Sea level rise could lead to catastrophic flooding, and the city blames ExxonMobil and BP.
Executive Director of the San Francisco Port Elaine Forbes,
who has just switched from high-heels to walking shoes for our stroll,
points to the crowd. “There’s 24 million people that come and go, use
the seawall, and have no idea that it’s that core infrastructure that
makes for this beautiful place.”
Amy Thomson/Mother Jones
But more than a century later, the wall is badly in need of
updates. And because of warming oceans, sea levels are expected to
increase up to 66 inches between 2000-2100. Strengthening the wall has
become the port’s top priority in light of this threat (as well as the
potential for a large projected earthquake). The upgrades—which include an
estimated $3 billion in sea level rise mitigation and $2 billion in
earthquake retrofitting—will come at a huge cost to the city.
“Right now, we have zero construction dollars,” Forbes says.
To amass the funds, the city and the port are planning ballot
initiatives and working with the US Army Corps of Engineers, which might chip in.
Meanwhile, the city attorney’s office has decided to try a
new approach. On September 19, San Francisco filed suit against five of
the nation’s largest oil companies demanding they pay for the updates
the city needs to protect its residents against climate change. The suit,
filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, argues that the
corporations—Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP—promoted
fossil fuels as “environmentally responsible and essential to human
well-being” amid multiple warnings that the planet was in danger.
The lawsuit cites a slew of examples alleging that the oil
companies continued promoting their product when they knew it would harm
the environment. A 1968 Stanford Research Institute report, for
example, warned the American Petroleum Institute and its members (which
includes all of the defendants) that sea level rise and changes to the
earth’s environment were almost certain. “There seems to be no doubt
that the potential damage to our environment could be severe,” the
report reads.
“They made a choice to pursue a business strategy for their
profit motive,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera says. “Now
they’re going to have to pay.”
Will a lawsuit like this ever prevail? Herrera points to a case in Santa Clara County Superior Court,
where a group of California cities and counties, including San
Francisco, are suing colossal paint companies like Sherwin-Williams to
hold the manufacturers responsible for cleaning up lingering lead toxins
in homes. They won a $1.1 billion judgment in 2013 that the paint companies are now appealing. “That’s a good example of why I think our legal strategy is a good one,” Herrera says.
But the lead paint case has been in the court system for
more than 15 years. The oil company lawsuit could easily take a decade
to wend through proceedings—which is why the port is keeping its options
open. “It would be great if something came out of the lawsuit that we
could deploy to our seawall,” Forbes says, “but we’re a ticking time
bomb.”
In the event of a victory, however, the legal strategy could
serve as an example for other cities hoping to go after big oil to pay
for their own environmental woes. This case is one of five currently
underway. The City of Oakland filed a suit similar to San Francisco’s
last month. And two coastal California counties and a city
each submitted a suit in July against the same 37 fossil fuel giants
charging them with the bill for damages related to sea level rise.
“Chevron welcomes serious attempts to address the issue of climate change, but these suits do not do that,” the company said in response to San Francisco and Oakland’s cases.
Though the port’s vulnerability and risk assessment has
estimated the port needs billions to renovate the seawall, Forbes is
unsure what that upgrade will look like. “We don’t have a conceptual
design,” she explains. “We’re at the beginning of this project.” But the
consequences of climate change
are already affecting the area, as increased nuisance flooding and high
tides have prompted the city to close nearby streets in recent years.
“Climate change is accelerating the rate at which oceans are
rising and our lower-lying shoreline areas are increasingly exposed to
flood waters,” San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee stated in the city’s Sea Level Rise Action Plan,
which was completed in March 2016. While the lawsuit does not demand a
specific dollar amount, the plan reports that failing to prepare for
rising seas could ultimately cost the city $35 billion in public
property loss by 2100, and an additional $20 billion in private
property.
Walking back towards the Ferry building, passing by Pier 14,
Forbes points to the water crashing up against the cement railing
between us and the sea. “When we built Pier 14…we didn’t have water like
this,” she says. “This is a mess.”
Amy Thomson / Mother Jones
An extreme tide at Pier 14 on the San Francisco Port in February, 2011.Dave Rauenbuehler/San Francisco Port
Đăng nhận xét