MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 1 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

MATTHEW J. PLATKINATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEYDivision 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]
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION, MERCER COUNTY________________________________________ DOCKET NO. _____________
MATTHEW J. PLATKIN, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY; NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; andCARI FAIS, ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CONSUMERAFFAIRS,
Plaintiffs,v.
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION;
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION; BP
P.L.C.; BP AMERICA INC.; CHEVRONCORPORATION; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.;
CONOCOPHILLIPS; CONOCOPHILLIPSCOMPANY; PHILLIPS 66; PHILLIPS 66
COMPANY; SHELL PLC; SHELL OIL
COMPANY; and AMERICAN PETROLEUMINSTITUTE,
Defendants.

Civil Action

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

TABLE OF CONTENTSI.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

II. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................. 13
A. Plaintiffs ............................................................................................................................. 13
B. Defendants .......................................................................................................................... 14
C. Relevant Non-Parties: Defendants’ Agents and Front Groups .......................................... 36
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ......................................................................................... 37
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 40
A. Defendants Are Responsible for Causing and Accelerating Climate Change. .................. 40
B. Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand, and Either Knew or Should Have
Known About, the Dangers Associated with Their Fossil Fuel Products. ......................... 45
C. 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 toDeceptively Protect and Expand the Use of Their Fossil Fuel Products............................ 71
D. 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
E. Defendants’ Actions Have Exacerbated the Costs of Adapting to and Mitigating theAdverse Impacts of the Climate Crisis. ............................................................................ 101
F. 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
i. Exxon’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns ............................... 112
ii. 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 ................................... 125iMER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 3 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

G. Defendants Also Made Misleading Claims About Specific “Green” or “Greener”
Fossil Fuel Products. ........................................................................................................ 127
H. Defendants Intended for Consumers to Rely on Their Concealments andOmissions Regarding the Dangers of Their Fossil Fuel Products.................................... 134
I. Defendants’ Deceit Only Recently Came to Light, and Their Misconduct Is
Ongoing. ........................................................................................................................... 137
J. The State Has Suffered, Is Suffering, and Will Suffer Injuries from Defendants’
Wrongful Conduct. ........................................................................................................... 140
V. 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
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................... 193
VII. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL ....................................................................................... 194
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL................................................................................ 196

ii

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 4 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Plaintiffs Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of the State of New Jersey (the “Attorney
General”), the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”), and Cari Fais,
Acting Director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs (the “Acting Director”)(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) file this Complaint against the above-named defendants (“Defendants”),
and allege as follows:
I.

INTRODUCTION
1.

For decades, the fossil fuel industry has misled consumers and the public aboutclimate change. Since at least the 1950s, its own scientists have consistently concluded that fossil
fuels produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution that can have catastrophic
consequences for the planet and its people. The industry took these internal scientific findings
seriously, investing heavily to protect its own assets and infrastructure from rising seas, stronger
storms, and other climate change impacts. But rather than warn consumers and the public, fossil
fuel companies and their surrogates mounted a disinformation campaign to discredit the scientificconsensus on climate change; create doubt in the minds of consumers, the media, teachers,
policymakers, and the public about the climate change impacts of burning fossil fuels; and delay
the energy economy’s transition to a lower-carbon future. This successful climate deception
campaign had the purpose and effect of inflating and sustaining the market for fossil fuels, which—in turn—drove up greenhouse gas emissions, accelerated global warming, and brought about
devasting climate change impacts to the State of New Jersey and its Overburdened Communities—
sometimes referred to as environmental justice communities—in particular. 1 As a result of the“‘Overburdened Community’ means any census block group, as determined in accordance withthe most recent United States Census, in which: (1) at least 35 percent of the households qualify
as low-income households; (2) at least 40 percent of the residents identify as minority or as
11

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 5 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

fossil fuel industry’s lies and deceit, the State has paid billions of dollars to clean up climatechange-induced disasters like Superstorm Sandy; to fortify the Jersey Shore from future storms;
and to protect its people, businesses, infrastructure, and natural resources from a myriad of otherclimate change hazards. Despite the clear harm to New Jersey and other communities across thecountry, Exxon, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute—all
Defendants here—continue to peddle climate misinformation and to misdirect the public from theirever-expanding efforts to cement dependency on fossil fuels. It is time to halt this deceptive
conduct and place responsibility for remedying its effects on Defendants, where it belongs, rather
than the taxpayers of New Jersey.
2.

Plaintiffs—the Attorney General, NJDEP, and the Acting Director—now bring thislawsuit for civil monetary penalties and damages to the State of New Jersey (the “State”) 2 and to
its residents, infrastructure, lands, assets, and natural resources caused by Defendants’ decadeslong campaign of misleading marketing and deceptive promotion of oil, coal, and natural gas(collectively, “fossil fuel products”).
3.

Defendants are major corporate members of the fossil fuel industry, including

extractors, producers, refiners, manufacturers, distributors, promoters, marketers, and/or sellers offossil fuel products. Each Defendant funded, staffed, organized, and otherwise supported efforts

members of a State recognized tribal community; or (3) at least 40 percent of the households
have limited English proficiency.” N.J.S.A. 13:1D-158. Residents of all communities should
receive fair and equitable treatment in matters affecting their environment, community, homes,
and health without regard to race, language, or income. See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 23 (April 20,2018), 50 N.J.R. 1241(b) (May 21, 2018); Environmental Justice Law, N.J.S.A. 13:1D-157 to 161.
2
In this Complaint, the term “State” refers to the State of New Jersey, unless otherwise stated.
The term “New Jersey” refers to the area falling within the State’s geographic boundaries,
excluding federal land, unless otherwise stated.

2

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 6 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

to deceive the public and consumers—in and outside of New Jersey—about the role of fossil fuelproducts in causing the global climate crisis.
4.

The rate at which Defendants have extracted and sold fossil fuel products has

exploded since the Second World War, as have carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and other emissions fromthose products. Fossil fuel emissions—especially CO2—are far and away the dominant driver ofglobal warming. 3 The substantial majority of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions inhistory have occurred from the 1950s to the present, a period known as the “Great Acceleration.” 4
About three-quarters of all industrial CO2 emissions in history have occurred since the 1960s, 5 andmore than half have occurred since the late 1980s. 6 The annual rate of CO2 emissions fromextraction, production, and consumption of fossil fuels has increased substantially since 1990. 7
5.

Defendants’ awareness of the negative impacts of fossil fuel consumption almost

exactly tracks the onset of the Great Acceleration—meaning that Defendants have known for morethan 50 years that greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuel products would have significant
adverse impacts on the Earth’s climate and sea levels. Armed with that knowledge, Defendants
took steps to protect their own assets from climate harms and risks through immense internal
investment in research, infrastructure improvements, and plans to exploit new business3

See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), Summary for Policymakers in
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I in the Sixth
Assessment Report (2021), at 4–9, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/
IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf.
4
Will Steffen et al., The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration, 2 The
Anthropocene Review 81, 81 (2015).
5
R.J. Andres et al., A Synthesis of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Combustion, 9Biogeosciences 1845, 1851 (2012).
6
Ibid.
7
Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget 2021,
https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/images/carbonbudget/Infographic_Emissions2021.p
df.
3

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 7 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

opportunities in a warming world.
6.

But instead of warning the public of—or representing truthfully—the known

consequences flowing from the intended and foreseeable use of their products or working tominimize the damage associated with the use and combustion of such products, Defendants
concealed and misrepresented the dangers of fossil fuels; disseminated false and misleading
information about the existence, causes, and effects of climate change; and aggressively promoted
the ever-increasing use of their products at ever-greater volumes. Since at least the late 1980s,
Defendants have spent millions of dollars orchestrating a massive disinformation campaign to cast
doubt on the science of climate change; to mainstream climate denialist theories that their own
scientists had already debunked; and to conceal the role of fossil fuels in driving the climate crisis.
More recently, Defendants have pivoted to a new strategy of commercial deception: greenwashing.
Today, Defendants misleadingly exaggerate their investments in wind, solar, and other lower
carbon energy resources, while failing to disclose that those investments represent a negligible
share of their overall business and that they are—in fact—continuing to ramp up fossil fuelproduction. Defendants also falsely advertise certain fossil fuel products as “green” or “clean,”while concealing the fact that those very same products are leading causes of climate change.
Defendants individually and collectively played leadership roles in all of these campaigns, whichwere intended to and did target the people of New Jersey.
7.

All Defendants’ actions in concealing the dangers of, promoting false andmisleading information about, and engaging in massive campaigns to promote increasing use of
their fossil fuel products have successfully delayed transitioning to a lower carbon footprint,
deepened consumers’ dependence on fossil fuel products, and contributed substantially to the4MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 8 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere that drives global warming and its physical, environmental, andsocioeconomic consequences, including those affecting the State.
8.

Defendants’ deceptive and tortious conduct was therefore a substantial factor inbringing about devastating climate change impacts in New Jersey, including: sea-level rise,
disruption to the hydrologic cycle, 8 more frequent and intense extreme precipitation events andassociated flooding, more frequent and intense heat waves along with exacerbation of localized“heat island” effects, 9 more frequent and intense droughts, ocean acidification, degradation of air
and water quality, and habitat and species loss. The associated consequences of these physical andenvironmental changes have compounding effects in New Jersey’s Overburdened Communities,
who often live in the most environmentally vulnerable areas. Accordingly, Defendants are directly
responsible for a substantial portion of the climate crisis-related impacts in New Jersey.
9.

All of New Jersey’s eastern and southern borders are coastal or tidal, as is much ofits western border. Many of its major rivers are tidal estuaries, and New Jersey is the sixth lowestlying state in the nation, with a mean elevation of approximately 250 feet above sea level. 10 In
addition, the coastal communities and tourism sector are an essential pillar of the State’s economy.
As a result, New Jersey is extremely vulnerable to the effects of sea-level rise and other climatechange impacts. In fact, the average sea level in New Jersey is increasing at almost twice the global

8

The hydrologic cycle is “the continuous circulation of water in the Earth-Atmosphere system.”Nat’l Weather Serv., The Hydrologic Cycle, https://statics.teams.cdn.office.net/evergreenassets/safelinks/1/atp-safelinks.html (last visited Oct. 17, 2022).
9
Heat islands are “urbanized areas that experience higher temperatures than outlying areas.”
See U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Heat Island Effect, https://www.epa.gov/heatislands (last visited
Oct. 16, 2022).
10
World Atlas, US States With the Lowest Average Elevations,
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/us-states-with-the-lowest-average-elevations.html (lastvisited Oct. 14, 2022).

5

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 9 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

rate and will continue to rise substantially along New Jersey’s coast and estuarine rivers, causing
flooding, inundation, saltwater intrusion, erosion, tidal wetland losses, and beach loss. 11 In
addition, extreme weather events—including coastal storms, severe inland flooding from increased
precipitation, drought, and heat waves, among others—will become more frequent, longer-lasting,and more severe. The cascading social, economic, and other consequences of those and otherenvironmental changes—all due to anthropogenic global warming—will continue to increase in
New Jersey. 12, 13
10.

The human, natural, and economic devastation wrought by Superstorm Sandy

previews the grave climate-related consequences New Jersey faces as a direct result of Defendants’tortious deception. On October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy made landfall near Atlantic City,
battering coastal communities with hurricane-force winds and inundating them under a fourteenfoot storm surge. In towns located along the Jersey Shore, the storm surge destroyed roads andbridges and swept homes into the ocean. The waves dragged the famous Seaside Heights
boardwalk and pier—including its roller coaster track—into the sea. Across the state, Sandy caused
38 deaths, $29.4 billion in damage, and destroyed more than 70,000 buildings. Superstorm Sandy
remains the most destructive storm to ever hit New Jersey. Its immense toll was exacerbated by
the effects of climate change, as rising sea levels over the past century allowed the storm surge to

11

See Jennifer Runkle et al., New Jersey State Climate Summary 2022, in NOAA Technical
Report NESDIS 150-NJ, 1–5 (2022); Robert Kopp et al., New Jersey’s Rising Seas andChanging Coastal Storms: Report of the 2019 Science and Technical Advisory Panel, Rutgers
University, 1–53 (2019), https://climatechange.rutgers.edu/images/STAP_FINAL_FINAL_12-419.pdf.
12
See generally Art DeGaetano, Projected Changes in Extreme Rainfall in New Jersey Based on
an Ensemble of Downscaled Climate Model Projections (Oct. 2021),
https://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/publications/projected-changes-rainfall-model.pdf.
13
See generally Art DeGaetano & Harrison Tran, Changes in Hourly and Daily Extreme Rainfall
Amounts in NJ Since the Publication of NOAA Atlas 14 Volume (Oct. 2021),
https://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/publications/nj-atlas-14.pdf.
6MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 10 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

reach tens of thousands more New Jerseyans than otherwise would have been affected.

Figure 1: Superstorm Sandy Drags Seaside Heights Boardwalk into the Sea 14

14State of New Jersey, Office of the Governor, New Jersey Five Years Post-Sandy: STRONGER
Than the Storm 210 (2017), https://nj.gov/governor/Sandy-Play-Book/#p=219.
7

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 11 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Figure 2: View of New Jersey Coastline on October 30, 2012 15
11.

A decade later, Defendants’ tortious deception continues to have graveconsequences for the State and its residents. In early August 2020, Tropical Storm Isaias left morethan 1.4 million homes and businesses in the dark. 16 On September 1, 2021, the remnants of
Hurricane Ida swept through New Jersey, leaving behind a trail of death and destruction. At least15

Id. at 118.
Anthony G. Attrino, More Than 1.4 Million Power Outages in N.J. From Isaias. Restoration
Could Take Days, Officials Say, NJ.com (Aug. 4, 2020),
https://www.nj.com/weather/2020/08/more-than-1-million-power-outages-in-nj-from-isaiasrestoration-could-take-days-officials-say.html.
168

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 12 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

30 people died statewide—more than in any other state—even though the storm first made landfall
1,300 miles away and was no longer a hurricane by the time it arrived in New Jersey. 17 The storm
also caused an estimated $2.02 billion in damage across New Jersey. 18 In Newark, the State’s mostpopulous city with approximately 280,000 residents, communities suffered over 8 inches ofrainfall—more than double the expected monthly rainfall—with 3.65 inches of rain falling in one
hour. 19 In early October 2022, the remnants of Hurricane Ian brought heavy rain and flooding toparts of the state, 20 in addition to substantial beach erosion and damage to dune ecosystems. 21
While Superstorm Sandy and subsequent destructive weather events are some of the most dramatic
climatic consequences to assail New Jersey, the true and complete extent of the State’s climaterelated injuries are far more sweeping.
12.

As a direct result of climate crisis-caused environmental changes, the State has

suffered and will continue to suffer severe injuries, including but not limited to: inundation andloss of State property; inundation and loss of private property and businesses with associated lossof tax revenue; injury or destruction of State-owned or -operated facilities critical for operations,

17

Tracey Tully, He Was Swept Down a Sewer Pipe: ‘I Just Let the Water Take Me’, N.Y. Times(Sept. 17, 2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/nyregion/nj-flooding-ida-damage.html.
18
Mike Deak, A Year Since Hurricane Ida: Horror, Heroism, Anxiety Awaiting the Next
Catastrophic Storm, My Central Jersey (Sept. 1, 2022),
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/2022/09/01/nj-hurricane-ida-floodsdeaths/65418809007/.
19
David A. Robinson, Ida Remnants Strike New Jersey, Rutgers University (Oct. 6, 2021),
https://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim/?section=menu&target=Ida.
20
Bryanna Gallagher, Remnants of Hurricane Ian Bring Flooding to Jersey Shore, 6ABC (Oct. 3,2022), https://6abc.com/hurricane-ian-2022-jersey-shore-weather-forecast-flooding/12289006/.
21
Serena Tara, Hurricane Ian Carved 12-Foot Cliffs Into These New Jersey Beaches, Thrillist(Oct. 5, 2022), https://www.thrillist.com/news/new-york/hurricane-ian-beach-erosion-newjersey; Brianna Kudisch, Ian Remnants Erode N.J. Beaches, Creating Dramatic 12-Foot Cliffs inSome Spots, NJ.com (Oct. 4, 2022), https://www.nj.com/weather/2022/10/ian-remnants-erodenj-beaches-creating-dramatic-12-foot-cliffs-in-some-spots-photos.html.

9MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 13 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

utility services, and risk management, as well as other assets essential to community health, safety,
and well-being; damage or loss of the State’s natural resources and their associated ecosystembenefits; increased costs of strengthening and maintaining the resilience of public infrastructure;
increased costs of providing government services; increased health care and public health costs;
increased planning and preparation costs for community adaptation and resilience to the effects ofthe climate crisis; displacement, disruption and loss of coastal communities, including loss of life,
with associated harm to the State; and decreased tax revenue due to impacts on New Jersey’s
tourism- and ocean-based economy. 22
13.

These consequences will disproportionately afflict New Jersey’s Overburdened

Communities, as climate change exacerbates existing environmental and public health stressors
associated with socioeconomic and racial disparities. Socially vulnerable New Jerseyans—who
already suffer from higher rates of adverse health effects like asthma, cancer, and respiratory
disease—are often least equipped to adapt to a warming world because their communities lack the
infrastructure and resources needed to withstand the threats posed by climate change.
14.

Climate change exacerbates the disproportionate risk to which Overburdened

Communities are already subject due to heightened existing pollution in their neighborhoods. For
instance, the Ironbound neighborhood of Newark risks additional polychlorinated biphenyl

22

See N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change (June 30,2020), https://www.nj.gov/dep/climatechange/docs/nj-scientific-report-2020.pdf; N.J. Dep’t of
Envtl. Prot., Climate Change Impacts on Human Health & Communities: Addendum to the 2020
New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change (“New Jersey Human Health Addendum”)(Sept. 2022), https://www.nj.gov/dep/climatechange/docs/nj-scientific-report-human-healthaddendum.pdf.

10MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 14 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068(“PCB”) and dioxin contamination from a nearby Superfund site when the Passaic River floods,
as it did during Hurricane Irene in 2011 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012. 23
15.

Atlantic City, which consists entirely of Overburdened Communities, 24 now

experiences tidal flooding ten times more often than it did in the middle of the last century. 25 This
climate change-caused flooding is causing home values to fall, 26 and Atlantic City is among the
20 cities on the eastern seaboard facing the largest decreases in home values due to sea-level rise. 27
16.

The consequences of climate change will not be felt only in New Jersey’s coastal

communities. As the most densely populated state, with the highest percentage of nondraining
surfaces impervious to water, New Jersey is unusually vulnerable to flash floods even in towns

23

See Ilya Marritz, Sandy Stirs Up Superfund Site in New Jersey, Nat’l Pub. Radio (Nov. 19,
2012), https://www.npr.org/2012/11/19/165454215/sandy-stirs-up-superfund-site-in-new-jersey;
Impacts of Superstorm Sandy on Ironbound in Newark – A Vulnerable, Environmental JusticeCommunity, Ironbound Community Corporation, . See also N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot.,
Overburdened Communities Under the New Jersey Environmental Justice Law in Newark City,
Essex County, https://dep.nj.gov/wp-content/uploads/ej/docs/essex-newark-city-maps-obc.pdf.
Superstorm Sandy resulted in the inundation of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission’s 140acre plant and underground utility tunnels, destroying much critical process equipment inaddition to jeopardizing communities. See Passaic Valley Sewerage Comm’n, Five Years After
Sandy, PVSC Is the Model of Resiliency and Recovery, https://www.nj.gov/pvsc/news/sandy/(last visited Oct. 17, 2022).
24
N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Overburdened Communities Under the New Jersey Environmental
Justice Law in Atlantic City, Atlantic County, .
25
Tracey Tully, With 130-Mile Coast, New Jersey Marks a First in Climate Change Fight, N.Y.
Times (Jan. 27, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/nyregion/climate-change-njenvironmental-rules.html.
26
Ian Urbina, Perils of Climate Change Could Swamp Coastal Real Estate, N.Y. Times (Nov.
14, 2016), https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-realestate.html.
27Frank Kummer, Sea Level Rise’s Impact on Property Values Will Be Greatest in N.J. Shore
Towns, Study Says, N.H. Union Leader (Mar. 7, 2019),
https://www.unionleader.com/news/homes/sea-level-rises-impact-on-property-values-will-begreatest-in-n-j-shore-towns/article_2b9d707d-0403-57db-8b10-f341eebeb391.html.

11

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 15 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

with no significant river or ocean frontage. 28 In South Plainfield, New Jersey, a city with several
Overburdened Community neighborhoods 29 and two Superfund sites, 30 the remnants of Hurricane
Ida in 2021 caused flooding eight feet deep in places and swept two pedestrians through a thirtysix-inch sewer pipe. 31 Those flash floods will only increase as climate change continues.
17.

Defendants’ individual and collective conduct—including, but not limited to, theirintroduction of fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce while knowing but failing to warnof the threats posed to the world’s climate; their wrongful promotion of fossil fuel products,
including the misrepresentation and concealment of known hazards associated with the intended
use of those products; and their public deception campaigns designed to obscure the connection
between fossil fuel products and global warming—was a substantial factor in bringing about theState’s injuries. In other words, Defendants’ concealment and misrepresentation of fossil fuelproducts’ known dangers—together with their simultaneous promotion of those products’unrestrained use—drove fossil fuel consumption and delayed transition to a lower carbon future,
resulting in greater greenhouse gas pollution and more dire impacts from the climate crisis in New
Jersey and elsewhere.
18.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants for failure to warn,

negligence, impairment of the public trust, trespass, public nuisance, private nuisance, andviolations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

28

Tully, He Was Swept Down a Sewer Pipe: ‘I Just Let the Water Take Me.’
N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Overburdened Communities Under the New Jersey Environmental
Justice Law in South Plainfield Borough, Middlesex County, https://dep.nj.gov/wpcontent/uploads/ej/docs/middlesex-south-plainfield-boro-maps-obc.pdf.
30
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Search for Superfund Sites Where You Live,https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-you-live (last visited Oct. 16,2022) (select “New Jersey” in dropdown list of states and filter to “Show All entries”).
31
See Tully, He Was Swept Down a Sewer Pipe: ‘I Just Let the Water Take Me.’29

12

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 16 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

19.

