Richmond, California is at the forefront of the linked struggle between a city, and its main industry and job creator: Chevron, whose main products are refined oil. 

The environmental impact of Chevron’s business activities have been borne out and reacted to with lawsuits from the city on several occasions. Unfortunately for Richmond and many other communities, it is not until disaster strikes and lawsuits are brought that the profitable, but harmful behaviors of their industries can be reigned in.   While a third-year law student at Yale, Eduardo Penalver wrote a 1998 article describing the ways that tort principles could be applied to be able to influencing behavior of corporations who were exacerbating climate changes. If it became legal precedent, cities could preemptively resolve foreseeable injuries on their communities and the environment before they occurred. 

Since the early 1990s cities in the United States have used lawsuits to move against harmful environmental actions that have occurred. The legal aspect that is to be explored is what the impacts may be on both cities and industry if a city could successfully bring suit against an industry on the basis of exacerbating climate change. While effectively a tort question, the courts may be hesitant to allow such suits to continue, fear that they are venturing into political questions better suited for legislators and regulators to tackle. But when cities have had such success winning lawsuits against environmental harm done by industry after it has occurred, it may be another tool for cities to be able to create tort-based lawsuits before the harm has occurred.