California vs. Big Oil: Why Justice Demands an End to All Extraction—Now

In 2023, the State of California took a bold and long-overdue stand against the fossil fuel industry by filing the landmark lawsuit California v. Big Oil. This historic legal action charges five of the world’s largest oil companies with knowingly deceiving the public for decades about the catastrophic impacts of fossil fuel combustion on the Earth’s climate. In meticulous detail, the complaint documents how these corporations—ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips—systematically misrepresented climate science, suppressed internal research, and orchestrated vast and well-funded disinformation campaigns aimed at maximizing profits while externalizing the true costs of environmental destruction onto the global commons.

Earthrise Accord fully supports this groundbreaking litigation, viewing it as an essential step toward securing climate accountability, acknowledging historical harm, and advancing a framework of justice for the present and future victims of fossil fuel crimes. The lawsuit sends a powerful message: fossil fuel deception is not merely negligent—it is criminal. And yet, if this message is to resonate beyond courtroom symbolism, it must be accompanied by immediate, courageous action in California’s own policy and energy practices.

Hypocrisy Undermines Justice: California Must End Extraction Within Three Years

For California’s legal challenge to maintain its moral authority and serve as a genuine beacon of global climate leadership, the state must commit to ending all fossil fuel extraction within its own borders. To prosecute Big Oil for lies that fueled climate catastrophe, while continuing to permit oil drilling and fracking on state lands, is not just a contradiction—it is a fatal hypocrisy. It compromises the ethical coherence of the lawsuit and risks transforming a landmark legal initiative into yet another instance of climate virtue-signaling without structural change.

Climate justice cannot be selectively applied. It cannot target the private sector while exempting state actors from accountability. Justice that excludes the present is no justice at all. For this reason, Earthrise Accord proposes an unambiguous, enforceable, and time-bound public commitment: the State of California must fully phase out all oil and gas extraction operations—onshore and offshore—within three years.

This is not simply a matter of consistency; it is a matter of planetary survival. Every additional ton of carbon emitted from new or continued extraction intensifies the climate crisis and perpetuates the very harms that California now seeks to redress through its lawsuit. The continuation of in-state fossil fuel extraction undermines the legal force of the state's case, inviting the charge that California is punishing private actors for participating in a system that it, too, continues to sustain. Justice cannot proceed on the logic of “do as I sue, not as I do.”

Extraction Is Ecocide: The Case for Global Criminalization

Moreover, Earthrise Accord insists that the principle behind this demand must be extended far beyond California’s borders. Just as the world came together to ban ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol and chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention, so too must the international community now confront the gravest threat of all: the continued extraction of fossil fuels in the midst of planetary collapse.

Any new fossil fuel extraction—whether through drilling, fracking, or tar sands mining—should be categorically banned under international law. It should be formally recognized as an act of ecocide, a crime against nature and a betrayal of intergenerational justice. The continuation of fossil extraction in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus about its consequences is no longer an issue of poor governance or regulatory lag; it is a willful assault on the future of life on Earth.

In this regard, California—already leading the world in climate litigation through its bold case against Big Oil—now has the opportunity to extend that leadership into the realm of legislation by becoming the first major oil-producing government to criminalize fossil fuel extraction.

Just as its lawsuit has the potential to redefine corporate accountability for climate deception, such legislative action would establish a powerful legal and moral precedent for the international community. By outlawing extraction, California could help lay the groundwork for a global legal framework that recognizes continued fossil fuel development as a violation of planetary rights and intergenerational justice. This would not only reinforce the integrity and ambition of California’s legal arguments, but also constitute a concrete act of planetary stewardship and juridical innovation on par with the great international legal breakthroughs of our time.

The Paradox at the Heart of California’s Climate Politics

The existing contradiction in California’s climate policy is neither subtle nor defensible. Suing oil companies for knowingly accelerating climate change while issuing new permits for drilling projects reflects a disjointed and dangerous schizophrenia in the state’s governance. It defies logical consistency, undermines scientific credibility, and eviscerates moral clarity.

If, as Earthrise Accord asserts, fossil fuel extraction constitutes a crime against nature and humanity, then it must be treated as such: urgently and non-negotiably prohibited. Extraction is not a neutral economic activity—it is the active production of harm. Each barrel of oil pulled from the ground is an act of violence against the climate system, a deepening of droughts and floods, and a sentence passed on future generations. No lawsuit—no matter how bold—can offset the ongoing damage of present inaction.

Real Justice Requires More Than Retrospective Accountability

Earthrise Accord emphasizes that authentic climate justice cannot be retrospective alone. Reparations for past harm, while necessary, are insufficient if the harm continues. Justice must be forward-looking—it must dismantle the structures that perpetuate environmental destruction in real time. Every drop of oil extracted today accelerates the warming of our planet, increases the frequency and intensity of wildfires and floods, drives biodiversity collapse, and deepens the suffering of frontline communities, especially in the Global South.