Plaintiffs hereby disclaim injuries arising on federal property and those arising from

Defendants’ provision of non-commercial, specialized fossil fuel products to the federal
government for military and national defense purposes. Plaintiffs seek no recovery or relief
attributable to these injuries.
20.

Plaintiffs seek to ensure that the parties who have profited from deceiving

consumers and the public about climate change bear the costs of that deceptive commercial
activity, rather than the State, its taxpayers, its residents, or broader segments of the public.
II.

PARTIESA.

Plaintiffs

21.

Plaintiff the Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer and chief legal officer of New

Jersey. The Attorney General is authorized to enforce the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act(“CFA”). N.J.S.A. 52:17B-5.7. The Director of the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs is
charged with administering the CFA on behalf of the Attorney General. N.J.S.A. 52:17B-120, 124. The Attorney General and the Acting Director bring this action pursuant to their authority
under the CFA, specifically N.J.S.A. 56:8-8, -11, -13, and -19.
22.

Plaintiff the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) is aprincipal department within the State’s Executive Branch. Led by Commissioner Shawn
LaTourette, NJDEP is vested with the authority to conserve natural resources and protect publichealth and safety, including by seeking injunctive relief and recovery of fines and penalties throughlegal proceedings. N.J.S.A. 13:1D-9. Under Executive Order No. 89, the Governor of New Jersey
has specifically charged NJDEP with directing the development and implementation of statewide
climate adaption and resilience measures. 32 The State holds in trust all natural resources within its

32

Exec. Order No. 89 (Oct. 29, 2019), 51 N.J.R. 1707(a) (Dec. 2, 2019).
13

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 17 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

jurisdiction for the benefit of New Jersey’s citizens and residents. N.J.S.A. 13:1D-150. The NJDEP
is authorized to protect this public trust and to seek compensation for any injury to the natural
resources of New Jersey. The State also retains parens patriae authority to protect its “quasisovereign” interests in protecting the health and welfare of New Jersey’s residents and natural
resources. Further, the State possesses fundamental police powers to, among other actions, prevent
injuries and pollution of the State’s property and waters, to prevent and abate nuisances, and toprevent and abate hazards to public health, safety, welfare, and the environment. NJDEP brings
this action in its capacity as trustee of New Jersey’s natural resources, and pursuant to its parens
patriae, proprietary, and regulatory powers.
B.

Defendants

23.

When this Complaint references an act or omission of Defendants, unless specifically attributed orotherwise stated, such references should be interpreted to mean that the officers, directors, agents,
employees, or representatives of Defendants committed or authorized such an act or omission, or
failed to adequately supervise or properly control or direct their employees while engaged in the
management, direction, operation or control of the affairs of Defendants, and did so while acting
within the scope of their employment or agency.
24.

Exxon Entities: Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporationa.

Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation is a New Jersey corporation

headquartered in Irving, Texas. It is a multinational, vertically integrated, energy and chemicalcompany and one of the largest publicly traded international oil and gas companies in the world.
Exxon Mobil Corporation was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor
in liability to ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company, Exxon Chemical U.S.A., ExxonMobil
Chemical Corporation, ExxonMobil Chemical U.S.A., ExxonMobil Refining & Supply

14

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

Corporation, Exxon Company, U.S.A., Exxon Corporation, Standard Oil Company (NJ), andMobil Corporation.
b.

Defendant ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Exxon Mobil Corporation, acts on Exxon Mobil Corporation’s behalf, and is subject to Exxon
Mobil Corporation’s control. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a New York corporation
headquartered in Irving, Texas. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation was formerly known as, did or does
business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Mobil Oil Corporation. ExxonMobil Oil
Corporation has been registered to do business in New Jersey since 1933.
c.

Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled companywide

decisions about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its
subsidiaries. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s 2021 Form 10-K filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission represents that its success, including its “ability to mitigate risk andprovide attractive returns to stockholders, depends on [its] ability to successfully manage [its]overall portfolio, including diversification among types and locations of [its] projects.” 33 Exxon
Mobil Corporation determines whether and to what extent its subsidiaries market, produce, and/or
distribute fossil fuel products.
d.

Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled companywide

decisions, including those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, climate change andgreenhouse gas emissions from its fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning
climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environmentand humans. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Board holds the highest level of direct responsibility for

33

Exxon Mobil Corp., Form 10-K: Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 5 (Feb. 23, 2022), https://ir.exxonmobil.com/staticfiles/73aca83c-e65f-42ec-9a13-a7b04a302b7f.
15

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 19 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

climate change policy within the company. Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer, its President, and the other members of its Management Committee
are actively engaged in discussions relating to greenhouse gas emissions and the risks of climatechange on an ongoing basis. Exxon Mobil Corporation requires its subsidiaries to provide anestimate of greenhouse gas-related emissions costs in their economic projections when seeking
funding for capital investments.
e.

Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, andtheir predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively
referred to herein as “Exxon.”f.

Plaintiffs’ claims against Exxon arise out of the acts and omissions of Exxon

in New Jersey and Exxon’s actions elsewhere that caused injuries in New Jersey.
g.

Exxon consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all areas of the fossil

fuel industry, including exploration for and production of crude oil and natural gas; manufactureof petroleum products; and transportation, promotion, marketing, and sale of crude oil, natural gas,and petroleum products. Exxon is also a major manufacturer and marketer of commodity
petrochemical products.
h.

Exxon has purposefully directed and continues to purposefully direct its

tortious conduct toward New Jersey by intentionally and wrongfully distributing, marketing,advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in New Jersey, with knowledge thatthose products have caused and will continue to cause climate crisis-related injuries in New Jersey,
including the State’s injuries. Exxon’s statements in and outside of New Jersey made in furtheranceof its campaign of deception and denial, and its inveterate failure to warn consumers of global
warming-related hazards when it marketed, advertised, and sold its products both in and outside16MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 20 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

of New Jersey, were intended to conceal and mislead consumers and the public, including the Stateand its residents, about the serious adverse consequences from continued use of Exxon’s products.
That conduct was intended to reach and influence the State, as well as its residents, among others,
to continue unabated use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products in and outside New Jersey, thereby
resulting in the State’s injuries.
i.

Over the past several decades, Exxon spent millions of dollars on radio,

television, and outdoor advertisements in the New Jersey market related to its fossil fuel products.
At least as far back as 1972 and as recently as 2020, Exxon also advertised its fossil fuel products
in print publications circulated widely to New Jersey consumers, including but not limited to: The
Atlantic, The Economist, Fortune Magazine, The New York Times, People, Sports Illustrated,
Time Magazine, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. These advertisements
contained no warning commensurate with the risks of their products. Moreover, theseadvertisements also contained false or misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material
omissions obfuscating the connection between Exxon’s fossil fuel products and climate change,
and/or misrepresenting Exxon’s products or Exxon itself as environmentally friendly.
j.

A significant amount of Exxon’s fossil fuel products are or have beentransported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in New
Jersey, from which Exxon derives and has derived substantial revenue. Exxon—directly andthrough its subsidiaries and/or predecessors-in-interest—supplied substantial quantities of fossil
fuel products to New Jersey during the period relevant to this litigation. For instance, as Standard
Oil Company of New Jersey, Exxon constructed and operated the Bayway and Bayonne refineries
for decades. Currently, Exxon promotes, markets, and sells gasoline and other fossil fuel products
to New Jersey consumers through approximately 347 Exxon-branded and Mobil-branded

17

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 21 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

petroleum service stations in the state. 34 During the period relevant to this Complaint, Exxon solda substantial percentage of all retail gasoline in New Jersey. Exxon also markets and sells
petroleum products, including engine lubricants and motor oils sold under the Mobil 1 brand name,to New Jersey customers through local retailers.
k.

Exxon historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing,and promotional campaigns to New Jersey residents, including through maps that identify thelocations of its service stations in New Jersey. To this day, Exxon continues to market and advertiseits fossil fuel products in New Jersey to New Jersey residents by maintaining an interactive website
available to prospective customers that directs New Jersey residents to Exxon’s nearby retailservice stations and lubricant distributors. 35 Further, Exxon promotes its products in New Jersey
by regularly updating and actively promoting its mobile device application, “Exxon Mobil
Rewards+,” throughout the state of New Jersey, which encourages New Jersey users to consumefuel at Exxon stations in New Jersey in exchange for rewards on every fuel purchase.
25.

BP Entities: BP P.L.C., BP America Inc.
a.

Defendant BP P.L.C. is a multinational, vertically integrated energy andpetrochemical public limited company, registered in England and Wales with its principal place ofbusiness in London, England. BP P.L.C. consists of three main operating segments: (1) explorationand production, (2) refining and marketing, and (3) gas power and renewables. BP P.L.C. is theultimate parent company of numerous subsidiaries, referred to collectively as the “BP Group,”
which explore for and extract oil and gas worldwide; refine oil into fossil fuel products such as
gasoline; and market and sell oil, fuel, other refined petroleum products, and natural gas

34

ExxonMobil, Find a Station, https://www.exxon.com/en/find-station/new-jersey (last visited
Oct. 17, 2022).
35
Ibid.
18

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

worldwide. BP P.L.C.’s subsidiaries explore for oil and natural gas under a wide range of licensing,
joint arrangement, and other contractual agreements.
b.

BP P.L.C. controls and has controlled companywide decisions about thequantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. BP P.L.C.
is the ultimate decisionmaker on fundamental decisions about the BP Group’s core business, i.e.,
the level of companywide fossil fuels to produce, including production among BP P.L.C.’s
subsidiaries. For instance, BP P.L.C. reported that, in 2016–17, it brought online thirteen major
exploration and production projects. These contributed to a 12% increase in the BP Group’s overall
fossil fuel product production. These projects were carried out by BP P.L.C.’s subsidiaries. Basedon these projects, BP P.L.C. expects the BP Group to deliver to customers 900,000 barrels of new
product per day by 2021. BP P.L.C. further reported that in 2017 it sanctioned three new
exploration projects in Trinidad, India, and the Gulf of Mexico.
c.

BP P.L.C. controls and has controlled companywide decisions, including

those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, climate change, and greenhouse gas
emissions from its fossil fuel products, as well as communications strategies concerning climatechange and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environment andhumans. BP P.L.C. makes fossil fuel production decisions for the entire BP Group based on factors
including climate change. BP P.L.C.’s Board of Directors is the highest decisionmaking bodywithin the company, with direct responsibility for the BP Group’s climate change policy. BP
P.L.C.’s chief executive is responsible for maintaining the BP Group’s system of internal control
that governs the BP Group’s business conduct. BP P.L.C.’s senior leadership directly oversees acarbon steering group, which manages climate-related matters and consists of two committees—
both overseen directly by the board—that focus on climate-related investments.

19

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 23 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

d.

Defendant BP America Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of BP P.L.C. thatacts on BP P.L.C.’s behalf and is subject to BP P.L.C.’s control. BP America Inc. is a verticallyintegrated energy and petrochemical company incorporated in the state of Delaware with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Houston, Texas. BP America Inc. is registered to
do business in New Jersey. BP America Inc. consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all
aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including exploration for and production of crude oil and naturalgas; manufacture of petroleum products; and transportation, marketing, and sale of crude oil,natural gas, and petroleum products. BP America Inc. was formerly known as, did or does businessas, and/or is the successor in liability to Amoco Corporation, Amoco Oil Company, ARCO
Products Company, Atlantic Richfield New Jersey Corporation, Atlantic Richfield Company (aDelaware Corporation), BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., BP Products North America Inc., BP Amoco
Corporation, BP Amoco Plc, BP Oil, Inc., BP Oil Company, Sohio Oil Company, Standard Oil of
Ohio (SOHIO), Standard Oil (Indiana), and The Atlantic Richfield Company (a Pennsylvania
Corporation) and its division, the Arco Chemical Company.
e.

Defendants BP P.L.C. and BP America, Inc., together with theirpredecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively referred toherein as “BP.”f.

Plaintiffs’ claims against BP arise out of the acts and omissions of BP in

New Jersey and BP’s actions elsewhere that caused injuries in New Jersey.
g.

BP has purposefully directed and continues to purposefully direct its

tortious conduct toward New Jersey by intentionally and wrongfully distributing, marketing,advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in New Jersey, with knowledge thatthose products have caused and will continue to cause climate crisis-related injuries in New Jersey,

20

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 24 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

including the State’s injuries. BP’s statements in and outside of New Jersey made in furtheranceof its campaign of deception and denial—as well as its inveterate failure to warn consumers ofglobal warming-related hazards when it marketed, advertised, and sold its products both in andoutside of New Jersey—were intended to conceal and mislead consumers and the public, including
the State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences of continued use of BP’s
products. That conduct was intended to reach and influence the State, as well as its residents,
among others, to continue unabated use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products in and outside New
Jersey, thereby resulting in the State’s injuries.
h.

Over the last several decades, BP, and specifically BP P.L.C., spent millionsof dollars on radio, television, and outdoor advertisements in the New Jersey market related to its
fossil fuel products. At least as far back as 1988 and as recently as 2020, BP also advertised its
fossil fuel products in print publications circulated widely to New Jersey consumers, including but
not limited to: The Atlantic, Fortune Magazine, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time
Magazine, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. These advertisements contained nowarning commensurate with the risks of BP’s products. Moreover, these advertisements also
contained false or misleading statements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions
obfuscating the connection between BP’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or
misrepresenting BP’s products or BP itself as environmentally friendly.
i.

A significant amount of BP’s fossil fuel products are or have beentransported, traded, distributed, marketed, manufactured, promoted, sold, and/or consumed in New
Jersey, from which BP derives and has derived substantial revenue. BP advertises that New Jersey

21MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 25 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

contains the “largest concentration of bp workers . . . anywhere in the eastern United States” 36 andthat the company owns a 25% interest in New Jersey’s Carteret terminal, a major fossil fueldistribution center that serves the New York Harbor area. BP conducts and controls, either directlyor through franchise agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at gas station locations throughout New
Jersey, at which it promotes, markets, and advertises its fossil fuel products under its BP and/or
Amoco brand names. BP operates over 230 petroleum service stations in New Jersey andadvertises that “bp’s Helios logo remains a familiar sight for New Jersey motorists.” 37 During theperiod relevant to this Complaint, BP sold a substantial percentage of all retail gasoline in New
Jersey. Additionally, BP markets and sells other products, including engine lubricant and motoroils, to New Jersey consumers under its Castrol brand name. Castrol Industrial North America,
Inc., which is owned by BP, is registered to do business in New Jersey.
j.

BP historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing, andpromotional campaigns to New Jersey residents, including through maps that identify the locationsof its service stations in New Jersey. To this day, BP continues to market and advertise its fossil
fuel products in New Jersey to New Jersey residents by maintaining an interactive website
available to prospective customers in New Jersey by which it directs New Jersey residents to BP’s
nearby retail service stations and/or lubricant distributors. 38 Further, BP promotes its products in
New Jersey by regularly updating and actively promoting its mobile device application, “BPme
Rewards,” throughout the state of New Jersey, encouraging New Jersey users to consume fuel at
its stations in New Jersey in exchange for rewards and/or savings on every fuel purchase.

36

BP, Where We Operate: New Jersey, https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/wherewe-operate/new-jersey.html (last visited Oct. 14, 2022).
37
Ibid.
38
BP, Find a Gas Station, https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/find-a-gas-station.html(last visited Oct. 14, 2022).
22

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 26 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

26.

Chevron Entities: Chevron Corporation, Chevron USA, Inc.
a.

Defendant Chevron Corporation is a multinational, vertically integrated

energy and chemicals company incorporated in Delaware, with its global headquarters andprincipal place of business in San Ramon, California. Chevron Corporation is registered to dobusiness in New Jersey.
b.

Chevron Corporation operates through a web of United States andinternational subsidiaries at all levels of the fossil fuel supply chain. Chevron Corporation’s andits subsidiaries’ operations consist of: (1) exploring for, developing, and producing crude oil andnatural gas; (2) processing, liquefying, transporting, and regassing associated with liquefied
natural gas; (3) transporting crude oil by major international oil export pipelines; (4) transporting,storing, and marketing natural gas; (5) refining crude oil into petroleum products; (6) marketing
crude oil and refined products; (7) transporting crude oil and refined products by pipeline, marine
vessel, motor equipment, and rail car; (8) conducting basic and applied research in multiple
scientific fields including chemistry, geology, and engineering; and (9) manufacturing andmarketing commodity petrochemicals, plastics for industrial uses, and fuel and lubricant additives.
c.

Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled companywide decisions

about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries.
Chevron Corporation determines whether and to what extent its holdings market, produce, and/or
distribute fossil fuel products.
d.

Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled companywide decisions,

including those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, climate change, andgreenhouse gas emissions from its fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning

23

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 27 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environmentand communities.
e.

Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its

principal place of business located in San Ramon, California. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is registered to
do business in New Jersey. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron
Corporation that acts on Chevron Corporation’s behalf and is subject to Chevron Corporation’scontrol. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the
successor in liability to Gulf Oil Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation of Pennsylvania, Chevron
Products Company, and Chevron Chemical Company.
f.

Defendants Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., together with

their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions, are collectively
referred to herein as “Chevron.”g.

Plaintiffs’ claims against Chevron arise out of the acts and omissions of

Chevron in New Jersey and Chevron’s actions elsewhere that caused the injuries in New Jersey.
h.

Chevron has purposefully directed and continues to purposefully direct its

tortious conduct toward New Jersey by intentionally and wrongfully distributing, marketing,advertising, promoting, and supplying its products in New Jersey, with knowledge that those
products have caused and will continue to cause climate crisis-related injuries in New Jersey,
including the State’s injuries. Chevron’s statements in and outside of New Jersey made infurtherance of its campaign of deception and denial—as well as its chronic failure to warn
consumers of global warming-related hazards when it marketed, advertised, and sold its products
both in and outside of New Jersey—were intended to conceal and mislead consumers and the
public, including the State and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences from24

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 28 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

continued use of Chevron’s products. That conduct was intended to reach and influence the State,
as well as its residents, among others, to continue unabated use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products
in and outside New Jersey, resulting in the State’s injuries.
i.

Over the last several decades, Chevron spent millions of dollars on radio,

television, and outdoor advertisements in the New Jersey market related to its fossil fuel products.
At least as far back as 1971 and as recently as 2020, Chevron also advertised in print publications
circulated widely to New Jersey consumers, including but not limited to: The Atlantic, Fortune
Magazine, The New York Times, Newsweek, People, Sports Illustrated, Time Magazine, and The
Washington Post. These advertisements contained no warning commensurate with the risks of
Chevron’s products. Moreover, these advertisements also contained false or misleadingstatements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions obfuscating the connection between
Chevron’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or misrepresenting Chevron’s products or
Chevron itself as environmentally friendly.
j.

A significant amount of Chevron’s fossil fuel products have beentransported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in New
Jersey, from which Chevron has derived substantial revenue. Chevron acquired the Perth Amboy
Refinery in New Jersey in 1945 and operated it to refine petroleum into products such as gasoline,
heating oil, and asphalt until 2012. Chevron has conducted and controlled, either directly or
through franchise agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at its branded gas station locations throughout
New Jersey, at which it has engaged in the promotion, marketing, and advertisement of its fossil
fuel products under its various brand names, including Chevron, Texaco, and other brand names,
at times relevant to this complaint. Chevron historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising,marketing, and promotional campaigns to New Jersey residents, including through maps that25

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 29 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

identified the locations of its service stations in New Jersey. To this day, Chevron markets andsells engine lubricants and motor oils to New Jersey customers under its Delo, IsoClean, Techron,and Havoline brand names at retail outlets. 39 Until 2010, Chevron offered a proprietary credit card
known as the “Chevron Techron Advantage Card,” which allowed consumers in New Jersey to
pay for gasoline and other products at Chevron-branded service stations, and which encouraged
New Jersey consumers to use Chevron-branded service stations by offering various rewards,
including discounts on gasoline purchases at Chevron service stations and cash rebates.
27.

ConocoPhillips Entities: ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Phillips

66, Phillips 66 Companya.

Defendant ConocoPhillips is a multinational energy company incorporated

in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. ConocoPhillips consistsof numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates that execute ConocoPhillips’s fundamental
decisions related to all aspects of the fossil fuel industry, including exploration, extraction,
production, manufacture, transport, and marketing.
b.

ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled companywide decisions about

the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries.
ConocoPhillips determines whether and to what extent its holdings market, produce, and/or
distribute fossil fuel products. ConocoPhillips’s most recent annual report subsumes the operations

39

Chevron Lubricants, Where to Buy, https://www.chevronlubricants.com/en_us/home/whereto-buy/find-a-distributor.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjw1vSZBhDuARIsAKZlijQOwvNuO_1u7qmUkkvXNnEyLThzaA_gtG_gQHh0nsXH0y7JRPNGHcaAkMrEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds (last visited Oct. 14, 2022); Chevron Lubricants, Find Your Nearest Oil Change Station,
https://www.chevronlubricants.com/en_us/home/where-to-buy/find-an-installer.html (last visited
Oct. 14, 2022).

26

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 30 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

of the entire ConocoPhillips group of subsidiaries under its name. Therein, ConocoPhillips
represents that its value—for which ConocoPhillips maintains ultimate responsibility—is afunction of its decisions to direct subsidiaries to explore for and produce fossil fuels: “Unless we
successfully add to our existing proved reserves, our future crude oil, bitumen, natural gas andnatural gas liquids production will decline, resulting in an adverse impact to our business.” 40
ConocoPhillips optimizes the ConocoPhillips group’s oil and gas portfolio to fit ConocoPhillips’s
strategic plan. For example, in November 2016, ConocoPhillips announced a plan to generate $5
billion to $8 billion of proceeds over two years by optimizing its business portfolio, including its
fossil fuel product business, to focus on low cost-of-supply fossil fuel production projects thatstrategically fit its development plans.
c.

ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled companywide decisions,

including those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, climate change andgreenhouse gas emissions from its fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning
climate change and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environmentand communities. For instance, ConocoPhillips’s board has the highest level of direct
responsibility for climate change policy within the company. ConocoPhillips has developed andpurportedly implements a corporate Climate Change Action Plan to govern climate change
decisionmaking across all entities in the ConocoPhillips group.
d.

