California v. Big Oil Through an Earthrise Accord Lens

Big Oil on Trial: California’s Climate Deception Lawsuit

In September 2023, the State of California made history by filing a groundbreaking lawsuit against five of the world’s largest oil corporations—ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips—as well as their influential lobbying organization, the American Petroleum Institute (API). The lawsuit, titled People of the State of California v. Big Oil, represents a major effort to hold these industry giants legally accountable for their prolonged and deliberate campaign of deception regarding the catastrophic environmental and societal risks posed by fossil fuel consumption. Spanning more than half a century, this campaign involved systematically suppressing, distorting, and denying established scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels releases massive quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into Earth’s atmosphere. These gases—primarily carbon dioxide and methane—have progressively warmed the planet, driving unprecedented environmental crises, including catastrophic wildfires, severe droughts, devastating storms, rising sea levels, and widespread ecosystem collapse (See Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago | Scientific American.)

At the heart of California’s case is the allegation that, for decades, senior executives and scientists within these major oil corporations possessed extensive internal research conclusively demonstrating the destructive impacts of their products on the global climate. Despite having this knowledge as early as the 1960s, these companies made the calculated decision not only to withhold critical information from the public and policymakers but to actively promote misleading narratives designed to cast doubt on the emerging scientific consensus around climate change. Rather than acknowledge the looming crisis and work toward solutions, they prioritized safeguarding their immense financial interests, reaping trillions of dollars in profits through the continued extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels.

To protect these profits, the corporations allegedly engaged in an expansive, multi-decade strategy of denial, doubt, and disinformation. They financed front groups that presented themselves as independent scientific bodies, produced misleading advertising campaigns aimed at sowing public confusion, funded efforts to manufacture artificial scientific controversy, and exerted substantial political influence through aggressive lobbying to block or delay climate regulation. Their efforts were not confined to influencing policymakers or shaping industry practices—they targeted the broader public, embedding doubt about climate science into the cultural consciousness and thereby paralyzing meaningful collective action for generations.

California’s lawsuit does more than seek financial redress. It demands that those who knowingly fueled and accelerated the climate crisis finally be held responsible for the immense harm their deception has caused—and continues to cause. Wildfires, droughts, extreme heat events, coastal flooding, and other climate-driven disasters have already inflicted billions of dollars in damages across the state. These damages, the lawsuit argues, should not be borne by taxpayers and local governments but by the corporations whose deliberate disinformation campaigns delayed society’s ability to prevent or mitigate the unfolding crisis.

The lawsuit underscores a profound shift in climate litigation: the recognition that fossil fuel corporations' climate deception constitutes not only a political and scientific betrayal but a legal and moral crime. It situates California at the forefront of a growing international movement aimed at ensuring that those who profited from endangering humanity and the planet are held publicly accountable, financially penalized, and exposed for their role in obstructing global climate progress.

Ultimately, People of the State of California v. Big Oil represents a potential turning point—a historical effort not only to recover damages but to reframe the narrative around fossil fuel responsibility. It seeks to establish a legal precedent that deception about climate change is not merely negligent but actively harmful, warranting judicial condemnation and restitution. In doing so, the case joins a rising tide of legal actions worldwide that aim to treat the climate crisis not simply as an unfortunate byproduct of industrialization, but as the result of deliberate, preventable wrongdoing by a small group of extraordinarily powerful actors who chose profit over the future of life on Earth.

Fossil Fuel Industry Deception: A Pattern of Concealment and Betrayal

California’s complaint details how internal industry studies, dating as far back as the 1960s and 1970s, explicitly linked fossil fuel use to rising global temperatures and warned of severe and potentially irreversible environmental consequences. These early warnings, rather than prompting responsible action, were deliberately suppressed, distorted, or buried by senior executives determined to protect corporate profits at all costs (People of the State of California v. Big Oil | Governor of California).

One of the most striking examples comes from Exxon’s own internal research. In 1977, Exxon scientists warned top management that the combustion of oil and gas was likely to “influence the global climate” in dangerous ways (Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago | Scientific American). Rather than sounding the alarm publicly or investing in meaningful mitigation efforts, Exxon (now ExxonMobil) spent the next several decades aggressively denying the growing body of climate science. Instead of informing the public, the company poured millions of dollars into funding think tanks, lobbying organizations, and front groups specifically designed to sow doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change (Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago | Scientific American).

The duplicity became even more flagrant by the late 1980s. As revealed in a 2015 Scientific American investigation, Exxon helped establish the so-called “Global Climate Coalition,” an industry front group aimed at obstructing climate policy initiatives like the Kyoto Protocol (Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago | Scientific American). During this period, Exxon simultaneously operated sophisticated internal research programs that confirmed the reality and seriousness of global warming while publicly promoting narratives that denied or downplayed the threat. In doing so, the company borrowed heavily from the disinformation playbook pioneered by the tobacco industry, even hiring some of the same public relations strategists who had previously worked to undermine the scientific link between smoking and cancer.

This strategy of public denial coupled with private knowledge was not unique to ExxonMobil. It became a defining pattern across the major oil companies. Shell and BP, for example, spent heavily on advertising campaigns that projected an environmentally friendly image—such as BP’s much-publicized 2000 rebranding to “Beyond Petroleum”—even as they continued to expand oil and gas production aggressively. Behind the scenes, both companies provided financial support to efforts that undermined climate science and opposed regulatory action.

Chevron, which absorbed Texaco in 2001, exemplified another dimension of the industry's malfeasance. Rather than remedying the environmental devastation caused by decades of oil drilling in the Amazon, Chevron spent hundreds of millions of dollars waging legal battles aimed at silencing affected Indigenous communities and evading responsibility for one of the largest environmental disasters in history.