It is therefore ethically and scientifically indefensible to allow ongoing fossil fuel extraction while claiming to pursue redress for its effects. No credible theory of justice can permit the continuation of a crime while prosecuting it in hindsight.

A Just Transition Is Both Necessary and Possible

We recognize, as many will point out, that a rapid end to extraction may bring immediate economic consequences (see the addenda below). Critics will argue that halting oil and gas operations could lead to job losses, disrupt state revenues, and harm communities dependent on fossil economies. These are real concerns—but they are not reasons for delay. They are reasons for planning.

Earthrise Accord advocates for a robust and well-funded just transition strategy. This includes substantial public investment in financial support for displaced workers, workforce retraining, local economic diversification, and community-owned energy infrastructure.

California, as one of the world’s largest economies and a global center for technological innovation, is uniquely equipped to demonstrate how a rapid fossil fuel phaseout can be both socially equitable and economically viable. If not California, then who? Norway? (Yes, Norway.)

Nuclear Energy and the Need to Confront California’s Bias

No transition plan will succeed without confronting California’s entrenched bias against nuclear power—a bias deeply rooted in decades of disinformation campaigns driven primarily by fossil fuel interests. Since the advent of civilian nuclear power in the mid-20th century, oil companies and petro-states orchestrated a systematic two-pronged disinformation effort: first, promoting fears and misconceptions about nuclear energy, and later, sowing doubt about climate change itself. The anti-nuclear campaign predated—and in many ways set the stage for—the climate denialism campaigns that followed, as nuclear power represented the first viable threat to fossil fuel dominance in global energy markets.

California's landmark lawsuit, California vs. Big Oil, rightly seeks accountability for decades of climate deception, yet crucially overlooks this equally harmful facet of Big Oil's disinformation legacy. By omitting accountability for the fossil-fuel-driven anti-nuclear propaganda, California's lawsuit inadvertently reinforces the false narratives Big Oil sought to propagate. This oversight demonstrates how deeply California has internalized the misinformation initially spread to maintain fossil fuel reliance, thus limiting the state's ability to fully address the climate crisis.

California's historical anti-nuclear stance exemplifies the long-term success of these misinformation strategies. The near-closure of Diablo Canyon—California's last remaining nuclear power plant, which provides nearly 20% of the state’s carbon-free electricity—was narrowly avoided due to intense advocacy by scientists and clean energy proponents. The premature closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2013 is an even clearer example of the destructive power of anti-nuclear sentiment, as it directly led California to increase its reliance on natural gas and subsequently raise greenhouse gas emissions. These outcomes were not mere policy oversights; they were predictable consequences of decades-long misinformation designed explicitly to discredit nuclear energy and protect fossil fuel profits.

It is essential that California confronts and corrects this historical legacy of disinformation and fear. Nuclear power remains the only proven, scalable, and always-available clean energy source capable of rapidly replacing fossil fuels. Nuclear energy has among the lowest mortality rates per terawatt-hour produced and generates minimal waste compared to the vast environmental and human costs of ongoing fossil fuel extraction. For California to credibly lead the global transition to a zero-carbon future, it must unequivocally reject the legacy of fossil-fueled misinformation campaigns, fully embrace nuclear power, and recognize it as indispensable to achieving true climate justice and energy security. Only by confronting both prongs of Big Oil's disinformation—the anti-nuclear and climate denial campaigns—can California genuinely hold the fossil fuel industry fully accountable and chart an authentic path toward climate recovery and sustainable prosperity.

A Three-Year Deadline for Extraction Cessation: Urgent, Feasible, Non-Negotiable

Earthrise Accord’s call for a three-year deadline is both scientifically grounded and strategically sound. This timeframe aligns with the International Energy Agency’s stark warnings: any new fossil fuel development is incompatible with keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C. Three years allows adequate time for legal, logistical, and economic transition planning, while preserving the urgency demanded by climate science.

This is not radical. What is radical is continuing to extract fossil fuels in the face of planetary collapse. What is radical is pretending to sue away climate catastrophe while pouring gasoline on the fire.

Conclusion: End Extraction Now—California’s Moment of Truth

The California v. Big Oil lawsuit is a vital moment of climate reckoning. But it will ring hollow unless it is accompanied by structural change. Ending extraction is not merely a symbolic gesture—it is the material act that proves California means what it says.

Earthrise Accord calls on Governor Gavin Newsom, California legislators, legal advocates, and climate leaders to adopt a binding plan to cease all fossil fuel extraction within three years. Let this be the signal that California views climate justice not as a deferred ideal but as a present imperative. Let this be the first state to outlaw ecocide within its own borders. Let this be the beginning of a global campaign to make extraction illegal everywhere.