Defendant ConocoPhillips Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of

ConocoPhillips that acts on ConocoPhillips’s behalf and is subject to ConocoPhillips’s control.

40

ConocoPhillips, Form 10-K: Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 23 (Dec. 31, 2019).
27

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 31 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

ConocoPhillips Company is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal office in Bartlesville,
Oklahoma. ConocoPhillips Company is registered to do business in New Jersey.
e.

Defendant Phillips 66 is a multinational energy and petrochemicalcompany incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It
encompasses downstream fossil fuel processing, refining, transport, and marketing segments thatwere formerly owned and/or controlled by ConocoPhillips.
f.

Defendant Phillips 66 Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Phillips

66 that acts on Phillips 66’s behalf and is subject to Phillips 66’s control. Phillips 66 Company isincorporated in Delaware and has its principal office in Houston, Texas. Phillips 66 Company isregistered to do business in New Jersey. Phillips 66 Company was formerly known as, did or does
business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Phillips Petroleum Company, Conoco, Inc., Tosco
Corporation, and Tosco Refining Co.
g.

Defendants ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company, Phillips 66, andPhillips 66 Company, as well as their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, anddivisions, are collectively referred to herein as “ConocoPhillips.”h.

ConocoPhillips has purposefully directed and continues to purposefully

direct its tortious conduct toward New Jersey by intentionally and wrongfully distributing,marketing, advertising, promoting, and supplying its fossil fuel products in New Jersey, withknowledge that those products have caused and will continue to cause climate crisis-related
injuries in New Jersey, including the State’s injuries. ConocoPhillips’s statements in and outsideof New Jersey made in furtherance of its campaign of deception and denial—as well as its chronic
failure to warn consumers of global warming-related hazards when it marketed, advertised, andsold its products—were intended to conceal and mislead consumers and the public about the28MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 32 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

serious adverse consequences from continued use of ConocoPhillips’s products. That conduct was
intended to reach and influence the State, as well as its residents, among others, to continue
unabated use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products, resulting in the State’s injuries.
i.

ConocoPhillips transacts and has transacted substantial fossil fuel-related

business in New Jersey. In 2011, it acquired the Bayway Refinery, which refines more than
250,000 barrels of fossil fuel products per day, and transferred the refinery to its successor Phillips
66 in 2012. ConocoPhillips and its affiliates have continued to expand Bayway, which remains
one of the largest refineries in operation on the East Coast. ConocoPhillips markets and sells, andhas marketed and sold, a significant quantity of gasoline and other fossil fuel products to New
Jersey consumers. Currently, ConocoPhillips operates more than 140 Conoco-branded and Phillips
66-branded petroleum service stations throughout New Jersey. ConocoPhillips also markets andsells lubricants to New Jersey consumers under its Phillips 66 brand, and motor oils to New Jersey
consumers under its Kendall Motor Oil brand.
28.

Shell Entities: Shell plc, Shell Oil Companya.

Defendant Shell plc (formerly Royal Dutch Shell PLC) is a verticallyintegrated, multinational energy and petrochemical company. Shell plc is incorporated in Englandand Wales, with its headquarters and principal place of business in The Hague, Netherlands. Shell
plc is the ultimate parent company of numerous divisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates, referred tocollectively as the “Shell Group,” that engage in all aspects of the fossil fuel industry including
exploration, development, extraction, manufacturing and energy production, transport, trading,marketing, and sales.
b.

Shell plc controls and has controlled companywide decisions about thequantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. Shell

29

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 33 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

plc’s Board of Directors determines whether and to what extent Shell subsidiary holdings aroundthe globe produce Shell-branded fossil fuel products. For instance, in 2015, a Shell plc subsidiary
employee admitted in a deposition that its Board of Directors made the decision about whether todrill a particular oil deposit off the coast of Alaska.
c.

Shell plc controls and has controlled companywide decisions, including

those of its subsidiaries, related to marketing, advertising, climate change and greenhouse gas
emissions from its fossil fuel products, and communications strategies concerning climate change
and the link between fossil fuel use and climate-related impacts on the environment andcommunities. Overall accountability for climate change within the Shell group of companies lies
with Shell plc’s Chief Executive Officer and Executive Committee. For instance, at least as early
as 1988, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, through its subsidiaries, was researching companywide CO2
emissions and concluded that the Shell group of companies accounted for “4% of the CO2 emitted
worldwide from combustion,” and that climatic changes could compel the Shell group, as
controlled by Royal Dutch Shell PLC, to “examine the possibilities of expanding and contracting[its] business accordingly.” 41 Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s CEO has stated that Royal Dutch Shell
PLC would reduce the carbon footprint of its products, including those of its subsidiaries “byreducing the net carbon footprint of the full range of Shell emissions, from our operations and fromthe consumption of our products.” 42 Additionally, in November 2017, Royal Dutch Shell PLC

41

Health, Safety, & Env’t Div., Shell Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij B.B., The
Greenhouse Effect (Report Series HSE 88-001) 29 (1988).
42
Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Management Day 2017: Shell Updates Company Strategy and
Financial Outlook, and Outlines Net Carbon Footprint Ambition, Shell Global Company Website(Nov. 28, 2017), https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2017/management-day2017-shell-updates-company-strategy.html.

30

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 34 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

announced it would reduce the carbon footprint of “its energy products” by “around” half by
2050. 43 Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s effort is inclusive of all fossil fuel products produced under the
Shell brand, including those of its subsidiaries.
d.

Defendant Shell Oil Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shell plc

that acts on Shell plc’s behalf and is subject to Shell plc’s control. Shell Oil Company isincorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Shell Oil
Company was formerly known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability toDeer Park Refining LP, Shell Oil, Shell Oil Products, Shell Chemical, Shell Trading US, Shell
Trading (US) Company, Shell Energy Services, Texaco Inc., The Pennzoil Company, Shell Oil
Products Company LLC, Shell Oil Products Company, Star Enterprise, LLC, and Pennzoil-QuakerState Company.
e.

Defendants Shell plc, Shell Oil Company, and their predecessors,

successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions are collectively referred to herein as“Shell.”f.

Plaintiffs’ claims against Shell arise out of the acts and omissions of Shellin New Jersey and Shell’s actions elsewhere that caused the injuries in New Jersey.
g.

Shell has purposefully directed and continues to purposefully direct its

tortious conduct toward New Jersey by intentionally and wrongfully distributing, marketing,advertising, promoting, and supplying its products in New Jersey, with knowledge that those
products have caused and will continue to cause climate crisis-related injuries in New Jersey,
including the State’s injuries. Shell’s statements in and outside of New Jersey made in furtheranceof its campaign of deception and denial—as well as its chronic failure to warn consumers of global

43

Ibid.
31

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 35 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

warming-related hazards when it marketed, advertised, and sold its products both in and outsideof New Jersey—were intended to conceal and mislead consumers and the public, including theState and its residents, about the serious adverse consequences from continued use of Shell’s
products. That conduct was intended to reach and influence the State, as well as its residents,
among others, to continue unabated use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products in and outside New
Jersey, resulting in the State’s injuries.
h.

Over the last several decades, Shell spent millions of dollars on radio,

television, and outdoor advertisements in the New Jersey market related to its fossil fuel products.
At least as far back as 1970 and as recently as 2020, Shell also advertised in print publications
circulated widely to New Jersey consumers, including but not limited to: The Atlantic, Life
Magazine, The New York Times, People, Sports Illustrated, Time Magazine, The Washington
Post, and The Wall Street Journal. These advertisements contained no warning commensurate withthe risks of Shell’s products. Moreover, these advertisements also contained false or misleadingstatements, misrepresentations, and/or material omissions obfuscating the connection between
Shell’s fossil fuel products and climate change, and/or misrepresenting Shell’s products or Shell
itself as environmentally friendly.
i.

A significant amount of Shell’s fossil fuel products are or have beentransported, traded, distributed, promoted, marketed, manufactured, sold, and/or consumed in New
Jersey, from which Shell derives and has derived substantial revenue. Shell conducts and controls,
either directly or through franchise agreements, retail fossil fuel sales at gas station locations
throughout New Jersey, at which it promotes, advertises, and sells its fossil fuel products under its
Shell brand name. Shell operates approximately 200 Shell-branded petroleum service stations in
New Jersey. During the period relevant to this Complaint, Shell sold a substantial percentage of32

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 36 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

all retail gasoline sold in New Jersey. Shell also supplies, markets, and promotes its Pennzoil lineof lubricants at retail and service stations throughout New Jersey, including at Target and Walmart.
j.

Shell historically directed its fossil fuel product advertising, marketing, andpromotional campaigns to New Jersey, including through maps that identified the locations of its
service stations in New Jersey. Shell markets and advertises its fossil fuel products in New Jersey
to New Jersey residents by maintaining an interactive website available to prospective customers
by which it directs New Jersey residents to Shell’s nearby retail service stations. Shell offers a
proprietary credit card known as the “Shell Fuel Rewards Card,” which allows consumers in New
Jersey to pay for gasoline and other products at Shell-branded service stations, and which
encourages consumers to use Shell-branded gas stations by offering various rewards, including
discounts on gasoline purchases. Shell further maintains a smartphone application known as the“Shell US App” that offers New Jersey consumers a cashless payment method for gasoline andother products at Shell-branded service stations. New Jersey consumers utilize the payment
method by providing their credit card information through the application. New Jersey consumers
can also receive rewards, including discounts on gasoline purchases, by registering their personal
identifying information in the Shell US App and using the application to identify and activate gas
pumps at Shell service stations during a purchase.
29.

The Exxon, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Shell entities set forth above are collectively

referred to as “Fossil Fuel Defendants.”
30.

American Petroleum Institutea.

Defendant American Petroleum Institute (“API”) is a nonprofit corporation

based in the District of Columbia and registered to do business in New Jersey. API was created in
1919 to represent the American petroleum industry as a whole. With more than 600 members, API

33

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 37 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

is the country’s largest oil trade association. API’s purpose is to advance its individual members’
collective business interests, which includes increasing consumer consumption of oil and gas to
the Fossil Fuel Defendants’ financial profit. Among other functions, API also coordinates
members of the petroleum industry, gathers information of interest to the industry, anddisseminates that information to its members.
b.

Acting on behalf of and under the supervision and control of the Fossil Fuel

Defendants, API has participated in and led several coalitions, front groups, and organizations thathave promoted disinformation about the climate impacts of fossil fuel products to consumers—
including, but not limited to, the Global Climate Coalition, Partnership for a Better Energy Future,
Coalition for American Jobs, Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, and Alliance for Climate
Strategies. These front groups were formed to provide climate disinformation and advocacy froma purportedly objective source, when, in fact, they were financed and controlled by Fossil Fuel
Defendants. Fossil Fuel Defendants have benefited from the spread of this disinformation because,
among other things, it has ensured a thriving consumer market for oil and gas, resulting insubstantial profits for Fossil Fuel Defendants.
c.

API’s stated mission includes “influenc[ing] public policy in support of astrong, viable U.S. oil and natural gas industry,” 44 which includes increasing consumers’
consumption of oil and gas to Fossil Fuel Defendants’ financial benefit. In effect, API acts and has
acted as a marketing arm for its member companies, including Fossil Fuel Defendants. Over thelast several decades, API spent millions of dollars on television, newspaper, radio, and internet
advertisements in the New Jersey market.

44

American Petroleum Institute, About API, https://www.api.org/about (last visited Oct. 17,2022).
34

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 38 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

d.

Member companies participate in API strategy, governance, and operation

through membership dues and by contributing company officers and other personnel to API
boards, committees, and task forces. Fossil Fuel Defendants have collectively steered the policies
and trade practices of API through membership, Executive Committee roles, and/or budgetaryfunding of API. Fossil Fuel Defendants used their control over and involvement in API to further
their goal of influencing consumer demand for their fossil fuel products through a long-term
advertising and communications campaign centered on climate change denialism. Fossil Fuel
Defendants directly controlled, supervised, and participated in API’s misleading messaging
regarding climate change.
e.

In addition to national promotional campaigns circulated in New Jersey,

API has also directly targeted New Jersey consumers by creating and disseminating misleading
advertisements designed to promote consumption of fossil fuel products in the State. In 2017, forexample, API released a thirty-second advertisement called “Natural Gas Works for New Jersey,”
which misleadingly described natural gas as “clean energy.” 45 In 2016, API launched a campaign
in New Jersey seeking to turn public opinion against stricter standards for ethanol content ingasoline. The campaign claimed stricter standards would “hurt consumers and threaten to reverse
America’s energy renaissance.” 46f.

All Fossil Fuel Defendants and/or their predecessors-in-interest have beencore API members at times relevant to this litigation. All Fossil Fuel Defendants are currently
members of API. Executives from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have served on

45

American Petroleum Institute, Natural Gas Works for New Jersey,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb9jQiGgdLQ (Sept. 19, 2017).
46
Reid Porter, API Launches New RFS Advocacy Campaign in New Jersey Focused on
Consumers, American Petroleum Institute (Aug. 9, 2016), https://www.api.org/news-policy-andissues/news/2016/08/09/api-launches-new-rfs-advocacy-campaign-f.
35

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 39 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

the API Executive Committee and/or as API Chairman, which is akin to serving as a corporate
officer. For example, Exxon’s CEO served on API’s Executive Committee for 15 of 25 years
between 1991 and 2016 (1991, 1996–97, 2001, 2005–2016). BP’s CEO served as API’s Chairman
in 1988, 1989, and 1998. Chevron’s CEO served as API Chairman in 1994, 1995, 2003, and 2012.
Shell’s President served on API’s Executive Committee from 2005–06. ConocoPhillips Chairman
and CEO Ryan Lance was Board President from 2016 to 2018, and Exxon President and CEO
Darren Woods was Board President from 2018 to 2020. In 2020, API elected Phillips 66 Chairman
and CEO Greg Garland to serve a two-year term as the Board President. Executives from
ConocoPhillips also served as members of API’s Board of Directors at various times.
g.

Relevant information was shared among API and Fossil Fuel Defendants

and their predecessors-in-interest through (1) API distributing information it held to its members
and/or (2) participation of officers and other personnel from Fossil Fuel Defendants and theirpredecessors-in-interest on API boards, committees, and task forces.
C.

Relevant Non-Parties: Defendants’ Agents and Front Groups

31.

As detailed below, each Fossil Fuel Defendant had actual knowledge that its fossil fuel products

were hazardous. Fossil Fuel Defendants obtained knowledge of the hazards of their products
independently and through their membership and involvement in trade associations such as API.
32.

Fossil Fuel Defendants employed and financed several industry associations, suchas API, and industry-created front groups to serve their mission of flooding the markets withclimate change disinformation and denialism. These organizations, acting on behalf of and under
the supervision and control of Fossil Fuel Defendants, assisted the deception campaign byimplementing public advertising and outreach campaigns to discredit climate science, funding
scientists to cast doubt upon climate science, and denying the human connection to climate change.
In sum, Fossil Fuel Defendants, through their front groups, engaged in a significant marketing
36

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 40 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

campaign that misrepresented and concealed the dangers of their fossil fuel products with the aimof protecting or enhancing Fossil Fuel Defendants’ sales to consumers, including consumers in
New Jersey. Defendants actively supervised, facilitated, consented to, and/or directly participatedin the misleading messaging of these front groups, from which Fossil Fuel Defendants profited
significantly, including in the form of increased sales in New Jersey.
33.

The Information Council for the Environment (“ICE”) was formed by coalcompanies and their allies, including Western Fuels Association and the National Coal
Association. Associated companies included Pittsburg and Midway Coal Mining (Chevron).
34.

The Global Climate Coalition (“GCC”) was an industry group formed topreserve and expand consumer demand for fossil fuels, including by publicly casting doubt on
climate science and opposing greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives. GCC was founded in
1989 shortly after the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”),
the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. GCC disbanded in or
around 2001. Founding members included API, PMAA, and the National Coal Association, apredecessor of the National Mining Association. 47 Over the course of its existence, GCC corporate
members included Amoco (BP), API, Chevron, Exxon, Shell Oil, Texaco (Chevron), and Phillips
Petroleum (ConocoPhillips). Over its existence, other members and funders included ARCO (BP),and the Western Fuels Association.
III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
35.

Jurisdiction of this Court is proper under Article VI, Section III, Paragraph 2, of the New Jersey

Constitution; New Jersey Court Rule 4:4-4; and New Jersey Court Rule 4:3-1(a)(5).

47

ClimateFiles, Global Climate Coalition Membership (Nov. 16, 1989),
http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1989membership.
37

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 41 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

36.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant pursuant to N.J.S.A.

14A:1–1 et seq., and R. 4:4–4(a)(6), and because each Defendant is, or was during the relevanttime, incorporated in New Jersey and/or licensed to do business in New Jersey; maintained or
maintains their principal place of business in New Jersey; is transacting or has transacted
substantial business in New Jersey or is otherwise “at home” in New Jersey; is contracting or has
contracted to supply services or things in New Jersey; has or does derive substantial revenue fromNew Jersey or engages in a persistent course of conduct in New Jersey; had or has interests in,used or uses, or possessed or possesses real property in New Jersey; and/or caused tortious injury
in New Jersey and has intentionally engaged in conduct aimed at New Jersey, which has caused
harm they knew was likely to be incurred in New Jersey. Each Defendant has sufficient contacts
with New Jersey to give rise to the current action, has continuous and systematic contacts with
New Jersey, and/or has consented either explicitly or implicitly to the jurisdiction of this Court.
37.

Additionally, jurisdiction is proper over each non-resident defendant:
a.

With

respect

toits

subsidiaries,

each

non-resident

defendant

parent 48 controls and has controlled decisions about the quantity and extent of its fossil fuelproduction and sales; determines whether and to what extent to market, produce, and/or distributeits fossil fuel products; and controls and has controlled decisions related to its marketing andadvertising, and specifically communications strategies concerning climate change and the link
between fossil fuel use and impacts on the environment. Each non-resident defendant parent has
the power to direct and control the resident subsidiaries named here. Thus, the subsidiaries areagents of the parents. As agents, the subsidiaries of each non-resident defendant conductedactivities in New Jersey at the direction of their parent companies and for the parent companies’48

Except Chevron USA, Inc., which is itself a subsidiary.
38MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 42 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

benefit. Specifically, the subsidiaries furthered the parents’ campaign of deception and denial
through misrepresentations, omissions, and failures to warn, which resulted in climate injuries in
the State and increased sales to the parents. Therefore, the subsidiaries’ jurisdictional activities areproperly attributed to the parents and serve as a basis to assert jurisdiction over the non-resident
defendant parents.
b.

Through their various agreements with dealers, franchises, or otherwise,

Fossil Fuel Defendants direct and control the branding, marketing, sales, promotions, image
development, signage, and advertising of their branded fossil fuels at their respectively branded
gas stations in New Jersey, including point-of-sale advertising and marketing. Defendants dictate
which grades and formulations of their gasoline may be sold at their respectively branded stations.
c.

All Fossil Fuel Defendants—by and through API and other organizations

like ICE, GCC, and International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association(“IPIECA”)—conspired to conceal and misrepresent the known dangers of burning fossil fuels, toknowingly withhold material information regarding the consequences of using fossil fuel products,
to spread knowingly false and misleading information to the public regarding the weight of climate
science research, and to engage in massive campaigns to promote heavy use of their fossil fuelproducts, which they knew would result in injuries to the State. Through their own actions andthrough their membership and participation in climate denialist front groups, API and each Fossil
Fuel Defendant was and is a member of that conspiracy. Defendants committed substantial acts tofurther the conspiracy in New Jersey by making misrepresentations and misleading omissions to
New Jersey consumers about the existence, causes, and effects of global warming, as well as byfailing to warn them about the disastrous impacts of fossil fuel use. A substantial effect of theconspiracy has also and will also occur in New Jersey, as the State has suffered and will suffer

39

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 43 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

injuries from Defendants’ wrongful conduct, including but not limited to: sea-level rise, flooding,erosion, loss of wetlands and beaches, ocean acidification, and other social and economic
consequences of these environmental changes. Defendants knew or should have known—basedon information passed to them from their internal research divisions, affiliates, trade associations,and industry groups—that their actions in New Jersey and elsewhere would result in these injuries
in and to New Jersey. Finally, the climate effects described herein are direct and foreseeable resultsof Defendants’ conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy.
38.

Venue in this Court is proper, pursuant to R. 4:3-2, because Plaintiffs’ claims arose,in part, in Mercer County, and Defendants conduct business there.
IV.

FACTUAL BACKGROUNDA.

Defendants Are Responsible for Causing and Accelerating Climate Change.

39.

Human-caused warming of the Earth is unequivocal. The atmosphere and oceans are warming, sealevel is rising, snow and ice cover is diminishing, oceans are acidifying, and hydrologic systems
have been altered, among other environmental changes. 49
40.

The mechanism by which human activity causes global warming and climate

disruption is well established: ocean and atmospheric warming is overwhelmingly caused byanthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
41.

Greenhouse gases are largely byproducts of humans combusting fossil fuels to

produce energy and using fossil fuels to create petrochemical products. While there are several
greenhouse gases contributing to climate change, CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas emitted fromhuman activities.

49

IPCC, Global Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks, in Climate Change
2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I in the Sixth Assessment
Report 688 (2021).
40

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 44 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

42.

Prior to World War II, most anthropogenic CO2 emissions were caused by land-use

practices, such as forestry and agriculture, which altered the ability of the land and global biosphereto absorb CO2 from the atmosphere; the impacts of such activities on Earth’s climate wererelatively minor.
43.

Since that time, however, both the annual rate and total volume of anthropogenic

CO2 emissions have increased enormously following the advent of major uses of oil, gas, and coal.
44.

The graph below illustrates that fossil fuel emissions are the dominant source ofincreases in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-twentieth century:

Figure 3: Annual Global Emissions, 1850–2020 50
45.

The recent acceleration of fossil fuel emissions has led to a correspondingly sharp rise inatmospheric concentration of CO2. Since 1960, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has

50

Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget 2021 83 (Nov. 4, 2021),
https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/21/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2021.pdf.

41MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 45 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

spiked from under 320 parts per million (“ppm”) to approximately 419 ppm. 51 The rate of growthof atmospheric CO2 has also been increasing. From 1960 to 1970, atmospheric CO2 increased byan average of approximately 1 ppm per year; over the last five years, it has increased by around
2.5 ppm per year. 52
46.

The graph below indicates the tight nexus between the sharp increase in emissions

from the combustion of fossil fuels and the steep rise of atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

Figure 4: Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Annual Emissions 53

51

Global Monitoring Laboratory, Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, NOAA (last visited
Sept. 30, 2022), https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends.
52
Ibid.
53
Rebecca Lindsey, Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, NOAA (June 23, 2022),
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmosphericcarbon-dioxide.

42

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 46 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

47.

Because of the increased burning of fossil fuel products, concentrations ofgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now at a level unprecedented in at least three million
years. 54
48.

As greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, the Earth radiates less energy

back to space. This accumulation and associated disruption of the Earth’s energy balance havemyriad environmental and physical consequences, including, but not limited to, the following:a.

Warming of the Earth’s average surface temperature both locally andglobally, and increased frequency and intensity of heat waves; to date, global average airtemperatures have risen approximately 1.09°C (1.9°F) above preindustrial temperatures;
temperatures in particular locations have risen more;b.

Sea-level rise, due to the thermal expansion of warming ocean waters andrunoff from melting glaciers and ice sheets;c.

Flooding and inundation of land and infrastructure, increased erosion,

higher wave run-up and tides, increased frequency and severity of storm surges, saltwater
intrusion, and other impacts of higher sea levels;d.

Changes to the global climate generally toward longer dry periods

interspersed with fewer and more severe periods of precipitation, and associated impacts on thequantity and quality of water resources available to both human and ecological systems;e.

Ocean acidification, due to the increased uptake of atmospheric carbon

dioxide by the oceans;54

Science Daily, More CO2 Than Ever Before in 3 Million Years, Shows Unprecedented
Computer Simulation (Apr. 3, 2019),
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190403155436.htm.
43MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 47 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

f.

Increased frequency and intensity of precipitation and extreme weather

events due to the increase in the atmosphere’s ability to hold moisture and increased evaporation;g.

Changes to terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and consequent impacts on

the range of flora and fauna; andh.

Adverse impacts on human health associated with extreme weather,

extreme heat, decreased air quality, and vector-borne illnesses.
49.

As discussed below, these consequences of Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct and its

exacerbation of the climate crisis are already impacting New Jersey, its communities, and its
natural resources, and will continue to increase in severity in New Jersey. Without Defendants’
exacerbation of global warming caused by their deceptive and tortious conduct as alleged herein,
the current physical and environmental changes caused by global warming would have been far
less than those observed to date. Similarly, effects that will occur in the future would also be farless detrimental or would be avoided entirely. 55
50.

From at least 1965 until the present, Defendants unduly inflated the market forfossil fuel products by aggressively promoting the use of fossil fuel products despite knowing thedangers associated with those products, and by deceiving consumers and the public about theconsequences of the normal use of fossil fuel products, including by misrepresenting andconcealing the hazards of those products. Consequently, substantially more anthropogenic

55

See, e.g., Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for MultiMillennial Climate and Sea-Level Change, 6 Nature Climate Change 360, 365 (2016) (“Ourmodelling suggests that the human carbon footprint of about [470 billion tons] by 2000 . . . hasalready committed Earth to a [global mean sea level] rise of ~1.7m (range of 1.2 to 2.2 m).”).

44

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 48 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

greenhouse gases have been emitted into the environment than would have been emitted absent
that tortious and deceptive conduct.
51.

By quantifying greenhouse gas pollution attributable to Fossil Fuel Defendants’products and conduct, climatic and environmental responses to those emissions are also calculable
and can be attributed to Fossil Fuel Defendants on an individual and aggregate basis. 56
52.

Defendants’ tortious, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct, as alleged herein,caused a substantial portion of the global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and the past,ongoing, and future disruptions to the environment—and consequent injuries to New Jersey, its
communities, and its resources—associated therewith.
53.

Defendants, individually and together, have substantially and measurably

contributed to New Jersey’s climate crisis-related injuries.
B.

Defendants Went to Great Lengths to Understand, and Either Knew or Should
Have Known About, the Dangers Associated with Their Fossil Fuel Products.

54.

The fossil fuel industry has known about the potential warming effects ofgreenhouse gas emissions since as early as the 1950s, developing a sophisticated understanding ofclimate change that far exceeded the knowledge of the public, ordinary consumers, and the State.
Although concealed at the time, the industry’s knowledge was later uncovered by journalists at
Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times, among others. 57 In 1954, geochemist Harrison
Brown and his colleagues at the California Institute of Technology wrote to API, informing thetrade association that preliminary measurements of natural archives of carbon in tree rings

56

See Richard Heede, Tracing Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Methane Emissions to Fossil
Fuel and Cement Producers, 1854–2010, 122 Climatic Change 229 (2014),
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y.
57
See discussion infra ¶¶ 137–38.

45

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 49 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

indicated that fossil fuels had caused atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to increase by about 5%
since 1840. 58 API funded the scientists for various research projects, and measurements of carbon
dioxide continued for at least one year and possibly longer, although the results were neverpublished or otherwise made available to the public. 59
55.

In 1957, H.R. Brannon of Humble Oil (predecessor-in-interest to ExxonMobil)

measured an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide similar to that measured by Harrison Brown.
Brannon communicated this information to API. Brannon knew of Brown’s measurements,
compared them with his, and found they agreed. Brannon published his results in the scientific
literature, which was available to Fossil Fuel Defendants and/or their predecessors-in-interest. 60
56.

In 1959, API organized a centennial celebration of the American oil industry atColumbia University in New York City. 61 High-level representatives of Fossil Fuel Defendants
were in attendance. One of the keynote speakers was the nuclear physicist Edward Teller. Teller
warned the industry that “a temperature rise corresponding to a 10[%] increase in carbon dioxide
will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge . . . [a]ll the coastal cities.” Teller added thatsince “a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that thischemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.” 62

58

See Benjamin Franta, Early Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 and Global Warming, 8 Nature
Climate Change 1024, 1024–25 (2018).
59
Id.
60
H.R. Brannon, Jr. et al., Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric and Oceanic
Carbon by Carbon from Fossil Fuels, 38 Am. Geophysical Union Transactions 643, 643–50(1957).
61
See Allan Nevins & Robert G. Dunlop, Energy and Man: A Symposium (Appleton-CenturyCrofts, New York 1960). See also Franta, Early Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 and Global
Warming at 1024–25.
62
Edward Teller, Energy Patterns of the Future, in Energy and Man: A Symposium 53–72(1960).

46

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 50 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

57.

Following his speech, Teller was asked to “summarize briefly the danger fromincreased carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere in this century.” He responded that “there isa possibility the icecaps will start melting and the level of the oceans will begin to rise.” 63
58.

By 1965, concern over the potential for fossil fuel products to cause disastrous

global warming reached the highest levels of the United States’ scientific community. In that year,
President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee’s Environmental Pollution Panelreported that a 25% increase in carbon dioxide concentrations could occur by the year 2000, thatsuch an increase could cause significant global warming, that melting of the Antarctic ice cap andrapid sea-level rise could result, and that fossil fuels were the clearest source of the carbon dioxide
pollution. 64
59.

Three days after President Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee report was

published, the president of API, Frank Ikard, addressed leaders of the petroleum industry in
Chicago at the trade association’s annual meeting. Ikard relayed the findings of the report toindustry leaders, saying,
The substance of the report is that there is still time to save the world’s peoples
from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out. 65
Ikard also relayed that “by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause
marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts” and quoted the report’s findingthat “the pollution from internal combustion engines is so serious, and is growing so fast, that an

63

Id.
President’s Science Advisory Committee, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Reportof the Environmental Pollution Panel 9, 119–24 (Nov. 1965),https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b4315678.
65
See Franta, Early Oil Industry Knowledge of CO2 and Global Warming at 1024–25.
64

47

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 51 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

alternative nonpolluting means of powering automobiles, buses, and trucks is likely to become anational necessity.” 66
60.

Thus, by 1965, Defendants and their predecessors-in-interest were aware that thescientific community had found that fossil fuel products, if used profligately, would cause global
warming by the end of the century, and that such global warming would have wide-ranging andcostly consequences.
61.

In 1968, API received a report from the Stanford Research Institute, which it had

hired to assess the state of research on environmental pollutants, including carbon dioxide. 67 The
assessment endorsed the findings of President Johnson’s Scientific Advisory Council from three
years prior, stating, “Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000,
and . . . there seems to be no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe.”
The scientists warned of “melting of the Antarctic ice cap” and informed API that “[p]ast andpresent studies of CO2 are detailed and seem to explain adequately the present state of CO2 in theatmosphere.” What was missing, the scientists said, was work on “air pollution technology and. . . systems in which CO2 emissions would be brought under control.” 68
62.

In 1969, the Stanford Research Institute delivered a supplemental report on air

pollution to API, projecting with alarming particularity that atmospheric CO2 concentrations
would reach 370 parts per million (“ppm”) by 2000. 69 This projection turned out to almost exactly

66

Id.
Elmer Robinson & R.C. Robbins, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric
Pollutants, Stanford Rsch. Inst. (Feb. 1968),
https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16.
68
Ibid.
69
Elmer Robinson & R.C. Robbins, Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric
Pollutants Supplement, Stanford Rsch. Inst. (June 1969).
67

48

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 52 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

match the actual CO2 concentrations measured in 2000 of 369.64 ppm. 70 The report explicitly
connected the rise in CO2 levels to the combustion of fossil fuels, finding it “unlikely that theobserved rise in atmospheric CO2 has been due to changes in the biosphere.”63.

By virtue of their membership and participation in API at that time, Fossil Fuel

Defendants received or should have received the Stanford Research Institute reports and were on
notice of their conclusions.
64.

In 1972, API members—including Fossil Fuel Defendants—received a status

report on all environmental research projects funded by API. The report summarized the 1968 SRI
report describing the impact of fossil fuel products—including Defendants’—on the environment,
including global warming and its attendant consequences. Fossil Fuel Defendants and/or theirpredecessors-in-interest that received this report included but were not limited to: American
Standard of Indiana (BP), Asiatic (Shell), Atlantic Richfield (BP), British Petroleum (BP),Chevron Standard of California (Chevron), Esso Research (ExxonMobil), Ethyl (formerly
affiliated with Esso, which was subsumed by ExxonMobil), Getty (ExxonMobil), Gulf (Chevron,among others), Humble Standard of New Jersey (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP), Mobil(ExxonMobil), Pan American (BP), Shell, Standard of Ohio (BP), Texaco (Chevron), Union(Chevron), Skelly (ExxonMobil), Colonial Pipeline (ownership has included BP, ExxonMobil,
and Chevron entities, among others), Continental (ConocoPhillips), Dupont (former owner ofConoco), Phillips (ConocoPhillips), and Caltex (Chevron). 71

70

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Global Mean CO2 Mixing Ratios (ppm):
Observations, https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt.
71
American Petroleum Institute, Committee for Air and Water Conservation, Environmental
Research: A Status Report (Jan. 1972), http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf.

49MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 53 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

65.

In 1977, James Black of Exxon’s Products Research Division presented to the

Exxon Corporation Management Committee on the greenhouse effect. The next year, Blackpresented to another internal Exxon group, PERCC. In a letter to the Vice President of Exxon
Research and Engineering, Black summarized his presentations. 72 He reported that “current
scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors attributing atmospheric carbon dioxide increase to fossil
fuel consumption,” and that doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide would, according to the best
climate model available, “produce a mean temperature increase of about 2°C to 3°C over most of
the earth,” with two to three times as much warming at the poles. The figure below, reproduced
from Black’s memo, illustrates Exxon’s understanding of the timescale and magnitude of global
warming that its products would cause.

72

Letter from J.F. Black, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., to F.G. Turpin, Exxon Researchand Engineering Co., The Greenhouse Effect, ClimateFiles (June 6, 1978),http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1978-exxon-memo-on-greenhouse-effect-for-exxoncorporation-management-committee.

50MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 54 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Figure 5: Future Global Warming Predicted Internally by Exxon in 1977 73
66.

The impacts of such global warming, Black reported, would include “morerainfall,” which would “benefit some areas and would harm others.” “Some countries would
benefit, but others could have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed.” “Even those nations
which are favored, however, would be damaged for a while since their agricultural and industrial
patterns have been established on the basis of the present climate.” Black reported that “[i]t iscurrently estimated that mankind has a 5–10 yr. time window to obtain the necessary information”
and “establish what must be done,” at which time, “hard decisions regarding changes in energy
strategies might become critical.” 74

73

Ibid. The company predicted global warming of 3°C by 2050, with 10°C warming in polar
regions. The difference between the dashed and solid curves prior to 1977 represents global
warming that Exxon believed may already have been occurring.
74
Ibid.

51

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 55 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

67.

Also in 1977, Henry Shaw of the Exxon Research and Engineering Technology

Feasibility Center attended a meeting of scientists and governmental officials in Atlanta, Georgia,
on developing research programs to study carbon dioxide and global warming. Shaw’s internal
memo to Exxon’s John W. Harrison reported that “[t]he climatic effects of carbon dioxide release
may be the primary limiting factor on energy production from fossil fuels[.]” 75
68.

In 1979, Exxon’s W. L. Ferrall distributed an internal memorandum. 76 According

to that memo, “The most widely held theory [about global warming] is that: The increase [incarbon dioxide] is due to fossil fuel combustion; [i]ncreasing CO2 concentration will cause awarming of the earth’s surface; [and t]he present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause
dramatic environmental effects before the year 2050. . . . The potential problem is great andurgent.” The memo added that, if limits were not placed on fossil fuel production,
Noticeable temperature changes would occur around 2010 as the [carbon dioxide]
concentration reaches 400 ppm [parts per million]. Significant climatic changes
occur around 2035 when the concentration approaches 500 ppm. A doubling of the
pre-industrial concentration [i.e., 580 ppm] occurs around 2050. The doubling
would bring about dramatic changes in the world’s environment[.] 77
Those projections proved remarkably accurate: annual average atmospheric CO2 concentrations
surpassed 400 ppm in 2015 for the first time in millions of years. 78 Limiting the carbon dioxide
concentration in the atmosphere to 440 ppm, or a 50% increase over preindustrial levels, which
the memo said was “assumed to be a relatively safe level for the environment,” would require

75

Henry Shaw, Environmental Effects of Carbon Dioxide, Climate Investigations Ctr. (Oct. 31,
1977), https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/tpwl0228.
76
Letter from W.L. Ferrall, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., to Dr. R.L. Hirsch,
Controlling Atmospheric CO2, Climate Investigations Ctr. (Oct. 16, 1979),
https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mqwl0228.
77
Ibid.
78
Nicola Jones, How the World Passed a Carbon Threshold and Why It Matters, Yale Env’t 360(Jan. 26, 2017), http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppmand-why-it-matters.
52

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 56 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

fossil fuel emissions to peak in the 1990s and non-fossil energy systems to be rapidly deployed.
Eighty percent of fossil fuel resources, the memo calculated, would have to be left in the groundto avoid doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Certain fossil fuels, such as shaleoil, could not be substantially exploited at all.
69.

But instead of heeding the repeated warnings of the catastrophic impacts of climatechange resulting from burning fossil fuels, in November 1979, Exxon’s Henry Shaw wrote to
Exxon’s Harold Weinberg urging “a very aggressive defensive program in . . . atmospheric scienceand climate because there is a good probability that legislation affecting our business will bepassed.” 79 Shaw stated that an expanded research effort was necessary to “influence possible
legislation on environmental controls” and “respond” to environmental groups, which had already
opposed synthetic fuels programs based on CO2 emissions. Shaw suggested the formation of a“small task force” to evaluate a potential program in CO2 and climate, acid rain, carcinogenic
particulates, and other pollution issues caused by fossil fuels. 80
70.

In 1979, API and its members, including the Fossil Fuel Defendants, convened a

Task Force to monitor and share cutting edge climate research among the oil industry. The group
was initially called the CO2 and Climate Task Force, but in 1980 changed its name to the Climate
and Energy Task Force (hereinafter referred to as “CO2 Task Force”). Membership included seniorscientists and engineers from nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company,
including Exxon, Mobil (ExxonMobil), Amoco (BP), Phillips (ConocoPhillips), Texaco(Chevron), Shell, Sohio (BP), Standard Oil of California (BP), and Gulf Oil (Chevron), among
others.

The Task Force was charged with monitoring government and academic research,

79

Memorandum from H. Shaw to H.N. Weinberg, Research in Atmospheric Science, Climate
Investigations Ctr. (Nov. 19, 1979), https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yqwl0228.
80
Ibid.
53

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 57 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

evaluating the implications of emerging science for the petroleum and gas industries, andidentifying where reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from Defendants’ fossil fuel products
could be made. 81
71.

In 1979, API prepared a background paper on carbon dioxide and climate for the

CO2 Task Force, stating that CO2 concentrations were rising steadily in the atmosphere, andpredicting when the first clear effects of global warming might be detected. 82 API reported to its
members that although global warming would occur, it would likely go undetected until
approximately the year 2000 because, API believed, its effects were being temporarily masked bya natural cooling trend. However, this cooling trend, API warned its members, would reversearound 1990, adding to the warming caused by CO2.
72.

In 1980, API’s CO2 Task Force invited Dr. John Laurmann, “a recognized expert

in the field of CO2 and climate,” to present to its members. 83 The meeting lasted for seven hours
and included a “complete technical discussion” of global warming caused by fossil fuels, including“the scientific basis and technical evidence of CO2 buildup, impact on society, methods ofmodeling and their consequences, uncertainties, policy implications, and conclusions that can be
drawn from present knowledge.” Representatives from Standard Oil of Ohio (predecessor to BP),
Texaco (now Chevron), Exxon, and API were present, and the minutes of the meeting were81

Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too,
Inside Climate News (Dec. 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxonmobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleuminstitute-api-shell-chevron-texaco.
82
Memorandum from R.J. Campion to J.T. Burgess, The API’s Background Paper on CO2
Effects, Climate Investigations Ctr. (Sep. 6, 1979),
https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/lqwl0228.
83
Letter from Jimmie J. Nelson, American Petroleum Institute, to AQ-9 Task Force, The CO2
Problem; Addressing Research Agenda Development, Climate Investigations Ctr. (Mar. 18,
1980), https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/gffl0228.
54

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 58 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

distributed to the entire API CO2 Task Force. Laurmann informed the Task Force of the “scientificconsensus on the potential for large future climatic response to increased CO2 levels” and that
there was “strong empirical evidence that [the carbon dioxide] rise [was] caused by anthropogenic
release of CO2, mainly from fossil fuel burning.” Unless fossil fuel production and use were
controlled, atmospheric carbon dioxide would be twice preindustrial levels by 2038, with “likely
impacts” along the following trajectory:
1°C RISE (2005): BARELY NOTICEABLE
2.5°C RISE (2038): MAJOR ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES, STRONGREGIONAL DEPENDENCE
5°C RISE (2067): GLOBALLY CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS
Laurmann warned the CO2 Task Force that global warming of 2.5°C would “bring[] world
economic growth to a halt[.]” Laurmann also suggested that action should be taken immediately,
asking, “Time for action?” and noting that if achieving high market penetration for new energy
sources would require a long time (i.e., decades), then there would be “no leeway” for delay. The
minutes of the CO2 Task Force’s meeting show that one of the Task Force’s goals was “to help
develop ground rules for [ . . . ] the cleanup of fuels as they relate to CO2 creation,” and the Task
Force discussed the requirements for a worldwide “energy source changeover” away from fossil
fuels. 84
73.

In 1980, Imperial Oil Limited (a Canadian ExxonMobil subsidiary) reported to

managers and environmental staff at multiple affiliated Esso and Exxon companies that there was

84

Ibid.

55

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 59 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068“no doubt” that fossil fuels were aggravating the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere. 85 Imperial
noted that “[t]echnology exists to remove CO2 from stack gases but removal of only 50% of theCO2 would double the cost of power generation.” 86
74.

In December 1980, Exxon’s Henry Shaw distributed a memorandum on the “CO2Greenhouse Effect.” 87 Shaw stated that the future buildup of carbon dioxide was a function offossil fuel use, and that internal calculations performed at Exxon indicated that atmospheric carbon
dioxide would double by around the year 2060. According to the “most widely accepted” climate
models, Shaw reported, this doubling of carbon dioxide would “most likely” result in global
warming of approximately 3°C, with a greater effect in polar regions. Calculations predicting alower temperature increase, such as 0.25°C, were “not held in high regard by the scientificcommunity,” Shaw said. Shaw also noted that the ability of the oceans to absorb heat could delay(but not prevent) the temperature increase “by a few decades,” and that natural, random
temperature fluctuations would hide global warming from CO2 until around the year 2000. The
memo included the Figure below, which illustrates global warming anticipated by Exxon as wellas the company’s understanding that significant global warming would occur before exceeding therange of natural variability.

85

Imperial Oil Ltd., Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 1978–1979 (Aug. 6,
1980), http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2827784-1980-Imperial-Oil-Review-ofEnvironmental.html#document/p2.
86
Ibid.
87
Memorandum from Henry Shaw to T.K. Kett, Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s
Technological Forecast: CO2 Greenhouse Effect (Dec. 18, 1980),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805573-1980-Exxon-Memo-Summarizing-CurrentModels-And.html.
56

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 60 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Figure 6: Future Global Warming Predicted Internally by Exxon in 1980 88
The memo reported that such global warming would cause “increased rainfall[] and increased
evaporation,” which would have a “dramatic impact on soil moisture, and in turn, on agriculture.”
Some areas would turn to desert, and the American Midwest would become “much drier.”“[W]eeds and pests,” the memo reported, “would tend to thrive with increasing global averagetemperature.” Other “serious global problems” could also arise, such as the melting of the West
Antarctic ice sheet, which “could cause a rise in the sea level on the order of 5 meters.” The memo
called for “society” to pay the bill, estimating that some adaptive measures would cost no more

88

Ibid. The company anticipated a doubling of carbon dioxide by around 2060 and that theoceans would delay the warming effect by a few decades, leading to approximately 3°C warmingby the end of the century.

