Marin's Law Suit against Fossil Fuel Corps.

Follow Marin Events

• Home • Up • Fight a Foreclosure in Court • Marin Rents are the Highest in the US • Cut Child Poverty by Half • Needed Gun Reform & Questions about guns in the United States • Tam School District to spend $450million • Save Santa Venetia from fire • USPS Petaluma replaced by Oakland • WHAT ARE SPECIAL DISTRICTS • 2016 Election Measures • ABAG MTC Stifle Dissent • Marin's Law Suit against Fossil Fuel Corps. • AB 2406 Junior Dwelling Units • is a Marin Charter School being favored? • Marijuana in Marin • Cut the Cord or just cut Comcast • Reverse Mortgage • Noisey Neighbor • Security Breaches • Some ECLECTIC Shopping Catalogs • Marin Bike Count - $28 Million Wasted • John Muir Transcription Project • TRUE GOPHER STORY • High Sierra Lakes • Mill Valley Tree Fire Ordinance •
•  •

Just what has Marin County "got" on these Fossil Fuel Companies?

======================================================================================

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Global Warming—Observed Effects and Known Cause

44. The Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented in human history.
45. Atmospheric and ocean temperatures have both increased substantially since the
beginning of the global industrial revolution, and the rate of warming has also dramatically
increased since the end of World War II.
46. In the geological short term, ocean and land surface temperatures have increased at
a rapid pace during the late 20th and early 21st centuries:
a. 2016 was the hottest year on record by globally averaged surface
temperatures, exceeding mid-20th century mean ocean and land surface
temperatures by approximately 1.69–1.78° F.23 Eight of the twelve months
in 2016 were hotter by globally averaged surface temperatures than those
respective months in any previous year. October, November, and December
2016 showed the second hottest average surface temperatures for those
months, second only to temperatures recorded in 2015.²⁴
b. The Earth’s hottest month ever recorded was February 2016, followed
immediately by the second hottest month on record, March 2016.²⁵
c. The second hottest year on record by globally averaged surface
temperatures was 2015, and the third hottest was 2014.²⁶
d. The ten hottest years on record by globally averaged surface temperature
have all occurred since 1998, and sixteen of the seventeen hottest years have

23 NOAA, Global Summary Information – December 2016, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201612  ; NASA, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally .
24 NASA, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally .
25 Jugal K. Patel, How 2016 Became Earth’s Hottest Year on Record, N.Y. Times (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest-year-on-record.html .
26 NASA, NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally (January 18, 2017),
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally .

occurred since 2001.²⁷
e. Each of the past three decades has been warmer by average surface
temperature than any preceding decade on record.²⁸
f. The period between 1983 and 2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period
in the Northern Hemisphere since approximately 700 AD.²⁹
47. The average global surface and ocean temperature in 2016 was approximately 1.7°
F warmer than the 20th century baseline, which is the greatest positive anomaly observed since at
least 1880.30 The increase in hotter temperatures and more frequent positive anomalies during the
Great Acceleration is occurring both globally and locally, including in Marin County. The graph
below shows the increase in global land and ocean temperature anomalies since 1880, as measured
against the 1910–2000 global average temperature.³¹
Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies, January - December
48. The mechanism by which human activity causes global warming and climate

27 Id.
28 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
29 Id.
30 NOAA, National Centers for Environmental Information, Climate at a Glance (Global Time Series) (June 2017) https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1880-2016 .
28 31 Id.

change is well established: ocean and atmospheric warming is overwhelmingly caused by
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.³²
49. When emitted, greenhouse gases trap heat within the Earth’s atmosphere that would
otherwise radiate into space.
50. Greenhouse gases are largely byproducts of humans’ burning fossil fuels to produce
energy, and using fossil fuels to create petrochemical products.
51. Human activity, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, is the primary cause of
global warming and its associated effects on Earth’s climate.
52. Prior to World War II, most anthropogenic CO2 emissions were caused by land-use
practices, such as forestry and agriculture, which altered the ability of the land and global biosphere
to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere; the impacts of such activities on Earth’s climate were
relatively minor. Since the beginning of the Great Acceleration, however, both the annual rate and
total volume of human CO2 emissions have increased enormously following the advent of major
uses of oil, gas, and coal. The graph below shows that while CO2 emissions attributable to forestry
and other land-use change have remained relatively constant, total emissions attributable to fossil
fuels have increased dramatically since the 1950s.³³

32 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ .
33 Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget 2016 (November 14, 2016),
www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/16/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2016.pdf , citing CDIAC; R.A. Houghton et al., Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change (2012),
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/5125/2012/bg-9-5125-2012.html ; Louis Giglio et al., Analysis of daily, monthly, and annual burned area using the fourth-generation global fire emissions database (2013),
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrg.20042/abstract; C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8 (2016),
http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/ .

1 Total Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Source, 1860-2015:graph missing

53. As human reliance on fossil fuels for industrial and mechanical processes has
increased, so too have greenhouse gas emissions, especially of CO2. The Great Acceleration is
marked by a massive increase in the annual rate of fossil fuel emissions: more than half of all
cumulative CO2 emissions have occurred since 1988.34 The rate of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
and industry, moreover, has increased threefold since the 1960s, and by more than 60% since
1990.35 The graph below illustrates the increasing rate of global CO2 emissions since the industrial
era began.³⁶

34 R. J. Andres et al., A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, Biogeosciences, 9, 18⁵¹
26 (2012), http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/.
35 C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 625, 630 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/  (“Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry have increased every decade from an average of 3.1±0.2 GtC/yr in the 1960s to an average of 9.3±0.5 GtC/yr during 2006–2015”).
36 Peter Frumhoff, et al. The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers, Climatic Change 132:157- 171, 164 (2015).

1 Cumulative Annual Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1751-2014:graph missing

54. Because of the increased use of fossil fuel products, concentrations of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere are now at a level unprecedented in at least 800,000 years.37 The graph
below illustrates the nearly 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration above pre-Industrial
levels since 1960.³⁸

37 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
28 38 C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 608 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci- data.net/8/605/2016/.

1 Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration in Parts Per Million, 1960-2015: graph missing

======================================================================================

B. Sea Level Rise—Known Causes and Observed Effects

55. Sea level rise is the physical consequence of (a) the thermal expansion of ocean
waters as they warm; (b) increased mass loss from land-based glaciers that are melting as ambient
air temperature increases; and (c) the shrinking of land-based ice sheets due to increasing ocean
and air temperature.³⁹
56. Of the increase in energy that has accumulated in the Earth’s atmosphere between
1971 and 2010, more than 90% is stored in the oceans.⁴⁰
57. Anthropogenic forcing, in the form of greenhouse gas pollution largely from the
production, use and combustion of fossil fuel products, is the dominant cause of global mean sea
level rise since 1970, explaining at least 70% of the sea level rise observed between 1970 and
2000.41 Natural radiative forcing—that is, causes of climate change not related to human activity—
“makes essentially zero contribution [to observed sea level rise] over the twentieth century (2%

39 NOAA, Is sea level rising, Ocean Facts http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html  (as of June 1, 2017).
40 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, supra, page 4 (2014), https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ .
41 Slangen et al., Anthropogenic Forcing Dominates Global Mean Sea-Level Rise Since 1970, Nature Climate
28 Change, Vol. 6, 701 (2016).

over the period 1900-2005).”⁴²
58. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution is the dominant factor in each of the
independent causes of sea level rise, including the increase in ocean thermal expansion,43 in glacier
mass loss, and in more negative surface mass balance from the ice sheets.⁴⁴
59. There is a well-defined relation between cumulative emissions of CO2 and
committed global mean sea level. This relation, moreover, holds proportionately for committed
regional sea level rise.⁴⁵
60. Nearly 100% of the sea level rise from any projected greenhouse gas emissions
scenario will persist for at least 10,000 years.46 This owes to the long residence time of CO2 in the
atmosphere that sustains temperature increases, and inertia in the climate system.⁴⁷
61. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas pollution caused the increased frequency and
severity of extreme sea level events (temporary sea level height increases due to storm surges or
extreme tides, exacerbated by elevated baseline sea level) observed during the Great
Acceleration.48 The incidence and magnitude of extreme sea level events has increased globally
since 1970.49 The impacts of such events, which generally occur with large storms, high tidal
events, offshore low-pressure systems associated with high winds, or the confluence of any of
these factors, 50 are exacerbated with higher average sea level, which functionally raises the
baseline for the destructive impact of extreme weather and tidal events. Indeed, the magnitude and

42 Slangen et al., Anthropogenic Forcing Dominates Global Mean Sea-Level Rise Since 1970, Nature Climate
21 Change, Vol. 6, 701 (2016).
43 Id.
22 44 Id.
45 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).
46 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 361 (2016).
47 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 360 (2016).
48 IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers, page 7, Table SPM.1 (2013),
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf   .
49 IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the IPCC, 290 (2013), http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf  .
28 50 Id.

frequency of extreme sea level events can occur in the absence of increased intensity of storm
events, given the increased average elevation from which flooding and inundation events begin.
These effects, and others, significantly and adversely affect Plaintiffs, with increased severity in
the future.
62. Historical greenhouse gas emissions alone through 2000 will cause a global mean
sea level rise of at least 7.4 feet.⁵¹ Additional greenhouse gas emissions from 2001–2015 have
caused approximately 10 additional feet of committed sea level rise. Even immediate and
permanent cessation of all additional anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions would not prevent
the eventual inundation of land at elevations between current average mean sea level and 17.4 feet
of elevation in the absence of adaptive measures.
63. The relationship between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and committed sea level
rise is nearly linear and always positive. For emissions, including future emissions, from the year
2001, the relation is approximately 0.25 inches of committed sea level rise per 1 GtCO2 released.
For the period 1965 to 2000, the relation is approximately 0.05 inches of committed sea level rose
per 1 GtCO2 released. For the period 1965 to 2015, normal use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products
caused a substantial portion of committed sea level rise. Each and every additional unit of CO2
emitted from the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products will add to the sea level rise already
committed to the geophysical system.
64. Projected onshore impacts associated with rising sea temperature and water level
include increases in flooding and erosion; increases in the occurrence, persistence, and severity of
storm surges; infrastructure inundation; public and private property damage; and pollution
associated with damaged control and waste infrastructure, and the lack thereof. All of these effects
significantly and adversely affect Plaintiffs.
65. Sea level rise has already taken grave tolls on inhabited coastlines. For instance, the
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) estimates that nuisance

51 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).

flooding occurs from 300% to 900% more frequently within U.S. coastal communities today than
just 50 years ago.⁵²
66. Nationwide, more than three quarters (76%) of flood days caused by high water
levels from sea level rise between 2005 and 2014 (2,505 of the 3,291 flood days) would not have
happened but for human-caused climate change. More than two-thirds (67%) of flood days since
1950 would not have happened without the sea level rise caused by increasing greenhouse gas
emissions.⁵³
67. Regional expressions of global mean sea level rise will differ, and are especially
influenced by changes in ocean and atmospheric dynamics, as well as the gravitational,
deformational, and rotational effects of the loss of glaciers and ice sheets.54 Due to these effects,
Marin County will experience significantly greater absolute committed sea level rise than the
global mean.⁵⁵
68. Marin’s topography, geography, and land use patterns make it particularly
susceptible to injuries from sea level rise; and the California coast South of Cape Mendocino,
including Marin County, is projected, due to its geophysical characteristics, to experience a higher
rate of sea level rise and a greater absolute amount of sea level rise than the global mean.⁵⁶
69. Given an emissions scenario in which the current rate of greenhouse gas pollution
continues unabated, sea level in the San Francisco Bay Area, including Marin County, will rise
significantly and dangerously by the year 2100.⁵⁷
70. Marin County anticipates a 1% annual-chance flood of at least three feet to occur

52 NOAA, Is sea level rising, Ocean Facts, http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html , (as of June 1, 2017).
53 Climate Central, Sea Level Rise Upping Ante on ‘Sunny Day’ Floods (October 17, 2016),
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-increases-sunny-day-floods-20784 .
54 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 364, (2016).
55 See id., Figure 3(c).
56 Global sea level rise is projected to be 82.7 cm (32.6 inches) above 2000 levels by 2100. See National Research Council, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future (2012) at
page 107 at Table 5.2; page 117 at Table 5.3. The San Francisco Bay Area sea level rise is projected to be 91.9 cm (36.2 inches) over 2000 by 2100. Id.
57 Gary Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science Trust, p. 26, Table 1(b) (April 2017), http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf   .

in any given year. 58 Such an event, even with the minimum anticipated sea level rise, would
inundate thousands of additional acres of County land.⁵⁹
71. Without Defendants’ fossil fuel-related greenhouse gas pollution, current sea level
rise would have been far less than the observed sea level rise to date.⁶⁰ Similarly, committed sea
level rise that will occur in the future would also be far less.⁶¹

======================================================================================

C. Attribution

72. “Carbon factors” analysis, devised by the International Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), the United Nations International Energy Agency, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, quantifies the amount of CO2 emissions attributable to a unit of raw fossil fuel extracted
from the Earth.⁶² Emissions factors for oil, coal, liquid natural gas, and natural gas are different
for each material but are nevertheless known and quantifiable for each.⁶³ This analysis accounts
for the use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products, including non-combustion purposes that sequester
CO2 rather than emit it (e.g., production of asphalt).
73. Defendants’ historical and current fossil fuel extraction and production records are
publicly available in various fora. These include university and public library collections, company
websites, company reports filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, company
histories, and other sources. The cumulative CO2 and methane emissions attributable to
Defendants’ fossil fuel products were calculated by reference to such publicly available
documents.

58 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE) (June 20, 2017),
p. 8, Figure 3, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment .
59 County of Marin, Draft Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (April
2017), p. 25, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment .
60 Robert E. Kopp et al., Temperature-driven Global Sea-level Variability in the Common Era, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, No. 11, E1434-E1441, E1438 (2016), http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434.full .
61Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).
62 See Richard Heede, Tracing Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions to Fossil Fuel and Cement Producers, 1854-2010, Climatic Change 122, 232-33 (2014), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-280986-y  .
63 See, e.g., id.

74. While it is possible to distinguish CO2 derived from fossil fuels from other sources,
it is not possible to determine the source of any particular individual molecule of CO2 in the
atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic sources because such greenhouse gas molecules do not
bear markers that permit tracing them to their source, and because greenhouse gasses quickly
diffuse and comingle in the atmosphere. However, cumulative carbon analysis allows an accurate
calculation of net annual CO2 and methane emissions attributable to each Defendant by quantifying
the amount and type of fossil fuels products each Defendant extracted and placed into the stream
of commerce, and multiplying those quantities by each fossil fuel product’s carbon factor.
75. Defendants, through their extraction, promotion, marketing, and sale of their fossil
fuel products, caused approximately 20% of global fossil fuel product-related CO2 between 19⁶⁵
and 2015, with contributions currently continuing unabated. This constitutes a substantial portion
of all such emissions in history, and the attendant historical, projected, and committed sea level
rise associated therewith.
76. Total cumulative emissions increased from 470 GtC in 2000 to 600 GtC gigatons
through 2015, representing an almost 30% increase in total emissions in only sixteen years.⁶⁴
77. By quantifying CO2 and methane pollution attributable to Defendants by and
through their fossil fuel products, ambient air and ocean temperature and sea level responses to
those emissions are also calculable, and can be attributed to Defendants on an individual and
aggregate basis. Individually and collectively, Defendants’ extraction, sale, and promotion of their
fossil fuel products are responsible for substantial increases in ambient (surface) temperature,
ocean temperature, sea level, extreme storm events, and other adverse impacts on Plaintiffs
described herein.
78. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions through 2015 have caused approximately 17.4 feet
of committed mean global sea level rise.⁶⁵ Defendants, through their extraction, promotion,
marketing, and sale of their fossil fuel products, caused a substantial portion of both those

64 See C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 633, table 10 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/8/605/2016/ .
65 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 365 (2016).

emissions and the attendant historical, projected, and committed sea level rise.
79. As explained above, this analysis considers only the volume of raw material
actually extracted from the Earth by these Defendants. Many of these Defendants actually are
responsible for far greater volumes of emissions because they also refine, manufacture, produce,
market, promote, and sell more fossil fuel derivatives than they extract themselves by purchasing
fossil fuel products extracted by independent third parties.
80. In addition, considering the Defendants’ lead role in promoting, marketing, and
selling their fossil fuels products between 1965 and 2015; their efforts to conceal the hazards of
those products from consumers; their promotion of their fossil fuel products despite knowing the
dangers associate with those products; their dogged campaign against regulation of those products
based on falsehoods, omissions, and deceptions; and their failure to pursue less hazardous
alternatives available to them, Defendants, individually and together, have substantially and
measurably contributed to the Plaintiffs’ sea level rise-related injuries.

======================================================================================

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

81. By 1965, concern about the risks of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
reached the highest level of the United States’ scientific community. In that year, President Lyndon
B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution reported that by the
year 2000, anthropogenic CO2 emissions would “modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to
such an extent that marked changes in climate . . . could occur.”⁶⁶ President Johnson announced
in a special message to Congress that “this generation has altered the composition of the
atmosphere on a global scale through . . . a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of
fossil fuels.”⁶⁷
82. These statements from the Johnson Administration, at a minimum, put Defendants
on notice of the potentially substantial dangers to people, communities, and the planet associated

66 President’s Science Advisory Committee, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, page 9 (November 1965), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b4315678 .
67 President Lyndon B. Johnson, Special Message to Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty (February 8, 1965), http://acsc.lib.udel.edu/items/show/292 .

with unabated use of their fossil fuel products. Moreover, Defendants had amassed a considerable
body of knowledge on the subject through their own independent efforts.
83. In 1968, a Stanford Research Institute (SRI) report commissioned by the
AmericanPetroleum Institute (“API”) and made available to all of its members, concluded, among other things:

• If the Earth’s temperature increases significantly, a number of events might be expected to occur including the melting of the Antarctic ice cap, a rise in sea levels,
  warming of the oceans and an increase in photosynthesis. . . .
  It is clear that we are unsure as to what our long-lived pollutants are doing to our environment; however, there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our
  environment could be severe. . . .The prospect for the future must be of serious concern.⁶⁸

84. In 1969, Shell memorialized an on-going 18-month project to collect ocean data
from oil platforms to develop and calibrate environmental forecasting theories related to predicting
wave, wind, storm, sea level, and current changes and trends.⁶⁹ Several Defendants and/or their
predecessors in interest participated in the project, including Esso Production Research Company
(EXXONMOBIL), Mobil Research and Development Company (EXXONMOBIL), Pan American
Petroleum Corporation (BP), Gulf Oil Corporation (CHEVRON), Texaco Inc. (CHEVRON), and the
CHEVRON Oil Field Research Company.
85. In 1972, API members, including Defendants, received a status report on all
environmental research projects funded by API. The report summarized the 1968 SRI report
describing the impact of Defendants’ fossil fuel products on the environment, including global
warming and sea level rise. Industry participants who received this report include: American
Standard of Indiana (BP), Asiatic (Shell), Ashland (Marathon), Atlantic Richfield (BP), British
Petroleum (BP), CHEVRON Standard of California (CHEVRON), Cities Service (Citgo), Continental
(CONOCOPHILLIPS), Dupont (former owner of Conoco), Esso Research (EXXONMOBIL), Ethyl
(formerly affiliated with Esso, which was subsumed by EXXONMOBIL), Getty

68 Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants, Stanford Research Institute (February 1968), https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16 .
69 M.M. Patterson, An Ocean Data Gathering Program for the Gulf of Mexico, Society of Petroleum Engineers (1969), https://www.onepetro.org/conference-paper/SPE-2638-MS .

