Law cases suing fossil fuel industry for lying about climate change mount

Image: A man walks through a flooded street the morning after the remnants of Hurricane Ida drenched the New York City and New Jersey area on Sept. 2, 2021 in Hoboken, New Jersey. Credit: Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

New Jersey Joins Other States in Suing Fossil Fuel Industry, Claiming Links to Climate Change

ExxonMobil calls the lawsuit a waste of taxpayers’ money that won’t help curb global warming.

New Jersey became the latest U.S. state to sue the fossil fuel industry over climate change, alleging it knew for decades that emissions from its products contributed to global warming, but lied to protect its profits and deter efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

SEE THE LAWSUIT BELOW

State Attorney General Matthew Platkin announced a suit on Tuesday against five major oil companies and their trade association, the American Petroleum Institute, saying the industry failed to warn the public that its products were dangerous, and sought instead to sow public doubts that fossil fuel emissions were linked to climate change.

“They went to great lengths to hide the truth and mislead the people of New Jersey and the world,” Platkin said, in launching the suit against ExxonMobil,  Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and the API. “These companies put their profits ahead of our safety.”

alleging it knew for decades that emissions from its products contributed to global warming, but lied to protect its profits and deter efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

The suit, filed in New Jersey Superior Court, seeks an injunction ordering the companies to “stop deceiving” New Jersey consumers about the destructive environmental impacts of fossil fuels. It is also asking the court to impose unspecified monetary penalties for the loss of natural resources such as coastal wetlands that are shrinking as seas rise in response to the changing climate.

Casey Norton, a spokesperson for ExxonMobil, said the suit will do nothing to combat climate change.

“Legal proceedings like this waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money and do nothing to advance meaningful actions that reduce the risk of climate change,” Norton said in a statement. “ExxonMobil will continue to invest in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while meeting society’s growing demand for energy.”

Shell and the American Petroleum Institute did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The action follows around 20 similar suits by states, cities and counties around the United States, seeking compensation from the fossil fuel industry for damages such as sea-level rise, bigger storms, wildfires and flooding, all attributable to climate change.

The earlier plaintiffs include nearby Delaware, a low-lying coastal state which in 2020 sued 31 fossil fuel companies, claiming their products have contributed to sea-level rise that is forecast to inundate large areas of the state in coming decades.

Early last year, the City of Annapolis, Maryland,  sued some two dozen fossil fuel companies, saying their products have contributed to the city’s high rate of nuisance flooding, and that they had engaged in so-called greenwashing in an attempt to convince the public that they were taking climate change seriously.

New Jersey’s suit, too, accuses the defendants of making “negligibly small investments” in an attempt to present themselves as environmental stewards helping to fight climate change.

The complaint says the companies fell short of their legal obligations to warn consumers about dangers arising from the use of their products. It also alleges negligence and impairment of the public trust, among other charges.

New Jersey’s suit comes about two weeks before the 10thanniversary of Hurricane Sandy, a monster storm that destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses along the densely populated Jersey Shore, and was blamed for some three dozen deaths. In September 2021, many inland areas saw record flooding from Tropical Storm Ida which killed 30 people and caused millions of dollars in damage.

“Within 10 years, New Jersey experienced two of the most devastating, life-altering storms in our history,” said Shawn LaTourette, commissioner of the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, at a ceremony to announce the lawsuit. “That’s in no small part because of our state’s, our nation’s and indeed the world’s addiction to fossil fuels.”

Keep Environmental Journalism Alive

ICN provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going.

LaTourette called New Jersey “ground zero” for the effects of climate change, and said its communities are continually recovering from coastal and inland floods, droughts, wildfires and extreme heat. The state is currently in a drought watch, is affected by harmful algal blooms in some of its lakes and in June was hit by a wildfire that burned 15,000 acres of the Pinelands area, he said.

State officials warn that more and bigger storms can be expected as seas rise and global temperatures increase in coming decades. In 2019, state officials and Rutgers University forecast that sea levels along the New Jersey coast will rise from 2000 levels by up to 1.1 feet by 2030, 2.1 feet by 2050 and 6.3 feet by 2100.

New Jersey and other parts of the U.S. mid-Atlantic states are experiencing sea-level rise at about twice the global rate because the land is sinking at the same time as oceans are rising in response to melting global ice caps and the expansion of water volumes with rising temperatures.