Across the industry, the pattern was remarkably consistent: internally, the executives and scientists knew with increasing certainty that the continued burning of fossil fuels was destabilizing Earth's climate system; externally, they projected a carefully curated web of false assurances, presenting fossil energy as safe, indispensable, and ultimately benign. The industry's strategy was not merely one of passive inaction but of active, calculated deception—one that sacrificed the future of the planet for the preservation of corporate power and profit.

California’s lawsuit seeks to hold Big Oil legally and financially accountable for this decades-long cover-up and for the intensifying damages now engulfing the state. Already facing a cascade of climate-fueled disasters—wildfires that have wiped entire towns off the map, toxic smoke that chokes communities, deadly heat waves that strain public health systems, worsening droughts that threaten water supplies, and steadily rising seas that imperil coastal infrastructure—California argues that the corporations most responsible for these harms should bear their fair share of the enormous costs, rather than continuing to offload the financial burden onto taxpayers (People of the State of California v. Big Oil | Governor of California).

At the heart of the complaint are serious legal allegations, including public nuisance, fraud, and product liability. California contends that these companies knowingly sold a dangerous product—fossil fuels—while systematically deceiving the public about its inherent risks. In doing so, they violated the public’s trust on an epic scale, fueling a crisis that now threatens the stability of ecosystems, economies, and human health across the globe. This legal framing draws a deliberate parallel to past litigation against other industries—such as tobacco and opioids—that similarly misled the public about the dangers of their products in pursuit of profit.

Governor Gavin Newsom captured the gravity of the lawsuit when he declared, "For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us... It has been decades of damage and deception" (People of the State of California v. Big Oil | Governor of California). Attorney General Rob Bonta was even more direct, stating that the defendant corporations “privately knew the truth for decades... but fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment” (People of the State of California v. Big Oil | Governor of California). Their statements underscore the moral dimension of the lawsuit: it is not merely a question of financial restitution, but of exposing and correcting one of the most consequential campaigns of corporate deception in modern history.

Beyond seeking monetary damages to fund urgent climate resilience measures—such as constructing sea walls, upgrading power grids to withstand extreme heat, expanding wildfire response capacity, and fortifying water infrastructure—California’s lawsuit demands broader structural remedies. The state is asking the court to issue injunctions that would compel these corporations to cease their ongoing greenwashing campaigns, to publicly disclose the full extent of their historical knowledge about fossil fuels and climate change, and to stop disseminating misleading information about the safety and necessity of fossil energy. In effect, California is seeking not only to make Big Oil pay for the damage already done but to force a reckoning that ends the industry’s decades-long pattern of misinformation and restores some measure of truth to the public discourse.

By tying financial restitution to structural accountability, California’s case aims to establish a legal precedent: that corporations cannot profit from deception while leaving the public to suffer the consequences. It is an effort to shift the balance of power—to wrest the narrative of climate change away from those who have deliberately distorted it and to affirm the principle that those who knowingly fuel a crisis must be held responsible for its costs, both economic and moral.

Beyond California: Earthrise Accord’s Vision for Full Climate Accountability

From the perspective of Earthrise Accord, California’s lawsuit against Big Oil is a necessary and courageous first step toward exposing decades of fossil fuel industry deception. It marks a historic turning point: a major government entity formally accusing the largest oil corporations of knowingly lying about the catastrophic dangers of burning fossil fuels. Yet while the lawsuit is groundbreaking within the U.S. legal system, Earthrise Accord believes that achieving true climate justice requires pushing far beyond the lawsuit’s current boundaries.

The actions of Big Oil are not merely civil violations deserving fines and settlements. They represent deliberate acts of profound harm—what Earthrise Accord identifies as crimes against humanity and nature. When corporate executives made the calculated decision to suppress scientific knowledge about climate change and to sow public doubt for profit, they were not just protecting their market share. They were actively destabilizing Earth's life-support systems, knowing full well that the result would be the destruction of communities, ecosystems, and future generations' chances for survival.

California’s case begins to peel back the veil on one of the fossil fuel industry's most damaging lies: the claim that burning oil, gas, and coal was harmless or scientifically uncertain. By exposing internal documents, scientific reports, and decades of coordinated disinformation campaigns, the lawsuit affirms what frontline communities, environmental advocates, and independent scientists have long insisted: the oil majors knew, they understood the risks in detail, and they chose to lie anyway.

This acknowledgment is crucial. It publicly validates that the "era of fossil fuel harm-denial"—the era in which doubt and delay were manufactured as political weapons—must come to an end. Recognizing that the devastation we now see—rising seas, burning forests, toxic air, mass extinctions—is not an accidental byproduct of industrial society but the foreseeable outcome of corporate deception is a critical step in shifting moral and legal responsibility onto the true perpetrators.

Yet Earthrise Accord argues that the California lawsuit, powerful though it is, still falls short of the full reckoning the climate crisis demands. Three critical gaps remain unaddressed—gaps that must be filled if we are to genuinely confront the scale of the injustice at hand:

1. Holding Petro-States Accountable

The California lawsuit targets private corporations, but it leaves untouched the role of nation-states whose economies and political systems have been built on fossil fuel extraction. Countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Venezuela, Iran, Canada, and the United States itself have long acted not only as passive beneficiaries of fossil fuel profits but as active agents in perpetuating climate destruction. State-owned oil companies and government-backed denial campaigns have played an enormous role in delaying global action. A true movement for climate justice must extend beyond corporate boardrooms to the halls of national power. Petro-states must be held accountable, both morally and legally, for their contribution to planetary destabilization.