(Lukoil/EXXONMOBIL), Gulf (CHEVRON, among others), Humble Standard of New Jersey
(EXXONMOBIL/CHEVRON/BP), Marathon, Mobil (EXXONMOBIL), Pan American (BP), Phillips
(CONOCOPHILLIPS), Shell, Standard of Ohio (BP), Texaco (CHEVRON), Union (CHEVRON), Edison
Electric Institute (representing electric utilities), Bituminous Coal Research (coal industry research
group), Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association (presently the U.S. Oil & Gas Association, a
national trade association), Western Oil & Gas Association, National Petroleum Refiners
Association (presently the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers Association, a
national trade association), Champlin (Anadarko), Skelly (Lukoil/EXXONMOBIL), Colonial Pipeline
(ownership has included BP, Citgo, EXXONMOBIL, CONOCOPHILLIPS, CHEVRON entities, among others)
and Caltex (CHEVRON), among others.⁷⁰
86. In a 1977 presentation and again in a 1978 briefing, Exxon scientists warned the
Exxon Corporation Management Committee that CO2 concentrations were building in the Earth’s
atmosphere at an increasing rate, that CO2 emissions attributable to fossil fuels were retained in
the atmosphere, and that CO2 was contributing to global warming.71 The report stated:
There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning
of fossil fuels . . . [and that] Man has a time window of five to ten years before the
need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become
critical.⁷²
87. Thereafter, Exxon engaged in a research program to study the environmental fate
of fossil fuel-derived greenhouse gases and their impacts, which included publication of peer-
reviewed research by Exxon staff scientists and the conversion of a supertanker into a research
vessel to study the greenhouse effect and the role of the oceans in absorbing anthropogenic CO2.
Much of this research was shared in a variety of fora, symposia, and shared papers through trade
associations and directly with other Defendants.

70 American Petroleum Institute, Environmental Research, A Status Report, Committee for Air and Water Conservation (January 1972), http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf  .
71 Memo from J.F. Black to F.G. Turpin, The Greenhouse Effect, Exxon Research and Engineering Company (June 6, 1978), http://www.climatefiles.com/EXXONMOBIL/1978-exxon-memo-on-greenhouse-effect-for-exxon-corporation-management-committee/ .
72 Id.

88. Exxon scientists made the case internally for using company resources to build
corporate knowledge about the impacts of the promotion, marketing, and consumption of
Defendants’ fossil fuel products. Exxon climate researcher Henry Shaw wrote in 1978: “The
rationale for Exxon’s involvement and commitment of funds and personnel is based on our need
to assess the possible impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon business. Exxon must develop a
credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be
able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation.”⁷³ Moreover, Shaw emphasized the need to
collaborate with universities and government to more completely understand what he called the
“CO2 problem.”⁷⁴
89. In 1979, API and its members, including Defendants, convened a Task Force to
monitor and share cutting edge climate research among the oil industry. The group was initially
called the CO2 and Climate Task Force, but changed its name to the Climate and Energy Task
Force in 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “API CO2 Task Force”). Membership included senior
scientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company,
including Exxon, Mobil (EXXONMOBIL), Amoco (BP), PHILLIPS (CONOCOPHILLIPS), Texaco
(CHEVRON), Shell, Sunoco, Sohio (BP) as well as Standard Oil of California (BP) and Gulf Oil
(CHEVRON, among others). The Task Force was charged with assessing the implications of emerging
science on the petroleum and gas industries and identifying where reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products could be made.⁷⁵
90. In 1979, API sent its members a background memo related to the API CO2 and
Climate Task Force’s efforts, stating that CO2 concentrations were rising steadily in the
atmosphere, and predicting when the first clear effects of climate change might be felt.⁷⁶

73Henry Shaw, Memo to Edward David Jr. on the “Greenhouse Effect”, Exxon Research and Engineering Company
25 (December 7, 1978).
74 Id.
75American Petroleum Institute, AQ-9 Task Force Meeting Minutes (March 18, 1980),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ-9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf  (AQ-9 refers to the “CO2 and Climate” Task Force).
76 Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate
News (December 22, 2015),
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-CHEVRON-texaco .

91. Also in 1979, Exxon scientists advocated internally for additional fossil fuel
industry-generated atmospheric research in light of the growing consensus that consumption of
fossil fuel products was changing the Earth’s climate:
“We should determine how Exxon can best participate in all these [atmospheric
science research] areas and influence possible legislation on environmental controls. It is important to begin to anticipate the strong intervention of
environmental groups and be prepared to respond with reliable and credible data. It behooves [Exxon] to start a very aggressive defensive program in the indicated
areas of atmospheric science and climate because there is a good probability that
legislation affecting our business will be passed. Clearly, it is in our interest for such legislation to be based on hard scientific data. The data obtained from research
on the global damage from pollution, e.g., from coal combustion, will give us the needed focus for further research to avoid or control such pollutants.”⁷⁷
92. That same year, Exxon Research and Engineering reported that: “The most widely
held theory [about increasing CO2 concentration] is that the increase is due to fossil fuel
combustion, increasing CO2 concentration will cause a warming of the earth’s surface, and the
present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects before the year
2050.”⁷⁸ Further, the report stated that unless fossil fuel use was constrained, there would be
“noticeable temperature changes” associated with an increase in atmospheric CO2 from about 280
parts per million before the Industrial Revolution to 400 parts per million by the year 2010.⁷⁹ Those
projections proved remarkably accurate—atmospheric CO2 concentrations surpassed 400 parts per
million in May 2013, for the first time in millions of years.⁸⁰ In 2015, the annual average CO2
concentration rose above 400 parts per million, and in 2016 the annual low surpassed 400 parts
per million, meaning atmospheric CO2 concentration remained above that threshold all year.⁸¹

77 Henry Shaw, Exxon Memo to H.N. Weinberg about “Research in Atmospheric Science”, Exxon Inter-Office Correspondence (November 19, 1979),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Probable%20Legislation%20Memo%20(1979).pdf .
78 W.L. Ferrall, Exxon Memo to R.L. Hirsch about “Controlling Atmospheric CO2”, Exxon Research and
Engineering Company (October 16, 1979), http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/CO2%20and%20Fuel%20Use%20Projections.pdf .
79 Id.
80 Nicola Jones, How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why it Matters, Yale Environment 360 (Jan. 26,
 2017), http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters.
81 Id.

93. In 1980, API’s CO2 Task Force members discussed the oil industry’s responsibility
to reduce CO2 emissions by changing refining processes and developing fuels that emit less CO2.
The minutes from the Task Force’s February 29, 1980, meeting included a summary of a
presentation on “The CO2 Problem” given by Dr. John Laurmann, which identified the “scientific
consensus on the potential for large future climatic response to increased CO2 levels” as a reason
for API members to have concern with the “CO2 problem” and informed attendees that there was
“strong empirical evidence that rise [in CO2 concentration was] caused by anthropogenic release
of CO2, mainly from fossil fuel combustion.”⁸² Moreover, Dr. Laurmann warned that the amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere could double by 2038, which he said would likely lead to a 2.5° C (4.5º
F) rise in global average temperatures with “major economic consequences.” He then told the Task
Force that models showed a 5°C (9º F) rise by 2067, with “globally catastrophic effects.”⁸³ A
taskforce member and representative of Texaco leadership present at the meeting posited that the
API CO2 Task Force should develop ground rules for energy release of fuels and the cleanup of
fuels as they relate to CO2 creation.
94. In 1980, the API CO2 Task Force also discussed a potential area for investigation:
alternative energy sources as a means of mitigating CO2 emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel
products. These efforts called for research and development to “Investigate the Market Penetration
Requirements of Introducing a New Energy Source into World Wide Use.” Such investigation was
to include the technical implications of energy source changeover, research timing, and
requirements.⁸⁴
95. By 1980, Exxon’s senior leadership had become intimately familiar with the
greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 in the atmosphere. In that year, Exxon Senior Vice President
and Board member George Piercy questioned Exxon researchers on the minutiae of the ocean’s
role in absorbing atmospheric CO2, including whether there was a net CO2 flux out of the ocean

82 American Petroleum Institute, AQ-9 Task Force Meeting Minutes (March 18, 1980),
 http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/AQ-9%20Task%20Force%20Meeting%20%281980%29.pdf   (AQ-9 refers to the “CO2 and Climate” Task Force).
83 Id.
84 Id.

into the atmosphere in certain zones where upwelling of cold water to the surface occurs, because
Piercy evidently believed that the oceans could absorb and retain higher concentrations of CO2
than the atmosphere.⁸⁵ This inquiry aligns with Exxon supertanker research into whether the ocean
would act as a significant CO2 sink that would sequester atmospheric CO2 long enough to allow
unabated emissions without triggering dire climatic consequences. As described below, Exxon
eventually scrapped this research before it produced enough data from which to derive a
conclusion.⁸⁶
96. Also in 1980, Imperial Oil (EXXONMOBIL) reported to Esso and Exxon managers
and environmental staff that increases in fossil fuel usage aggravates CO2 in the atmosphere.
Noting that the United Nations was encouraging research into the carbon cycle, Imperial reported
that “technology exists to remove CO2 from [fossil fuel power plant] stack gases but removal of
only 50% of the CO2 would double the cost of power generation.” Imperial also reported that its
coordination department had been internally evaluating its and Exxon’s products to determine
whether disclosure of a human health hazard was necessary. The report notes that Section (8e) of
Toxic Substances Control Act, 55 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., requires that anyone who discovers that
a material or substance in commercial use is or may be a significant risk to human health must
report such findings to the Environmental Protection Agency within 15 days. Although greenhouse
gases are human health hazards (because they have serious consequences in terms of global food
production, disease virulence, and sanitation infrastructure, among other impacts), neither
Imperial, Exxon, nor any other Defendant has ever filed a disclosure with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act. Exxon scientist Roger Cohen
warned his colleagues in a 1981 internal memorandum that “future developments in global data
gathering and analysis, along with advances in climate modeling, may provide strong evidence for

85 Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate
News (Dec. 1, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-senior-executives-engage-and-warming-forecast
86 Neela Banerjee et al., Exxon Believed Deep Dive Into Climate Research Would Protect Its Business, Inside Climate News (Sept. 17, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16092015/exxon-believed-deep-dive-into-climate-research-would-protect-its-business  .

a delayed CO2 effect of a truly substantial magnitude,” and that under certain circumstances it
would be “very likely that we will unambiguously recognize the threat by the year 2000.”⁸⁷ Cohen
had expressed concern that the memorandum mischaracterized potential effects of unabated CO2
emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products: “. . . it is distinctly possible that the . . . [Exxon
Planning Division’s] scenario will produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for
a substantial fraction of the world’s population).”⁸⁸
97. In 1981, Exxon’s Henry Shaw, the company’s lead climate researcher at the time,
prepared a summary of Exxon’s current position on the greenhouse effect for Edward David Jr.,
president of Exxon Research and Engineering, stating in relevant part:

•  “Atmospheric CO2 will double in 100 years if fossil fuels grow at 1.4%.
•  3^oC global average temperature rise and 10^oC at poles if CO2 doubles.
  • o Major shifts in rainfall/agriculture
  • o Polar ice may melt”⁸⁹

98. In 1982, another report prepared for API by scientists at the Lamont-Doherty
Geological Observatory at Columbia University recognized that atmospheric CO₂ concentration
had risen significantly compared to the beginning of the industrial revolution from about 290 parts
per million to about 340 parts per million in 1981 and acknowledged that despite differences in
climate modelers’ predictions, all models indicated a temperature increase caused by
anthropogenic CO2 within a global mean range of 4º C (7.2° F). The report advised that there was
scientific consensus that “a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from ] pre-industrial revolution value
would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [5.4 ± 2.7° F].” It went further,
warning that “such a warming can have serious consequences for man’s comfort and survival
since patterns of aridity and rainfall can change, the height of the sea level can increase

87 Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo to W. Glass about possible “catastrophic” effect of CO2, Exxon Inter-Office
 Correspondence (Aug. 18, 1981), http://www.climatefiles.com/EXXONMOBIL/1981-exxon-memo-on-possible-emission-consequences-of-fossil-fuel-consumption
88 Id.
89 Henry Shaw, Exxon Memo to E. E. David, Jr. about “CO2Position Statement”, Exxon Inter-Office
Correspondence (May 15, 1981), https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Exxon%20Position%20on%20CO2%20%281981%29.pdf .

considerably and the world food supply can be affected.”⁹⁰ Exxon’s own modeling research
confirmed this, and the company’s results were later published in at least three peer-reviewed
scientific papers.⁹¹
99. Also in 1982, Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Manager distributed a primer on
climate change to a “wide circulation of Exxon management . . . intended to familiarize Exxon
personnel with the subject.”⁹² The primer also was “restricted to Exxon personnel and not to be
distributed externally.”⁹³ The primer compiled science on climate change available at the time,
and confirmed fossil fuel combustion as a primary anthropogenic contributor to global warming.
The report estimated a CO2 doubling around 2090 based on Exxon’s long-range modeled outlook.
The author warned that the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet could result in global sea level rise
of five feet which would “cause flooding on much of the U.S. East Coast, including the State of
Florida and Washington, D.C.”⁹⁴ Indeed, it warned that “there are some potentially catastrophic
events that must be considered,” including sea level rise from melting polar ice sheets. It noted
that some scientific groups were concerned “that once the effects are measurable, they might not
be reversible.”⁹⁵
100. In a summary of Exxon’s climate modeling research from 1982, Director of
Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory Roger Cohen wrote that “the time
required for doubling of atmospheric CO2 depends on future world consumption of fossil fuels.”
Cohen concluded that Exxon’s own results were “consistent with the published predictions of more

90 American Petroleum Institute, Climate Models and CO2 Warming: A Selective Review and Summary, Lamont-
Doherty Geological Observatory (Columbia University) (March 1982), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2805626/1982-API-Climate-Models-and-CO2-Warming-a.pdf  .
91 See Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo summarizing findings of research in climate modeling, Exxon Research and Engineering Company (September 2, 1982),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/%2522Consensus%2522%20on%20CO2%20Impacts%20(1982).pdf   (discussing research articles).
92 M. B. Glaser, Exxon Memo to Management about “CO2 ‘Greenhouse’ Effect”, Exxon Research and Engineering Company (November 12, 1982),
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf   .
93 Id.
94 Id.
95 Id.

complex climate models” and “in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased
atmospheric CO2 on climate.”⁹⁶
101. At the fourth biennial Maurice Ewing Symposium at the Lamont-Doherty
Geophysical Observatory in October 1982, attended by members of API, Exxon Research and
Engineering Company president E.E. David delivered a speech titled: “Inventing the Future:
Energy and the CO2 ‘Greenhouse Effect.’”⁹⁷ His remarks included the following statement: “Few
people doubt that the world has entered an energy transition away from dependence upon fossil
fuels and toward some mix of renewable resources that will not pose problems of CO2
accumulation.” He went on, discussing the human opportunity to address anthropogenic climate
change before the point of no return:

It is ironic that the biggest uncertainties about the CO2 buildup are not in predicting
what the climate will do, but in predicting what people will do. . . .It] appears we
still have time to generate the wealth and knowledge we will need to invent the transition to a stable energy system.

102. Throughout the early 1980s, at Exxon’s direction, Exxon climate scientist Henry
Shaw forecasted emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use. Those estimates were incorporated into
Exxon’s 21st century energy projections and were distributed among Exxon’s various divisions.
Shaw’s conclusions included an expectation that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would double in
2090 per the Exxon model, with an attendant 2.3–5.6º F average global temperature increase. Shaw
compared his model results to those of the U.S. EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, indicating that the Exxon model predicted a longer delay

96 Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Memo summarizing findings of research in climate modeling, Exxon Research and
 Engineering Company (September 2, 1982), https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/%2522Consensus%2522%20on%20CO2%20Impacts%20(1982).pdf  .
97 E. E. David, Jr., Inventing the Future: Energy and the CO2 Greenhouse Effect: Remarks at the Fourth Annual
 Ewing Symposium, Tenafly, NJ (1982), http://sites.agu.org/publications/files/2015/09/ch1.pdf  .

than any of the other models, although its temperature increase prediction was in the mid-range of
the four projections.⁹⁸
103. During the 1980s, many Defendants formed their own research units focused on
climate modeling. The API, including the API CO2 Task Force, provided a forum for Defendants
to share their research efforts and corroborate their findings related to anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions.⁹⁹
104. During this time, Defendants’ statements express an understanding of their
obligation to consider and mitigate the externalities of unabated promotion, marketing, and sale of
their fossil fuel products. For example, in 1988, Richard Tucker, the president of Mobil Oil,
presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers National Meeting, the premier
educational forum for chemical engineers, where he stated:
Humanity, which has created the industrial system that has transformed civilities,
is also responsible for the environment, which sometimes is at risk because of
unintended consequences of industrialization. . . .Maintaining the health of this life-support system is emerging as one of the highest priorities. . . .We must all
be environmentalists.
The environmental covenant requires action on many fronts…the low-atmosphere ozone problem, the upper-atmosphere ozone problem and the greenhouse effect,
to name a few. . . .Our strategy must be to reduce pollution before it is ever
generated – to prevent problems at the source.
Prevention means engineering a new generation of fuels, lubricants and chemical products…. Prevention means designing catalysts and processes that minimize or
eliminate the production of unwanted byproducts. . . .Prevention on a global scale may even require a dramatic reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels – and a
shift towards solar, hydrogen, and safe nuclear power. It may be possible that –
just possible – that the energy industry will transform itself so completely that

98 Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years Ago, Inside Climate
News (Dec. 1, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-senior-executives-engage-and-warming-forecast  .
99 Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-CHEVRON-texaco  .

 observers will declare it a new industry. . . .Brute force, low-tech responses and money alone won’t meet the challenges we face in the energy industry.¹⁰⁰
105. In 1989, Esso Resources Canada (EXXONMOBIL) commissioned a report on the
impacts of climate change on existing and proposed natural gas facilities in the Mackenzie River
Valley and Delta, including extraction facilities on the Beaufort Sea and a pipeline crossing
Canada’s Northwest Territory.¹⁰¹ It reported that “large zones of the Mackenzie Valley could be
affected dramatically by climatic change” and that “the greatest concern in Norman Wells [oil
town in North West Territories, Canada] should be the changes in permafrost that are likely to
occur under conditions of climate warming.” The report concluded that, in light of climate models
showing a “general tendency towards warmer and wetter climate,” operation of those facilities
would be compromised by increased precipitation, increase in air temperature, changes in
permafrost conditions, and significantly, sea level rise and erosion damage.¹⁰² The authors
recommended factoring these eventualities into future development planning and also warned that
“a rise in sea level could cause increased flooding and erosion damage on Richards Island.”
106. In 1991, Shell produced a film called “Climate of Concern.” The film advises that
while “no two [climate change projection] scenarios fully agree…[they] have each prompted the
same serious warning. A warning endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in their
report to the UN at the end of 1990.” The warning was an increasing frequency of abnormal
weather, and of sea level rise of about one meter over the coming century. Shell specifically
described the impacts of anthropogenic sea level rise on tropical islands, “barely afloat even now
. . . first made uninhabitable and then obliterated beneath the waves. Wetland habitats destroyed
by intruding salt. Coastal lowlands suffering pollution of precious groundwater.” It warned of
“greenhouse refugees,” people who abandoned homelands inundated by the sea, or displaced

100 Richard E. Tucker, High Tech Frontiers in the Energy Industry: The Challenge Ahead, AIChE National Meeting (November 30, 1988), https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754074119482?urlappend=%3Bseq=522 .
101Stephen Lonergan and Kathy Young, An Assessment of the Effects of Climate Warming on Energy Developments in the Mackenzie River Valley and Delta, Canadian Arctic, Energy Exploration & Exploitation, Vol. 7, Issue 5 (Oct. 1, 1989), http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014459878900700508 ..
102 Id.

because of catastrophic changes to the environment. The video concludes with a stark admonition:
“Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that the wait for final proof would be
irresponsible. Action now is seen as the only safe insurance.”¹⁰³
107. In the mid-1990s, EXXONMOBIL, Shell and Imperial Oil (EXXONMOBIL) jointly
undertook the Sable Offshore Energy Project in Nova Scotia. The project’s own Environmental
Impact Statement declared: “The impact of a global warming sea-level rise may be particularly
significant in Nova Scotia. The long-term tide gauge records at a number of locations along the
N.S. coast have shown sea level has been rising over the past century . . . . For the design of coastal
and offshore structures, an estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 m [1.64
feet] may be assumed for the proposed project life (25 years).”¹⁰⁴
108. Climate change research conducted by Defendants and their industry associations
frequently acknowledged uncertainties in their climate modeling—those uncertainties, however,
were merely with respect to the magnitude and timing of climate impacts resulting from fossil fuel
consumption, not that significant changes would eventually occur. The Defendants’ researchers
and the researchers at their industry associations harbored little doubt that climate change was
occurring and that fossil fuel products were, and are, the primary cause.
109. Despite the overwhelming information about the threats to people and the planet
posed by continued unabated use of their fossil fuel products, Defendants failed to act as they
reasonably should have to mitigate or avoid those dire adverse impacts. Defendants instead
adopted the position, as described below, that the absence of meaningful regulations on the
consumption of their fossil fuel products was the equivalent of a social license to continue the
unfettered pursuit of profits from those products. This position was an abdication of Defendants’
responsibility to consumers and the public, including Plaintiffs, to act on their unique knowledge
of the reasonably foreseeable hazards of unabated production and consumption of their fossil fuel products.