The survival of our species, our ecosystems, and our shared future depends on what we do now. There is no room for compromise with collapse. The time for courage is now.

Let me know if you’d like this adapted into a press release, blog post, or advocacy letter. I can also add footnotes or source references if needed.

Addendum I: Economic and Social Implications of Ending Oil Extraction in California

While the moral and environmental imperatives for ceasing oil extraction in California are compelling, it's essential to acknowledge the significant economic and social ramifications of such a decision. The oil and gas industry has been a substantial contributor to California's economy, and an abrupt halt could have far-reaching consequences.

Economic Contributions and Employment

In 2022, the oil and gas industry contributed approximately $338 billion to California's economy and supported over 536,000 jobs across the state. These positions span various sectors, including direct employment in extraction and refining, as well as indirect roles in supply chains and related services. The industry also generated around $64.3 billion in local, state, and federal tax revenues, funding essential public services such as education, infrastructure, and public safety.

Local Economic Impacts

Regions like Kern County, which are heavily reliant on the oil industry, would face significant economic challenges. Job losses in these areas could lead to increased unemployment rates and reduced economic activity, affecting not just those directly employed in the industry but also local businesses and communities that depend on the industry's presence.

Legal and Financial Considerations

Implementing a statewide ban on oil extraction could expose California to legal challenges. Companies may seek compensation for lost investments and future earnings, potentially resulting in substantial financial liabilities for the state. Estimates suggest that local governments could face costs up to $27 billion due to such legal actions.

Energy Supply and Price Stability

California currently imports a significant portion of its oil, and a complete halt in local extraction could increase reliance on foreign sources. This dependency might lead to higher transportation costs, supply chain vulnerabilities, and increased fuel prices for consumers. Additionally, the state's unique fuel formulations and lack of pipeline connections to other regions could exacerbate price volatility.

Transition Strategies

To mitigate these impacts, California would need to invest in comprehensive transition strategies. This includes retraining programs for displaced workers, economic diversification initiatives in affected regions, and investments in renewable energy infrastructure to replace the energy output currently provided by oil. Such measures would require significant planning, resources, and time to implement effectively.

In conclusion, while the environmental and ethical reasons for ending oil extraction in California are strong, it's crucial to carefully consider and address the economic and social challenges that such a transition would entail. A balanced approach that includes robust support for affected communities and strategic planning for energy and economic stability is essential for a successful transition away from fossil fuels.

Addendum II: California Transition—A Global Model for Sustainable Energy Transformation

California stands uniquely positioned to turn the challenge of ending oil extraction into an unparalleled opportunity for leadership in global climate strategy. By pioneering innovative transition approaches, California could offer a replicable blueprint for jurisdictions worldwide aiming to shift decisively away from fossil fuels.

One promising strategy involves repurposing existing oil and gas infrastructure for clean-energy solutions. Refineries and extraction sites could transition toward producing green hydrogen, an essential energy carrier that can be generated through electrolysis using renewable or nuclear energy. This hydrogen could then fuel transportation, industrial processes, or even power plants, drastically reducing carbon emissions while preserving existing industrial sites and equipment.

Moreover, California could invest substantially in Direct Air Capture (DAC) technologies, using former oil wells and refineries as locations for facilities that convert captured atmospheric CO₂ into synthetic fuels. Such carbon-neutral or carbon-negative fuels could replace petroleum-derived products, providing a stable energy supply while significantly mitigating climate impact.

State-funded retraining programs could support extraction workers as they transition to emerging clean-energy industries. California’s workers could pivot toward advanced roles in the nuclear industry, helping expand California's nuclear capacity—vital for consistent, carbon-free baseload power. Additionally, these workers could contribute to the construction and maintenance of renewable energy infrastructure, including wind farms, solar installations, geothermal facilities, and advanced energy storage solutions. This transition would leverage workers' existing skills in engineering, mechanical operations, and technical maintenance, minimizing disruption and maximizing economic stability.

Further, California could establish clean-energy industrial hubs in regions historically dependent on oil extraction, such as Kern County. These hubs would integrate education, workforce development, and sustainable manufacturing, providing a holistic transition pathway. Collaboration between industry leaders, educational institutions, labor unions, and local governments could ensure that affected communities experience minimal disruption and maximal benefits from the shift to clean energy.

Such proactive, comprehensive strategies would not only cushion economic impacts but also significantly weaken future legal arguments against extraction bans. By demonstrating tangible, robust alternatives and delivering economic prosperity through clean energy, California could render future lawsuits against fossil fuel cessation effectively unwinnable, establishing a legal and ethical precedent globally.

Ultimately, the California Transition, with its blend of industrial innovation, economic diversification, and worker-focused support, can serve as a powerful global template—illustrating that a just, sustainable energy future is not only essential but entirely achievable.