2. Elevating Climate Destruction to the Level of International Crime

California's lawsuit operates within the framework of state civil law, seeking monetary damages for climate-related harms. While important, this framing risks treating the destruction of Earth's atmosphere and ecosystems as a mere liability issue, like a corporate dispute over faulty products. Earthrise Accord contends that the deliberate, knowing destabilization of the climate system constitutes an act of mass harm so grave that it must be recognized as a crime against humanity and nature. The deliberate, profit-driven destruction of the planetary commons should be prosecuted at the level of international law—through the expansion of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction or the creation of a new global tribunal recognizing ecocide as a crime. Civil damages are not enough; those responsible for planetary arson must face real legal and moral consequences before the world.

3. Confronting the Fossil Fuel Industry’s War Against Clean Energy

California’s lawsuit rightly focuses on the industry’s denial of climate science, but it does not yet address an equally destructive campaign: Big Oil’s decades-long war against clean energy alternatives, especially nuclear power. While denying the reality of climate change, fossil fuel interests also waged an aggressive, well-funded disinformation campaign against nuclear energy—the one proven, scalable, zero-carbon technology capable of replacing fossil fuels at the speed and scale required. By stoking fear, exaggerating risks, and lobbying against nuclear deployment, Big Oil not only delayed the global response to climate change; it sabotaged humanity’s best chances to decarbonize in time. Any true reckoning must include this forgotten chapter of deception, because the destruction was twofold: denying the danger while blocking the solutions.

Earthrise Accord believes that closing these three gaps is essential if the struggle for climate justice is to succeed. We must move from isolated lawsuits to a global framework of accountability. We must recognize that the fossil fuel industry's disinformation was not a political difference or a policy dispute—it was a betrayal of humanity’s shared future. And we must confront the full truth: that the path to a livable world requires not just technical solutions, but moral clarity and the courage to demand justice on a planetary scale.

California has opened the door. It is up to the global climate justice movement—including Earthrise Accord—to walk through it, widen it, and never allow it to close again.

Petro-States and the Climate Crisis: The Unindicted Co-Conspirators

While California’s lawsuit rightly targets corporate malfeasance, it does not tell the whole story of the climate crisis. The fossil fuel corporations did not act alone. National governments—the so-called petro-states—have been willing and often enthusiastic partners in building and sustaining the fossil fuel empire. These governments issued licenses for massive oil and gas extraction, subsidized fossil fuel industries, suppressed or manipulated climate science, and projected soothing narratives to delay or deflect action. In many cases, petro-state governments knew as much, if not more, about the catastrophic consequences of continued fossil fuel combustion than the corporations themselves. Yet, again and again, they chose wealth, power, and geopolitical leverage over planetary survival.

The examples are stark and damning. Saudi Arabia and Russia—home to Saudi Aramco and Gazprom, two of the world’s largest carbon polluters—have contributed more greenhouse gas emissions than any of the Western oil majors. Both states publicly acknowledge the reality of climate change in international forums, pledging vague concerns about sustainability and signing agreements like the Paris Accord. But their actual behavior tells a different story: Saudi Aramco is expanding oil production to unprecedented levels, and Saudi diplomats have repeatedly worked behind closed doors to obstruct stronger climate agreements. Russia, meanwhile, has relied on oil and gas revenues to fund its economy and military expansion while making little effort to curtail extraction. Reports even suggest that Russian disinformation efforts targeted European renewable energy adoption to maintain its geopolitical energy dominance. In both cases, these governments knew the science. Their choice to ignore it—and to weaponize it for political gain—makes them deeply complicit in the global deception.

Norway, often portrayed as a climate progressive, exemplifies a subtler but equally destructive form of petro-state hypocrisy. Domestically, Norway promotes electric vehicles, carbon pricing, and forest conservation projects. Internationally, it champions climate justice causes. Yet oil and gas exports remain the foundation of its wealth, representing a majority of its export value even today. Through its state-owned company, Equinor, Norway continues to expand offshore drilling, including in fragile Arctic regions. At the same time, Norway long maintained legal bans on nuclear energy, promoting a “natural gas plus renewables” model that conveniently aligned with its economic interests. While speaking the language of climate leadership, Norway fueled the very crisis it claims to oppose.

Canada presents another example of duality. Its federal government has positioned itself as a global climate leader, touting carbon pricing and commitments to international climate frameworks. Yet Canada remains one of the world's largest fossil fuel producers and exporters, with the carbon-intensive Alberta tar sands representing a colossal environmental liability. Successive Canadian administrations have simultaneously recognized the dangers of climate change while approving new pipelines, subsidizing fossil fuel expansion, and, in a glaring contradiction, nationalizing the Trans Mountain pipeline to guarantee its completion. In provinces rich with hydropower, like British Columbia and Quebec, outdated anti-nuclear laws remain in place, ensuring continued dependence on gas and coal during energy gaps—directly undermining the country’s own climate goals. Canada's image of climate responsibility is carefully managed, but its actions continue to entrench fossil dependency.

And then there is the United States itself—the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases and a leading producer of oil and gas today. While California now sues oil companies for deception, the U.S. federal government continues to lease public lands for oil drilling, build export infrastructure for liquefied natural gas, and subsidize fossil fuel production. Internal documents show that U.S. government scientists understood the threat of climate change decades ago. President Lyndon Johnson was warned about fossil-fueled global warming in 1965. NASA's James Hansen famously testified before Congress in 1988 about the "greenhouse effect." Yet for decades, federal action was stalled or sabotaged, often under the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists and industry-funded disinformation campaigns. The state and corporate sectors were not separate adversaries in the story of climate delay; they were collaborators.