103Jelmer Mommers, Shell made a film about climate change in 1991 (then neglected to heed its own warning), de
Correspondent (Feb. 27, 2017), https://thecorrespondent.com/6285/shell-made-a-film-about-climate-change-in-1991-then-neglected-to-heed-its-own-warning/692663565-875331f6  .
104 EXXONMOBIL, Sable Project, Development Plan, Volume 3 – Environmental Impact Statement http://soep.com/about-the-project/development-plan-application /.

======================================================================================

E. Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Extraction, Promotion and Consumption of Their Fossil Fuel Products and Instead Affirmatively Acted to Obscure Those Harms and Engaged in a Concerted Campaign to Evade Regulation.

110. By 1988, Defendants had amassed a compelling body of knowledge about the role
of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and specifically those emitted from the normal use of
Defendants’ fossil fuel products, in causing global warming and sea level rise and the attendant
consequences for human communities and the environment. On notice that their products were
causing global climate change and dire effects on the planet, Defendants were faced with the
decision of whether to take steps to limit the damages their fossil fuel products were causing and
would continue to cause for virtually every one of Earth’s inhabitants, including the County of
Marin and its citizens.
111. Defendants at any time before or thereafter could and should reasonably have taken
any of a number of steps to mitigate the damages caused by their fossil fuel products, and their
own comments reveal an awareness of what some of these steps may have been. Defendants should
have made reasonable warnings to consumers, the public, and regulators of the dangers known to
Defendants of the unabated consumption of their fossil fuel products, and they should have taken
reasonable steps to limit the potential greenhouse gas emissions arising out of their fossil fuel
products.

105 See Peter C. Frumhoff et al., The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers, Climatic Change, Vol. 132, 161 (2015).

112. But several key events during the period 1988–1992 appear to have prompted
Defendants to change their tactics from general research and internal discussion on climate change
to a public campaign aimed at evading regulation of their fossil fuel products and/or emissions
therefrom. These include:

• a. In 1988, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientists
  confirmed that human activities were actually contributing to global
  warming.¹⁰⁵ On June 23 of that year, NASA scientist James Hansen’s
  presentation of this information to Congress engendered significant news
  coverage and publicity for the announcement, including coverage on the
  front page of the New York Times.
• b. On July 28, 1988, Senator Robert Stafford and four bipartisan co-sponsors
  introduced S. 2666, “The Global Environmental Protection Act,” to regulate
  CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Four more bipartisan bills to significantly
  reduce CO2 pollution were introduced over the following ten weeks, and in
  August, U.S. Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush pledged that his
  presidency would “combat the greenhouse effect with the White House
  effect.”¹⁰⁶ Political will in the United States to reduce anthropogenic
  greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the harms associated with
  Defendants’ fossil fuel products was gaining momentum.
• c. In December 1988, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel
  on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific panel dedicated to providing the
  world’s governments with an objective, scientific analysis of climate
  change and its environmental, political, and economic impacts.
• d. In 1990, the IPCC published its First Assessment Report on anthropogenic
  climate change,¹⁰⁷ in which it concluded that
  (1) “there is a natural
  greenhouse effect which already keeps the Earth warmer than it would
  otherwise be,” and
  (2) that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially
  increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and
  nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse
  effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the
   Earth's surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour, will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it.¹⁰⁸
  The IPCC reconfirmed these conclusions in a 1992 supplement to
  the First Assessment report.¹⁰⁹
• e. The United Nations began preparation for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de
  Janeiro, Brazil, a major, newsworthy gathering of 172 world governments,
  of which 116 sent their heads of state. The Summit resulted in the United
  Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an
  international environmental treaty providing protocols for future
  negotiations aimed at “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations in the
  atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
  interference with the climate system.”¹¹⁰

106 New York Times, The White House and the Greenhouse, May 9, 1998, http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/09/opinion/the-white-house-and-the-greenhouse.html .
107 See IPCC, Reports, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml .

113. These world events marked a shift in public discussion of climate change, and the
initiation of international efforts to curb anthropogenic greenhouse emissions – developments that
had stark implications for, and would have diminished the profitability of, Defendants’ fossil fuel
products.
114. But rather than collaborating with the international community by acting to
forestall, or at least decrease, their fossil fuel products’ contributions to global warming, sea level
rise, and injuries to Marin and other coastal communities, Defendants embarked on a decades-long
campaign designed to maximize continued dependence on their products and undermine national
and international efforts like the Kyoto Protocol to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.
115. Defendants’ campaign, which focused on concealing, discrediting, and/or
misrepresenting information that tended to support restricting consumption of (and thereby
decreasing demand for) Defendants’ fossil fuel products, took several forms. The campaign

108 IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment, Policymakers Summary (1990), http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf  .
109 IPCC, 1992 IPCC Supplement to the First Assessment Report (1992), http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_90_92_assessments_far.shtml .
110 United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 2 (1992), https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf  .

enabled Defendants to accelerate their business practice of exploiting fossil fuel reserves, and
concurrently externalize the social and environmental costs of their fossil fuel products. These
activities stood in direct contradiction to Defendants’ own prior recognition that the science of
anthropogenic climate change was clear and that the greatest uncertainties involved responsive
human behavior, not scientific understanding of the issue.
116. Defendants took affirmative steps to conceal, from Plaintiffs and the general public,
the foreseeable impacts of the use of their fossil fuel products on the Earth’s climate and associated
harms to people and communities. Defendants embarked on a concerted public relations campaign
to cast doubt on the science connecting global climate change to fossil fuel products and
greenhouse gas emissions, in order to influence public perception of the existence of anthropogenic
global warming and sea level rise. The effort included promoting their hazardous products through
advertising campaigns and the initiation and funding of climate change denialist organizations,
designed to influence consumers to continue using Defendants’ fossil fuel products irrespective of
those products’ damage to communities and the environment.
117. For example, in 1988, Joseph Carlson, an Exxon public affairs manager, described
the “Exxon Position,” which included among others, two important messaging tenets: (1)
“emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced
Greenhouse Effect;” and (2) “resist the overstatement and sensationalization [sic] of potential
greenhouse effect which could lead to noneconomic development of non-fossil fuel resources.”¹¹¹
118. In 1991, for example, the Information Council for the Environment (“ICE”), whose
members included affiliates, predecessors and/or subsidiaries of Defendants, including Peabody,
Ohio Valley Coal Company (Murray Energy), Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining (CHEVRON), and
Island Creek Coal Company (Occidental), launched a national climate change science denial
campaign with full-page newspaper ads, radio commercials, a public relations tour schedule,
“mailers,” and research tools to measure campaign success. Included among the campaign
strategies was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” Its target audience included

111Joseph M. Carlson, Exxon Memo on “The Greenhouse Effect” (August 3, 1988), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3024180/1998-Exxon-Memo-on-the-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf  .

older less-educated males who are “predisposed to favor the ICE agenda, and likely to be even
more supportive of that agenda following exposure to new info” as well as younger, lower-income
women likely to be “green” consumers but who “are also most likely to soften their support for
federal legislation after hearing new information on global warming.”¹¹² The effort focused on a
few select cities for their test marketing; these cities were selected on the basis that the majority of
their electricity came from coal, they were home to members of the U.S. House of Representatives
Energy and Commerce or Ways and Means committees, and they had low media costs.¹¹³
119. An implicit goal of ICE’s advertising campaign was to change public opinion and
avoid regulation. A memo from Richard Lawson, president of the National Coal Association asked
members to contribute to the ICE campaign with the justification that “policymakers are prepared
to act [on global warming]. Public opinion polls reveal that 60% of the American people already
believe global warming is a serious environmental problem. Our industry cannot sit on the
sidelines in this debate.”¹¹⁴

120. The following images are examples of ICE-funded print advertisements
challenging the validity of climate science and intended to obscure the scientific consensus on
anthropogenic climate change and induce political inertia to address it.¹¹⁵

 112 Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham, (1991), http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf  .
 113 Id.
114 Naomi Oreskes, My Facts Are Better Than Your Facts: Spreading Good News about Global Warming (2010), in
Peter Howlett et al., How Well Do Facts Travel?: The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, 136-166. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511762154.008.8
115 Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on the Environment” Sham, page 47-49 (1991), http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf  .

121. In 1996, Exxon released a publication called “Global Warming: Who’s Right?
Facts about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers.” In the publication’s preface,
Exxon CEO Lee Raymond stated that “taking drastic action immediately is unnecessary since
many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand the climate system.” The subsequent
article described the greenhouse effect as “unquestionably real and definitely a good thing,” while
ignoring the severe consequences that would result from the influence of the increased CO₂
concentration on the Earth’s climate. Instead, it characterized the greenhouse effect as simply
“what makes the earth’s atmosphere livable.” Directly contradicting their own internal reports and
peer-reviewed science, the article ascribed the rise in temperature since the late 19th century to
“natural fluctuations that occur over long periods of time” rather than to the anthropogenic
emissions that Exxon and other scientists had confirmed were responsible. The article also falsely
challenged the computer models that projected the future impacts of unabated fossil fuel product
consumption, including those developed by Exxon’s own employees, as having been “proved to
be inaccurate.” The article contradicted the numerous reports circulated among Exxon’s staff, and
by the API, by stating that “the indications are that a warmer world would be far more benign than
many imagine…moderate warming would reduce mortality rates in the US, so a slightly warmer
climate would be more healthful.” Raymond concluded his preface by attacking advocates for
limiting the use of his company’s fossil fuel products as “drawing on bad science, faulty logic, or

unrealistic assumptions” – despite the important role that Exxon’s own scientists had played in
compiling those same scientific underpinnings.¹¹⁶
122. In a speech presented at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing in 1997 at which
many of the Defendants were present, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond reiterated these views. This time,
he presented a false dichotomy between stable energy markets and abatement of the marketing,
promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products known to Defendants to be hazardous:. He stated:
Some people who argue that we should drastically curtail our use of fossil fuels
for environmental reasons…my belief [is] that such proposals are neither prudent
nor practical. With no readily available economic alternatives on the horizon, fossil fuels will continue to supply most of the world’s and this region’s energy
for the foreseeable future.
Governments also need to provide a stable investment climate…They should avoid the temptation to intervene in energy markets in ways that give advantage
to one competitor over another or one fuel over another.
We also have to keep in mind that most of the greenhouse effects comes from
natural sources…Leaping to radically cut this tiny sliver of the greenhouse pie on the premise that it will affect climate defies common sense and lacks foundation
in our current understanding of the climate system.
Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change in
the 21st century and beyond…It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are
enacted now or 20 years from now. It’s bad public policy to impose very costly regulations and restrictions when their need has yet to be proven.¹¹⁷
123. Imperial Oil (EXXONMOBIL) CEO Robert Peterson falsely denied the established
connection between Defendants’ fossil fuel products and anthropogenic climate change in the
Summer 1998 Imperial Oil Review, “A Cleaner Canada”:
This issue [referring to climate change] has absolutely nothing to do with
pollution and air quality. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential ingredient of life on this planet…. The question of whether or not the trapping of

116 Exxon Corp., Global warming: who’s right?, (1996), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805542-Exxon-Global-Warming-Whos-Right.html  .
117 Lee R. Raymond, Energy – Key to growth and a better environment for Asia-Pacific nations, World Petroleum
Congress (October 13, 1997), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2840902/1997-Lee-Raymond-Speech-at-China-World-Petroleum.pdf   .

 ‘greenhouse gases will result in the planet’s getting warmer…has no connection whatsoever with our day-to-day weather.
There is absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not the planet is getting warmer, or, if it is, on whether the warming is the result of man-made
factors or natural variations in the climate….I feel very safe in saying that the view that burning fossil fuels will result in global climate change remains an unproved
hypothesis.¹¹⁸
124. Mobil (EXXONMOBIL) paid for a series of “advertorials,” advertisements located in
the editorial section of the New York Times and meant to look like editorials rather than paid ads.
These ads discussed various aspects of the public discussion of climate change and sought to
undermine the justifications for tackling greenhouse gas emissions as unsettled science. The 1997
advertorial below¹¹⁹ argued that economic analysis of emissions restrictions was faulty and
inconclusive and therefore a justification for delaying action on climate change.

118 Robert Peterson, A Cleaner Canada in Imperial Oil Review (Summer 1998), http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2827818-1998-Imperial-Oil-Robert-Peterson-A-Cleaner-Canada.html
119 Mobil, When Facts Don’t Square with the Theory, Throw Out the Facts (1997) New York Times, A31 (August 14, 1997), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705550-mob-nyt-1997-aug-14-whenfactsdontsquare.html .

125. In 1998, API, on behalf of Defendants, among other fossil fuel companies and
organizations supported by fossil fuel corporate grants, developed a Global Climate Science
Communications Plan that stated that unless “climate change becomes a non-issue . . . there may
be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts.” Rather, API proclaimed that “victory
will be achieved when . . . average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate
science; [and when] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’”¹²⁰
The multi-million-dollar, multi-year proposed budget included public outreach and the
dissemination of educational materials to schools to “begin to erect a barrier against further efforts
to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future”¹²¹ – a blatant attempt to disrupt international efforts,
pursuant to the UNFCCC, to negotiate a treaty that curbed greenhouse gas emissions.
126. Soon after, API distributed a memo to its members identifying public agreement on
fossil fuel products’ role in climate change as its highest priority issue.¹²² The memorandum
illuminates API’s and Defendants’ concern over the potential regulation of Defendants’ fossil fuel
products: “Climate is at the center of the industry’s business interests. Policies limiting carbon
emissions reduce petroleum product use. That is why it is API’s highest priority issue and defined
as ‘strategic.’”¹²³ Further, the API memo stresses many of the strategies that Defendants
individually and collectively utilized to combat the perception of their fossil fuel products as
hazardous. These included:

a. Influencing the tenor of the climate change “debate” as a means to establish
that greenhouse gas reduction policies like the Kyoto Protocol were not
necessary to responsibly address climate change;

120 Joe Walker, E-mail to Global Climate Science Team, attaching the Draft Global Science Communications Plan (April 3, 1998),
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communications-plan.pdf   .
121 Joe Walker, E-mail to Global Climate Science Team, attaching the Draft Global Science Communications Plan
(April 3, 1998), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/api-global-climate-science-communications-plan.pdf  .
122 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Allegations of Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science, page 51 (March 19, 2007), https://ia601904.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-28110hhrg37415/CHRG-110hhrg37415.pdf  .
123 Id.

b. Maintaining strong working relationships between government regulators
and communications-oriented organizations like the Global Climate
Coalition, the Heartland Institute, and other groups carrying Defendants’
message minimizing the hazards of the unabated use of their fossil fuel
products and opposing regulation thereof;
c. Building the case for (and falsely dichotomizing) Defendants’ positive
contributions to a “long-term approach” (ostensibly for regulation of their
products) as a reason for society to reject short term fossil fuel emissions
regulations, and engaging in climate change science uncertainty research;
and
d. Presenting Defendants’ positions on climate change in domestic and
international forums, including by preparing rebuttals to IPCC reports.

127. Additionally, Defendants mounted a campaign against regulation of their business
practices in order to continue placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce, despite
their own knowledge and the growing national and international scientific consensus about the
hazards of doing so. These efforts came despite Defendants’ recent recognition that “risks to nearly
every facet of life on Earth . . . could be avoided only if timely steps were taken to address climate
change.”¹²⁴
128. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), on behalf of Defendants and other fossil fuel
companies, funded advertising campaigns and distributed material to generate public uncertainty
around the climate debate, with the specific purpose of preventing U.S. adoption of the Kyoto
Protocol, despite the leading role that the U.S. had played in the Protocol negotiations.¹²⁵ Despite
an internal primer stating that various “contrarian theories” [i.e., climate change skepticism] do

124 Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate
News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-CHEVRON-texaco  .
125 Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too, Inside Climate News (December 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-CHEVRON-texaco  .

not “offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-
induced climate change,” GCC excluded this section from the public version of the backgrounder
and instead funded efforts to promote some of those same contrarian theories over subsequent
years.¹²⁶
129. The efforts by the Defendants and other fossil fuel interests to sow uncertainty and
prevent regulation have been successful. GCC and its cohorts staved off greenhouse gas regulation
in the U.S., as indicated by U.S. Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky’s talking points
compiled before a 2001 meeting with GCC representatives: “POTUS [President of the United
States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on [GCC’s] input.”¹²⁷ When GCC disbanded later that year,
it commemorated the occasion on its website by stating that “the industry voice on climate change
has served its purpose by contributing to a new national approach to global warming.”¹²⁸
130. A key strategy in Defendants’ efforts to discredit scientific consensus on climate
change and the IPCC was to bankroll scientists who, although accredited, held fringe opinions that
were even more questionable given the sources of their research funding. These scientists obtained
part or all of their research budget from Defendants directly or through Defendant-funded
organizations like API,¹²⁹ but they frequently failed to disclose their fossil fuel industry
underwriters.¹³⁰
131. Creating a false sense of disagreement in the scientific community (despite the
consensus that its own scientists, experts, and managers had previously acknowledged) has had an
evident impact on public opinion. A 2007 Yale University-Gallup poll found that while 71% of

126 Gregory J. Dana, Memo to AIAM Technical Committee Re: Global Climate Coalition (GCC) – Primer on Climate Change Science – Final Draft, Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (January 18, 1996),
http://www.webcitation.org/6FyqHawb9.
127 Ken Brill, Briefing Memorandum to Under Secretary Dobriansky, Your Meeting with members of the Global
Climate Coalition, June 21, 2001, 9:10 – 9:50 a.m., United States Department of State (June 20, 2001), http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Global%20Climate%20Coalition%20Meeting%20%28202501%29.pdf  .
128 Global Climate Coalition, A Voice for Business in the Global Warming Debate (April 3, 2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20030408231206/http:/globalclimate.org/index.htm .
129 Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years, Climate
Research 23, 88-110 (January 31, 2003), http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf  .
130 Newsdesk, Smithsonian Statement: Dr. Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon, Smithsonian (February 26, 2015),
http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-statement-dr-wei-hock-willie-soon .