57

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 61 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

than “a few percent” of Gross National Product (i.e., $400 billion in 2018). 89 Exxon predicted thatnational policy action would not occur until around 1989, when the Department of Energy would
finish a ten-year study of carbon dioxide and global warming. 90 Shaw also reported that Exxon
had studied various responses for avoiding or reducing a carbon dioxide build-up, including“stopping all fossil fuel combustion at the 1980 rate” and “investigat[ing] the market penetrationof non-fossil fuel technologies.” The memo estimated that such non-fossil energy technologies“would need about 50 years to penetrate and achieve roughly half of the total [energy] market.” 91
75.

In February 1981, Exxon’s Contract Research Office prepared and distributed a“Scoping Study on CO2” to the leadership of Exxon Research and Engineering Company. 92 The
study reviewed Exxon’s current research on carbon dioxide and considered whether to expand
Exxon’s research on carbon dioxide or global warming further at that time. The study
recommended against expanding Exxon’s research activities in those areas because its current
research programs were sufficient for achieving the company’s goals of closely monitoring federal
research, building credibility and public relations value, and developing in-house expertise
regarding CO2 and global warming. However, the study recommended that Exxon centralize its
activities in monitoring, analyzing, and disseminating outside research on CO2 and global
warming. The study stated that Exxon’s James Black was actively monitoring and keeping the89

Ibid.; see Gross National Product, Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis (updated Mar. 26, 2020),
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GNPA.
90
Memorandum from Henry Shaw to T.K. Kett, Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s
Technological Forecast: CO2 Greenhouse Effect (Dec. 18, 1980),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2805573-1980-Exxon-Memo-Summarizing-CurrentModels-And.html.
91
Ibid.
92
Letter from G.H. Long, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., to P.J. Lucchesi et al.,Atmospheric CO2 Scoping Study, Climate Investigations Ctr. (Feb. 5, 1981),
https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/yxfl0228.
58

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 62 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

company apprised of outside research developments, including those on climate modeling and“CO2-induced effects.” The study also noted that other companies in the fossil fuel industry were“auditing Government meetings on the subject.” In discussing “options for reducing CO2 buildup in the atmosphere,” the study noted that although capturing CO2 from flue gases (i.e., exhaustgas produced by combustion) was technologically possible, the cost was high, and “energy
conservation or shifting to renewable energy sources[] represent the only options that might makesense.” 9376.

Thus, by 1981, Exxon and other fossil fuel companies were actively monitoring all

aspects of CO2 and global warming research both nationally and internationally, and Exxon had
recognized that a shift to renewable energy sources would be necessary to avoid a large CO2 buildup in the atmosphere and resultant global warming.
77.

Exxon scientist Roger Cohen warned his colleagues in a 1981 internal

memorandum that “future developments in global data gathering and analysis, along with advancesin climate modeling, may provide strong evidence for a delayed CO2 effect of a truly substantial
magnitude,” and that under certain circumstances it would be “very likely that we willunambiguously recognize the threat by the year 2000.” 94 Cohen had expressed concern that the
memorandum understated the potential effects of unabated CO2 emissions from Defendants’ fossil
fuel products, saying, “it is distinctly possible that [Exxon Planning Division’s] . . . scenario willproduce effects which will indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the world’s
population).” 95

93

Ibid.
Memorandum from R.W. Cohen to W. Glass, ClimateFiles (Aug. 18, 1981),
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1981-exxon-memo-on-possible-emissionconsequences-of-fossil-fuel-consumption.
95
Ibid.
94

59

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 63 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

78.

In 1981, Exxon’s Henry Shaw, the company’s lead climate researcher at the time,

prepared a summary of Exxon’s current position on the greenhouse effect for Edward David Jr.,
president of Exxon Research and Engineering, stating in relevant part:
•
•

79.

“Atmospheric CO2 will double in 100 years if fossil fuels grow at 1.4%/a.
3oC global average temperature rise and 10oC at poles if CO2 doubles.
o Major shifts in rainfall/agriculture
o Polar ice may melt” 96

In 1982, another report prepared for API by scientists at the Lamont-Doherty GeologicalObservatory at Columbia University recognized that atmospheric CO2 concentration had risen
significantly compared to the beginning of the industrial revolution—from about 290 ppm to about
340 ppm in 1981. The report also acknowledged that despite differences in climate modelers’
predictions, there was scientific consensus that “a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from . . . preindustrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [5.4
± 2.7 °F].” It went further, warning that “[s]uch a warming can have serious consequences for
man’s comfort and survival since patterns of aridity and rainfall can change, the height of the sea
level can increase considerably and the world food supply can be affected.” 97 Exxon’s own
modeling research confirmed this, and the company’s results were later published in at least threepeer-reviewed scientific papers. 98

96

Memorandum from Henry Shaw to Dr. E.E. David, CO2 Position Statement, Inside Climate
News (May 15, 1981) (footnote omitted), https://insideclimatenews.org/documents/exxonposition-co2-1981.
97
American Petroleum Institute, Climate Models and CO2 Warming: A Selective Review andSummary (Columbia Univ., Mar. 1982),
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2805626/1982-API-Climate-Models-and-CO2Warming-a.pdf.
98
See Memorandum from Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., to A.M.
Natkin, Exxon Corp. Office of Science and Technology, ClimateFiles (Sept. 2, 1982),

60

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 64 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

80.

Also in 1982, Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Manager distributed a primer on

climate change to a “wide circulation [of] Exxon management [ . . . ] intended to familiarize Exxon
personnel with the subject.” 99 The primer was “restricted to Exxon personnel and not to be
distributed externally.” The primer compiled science on climate change, confirmed fossil fuelcombustion as a primary anthropogenic contributor to global warming, and estimated a CO2
doubling (i.e., 580 ppm) by 2070 with a “Most Probable Temperature Increase” of more than 2°C
over the 1979 level, as shown in the Figure below.

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-exxon-memo-summarizing-climate-modelingand-co2-greenhouse-effect-research (discussing research articles and summarizing the findingsof research in climate modeling).
99
Memorandum from M.B. Glaser, CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect, Exxon Research and Engineering
Company (Nov. 12, 1982), https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1982Exxon-Primer-on-CO2-Greenhouse-Effect.pdf.

61

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 65 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Figure 7: Exxon’s Internal Prediction of Future CO2 Increase
and Global Warming from 1982 100
The report also warned of “uneven global distribution of increased rainfall and increased
evaporation,” explaining that “disturbances in the existing global water distribution balance would
have dramatic impact on soil moisture, and in turn, on agriculture,” and that the American Midwest
would dry out. In addition to effects on global agriculture, the report stated, “there are somepotentially catastrophic effects that must be considered.” Melting of the Antarctic ice sheet could

100

Ibid. The company predicted a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations above
preindustrial levels by around 2070 (left curve), with a temperature increase of more than 2°C
over the 1979 level (right curve). The same document indicated that Exxon estimated that by1979 a global warming effect of approximately 0.25°C may already have occurred.
62

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 66 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

result in global sea-level rise of five meters, which would “cause flooding on much of the U.S.
East Coast, including the state of Florida and Washington, D.C.” Weeds and pests would “tend to
thrive with increasing global temperature.” The primer warned of “positive feedback mechanisms”
in polar regions, which could accelerate global warming, such as deposits of peat “containing large
reservoirs of organic carbon” becoming “exposed to oxidation” and releasing their carbon into theatmosphere. “Similarly,” the primer warned, “thawing might also release large quantities of carbon
currently sequestered as methane hydrates” on the sea floor. “All biological systems would be
affected,” and “the most severe economic effects could be on agriculture.”81.

The report recommended studying “soil erosion, salinization, or the collapse of irrigation systems”

in order to understand how society might be affected and might respond to global warming, as wellas “[h]ealth effects” and “stress associated with climate related famine or migration[.]” The report
estimated that undertaking “[s]ome adaptive measures” (not all of them) would cost “a few percentof the gross national product estimated in the middle of the next century” (i.e., $400 billion in2018). 101 To avoid such impacts, the report discussed an analysis from the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which studied energy alternatives andrequirements for introducing them into widespread use, and which recommended that “vigorous
development of non-fossil energy sources be initiated as soon as possible.” 102 The primer also
noted that other greenhouse gases related to fossil fuel production, such as methane, would
contribute significantly to global warming, and that concerns over CO2 would be reduced if fossil

101

See Gross National Product, Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis (updated Mar. 26, 2020),
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GNPA.
102
Memorandum from M.B. Glaser, CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect, Exxon Research and Engineering
Company (Nov. 12, 1982),
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%2
0CO2%20Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf.
63MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 67 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

fuel use were decreased due to “high price, scarcity, [or] unavailability.” “Mitigation of the‘greenhouse effect’ would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion,” the primer stated.
The primer was widely distributed to Exxon leadership.
82.

In September 1982, the Director of Exxon’s Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory,

Roger Cohen, wrote Alvin Natkin of Exxon’s Office of Science and Technology to summarize
Exxon’s internal research on climate modeling. 103 Cohen reported:[O]ver the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged regarding the
expected climatic effects of increased atmospheric CO2. The consensus is that adoubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would resultin an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5) °C. . . . The temperature rise ispredicted to be distributed nonuniformly over the earth, with above-averagetemperature elevations in the polar regions and relatively small increases near theequator. There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that atemperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes inthe earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations of the biosphere.
The time required for doubling of atmospheric CO2 depends on future worldconsumption of fossil fuels.
Cohen described Exxon’s own climate modeling experiments, reporting that they produced “aglobal average temperature increase that falls well within the range of the scientific consensus,”
were “consistent with the published predictions of more complex climate models,” and were “alsoin agreement with estimates of the global temperature distribution during a certain prehistoric
period when the earth was much warmer than today.” “In summary,” Cohen wrote, “the results ofour research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2
on climate.” Cohen noted that the results would be presented to the scientific community by
Exxon’s collaborator Martin Hoffert at a Department of Energy meeting, as well as by Exxon’s

103

Memorandum from Roger W. Cohen, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., to A.M. Natkin,
Exxon Corp. Office of Science and Technology, ClimateFiles (Sept. 2, 1982),
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-exxon-memo-summarizing-climate-modelingand-co2-greenhouse-effect-research.
64

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 68 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Brian Flannery at the Exxon-supported Ewing Symposium, later that year.
83.

In October 1982, at the fourth biennial Maurice Ewing Symposium at the Lamont-

Doherty Geophysical Observatory, which was attended by members of API and Exxon Researchand Engineering Company, the Observatory’s president E.E. David delivered a speech titled,“Inventing the Future: Energy and the CO2 ‘Greenhouse Effect.’” 104 His remarks included thefollowing statement: “Few people doubt that the world has entered an energy transition away fromdependence upon fossil fuels and toward some mix of renewable resources that will not pose
problems of CO2 accumulation.” He went on, discussing the human opportunity to address
anthropogenic climate change before the point of no return:
It is ironic that the biggest uncertainties about the CO2 buildup are not in predicting
what the climate will do, but in predicting what people will do. . . . It appears westill have time to generate the wealth and knowledge we will need to invent thetransition to a stable energy system.
84.

Throughout the early 1980s, at Exxon’s direction, Exxon climate scientist Henry

Shaw forecasted emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel use. Those estimates were incorporated into
Exxon’s twenty-first century energy projections and were distributed among Exxon’s various
divisions. Shaw’s conclusions included an expectation that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would
double in 2090 per the Exxon model, with an attendant 2.3–5.6°F average global temperature
increase. Shaw compared his model results to those of the EPA, the National Academy of Sciences,and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, indicating that the Exxon model predicted a longer

104

Dr. E.E. David, Jr., President, Exxon Research and Engineering Co., Remarks at the Fourth
Annual Ewing Symposium, Tenafly, NJ, ClimateFiles (Oct. 26, 1982),
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/inventing-future-energy-co2-greenhouse-effect.

65

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 69 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

delay than any of the other models, although its temperature increase prediction was in the midrange of the four projections. 105
85.

During the 1980s, many Defendants formed their own research units focused on

climate modeling. API, including the API CO2 Task Force, provided a forum for Fossil Fuel
Defendants to share their research efforts and corroborate their findings related to anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions. 106
86.

During this time, Defendants’ statements expressed an understanding of their

obligation to consider and mitigate the externalities of unabated promotion, marketing, and sale oftheir fossil fuel products. For example, in 1988, Richard Tucker, the president of Mobil Oil,presented at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers National Meeting, the premiereducational forum for chemical engineers, where he stated:[H]umanity, which has created the industrial system that has transformed
civilization, is also responsible for the environment, which sometimes is at risk
because of unintended consequences of industrialization. . . . Maintaining thehealth of this life-support system is emerging as one of the highest priorities. . . .
[W]e must all be environmentalists.
The environmental covenant requires action on many fronts . . . the lowatmosphere ozone problem, the upper-atmosphere ozone problem and thegreenhouse effect, to name a few. . . . Our strategy must be to reduce pollution
before it is ever generated—to prevent problems at the source.
Prevention means engineering a new generation of fuels, lubricants and chemical
products. . . . Prevention means designing catalysts and processes that minimize
or eliminate the production of unwanted byproducts. . . . Prevention on a global
105

Neela Banerjee, More Exxon Documents Show How Much It Knew About Climate 35 Years
Ago, Inside Climate News (Dec. 1, 2015),
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01122015/documents-exxons-early-co2-position-seniorexecutives-engage-and-warming-forecast.
106
Neela Banerjee, Exxon’s Oil Industry Peers Knew About Climate Dangers in the 1970s, Too,
Inside Climate News (Dec. 22, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxonmobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleuminstitute-api-shell-chevron-texaco/.

66

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 70 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

scale may even require a dramatic reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels—
and a shift towards solar, hydrogen, and safe nuclear power. It may be possible
that—just possible—that the energy industry will transform itself so completelythat observers will declare it a new industry. . . . Brute force, low-tech responses
and money alone won’t meet the challenges we face in the energy industry. 107
87.

Also in 1988, the Shell Greenhouse Effect Working Group issued a confidential

internal report, “The Greenhouse Effect,” which acknowledged global warming’s anthropogenic
nature: “Man-made carbon dioxide released into and accumulated in the atmosphere is believed towarm the earth through the so-called greenhouse effect.” The authors also noted the burning offossil fuels as a primary driver of CO2 buildup and warned that warming would “create significant
changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather.”
They further pointed to the potential for “direct operational consequences” of sea-level rise on“offshore

installations,coastalfacilities

andoperations(e.g.

platforms,

harbors,refineries, depots).” 10888.

Similar to early warnings by Exxon scientists, the Shell report noted that “by thetime the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures
to reduce the effects or even to stabilise the situation.” The authors mentioned the need to consider
policy changes on multiple occasions, noting that “the potential implications for the world are . . .
so large that policy options need to be considered much earlier” and that research should be“directed more to the analysis of policy and energy options than to studies of what we will befacing exactly.”107

Richard E. Tucker, High Tech Frontiers in the Energy Industry: The Challenge Ahead,
AIChE National Meeting (Nov. 30, 1988),
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/pur1.32754074119482?urlappend=%3Bseq=528.
108
Shell Internationale Petroleum, Greenhouse Effect Working Group, The Greenhouse Effect(May 1988), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090Document3.html#document/p9/a411239.

67

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 71 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

89.

In 1989, Esso Resources Canada (ExxonMobil) commissioned a report on theimpacts of climate change on existing and proposed natural gas facilities in the Mackenzie River
Valley and Delta, including extraction facilities on the Beaufort Sea and a pipeline crossing
Canada’s Northwest Territory. 109 It reported that “large zones of the Mackenzie Valley could be
affected dramatically by climatic change” and that “the greatest concern in Norman Wells [oiltown in North West Territories, Canada] should be the changes in permafrost that are likely tooccur under conditions of climate warming.” 110 The report concluded that, in light of climate
models showing a “general tendency towards warmer and wetter climate,” operation of thosefacilities would be compromised by increased precipitation, increase in air temperature, changes
in permafrost conditions, and, significantly, sea-level rise and erosion damage. 111 The authors
recommended factoring those eventualities into future development planning and also warned that“a rise in sea level could cause increased flooding and erosion damage on Richards Island.”90.

Ken Croasdale, a senior ice researcher for Exxon’s subsidiary Imperial Oil, statedto an audience of engineers in 1991 that greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil
fuels. Nobody disputes this fact.” 11291.

Also in 1991, Shell produced a film called “Climate of Concern.” The film advisesthat while “no two [climate change projection] scenarios fully agree, . . . [they] have each prompted
the same serious warning. A warning endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists in theirreport to the UN at the end of 1990.” The warning referred to was of an increasing frequency of109

See Stephen Lonergan & Kathy Young, An Assessment of the Effects of Climate Warming
on Energy Developments in the Mackenzie River Valley and Delta, Canadian Arctic, 7 Energy
Exploration & Exploitation 359–81 (1989).
110
Id. at 369, 376.
111
Id. at 360, 377–78.
112
Ronald C. Kramer, Carbon Criminals, Climate Crimes 66 (1st ed. 2020).
68

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 72 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

abnormal weather, and of sea-level rise of about one meter over the coming century. Shell
specifically described the impacts of anthropogenic sea-level rise on tropical islands, “barely afloat
even now, . . . [f]irst made uninhabitable and then obliterated beneath the waves. Wetland habitats
destroyed by intruding salt. Coastal lowlands suffering pollution of precious groundwater.” Itwarned of “greenhouse refugees,” people who abandoned homelands inundated by the sea, ordisplaced because of catastrophic changes to the environment. The video concludes with a starkadmonition: “Global warming is not yet certain, but many think that the wait for final proof would
be irresponsible. Action now is seen as the only safe insurance.” 113
92.

Also in 1991, BP released a short film called “The Earth – What Makes Weather?”

In it, a narrator states: “Our . . . dependence on carbon-based fuels is now a cause for concern.
When coal, oil or gas are burned, they release carbon dioxide and other reactive gases.” Thenarrator then went on to explain:
As the earth gives off heat, carbon dioxide, together with water vapor, absorbs andradiates it back, acting like a blanket. . . . If world population growth is matched byenergy consumption, even more carbon dioxide will be released, making thisgreenhouse effect even stronger. An overall increase in temperature of even a few
degrees could disrupt our climate with devastating consequences. If the oceans got
warmer and the ice sheets began to melt, sea levels would rise, encroaching oncoastal lowlands. From warmer seas, more water would evaporate, making storms
and the havoc they cause more frequent. . . . Catastrophic floods could becomecommonplace, and low-lying countries like Bangladesh would be defenselessagainst them. Too much water or too little. Away from the coasts we could see a
return to the conditions which devastated America’s Midwest in the 1930s. Global
warming could repeat on a more disastrous scale the dustbowl phenomenon which
virtually destroyed farming on the Great Plains. . . . The threat of such climaticchange is now one of our most urgent concerns. 114
113

Jelmer Mommers, Shell Made a Film About Climate Change in 1991 (Then Neglected To
Heed Its Own Warning), de Correspondent (Feb. 27, 2017), https://thecorrespondent.com/
6285/shell-made-a-film-about-climate-change-in-1991-then-neglected-to-heed-its-own-warning.
114
Vatan Hüzeir, BP Knew the Truth About Climate Change 30 Years Ago, Follow the Money(May 26, 2020), https://www.ftm.nl/artikelen/bp-video-climate-change-1990-engels; see also BP
Video Library, This Earth – What Makes Weather? (1991),
https://www.bpvideolibrary.com/record/463.
69

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 73 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

The film was not widely distributed.
93.

The fossil fuel industry was at the forefront of carbon dioxide research for much of

the latter half of the twentieth century. It developed cutting edge and innovative technology andworked with many of the field’s top researchers to produce exceptionally sophisticated studies andmodels. For instance, in the mid-1990s, Shell began using scenarios to plan how the company
could respond to various global forces in the future. In one scenario published in a 1998 internalreport, Shell paints an eerily prescient scene:
In 2010, a series of violent storms causes extensive damage to the eastern coast of
the U.S. Although it is not clear whether the storms are caused by climate change,
people are not willing to take further chances. The insurance industry refuses to
accept liability, setting off a fierce debate over who is liable: the insurance industry
or the government. After all, two successive IPCC reports since 1993 havereinforced the human connection to climate change . . . Following the storms, acoalition of environmental NGOs brings a class-action suit against the US
government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists(including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done. A
social reaction to the use of fossil fuels grows, and individuals become ‘vigilanteenvironmentalists’ in the same way, a generation earlier, they had become fiercely
anti-tobacco. Direct-action campaigns against companies escalate. Youngconsumers, especially, demand action. 115
94.

Fossil fuel companies did not just consider climate change impacts in scenarios. In

the mid-1990s, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil) jointly undertook the Sable
Offshore Energy Project in Nova Scotia. The project’s own Environmental Impact Statement
declared, “The impact of a global warming sea-level rise may be particularly significant in Nova
Scotia. The long-term tide gauge records at a number of locations along the N.S. coast have shown
sea level has been rising over the past century. . . . For the design of coastal and offshore structures,

115

Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Group Scenarios 1998–2020 115, 122 (1998),
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4430277-27-1-Compiled.html.

70MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 74 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

an estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 m [1.64 feet] may be assumed forthe proposed project life (25 years).” 116
95.

Climate change research conducted by Defendants and their industry associations

frequently acknowledged uncertainties in their climate modeling. Those uncertainties, however,were merely with respect to the magnitude and timing of climate impacts resulting from fossil fuelconsumption, not that significant changes would eventually occur. Defendants’ researchers andthe researchers at their industry associations harbored little doubt that climate change wasoccurring and that fossil fuel products were, and are, the primary cause.
96.

Despite the overwhelming information about the threats to people and the planet

posed by continued unabated use of their fossil fuel products, Fossil Fuel Defendants failed to act
as they reasonably should have to mitigate or avoid those dire adverse impacts. Fossil Fuel
Defendants instead adopted the position, as described below, that they had a license to continue
the unfettered pursuit of profits from those products. This position was an abdication of Fossil Fuel
Defendants’ responsibility to consumers and the public, including the State, to act on their uniqueknowledge of the reasonably foreseeable hazards of unabated production and consumption of theirfossil fuel products.
C.

