
continental rebound and volcanic rise.

~~~
sulam
No increase in the rate does not mean no increase. Clearly there is an
increase. You want a hockey stick? Wait for Greenland to melt. You may well
live to see that.

~~~
oh_sigh
Obviously there is an increase - but I think OPs point is that the steady
increase has been going on since before we really burned fossil fuels.
Wouldn't you expect an increase in the rate if our CO2 production was having a
large effect on ocean levels?

~~~~~~~

edit: In response to Jtsummers below, since HN thinks posting more than 3
times per day is too quick:

>If the radius of the balloon increases at a constant rate, the volume of the
balloon is increasing at a much greater rate (specifically, proportional to
the cube of the increase in radius).

Sure, but we're talking about a numerical value which moved ~20cm over the
entire measurement time, compared to the balloon which is 1,270,000,000 cm in
diameter. The effects that you mentioned are entirely negligible and probably
even beyond the resolution of our measurements.

~~~
Jtsummers
Click the time next to my post and you can post a reply to my comment directly
even if the _reply_ link doesn't appear.

The balloon was strictly meant as an analogy, but it is illustrative and
establishes the upper bound on the rate of increase of water volume.

Regardless of that, showing a linear increase in sea level (constant rate)
still necessarily implies a non-constant increase in water volume due to the
shape of the "container" for the oceans. Our oceans are not bounded by sheer
walls, so it must also be increasing in surface area (spread over land). If it
is increasing in surface area and _still_ increasing linearly in sea level
[0], then the volume is growing at a super-linear rate. That means each year
more water is going into the oceans than the prior year (on average, at
least).

[0] One measure from San Francisco, of course, is not enough to demonstrate
this as there will be lots of local variations due to many factors.

~~~
oh_sigh
Thanks for the tip - the reply link did appear, but when I tried to submit my
message, I got the 'You're posting too fast' page).

I agree with the logic of your statement - it is perfectly sound. My point was
that for a large enough balloon and a small enough rate of increase, the
effect will "look" linear(e.g. look at the domain [4.1,4.125] of e^x and
determine if it is a linear or exponential function), and our instruments
(probably) can't even begin to measure for the effects which you propose.

------
mgbmtl
The content shows as offline for me, but you can copy-paste the URL in google
and view the cache
([https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1J0XO4...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1J0XO4WYGG4J:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cities-
sue-big-oil-for-damages-from-rising-seas/+&cd=1&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=ca))

Two key quotes from the article:

* "The legal complaints also cite an internal Exxon document from 1982. Its authors predicted that global temperatures will rise 3 degrees Celsius before the century ends."

* "The defendants “promoted fossil fuels and fossil fuel products for unlimited use in massive quantities with knowledge of the hazard that such use would create,” the San Francisco suit says."

Can't wait for gaz stations to be like cigarette packaging/advertising (in
most of the western world except the US): un-branded and with large warnings
about the health/environmental consequences.

~~~
QAPereo
If I were an Exxon exec, I’d be less worried about lawsuits, and more worried
about future lynchings by an enraged and suffering world populace. In
particular, when a particular kind of person connects the dots between fossil
fuels, climate change, and mass migration they’re going to flip.

~~~
goatlover
Perhaps, but why is it only Exxon's fault, and not everyone who uses any form
of energy based on fossil fuels? If things get that bad, I'm guessing the
entire industrialized world is going to be blamed.

~~~
njarboe
Oakland and SF could start by banning all gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel in
their jurisdictions. See how that works out. Can't we just get an
international CO2 tax and slowly ratchet it up to the level to stop CO2 in the
atmosphere from going up? Exxon wants it. And it looks like China would be on-
board (trust but verify). Maybe India too and we are all set.

------
booblik
What a waste of taxpayer money. I am all for moving away from fossil fuels,
into renewable energy, but this is just ridiculous. The oil enabled the
developed world we live in today, without oil we would never get to the point
where SF is one of the richest cities on earth. If anything the oil companies
should sue the city for a share in revenue.

------
alexasmyths
Oil companies do not emit CO2.

Cars, planes, trains do about 35% of it.

Manufacturing most of the rest.

I find this all rather populist, I'm not sure it's the best approach.

~~~
5ilv3r
Oil companies emit CO2. _YOU_ emit CO2. Facts.

------
jxramos
For such a bold lawsuit I thought a Scientific American article would surely
post some trend data about what sort of sea level rises these specific cities
faced. What a let down.

------
amatai
This is ridiculous case \- lets sue sugar manufacturing for making sugar,
which caused us to gain weight and other over weight related problems. \-
heck, lets sue the farmer that grew the sugarcane and beet that were used to
manufacture sugar.

The lawyers of Oakland and SF don't drive cars? Or travel on planes?

If the intention is to put pressure on the Oil companies to stop lobbying
against clean energy - I don't think, this is the right approach.

~~~
diffeomorphism
> This is ridiculous case - lets sue sugar manufacturing for making sugar,

Didn't we do exactly that?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax)

This is also done for other things like having tobacco companies or alcohol
companies finance health care and treatment programs.

Actually, for oil companies that is not even new. They usually pay quite a bit
to account for the local damage they cause to the environment, so adding
global damages as well seems very reasonable.

The only weird thing is why Oakland and SF are suing and not, say the federal
government or the UN.

------
5ilv3r
This is actually really nice to see. If they can prove that the oil companies
were knowingly causing harm, the entire conversation around climate change
will shift.

I'm disappointed in the discussion here so far. When did we become a community
of "be nice to the big guys"?

------
c517402
This seems like an overweight person suing Coca-Cola and Krispy Kreme when
they get diabetes.

~~~
s0rce
I'm not sure that's a reasonable comparison. If Coke and Krispy Kreme had
research 50 years ago that showed the link between their products and diabetes
and then funded misinformation and contradictory research for the following
decades to convince people otherwise it would seem warranted to sue them?

~~~
siegecraft
Like this? [https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-
sc...](https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-
who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/?_r=0)

------
cft
And at the same time the shoulders of the highways in the Bay Area (280 and
101) are literred with trash, the roads in San Francisco have so many potholes
that you need an SUV to drive on them, and South of Market you need to be very
careful not to step on piles of used syringes that are seeping off homeless
encampments. And yet the city of SF is suing oil companies for rising seas.
When will this dysfunctional ideologue city government be voted out, if ever?

------
BFatts
This is such bullsh!t. Suing oil companies while, I'm sure, both Oakland and
San Francisco benefitted from their wares for sale. In fact, without them, I'm
sure both cities would have fared much worse in the past few decades.

This is a classic example of looking a gift horse in the mouth. Putting
regulations on oil companies would benefit all, rather than this frivolous
lawsuit which would benefit the two cities ONLY.

------
jasonmaydie
is this money going to be evenly distributed around the world?

~~~
goatlover
Likely it will be used to fund other services in SF that have little to do
with climate change.

------
valuearb
And people say there are too many lawyers. Yet who would be around to file
suits like this if we had fewer?

------
tsomctl
And that sound you hear is the oil companies shredding every relevant document
before the subpoenas hit.

------
tryingagainbro
_The defendants “promoted fossil fuels and fossil fuel products for unlimited
use in massive quantities with knowledge of the hazard that such use would
create,”_

Why not Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, Boeing...? Hey, I sell gasoline /diesel, one
of the many (legally available) fuels, you either buy it or you don't.