Americans personally believed global warming was happening, only 48% believed that there was
a consensus among the scientific community, and 40% believed there was a lot of disagreement
among scientists over whether global warming was occurring.¹³¹
132. 2007 was the same year the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report, in which
it concluded that “there is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750
has been one of warming.”¹³² The IPCC defined “very high confidence” as at least a 9 out of 10
chance.¹³³
133. Defendants borrowed pages out of the playbook of prior denialist campaigns. A
“Global Climate Science Team” (“GCST”) was created that mirrored a front group created by the
tobacco industry, known as The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, whose purpose was to
sow uncertainty about the fact that cigarette smoke is carcinogenic. The GCST’s membership
included Steve Milloy (a key player on the tobacco industry’s front group), Exxon’s senior
environmental lobbyist; an API public relations representative; and representatives from CHEVRON
and Southern Company that drafted API’s 1998 Communications Plan. There were no scientists
on the “Global Climate Science Team.” GCST developed a strategy to spend millions of dollars
manufacturing climate change uncertainty. Between 2000 and 2004, Exxon donated $110,000 to
Milloy’s efforts and another organization, the Free Enterprise Education Institute and $50,000 to
the Free Enterprise Action Institute, both registered to Milloy’s home address.¹³⁴
134. Defendants by and through their trade association memberships, worked directly,
and often in a deliberately obscured manner, to evade regulation of the emissions resulting from
use of their fossil fuel products. For instance, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

131 American Opinions on Global Warming: A Yale/Gallup/Clearvision Poll, Yale Program on Climate Change
Communication (July 31, 2007), http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/american-opinions-on-global- warming//
132 IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers, page 3 (emphasis in original), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (2007), https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf .
133 Id.
134 Seth Shulman et al. Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How EXXONMOBIL Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, 19 (January 2007),
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf .

(ACCCE), on behalf of Defendants, hired a lobbying firm, which posed as various nonprofits and
sent letters to persuade members of Congress to vote against the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009, which would have imposed a carbon cap and trade program in the U.S.¹³⁵
Instead, the letters falsely and misleadingly purported to come from groups representing local
minority communities, including a local NAACP chapter and a Latino advocacy group.¹³⁶
135. The same year, in 2009, a leaked email revealed a campaign by API to organize
“grass roots” rallies of “energy citizens” to coincide with the United States Congress’s August
recess, to oppose the Clean Energy and Security Act, the climate change bill that had just passed
the House and was headed to the Senate for debate.¹³⁷ Ostensibly intended to “allow people to
voice their concerns” and opposing the need for concerted efforts to combat climate change, emails
from API to its members state that “it’s important our views be heard,” and that “success for these
events will be the diversity of the participants expressing the same message,” which was ultimately
misleading and contrary to the acknowledged scientific consensus.¹³⁸ The purpose of the events
was to “put a human face” on the industry’s misleading and unsupported position and to reinforce
that misleading position in the minds of the public. The same emails to API members stated that
“our messages on [similar] legislation work extremely well and are very persuasive with the
general public and policy influentials.” Moreover, the email stated that API would “provide the
up-front resources to ensure logistical issues do not become a problem,” but insisted that member
companies “provide significant attendance.”¹³⁹

136. Emails between American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (“AFPM”), a
national lobbying group, and the office of then-Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt evidence

135 Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #4: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Forged Letters (2009) http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-4_ACCCE-forged-letters.pdf   .
136 Brian McNeill, Lobbying letters to Perriello found to be fakes, Richmond Times-Dispatch (Aug. 1, 2009)
http://www.richmond.com/news/lobbying-letters-to-perriello-found-to-be-fakes/article_3f8f5a2b-cf38-54d9-98f7-ba21c4eb51fe.html  .
137 Alex Kaplun, ‘Energy Citizens’ Take Aim at Climate Legislation, N.Y. Times (Aug. 12, 2009) http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/08/12/12greenwire-energy-citizens-take-aim-at-climate-legislatio-54732.html .
138 Phil Radford, Letter to Jack Gerard, President & CEO of API, Greenpeace (August 2009) https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/GP%20API%20letter%20August%202009-1.pdf  .
139 Id.

an effort to influence EPA regulations that would have mitigated reliance on Defendants’ fossil
fuel products by requiring renewable fuel production.¹⁴⁰ BP Petrochemicals, BP Products North
America, CHEVRON U.S.A. Inc., CITGO Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Occidental Chemical Corporation, PHILLIPS 66, Shell Chemical Company, Total Petrochemicals &
Refining USA, Inc., are among AFPM’s members.
137. A 2014 presentation revealed that the Western States Petroleum Association, on
behalf of Defendants, among other fossil fuel companies, funded dozens of supposedly grassroots
organizations to block progressive energy regulation.¹⁴¹ This practice is called “astroturfing”:
astroturf is meant to look like grass, but it is fake. Similarly, large companies and corporate
organizations like WSPA fund fake grassroots movements in an effort to gain credibility from the
public, who does not know the true source of the propaganda.
138. Beyond direct interference, Defendants have funded dozens of think tanks, front
groups, lobbyists, and dark money foundations pushing climate change denial. These include the
Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, Frontiers for Freedom, Committee for a
Constructive Tomorrow, and Heritage Foundation. From 1998 to 2014 EXXONMOBIL spent almost
$31 million funding numerous organizations misrepresenting the scientific consensus that
Defendants’ fossil fuel products were causing climate change, sea level rise, and injuries to Marin,
among other coastal communities.¹⁴² Several Defendants have been linked to other groups that
undermine the scientific basis linking Defendants’ fossil fuel products to climate change and sea
level rise, including the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (Arch Coal)¹⁴³ and the Frontiers of
Freedom Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, and the Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global Change (PEABODY Energy).¹⁴⁴

140 Email chain from Moskowitz to Eubanks, Renewable Fuel Standard -Background Information (July 13, 2013) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3472961-2013-Pruitt-and-American-Fuel-and-Petrochemical.html .
141 WSPA Priority Issues, Western States Petroleum Association (November 11, 2014) https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2014/12/12/washington_research_council_-_cathy_reheis-boyd.pdf  .
142 ExxonSecrets.org, EXXONMOBIL Climate Denial Funding 1998-2014 http://exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php .
143 Seth Shulman et al. Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How EXXONMOBIL Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture
Uncertainty on Climate Science, Union of Concerned Scientists, 19 (January 2007), http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf  .
144 In re: PEABODY Energy Corporation, et al., (E.D. Mo.), Certificate of Service, Doc. Number 602, 140 (May 27, 2016), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2859772 .

139. Exxon acknowledged its own previous success in sowing uncertainty and slowing
mitigation through funding of climate denial groups. In its 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report,
Exxon declared: “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research
groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on
how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally
responsible manner.”¹⁴⁵ Despite this pronouncement, Exxon remained financially associated with
several such groups after the report’s publication.
140. Defendants could have contributed to the global effort to mitigate the impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions by, for example delineating practical policy goals and regulatory
structures that would have allowed them to continue their business ventures while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and supporting a transition to a lower carbon future. Instead, Defendants
undertook a momentous effort to evade international and national regulation of greenhouse gas
emissions to enable them to continue unabated fossil fuel production.
141. As a result of Defendants’ tortuous, false and misleading conduct, reasonable
consumers of Defendants’ fossil fuel products and policy-makers, have been deliberately and
unnecessarily deceived about: the role of fossil fuel products in causing global warming and sea
level rise; the acceleration of global warming since the mid-20th century and the continuation
thereof; and about the fact that the continued increase in fossil fuel product consumption that
creates severe environmental threats and significant economic costs for coastal communities,
including Marin County. Reasonable consumers and policy makers have also been deceived about
the depth and breadth of the state of the scientific evidence on anthropogenic climate change, and
in particular, on the strength of the scientific consensus demonstrating the role of fossil fuels in
causing both climate change and a wide range of potentially destructive impacts, including sea
level rise.

  145 EXXONMOBIL, 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report (December 31, 2007).

======================================================================================

F. In Contrast to their Public Statements, Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate their Awareness of and Intent to Profit from the Unabated Use of Fossil Fuel Products.

142. In contrast to their public-facing efforts challenging the validity of the scientific
consensus about anthropogenic climate change, Defendants’ acts and omissions evidence their
internal acknowledgement of the reality of sea level rise and its likely consequences. These actions
include, but are not limited to, making multi-billion-dollar infrastructure investments for their own
operations that acknowledge the reality of coming anthropogenic climate-related change. These
investments included (among others), raising offshore oil platforms to protect against sea level
rise; reinforcing offshore oil platforms to withstand increased wave strength and storm severity;
and developing and patenting designs for equipment intended to extract crude oil and/or natural
gas in areas previously unreachable because of the presence of polar ice sheets.¹⁴⁶
143. For example, in 1973 Exxon obtained a patent for a cargo ship capable of breaking
through sea ice ¹⁴⁷ and for an oil tanker ¹⁴⁸ designed specifically for use in previously unreachable
areas of the Arctic.
144. In 1974, CHEVRON obtained a patent for a mobile arctic drilling platform designed
to withstand significant interference from lateral ice masses,¹⁴⁹ allowing for drilling in areas with
increased ice floe movement due to elevated temperature.
145. That same year, Texaco (CHEVRON) worked toward obtaining a patent for a method
and apparatus for reducing ice forces on a marine structure prone to being frozen in ice through
natural weather conditions,¹⁵⁰ allowing for drilling in previously unreachable Arctic areas that
would become seasonally accessible.

146 Amy Lieberman and Suzanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, L.A. Times (December 31, 2015) http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/ .
147Patents, Icebreaking cargo vessel, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (April 17, 1973) https://www.google.com/patents/US3727571 .
148 Patents, Tanker vessel, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (July 17, 1973) https://www.google.com/patents/US3745960 .
149 Patents, Arctic offshore platform, CHEVRON Res (August 27, 1974) https://www.google.com/patents/US3831385 .
150 Patents, Mobile, arctic drilling and production platform, Texaco Inc. (February 26, 1974)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3793840 .

146.
Shell obtained a patent similar to Texaco’s (CHEVRON) in 1984.¹⁵¹
147.
In 1989, Norske Shell, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL’s Norwegian subsidiary, altered designs
for a natural gas platform planned for construction in the North Sea to account for anticipated sea
level rise. Those design changes were ultimately carried out by Shell’s contractors, adding
substantial costs to the project.¹⁵²
a. The Troll field, off the Norwegian coast in the North Sea, was proven to
contain large natural oil and gas deposits in 1979, shortly after Norske Shell
was approved by Norwegian oil and gas regulators to operate a portion of
the field.
b. In 1986, the Norwegian parliament granted Norske Shell authority to
complete the first development phase of the Troll field gas deposits, and
Norske Shell began designing the “Troll A” gas platform, with the intent to
begin operation of the platform in approximately 1995. Based on the very
large size of the gas deposits in the Troll field, the Troll A platform was
projected to operate for approximately 70 years.
c. The platform was originally designed to stand approximately 100 feet above
sea level—the amount necessary to stay above waves in a once-in-a-century
strength storm.
d. In 1989, Shell engineers revised their plans to increase the above-water
height of the platform by 3–6 feet, specifically to account for higher
anticipated average sea levels and increased storm intensity due to global
warming over the platform’s 70-year operational life.¹⁵³
e. Shell projected that the additional 3–6 feet of above-water construction
would increase the cost of the Troll A platform by as much as $40 million.

151 Patents, Arctic offshore platform, Shell Oil Company (January 24, 1984) https://www.google.com/patents/US4427320 .
152 Greenhouse Effect: Shell Anticipates A Sea Change, N.Y. Times (December 20, 1989) http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/greenhouse-effect-shell-anticipates-a-sea-change.html .
153 Id.; Amy Lieberman and Suzanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, L.A. Times (December 31, 2015), http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/ .

======================================================================================

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

148. The harms and benefits of Defendants’ conduct can be balanced in part by weighing
the social benefit of extracting and burning a unit of fossil fuels against the costs that a unit of fuel
imposes on society, known as the “social cost of carbon” or “SCC.”
149. Because climatic responses to atmospheric temperature increases are non-linear,
and because greenhouse gas pollution accumulates in the atmosphere, some of which does not
dissipate for potentially thousands of years (namely CO2), there is broad agreement that SCC
increases as emissions rise, and as the climate warms. Relatedly, as atmospheric CO2 levels and
surface temperature increase, the costs of remediating any individual environmental injury—for
example infrastructure to mitigate sea level rise, and changes to agricultural processes—also
increases. In short, each additional ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere will have a greater net
social cost as emissions increase, and each additional ton of CO2 will have a greater net social cost
as global warming accelerates.
150. A critical corollary of the non-linear relationship between atmospheric CO2
concentrations and SCC is that delayed efforts to curb those emissions have increased
environmental harms and increase the magnitude and cost to remediate harms that have already
occurred or are locked in by previous emissions. Therefore, Defendants’ campaign to obscure the
science of climate change and to expand the extraction and use of fossil fuels greatly increased
and continues to increase the harms and rate of harms suffered by the County and the People.
151. The consequences of delayed action on climate change, exacerbated by Defendants’
actions, has already drastically increased the cost of mitigating further harm. Had concerted action
begun even as late as 2005, an annual 3.5% reduction in CO2 emissions to lower atmospheric CO2
to 350 ppm by the year 2100 would have restored earth’s energy balance ¹⁵⁴ and halted future global

154 “Climate equilibrium” is the balance between Earth’s absorption of solar energy and its own energy radiation. Earth is currently out of equilibrium due to the influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which prevent
radiation of energy into space. Earth therefore warms and move back toward energy balance. Reduction of global CO2 concentrations to 350 ppm is necessary to re-achieve energy balance, if the aim is to stabilize climate without
further global warming and attendant sea level rise. See James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate

warming, although such efforts would not forestall committed sea level rise already locked in.¹⁵⁵
If efforts do not begin until 2020, however, a 15% annual reduction will be required to restore the
Earth’s energy balance by the end of the century.¹⁵⁶ Earlier steps to reduce emissions would have
led to smaller —and less disruptive— measures needed to mitigate the impacts of fossil fuel
production.
152. The costs of inaction and the opportunities to confront anthropogenic climate
change and sea level rise caused by normal consumption of their fossil fuel products, were not lost
on Defendants. In a 1997 speech by John Browne, Group Executive for BP America, at Stanford
University, Browne described Defendants’ and the entire fossil fuel industry’s responsibility and
opportunities to reduce use of fossil fuel products, reduce global CO2 emissions, and mitigate the
harms associated with the use and consumption of such products:

A new age demands a fresh perspective of the nature of society and responsibility.
We need to go beyond analysis and to take action. It is a moment for change and
for a rethinking of corporate responsibility. . . .
There is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.
The prediction of the IPCC is that over the next century temperatures might rise by a further 1 to 3.5 degrees centigrade [1.8º – 6.3º F], and that sea levels might rise by between 15 and 95 centimetres [5.9 and 37.4 inches]. Some of that impact is probably unavoidable, because it results from current emissions. . . .
It would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.
The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven … but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. . . .

Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature, 8 PLOS ONE 1, 4-5 (December 3, 2013), http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 .
155 James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature, 8 PLOS ONE 1, 10 (December 3, 2013),
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 .
156 James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to
Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature, 8 PLOS ONE 1, 10 (December 3, 2013), http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648 .

We [the fossil fuel industry] have a responsibility to act, and I hope that through our actions we can contribute to the much wider process which is desirable and necessary.
BP accepts that responsibility and we're therefore taking some specific steps.
To control our own emissions.
To fund continuing scientific research.
To take initiatives for joint implementation.
To develop alternative fuels for the long term.
And to contribute to the public policy debate in search of the wider global answers to the problem.”¹⁵⁷

153. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the foreseeable, measurable harms associated
with the unabated consumption and use of their fossil fuel products, and despite the existence and
Defendants’ knowledge of technologies and practices that could have helped to reduce the
foreseeable dangers associated with their fossil fuel products, Defendants continued to market and
promote heavy fossil fuel use, dramatically increasing the cost of abatement. At all relevant times,
Defendants were deeply familiar with opportunities to reduce the use of their fossil fuel products,
reduce global CO2 emissions associated therewith, and mitigate the harms associated with the use
and consumption of such products. Examples of that recognition include, but are not limited to the
following:

• a. In 1963, Esso (Exxon) obtained multiple patents on technologies for fuel
  cells, including on the design of a fuel cell and necessary electrodes,¹⁵⁸ and
  on a process for increasing the oxidation of a fuel, specifically methanol, to
  produce electricity in a fuel cell.¹⁵⁹
  • 157 John Browne, BP Climate Change Speech to Stanford, Climate Files (May 19, 1997), http://www.climatefiles.com/bp/bp-climate-change-speech-to-stanford /.
    158 Patents, Fuel cell and fuel cell electrodes, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (December 31, 1963) https://www.google.com/patents/US3116169 .
    159 Patents, Direct production of electrical energy from liquid fuels, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (December 3, 1963) https://www.google.com/patents/US3113049 .
    
• b. In 1970, Esso (EXXONMOBIL) obtained a patent for a “low-polluting engine
  and drive system” that used an interburner and air compressor to reduce
  pollutant emissions, including CO2 emissions, from gasoline combustion
  engines (the system also increased the efficiency of the fossil fuel products
  used in such engines, thereby lowering the amount of fossil fuel product
  necessary to operate engines equipped with this technology).¹⁶⁰

154. Defendants could have made major inroads to mitigate Plaintiffs’ injuries through
technology by developing and employing technologies to capture and sequester greenhouse gases
emissions associated with conventional use of their fossil fuel products. Defendants had
knowledge dating at least back to the 1960s, and indeed, internally researched and perfected many
such technologies. For instance:

• a. The first patent for enhanced oil recovery technology, a process by which
  CO2 is captured and reinjected into oil deposits, was granted to an ARCO
  (BP) subsidiary in 1952.¹⁶¹ This technology could have been further
  developed as a carbon capture and sequestration technique;
• b. PHILLIPS Petroleum Company (CONOCOPHILLIPS) obtained a patent in 1966 for
  a “Method for recovering a purified component from a gas” outlining a
  process to remove carbon from natural gas and gasoline streams;¹⁶² and
• c. In 1973, Shell was granted a patent for a process to remove acidic gases,
  including CO2, from gaseous mixtures.