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 toDeceptively Protect and Expand the Use of Their Fossil Fuel Products.

97.

By 1988, Defendants had amassed a compelling body of knowledge about the roleof anthropogenic greenhouse gases, specifically those emitted from the normal use of fossil fuelproducts, in causing global warming and its cascading impacts, including disruptions to the116

ExxonMobil, Sable Project Development Plan, vol. 3, 4-77, http://soep.com/about-theproject/development-plan-application.
71MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 75 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

hydrologic cycle, extreme precipitation, drought, heat waves, and associated consequences forhuman communities and the environment. On notice that their products were causing global
climate change and dire effects on the planet, Fossil Fuel Defendants and API faced the decisionof whether to take steps to limit the damages fossil fuel products were causing and would continue
to cause Earth’s inhabitants, including the people of New Jersey.
98.

Before or thereafter, Defendants could and reasonably should have taken any

number of steps to mitigate the damages caused by fossil fuel products. Their own comments
reveal an awareness of what steps should have been taken. Defendants should have warned civilsociety and New Jersey consumers of the dangers known to Defendants of the unabatedconsumption of fossil fuel products, and they could and should have taken reasonable steps to limit
the potential greenhouse gas emissions emitted by consumption of their products. Simply put,
Defendants should have issued warnings commensurate with their own understanding of the risks
posed by expected and intended uses of their products.
99.

Several key events during the period between 1988 and 1992 appear to haveprompted Defendants to change their tactics from general research and internal discussion on
climate change to a public campaign aimed at deceiving consumers and the public, including thosein New Jersey. These include:a.

In 1988, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”)

scientists confirmed that human activities were actually contributing to global warming. 117 On
June 23 of that year, NASA scientist James Hansen’s presentation of this information to Congress

117

See Peter C. Frumhoff et al., The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers,
132 Climatic Change 161 (2015).
72

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 76 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

engendered significant news coverage and publicity for the announcement, including coverage on
the front page of The New York Times.
b.

On July 28, 1988, Senator Robert Stafford and four bipartisan co-sponsors

introduced S. 2666, “The Global Environmental Protection Act,” to regulate CO2 and othergreenhouse gases. Four more bipartisan bills to significantly reduce CO2 pollution were introduced
over the following ten weeks, and in August, U.S. Presidential candidate George H.W. Bushpledged that his presidency would combat the greenhouse effect with “the White House effect.” 118
Political will in the United States to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate
the harms associated with Defendants’ fossil fuel products was gaining momentum.
c.

In December 1988, the United Nations formed the IPCC, a scientific panel

dedicated to providing the world’s governments with an objective, scientific analysis of climatechange and its environmental, political, and economic impacts.
d.

In 1990, the IPCC published its First Assessment Report on anthropogenic

climate change, 119 which concluded that (1) “there is a natural greenhouse effect which alreadykeeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be,” and (2) thatemissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing theatmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide,
methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide. These increases
will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional
warming of the Earth’s surface. The main greenhouse gas, water vapour,will increase in response to global warming and further enhance it. 120

118

The White House and the Greenhouse, N.Y. Times (May 9, 1989),
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/09/opinion/the-white-house-and-the-greenhouse.html.
119
See IPCC, Reports, ipcc.ch/reports.
120
IPCC, Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment xi (1990),
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and-1992-assessments.

73

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 77 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

The IPCC reconfirmed those conclusions in a 1992 supplement to the First Assessment Report. 121e.

The United Nations began preparing for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil, a major, newsworthy gathering of 172 world governments, of which 116 sent theirheads of state. The Summit resulted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (“UNFCCC”), an international environmental treaty providing protocols for futurenegotiations aimed at “stabiliz[ing] greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level thatwould prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” 122100.

Those world events marked a shift in public discussion of climate change, and theinitiation of international efforts to curb anthropogenic greenhouse emissions—developments that
had stark implications for, and would have diminished the profitability of, Defendants’ fossil
fuel products.
101.

Rather than collaborating with the international community by acting to forestall,or at least decrease, fossil fuel products’ contributions to global warming and its impacts, including
sea-level rise, disruptions to the hydrologic cycle, and associated consequences to New Jersey andother communities, Defendants embarked on a decades-long campaign designed to perpetuate andmaximize continued dependence on fossil fuel products.
102.

Defendants’ campaign, which focused on concealing, discrediting, and/or

misrepresenting information that tended to support restricting consumption of (and thereby
decreasing demand for) Defendants’ fossil fuel products, and of transitioning society to a lowercarbon footprint and future, took several forms. The campaign enabled Fossil Fuel Defendants to

121

IPCC, 1992 IPCC Supplement to the First Assessment Report (1992),
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and-1992-assessments.
122
United Nations, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change art. 2 (1992),
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.
74MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 78 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

accelerate their business practice of exploiting fossil fuel reserves and concurrently externalize thesocial and environmental costs of their fossil fuel products. Those activities directly contradicted
Defendants’ own prior recognition that the science of anthropogenic climate change was clear andthat action was needed to avoid or mitigate dire consequences to the planet and communities likethe State’s.
103.

Fossil Fuel Defendants—on their own and jointly through industry and front groups

such as API, the Information Council for the Environment (“ICE”), and the Global Climate
Coalition (“GCC”)—funded, conceived, planned, and carried out a sustained and widespread
campaign of denial and disinformation about the existence of climate change and their products’
contribution to it. The campaign included a long-term pattern of direct misrepresentations andmaterial omissions to consumers, as well as a plan to influence consumers indirectly by affecting
public opinion through the dissemination of misleading research to the press, government, andacademia. Although Fossil Fuel Defendants were competitors in the marketplace, they combined
and collaborated with each other and with API on this public campaign to misdirect and stifle
public knowledge in order to increase sales and protect profits. The effort included promoting
hazardous fossil fuel products through advertising campaigns that failed to warn of the existential
risks associated with the use of those products, and that were designed to influence consumers tocontinue using Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products irrespective of those products’ damage
to communities and the environment.
104.

For example, in 1988, Joseph Carlson, an Exxon public affairs manager, stated in

an internal memo that Exxon “is providing leadership through API in developing the petroleum75

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 79 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

industry position” on “the greenhouse effect.” 123 He then went on to describe the “Exxon Position,”
which included two important messaging tenets among others: (1) “[e]mphasize the uncertainty inscientific conclusions regarding the potential enhanced Greenhouse Effect”; and (2) “[r]esist theoverstatement and sensationalization [sic] of potential greenhouse effect which could lead tononeconomic development of nonfossil fuel resources.” 124
105.

Reflecting on his time as an Exxon consultant in the 1980s, Professor Martin

Hoffert, a former New York University physicist who researched climate change, expressed regret
over Exxon’s “climate science denial program campaign” in his sworn testimony before Congress:[O]ur research [at Exxon] was consistent with findings of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on human impacts of fossil fuelburning, which is that they are increasingly having a perceptible influence on
Earth’s climate. . . . If anything, adverse climate change from elevated CO2 is
proceeding faster than the average of the prior IPCC mild projections and fully
consistent with what we knew back in the early 1980’s at Exxon. . . . I was greatly
distressed by the climate science denial program campaign that Exxon’s front officelaunched around the time I stopped working as a consultant—but not collaborator—
for Exxon. The advertisements that Exxon ran in major newspapers raising doubt
about climate change were contradicted by the scientific work we had done andcontinue to do. Exxon was publicly promoting views that its own scientists knew
were wrong, and we knew that because we were the major group working on this. 125
106.

A 1994 Shell report entitled “The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A Review of the

Scientific Aspects” by Royal Dutch Shell environmental advisor Peter Langcake stands in stark
contrast to the company’s 1988 report on the same topic. Whereas before the authors recommended

123

Memorandum from Joseph M. Carlson, The Greenhouse Effect (Aug. 3, 1988),
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3024180/1998-Exxon-Memo-on-the-GreenhouseEffect.pdf.
124
Ibid.
125
Examining the Oil Industry’s Efforts to Suppress the Truth About Climate Change, Hearing
Before the Subcomm. on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Comm. on Oversight andReform, 116th Cong. 7–8 (Oct. 23, 2019) (statement of Martin Hoffert, Former Exxon
Consultant, Professor Emeritus, Physics, New York University),
https://oversight.house.gov/legislation/hearings/examining-the-oil-industry-s-efforts-to-suppressthe-truth-about-climate-change.
76

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 80 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

consideration of policy solutions early on, Langcake warned of the potentially dramatic “economic
effects of ill-advised policy measures.” While the report recognized the IPCC conclusions as themainstream view, Langcake still emphasized scientific uncertainty, noting, for example, that “thepostulated link between any observed temperature rise and human activities has to be seen in
relation to natural variability, which is still largely unpredictable.” The Shell position is statedclearly in the report: “Scientific uncertainty and the evolution of energy systems indicate thatpolicies to curb greenhouse gas emissions beyond ‘no regrets’ measures could be premature, divert
resources from more pressing needs and further distort markets.” 126
107.

In 1991, the ICE, whose members included affiliates, predecessors and/or

subsidiaries of Fossil Fuel Defendants, launched a national climate change science denial
campaign with full-page newspaper ads, radio commercials, a public relations tour schedule,“mailers,” and research tools to measure campaign success. Included among the campaign
strategies was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).” Its target audience included
older less-educated males who are “predisposed to favor the ICE agenda, and likely to be evenmore supportive of that agenda following exposure to new info.” 127108.

A goal of ICE’s advertising campaign was to change public opinion and consumer

perceptions of climate risk. A memo from Richard Lawson, president of the National Coal
Association, a predecessor to the National Mining Association, asked members to contribute to126

P. Langcake, Shell Internationale Petroleum, The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A Review of
the Scientific Aspects (Dec. 1994), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411099Document11.html#document/p15/a411511.
127
Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on theEnvironment” Sham (1991), http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/ClimateDeception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf.

77MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 81 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

the ICE campaign because “policymakers are prepared to act [on global warming]. Public opinion
polls reveal that 60% of the American people already believe global warming is a serious
environmental problem. Our industry cannot sit on the sidelines in this debate.” 128
109.

The following images are examples of ICE-funded print advertisements

challenging the validity of climate science and intended to obscure the scientific consensus onanthropogenic climate change. 129

Figure 8: Information Council for the Environment Advertisements
110.

In 1996, Exxon released a publication called “Global Warming: Who’s Right?

Facts about a debate that’s turned up more questions than answers.” In the publication’s preface,
Exxon CEO Lee Raymond inaccurately stated that “taking drastic action immediately is

128

Naomi Oreskes, My Facts Are Better Than Your Facts: Spreading Good News About Global
Warming (2010), in Peter Howlett et al., How Well Do Facts Travel?: The Dissemination of
Reliable Knowledge 136–66 (Cambridge University Press, 2011).
129
Union of Concerned Scientists, Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s “Information Council on theEnvironment” Sham at 47-49 (1991),
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf.
78MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 82 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

unnecessary since many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand the climate
system.” The publication described the greenhouse effect as “unquestionably real and definitely agood thing,” while ignoring the severe consequences that would result from the influence of theincreased CO2 concentration on the Earth’s climate. Instead, it characterized the greenhouse effectas simply “what makes the earth’s atmosphere livable.” Directly contradicting Exxon’s own
internal knowledge and peer-reviewed science, the publication ascribed the rise in temperaturesince the late nineteenth century to “natural fluctuations that occur over long periods of time”
rather than to the anthropogenic emissions that Exxon itself and other scientists had confirmed
were responsible. The publication also falsely challenged the computer models that projected thefuture impacts of unabated fossil fuel product consumption, including those developed by Exxon’s
own employees, as having been “proved to be inaccurate.” The publication contradicted thenumerous reports prepared by and circulated among Exxon’s staff, and by API, stating that “theindications are that a warmer world would be far more benign than many imagine . . . moderate
warming would reduce mortality rates in the US, so a slightly warmer climate would be more
healthful.” Raymond concluded his preface by attacking advocates for limiting the use of his
company’s fossil fuel products as “drawing on bad science, faulty logic, or unrealistic
assumptions”—despite the important role that Exxon’s own scientists had played in compilingthose same scientific underpinnings. 130111.

API published an extensive report in the same year warning against concern overCO2 buildup and any need to curb consumption or regulate the fossil fuel industry. The
introduction stated that “there is no persuasive basis for forcing Americans to dramatically change

130

Exxon Corp., Global Warming: Who’s Right? (1996), https://www.documentcloud.org/
documents/2805542-Exxon-Global-Warming-Whos-Right.html.
79MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 83 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

their lifestyles to use less oil.” The authors discouraged the further development of certain
alternative energy sources, writing that “government agencies have advocated the increased use ofethanol and the electric car, without the facts to support the assertion that either is superior toexisting fuels and technologies” and that “policies that mandate replacing oil with specificalternative fuel technologies freeze progress at the current level of technology, and reduce thechance that innovation will develop better solutions.” The paper also denied the human connection
to climate change, by falsely stating that no “scientific evidence exists that human activities are
significantly affecting sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures or the intensity and frequency ofstorms.” The report’s message was false but clear: “Facts don’t support the arguments for
restraining oil use.” 131112.

In a speech presented at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing in 1997 at which

many of the Defendants were present, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond reiterated those views. This time,
he presented a false dichotomy between stable energy markets and abatement of the marketing,promotion, and sale of fossil fuel products Defendants knew to be hazardous. He stated:
Some people who argue that we should drastically curtail our use of fossil fuels forenvironmental reasons . . . my belief [is] that such proposals are neither prudent norpractical. 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 theforeseeable future.
Governments also need to provide a stable investment climate . . . They should
avoid the temptation to intervene in energy markets in ways that give advantage to
one competitor over another or one fuel over another.
We also have to keep in mind that most of the greenhouse effect comes from natural
sources . . . Leaping to radically cut this tiny sliver of the greenhouse pie on thepremise that it will affect climate defies common sense and lacks foundation in ourcurrent understanding of the climate system.
131

Sally Brain Gentille et al., Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices, American
Petroleum Institute (1996), http://www.climatefiles.com/trade-group/american-petroleuminstitute/1996-reinventing-energy.
80MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 84 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Let’s agree there’s a lot we really don’t know about how climate will change in the
21st century and beyond . . . It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middleof the next century will be significantly affected whether policies are enacted now
or 20 years from now. It’s bad public policy to impose very costly regulations andrestrictions when their need has yet to be proven. 132
113.

Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil) CEO Robert Peterson falsely denied the established connection

between Defendants’ fossil fuel products and anthropogenic climate change in the Summer 1998
Imperial Oil Review, “A Cleaner Canada:”[T]his issue [referring to climate change] has absolutely nothing to do with
pollution and air quality. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential
ingredient of life on this planet. . . . [T]he question of whether or not the trappingof ‘greenhouse’ gases will result in the planet’s getting warmer . . . has noconnection whatsoever with our day-to-day weather.
There is absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not the planetis getting warmer, or, if it is, on whether the warming is the result of man-madefactors or natural variations in the climate. . . . I feel very safe in saying that theview that burning fossil fuels will result in global climate change remains an
unproved hypothesis. 133
114.

Mobil (ExxonMobil) paid for a series of “advertorials,” advertisements located in

the editorial section of The New York Times and meant to look like editorials rather than paid ads.
Many of those advertorials communicated doubt about the reality and severity of human-caused
climate change, even as industry scientists contemporaneously concluded that climate change wasreal, serious, and caused by human activity. The ads addressed various aspects of the public
discussion of climate change and sought to undermine the justifications for tackling greenhouse132

Lee R. Raymond, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Exxon Corp., Address at the WorldPetroleum Congress (Oct. 13, 1997), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/
2840902/1997-Lee-Raymond-Speech-at-China-World-Petroleum.pdf.
133
Robert Peterson, A Cleaner Canada in Imperial Oil Review (1998),
https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/A%20Cleaner%20Canada%20Im
perial%20Oil.pdf.

81MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 85 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

gas emissions as unsettled science. The 1997 advertorial below 134 argued that economic analysis
of emissions restrictions was faulty and inconclusive and therefore a justification for delaying
action on climate change.

134

Mobil, When Facts Don’t Square with the Theory, Throw Out the Facts, N.Y. Times A31(Aug. 14, 1997), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705550-mob-nyt-1997-aug-14whenfactsdontsquare.html.
82

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 86 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Figure 9: 1997 Mobil Advertorial

83MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 87 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

115.

Many other Exxon and Mobil advertorials falsely or misleadingly characterized thestate of climate science research to the readership of The New York Times’ op-ed page. A sampleof these untruthful statements includes:•“We don’t know enough about the factors that affect global warming and the degree
to which—if any—that man-made emissions (namely, carbon dioxide) contributeto increases in Earth’s temperature.” 135•“[G]reenhouse-gas emissions, which have a warming effect, are offset by anothercombustion product—particulates—which leads to cooling.” 136•“Even after two decades of progress, climatologists are still uncertain how—oreven if—the buildup of man-made greenhouse gases is linked to global warming.
It could be at least a decade before climate models will be able to link greenhousewarming unambiguously to human actions. Important answers on the science lie
ahead.” 137•“[I]t is impossible for scientists to attribute the recent small surface temperature
increases to human causes.” 138116.

A quantitative analysis of ExxonMobil’s climate communications between 1989

and 2004 found that, while 83% of the company’s peer-reviewed papers and 80% of its internal
documents acknowledged the reality and human origins of climate change, 81% of its advertorials

135

Mobil, Climate Change: A Prudent Approach, in N.Y. Times (Nov. 13, 1997),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705548-mob-nyt-1997-11-13climateprudentapproach.html.
136
Mobil, Less Heat, More Light on Climate Change (July 18, 1996),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705544-mob-nyt-1996-jul-18lessheatmorelight.html.
137
Mobil, Climate Change: Where We Come Out, in N.Y. Times (Nov. 20, 1997),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705549-mob-nyt-1997-11-20ccwherewecomeout.html.
138
ExxonMobil, Unsettled Science (Mar. 23, 2000), reproduced in
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/the-forgotten-oil-ads-that-told-usclimate-change-was-nothing.

84

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 88 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

communicated doubt about those conclusions. 139 ExxonMobil’s tendency to contradict its own
peer-reviewed research in statements meant for lay audiences also appeared at a year-to-year scale.
Based on this “statistically significant” discrepancy between internal and external
communications, the authors concluded that “ExxonMobil misled the public.” 140
117.

Fossil Fuel Defendants—individually and through API, other trade associations,and various front groups—mounted a deceptive public campaign in order to continue wrongfully
promoting and marketing their fossil fuel products, despite their own knowledge and the growing
national and international scientific consensus about the hazards of doing so.
118.

One of the key organizations formed by Fossil Fuel Defendants to coordinate thefossil fuel industry’s response to the world’s growing awareness of climate change was theInternational Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (“IPIECA”). In 1987,
the IPIECA formed a “Working Group on Global Climate Change” chaired by Duane LeVine,
Exxon’s manager for science and strategy development. The Working Group also included Brian
Flannery from Exxon, Leonard Bernstein from Mobil, Terry Yosie from API, and representatives
from BP, Shell, and Texaco (Chevron). In 1990, the Working Group sent a strategy memo createdby LeVine to hundreds of oil companies around the world, including Defendants. This memo
explained that, to forestall a global shift away from burning fossil fuels for energy, the industry
should emphasize uncertainties in climate science, call for further research, and promote industryfriendly policies that would leave the fossil fuel business intact. 141

139

Geoffrey Supran & Naomi Oreskes, Assessing ExxonMobil’s Climate Change
Communications (1977–2014), 12 Envtl. Research Letters, IOP Publishing Ltd. 12 (2017),
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f/pdf.
140
Ibid.
141
Benjamin A. Franta, Big Carbon’s Strategic Response to Global Warming, 1950-2020 140(2022), https://purl.stanford.edu/hq437ph9153.
85

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 89 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

119.

The Global Climate Coalition (“GCC”), on behalf of Defendants and other fossil

fuel companies, also funded deceptive advertising campaigns and distributed misleading material
to generate public uncertainty around the climate debate, seeking to prevent U.S. adoption of the
Kyoto Protocol and thereby inflate the market for fossil fuels, despite the leading role that the U.S.
had played in negotiating the Protocol. 142 Created in 1989, the GCC’s founding members included
Defendants Exxon, Shell, Phillips Petroleum Company (ConocoPhillips), and API. Defendants BP
and Chevron also participated as members of the GCC. Its position on climate change contradicteddecades of its members’ internal scientific reports by asserting that natural trends, not humancombustion of fossil fuels, was responsible for rising global temperatures:
The GCC believes that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that most, if not all, ofthe observed warming is part of [a] natural warming trend which began approximately 400
years ago. If there is an anthropogenic component to this observed warming, the GCC
believes that it must be very small and must be superimposed on a much larger natural
warming trend. 143
120.

The GCC’s promotion of overt climate change skepticism also contravened its

internal assessment that such theories lacked scientific support. Despite an internal primer
acknowledging that various “contrarian theories” (i.e., climate change skepticism) do not “offer
convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climatechange,” the GCC excluded this section from the publicly released version of the backgrounder 144
and instead funded and promoted some of those same contrarian theories. Between 1989 and 1998,

142

Ibid.
Global Climate Coalition, Global Climate Coalition: An Overview 2 (Nov. 1996),
http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climatecoalition-collection/1996-globalclimate-coalition-overview/.
144
Memorandum from Gregory J. Dana, Assoc. of Int’l Auto. Mfrs., to AIAM TechnicalCommittee, Global Climate Coalition (GCC) - Primer on Climate Change Science - Final Draft(Jan. 18, 1996), http://www.webcitation.org/6FyqHawb9.
143

86

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 90 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

the GCC spent $13 million on advertisements as part of a campaign to obfuscate the public’s
understanding of climate science and undermine its trust in climate scientists. 145
121.

For example, in a 1994 report, the GCC stated that “observations have not yet

confirmed evidence of global warming that can be attributed to human activities,” that “[t]he claimthat serious impacts from climate change have occurred or will occur in the future simply has notbeen proven,” so “there is no basis for the design of effective policy action that would eliminate
the potential for climate change.” 146 In 1995, the GCC published a booklet called “Climate
Change: Your Passport to the Facts,” which stated, “While many warnings have reached the
popular press about the consequences of a potential man-made warming of the Earth’s atmosphere
during the next 100 years, there remains no scientific evidence that such a dangerous warming will
actually occur.” 147
122.