China presents perhaps the most complicated and urgent case. Today, China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases by far, responsible for roughly 30% of global emissions. It continues to extract and burn vast quantities of coal, building new coal-fired power plants domestically and abroad under the Belt and Road Initiative. At the same time, China is also the world’s leading manufacturer and deployer of clean energy technologies—dominating solar, wind, battery, and electric vehicle production at a scale no other nation has approached. Dealing with China requires balancing these contradictory realities: pressuring it to phase out fossil fuels more aggressively while recognizing that its industrial base is essential to global decarbonization. Earthrise Accord argues that climate justice demands that China be held to account for its coal expansion and international fossil infrastructure financing. Yet it also demands pragmatic collaboration: no global energy transition is possible without engaging China as both a major emitter and a clean energy powerhouse. Isolating or demonizing China will not solve the climate crisis; constructive but firm engagement, emphasizing joint responsibility and binding global standards, offers the only viable path.

Nigeria, meanwhile, illustrates another face of petro-state injustice: the tragic paradox of a country rich in oil wealth yet mired in environmental devastation and widespread poverty. For decades, multinational corporations such as Shell reaped enormous profits from Nigeria’s oil fields while leaving behind contaminated lands, poisoned water, and devastated communities, particularly in the Niger Delta. The bulk of the revenue flowed outward to foreign shareholders, and what remained often enriched a narrow circle of domestic elites rather than improving the lives of ordinary Nigerians. Recently, Nigerian billionaire Aliko Dangote completed construction of the Dangote Refinery—the largest in Africa—aiming to capture more oil revenue domestically. Yet this development, while economically significant, highlights a deeper issue: without systemic change, oil wealth in Nigeria risks continuing to concentrate power and profits rather than delivering true social and environmental justice. Earthrise Accord contends that climate justice must include reparative frameworks for countries like Nigeria—addressing not just carbon emissions, but the historical exploitation of resources and communities by both multinational corporations and local oligarchs. A just transition for Nigeria must prioritize energy sovereignty, community health, and clean energy alternatives that genuinely benefit the Nigerian people, not merely replicate new forms of extractive inequality.

This widespread complicity demands a far broader frame of accountability. Focusing solely on private corporations while ignoring petro-state enablers leaves the case for climate justice dangerously incomplete. The climate crisis is not merely the byproduct of rogue corporate greed; it is the result of a systemic failure in which governments, entrusted with the public good, instead conspired—through action and inaction—to facilitate ecocide on a planetary scale.

Earthrise Accord argues that true climate justice must pierce the veil of national sovereignty when it is used to shield environmental crimes. Sovereign immunity should not protect those who knowingly perpetrate irreversible harm against the planet. International legal mechanisms must evolve to hold both corporate and state actors accountable, recognizing the mass destabilization of the climate as not just a political tragedy, but a legal and moral atrocity. Oil-stained hands are no cleaner because they bear the imprimatur of a national flag instead of a corporate logo.

California’s lawsuit is a critical first step. But the future demands more. It demands coalitions of nations, new legal frameworks, and an unwavering insistence that no entity—private or public, multinational or national—should escape responsibility for participating in the greatest crime of our time.

From Civil Court to International Criminal Court: Toward Global Climate Justice

The photograph known as Earthrise, captured by Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders in 1968, shows a fragile blue Earth rising above the desolate lunar horizon. It reminds us, with stark clarity, that national borders mean nothing to the laws of nature. From space, Earth is one interconnected system—a delicate biosphere without political divisions. This image has become a symbol of our shared responsibility to protect the planet: one Earth, one crew, one future.

The California lawsuit against Big Oil is a courageous effort fought in a state Superior Court, grounded in state law, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. But Earthrise Accord challenges us to think bigger: What if the knowing destruction of Earth’s climate system were treated with the gravity it truly deserves—not merely as corporate fraud, but as a crime against humanity and nature, prosecutable on the world stage?

After all, climate change is not confined to California. It is a planetary emergency, affecting every nation, every community, and every future generation. The deception that enabled this crisis was not limited to one jurisdiction: fossil fuel executives lied not just to Californians, but to humanity. They suppressed the truth at a scale that demands more than civil damages. It demands criminal accountability.

A growing movement is pushing for precisely that. In a landmark development in March 2024, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced the creation of a new policy framework to address environmental crimes, citing the “global impunity” currently enjoyed by polluters. This reflects mounting pressure from legal scholars, civil society groups, Pacific Island nations, European governments, and millions of ordinary citizens who argue that mass environmental destruction fundamentally violates the human rights to life, health, and security—and must fall within the ICC’s reach.

There are signs of real momentum. French President Emmanuel Macron has endorsed the recognition of ecocide as an international crime. In 2021, an independent panel of legal experts drafted a workable definition of ecocide that could be added to the Rome Statute—the treaty that empowers the ICC. The principle is simple: if a person or entity knowingly destroys ecosystems or destabilizes the climate system at a massive scale, with full awareness of the consequences, they should face criminal prosecution just as they would for genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.

The contrast is stark: had ExxonMobil executives been caught dumping toxic waste into a single river and poisoning thousands, there would be little doubt about criminal liability. Why should knowingly fueling global climate catastrophe—with consequences vastly greater—be treated any differently? Climate change is not an abstract or future harm. It is already killing people today—through stronger hurricanes flattening Caribbean islands, droughts and famines in Africa, rising seas swallowing Pacific nations, deadly heat waves across Asia, North America, and Europe. Climate destruction is mass destruction—only slower and less photogenic than bombings or genocides, but equally real.

Future generations will not wonder whether it was technically possible to prosecute those who knowingly destabilized the planet. They will ask why it was not done.