155. Despite this knowledge, Defendants’ later forays into the alternative energy sector
were largely pretenses. For instance, in 2001, CHEVRON developed and shared a sophisticated
information management system to gather greenhouse gas emissions data from its explorations

160 Patents, Low-polluting engine and drive system, Exxon Research Engineering Co. (May 16, 1970) https://www.google.com/patents/US3513929.
161 James P. Meyer, Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2EOR) Injection Well Technology, American Petroleum Institute, page 1, http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/EHS/climate-change/Summary-carbon-dioxide-enhanced-oil-recovery-well-tech.pdf   .
162 Patents, Method for recovering a purified component from a gas, PHILLIPS Petroleum Co (January 11, 1966)
https://www.google.com/patents/US3228874 .

and production to help regulate and set reduction goals.¹⁶³ Beyond this technological
breakthrough, CHEVRON touted “profitable renewable energy” as part of its business plan for several
years and launched a 2010 advertising campaign promoting the company’s move towards
renewable energy. Despite all this, CHEVRON rolled back its renewable and alternative energy
projects in 2014.¹⁶⁴
156. Similarly, CONOCOPHILLIPS’ 2012 Sustainable Development report declared
developing renewable energy a priority in keeping with their position on sustainable development
and climate change.¹⁶⁵ Their 10-K filing from the same year told a different story: “As an
independent E&P company, we are solely focused on our core business of exploring for,
developing and producing crude oil and natural gas globally.”¹⁶⁶
157. Likewise, while Shell orchestrated an entire public relations campaign around
energy transitions towards net zero emissions, a fine-print disclaimer in its 2016 net-zero pathways
report reads: “We have no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our
investment horizon of 10–20 years.”¹⁶⁷
158. BP, appearing to abide by the representations Lord Browne made in his speech
described in paragraph 153 above, engaged in a rebranding campaign to convey an air of
environmental stewardship and renewable energy to its consumers. This included renouncing its
membership in the GCC in 2007, changing its name from “British Petroleum” to “BP” while
adopting the slogan “Beyond Petroleum,” and adopting a conspicuously green corporate logo.
However, BP’s self-touted “alternative energy” investments during this turnaround included
investments in natural gas, a fossil fuel, and in 2007 the company reinvested in Canadian tar sands,

163 CHEVRON, CHEVRON Press Release – CHEVRON Introduces New System to Manage Energy Use (September 25,
2001) https://www.CHEVRON.com/stories/CHEVRON-introduces-new-system-to-manage-energy-use.
164 Benjamin Elgin, CHEVRON Dims the Lights on Green Power, Bloomberg (May 29, 2014)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-29/CHEVRON-dims-the-lights-on-renewable-energy-projects.
165 CONOCOPHILLIPS, Sustainable Development (2013) http://www.CONOCOPHILLIPS.com/sustainable-
development/Documents/2013.11.7%201200%20Our%20Approach%20Section%20Final.pdf .
166 CONOCOPHILLIPS Form 10-K, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Webpage (December 31, 2012)
27 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1163165/000119312513065426/d452384d10k.htm.
167 Energy Transitions Towards Net Zero Emissions (NZE), Shell (2016),
28 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_L1nw8WLu0Bbi1QWnJRcHlZblE/view (as of June 2, 2017).

a particularly high-carbon source of oil.168 The company ultimately abandoned its wind and solar
assets in 2011 and 2013, respectively, and even the “Beyond Petroleum” moniker in 2013.¹⁶⁹
159. After posting a $10 billion quarterly profit, Exxon in 2005 stated that “We’re an oil
and gas company. In times past, when we tried to get into other businesses, we didn’t do it well.
We’d rather re-invest in what we know.”¹⁷⁰
160. Even if Defendants did not adopt technological or energy source alternatives that
would have reduced use of fossil fuel products, reduced global greenhouse gas pollution, and/or
mitigated the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products, Defendants could
have taken other practical, cost-effective steps to reduce the use of their fossil fuel products, reduce
global greenhouse gas pollution associated therewith, and mitigate the harms associated with the
use and consumption of such products. These alternatives could have included, among other
measures:

• a. Accepting scientific evidence on the validity of anthropogenic climate
  change and the damages it will cause people and communities, including
  Plaintiffs, and the environment. Mere acceptance of that information would
  have altered the debate from whether to combat climate change and sea
  level rise to how to combat it; and avoided much of the public confusion
  that has ensued over nearly 30 years, since at least 1988;
• b. Forthrightly communicating with Defendants’ shareholders, banks,
  insurers, the public, regulators and Plaintiffs about the global warming and
  sea level rise hazards of Defendants’ fossil fuel products that were known
  to Defendants, would have enabled those groups to make material, informed
  decisions about whether and how to address climate change and sea level
  rise vis-à-vis Defendants’ products;
• c. Refraining from affirmative efforts, whether directly, through coalitions, or
  through front groups, to distort public debate, and to cause many consumers
  and business and political leaders to think the relevant science was far less
  certain that it actually was;
• d. Sharing their internal scientific research with the public, and with other
  scientists and business leaders, so as to increase public understanding of the
  scientific underpinnings of climate change its relation to Defendants’ fossil
  fuel products;
• e. Supporting and encouraging policies to avoid dangerous climate change,
  and demonstrating corporate leadership in addressing the challenges of
  transitioning to a low-carbon economy;
• f. Prioritizing alternative sources of energy through sustained investment
  and research on renewable energy sources to replace dependence on
  Defendants’ inherently hazardous fossil fuel products;
• g. Adopting their shareholders’ concerns about Defendants’ need to protect
  their businesses from the inevitable consequences of profiting from their
  fossil fuel products. Over the period of 1990-2015, Defendants’
  shareholders proposed hundreds of resolutions to change Defendants’
  policies and business practices regarding climate change. These included
  increasing renewable energy investment, cutting emissions, and performing
  carbon risk assessments, among others.

168 Fred Pearce, Greenwash: BP and the Myth of a World ‘Beyond Petroleum,’ The Guardian, (November 20, 2008) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/20/fossilfuels-energy
169 Javier E. David, ‘Beyond Petroleum’ No More? BP Goes Back to Basics, CNBC (April 20, 2013) http://www.cnbc.com/id/100647034 .
170 James R. Healy, Alternate Energy Not in Cards at EXXONMOBIL (October 28, 2005) https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2005-10-27-oil-invest-usat_x.htm .

161. Despite their knowledge of the foreseeable harms associated with the consumption
of Defendants’ fossil fuel products, and despite the existence and fossil fuel industry knowledge
of opportunities that would have reduced the foreseeable dangers associated with those products,
Defendants wrongfully and falsely promoted, campaigned against regulation of, and concealed the
hazards of use of their fossil fuel products.

======================================================================================

H. Defendants Caused Plaintiffs’ Injuries

162. Defendants individually and collectively extracted a substantial percentage of all
raw fossil fuels extracted globally since 1965.
163. CO2 emissions that are attributable to fossil fuels that Defendants extracted from
the Earth and injected into the market are responsible for a substantial percentage of greenhouse
gas pollution since 1965.
164. Defendants’ individual and collective conduct, including, but not limited to, their
extraction, refining, and/or formulation of fossil fuel products; their introduction of fossil fuel
products into the stream of commerce; their wrongful promotion of their fossil fuel products and
concealment of known hazards associated with use of those products; and their failure to pursue
less hazardous alternatives available to them; is a substantial factor in causing the increase in global
mean temperature and consequent increase in global mean sea surface height since 1965.
165. Defendants have actually and proximately caused the sea levels to rise, increased
the destructive impacts of storm surges, increased coastal erosion, exacerbated the onshore impact
of regular tidal ebb and flow, caused saltwater intrusion, and caused consequent social and
economic injuries associated with the aforementioned physical and environmental impacts, among
other impacts, resulting in inundation, destruction, and/or other interference with Plaintiffs’
property and citizenry.
166. Plaintiffs have already incurred, and will foreseeably continue to incur, injuries and
damages because of sea level rise caused by Defendants’ conduct.
167. Marin County has experienced significant sea level rise over the last half century
attributable to Defendants’ conduct, which caused a substantial portion of the 8 inches of sea level
rise the County has experienced in the last century.¹⁷¹
168. Marin County obtained a Draft Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Analysis for its Bay-
adjacent coast in April, 2017, with a final version accepted by the County on June 20, 2017.
The County obtained a separate assessment for its Pacific Ocean-adjacent vulnerabilities in September
2015. ¹⁷² These assessments are the County’s first analyses of the County’s overall vulnerability to
sea level rise and its impacts, including permanent inundation, temporary flooding, erosion, and
saltwater intrusion. The Assessments formally identify actual risks to the County with sea level
rise expected by the end of the 21st Century, and the consequences associated with taking no action
to prevent or mitigate the harms associated with those risks.

171 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20, 2017)
at xiv, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment .

169. The San Francisco Bay Area, including Marin County, has experienced significant
sea level rise over the last half century attributable to Defendants’ conduct.¹⁷³ Marin County will
experience additional, significant, and dangerous sea level rise by 2100,¹⁷⁴ and the increases will
continue and accelerate. Additionally, Marin County will experience greater committed sea level
rise due to the “locked in” greenhouse gases already emitted.¹⁷⁵ The County will suffer greater
overall sea level rise than the global average.¹⁷⁶
170. In addition to weather and climate changes already observed, the County will suffer
extreme injuries in the future. For example, there is a 99% risk that the County experiences a
devastating three-foot flood before the year 2050, and a 47% chance that such a flood occurs before
16 2030.¹⁷⁷

171. Within the next 15 years, the County’s Bay-adjacent coast will endure multiple,
significant impacts from sea level rise. The San Rafael and Southern Marin shoreline communities
are most at risk from tidal and storm surge flooding. Regular tidal flooding will adversely impact

172 County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART) (September 2015),
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot .
173 Griggs, et al. (CA Ocean Protection Council Science Advisory Team Working Group), Rising Seas in California:
An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science Trust (April 2017) p. 23, box 2, figure 2.
174 Gary Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science
Trust, p. 26, Table 1(b) (April 2017), http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf   .
175 Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level Change, Nature Climate Change Vol. 6, 363-65 (2016)
176 Global sea level rise is projected to be 82.7 cm (32.6 inches) above 2000 levels by 2100. See National Research Council, Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past Present and Future (2012) at
page 107 at Table 5.2; page 117 at Table 5.3. The San Francisco Bay Area sea level rise is projected to be 91.9 cm (36.2 inches) over 2000 by 2100. Id.
177 Climate Central, Surging Seas Riskfinder,
http://riskfinder.climatecentral.org/county/marin-county.ca.us?comparisonType=postal-code&forecastType=NOAA2017_int_p50&level=3&unit=ft   .

San Rafael east of US Highway 101, Bayfront Belvedere and Tiburon, Greenbrae, Waldo Point,
and Paradise Cay. Storm surge flooding could impact North Novato at Gnoss Field, Black Point
on the Petaluma River, lower Santa Venetia, Belvedere around the lagoon, Bayfront Corte Madera,
Bayfront Mill Valley, Marinship in Sausalito, Tamalpais Valley, and Almonte, in addition to the
communities vulnerable to tidal flooding. Eight miles of road will see tidal flooding within 15
years, including State Route 37 in Novato and US Highway 101 in Corte Madera and Larkspur.
Many of these flooded areas already experience seasonal and ‘king tide’ flooding. This will worsen
in severity and become more frequent with tidal flooding potentially reaching the Canal area of
San Rafael, spreading to I-580. Water travel infrastructure such as ferry facilities in Larkspur,
Tiburon, and Sausalito used by daily commuters would be compromised. Public and private
marinas are also at risk. Finally, Southern Marin marshlands will undergo significant ecological
changes with serious repercussions for plants, insects, fish, and animals. ¹⁷⁸

172. Within the next 15 years, the County’s ocean coast will endure multiple, significant
impacts from sea level rise. Beaches, marshlands, rocky intertidal habitat, and other ecological
features in Stinson Beach, Bolinas, Tomales Bay, and Muir Beach are at risk of erosion, flooding
and saltwater intrusion.¹⁷⁹ Water, wastewater, and stormwater transmission infrastructure, as well
as onsite wastewater treatment systems and septic systems are at risk in Stinson Beach, Bolinas,
Tomales Bay, and Inverness.¹⁸⁰ Roads and bridges, including portions of Shoreline Highway,
Middle Road, and Valley Ford Lincoln School Road, will experience flooding, erosive forces,
and/or storm surges that could degrade or destroy sections thereof.181 Buildings in Muir Beach,
Bolinas and Dillon Beach are compromised by accelerated erosion.¹⁸²

178 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20, 2017)
at xix, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment .
179 County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015), p.7,
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot .
180 County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015) p. 7
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot .
181 County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015) p. 7
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot .
182 County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015) p. 7
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot .

173. At 5 feet of sea level rise along the County’s Bay-adjacent coast, regular tidal
flooding will impact over 16,000 acres,¹⁸³ expose over 8,000 parcels to flooding at the mean high
water level, and compromise 13,000 parcels that could flood during storm surges.¹⁸⁴ Areas
impacted by such flooding include Sausalito west of Bridgeway Boulevard, Marin City, Mill
Valley, northern San Rafael, Bayside Acres, Country Club, and Kentfield. Minor storms alone
could account for millions of dollars in property damages.¹⁸⁵ 100 miles of public and private roads
in the County will be vulnerable to tidal flooding, as well as critical public transportation
infrastructure such as park-and-rides, several hundred bus stops, transit centers, and SMART Rail
routes. Two sanitary wastewater treatment plants, and sanitary sewer and stormwater transmission
infrastructure will regularly flood. Marshlands in the northern and southern county will be
inundated and experience disruptive salinity increases, as would agricultural land near Bel Marin
Keys, Hamilton Field, and the Novato Sanitary District.¹⁸⁶
174. At approximate 6.7 feet of sea level rise along the County’s ocean-adjacent coast,
1,300 parcels, including 1,100 buildings, 70% of which are residential, will be exposed to higher
sea levels and more destructive storms.¹⁸⁷ Erosion would impair nearly 450 bluff top buildings in
Muir Beach, Stinson Beach, Bolinas, and Dillion Beach.¹⁸⁸ Portions of Shoreline Highway, Sir
Francis Drake Boulevard, Calle del Arroyo, Wharf Road, and Olema-Bolinas Road will be
exposed to higher average sea level and storm threats at several locations, comprising about 7% of
all roads in vulnerable coastal areas, a situation exacerbated by low road density and lack of

183 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20, 2017)
p. 27, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment .
184 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20, 2017)
p. 32, Table 12, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment.
185 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20, 2017)
at xxiv, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment .
186 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20, 2017)
at xxvi, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment .
187 County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015), p. 7,
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot .
188 County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015) p. 7,
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot .

alternative routes.¹⁸⁹ Agricultural lands in the vicinity of Point Reyes Station, Muir Beach, and
Bolinas will face saltwater intrusion and erosion.¹⁹⁰

175. The following figures describe the landward extent of future inundation and erosion
on Marin County’s Bay-adjacent coast due to sea level rise to different elevations. As the image
shows, much of the County, including some of its most critical infrastructure and valuable Bay-
front property, will be inundated at less than one foot of sea level rise.¹⁹¹

189 County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015), p. 8, http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot .
190 County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015), p. 9, http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot .
191 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20, 2017),
p. 11, Table 4; and p. 12, Table 5, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment .

176. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of the Defendants’
alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred significant and material expenses related to planning for and
predicting future sea level rise injuries to its real property, improvements thereon, civil
infrastructure, and citizens, so as to preemptively mitigate and/or prevent such injuries. This
includes performing a Sea Level Vulnerability Assessment in 2017 at significant expense to the
County, that describes potential injuries to the County, including, but not limited to, erosion of
bay-adjacent public land, erosion and/or inundation of privately owned properties and
displacement of residents within the County.
177. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged herein,
Plaintiffs have incurred sea level rise-related injuries and damages. These include infrastructural
repair and reinforcement of roads and beach access.
178. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions alleged herein,
Plaintiffs’ real property has been inundated by sea water, causing injury and damages thereto and
to improvements thereon, and preventing free passage on, use of, and normal enjoyment of that
real property, or permanently destroying it.

179. Defendants’ conduct as described herein is therefore an actual, substantial, and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ sea level rise-related injuries.

======================================================================================

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Public Nuisance on Behalf of the People of the State of California)?
(Against All Defendants)
180.
The People incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained above, as
though set forth herein in full.
181. Defendants, and each of them, by their affirmative acts and omissions, have created,
contributed to, and assisted in creating, a condition in Marin County, and permitted that condition
to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by, inter alia, increasing local sea level, increasing the
frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity and frequency of storms and
storm-related damage to the County and its residents.
182. Defendants specifically created, contributed to, and/or assisted, and/or were a
substantial contributing factor in the creation of the public nuisance, by, inter alia:

• a. extracting raw fossil fuel products, including crude oil, coal, and natural gas
  from the Earth, and placing those fossil fuel products into the stream of
  commerce;
• b. affirmatively and knowingly promoting the sale and use of fossil fuel
  products which Defendants knew to be hazardous and knew would lead to
  global warming, sea level rise, more frequent and more intense flooding,
  and more frequent and more intense storm surges;
• c. affirmatively and knowingly concealing the hazards that Defendants knew
  would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products by
  misrepresenting and casting doubt on the integrity of scientific information
  related to climate change;
• d. disseminating and funding the dissemination of information intended to
  mislead customers, consumers, elected officials and regulators regarding
  known and foreseeable risk of climate change and its consequences, which
  follow from the normal, intended use and foreseeable misuse of
  Defendants’ fossil fuel products;
• e. affirmatively and knowingly campaigning against the regulation of their
  fossil fuel products, despite knowing the hazards associated with the normal
  use of those products, in order to continue profiting from use of those
  products by externalizing those known costs onto people, the environment,
  and communities, including the People; and failing to warn the public about
  the hazards associated with the use of fossil fuel products.

183. The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects the
interests of the public at large. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency and
intensity, and increased flooding: (1) are harmful and dangerous to human health; (2) are indecent
and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person; (3) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free use
of the People’s property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property; and
(4) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes, rivers, bays,
streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways within Marin County.
184. The People of the State of California have a common right to be free from the
increased severity of these hazards due to climate change and sea level rise.
185. The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding
is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct because, inter alia,

• a. interference with the public’s rights as described above is expected to
  become so regular and severe that it will cause permanent inundation;
  b. the ultimate nature of the harm is the destruction of real and personal
  property, rather than mere annoyance;
• c. the interference borne is the loss of property and infrastructure within Marin
  County, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s citizens as loss of use of
  public property and infrastructure and diversion of tax dollars away from
  other public services to sea level rise;
• d. Plaintiff’s coastal property, which serves myriad uses including industrial,
  residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological, is not suitable for
  regular inundation;
• e. the social benefit of placing fossil fuels into the stream of commerce is
  outweighed by the availability of other sources of energy that could have
  been placed into the stream of commerce that would not have caused sea
  level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the external costs of
  placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce, and rather
  than striving to mitigate those externalities, Defendants instead acted
  affirmatively to obscure them from public consciousness;
• f. the cost to society of each ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the
  atmosphere increases as total global emissions increase, so that unchecked
  extraction and consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and
  costly than moderated extraction and consumption; and
• g. it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive
  knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of
  commerce and extensive scientific engineering expertise, to develop better
  technologies and to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available
  technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have
  mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower
  carbon economy.

186. This public nuisance affects and/or interferes with an entire community's and/or a
considerable number of persons in the State of California right to health, safety, peace, comfort,
and convenience.
187. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, the common rights enjoyed by the People of the State of California and by the general public in the County of Marin have been unreasonably interfered with because Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct would create a continuing problem with long-lasting significant negative effects on the rights of the public.
Defendants’ actions are a direct and legal cause of the public nuisance.
The People of the State of California, acting through the County of Marin, have a clearly ascertainable right to have the public nuisance created by Defendants abated.
Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff the People of the State of California’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
Wherefore, the People of the State of California pray for relief as set forth below.

======================================================================================

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Public Nuisance on Behalf of Marin County)?
(Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff Marin County incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
Defendants, and each of them, by their acts and omission, have created a condition and permitted that condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by increasing sea level, increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity and frequency of storms, all of which have resulted in, and will continue to result in, injury to Plaintiff.
The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects the interests of the public at large. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency and intensity, and increased flooding: (1) are harmful and dangerous to human health; (2) are indecent and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person; (3) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free use of the People’s property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property; and (4) obstruct and threaten to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes, rivers, bays, streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways within Marin County.
196. Plaintiff Marin County includes coastal communities with substantial numbers of
residents and citizens living on and near the coast, and substantial numbers of businesses and
amenities on or near the coast; the condition created by Defendants therefore affects substantial
numbers of people in Plaintiff’s communities at the same time.
197. The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding
is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct. The seriousness of the
harm to Plaintiff Marin County outweighs the benefit of Defendants’ and each of their conduct,
because

• a. the interference with Plaintiff’s property is expected to become so regular
  and severe as to be a permanent inundation;
• b. the nature of the harm is the destruction of Plaintiff’s property, rather than
  mere annoyance;
• c. the interference borne by Plaintiff is the loss of its property and
  infrastructure, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s citizens as loss of
  use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of tax dollars away
  from other public services to sea level rise;
• d. Plaintiff’s coastal public and private property, which serves myriad uses
  including industrial, residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological,
  is not suitable for regular inundation;
• e. the burden on Plaintiff to mitigate and prevent the interference with its
  property is significant and severe, as costs associated with addressing sea
  level rise caused by Defendants are projected to be in the billions of dollars
  over the next several decades;
• f. the social benefit of the purpose of placing fossil fuels into the stream of
  commerce, if any, is outweighed by the availability of other sources of
  energy that could have been placed into the stream of commerce that would
  not have caused sea level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the
  external costs of placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of
  commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate those externalities, instead
  acted affirmatively to obscure them from public consciousness;
• g. the social cost of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as
  total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and
  consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than
  moderated extraction and consumption; and
• h. it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive
  knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of
  commerce and extensive scientific engineering expertise, to develop better
  technologies and to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available
  technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have
  mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower
  carbon economy.