In 1997, William O’Keefe, chairman of the GCC and executive vice president ofAPI, falsely wrote in a Washington Post op-ed, “[c]limate scientists don’t say that burning oil, gas,and coal is steadily warming the earth.” 148 This statement contradicted the established scientificconsensus as well as Defendants’ own knowledge. Yet Defendants did nothing to correct the publicrecord, and instead continued to fund the GCC’s anti-scientific climate skepticism.

145

Wendy E. Franz, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Science, Skeptics and
Non-State Actors in the Greenhouse, ENRP Discussion Paper E-98-18 13 (Sept. 1998),
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/Science%20Skeptics%20and%20Non-State%20Actors%20in%20the%20Greenhouse%20-%20E-98-18.pdf.
146
GCC, Issues and Options: Potential Global Climate Change, Climate Files (1994),
http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1994-potentialglobal-climate-change-issues.
147
GCC, Climate Change: Your Passport to the Facts, Climate Files (1995),
http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1995-climatechange-facts-passport.
148
William O’Keefe, A Climate Policy, in The Washington Post (July 5, 1997),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1997/07/05/a-climate-policy/6a11899a-c0204d59-a185-b0e7eebf19cc/.
87

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 91 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

123.

In addition to publicly spreading false and misleading information about the climate

science consensus, the GCC also sought to undermine credible climate science from within the
IPCC. After becoming a reviewer of IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1996, the GCC used
its position to accuse the convening author of a key chapter in the Report of modifying its
conclusions. The GCC claimed that the author, climatologist Ben Santer, had engaged in“scientific cleansing” that “understate[d] uncertainties about climate change causes and effect . . .
to increase the apparent scientific support for attribution of changes to climate to humanactivities.” 149 The GCC also arranged to spread the accusation among legislators, reporters, editorsof scientific journals, and even the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal. 150 This effort “was widely
perceived to be an attempt on the part of the GCC to undermine the credibility of the IPCC.” 151
124.

In the late 1990s, Defendants shifted away from openly denying anthropogenic

warming toward peddling a subtler form of climate change skepticism. Defendants became
alarmed by the enormous legal judgments Big Tobacco now faced as a result of decades spent
publicly denying the health risks of smoking cigarettes, with a Shell employee explaining that thecompany “didn’t want to fall into the same trap as the tobacco companies who have becometrapped in all their lies.” 152 Defendants began to shift their communications strategy, claiming they
had accepted climate science all along. 153 Several large fossil fuel companies, including BP and

149

Franz, Science, Skeptics and Non-State Actors in the Greenhouse at 14.
Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured
the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, New York: Bloomsbury Press
205–13 (2011). See also S. Fred Singer, Climate Change and Consensus, Science vol. 271, no.
5249 (Feb. 2, 1996); Frederick Seitz, A Major Deception on 'Global Warming', Wall Street
Journal (June 12, 1996).
151
Franz, Science, Skeptics, and Non-State Actors in the Greenhouse at 15.
152
Nathaniel Rich, Losing Earth: A Recent History, London: Picador 186 (2020).
153
Franta, Big Carbon’s Strategic Response to Global Warming, 1950-2020 at 170.
150

88

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 92 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Shell, left the GCC (although all Fossil Fuel Defendants remained members of API). 154 At thispoint in time, Defendants publicly claimed to accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change
while insisting that the costs of climate action were unacceptably high in light of the yet-unresolved
uncertainties in climate science—especially around the severity and timeframe of future climate
impacts. Reflecting this new strategy, API Executive Vice President (and GCC spokesman)William O’Keefe announced in November 1998 that “[w]e are committed to being part of thesolution to the climate risk and to active participation in the debate to forge a clear, defensible
policy.” “[T]he debate is not about action or inaction,” O’Keefe wrote, “but what set of actions is
consistent with our state of knowledge and economic well-being.” 155 Rather than publicly deny
the need to address climate change, Defendants’ new communications strategy sought to forestallpolicy actions that might decrease consumption of fossil fuel products.
125.

Despite their public about-face, Defendants surreptitiously continued to organize

and fund programs designed to deceive the public about the weight and veracity of the climate
science consensus. In 1998, API convened a Global Climate Science Communications Team(“GCSCT”) whose members included Exxon’s senior environmental lobbyist, an API public
relations representative, and representatives from Chevron. There were no scientists on the “Global
Climate Science Communications Team.” Steve Milloy (a key player in the tobacco industry’s
front group) and his organization, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (“TASSC”), were
founding members of the GCSCT. TASSC was a fake grassroots citizen group created by the
tobacco industry to sow uncertainty by discrediting the scientific link between exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke and increased rates of cancer and heart disease. Philip Morris had launched

154
155

Id. at 177.
API: U.S. oil industry recognizes climate change risk, Oil & Gas Journal 28 (Nov. 2, 1998).
89

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 93 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

TASSC on the advice of its public relations firm, which advised Philip Morris that the tobaccocompany itself would not be a credible voice on the issue of smoking and public health. TASSC,
through API and with the approval of Fossil Fuel Defendants, also became a front group for thefossil fuel industry, using the same tactics it had honed while operating on behalf of tobaccocompanies to spread doubt about climate science. Although TASSC posed as a grassroots groupof concerned citizens, it was funded by Defendants. For example, between 2000 and 2004, Exxon
donated $50,000 to Milloy’s Advancement of Sound Science Center; and an additional $60,000 to
the Free Enterprise Education Institute and $50,000 to the Free Enterprise Action Institute, both ofwhich were registered to Milloy’s home address. 156 The GCSCT represented a continuation of
Defendants’ concerted actions to sow doubt and confusion about climate change in order to further
Defendants’ business interests.
126.

Starting in 1998, the GCSCT continued Defendants’ efforts to deceive the public

about the dangers of fossil fuel use by launching a campaign to convince the public that thescientific basis for climate change was in doubt. The multi-million-dollar, multi-year plan, among
other elements, sought to: (a) “[d]evelop and implement a national media relations program to
inform the media about uncertainties in climate science to generate national, regional, and local
media coverage on the scientific uncertainties”; (b) “[d]evelop a global climate science
information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the ‘conventional wisdom’on climate science”; (c) “[p]roduce . . . a steady stream of op-ed columns”; and (d) “[d]evelop andimplement a direct outreach program to inform and educate members of Congress . . . and school

156

Union of Concerned Scientists, Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big
Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science (July 16, 2007),https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/smoke-mirrors-hot-air.

90

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 94 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science” to “begin to erect a barrier against further
efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future” 157—a blatant attempt to disrupt international
efforts to negotiate any treaty curbing greenhouse gas emissions and to ensure a continued andunimpeded market for their fossil fuel products.
127.

Exxon, Chevron, and API directed and contributed to the development of the plan,

which plainly set forth the criteria by which the contributors would know when their efforts to
manufacture doubt had been successful. “Victory,” they wrote, “will be achieved when . . . average
citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science” and “recognition of
uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom.’” 158 In other words, the plan was part ofDefendants’ goal to use disinformation to plant doubt about the reality of climate change in aneffort to maintain consumer demand for their fossil fuel products and their large profits.
128.

Soon after, API distributed a memo to its members illuminating API’s and Fossil

Fuel Defendants’ concern over the potential regulation of their fossil fuel products: “Climate is at
the center of the industry’s business interests. Policies limiting carbon emissions reduce petroleum
product use. That is why it is API’s highest priority issue and defined as ‘strategic.’” 159 Further,
the API memo stressed many of the strategies that Defendants collectively utilized to combat theperception of their fossil fuel products as hazardous. They included:

157

Email from Joe Walker to Global Climate Science Team, Draft Global Climate Science
Communications Plan (Apr. 3, 1998), https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/784572/apiglobal-climate-science-communications-plan.pdf.
158
Ibid.
159
Allegations of Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science, Hearing
Before the Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform, 110th Cong. 324 (Mar. 19, 2007)https://ia601904.us.archive.org/
25/items/gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-110hhrg37415/CHRG-110hhrg37415.pdf.
91MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 95 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

a.

Influencing the tenor of the climate change “debate” as a means to establishthat greenhouse gas reduction policies like the Kyoto Protocol were not necessary to responsibly
address climate change;b.

Maintaining strong working relationships between government regulatorsand communications-oriented organizations like the Global Climate Coalition, the Heartland
Institute, and other groups carrying Defendants’ message minimizing the hazards of the unabateduse of their fossil fuel products and opposing regulation thereof;c.

Building the case for (and falsely dichotomizing) Defendants’ positive

contributions to a “long-term approach” (ostensibly for regulation of their products) as a reason
for society to reject short term fossil fuel emissions regulations, and engaging in climate change
science uncertainty research; andd.

Presenting Defendants’ positions on climate change in domestic andinternational forums, including by preparing rebuttals to IPCC reports.
129.

In furtherance of the strategies described in these memoranda, Defendants mademisleading statements about climate change, the relationship between climate change and theirfossil fuel products, and the urgency of the problem. Defendants made these statements in publicfora and in advertisements published in newspapers and other media with substantial circulation
to New Jersey, including national publications such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
and Washington Post.
130.

Phillip Cooney, an attorney at API from 1996 to 2001, testified at a 2007

Congressional hearing that it was “typical” for API to fund think tanks and advocacy groups thatminimized fossil fuels’ role in climate change. Among the groups to which API provided funding
were the Heartland Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the American Council on

92

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 96 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Capital Formation, each of which issued publications challenging the scientific consensus thatfossil fuels were causing climate change and opposing restrictions on Fossil Fuel Defendants’
extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels. 160
131.

Another key strategy in Defendants’ efforts to discredit scientific consensus on

climate change and the IPCC was to bankroll scientists who, although accredited, held fringe
opinions that became even more questionable given the sources of their research funding. Those
scientists obtained part or all of their research budget from Fossil Fuel Defendants directly or
through Fossil Fuel Defendant-funded organizations like API, 161 but they frequently failed todisclose their fossil fuel industry underwriters. 162 At least one such scientist, Dr. Wei-Hock Soon,contractually agreed to allow donors to review his research before publication, and his housing
institution agreed not to disclose the funding arrangement without prior permission from his fossil
fuel donors. 163 Defendants intended for the research of scientists they funded to be distributed toand relied on by consumers when buying Defendants’ products, including by consumers in New
Jersey.

160

Ibid.
E.g., Willie Soon & Sallie Baliunas, Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past
1000 Years, 23 Climate Rsch. 88, 105 (Jan. 31, 2003), http://www.intres.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf.
162
E.g., Smithsonian Statement: Dr. Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon, Smithsonian (Feb. 26, 2015),
https://web.archive.org/web/20181105223030/https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/smithsonian-statement-dr-wei-hock-willie-soon.
163
Union of Concerned Scientists, Climate Deception Dossier #1: Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s
Smithsonian Contracts, (July 2015),
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf[https://perma.cc/JL2V-XYGL] & https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/globalwarming/Climate-Deception-Dossier-1_Willie-Soon.pdf.
161

93

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 97 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

132.

Creating a false perception of disagreement in the scientific community (despite theconsensus that its own scientists, experts, and managers had previously acknowledged) has
evidently disrupted vital channels of communication between scientists and the public. A 2007
Yale University-Gallup poll found that while 71% of Americans personally believed global
warming was happening, only 48% believed that there was a consensus among the scientificcommunity, and 40% believed there was a lot of disagreement among scientists over whether
global warming was occurring. 164 Eight years later, a 2015 Yale-George Mason University pollfound that “[o]nly about one in ten Americans understands that nearly all climate scientists (over90%) are convinced that human-caused global warming is happening, and just half . . . believe amajority do.” 165 Further, it found that 33% of Americans believe that climate change is mostly due
to natural causes, compared to the 97% of peer-reviewed papers that acknowledge that global
warming is real and at least partly human-caused. 166 The lack of progress, and even regress, in the
public understanding of climate science over this period—during which Defendants professed toaccept the conclusions of mainstream climate science—testifies to the success of Defendants’
deception campaign in thwarting dissemination of accurate scientific expertise to the publicregarding the effects fossil fuel consumption.

164

American Opinions on Global Warming: A Yale/Gallup/Clearvision Poll, Yale Program on
Climate Change Communication (July 31, 2007), http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/
publications/american-opinions-on-global-warming.
165
Leiserowitz, et al., Climate Change in the American Mind (Yale Program on Climate ChangeComm. & Geo. Mason U., Ctr. for Climate Change Comm eds., Oct. 2015),
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Climate-Change-AmericanMind-October-20151.pdf.
166
Id. at 7.

94

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 98 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

133.

2007 was the same year the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report, in whichit concluded that “there is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750
has been one of warming.” 167 The IPCC defined “very high confidence” as at least a 9 in
10 chance. 168
134.

Defendants, individually and through their trade association memberships, worked

directly, and often in a deliberately obscured manner, to conceal and misrepresent fossil fuelproducts’ known dangers from consumers, the public, and the State.
135.

Defendants have funded dozens of think tanks, front groups, and dark money

foundations pushing climate change denial. These include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, theHeartland Institute, Frontiers for Freedom, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and Heritage
Foundation. From 1998 to 2014 ExxonMobil spent almost $31 million funding numerousorganizations misrepresenting the scientific consensus that fossil fuel products were causing
climate change, sea-level rise, and injuries to New Jersey, among other communities. 169 Several
Defendants have been linked to other groups that undermine the scientific basis linking fossil fuelproducts to climate change and sea-level rise, including the Frontiers of Freedom Institute and theGeorge C. Marshall Institute.
136.

Exxon acknowledged its own previous success in sowing uncertainty and slowing

mitigation through funding of climate denial groups. In its 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report,
Exxon declared: “In 2008, we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research

167

IPCC, Summary for Policymakers: A Report of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report 3 (2007), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-1.pdf.
168
Ibid.
169
ExxonSecrets.org, ExxonMobil Climate Denial Funding 1998–2014,
http://exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php (last visited Oct. 14, 2022).

95

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 99 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on
how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally
responsible manner.” 170 Despite this pronouncement, Exxon remained financially associated withseveral such groups after the report’s publication.
137.

In September 2015, journalists at Inside Climate News reported that Exxon Mobil

had sophisticated knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change and the role its
products played in causing climate change as far back as the 1970s. 171 These journalists uncovered
ExxonMobil’s superior knowledge through an exhaustive investigation of thousands of archived
documents and through interviews with former ExxonMobil employees.
138.

Between October and December 2015, several journalists at the Energy andEnvironment Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism and theLos Angeles Times also exposed the fact that ExxonMobil and other members of the fossil fuelindustry had superior knowledge of the causes and consequences of climate change and the role
their products played in causing climate change as far back as the 1970s. 172 These journalists
uncovered ExxonMobil’s superior knowledge through an exhaustive investigation of archived

170

ExxonMobil, 2007 Corporate Citizenship Report 41 (Dec. 31, 2007),
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2799777-ExxonMobil-2007-Corporate-CitizenshipReport.html.
171
Neela Banerjee et al., Exxon: The Road Not Taken, InsideClimate News (Sept. 16, 2015),
https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken.
172
The Los Angeles Times published a series of three articles between October and December
2015. See Katie Jennings et al., How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change
research, L.A. Times (Oct. 23, 2015), https://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research; Sara Jerving
et al., What Exxon knew about the Earth’s melting Arctic, L.A. Times (Oct. 9, 2015),
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-what-exxon-knew-20151009-story.html; Amy Lieberman& Susanne Rust, Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations, L.A. Times(Dec. 31, 2015), https://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations.

96MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 100 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

documents, through interviews with former ExxonMobil employees, and through a review ofscientific journals.
139.

In November 2017, the Center for International Environmental Law issued a report

revealing that Defendants, including API, had superior knowledge of the causes and consequencesof climate change and the role fossil fuel products played in causing climate change since the1970s. 173
140.

Defendants could have contributed to the global effort to mitigate the impacts ofgreenhouse gas emissions by, for example, delineating practical technical strategies, policy goals,
and regulatory structures that would have allowed them to continue their business ventures while
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting a transition to a lower carbon future. Instead,
Defendants undertook a momentous effort to deceive consumers and the public about theexistential hazards of burning fossil fuels—all with the purpose and effect of perpetuating andhyperinflating fossil fuel consumption and delaying the advent of alternative energy sources notbased on fossil fuels.
141.

As a result of Defendants’ tortious, false, and misleading conduct, consumers of

Defendants’ fossil fuel products, the public, and policymakers, in New Jersey as elsewhere, havebeen deliberately and unnecessarily deceived about: the role of fossil fuel products in causing
global warming, sea-level rise, disruptions to the hydrologic cycle, and increased extreme
precipitation, heat waves, drought, and other consequences of the climate crisis; the accelerationof global warming since the mid-twentieth century and the continuation thereof; and the fact thatthe continued increase in fossil fuel consumption creates severe environmental threats and173

Caroll Muffett & Steven Feit, Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for
Holding Big Oil Accountable for the Climate Crisis, Ctr. for Int’l Envtl. Law 10 (2017),
https://www.ciel.org/reports/smoke-and-fumes.
97MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 101 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

significant economic costs for coastal communities, including New Jersey. Consumers, the public,
and policymakers in New Jersey and elsewhere have also been deceived about the depth andbreadth of the state of the scientific evidence on anthropogenic climate change and, in particular,
about the strength of the scientific consensus demonstrating the role of fossil fuels in causing bothclimate change and a wide range of potentially destructive impacts, including sea-level rise,
disruptions to the hydrologic cycle, extreme precipitation, heat waves, drought, and associatedconsequences.
142.

By sowing doubt about the future consequences of unrestricted fossil fuelconsumption, Defendants’ deception campaign successfully delayed the transition to alternative
energy sources, which Defendants forecasted could penetrate half of a competitive energy market
in 50 years if allowed to develop unimpeded. This delay caused emission of huge amounts of
avoidable greenhouse gases, thereby ensuring that the damage caused by climate change will be
substantially more severe than if Defendants had acted forthrightly, commensurate with theirinternal knowledge of climate risks.
D.

In Contrast to Their Public Statements, Defendants’ Internal Actions
Demonstrate Their Awareness of and Intent to Profit from the Unabated Useof Fossil Fuel Products.

143.

In contrast to their public-facing efforts challenging the validity of the scientificconsensus about anthropogenic climate change, Fossil Fuel Defendants’ acts and omissions
evidence their internal acknowledgement of the reality of climate change and its likely
consequences. Those actions include, but are not limited to, making multi-billion-dollar
infrastructure investments for their own operations that acknowledge the reality of coming
anthropogenic climate-related change. Those investments included (among others): raising
offshore oil platforms to protect against sea-level rise; reinforcing offshore oil platforms towithstand increased wave strength and storm severity; developing technology and infrastructure98MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 102 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

to extract, store, and transport fossil fuels in a warming arctic environment; and developing andpatenting designs for equipment intended to extract crude oil and/or natural gas in areas previously
unreachable because of the presence of polar ice sheets. 174
144.

For example, in 1973, Exxon obtained a patent for a cargo ship capable of breaking

through sea ice 175 and for an oil tanker 176 designed specifically for use in previously unreachable
areas of the Arctic.
145.

In 1974, Chevron obtained a patent for a mobile arctic drilling platform designed

to withstand significant interference from lateral ice masses, 177 allowing for drilling in areas withincreased ice floe movement due to elevated temperature.
146.

That same year, Texaco (Chevron) worked toward obtaining a patent for a method

and apparatus for reducing ice forces on a marine structure prone to being frozen in ice throughnatural weather conditions, 178 allowing for drilling in previously unreachable Arctic areas thatwould become seasonally accessible.
147.

Shell obtained a patent similar to Texaco’s (Chevron) in 1984. 179

148.

In 1989, Norske Shell, Royal Dutch Shell’s Norwegian subsidiary, altered designs

for a natural gas platform planned for construction in the North Sea to account for anticipated sea-

174

Lieberman & Rust.
ExxonMobil Research Engineering Co., Patent US3727571A: Icebreaking cargo vessel(granted Apr. 17, 1973), https://www.google.com/patents/US3727571.
176
ExxonMobil Research Engineering Co., Patent US3745960A: Tanker vessel (granted July 17,1973), https://www.google.com/patents/US3745960.
177
Chevron Research & Technology Co., Patent US3831385A: Arctic offshore platform (granted
Aug. 27, 1974), https://www.google.com/patents/US3831385.
178
Texaco Inc., Patent US3793840A: Mobile, arctic drilling and production platform (granted
Feb. 26, 1974), https://www.google.com/patents/US3793840.
179
Shell Oil Co., Patent US4427320A: Arctic offshore platform (granted Jan. 24, 1984),
https://www.google.com/patents/US4427320.
175

99

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 103 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

level rise. Those design changes were ultimately carried out by Shell’s contractors, adding
substantial costs to the project. 180
a.

The Troll field, off the Norwegian coast in the North Sea, was proven tocontain large natural oil and gas deposits in 1979, shortly after Norske Shell was approved by
Norwegian oil and gas regulators to operate a portion of the field.
b.

In 1986, the Norwegian parliament granted Norske Shell authority tocomplete the first development phase of the Troll field gas deposits, and Norske Shell began
designing the “Troll A” gas platform, with the intent to begin operation of the platform inapproximately 1995. Based on the very large size of the gas deposits in the Troll field, the Troll A
platform was projected to operate for approximately 70 years.
c.

The platform was originally designed to stand approximately 100 feet above

sea level—the amount necessary to stay above waves in a once-in-a-century strength storm.
d.

In 1989, Shell engineers revised their plans to increase the above-waterheight of the platform by 3 to 6 feet, specifically to account for higher anticipated average sea
levels and increased storm intensity due to global warming over the platform’s 70-year operational
life. 181
e.

Shell projected that the additional 3 to 6 feet of above-water construction

would increase the cost of the Troll A platform by as much as $40 million.

180

Greenhouse Effect: Shell Anticipates a Sea Change, N.Y. Times (Dec. 20, 1989),
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/greenhouse-effect-shell-anticipates-a-seachange.html.
181
Id.; Lieberman & Rust.
100

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 104 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

E.