Earthrise Accord sees the prosecution of climate crimes as a matter of both intergenerational justice and moral urgency. If rogue actors aboard "Spaceship Earth" deliberately set fire to the engine room for profit—endangering all life—they must not be treated as misguided entrepreneurs. They must be treated as criminals. Brandishing the crime of ecocide would serve not only justice for past actions but also deterrence for future planetary betrayals.

Imagine if People of the State of California v. Big Oil were just the beginning. Imagine a future People of Earth v. Big Oil—an international prosecution where deceitful executives are charged not only with fraud but with ecocide itself. Internal documents showing calculated misinformation campaigns could become evidence of willful harm. Executives could face personal liability, not just corporate fines—penalties including imprisonment, not just settlements. Such accountability would reverberate through boardrooms and ministries worldwide, chilling future lies before they metastasize into new disasters.

It would also empower the most vulnerable. Today, countries like Bangladesh—repeatedly battered by climate-fueled floods—have little effective recourse against corporate giants like Exxon or Shell. A properly constructed international legal framework could give smaller nations a path to seek justice directly, no longer beholden to the political or economic leverage of fossil superpowers.

Skeptics may argue that ecocide is not yet codified as a crime under international law—and they are technically correct. But that is not an argument against the project; it is an argument for its urgency. Legal norms are not static. Slavery was once legal. Genocide lacked a legal definition until after World War II. Crimes against humanity had to be invented in the wake of atrocities. If the law does not yet recognize climate destruction as a crime, then the law must evolve. The suffering is real; the damage is real; justice must be made real too.

Creative legal strategies already exist. Some propose using current categories within the ICC's mandate—such as "other inhumane acts" under crimes against humanity—to prosecute extreme environmental harm. Others propose national-level prosecutions under universal jurisdiction, treating planetary crimes as violations of basic human rights. The ICC Prosecutor's new environmental focus suggests a readiness to explore such pathways.

Meanwhile, the evidence gathered through civil suits like California’s could serve as a powerful foundation for future criminal cases. Internal memos, private scientific reports, and executive correspondence already show a consistent pattern: knowledge of the dangers, deliberate suppression of that knowledge, calculated public deception. These are not mere regulatory violations. They meet the moral definition of crimes.

Recognizing climate destruction as a crime would have profound societal effects. It would formally affirm that what the fossil fuel industry did was not just unfortunate or misguided—it was wrong. Morally, legally, and historically wrong. Public trials serve not only to punish perpetrators but also to establish truth. Just as Nuremberg revealed the systematic machinery of atrocity, international climate trials could reveal the full machinery of disinformation, delay, and destruction that produced the climate crisis.

The human cost is staggering. The World Health Organization estimates that 7 million people die every year from air pollution, much of it caused by burning fossil fuels. That is an ongoing humanitarian catastrophe—an "atmospheric holocaust" unfolding year after year, disproportionately killing the poorest and most vulnerable. When we add the mounting deaths and displacements from climate-driven disasters, the moral case for accountability only deepens.

In short, Earthrise Accord calls for a world where the destruction of our shared home is treated as the grave crime that it is. The California lawsuit cracks open the door by exposing deception and establishing corporate harm. Now it falls to the global community to throw that door wide open—to recognize planetary destruction as a prosecutable crime, and to pursue those responsible using every available legal tool: from courtrooms in San Francisco to tribunals in The Hague.

Protecting the future cannot be left to half-measures. Only by holding the architects of climate chaos truly accountable can we hope to ensure that Earthrise remains not a requiem, but a beginning.

The Hidden War on Clean Energy: Fossil Fuel Disinformation Beyond Climate Denial

One of the most striking omissions in California’s lawsuit is the failure to address how the fossil fuel industry not only sabotaged public understanding of climate science but also systematically attacked the clean energy solutions that could have ended the world’s dependence on oil, gas, and coal. While Big Oil was busy denying the reality of climate change, it was equally busy denying and delaying viable alternatives—most notably nuclear power. Earthrise Accord emphasizes this neglected history because it reveals the full extent of fossil fuel deception: the industry did not merely lie about the dangers of fossil fuels; it also lied about the safety, viability, and necessity of the technologies that could have displaced them.

This second great lie—that there were "no alternatives" to fossil fuels—was critical to preserving fossil fuel dominance. The fossil industry understood that it could not maintain its power indefinitely by denying climate change alone; it also had to discredit its clean energy competitors. Chief among those competitors was nuclear power, a proven zero-carbon energy source capable of delivering large-scale, reliable electricity with minimal environmental impact.

Investigative work by journalists and scholars—including environmental advocate-turned-whistleblower Michael Shellenberger in his report The War on Nuclear—has exposed how fossil fuel interests covertly, and sometimes openly, funded and shaped anti-nuclear movements beginning in the 1960s. Although public concerns about nuclear energy—especially after incidents like Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986)—were real and understandable, fossil fuel interests cynically amplified these fears because they recognized the threat nuclear power posed to their markets.

The record is increasingly clear:

• The Sierra Club, once supportive of nuclear power, reversed its position in the 1970s under growing influence from donors tied to natural gas and renewable energy interests—industries that stood to gain if nuclear plants were halted. Estimates suggest that the Sierra Club received roughly $136 million from such sources.

  
  

• The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), another major environmental group, had tens of millions of dollars invested in oil and gas funds even as it campaigned aggressively against nuclear power.

  
  

• Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) similarly accepted large donations from natural gas investors while opposing nuclear expansion.

  
  

• Friends of the Earth (FOE) and Greenpeace, among the loudest global voices against nuclear power, adopted anti-nuclear stances from their inception, aligning—whether knowingly or not—with fossil fuel interests that benefited from stalled nuclear deployment. While these organizations have often refused to disclose full funding sources, their early opposition helped cement a public narrative in which fossil fuels were framed as a "lesser evil" compared to nuclear energy.