198. In addition to the harms suffered by the public at large, Plaintiff has suffered special
injuries different in kind. Among other harms,

• a. Plaintiff has been forced to spend or set aside significant funds to assess,
  plan for, and enact infrastructure changes needed to mitigate rising sea
  levels on Plaintiff’s publicly owned beaches and other public coastal
  property;
• b. Plaintiff has had to plan for and provide additional emergency and other
  public services in response to more frequent and more intense flooding and
  storm surges on both properties owned by Plaintiff, and properties owned,
  leased, and utilized by residents, citizens, and visitors to Plaintiff’s
  communities.

199. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.

Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, as set forth above, the County of Marin has been unreasonably interfered with because Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct would create a continuing problem with long-lasting significant negative effects on the rights of the public.
Defendants’ actions are a direct and legal cause of the public nuisance.
Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff Marin County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

======================================================================================

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Strict Liability—Failure to Warn on behalf of Marin County)
(Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff Marin County incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
Defendants, and each of them, extracted raw fossil fuel products, including crude oil, coal, and natural gas from the Earth, and placed those fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce.
Defendants, and each of them, extracted, refined, formulated, designed, packaged, distributed, tested, constructed, fabricated, analyzed, recommended, merchandised, advertised, promoted and/or sold fossil fuel products, which were intended by Defendants, and each of them, to be burned for energy, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or incorporated into petrochemical products including fuels and plastics.
Defendants, and each of them, heavily marketed, promoted, and advertised fossil fuel products and their derivatives, which were sold or used by their respective affiliates and subsidiaries. Defendants received direct financial benefit from their affiliates’ and subsidiaries’
sales of fossil fuel products. Defendants’ role as promoter and marketer was integral to their
respective businesses and a necessary factor in bringing fossil fuel products and their derivatives
to the consumer market, such that Defendants had control over, and a substantial ability to
influence, the manufacturing and distribution processes of their affiliates and subsidiaries.
208. Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and collectively knew or
should have known, in light of the scientific knowledge generally accepted at the time, that fossil
fuel products, whether used as intended or misused in a foreseeable manner, release greenhouse
gases into the atmosphere that inevitably cause inter alia global warming, sea level rise, increased
intensity and frequency of nuisance flooding, and increased intensity and frequency of storm
surges.
209. Throughout the times at issue and continuing today, fossil fuel products presented
and still present a substantial risk of injury to Plaintiffs through the climate effects described above,
whether used as intended or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
210. Throughout the times at issue, the ordinary consumer would not recognize that the
use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products causes global and localized changes in climate,
including those effects described herein.
211. Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely
disseminated marketing materials, refuted the generally accepted scientific knowledge at the time,
and advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations campaigns
and materials that prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing the risk that fossil fuel
products would cause grave climate changes, including those described herein.
212. Defendants, and each of them, failed to adequately warn customers, consumers,
elected officials and regulators of known and foreseeable risk of climate change and the
consequences that inevitably follow from the normal, intended use and foreseeable misuse of
Defendants’ fossil fuel products.
213. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount
subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
As a direct and proximate result of the defects previously described,
fossil fuel products caused Plaintiff Marin County to sustain the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint,
 including damage to publicly owned infrastructure and real property, and
the creation and maintenance of a nuisance that interferes with the rights of the County, its residents, and of the People.
Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff Marin County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

======================================================================================

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Strict Liability—Design Defect on behalf of Marin County)
(Against All Defendants)
Plaintiff Marin County incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
Defendants, and each of them, extracted raw fossil fuel products, including crude oil, coal, and natural gas from the Earth and placed those fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce.
Defendants, and each of them, extracted, refined, formulated, designed, packaged, distributed, tested, constructed, fabricated, analyzed, recommended, merchandised, advertised, promoted and/or sold fossil fuel products, which were intended by Defendants, and each of them, to be burned for energy, refined into petrochemicals, and refined and/or incorporated into petrochemical products including but not limited to fuels and plastics.
Defendants, and each of them, heavily marketed, promoted, and advertised fossil fuel products and their derivatives, which were sold or used by their respective affiliates and subsidiaries. Defendants’ received direct financial benefit from their affiliates’ and subsidiaries’ sales of fossil fuel products. Defendants role as promoter and marketer was integral to their
respective businesses and a necessary factor in bringing fossil fuel products and their derivatives
to the consumer market, such that Defendants had control over, and a substantial ability to
influence, the manufacturing and distribution processes of their affiliates and subsidiaries.
221. Throughout the time at issue, fossil fuel products have not performed as safely as
an ordinary consumer would expect them to because greenhouse gas emissions from their use
cause numerous global and local changes to Earth’s climate. In particular, ordinary consumers did
not expect that:
a. fossil fuel products are the primary cause of global warming since the dawn
of the industrial revolution, and by far the primary cause of global warming
acceleration in the 20th and 21st centuries;
b. fossil fuel products are the primary cause of accelerating sea level rise since
the beginning of the 20th century;
c. unmitigated use of fossil fuel products causes increased frequency and
intensity of nuisance flooding in coastal communities;
d. fossil fuel products cause increased frequency and intensity of storm surges
in coastal communities;
e. by increasing sea level rise, nuisance flooding, and storm surges, fossil fuel
products cause damage to publicly and privately owned coastal
infrastructure and buildings, including homes;
f. the social cost of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as
total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and
consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than
moderated extraction and consumption; and
g. for these reasons and others, the unmitigated use of fossil fuel products
present significant threats to the environment and human health and
welfare, especially in coastal communities.
222. Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely
disseminated marketing materials, refuted the generally accepted scientific knowledge at the time,

advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials, among
other public messaging efforts, that prevented reasonable consumers from forming an expectation
that fossil fuel products would cause grave climate changes, including those described herein.
223. Additionally, and in the alternative, Defendants’ fossil fuel products are defective
because the risks they pose to consumers and to the public, including and especially to Plaintiff,
outweigh their benefits.
a. the gravity of the potential harms caused by fossil fuel products is extreme;
global warming and its attendant consequences are guaranteed to occur
following the use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products because fossil
fuel products inherently release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and
global warming would continue to occur for decades even if all greenhouse
gas emissions ceased.
b. the social benefit of the purpose of placing fossil fuels into the stream of
commerce is overshadowed by the availability of other sources of energy
that could have been placed into the stream of commerce that would not
have caused sea level rise and accordingly Plaintiffs’ injuries; Defendants,
and each of them, knew of the external costs of placing their fossil fuel
products into the stream of commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate
those externalities, instead acted affirmatively to obscure them from public
consciousness.
c. Defendants’ campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and the
climatic effects of fossil fuel products prevented customers, consumers,
regulators, and the general public from taking steps to mitigate the
inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating those
consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning.
d. the cost to society of each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases
as total global emissions increase so that unchecked extraction and

consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than
moderated extraction and consumption.
e. it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive
knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of
commerce, to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available
technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have
mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower
carbon economy, reduced global CO2 emissions, and mitigated the harms
associated with the use and consumption of such products.
224. Defendants’ individual and aggregate fossil fuel products were used in a manner
for which they were intended to be used, or misused in a manner foreseeable to Defendants and
each of them, by individual and corporate consumers, the result of which was the addition of CO2
emissions to the global atmosphere with attendant global and local consequences.
225. As a direct and proximate result of the defects in fossil fuel products described
herein, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages set forth in this Complaint, including damage
to publicly and privately owned infrastructure and real property.
226. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants
obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
227. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
Marin County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
228. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

======================================================================================

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Private Nuisance on behalf of Marin County)
(Against All Defendants)
229.
Plaintiff Marin County incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
230. Plaintiff owns and manages extensive property within Marin County borders that
has been injured and will be injured by rising sea levels.
231. Defendants, and each of them, by their acts and omission, have created a condition
on Plaintiff’s property, and permitted that condition to persist, which constitutes a nuisance by
increasing sea level, increasing the frequency and intensity of flooding, and increasing the intensity
and frequency of storms.
232. The condition created by Defendants substantially and negatively affects Plaintiff’s
interest in its own coastal real property. In particular, higher sea level, increased storm frequency
and intensity, and increased flooding are:
a. harmful and dangerous to human health;
b. indecent and offensive to the senses of the ordinary person;
c. threatening to obstruct the free use of Plaintiff’s property and property
owned by Plaintiff’s residents and citizens, so as to interfere with the
comfortable enjoyment of life and property; and
d. threatening to obstruct the free passage and use of navigable lakes, rivers,
bays, streams, canals, basins, public parks, squares, streets, and/or highways
within Plaintiff’s respective communities.
233. The condition described above created by Defendants’ conduct substantially
interferes with Plaintiff’s use and quiet enjoyment of its coastal properties.
234. Plaintiff has not consented to Defendants’ conduct in creating the condition that has
led to sea level rise and its associated harms.
235. The ordinary person, and the ordinary city or county in Plaintiff’s position, would
be reasonably annoyed and disturbed by Defendants’ conduct and the condition created thereby,

because, inter alia, it infringes on Plaintiff’s ability to provide public space to residents and
visitors, and has forced Plaintiff to plan for and provide additional emergency and other public
services in response to more frequent and more intense flooding and storm surges on properties
owned by Plaintiff.
236. The seriousness of rising sea levels and increased weather volatility and flooding
is extremely grave, and outweighs the social utility of defendants’ conduct. The seriousness of the
harm to Plaintiff outweighs the benefit of Defendants’ and each of their conduct, because:
a. the interference with Plaintiff’s property is expected to become so regular
and severe as to be a permanent inundation;
b. the nature of the harm is the destruction of Plaintiff’s public and private real
and personal property, rather than mere annoyance;
c. the interference borne by Plaintiff is the loss of its private and public
property and infrastructure, which will actually be borne by Plaintiff’s
citizens as loss of use of public property and infrastructure and diversion of
tax dollars away from other public services to sea level rise;
d. Plaintiff’s coastal public and private property, which serves myriad uses
including industrial, residential, infrastructural, commercial and ecological,
is not suitable for regular inundation;
e. the burden on Plaintiff to mitigate and prevent the interference with its
property is significant and severe, as costs associated with addressing sea
level rise caused by Defendants are projected to be in the billions of dollars
over the next several decades;
f. the social benefit of the purpose of placing fossil fuels into the stream of
commerce is overshadowed by the availability of other sources of energy
that could have been placed into the stream of commerce that would not
have caused sea level rise; Defendants, and each of them, knew of the
external costs of placing their fossil fuel products into the stream of
commerce, and rather than striving to mitigate those externalities,

Defendants acted affirmatively to obscure those costs from public consciousness;

======================================================================================
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence on Behalf of Marin County)
(Against All Defendants)
240. Plaintiff Marin County incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth herein in full.

the social cost each ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere increases as total global emissions increase, so that unchecked extraction and consumption of fossil fuel products is more harmful and costly than moderated extraction and consumption;
Defendants’ campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and the climatic effects of fossil fuel products prevented customers, consumers, regulators, and the general public from staking steps to mitigate the inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating those consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning; and
it was practical for Defendants, and each of them, in light of their extensive knowledge of the hazards of placing fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce, to pursue and adopt known, practical, and available technologies, energy sources, and business practices that would have mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and eased the transition to a lower carbon economy, reduced global CO2 emissions, and mitigated the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products.
Defendants’ conduct was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, and a substantial factor in the harms suffered by Plaintiff as described in this Complaint.
Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff Marin County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
241. Defendants knew or should have known of the climate effects inherently caused by
the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel products, including the likelihood and likely
severity of global and local sea level rise and its consequences, and including Plaintiff’s injuries
and damages described herein.
242. Defendants, collectively and individually, had a duty to use due care in developing,
designing, testing, inspecting and distributing their fossil fuel products. That duty obligated
Defendants collectively and individually to, inter alia, prevent defective products from entering
the stream of commerce, and prevent reasonably foreseeable harm that could have resulted from
the ordinary use or reasonably foreseeable misuse of Defendants’ products.
243. Defendants, and each of them, breached their duty of due care by, inter alia:
a. allowing fossil fuel products to enter the stream of commerce, despite
knowing them to be defective due to their inevitable propensity to cause sea
level rise and its consequences;
b. failing to act on the information and warnings they received from their own
internal research staff, as well as from the international scientific
community, that the unabated extraction, promotion and sale of their fossil
fuel products would result in material dangers to the public, including Marin
County;
c. failing to take actions including but not limited to pursuing and adopting
known, practical, and available technologies, energy sources, and business
practices that would have mitigated their greenhouse gas pollution and
eased the transition to a lower carbon economy; shifting to non-fossil fuel
products, and researching and/or offering technologies to mitigate CO2
emissions in conjunction with sale and distribution of their fossil fuel
products; and pursuing other available alternatives that would have
prevented or mitigated the injuries to Plaintiff caused by sea level rise that
Defendants, and each of them, knew or should have foreseen would
inevitably result from use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products;

d. engaging in a campaign of disinformation regarding global warming and
the climatic effects of fossil fuel products that prevented customers,
consumers, regulators, and the general public from staking steps to mitigate
the inevitable consequences of fossil fuel consumption, and incorporating
those consequences into either short-term decisions or long-term planning.
244. Defendants individual and collective acts and omissions were actual, substantial
causes of sea level rise and its consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages set forth
herein, as sea levels would not have risen to the levels that caused Plaintiff’s injuries but for
Defendants introduction of their fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce.
245. Defendants individual and collective acts and omissions were proximate causes of
sea level rise and its consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages set forth herein. No
other act, omission, or natural phenomenon intervened in the chain of causation between
Defendants’ conduct and Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, or superseded Defendants’ breach of
their duties’ substantiality in causing Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
246. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and each of their acts and
omissions, Plaintiff sustained injuries and damages as set forth herein.
247. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
Marin County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
248. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants
obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
249. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

======================================================================================

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence - Failure to Warn on Behalf of Marin County)
(Against All Defendants)
250.
Plaintiff Marin County incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
251. Defendants knew or should have known, based on information passed to them from
their internal research divisions and affiliates and/or from the international scientific community,
of the climate effects inherently caused by the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel
products, including the likelihood and likely severity of global warming, global and local sea level
rise, and their associated consequences, including Plaintiff’s injuries and damages described
herein.
252. Defendants knew or should have known, based on information passed to them from
their internal research divisions and affiliates and/or from the international scientific community,
that the climate effects described above rendered their fossil fuel products dangerous, or likely to
be dangerous, when used as intended or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner.
253. Throughout the times at issue, Defendants failed to adequately warn any consumers
or any other party of the climate effects that inevitably flow from the use or foreseeable misuse of
their fossil fuel products.
254. Throughout the times at issue, Defendants individually and in concert widely
disseminated marketing materials, refuted the generally accepted scientific knowledge at the time,
advanced pseudo-scientific theories of their own, and developed public relations materials that
prevented reasonable consumers from recognizing the risk that fossil fuel products would cause
grave climate changes, undermining and rendering ineffective any warnings that Defendants may
have also disseminated.
255. Given the grave dangers presented by the climate effects that inevitably flow from
the normal use or foreseeable misuse of fossil fuel products, a reasonable extractor, manufacturer,
formulator, seller, or other participant responsible for introducing fossil fuel products into the
stream of commerce, would have warned of those known, inevitable climate effects.
256. Defendants’ conduct was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and a substantial factor in the harms suffered by Plaintiff as described in this Complaint.
257. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff Marin County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
258. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others. Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
259. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

======================================================================================

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Trespass on Behalf of Marin County)
(Against All Defendants)

260. Plaintiff Marin County incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth herein in full.
261.Plaintiff Marin County owns, leases, occupies, and/or controls real property within Plaintiff’s county boundaries and within communities located within the County.
262. Defendants, and each of them, have intentionally, recklessly, or negligently caused ocean waters to enter Plaintiff Marin County’s property, by extracting, refining, formulating, designing, packaging, distributing, testing, constructing, fabricating, analyzing, recommending, merchandising, advertising, promoting, marketing, and/or selling fossil fuel products, knowing those products in their normal operation and use or foreseeable misuse would cause global and local sea levels to rise, cause flooding to become more frequent and more intense, and cause storm surges to become more frequent and more intense.

263 Plaintiff Marin County did not give permission for Defendants, or any of them, to cause ocean water to enter its property.

264. Plaintiff Marin County has been and continues to be actually injured and continues
to suffer damages as a result of Defendants and each of their having caused ocean water to enter
their real property, by inter alia permanently submerging real property owned by Plaintiff, causing
flooding which have invaded and threatens to invade real property owned by Plaintiff and rendered
it unusable, and causing storm surges and heightened waves which have invaded and threatened
to invade real Property owned by Plaintiff and rendered it unusable.
265. Defendants’ and each Defendant’s introduction of their fossil fuel products into the
stream of commerce was a substantial factor in causing the injuries and damages to Plaintiff’s
public and private real property.
266. Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causes of Plaintiff
Marin County’s injuries and damage as alleged herein.
267. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was oppressive, malicious, and fraudulent, in that
their conduct was willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard for the rights of others.
Defendants’ conduct was so vile, base, and contemptible that it would be looked down upon and
despised by reasonable people, justifying an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an
amount subject to proof at trial, and justifying equitable disgorgement of all profits Defendants
obtained through their unlawful and outrageous conduct.
268. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
19 \ \ \

EXHIBIT A

Truth or CO2nsequences

MAJOR FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES have known the truth for nearly 50 years: their oil, gas, and coal products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes our climate. They’ve known for decades that the consequences could be catastrophic and that only a narrow window of time existed to take action before the damage might not be reversible. They have nevertheless engaged in a coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal and contradict their own knowledge of these threats, discredit the growing body of publicly available scientific evidence, and persistently create doubt in the minds of customers, consumers, regulators, the media, journalists, teachers, and the general public about the reality and consequences of climate change.

This timeline highlights information, alleged in the Complaints filed by San Mateo County, Marin County, and Imperial Beach, that comes from key industry documents and other sources. It illustrates what the industry knew, when they knew it, and what they didn’t do to prevent the impacts that are now imposing real costs on people and communities around the country. While the early warnings from the industry’s own scientists and experts often acknowledged the uncertainties in their projections, those uncertainties were typically about the timing and magnitude of the climate change impacts – not about whether those impacts would occur or whether the industry’s oil, gas,

and coal were the primary cause. On those latter points, as these documents show, they were quite certain.

