amna: California is suing big
oil.
It's the latest lawsuit
targeting fossil fuel companies
over their role in climate
change.
And it comes during climate
week, one of the largest annual
events designed to focus on the
problem and in tandem with the
meeting of the un general
assembly.
William brangham has the details
on this case.
William: California claims the 5
biggest oil and gas companies:
Exxon Mobil, shell, Chevron,
conocophillips and BP, as well
as the American petroleum
institute, knew that using their
products led to climate change,
but then spent decades
misleading the public.
The lawsuit says extreme weather
fueled by climate change has
caused billions of dollars in
damages in the state and these
companies should pay for some of
that damage.
Joining us now is California
attorney general rob bonta.
Thank you so much for being with
us.
You're claiming these companies
knew all along that burning oil
and gas would exacerbate climate
change.
As you sign your suit, there is
plenty of documentary evidence
that they knew that, and you are
arguing that they were not
forthcoming about that
knowledge.
What are you alleging that their
silence actually meant?
>> There were actually very
active in pushing forward and
advancing the deception.
They knew 50, 60, 70 years ago
that the fossil fuels that they
were selling created climate
change.
They predicted with terrifying
certaintyhere we would be
today with extreme weather
events, their internal memos,
industry commission studies,
their speeches internally to one
another all said this.
And they were very active in
their deception.
They worked with front groups.
They supported and funded front
groups with great climate
supportive names like global
client coalition to undermine
the science that they knew was
inaccurate, they knew the actual
truth.
Internally they acknowledged
that they talked about it and
pushed out into the public
science that would dilute that
proof, that would undermine it
and cast doubt.
So they could profit to the tune
of billions and billions of
dollars over many, many years,
just profiting $200 million last
year.
They also knew about clean
energy pathways forward.
They knew about carbon
sequestration, things that could
have put our pan -- put our
planet on a better pathway.
They chose to push those down
and lift up fossil fuels, all
for profit.
They lied to the people of
California.
So we are asking them to put
billions of dollars into an
abatement fund to mitigate
future environmental damage and
provide for resiliency and
adaptation going forward.
William: Let's say that had been
more frank about their
understanding of climate change.
What would you have wanted those
companies back then to have done
differently?
>> Is very simple.
Don't lie, don't deceive, don't
hide from the public clean
energy pathways forward, and
don't hide from the public the
existential threat that fossil
fuels created in terms of
climate change and extreme
weather and damage to the
environment, with full damage
that people can make choices
about their future and our
planet's future, our children
and grandchildren's future.
Perhaps the choices would've
been different, like doubling
down and investing in clean
energy and phasing out fossil
fuels.
Who knows?
But they should not applied.
They should've told the truth.
They affirmatively lied to the
people California time and time
again with their editorials that
they produced, their marketing
arm, the industry association,
the American petroleum institute
was very involved with this.
With the faux science they put
out, all meant to make people
believe something different than
the actual truth was, that we
were on a pathway towards
disaster, as a state, nation,
and world.
William: The American petroleum
institution -- institute put out
a statement saying the ongoing
campaign is nothing more than a
distraction.
Climate policy is for congress
to debate and decide, not the
court system.
What do you make of that
argument that in fact it is
incumbent on senators,
governors, presidents to
determine policy, energy policy
and that going after a private
company is inappropriate.
>> That entire statement is
entirely in character was
statements they made over the
last number of decades.
That statement is a distraction.
That statement is not true.
That statement wants you to
focus on other things besides
the actual truth.
There will be, and there is a
entirely separate and
independent pathway for action
in this space that is pointed
out by the American petroleum
institute.
That is something different than
what we're doing.
It's for congress and
legislative bodies to make
policy about climate change, and
they are.
The Biden administration has
been a great leader in this
space.
But R lane, a separate lane,
is the lane of accountable legal
accountability in court.
We are the state of California
is suing big oil in state court
for the damage they have caused.
This is not a policy lawsuit.
This is a straight up.
Legal cause of action that has
remedies in court.
Cases like this have been
brought before against the
tobacco industry against the
, lead paint industry, against
the opioid industry.
When entire industries hurt
people time and time again in
great numbers, and at great
scale and lie about it.
This is not new.
William: Governor Newsom has
said that the damage caused by
this deception, as he puts it,
by these oil companies is
incalculable.
So how do you calculate the role
that a given oil company might
have contributed to a drought?
A wildfire?
A storm in California?
How do you do that?
>> We think it's in the range of
tens of billions, hundreds of
billions of dollars and ongoing
damage going forward.
That's the sort of big picture
estimate.
We will in experts, scientists
to look at attribution of, um
, different damage to the
different defendants and looking
at causation.
To determine the specifics.
And so that will take time.
What we will get more evidence
and information through the
course of the lawsuit and make
those determinations throughout
the course of the lawsuit down
the road.
William: Attorney general rob
bonta of the state of California
thank you so much for being
here.
>> Thanks for having me.
♪♪