  
  

This was not always a matter of explicit conspiracy. More often, it was a strategic alignment: fossil fuel companies quietly supported "green" groups that promoted renewables to the exclusion of nuclear, subtly steering environmental narratives in ways that prolonged fossil fuel dependence. At times, the fossil fuel lobby even produced its own anti-nuclear propaganda—emphasizing the dangers of nuclear waste or accidents—to reinforce public fear and slow reactor construction.

The 1970s and 1980s saw coal companies running scare ads about nuclear energy; by the 2000s, natural gas companies had found common cause with anti-nuclear activists, promoting wind and solar backed by gas-fired plants as the "practical" energy transition pathway. Internally, oil and gas executives understood that renewables alone could not fully replace fossil fuels without nuclear power—and they quietly structured the transition narrative to ensure fossil fuels remained indispensable.

The consequences have been profound. Germany offers a devastating case study: following the Fukushima disaster in 2011, Germany committed to closing all its nuclear plants while ramping up renewables. Yet without nuclear, Germany burned more coal and imported vast quantities of Russian natural gas, stalling emissions reductions and undermining its climate goals. Emissions rose, not fell, as coal-fired plants filled the energy gap left by nuclear.

South Korea similarly froze new nuclear projects under political pressure from anti-nuclear campaigns, leading to increased coal and gas consumption. Even California itself, which led efforts to shutter the San Onofre nuclear plant in 2012 and nearly shut Diablo Canyon, experienced higher emissions as gas plants filled the void.

The fossil fuel industry knew this would happen. Internal energy scenarios from oil and gas companies recognized that killing nuclear power would entrench fossil fuel use for decades. Organizations like Greenpeace inadvertently reinforced this trajectory, envisioning energy futures in which gas-fired backup was considered the natural partner for wind and solar. Shell, Statoil (now Equinor), and other major oil companies ran public relations campaigns touting natural gas as the "perfect partner" for intermittent renewables—an admission that, without nuclear, the world would still be shackled to carbon-based fuels. (For more on Greenpeace lies about nuclear, see Jessica Jursek's "Nuclear Lies and Those Who Tell Them.")

Earthrise Accord holds that this deliberate sabotage of clean energy alternatives was as morally reprehensible as the denial of climate science itself. By undermining nuclear energy, fossil fuel interests—and their enablers—prolonged humanity's dependence on deadly air pollution and accelerated the global climate crisis. The data is irrefutable: after Chernobyl, and particularly after Fukushima, when public fear was weaponized against nuclear energy, fossil fuel use surged. Each nuclear reactor closed prematurely became a de facto expansion of coal or gas use, leading to millions of tons of additional CO₂ emissions annually and countless preventable deaths from air pollution.

The real human toll is staggering. According to World Health Organization estimates, 7 million people die each year from air pollution, much of it traceable to fossil fuel combustion. Modern studies show that even the worst nuclear accidents resulted in far fewer direct and indirect deaths than a single year of fossil fuel-related air pollution. After Japan shuttered its nuclear fleet post-Fukushima, increased reliance on coal and gas is estimated to have caused hundreds of additional deaths annually—far eclipsing the radiation fatalities of the disaster itself.

Earthrise Accord maintains that repairing this disinformation damage is essential for true climate justice. A just energy transition must reclaim the role of nuclear energy alongside renewables—rejecting the fossil-fueled myth that nuclear is uniquely dangerous or unnecessary. France’s experience is illustrative: by aggressively investing in nuclear after the 1970s oil shocks, France achieved one of the lowest per capita carbon footprints among developed nations, largely thanks to its nuclear-powered grid.

Today, growing numbers of environmentalists recognize the need to correct past misconceptions. The documentary CRITICAL: Greens For Nuclear Energy captures this turning point, following former anti-nuclear activists who, in light of the climate crisis, now advocate for nuclear as a critical part of the solution. Figures like Mark Lynas and Zion Lights represent a new environmentalism—one informed by science, committed to carbon reduction, and willing to embrace every viable tool, including nuclear power.

Yet the California lawsuit, understandably focused on fossil fuel deception regarding climate risks, does not yet tackle this deeper history: the fossil fuel industry’s war on the very technologies that could have ended fossil fuel dominance earlier. Earthrise Accord argues that future climate accountability efforts must address this second lie: the systematic sabotage of clean energy alternatives. Fossil fuel executives did not merely obscure the dangers of their own products; they actively misled the world about the existence of better paths—and profited from the delay.

In summary, the hidden war on clean energy was not a sideshow to the climate crisis; it was a central front. Fossil fuel interests manipulated public fear, infiltrated environmental movements, and engineered an energy transition narrative that ensured their survival. Correcting the record is not merely an academic exercise—it is a necessary act of justice for the millions who suffer and will suffer from the consequences of the fossil era’s prolonged dominance.

Earthrise Accord calls for a full reckoning with this history. The public deserves the truth: that nuclear power remains one of the safest, cleanest, and most scalable energy sources available; that modern reactor designs offer even greater safety and efficiency; and that no serious decarbonization pathway can afford to exclude nuclear energy. Clean energy was never impossible. It was obstructed—and it is time, finally, to remove those obstacles for good.

Earthrise Accord’s Vision: From Accountability to Clean Energy Reparations

Having examined the California lawsuit and its significant, though incomplete, contribution to climate accountability, we arrive at the broader vision of Earthrise Accord—a vision that moves beyond punishment toward global healing and rebuilding. Earthrise Accord is not simply an initiative to call out wrongdoing; it is a movement committed to fundamentally transforming the energy system for a livable future, guided by truth, justice, and intergenerational responsibility. Accountability is the starting point, but justice demands that those who caused the climate crisis actively participate in repairing the damage.