===============================================================================

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Compensatory damages
2. Equitable relief to abate the nuisances
3. Punitive damages
4. Disgorgement of profits
5. Costs of suit
6. For and such and other relief as the court may deem proper

VIII. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a Jury trial on all issues

===============================================================================

back to the beginning

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Defendants, major corporate members of the fossil fuel industry, have known for
nearly a half century that unrestricted production and use of their fossil fuel products create
greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes our climate. They have known for
decades that those impacts could be catastrophic and that only a narrow window existed to take
action before the consequences would not be reversible. They have nevertheless engaged in a
coordinated, multi-front effort to conceal and deny their own knowledge of those threats, discredit
the growing body of publicly available scientific evidence, and persistently create doubt in the
minds of customers, consumers, regulators, the media, journalists, teachers, and the public about
the reality and consequences of the impacts of their fossil fuel pollution. At the same time,
Defendants have promoted and profited from a massive increase in the extraction and consumption
of oil, coal, and natural gas, which has in turn caused an enormous, foreseeable, and avoidable
increase in global greenhouse gas pollution and a concordant increase in the concentration of
greenhouse gases,1 particularly carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and methane, in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Those disruptions of the Earth’s otherwise balanced carbon cycle have substantially contributed
to a wide range of dire climate-related effects, including global warming, rising atmospheric and
ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, melting polar ice caps and glaciers, more extreme and
volatile weather, and sea level rise.2 Plaintiffs, the People of the State of California and Marin
County,3 along with the County’s residents, taxpayers, and infrastructure, suffer the consequences.
2. Defendants are vertically integrated extractors, producers, refiners, manufacturers,
distributors, promoters, marketers, and sellers of fossil fuel products. Decades of scientific
research show that pollution from the production and use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products plays
1 As used in this Complaint, “greenhouse gases” refers collectively to carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Where a source refers to a specific gas or gases, or when a process relates only to a specific gas or gases, this
Complaint refers to them by name.
2 Exhibit A, attached to this Complaint, is a timeline highlighting information alleged in the paragraphs below. The
timeline illustrates what the fossil fuel companies knew, when they knew it, and what they failed to do to prevent the environmental effects that are now imposing real costs on people and communities around the country. The
information comes from key industry documents and other sources.
3 As used in this Complaint, “Marin County” refers to all areas within the geographic boundaries of the County,
including incorporated towns and cities.

a direct and substantial role in the unprecedented rise in emissions of greenhouse gas pollution and
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the mid-20th century. This dramatic increase in
atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is the main driver of the gravely dangerous
changes occurring to the global climate.
3. Anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas pollution, primarily in the form of
CO2, is far and away the dominant cause of global warming and sea level rise.4 The primary source
of this pollution is the extraction, production and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas, referred
to collectively in this Complaint as “fossil fuel products.”5
4. The rate at which Defendants have extracted and sold fossil fuel products has
exploded since the Second World War, as have emissions from those products. The substantial
majority of all greenhouse gas emissions in history has occurred since the 1950s, a period known
as the “Great Acceleration.”6 About three quarters of all industrial CO2 emissions in history have
occurred since the 1960s,7 and more than half have occurred since the late 1980s.8 The annual rate
of carbon dioxide emissions from production, consumption and use of fossil fuels has increased
by more than 60% since 1990.9
5. Defendants have known for nearly 50 years that greenhouse gas pollution from their
fossil fuel products has a significant impact on the Earth’s climate and sea levels. Defendants’
awareness of the negative implications of their own behavior corresponds almost exactly with the
Great Acceleration, and with skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions. With that knowledge,
4See IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A.
Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. Page 6, Figure SMP.3, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/.
5 See C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 632 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci-
data.net/8/605/2016/. Cumulative emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution to 2015 were 413 GtC attributable to fossil fuels, and 190 GtC attributable to land use change. Id. Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
and industry remained nearly constant at 9.9 GtC in 2015, distributed among coal (41 %), oil (34 %), gas (19 %),
cement (5.6 %), and gas flaring (0.7 %). Id. at 629.
6 Will Steffen et al., The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration (2015), http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053019614564785.
7 R. J. Andres et al., A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, Biogeosciences, 9, 1851 (2012), http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/.
8 R. J. Andres et al., A synthesis of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, Biogeosciences, 9, 1851 (2012), http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/1845/2012/.
9 C. Le Quéré et al., Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data 8, 630 (2016), http://www.earth-syst-sci- data.net/8/605/2016/.

Defendants took steps to protect their own assets from these threats through immense internal
investment in research, infrastructure improvements, and plans to exploit new opportunities in a
warming world.
6. Instead of working to reduce the use and combustion of fossil fuel products, lower
the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, minimize the damage associated with continued high use
and combustion of such products, and ease the transition to a lower carbon economy, Defendants
concealed the dangers, sought to undermine public support for greenhouse gas regulation, and
engaged in massive campaigns to promote the ever-increasing use of their products at ever greater
volumes. Thus, each Defendant’s conduct has contributed substantially to the buildup of CO2 in
the environment that drives sea level rise.
7. Defendants are directly responsible for 227.6 gigatons of CO2 emissions between
1965 and 2015, representing 20.3% of total emissions of that potent greenhouse gas during that
period. Accordingly, Defendants are directly responsible for a substantial portion of committed
sea level rise (sea level rise that will occur even in the absence of any future emissions) because
of the consumption of their fossil fuel products.
8. Extreme flooding events will more than double in frequency on California’s Pacific
coast, including in Marin County, by 2050.10 Flooding and storms will become more frequent and
more severe, and average sea level will rise substantially along California’s coast, and in the San
Francisco Bay Area including Marin County. The County, bordered on two sides by water and
among the most vulnerable counties to sea level rise in California, has already spent significant
funds to study and mitigate the effects of global warming. Sea level rise already adversely affects
the County and jeopardizes Marin’s wastewater systems, beaches, parks, roads, civil infrastructure
and essential public services, and communities.
10 Vitousek,et al., Doubling of coastal flooding frequency within decades due to seal-level rise, Nature Scientific Reports, (May 18, 2017) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01362-7 (“Only 10 cm of SLR doubles the
flooding potential in high-latitude regions with small shape parameters, notably the North American west coast (including the major population centers Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles), and the European
Atlantic coast.”); USGS, In Next Decades, Frequency of Coastal Flooding Will Double Globally (May 18, 2017) https://www.usgs.gov/news/next-decades-frequency-coastal-flooding-will-double-globally.

9. Defendants’ production, promotion, marketing, and use of fossil fuel products,
simultaneous concealment of the known hazards of those products, and their championing of anti-
regulation and anti-science campaigns, actually and proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries.
10. Accordingly, the County brings claims against Defendants for Public Nuisance on
behalf of the People of California as well as itself, Strict Liability for Failure to Warn, Strict
Liability for Design Defect, Private Nuisance, Negligence, Negligent Failure to Warn, and
Trespass.
11. By this action, the County seeks to ensure that the parties responsible for sea level
rise bear the costs of its impacts on the County, rather than Plaintiffs, local taxpayers or residents.

II. PARTIES?

A. Plaintiffs?

12. Plaintiff, the People of the State of California (“the People”), by and through the
County Counsel of Marin County, brings this suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 731,
and Civil Code sections 3479, 3480, 3491, and 3494, to abate the nuisance caused by sea level rise
in the County’s jurisdiction.
13. Plaintiff County of Marin is a political subdivision of the State of California. It is a
county located in the San Francisco Bay Area, immediately North of the Golden Gate Bridge, with
its county seat in San Rafael.
a. The County forms a southward facing peninsula with the Pacific Ocean to
the West, the San Francisco Bay to the East, Sonoma County to the North, and the city of San
Francisco to the South.
b. Flooding associated with high tides and storm surges already impacts the
County’s infrastructure and disrupts the County’s citizens’ lives on a regular, recurring basis.
These impacts are expected to increase in frequency and severity as sea level rise accelerates. Sea
level has already risen significantly along both the County’s bay- and ocean-adjacent coasts. Marin

County will experience significant and dangerous of sea level rise by the year 210011 that will
continue and accelerate in presence of unmitigated greenhouse gas pollution.
c. The sea level rise impacts on the County associated with an increase in
average mean sea level height include, but are not limited to, increased inundation (permanent)
and flooding (temporary) in natural and built environments with higher tides and intensified wave
and storm surge events; aggravated wave impacts, including erosion, damage, and destruction of
built structures, as well as natural features like cliffs, beaches and dunes, with consequent
landslides; changes in sediment supply that could alter or destroy natural coastal habitats like
beaches and wetlands, which would otherwise naturally mitigate sea level rise impacts; saltwater
intrusion on groundwater aquifers, agricultural land, and infrastructure; and magnification of other
climate change impacts, due to the superimposition on sea level rise on shifts in precipitation
patterns that result in more rain and attendant flooding; increased frequency and severity of storms
that cause erosion, flooding, and temporary sea level rise increases; and others. Compounding
these environmental impacts are cascading social and economic impacts, which are secondary and
tertiary injuries that arise out of physical sea-level rise injuries to the County.
d. Thousands of acres within Marin County are exposed and vulnerable to
regular tidal flooding with sea level rise of at least ten inches.12 In the near-term, sea level rise of
ten inches will inundate and/or flood an area containing nearly 2,000 parcels and almost 800
buildings, potentially impacting tens of thousands of residents, employees, and visitors.13 By 2030,
sea level along Marin County coasts is expected to rise significantly and dangerously.¹⁴
11 Gary Griggs et al., Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise Science, California Ocean Science Trust, p. 26, Table 1(b) (April 2017), http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-
update-on-sea-level-rise-science.pdf .
12 See County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20,
2017) at 25, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment; County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015),
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot.
13 See County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20,
2017) at 25, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment; County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015), at 44, table 12,
http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospot.
14 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20, 2017)
at xviii, Table 1, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment.

e. Sea level rise of five feet will expose over 16,000 acres in Marin County to
regular tidal flooding, impacting over 8,000 parcels, 9,000 buildings and hundreds of thousands of
County residents, employees and visitors.¹⁵
f. The County owns and operates civil infrastructure including, but not limited
to levees, stormwater and sewage transport systems, an airport, and roads. The County owns, leases
and/or controls real property within its jurisdiction. Much of the County’s infrastructure and real
property is on or near the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay coasts, and has already suffered
damage from rising sea levels and will suffer increasing damage in the future through rising sea
levels and through the exacerbation of natural climate phenomena such as coastal erosion and El
Niño.
B. Defendants?
14. Defendants’ are responsible for a substantial portion of the total greenhouse gases
emitted between 1965 and 2015. Defendants, individually and collectively, are responsible for
extracting, refining, processing, producing, promoting and marketing fossil fuel products, the
normal and intended use of which has led to the emission of a substantial percentage of the total
volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere since 1965. Indeed, between 1965 and
2015, the named Defendants extracted from the earth enough fossil fuel materials (i.e. crude oil,
coal, and natural gas) to account for more than one in every five tons of carbon dioxide and
methane emitted worldwide. Accounting for their wrongful promotion and marketing activities,
Defendants bear a dominant responsibility for global warming generally and for Plaintiffs’ injuries
in particular.
15. When reference in this complaint is made to an act or omission of the Defendants,
unless specifically attributed or otherwise stated, such references should be interpreted to mean
that the officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives of the Defendants committed or
authorized such an act or omission, or failed to adequately supervise or properly control or direct
15 County of Marin, Marin Bay Waterfront Adaptation and Vulnerability Evaluation (BayWAVE), (June 20, 2017) at xxv, http://www.marincounty.org/main/baywave/vulnerability-assessment; County of Marin, Marin Ocean Coast
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Report (CSMART), (September 2015), p. 44, Table 12, http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/csmart-sea-level-rise/csmart-publications-csmart-infospo.

their employees while engaged in the management, direction, operation or control of the affairs of
Defendants, and did so while acting within the scope of their employment or agency.
16. CHEVRON Entities
a. CHEVRON Corporation is a multi-national, vertically integrated energy and
chemicals company incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its global headquarters and
principal place of business in San Ramon, California.
b. CHEVRON U.S.A. Inc. is a Pennsylvania Corporation with its principal place
of business located in San Ramon, California. CHEVRON USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of
CHEVRON Corporation.
c. “CHEVRON” as used hereafter, means collectively, Defendants CHEVRON
Corp. and CHEVRON U.S.A. Inc.
d. CHEVRON operates through a web of U.S. and international subsidiaries at all
levels of the fossil fuel supply chain. CHEVRON’s and its subsidiaries’ operations consist of
exploring for, developing, and producing crude oil and natural gas; processing, liquefaction,
transportation, and regasification associated with liquefied natural gas; transporting crude oil by
major international oil export pipelines; transporting, storage, and marketing of natural gas;
refining crude oil into petroleum products; marketing of crude oil and refined products;
transporting crude oil and refined products by pipeline, marine vessel, motor equipment and rail
car; basic and applied research in multiple scientific fields including of chemistry, geology, and
engineering; and manufacturing and marketing of commodity petrochemicals, plastics for
industrial uses, and fuel and lubricant additives.
17. EXXONMOBIL Corporation
a. EXXONMOBIL Corporation (“Exxon”) is a multi-national, vertically
integrated energy and chemicals company incorporated in the State of New Jersey with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Irving, Texas. Exxon is among the largest publicly
traded international oil and gas companies in the world.
b. Exxon consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all areas of the fossil
fuel industry, including exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture

of petroleum products; and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and
petroleum products. Exxon is also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity
petrochemical products.
c. Exxon does substantial fossil fuel product related business in California,
and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded,
distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. Among other operations, more than 540 Exxon-,
Mobil-, or Esso-branded gas stations operate throughout the state, and Exxon owns and operates a
petroleum storage and transport facility in the San Ardo Oil Field in San Ardo, Monterey County,
California. From 1966 to 2016, Exxon owned and operated an oil refinery in Torrance, Los
Angeles County, California. Exxon Co. USA, an EXXONMOBIL subsidiary, operated a petroleum
refinery in Benicia, Solano County, California, from 1968 to 2000.
18. BP Entities
a. BP P.L.C. is a multi-national, vertically integrated energy and
petrochemical public limited company, registered in England and Wales with its principal place of
business in London, England. BP P.L.C. consists of three main operating segments: (1) exploration
and production, (2) refining and marketing, and (3) gas power and renewables.
b. BP P.L.C. does substantial fossil-fuel related business in the United States,
by marketing through licensure; franchising its petroleum products in the U.S. under the BP,
ARCO and ARAL brands; and by operating oil and gas extraction and refining projects in the Gulf
of Mexico, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming.
c. BP AMERICA, INC., is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BP P.L.C. BP America
Inc. is a vertically integrated energy and petrochemical company incorporated in the State of
Delaware with its headquarters and principal place of business in Houston, Texas. BP America,
Inc., consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including
exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufacture of petroleum products;
and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum products. BP is
also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity petrochemical products. BP America Inc.

is registered to do business in the State of California and has a registered agent for service of
process with the California Secretary of State.
d. Defendants BP P.L.C. and BP AMERICA, INC. are collectively referred to
herein as “BP.”
e. BP does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California, and a
substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed,
marketed, and/or sold in California. Among other operations, BP operates 275 ARCO-licensed
and branded gas stations in California and more than 70 compressed natural gas and liquefied
natural gas fueling stations, provides natural gas used to power more than 6.9 million California
households, and distributes and markets petroleum-based lubricants marketed under the “Castrol”
brand name throughout the state. From 2000 to 2013, BP also owned and operated an oil refinery
in Carson, Los Angeles County, California. BP’s marketing and trading business maintains an
office in Irvine, Orange County, California. BP maintains an energy research center in San Diego,
San Diego County, California.
19. Shell Entities
a. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC is a vertically integrated, multinational energy and
petrochemical company. ROYAL DUTCH SHELL is incorporated in England and Wales, with its
headquarters and principle place of business in the Hague, Netherlands. Royal Dutch Shell PLC
consists of numerous divisions, subsidiaries and affiliates engaged in all aspects of the fossil fuel
industry, including exploration, development, extraction, manufacturing and energy production,
transport, trading, marketing and sales.
b. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Royal
Dutch Shell PLC. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is incorporated in the State of Delaware and
maintains its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is
registered to do business in the State of California and has a registered agent for service of process
in California. Shell Oil Products Company LLC is an energy and petrochemical company involved
in refining, transportation, distribution and marketing of Shell fossil fuel products.

c. Defendants ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC and Shell Oil Products Company LLC
are collectively referred to as “Shell.”
d. Shell does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California, and
a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported, traded,
distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. Among other endeavors, Shell operates a
petroleum refinery in Martinez, Contra Costa County, California; operates a distribution center in
Carson, California; and produces heavy oil and natural gas within the state. Shell also owned and
operated a refinery in Wilmington (Los Angeles), Los Angeles County, California from 1998 to
2007, and a refinery in Bakersfield, Kern County, California from 2001 to 2005. Shell also operates
hundreds of Shell-branded gas stations in California.
20. CITGOPetroleum Corporation (“Citgo”)
a. CITGOis a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of PDV AMERICA, INCorporated,
which is a wholly owned subsidiary of PDV Holding, Incorporated. These organizations’ ultimate
parent is Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”), an entity wholly owned by the Republic of
Venezuela that plans, coordinates, supervises and controls activities carried out by its subsidiaries.
CITGOis incorporated in the State of Delaware and maintains its headquarters in Houston, Texas.
b. CITGOand its subsidiaries are engaged in the refining, marketing, and
transportation of petroleum products including gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, petrochemicals,
lubricants, asphalt, and refined waxes.
c. CITGOis registered to do business in the State of California and has
designated an agent for service of process in California. CITGOfurther does substantial fossil fuel
product-related business in California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are
extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For
instance, CITGOsells significant volumes of fossil-fuel derived consumer motor oils and automobile
lubricants through retail and wholesale distributers. CITGOfurther sells a wide variety of greases
and oils for use in construction, mining, agricultural, and metalworking machinery and vehicles,
and in many other industrial and commercial settings, through licensed distributors in California.