The new suit alleges that the oil and gas companies researched the link between fossil-fuel consumption and climate change as early as the 1950s and by the mid-1960s gained a “comprehensive understanding” of how oil and gas use created adverse climate impacts.

It argued that the defendants’ actions disproportionately harmed people living in low-income areas, including communities of color that are subject to cumulative environmental and public health threats because of climate change.

“Taxpayers will be saddled with billions in expenses to protect communities … and to mitigate those harms by transitioning to non-fossil fuel energy generation—costs that should be borne by the defendants,” the Attorney General’s office said in a statement.


MATTHEW J. PLATKIN
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY Division of Law
R.J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market Street, P.O. Box 093
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0093
Attorney for Plaintiffs

By: Andrew Reese (024662000) Monisha A. Kumar (900212012) Daniel P. Resler (324172020) Monica E. Finke (332512020) Deputy Attorneys General

(609) 376-2789 Andrew.Reese@law.njoag.gov Monisha.Kumar@law.njoag.gov Daniel.Resler@law.njoag.gov Monica.Finke@law.njoag.gov

[Additional attorneys listed on signature page]

LAW DIVISION, MERCER COUNTY ________________________________________ DOCKET NO. _____________

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

MATTHEW J. PLATKIN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; and CARI FAIS, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS,

Plaintiffs, v.

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION; EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; BP P.L.C.; BP AMERICA INC.; CHEVRON CORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.; CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY; PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY; SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL COMPANY; and AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE,

Defendants.

Civil Action

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 13

  1. Plaintiffs……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
  2. Defendants ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14
  3. RelevantNon-Parties:Defendants’AgentsandFrontGroups……………………………………36

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE …………………………………………………………………………….. 37 IV. FACTUALBACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………………40

  1. Defendants Are Responsible for Causing and Accelerating Climate Change. ……………… 40
  2. Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand, and Either Knew or Should Have Known About, the Dangers Associated with Their Fossil Fuel Products. ……………………. 45
  3. Defendants Did Not Disclose Known Harms Associated with the Extraction,
    Promotion, and Consumption of Their Fossil Fuel Products, and Instead
    Affirmatively Acted to Obscure Those Harms and Engaged in a Campaign to
    Deceptively Protect and Expand the Use of Their Fossil Fuel Products………………………. 71
  4. In Contrast to Their Public Statements, Defendants’ Internal Actions Demonstrate
    Their Awareness of and Intent to Profit from the Unabated Use of
    Fossil Fuel Products. ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 98
  5. Defendants’ Actions Have Exacerbated the Costs of Adapting to and Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of the Climate Crisis………………………………………………………………….. 101
  6. Defendants Continue to Mislead About the Impact of Their Fossil Fuel Products on Climate Change Through Greenwashing Campaigns and Other Misleading Advertisements in New Jersey and Elsewhere……………………………………………………….. 109
    1. Exxon’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns …………………………. 112
    2. Shell’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns …………………………… 114

    iii. BP’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns………………………………. 116 iv. Chevron’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns………………………. 120

v. ConocoPhillips’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns…………….. 124 vi. API’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns …………………………….. 125

i

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 2 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

  1. Defendants Also Made Misleading Claims About Specific “Green” or “Greener”
    Fossil Fuel Products. ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 127
  2. Defendants Intended for Consumers to Rely on Their Concealments and
    Omissions Regarding the Dangers of Their Fossil Fuel Products……………………………… 134

I. J.

Defendants’ Deceit Only Recently Came to Light, and Their Misconduct Is
Ongoing. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 137

The State Has Suffered, Is Suffering, and Will Suffer Injuries from Defendants’
Wrongful Conduct……………………………………………………………………………………………… 140

CAUSES OF ACTION………………………………………………………………………………………… 159

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Failure to Warn) …………………………………………………… 159

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence) …………………………………………………….. 163

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Impairment of the Public Trust)…………………………….. 167

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Trespass)…………………………………………………………. 170

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Public Nuisance) ………………………………………………….. 174

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Private Nuisance)…………………………………………………. 180

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -227) ……………. 187

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A 56:8-1 to -227) …………….. 190

V.

VI. PRAYERFORRELIEF………………………………………………………………………………………193

VII. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL …………………………………………………………………………… 194 DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL…………………………………………………………………….. 196

FULL LAWSUIT

Pledge Your Vote Now
Change language