At the heart of Earthrise Accord’s proposal is the concept of Clean Energy Reparations. Clean Energy Reparations mean that those who profited most from destabilizing the climate—major fossil fuel corporations, and by extension the petro-states that empowered them—must be required to finance and deploy the clean energy infrastructure necessary to undo the harm they caused. It is not about writing symbolic checks or offering vague corporate apologies. It is about materially replacing destructive energy systems with sustainable ones that support human flourishing and ecological recovery—directly, tangibly, and justly.

Earthrise Accord argues that legal remedies must move beyond fines that corporations treat as minor costs of doing business. They must involve compulsory investments in decarbonization projects, designed not to maximize public relations value, but to maximize carbon reductions, environmental restoration, and community benefit.

Imagine a court ruling that finds ExxonMobil liable for climate damages and orders not just a financial settlement, but direct funding for the installation of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) to supply clean electricity to wildfire-ravaged communities in California. Instead of sprawling solar farms that would require clearing new land—land that could otherwise support reforestation and ecological recovery—compact SMRs would deliver reliable, carbon-free energy on a minimal footprint, preserving landscapes while providing resilience against future fire-induced grid outages. SMRs, hardened against natural disasters, could also maintain critical services like hospitals, water treatment plants, and emergency response centers during extreme events fueled by climate change.

Likewise, in coastal cities threatened by rising seas, fossil fuel companies could be required to fund zero-carbon public transportation systems—electric buses and trains powered not by fossil gas backup but by nuclear-generated electricity and, where appropriate, hydrogen fuel cell storage systems rather than massive lithium battery banks. Hydrogen storage, produced using clean energy, offers a durable, long-duration solution that does not incentivize further environmentally damaging mining for lithium, nickel, or cobalt—elements often extracted under conditions that harm Indigenous communities and fragile ecosystems.

Globally, Earthrise Accord envisions an even more ambitious application of Clean Energy Reparations. Consider the Niger Delta, where oil spills, gas flaring, and decades of environmental devastation by companies like Shell and Chevron have left entire regions polluted, impoverished, and without reliable electricity. Rather than simply paying abstract damages to the Nigerian government—where corruption risks siphoning away reparations—polluters could be legally mandated to fund and deploy a network of SMRs designed for community-scale, reliable power delivery. These modular nuclear units would provide abundant, clean electricity with almost no land footprint, enabling not only basic energy access but also electrification of schools, hospitals, clean water systems, and small industries.

In the Amazon Basin—where fossil fuel extraction, illegal mining, and deforestation have already placed immense pressure on Indigenous territories and biodiversity—Earthrise Accord insists that Clean Energy Reparations must prioritize preserving and restoring ecosystems. Rather than covering large tracts of Amazonian land with solar arrays—which would require clearing trees and degrading potential reforestation sites—polluters would be compelled to fund advanced SMRs strategically located to serve villages and towns. Hydrogen energy storage, produced with the clean nuclear electricity, would replace the need for massive battery installations, further reducing material extraction impacts.

This approach respects the Amazon’s ecological importance: every hectare of forest preserved or restored captures critical carbon, preserves biodiversity, and sustains Indigenous ways of life. SMRs, requiring less than a few acres for each unit, paired with hydrogen energy storage where needed, align with Earthrise Accord’s principle of maximizing carbon removal, minimizing new harm, and ensuring Indigenous leadership and consent.

Similarly, in Ecuador—where Chevron’s environmental destruction in the Amazon has left toxic legacies—Earthrise Accord envisions Clean Energy Reparations requiring Chevron to fund modular nuclear units powering decentralized clean water facilities, health clinics, and sustainable agriculture hubs. Instead of token solar panels or diesel replacements that degrade over time, these clean energy hubs would deliver continuous zero-carbon power for decades, ensuring that Indigenous and local communities gain sovereignty over their infrastructure while reforesting damaged areas instead of expanding industrial energy projects.

All Clean Energy Reparations, Earthrise Accord insists, must be governed by principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), in full partnership with affected communities. Clean energy infrastructure should never be imposed; it must be co-developed, with operational control, maintenance skills, and financial benefits flowing to the communities themselves. SMRs, hydrogen hubs, and other advanced technologies must serve human dignity, not replicate extractive colonial dynamics under a green banner.

Earthrise Accord’s vision of Clean Energy Reparations thus builds a bridge between accountability and the global energy transition. It insists that fines and settlements cannot be detached from material repair. They must fund the deployment of durable, high-integrity, zero-carbon energy systems that maximize human benefit, minimize ecological damage, and reflect the best available science on climate stabilization.

Crucially, this vision refuses to pit renewable energy and nuclear energy against each other. Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, nuclear fission, and eventually fusion must be deployed synergistically, depending on regional conditions and ecological priorities. In regions where land scarcity and ecosystem protection are paramount—such as tropical forests, arid deserts, or Arctic tundra—nuclear energy offers a superior footprint solution. In regions where wind and solar resources are abundant and land impact is low, renewables should dominate. The principle is not ideological purity but pragmatic, place-based, justice-centered decarbonization.

Earthrise Accord’s commitment to Indigenous rights, ecological integrity, and technological excellence ensures that Clean Energy Reparations are not a mere slogan. They are a blueprint for how to transform planetary injustice into planetary renewal.

In short, Earthrise Accord envisions a future where fossil fuel corporations and petro-states are not only held legally accountable but are compelled to finance and construct the infrastructure of the post-fossil world.They must replace extraction with restoration.They must replace delay with deployment.They must replace denial with durable action.