21. CONOCOPHILLIPS Entities
a. CONOCOPHILLIPS is a multinational energy company incorporated in the State
of Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. CONOCOPHILLIPS consists
of numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates engaged in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry,
including exploration, extraction, production, manufacture, transport, and marketing.
b. CONOCOPHILLIPS Company is 100% owned by CONOCOPHILLIPS.
CONOCOPHILLIPS Company is registered to do business in California and has a registered agent for
service of process in California.
c. PHILLIPS 66 is a multinational energy and petrochemical company
incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It
encompasses downstream fossil fuel processing, refining, transport, and marketing segments that
were formerly owned and/or controlled by CONOCOPHILLIPS. Phillips 66 is registered to do business
in the State of California and has a registered agent for service of process in California.
d. Defendants CONOCOPHILLIPS, CONOCOPHILLIPS Company, and PHILLIPS 66 are
collectively referred to herein as “CONOCOPHILLIPS.”
e. CONOCOPHILLIPS does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in
California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,
traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For instance, CONOCOPHILLIPS owns and
operates oil and natural gas terminals in California, owns and operates refineries in Arroyo Grande
(San Luis Obispo County), Colton (San Bernardino County), and Wilmington (Los Angeles
County), California, and distributes its products throughout California. Phillips 66 also owns and
operates oil refineries in Rodeo (Contra Costa County), Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), and
Wilmington (Los Angeles County), California, each of which was owned and operated by
CONOCOPHILLIPS and its predecessors in interest from 1997 to 2012.
22. PEABODY Energy Corporation
a. PEABODY Energy Corporation (“Peabody”) is a multi-national energy
company incorporated in the State of Delaware and with its principal place of business in St. Louis,
Missouri. Through a diverse web of affiliates and subsidiaries, PEABODY is the world’s largest coal

extractor by volume.
b. PEABODY does and has done substantial fossil fuel product-related business
in California, including exporting substantial volumes of coal through coal shipping terminals in
California, particularly from the ports of Long Beach (Los Angeles County), Stockton (San
Joaquin County), Richmond (Contra Costa County), and San Francisco. PEABODY exported coal
mined from its western state mining operations through the Los Angeles Export Terminal while
that terminal was in operation from 1997 through 2003, and continues to export coal out of
California ports.
23. Total Entities
a. Total E&P USA Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Total S.A.—a French
energy conglomerate—engaged in the North American segment of Total SA’s fossil fuel products-
related business. Total E&P USA Inc. and its subsidiaries are involved in the exploration for,
extraction, transportation, research, and marketing of Total S.A.’s fossil fuel products. Total E&P
USA Inc. is registered to do business in the State of California and has designated an agent for
service of process in California.
b. Total Specialties USA Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Total SA,
involved in the marketing and distribution of Total S.A.’s fossil fuel products. Total Specialties
USA Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware and headquartered in Houston, Texas. Total
Specialties USA Inc. is registered to do business in the State of California and has designated an
agent for service of process in California. Total Specialties USA Inc. does substantial fossil fuel
product-related business in California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are
extracted, refined, transported, traded, distributed, marketed, and/or sold in California. For
instance, Total Specialties USA Inc. maintains regular distributorship relationships with several
California distributors of Total fossil fuel products, including engine oils, lubricants, greases, and
industrial petroleum products.
24. Arch Coal, Inc.
a. Arch Coal, Inc. (“Arch Coal”) is a publicly traded company incorporated in
Delaware with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the second largest coal

producer in the United States, selling 128 million tons of coal in 2015, almost all of which it
extracted from mines owned by the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary. Arch Coal explores
for, extracts, produces, markets and distributes its fossil fuel products.
b. Arch Coal’s conducts substantial fossil fuel product-related business in
California, including its ownership and long-term leasing of coal land in California. Arch Coal
furthermore has historically exported substantial volumes of coal mined from its western state
mines through California ports including Long Beach (Los Angeles County), Stockton (San
Joaquin County), Richmond (Contra Costa County), and San Francisco.
c. Arch Coal also owns a 99% stake in Arch Western Resources, LLC, which
was created in a 1998 transaction under which Arch Coal absorbed all of Atlantic Ritchfield
Company’s domestic coal operations. Included in that transaction, Arch Western Resources
acquired a 9% ownership stake in the Los Angeles Export Terminal, a coal export terminal
operation in the Port of Los Angeles from 1997 through 2003. Arch Coal and Arch Western
Resources both exported substantial volumes of coal, originating from their western state mining
operations, including mines in Colorado and Utah, through the Export Terminal until its closure.
25. Eni Entities
a. Eni S.p.A. (“Eni”) is a vertically integrated, multinational energy company
focusing on petroleum and natural gas. Eni is incorporated in the Republic of Italy, with its
principal place of business in Rome, Italy. With its consolidated subsidiaries, Eni engages in the
exploration, development and production of hydrocarbons; in the supply and marketing of gas,
liquid natural gas, and power; in the refining and marketing of petroleum products; in the
production and marketing of basic petrochemicals, plastics and elastomers; in commodity trading;
and in electricity marketing and generation.
b. Eni Oil & Gas Inc. is incorporated in Texas, with its principal place of
business in Houston, Texas. Eni Oil & Gas Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni America Ltd.,
a Delaware corporation doing business in the United States. Eni America, Ltd. Is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Eni UHL Ltd., a British corporation with its registered office in London, United
Kingdom. Eni UHL Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Eni ULT, Ltd., a British corporation with

its registered office on London, United Kingdom. Eni ULT, Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Eni Lasmo Plc, a British corporation with its registered office on London, United Kingdom. Eni
Investments Plc, a British corporation with its registered office in London, United Kingdom, holds
a 99.9%9 ownership interest in Eni Lasmo Plc (the other 0.01% ownership interest is held by
another Eni entity, Eni UK Ltd, a British corporation with its registered office in London, United
Kingdom). Eni S.p.A owns a 99.99% interest in Eni Investments Plc. Eni UK Ltd. holds the
remainder interest in Eni Investments Plc. Collectively, these entities are referred to as “Eni.”
c. Eni Oil & Gas Inc. is a successor-in-interest to Golden Eagle Refining
Company, Inc. (“Golden Eagle”). At times relevant to this complaint, Golden Eagle did substantial
fossil fuel-related business in California. Specifically, Golden Eagle owned and/or operated oil
refineries in Carson (Los Angeles County) and Martinez (Contra Costa County), California, and
owned and/or operated oil pipelines in or near Long Beach (Los Angeles County), California.
26. Rio Tinto Group
a. Rio Tinto PLC is incorporated in England and Wales, with its principal
place of business in London, England. Rio Tino Limited is incorporated in the Commonwealth of
Australia with its principle place of business in Melbourne, Australia. Collectively, these Rio Tinto
PLC and Rio Tinto Limited, along with their affiliates, divisions and subsidiaries, including those
described below, are referred to as “Rio Tinto.”
b. Rio Tinto is a dual-listed, multinational, vertically integrated metals and
mining corporation. Through its vast network of affiliates and subsidiaries, Riot Tinto extracts an
array of metals and other commodities. Pertinent here, Rio Tinto explores for, extracts, produces,
transports and markets coal.
c. Rio Tinto Energy America Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto,
incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Gillette, Wyoming.
Previously known as Kennecott Energy, Rio Tinto Energy America Inc. operates coal mines in
Wyoming and Montana.
d. Rio Tinto does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California.
In 2007, for example, Hydrogen Energy California, a joint venture of BP and Rio Tinto, invested

$2.3 billion in a project to construct an experimental petroleum coke fired power plant in Kern
County, California.
e. In addition, Rio Tinto’s subsidiary Rio Tino Minerals, Inc., operates the
largest open pit mine in California, where it extracts approximately 30% of the world’s refined
boron. Rio Tinto Minerals, Inc., has also registered substantial legislative and regulatory lobbying
activities in California related to Rio Tinto’s fossil fuel products business since at least 2005,
including lobbying directed at legislation and regulation regarding greenhouse gas pollution
policy, air quality standards, and energy efficiency standards, as well as California’s so-called
“cap-and-trade” carbon emissions program, such that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
f. Rio Tinto Services Inc. is a Rio Tinto subsidiary incorporated in Delaware
and with its principal place of business in South Jordan, Utah. Rio Tinto Services, Inc. is registered
to do business in California and has designated an agent for service of process in California.
27. Statoil ASA
a. Statoil ASA (“Statoil”) is an international, vertically integrated energy
company incorporated in the Kingdom of Norway and headquartered in Stavanger, Norway. The
Norwegian State is the majority shareholder in Statoil. Statoil’s operations consist of multiple
segments, including exploration, production, extraction, marketing, processing, and technology
support of its fossil fuel products, which include both petroleum and natural gas products.
b. Statoil has substantial contacts with California arising out of the production,
marketing, and promotion of its fossil fuel products. For instance, Statoil partnered with the
University of California, Berkeley (Alameda County), to review management of the company’s
complex development projects; Statoil partnered on a methanol fueling station in Sacramento
(Sacramento County); Statoil was involved in a business project with a California company called
Quantum Technologies; and partnered with the University of California, San Diego’s (San Diego
County) Scripps Institute of Oceanography.

28. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
a. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (“Anadarko”) is incorporated in the State
of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in The Woodlands, Texas. Anadarko is
a multinational, vertically integrated energy company comprised of multiple upstream and
downstream segments. These include exploration, production, gathering, processing, treating,
transporting, marketing, and selling fossil fuel products derived primarily from petroleum and
natural gas. In the United States, Anadarko entities operate fossil fuel product exploration and
production concerns in Texas, the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, the Powder River Basin, Utah,
Colorado, and the Marcellus Shale Formation. Anadarko operates fossil fuel product production
and exploration activities internationally in Algeria, Ghana, Mozambique, and Columbia, among
others. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is registered to do business in California and has
designated an agent for service of process in California.
b. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is a successor-in-interest to HS Resources
Inc. (“HS”). HS was an energy company headquartered in San Francisco, San Francisco County,
California. It owned natural gas reserves in Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and
along the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, which it extracted and imported to California. HS was
acquired by Kerr-McGee Corporation in 2001. Kerr-McGee was an energy exploration and
production company owning oil and natural gas rights in the Gulf of Mexico, Colorado, and Utah,
with its corporate headquarters in Oklahoma. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation acquired Kerr-
McGee Corporation in 2006.
29. Occidental Entities
a. Occidental Petroleum Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated
energy and chemical company incorporated in the State of Delaware and with its principal place
of business in Houston, Texas. Occidental’s operations consist of three segments: Occidental’s
operations consist of three segments: (1) the exploration for, extraction of, and production of oil
and natural gas products; (2) the manufacture and marketing of chemicals and vinyls; and (3)
processing, transport, storage, purchase, and marketing of oil, natural gas, and power. Occidental

Petroleum Corporation is registered to do business in the State of California and has designated an
agent for service of process in the State of California.
b. Occidental Chemical Corporation, a manufacturer and marketer of
petrochemicals, such as polyvinyl chloride resins, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Occidental
Petroleum Corporation. Occidental Chemical Corporation is registered to do business in the State
of California and has designated an agent for service of process in the State of California.
c. Defendants Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Chemical
Corporation are collectively referred to as “Occidental.”
d. Occidental does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in the State
of California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,
traded, distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. For instance, Occidental extracted and
transported its fossil fuel products from approximately 30,900 drilling locations within the San
Joaquin, Los Angeles, Ventura, and Sacramento Basins in California.
e. In addition, Occidental conducts has conducted substantial activities in the
state, including marketing and promotion; efforts to avoid or minimize regulation of greenhouse
gas pollution in and from California; and efforts to influence statutory and regulatory debate
regarding fossil fuel consumption, electric power distribution, and greenhouse gas pollution
policies such that the exercise of jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice. Since 1999, Occidental Petroleum Corp. and its subsidiaries have reported more
than $4.6 million in lobbying expenditures directed at numerous statutory and regulatory proposals
before the California legislature and executive agencies, including the California Energy
Commission, California Air Resources Board, and California Public Utilities Commission, related
to its fossil fuel products business.
30. Repsol S.A.
a. Repsol S.A. (“Repsol”) is a vertically integrated, multinational global
energy company, incorporated in the Kingdom of Spain, with its principal place of business in
Madrid, Spain. Repsol is involved in multiple aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including
exploration, production, marketing, and trading. Repsol engages in significant fossil fuel

exploration and production activities in the United States, including in the Gulf of Mexico, the
Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas, the Mississippi Lime in
Oklahoma and Kansas, the North Slope in Alaska, and the Trenton-Black River in New York
b. Repsol does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in the State of
California, and a substantial portion of its fossil fuel products are extracted, refined, transported,
traded, distributed, marketed and/or sold in California. For instance, Repsol subsidiary Repsol
Energy North America Corporation, incorporated in the State of Texas and with its principal place
of business in The Woodlands, Texas, is listed as a natural gas procurement, storage,
transportation, scheduling, and risk management provider by Pacific Gas and Electric, a California
utility. Repsol Energy North America Corporation is registered to do business in California and
has designated an agent for service of process in California. Repsol subsidiary Repsol Trading
USA Corporation, incorporated in the State of Texas and with its principal place of business in
The Woodlands, Texas, is also registered do business in California and has designated an agent
for service of process in California. Additionally, Repsol represents on its website that it is
engaging in strategic opportunities involving its fossil fuel products in California, which may
consist of crude oil, gasoline, diesel, and/or jet fuel.
31. Marathon Entities a. Marathon Oil Company is an energy company incorporated in the State of
Ohio and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Marathon Oil Company is
registered to do business in California and has designated an agent for service of process in
California. Marathon Oil Company is a corporate ancestor of Marathon Oil Corporation and
Marathon Petroleum Company.
b. Marathon Oil Company is a successor-in-interest to Husky Oil Ltd.
(“Husky”), which it acquired in 1984. During times relevant to this Complaint, Husky operated oil
production facilities near Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), California, where it produced
nearly 1,100 barrels per day. During the period relevant to this litigation, Husky did substantial
fossil fuel product-related business in California.
c. Marathon Oil Corporation is a multinational energy company incorporated

in the State of Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Marathon Oil
Corporation consists of multiple subsidiaries and affiliates involved in the exploration for,
extraction, production, and marketing of fossil fuel products.
d. Marathon Petroleum Corporation is a multinational energy company
incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Findlay, Ohio. Marathon
Petroleum Corporation was spun off from the operations of Marathon Oil Corporation in 2011. It
consists of multiple subsidiaries and affiliates involved in fossil fuel product refining, marketing,
retail, and transport, including both petroleum and natural gas products.
e. Defendants Marathon Oil Company, Marathon Oil Corporation, and
Marathon Petroleum Corporation are collectively referred to as “Marathon.”
32. Hess Corporation
a. Hess Corp. is a global, vertically integrated petroleum exploration and
extraction company incorporated in the State of Delaware with its headquarters and principal place
of business in New York, New York.
b. Hess is engaged in the exploration, development, production,
transportation, purchase, marketing and sale of crude oil and natural gas. Its oil and gas production
operations are located primarily in the United States, Denmark, Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia,
Thailand, and Norway. Prior to 2014, Hess also conducted extensive retail operations in its own
name and through subsidiaries. Hess owned and operated more than 1,000 gas stations throughout
the United States, including in California during times relevant to this complaint. Prior to 2013,
Hess also operated oil refineries in the continental United States and U.S. Virgin Islands.
33. Devon Energy Entities
a. Devon Energy Corp. is an independent energy company engaged in the
exploration, development, and production of oil, and natural gas. It is incorporated in the State of
Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Devon is
engaged in multiple aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including exploration, development,
production, and marketing of its fossil fuel products.
b. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. is a Devon subsidiary registered

to do business in the State of California and with a designated agent for service of process in
California. Devon Energy does substantial fossil fuel product-related business in California.
c. Devon Energy Corp. is a successor-in-interest to the Pauley Petroleum
Company (“Pauley”). At times relevant to this complaint, Pauley did substantial fossil-fuel related
business in California. Specifically, this included owning and operating a petroleum refinery in
Newhall (Los Angeles County), California from 1959 to 1989, and a refinery in Wilmington (Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County), California from 1988 to 1992. Pauley merged with Hondo Oil and
Gas Co. (“Hondo”) in 1987. Subsequently, Devon Energy Corp. acquired Hondo in 1992.
d. Defendants Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. and Devon Energy
Corp. are collectively referred to as “Devon.”
34. Encana Corporation
a. Encana Corp. is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Encana is an extractor and marketer of oil and natural gas and has
facilities including gas plants and gas wells in Colorado, Texas, Wyoming, Louisiana, and
New Mexico. By approximately 2005, Encana was the largest independent owner and operator of
natural gas storage facilities in North America.
b. Encana has done and continues to do substantial fossil fuel product-related
business in California. Between 1997 and 2006, Encana owned and operated the Wild Goose
Storage underground natural gas storage facility in Butte County, California. In 2003, Encana
began transporting natural gas through a 25-mile pipeline from the Wild Goose Station to a Pacific
Gas & Electric Co. (“PG&E”) compressor station in Colusa County, where gas entered the main
PG&E pipeline. Encana invested in a 100 billion cubic foot expansion of the facility in 2004,
bringing gas storage capacity at Wild Goose to 24 billion cubic feet.
35. Apache Corporation
a. Apache Corp. is a publicly traded Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Houston, Texas. Apache is an oil and gas exploration and production company,
with crude oil and natural gas exploration and extraction operations in the United States, Canada,
Egypt, and in the North Sea.

b. During the time at issue, Apache extracted natural gas from wells developed
on approximately seven million acres of land held in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia,
Alberta, and Saskatchewan, and Apache did substantial fossil fuel product-related business in
California. Apache transported a substantial volume of the natural gas extracted from its Canadian
holdings to California, where it sold that gas to electric utilities, end-users, other fossil fuel
companies, supply aggregators, and other fossil fuel marketers. Apache directed sales of its natural
gas to California in addition to markets in Washington state, Chicago, and western Canada, to
intentionally retain a diverse customer base and maximize profits from the differential price rates
and demand levels in those respective markets.
36. Doe Defendants
a. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
otherwise of Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore
sue said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 474. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the
fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the acts and occurrences herein
alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ damages were caused by such Defendants.
37. Relevant Non-Parties: Fossil Fuel Industry Associations
38. As set forth in greater detail below, each Defendant had actual knowledge that its
fossil fuel products were hazardous. Defendants obtained knowledge of the hazards of their
products independently and through their membership and involvement in trade associations.
39. Each Defendant’s fossil fuel promotion and marketing efforts were assisted by the
trade associations described below. Acting on behalf of the Defendants, the industry associations
engaged in a long-term course of conduct to misrepresent, omit, and conceal the dangers of
Defendants’ fossil fuel products.
a. The American Petroleum Institute (API): API is a national trade
association representing the oil and gas industry, formed in 1919. The following Defendants and/or
their predecessors in interest are and/or have been API members at times relevant to this litigation:
CHEVRON, EXXONMOBIL, Shell, CONOCOPHILLIPS, Statoil, Anadarko, Occidental, Repsol, Marathon,

EnCana, and Apache.¹⁶
b. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE): ACCCE
is a national coal industry trade association. Arch Coal and PEABODY were part of the ACCCE at
times relevant to this complaint.¹⁷
c. The National Mining Association (NMA): NMA is a national trade
organization that advocates for mining interests, including coal mining. Arch Coal, Inc., Peabody
Energy, and Rio Tinto/Kennecott Utah Copper are all members.¹⁸
d. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA): WSPA is a trade
association representing oil producers in Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.¹⁹
Its members include, and at times relevant to this Complaint, have included, BP, CHEVRON, Shell,
Occidental, and EXXONMOBIL.²⁰
e. The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) is a
national association of petroleum and petrochemical companies. At relevant times, its members
included, but were not limited to, BP Petrochemicals, BP Products North America, CHEVRON
U.S.A. Inc., CITGOPetroleum Corporation, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Occidental Chemical
Corporation, PHILLIPS 66, Shell Chemical Company, and Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA,
Inc. ²¹
f. The Information Council for the Environment (ICE): ICE was formed
by coal companies and their allies, including Western Fuels Association and the National Coal
Association. Associated companies included Peabody, Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining
(CHEVRON),22 and Island Creek Coal Company (Occidental).
g. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC): GCC was an industry group formed
to oppose greenhouse gas emission reduction policies and the Kyoto Protocol. It was founded in
16 American Petroleum Institute (API), Members, http://www.api.org/membership/members (as of June 1, 2017).
17 Energy and Policy Institute, ACCCE Members, https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2199289-accce-
members.html (as of June 1, 2017).
18 National Mining Association (NMA), Members, http://nma.org/about-nma/member-list (As of June 1, 2017).
19 WSPA, What is WSPA, https://www.wspa.org/what-is-wspa (as of June 1, 2017).
20 WSPA, Member List, https://www.wspa.org/member-list (as of June 1, 2017).
21 AFPM, Membership Directory, https://www.afpm.org/membership-directory/ (As of June 30, 2017).
22 Hereinafter, parenthetical references to Defendants indicate corporate ancestry and/or affiliation.

1989 shortly after the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meeting was held, and
disbanded in 2001. Founding members included the National Association of Manufacturers, the
National Coal Association, the Edison Electric Institute, and the United States Chamber of
Commerce. The GCC’s early individual corporate members included Amoco (BP), API, CHEVRON,
Exxon, Ford, Shell Oil, Texaco (CHEVRON) and Phillips Petroleum (CONOCOPHILLIPS). Over its
existence other members and funders included ARCO (BP), BHP, the National Mining
Association, and the Western Fuels Association. The coalition also operated for several years out
of the National Association of Manufacturers’ offices.

III. AGENCY

40. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants was the agent, servant,
partner, aider and abettor, co-conspirator, and/or joint venturer of each of the remaining
Defendants herein and was at all times operating and acting within the purpose and scope of said
agency, service, employment, partnership, conspiracy, and joint venture and rendered substantial
assistance and encouragement to the other Defendants, knowing that their conduct was wrongful
and/or constituted a breach of duty.

IV. JURISDICTION AND VENUE?

41. This court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendants named herein is proper because
each Defendant maintains substantial contacts with California by and through their fossil fuel
business operations in this state, as described above, and because Plaintiffs’ injuries described
herein arose out of and relate to those operations and occurred in California.
42. The Superior Court of California for Marin County is a court of general jurisdiction
and therefore has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
43. Venue is proper in Marin County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 395
and 395.5, the injuries giving rise to the County’s claims occurred in Marin County.
25 \ \ \