Profits or People? It’s Time to Choose
These days, it would be a rare occurrence to check your news feed, read a newspaper, or listen to a news report without hearing about the destructive aftermath of some new extreme weather-related event. Hurricanes, tsunamis, wildfires- these are among some of the most common of these natural disasters exacerbated by climate change, but who is to blame? A recent lawsuit by the state of California suggests that “Big Oil”, which is comprised of Exxon, Mobile, Shell, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, and BP, the most prominent oil corporations, are responsible for exacerbating climate change. Although the effects of climate change are being felt worldwide, specific weather events in California that prompted this lawsuit were the heatwaves and droughts that the state has been experiencing more intensely. This lawsuit, according to Richard Wiles, President of the Center for Climate Integrity, “. . . is the most significant, decisive, and powerful climate action directed against the oil and gas industry in U.S. history.”
These companies are being sued due to the fact that they have known about the detrimental effects their actions have had on Earth up to 70 years ago. Furthermore, it has been proven from inside sources that they knew about more climate-friendly ways to do their work, yet they hid these options from the public. These companies have also engaged in greenwashing through carefully crafted campaigns and false marketing. The money gained from this lawsuit would go towards partially rectifying the damage these droughts and heatwaves have caused the state, as well as creating climate-friendly initiatives. In order to ensure the money is spent effectively, the state is consulting scientists as well as other experts (Brangham and Hastings). Given that Big Oil collectively made record profits of nearly 200 billion dollars in 2022, which is more than the economic output of most countries, there is potential for a significant amount of money to allocate to sustainability (Meredith).
It was estimated in 2018 by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that 89% of CO2 emissions were created by fossil fuel companies, with oil specifically contributing to one-third of total carbon emissions (Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty.) Aside from increasing air pollution, the process of oil extraction has additional detrimental effects, such as the destruction of habitats and the creation of noise pollution which disrupts the organisms living in oil extraction areas. It is also very hazardous for individuals living in oil extraction areas. One such oil extraction town in Los Angeles has some of the highest rates of asthma and cancer in the state. This is no coincidence as this area is surrounded by six oil extraction companies and the pollution generated from them has been linked to congenital disorders, asthma, respiratory diseases, and various forms of cancer (Newburger).
The People of the State of California v. “Big Oil” will help prevent these oil companies from harming the environment more than necessary in the future. Even though this money will not solve this issue as a whole, it is certainly a start. This will in turn dissuade other companies that generate pollution similarly from spreading misinformation in the future. Even though this is an important action to take, it is vital that consumers push these companies to be more environmentally friendly to ensure they commit to changing. There have been numerous studies that have shown a correlation between consumer pressure and companies switching to more environmentally-friendly practices. One study conducted by the Department of Agro-Industrial Technology at the University of Brawijaya found that there was a significant correlation between consumer pressure and environmentally friendly improvements when researching 80 food sectors in East Java-Indonesia. This lawsuit will hopefully shed light on the immoral practices of these oil companies and as a result, these companies will receive increased consumer pressure to be more sustainable.
While some might argue that there should not be a price placed on climate change, and this lawsuit could, in turn, send the wrong message about the environment having a monetary value, the reality is that there is a lot to gain with this approach. The climate crisis can be lessened with more money and resources and California is taking the initiative to do so. However, this is a world issue, not just a Californian issue, as climate change caused by fossil fuels affects the whole globe, and world temperatures are rising greatly each year (Lindsey, Rebecca). Despite the hope for the environment that is brought with this lawsuit, it is also a concern that the government may not win. As a result, there would be no progress on the much-needed changes that are vital to the survival of our planet. If this lawsuit goes through, it will set a much-needed precedent for other energy companies as California is the largest economy to sue oil companies to date. This suit will hopefully put an end to some of the unsustainable practices that so many energy companies are engaging in, as well as initiate a push from the public to stop supporting these companies.
By hiding this information about the effects of fossil fuel production and limiting consumers’ options, “Big Oil” took away the choice from the public to protect the earth. This lawsuit will be effective as this it is an important first step toward repairing the damage caused from decades of harm. It would not only allocate money to the recovery from natural disasters but more importantly, would set the precedent that the oil companies’ deception and treatment of the environment will not be tolerated.
Works Cited
Alvarado, Caroll. “California Sues 5 Major Oil Companies, Accuses Them of Deceiving Public over the Risks of Fossil Fuel Use.” CNN. Cable News Network, 16 Sept. 2023. Web. 04 Oct. 2023.
Brangham, William, and Dorothy Hastings. “California Sues Oil Companies for Exacerbating Climate Change.” PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, 20 Sept. 2023. Web. 04 Oct. 2023.
“Clean Air Act Title IV — Noise Pollution | US EPA.” Clean Air Act Title IV — Noise Pollution. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 8 Aug. 2023. Web. 03 Oct. 2023.
“Fossil Fuels and Climate Change: The Facts.” ClientEarth. 18 Feb. 2022. Web. 04 Oct. 2023.
“Global Warming of 1.5°C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C above Pre-Industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty.” Global warming of 1.5 oc. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2022. Web. 04 Oct. 2023.
Lestari, E R, et al. “The Impact of Customer Pressure and the Environmental Regulation on Green Innovation Performance.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing, 25 Aug. 2020. Web. 05 Oct. 2023.
Lindsey, Rebecca. “Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” NOAA Climate.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 12 May 2023. Web. 03 Oct. 2023.
Meredith, Sam. “Big Oil Rakes in Record Profit Haul of Nearly $200 Billion, Fueling Calls for Higher Taxes.” CNBC. CNBC, 8 Feb. 2023. Web. 02 Oct. 2023.
NCEI.Monitoring.Info@noaa.gov. “Annual 2022 Global Climate Report.” Annual 2022 Global Climate Report | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, Jan. 2023. Web. 05 Oct. 2023.
Newburger, Emma. “‘Ground Zero for Pollution:’ in This L.A. Neighborhood Surrounded by Oil Refineries, Residents Grapple with Health Issues.” CNBC. CNBC, 9 Oct. 2021. Web. 05 Oct. 2023.
“Oil and Gas Development.” WWF. World Wildlife Fund, n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2023.
Rapier, Robert. “California’s Misguided Lawsuit against Oil Firms.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 20 Sept. 2023. Web. 04 Oct. 2023.
