1 stating that “the indications are that a warmer world would be far more benign than many imagine 2 . . . moderate warming would reduce mortality rates in the US, so a slightly warmer climate would 3 be more healthful.” Raymond concluded his preface by attacking advocates for limiting the use of 4 his company’s fossil fuel products as “drawing on bad science, faulty logic, or unrealistic 5 assumptions”—despite the important role that Exxon’s own scientists had played in compiling 6 those same scientific underpinnings.104 125. 7 API published an extensive report in the same year warning against concern over 8 CO2 buildup and any need to curb consumption or regulate the industry. The introduction states 9 that “there is no persuasive basis for forcing Americans to dramatically change their lifestyles to 10 use less oil.” The authors discourage the further development of certain alternative energy sources, 11 writing that “government agencies have advocated the increased use of ethanol and the electric 12 car, without the facts to support the assertion that either is superior to existing fuels and 13 technologies” and that “policies that mandate replacing oil with specific alternative fuel 14 technologies freeze progress at the current level of technology, and reduce the chance that 15 innovation will develop better solutions.” The paper also denies the human connection to climate 16 change, saying that no “scientific evidence exists that human activities are significantly affecting 17 sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures or the intensity and frequency of storms.” The message 18 the report repeatedly sends is clear: “Facts don’t support the arguments for restraining oil use.”105 126. 19 In a speech presented at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing in 1997 at which 20 many of the Defendants were present, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond reiterated these views. This time, 21 he presented a false dichotomy between stable energy markets and abatement of the marketing, 22 promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products known to Defendants to be hazardous. He stated: Some people who argue that we should drastically curtail our use of fossil fuels for environmental reasons…my belief [is] that such proposals are neither prudent nor practical. With no readily available economic alternatives on the horizon, fossil fuels will continue to supply most of the world’s and this region’s energy for the foreseeable future. 23 24 25 26 27 Exxon Corp., Global warming: who’s right? (1996), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805542-ExxonGlobal-Warming-Whos-Right.html. 104 28 SHER EDLING LLP COMPLAINT 56