Justice demands no less.

Conclusion: One Earth, One Crew, One Future

The lawsuit People of California v. Big Oil may well become a landmark in climate litigation. It signals the end of an era in which fossil fuel corporations could systematically deceive the public about existential risks without consequence. Yet, through the wider lens of Earthrise Accord, we see that this lawsuit is only one piece of a much larger and necessary global reckoning. To truly safeguard Earth's future, we must pursue truth and justice at every level—corporate, governmental, national, and international. We must confront not only the lies about climate change itself, but also the lies about our capacity to change course.

The image of Earthrise, captured by Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders, reminds us that national borders are irrelevant to the laws of nature. It shows us Earth as it truly is: one fragile home for all life, adrift in the darkness of space. Today, more than half a century later, we urgently need a similar shift in consciousness regarding the climate crisis. We must recognize that clinging to fossil fuels—abetted by disinformation, delay, and division—is like setting fires in the engine room of our shared ship. And we must equally recognize that arguing over which tools to fight the fire—whether solar, wind, or nuclear—is madness when the flames are spreading. Every effective tool must be deployed, with urgency and clarity.

Earthrise Accord’s worldview demands an uncompromising honesty: the fossil fuel empire was not sustained by accident or innocent ignorance. It was perpetuated by conscious strategies of deception, denial, and sabotage. Acknowledging this history does more than assign blame; it empowers us to break free from its lingering hold. It strips away the comforting narratives that portray climate change as an unfortunate side effect of progress. It exposes the reality: that the crisis was—and remains—a preventable disaster orchestrated, in large part, by powerful interests who must now be held to account.

At the same time, Earthrise Accord's vision is profoundly hopeful and profoundly demanding. Hope does not come from wishful thinking. It comes from responsibility embraced and action taken. If those who caused the damage are held responsible—not merely financially, but structurally, by compelling them to finance and deploy the clean energy infrastructure of the future—then repair is still possible. If we as a global community set aside outdated prejudices against technologies like nuclear energy, if we insist on deploying the best tools science offers us, then there remains a viable pathway to a flourishing world.

Imagine a world by 2040 where former fossil fuel giants have been legally obligated to transform: Exxon and Chevron financing the deployment of modular nuclear reactors in climate-vulnerable regions; Saudi oilfields hosting clean hydrogen hubs powered by reactors and solar farms; the Niger Delta, long scarred by oil, now electrified sustainably without sprawling industrial solar arrays consuming precious reforestation lands; the Amazon Basin protected and restored because clean, compact energy sources eliminated the need to exploit its resources anew. Imagine a future where the great lie—that humanity cannot thrive without oil, gas, and coal—is taught in history classes as a cautionary tale, like the denials around tobacco or leaded gasoline, rather than experienced as living reality.

This future will not come easily. It must be fought for—in courtrooms, in legislatures, in corporate boardrooms, and in the court of public opinion. California’s lawsuit is a brave first step on that path of accountability. But Earthrise Accord urges us to go further: to widen the scope of defendants to include not just corporations but complicit governments; to elevate the charges from civil wrongdoing to crimes against humanity and nature; and to demand remedies that are forward-looking, reparative, and grounded in the best decarbonization technologies we have, including advanced nuclear and renewable energy systems.

Earthrise Accord also reminds us that justice delayed is justice denied. Every year lost to procedural delays, political paralysis, or ideological squabbling means more flooded villages, more scorched forests, more children growing up breathing poisoned air and facing shrinking futures. The longer we hesitate, the narrower the window for repair becomes.

“One Earth, One Crew, One Future” is not a slogan. It is a fundamental truth. The lawsuit pits the People of California against Big Oil, but the deeper struggle is universal: it is People vs. a mindset—the mindset that short-term profit justifies planetary sacrifice. Earthrise Accord invites humanity to unite as one crew to overturn that mindset, to hold the perpetrators accountable, and to set a new, sustainable course for our shared vessel.

The task ahead is daunting, but so was the task faced by those who first sailed into the unknown or first glimpsed Earth from beyond the Moon. As the Apollo 8 astronauts discovered, sometimes we must go a long way to truly see what has always been in front of us: that our home is precious, finite, and in need of our protection.

Let this reimagining of People v. Big Oil through the lens of Earthrise Accord serve both as an indictment and as a manifesto: an indictment of those who imperiled our planet for profit, and a manifesto for those who now choose to repair it. The era of fossil-fueled folly is drawing to a close. The era of evidence, ethics, and equity must rise in its place.

If we hold firm—if we act boldly and wisely—then the future Earth our children inherit will not be a smoldering relic of missed opportunities. It will be, like that first Earthrise image, a blue-green oasis still thriving against the infinite dark.

Sources

California Office of the Governor –Press Release: People of the State of California v. Big Oil (2023): https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/09/16/people-of-the-state-of-california-v-big-oil/

Earthrise Accord –Earthrise at Dusk: One Earth, One Crew, One Future (2025).Referenced for discussions on:

• Fossil fuel harm and denial campaigns

• Calls for international legal recognition of ecocide

• Fossil fuel industry attacks on clean energy alternatives

• Petro-state complicity (Canada, Norway, others)

• Clean Energy Reparations framework

• Advocacy for advanced nuclear energy and accelerated clean energy deployment

Scientific American –Supran, Geoffrey and Oreskes, Naomi. “Exxon Knew About Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago” (October 26, 2015).[Scientific American Website]

Michael Shellenberger, Environmental Progress –"The War on Nuclear" (2018).

CRITICAL: Greens for Nuclear Energy –Documentary film (2022): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IQIxUmQue4&t=261s