Richmond will soon be added to the list that Exxon Mobil and others sue back
(Think Progress) Richmond, California has become the ninth city in less than a year to bring major fossil fuel companies to court over climate change. On Monday, the city announced that it was filing a lawsuit against 29 oil, gas, and coal companies — including Chevron, BP, and Exxon — to try and hold them accountable for their role in climate change and its impacts on the community. (snip)
Unlike other cities and counties that have filed lawsuits, however, Richmond argues that it is uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change because of both its location and its particular economic reality. Richmond is surrounded on three sides by water, and is home to some of the poorest communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, with a median household income of $55,102 and poverty rate of 17.5 percent, according to the U.S. Census. Richmond is also a predominantly Hispanic and black community that has struggled with industrial pollution due to the presence of several oil refineries and plants operated by Chevron.
That last has nothing to do with Hotcoldwetdry, but, hey, here’s an idea: Chevron should simply close the refineries and plants and take them elsewhere, leaving Richmond without a pretty big job provider and tax provider. Perhaps all the little Warmists could give up their use of fossil fuels. Especially the city.
The tide gauge for San Francisco, which is across the bay, shows just 1.94mm of sea rise per year, equivalent to 0.64 feet in 100 years. It’s a very long term gauge. Alameda is even lower.
In filing the lawsuit, Richmond’s mayor highlighted the city’s economic situation as part of the reason for seeking damages from fossil fuel companies, though the lawsuit does not ask for a specific amount of compensation. Cities like New York, for instance, have argued that the costs associated with preparing for future sea level rise — things like sea walls, raising major roads, or buttressing municipal buildings like wastewater treatment plants — could cost as much as $20 billion. And while those costs would certainly be lower for Richmond — which has some 108,000 residents — mitigation and adaptation projects still come with a hefty price tag.
Really, all this is is a shakedown suit, hoping that the companies will settle.
It’ll be fun when the counter suits show a failure to mention ‘climate change’ in bond offers.
Chevron already called the state of California’s bluff when they
tried to impose draconian regulations on the oil industry.
Chevron asked the state legislature “Which one do you want to see
us close, El Segundo or Richmond?” They issued an Emily Latella
“Never mind!” that would make Gilda Radner proud. If they stand
up to the city of Richmond, they will back down in a heartbeat.
There is too much revenue to risk losing. Even Mao Tse Brown
would jump in to prevent the loss of the Richmond refinery.