Defendants’ Actions Have Exacerbated the Costs of Adapting to and
Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of the Climate Crisis.

149.

As greenhouse gas pollution accumulates in the atmosphere, some of which does

not dissipate for potentially thousands of years (namely CO2), climate changes and consequent
adverse environmental changes compound, and their frequencies and magnitudes increase. As
those adverse environmental changes compound and their frequencies and magnitudes increase,so too do the physical, environmental, economic, and social injuries resulting therefrom.
150.

Delayed introduction of alternative energy sources and related efforts to curb

anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have therefore increased environmental harms andincreased the magnitude and cost to address harms, including to New Jersey, that have alreadyoccurred or are locked in by previous emissions.
151.

Therefore, Defendants’ campaign to obscure the science of climate change toprotect and expand the use of fossil fuels greatly increased and continues to increase the injuries
suffered by New Jersey and its residents.
152.

The costs of inaction on anthropogenic climate change and its adverse

environmental effects were not lost on Defendants. In a 1997 speech by John Browne, Group
Executive for BP America, at Stanford University, Browne described Defendants’ and the entire
fossil fuel industry’s responsibility and opportunities to reduce use of fossil fuel products, reduce
global CO2 emissions, and mitigate the harms associated with the use and consumption of suchproducts:
A new age demands a fresh perspective of the nature of society and responsibility.
We need to go beyond analysis and to take action. It is a moment for change andfor a rethinking of corporate responsibility. . . .
[T]here is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists andserious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is adiscernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration
101MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 105 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature.
The prediction of the IPCC is that over the next century temperatures might rise by
a further 1 to 3.5 degrees centigrade [1.8º—6.3º F], and that sea levels might riseby between 15 and 95 centimetres [5.9 and 37.4 inches]. Some of that impact isprobably unavoidable, because it results from current emissions. . . .
[I]t would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.
The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link
between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven . . . but when
the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which
we are part. . . .
We [the fossil fuel industry] have a responsibility to act, and I hope that throughour actions we can contribute to the much wider process which is desirable andnecessary.
BP accepts that responsibility and we’re therefore taking some specific steps.
To control our own emissions.
To fund continuing scientific research.
To take initiatives for joint implementation.
To develop alternative fuels for the long term.
And to contribute to the public policy debate in search of the wider global answers
to the problem. 182
153.

Despite Defendants’ knowledge of the foreseeable, measurable, and significant

harms associated with the unrestrained consumption and use of their fossil fuel products, in New
Jersey as elsewhere, and despite Defendants’ knowledge of technologies and practices that could
have helped to reduce the foreseeable dangers associated with their fossil fuel products,
Defendants continued to misleadingly and wrongfully market and promote heavy fossil fuel use
and mounted a campaign to obscure the connection between their fossil fuel products and the182

John Browne, BP Climate Change Speech to Stanford, ClimateFiles (May 19, 1997),
http://www.climatefiles.com/bp/bp-climate-change-speech-to-stanford.
102

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 106 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

climate crisis, dramatically increasing the cost of abatement. This campaign was intended to anddid reach and influence New Jersey consumers, along with consumers elsewhere. At all relevanttimes, Defendants were deeply familiar with opportunities to reduce the use of their fossil fuelproducts and associated global greenhouse emissions, mitigate the harms associated with the use
and consumption of their products, and promote development of alternative, clean energy sources.
Examples of that recognition include, but are not limited to, the following:a.

In 1961, Phillips Petroleum Company filed a patent application for a method

to purify gas, among other things, as “natural gas containing gasoline hydrocarbons can contain
undesirable amounts of sulfur and other compounds such as carbon dioxide which are undesirable
in the finished gasoline product.” 183b.

In 1963, Esso (Exxon Mobil) obtained multiple patents on technologies forfuel cells, 184 including on the design of a fuel cell and necessary electrodes, 185 and on a process
for increasing the oxidation of a fuel, specifically methanol, to produce electricity in a fuel cell. 186
c.

In 1970, Esso (Exxon Mobil) obtained a patent for a “low-polluting engine

and drive system” that used an interburner and air compressor to reduce pollutant emissions,
including CO2 emissions, from gasoline combustion engines (the system also increased the

183

Phillips Petroleum Co., Patent US3228874A: Method for recovering a purified component
from a gas (filed Aug. 22, 1961), https://patents.google.com/patent/US3228874.
184
Fuel cells use the chemical energy of hydrogen or other fuels to produce electricity. See U.S.
Dep’t of Energy, Fuel Cells, https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cells (last visited Oct.
16, 2022).
185
ExxonMobil Research Engineering Co., Patent US3116169A: Fuel cell and fuel cellelectrodes (granted Dec. 31, 1963), https://www.google.com/patents/US3116169.
186
ExxonMobil Research Engineering Co., Patent US3113049A: Direct production of electricalenergy from liquid fuels (granted Dec. 3, 1963), https://www.google.com/patents/US3113049.

103

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 107 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

efficiency of the fossil fuel products used in such engines, thereby lowering the amount of fossil
fuel product necessary to operate engines equipped with this technology). 187
d.

In 1980, Imperial Oil wrote in its “Review of Environmental Protection

Activities for 1978–79”: “There is no doubt that increases in fossil fuel usage and decreases inforest cover are aggravating the potential problem of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Technology
exists to remove CO2 from stack gases but removal of only 50% of the CO2 would double the costof power generation.” 188e.

A 1987 company briefing produced by Shell on “Synthetic Fuels andRenewable Energy” noted that while “immediate prospects” were “limited,” “nevertheless it is bypursuing commercial opportunities now and in the near future that the valuable experience needed
for further development will be gained.” The brief also noted that “the task of replacing oil
resources is likely to become increasingly difficult and expensive and there will be a growing needto develop lean, convenient alternatives. Initially these will supplement and eventually replacevaluable oil products. Many potential energy options are as yet unknown or at very early stages ofresearch and development. New energy sources take decades to make a major global contribution.
Sustained commitment is therefore needed during the remainder of this century to ensure that newtechnologies and those currently at a relatively early stage of development are available to meetenergy needs in the next century.” 189

187

ExxonMobil Research Engineering Co., Patent US3513929A: Low-polluting engine and drive
system (granted May 26, 1970), https://www.google.com/patents/US3513929.
188
Imperial Oil Ltd., Review of Environmental Protection Activities for 1978–1979 2 (Aug. 6,
1980), http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2827784-1980-Imperial-Oil-Review-ofEnvironmental.html#document/p2.
189
Synthetic Fuels and Renewable Energy, Shell Service Briefing, no. 2, 1987,
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4411089/Document2.pdf.
104MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 108 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

f.

A 1989 article in a publication from Exxon Corporate Research forcompany use only stated: “CO2 emissions contribute about half the forcing leading to a potential
enhancement of the Greenhouse Effect. Since energy generation from fossil fuels dominatesmodern CO2 emissions, strategies to limit CO2 growth focus near term on energy efficiency andlong term on developing alternative energy sources. Practiced at a level to significantly reduce thegrowth of greenhouse gases, these actions would have substantial impact on society and ourindustry—near-term from reduced demand for current products, long term from transition to
entirely new energy systems.” 190
154.

Despite these repeated recognitions of opportunities to reduce emissions andmitigate corresponding harms from climate change, Defendants continued to sow doubt anddisinformation to the public and consumers regarding the causes and effects of climate change andways to reduce emissions. Examples of those efforts include, but are not limited to, the following:a.

In 1996, more than 30 years after API’s president warned that “time isrunning out” for the world to address the “catastrophic consequences of pollution,” API published
the book Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices to refute this very conclusion.
Contradicting the scientific consensus known by its members for decades, the book claims:“Currently, no conclusive—or even strongly suggestive—scientific evidence exists that humanactivities are significantly affecting sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures, or the intensity andfrequency of storms.” 191

190

Brian Flannery, Greenhouse Science, Connections: Corporate Research, Exxon Research andEngineering Company (Fall 1989), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1989-exxon-mobilarticle-technologys-place-marketing-mix.
191
American Petroleum Institute, Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices 79 (1996),
http://www.climatefiles.com/trade-group/american-petroleum-institute/1996-reinventing-energy.
105MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 109 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

b.

The book downplayed nearly every aspect of established climate science.

API baldly claimed that scientists do not understand how carbon flows in and out of the atmosphere
and whether fossil fuels are even responsible for increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2. It
then explained that even if some warming does occur, such warming “would present few if any
problems” because, for example, farmers could be “smart enough to change their crop plans” andlow-lying areas would “likely adapt” to sea-level rise. 192
c.

In the publication, API also contended that “the state of the environment

does not justify the call for the radical lifestyle changes Americans would have to make tosubstantially reduce the use of oil and other fossil fuels” and that the “benefits of alternatives aren’t
worth the cost of forcing their use.” “Some jobs definitely will be created in making, distributing
and selling alternatives. But they will come at the expense of lost jobs in the traditional automobile
and petroleum industries,” the authors continued. “Alternatives will likely be more expensive thanconventional fuel/vehicle technology. Consumers, obviously, will bear these increased expenses,
which means they will have less to spend on other products and cost jobs [sic].” 193d.

API published this book in service of one goal—ensuring its members could

continue to produce and sell fossil fuels in massive quantities that it knew would devastate theplanet. The book’s final section reveals this purpose. API concluded: “[S]evere reduction ingreenhouse gas emissions by the United States or even all developed countries would impose large
costs on countries but yield little in the way of benefits—even under drastic climate change
scenarios.” 194

192

Id. at 86–87.
Id. at 59, 68, 69.
194
Id. at 89.
193

106

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 110 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

155.

Fossil Fuel Defendants could have made major inroads to mitigate the State’s

injuries by developing and employing technologies to capture and sequester greenhouse gas
emissions associated with conventional use of their fossil fuel products. Fossil Fuel Defendants
had knowledge dating at least back to the 1960s and, indeed, internally researched and perfectedmany such technologies. For instance:a.

Phillips Petroleum Company (ConocoPhillips) obtained a patent in 1966 fora “Method for recovering a purified component from a gas” outlining a process to remove carbon
from natural gas and gasoline streams; 195 andb.

In 1973, Shell was granted a patent for a process to remove acidic gases,

including CO2, from gaseous mixtures. 196
156.

Even if Fossil Fuel Defendants did not adopt technological or energy source

alternatives that would have reduced use of fossil fuel products, reduced global greenhouse gas
pollution, and/or mitigated the harms associated with the use and consumption of such products,
Fossil Fuel Defendants could have taken other practical, cost-effective steps to mitigate the risks
posed by fossil fuel products. Those alternatives could have included, among other measures:a.

Acknowledging and sharing the validity of scientific evidence onanthropogenic climate change and the damages it will cause people, communities (including theState), and the environment. Acceptance of that evidence along with associated warnings andactions would have progressed the agenda from determining whether to combat climate change
and sea-level rise to deciding how to combat it; avoided much of the public confusion that has

195

Phillips Petroleum Co., Patent US3228874A: Method for recovering a purified component
from a gas (granted Jan. 11, 1966), https://patents.google.com/patent/US3228874.
196
Shell Oil Co., Patent US3760564A: Process for the removal of acidic gases from a gas
mixture, (granted Sept. 25, 1973), https://www.google.com/patents/US3760564A.
107

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 111 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

ensued over more than 30 years, since at least 1988; and contributed to an earlier and quicker
transition to energy sources compatible with minimizing catastrophic climatic consequences.
b.

Forthrightly communicating with consumers, the public, regulators,

stockholders, banks, insurers, and the State and warning them about the global warming hazards
of Defendants’ fossil fuel products that were known to Defendants, which would have enabledthose groups to make material, informed decisions about whether and how to address climatechange and sea-level rise vis-à-vis Defendants’ products—including whether and how much toinvest in alternative clean energy sources compared to fossil fuels;c.

Refraining from affirmative efforts, whether directly, through coalitions, or

through front groups, to distort public debate, and to cause many consumers and business andpolitical leaders to think the relevant science was far less certain that it actually was;d.

Sharing their internal scientific research with consumers and the public, andwith other scientists and business leaders, to increase public understanding of the scientificunderpinnings of climate change and its relation to Defendants’ fossil fuel products;e.

Supporting and encouraging policies to avoid dangerous climate change,and demonstrating corporate leadership in addressing the challenges of transitioning to a lowcarbon economy;f.

Prioritizing development of alternative sources of energy through sustained

investment and research on renewable energy sources to replace dependence on Defendants’hazardous fossil fuel products; andg.

Adopting their shareholders’ concerns about Fossil Fuel Defendants’ needto protect their businesses from the inevitable consequences of profiting from their fossil fuelproducts. Over the period of 1990–2015, Fossil Fuel Defendants’ shareholders proposed hundreds

108

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 112 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

of resolutions to change Fossil Fuel Defendants’ policies and business practices regarding climatechange. Those included increasing renewable energy investment, cutting emissions, andperforming carbon risk assessments, among others.
157.

Despite their knowledge of the foreseeable harms associated with the consumptionof Defendants’ fossil fuel products, and despite the existence and fossil fuel industry knowledgeof opportunities that would have reduced the foreseeable dangers associated with those products,
Defendants wrongfully and falsely promoted and concealed the hazards of using their fossil fuelproducts.
F.

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.

158.

Defendants’ coordinated campaign of disinformation and deception continues

today, even as the scientific consensus about the causes and consequences of climate change has
strengthened. Fossil Fuel Defendants have falsely claimed through advertising campaigns in New
Jersey and/or campaigns intended to reach New Jersey that their businesses are substantiallyinvested in lower-carbon technologies and renewable energy sources. In truth, each Fossil Fuel
Defendant has invested minimally in renewable energy while continuing to expand its fossil fuelproduction. Reasonable consumers exposed to Fossil Fuel Defendants’ advertisements would
understand Fossil Fuel Defendants to be far more substantially invested in alternative energy
sources than in fact is the case. Each has also claimed that certain of their fossil fuel products are“green” or “clean,” and that using these products will sufficiently reduce or mitigate the dangers
of climate change. None of Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products are “green” or “clean”
because they all ultimately continue to warm the planet.
159.

After having engaged in a long campaign to deceive consumers and the public about

the weight of climate science, Defendants are now engaging in “greenwashing” by employing false109

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 113 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

and misleading advertising campaigns promoting themselves as sustainable energy companies
committed to finding solutions to climate change, including by investing in alternative energy.
These campaigns were intended to and did reach and influence the public and consumers, includingin New Jersey.
160.

These misleading “greenwashing” campaigns are intended to capitalize on

consumers’ concerns about climate change and lead New Jersey consumers to believe that Fossil
Fuel Defendants are substantially diversified energy companies making meaningful investments
in low-carbon energy compatible with minimizing catastrophic climate change.
161.

Contrary to this messaging, however, Fossil Fuel Defendants’ spending on low-

carbon energy is substantially and materially less than Fossil Fuel Defendants indicate toconsumers. According to a recent analysis, between 2010 and 2018, BP spent 2.3% of total capitalspending on low-carbon energy sources, Shell spent 1.2%, and Chevron and Exxon just 0.2%
each. 197 Meanwhile, Fossil Fuel Defendants continue to expand fossil fuel production andtypically do not even include non-fossil energy systems in their key performance indicators orreported annual production statistics. 198
162.

Ultimately, although Defendants currently claim to support reducing greenhousegas emissions, their conduct belies these statements. Fossil Fuel Defendants have continued toramp up fossil fuel production globally; to invest in new fossil fuel development, including in tar

197

Anjli Raval & Leslie Hook, Oil and Gas Advertising Spree Signals Industry’s Dilemma,
Financial Times (Mar. 6, 2019), https://www.ft.com/content/5ab7edb2-3366-11e9-bd3a8b2a211d90d5.
198
See, e.g., BP Annual Report and Form 20-F 24 (2017),
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/investors/bp-annualreport-and-form-20f-2017.pdf.

110MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 114 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

sands crude and shale gas fracking, some of the most carbon-intensive extraction projects; and toplan for unabated oil and gas exploitation indefinitely into the future.
163.

For example, Exxon is projected to increase oil production by more than 35%

between 2018 and 2030—a sharper rise than over the previous 12 years. 199 Shell is forecast to
increase output by 38% by 2030, by increasing its crude oil production by more than half and its
gas production by over a quarter. 200 BP is projected to increase production of oil and gas by 20%
by 2030. 201 Chevron set an oil production record in 2018 of 2.93 million barrels per day. 202 Like
the other Fossil Fuel Defendants, it sees the next 20 years—the crucial window in which the worldmust reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avert the most catastrophic effects of the climate crisis—
as a time of increased investment and production in its fossil fuel operations. For example, a 2019
investor report touted Chevron’s “significant reserve additions in 2018” in the multiple regions inNorth America and around the world, as well as significant capital projects involving constructionof refineries worldwide. 203
164.

Defendants’ greenwashing campaigns deceptively minimize their own role incausing climate change, including by suggesting that small changes in consumer choice andbehavior can adequately address climate change. These campaigns misleadingly portray Fossil

199

Jonathan Watts et al., Oil Firms to Pour Extra 7m Barrels Per Day Into Markets, Data Shows,
The Guardian (Oct. 10, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/oil-firmsbarrels-markets.
200
Id.
201
Id.
202
Kevin Crowley & Eric Roston, Chevron Aligns Strategy with Paris Deal But Won’t Cap
Output, Bloomberg (Feb. 7, 2019), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-0207/chevron-pledges-alignment-with-paris-accord-but-won-t-cap-output.
203
Chevron, Chevron 2019 Investor Presentation (Feb. 2019), https://chevroncorp.gcsweb.com/static-files/c3815b42-4deb-4604-8c51-bde9026f6e45.
111MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 115 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Fuel Defendants as part of the solution to climate change and distract from the fact that their fossil
fuel products are the primary driver of global warming.
165.

Below are representative excerpts from Defendants’ greenwashing campaigns,

which present a false image of Fossil Fuel Defendants as clean energy innovators taking
meaningful action to address climate change. Defendants’ actions to further entrench fossil fuelproduction and consumption squarely contradict their public affirmations of corporate
responsibility and support for reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Functionally, Defendants
have cut fossil fuels from their brand but not their business operations. Their greenwashingadvertisements to the contrary are deceptive to New Jersey consumers.
i. Exxon’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing
Campaigns
166.

Exxon is currently running a series of full-page advertisements in print editions andposts in the electronic edition of The New York Times, as well as on Exxon’s YouTube channel,
in which Exxon misleadingly promotes its efforts to develop energy from alternative sources suchas algae and plant waste—efforts that are vanishingly small in relation to the investments Exxon
continues to make in fossil fuel production.
167.

For example, an online advertisement in The New York Times, accessible to andmarketed toward New Jersey consumers, promotes the company’s development of algae biofuels.
The advertisement misleadingly tells consumers that Exxon is “working to decrease [its] overall
carbon footprint,” and that the company’s “sustainable and environmentally friendly” biodiesel
fuel could reduce “carbon emissions from transportation” by greater than 50%. 204 Exxon is not

204

The Future of Energy? It May Come From Where You Least Expect (ExxonMobil Paid Post),
N.Y. Times, https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/exxonmobil/the-future-of-energy-it-may-comefrom-where-you-least-expect.html.
112

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 116 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

investing anywhere near sufficient resources in algae biofuels to achieve the emissions reductions
touted in its advertisements.
168.

Exxon’s advertisements promoting its investments in “sustainable andenvironmentally friendly” energy sources also fail to mention that the company’s investment inalternative energy is miniscule compared to its ongoing “business as usual” ramp-up in global
fossil fuel exploration, development, and production activities. From 2010 to 2018, Exxon spent
only 0.2% of its capital expenditures on low-carbon energy systems, with nearly the totality of its
spending (99.8%) focused on maintaining and expanding fossil fuel production. The company has
simultaneously invested billions of dollars into development of Canadian tar sands projects, someof the most carbon-intensive oil extraction projects in the world. 205
169.

In 2016, for example, Exxon earned $198 billion in revenue but invested less than

1% of that amount in alternative energy research, including algae.
170.

Exxon’s investment is not nearly enough to produce alternative energy on the scale

falsely implied and touted by Exxon in its advertisements. A 2019 report by InfluenceMap
documents that Exxon’s advertised goal of producing 10,000 barrels of biofuel per day by 2025
would equate to only 0.2% of its current refinery capacity—an amount the report referred to as “arounding error.” 206 This is in sharp contrast to Exxon’s projected increases in oil production bymore than 35%, meaning any alternative fuel efforts are offset by massive oil emissions. 207

205

Raval & Hook. Exxon has invested more than 20 billion dollars in capital expenditures at its
open-pit tar sands mining operation at Kearl Lake in Alberta, Canada.
206
InfluenceMap, Big Oil’s Real Agenda on Climate Change (Mar. 2019),
https://influencemap.org/report/How-Big-Oil-Continues-to-Oppose-the-Paris-Agreement38212275958aa21196dae3b76220bddc.
207
Watts et al., supra note 200.
113

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 117 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

171.

Supplementing this misleading campaign, Exxon has promoted dozens ofmultimedia advertisements on platforms such as Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn,
where Exxon has millions of social media followers and its content has received hundreds ofthousands of “likes” and “views.” These advertisements overwhelmingly emphasize its claimed
leadership in research on lowering emissions, algae biofuel, climate change solutions, and clean
energy research. These advertisements were intended to and did reach the public and consumers
in New Jersey. An ordinary consumer witnessing these advertisements would come away believingthat Exxon is meaningfully invested in developing and deploying alternative energy technologies,
whereas in truth nearly all the company’s expenditures are directed toward present and future oiland gas development that hurtles the world toward climate catastrophe. Exxon’s failure to inform
ordinary consumers that its touted clean energy investments comprise only a miniscule percentage
of its expenditures—and that it intends to ramp up fossil fuel production and sales in the future—renders these advertisements materially misleading.
ii. Shell’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing
Campaigns
172.

Like Exxon, Shell has misleadingly promoted itself to New Jersey consumers asenvironmentally conscientious through advertisements in publications such as The New YorkTimes. The advertisements are targeted to and read by New Jersey consumers and intended toinfluence consumer demand for Shell’s products.
173.

As part of Shell’s “Make the Future” campaign, the company has publishednumerous advertisements currently viewable on The New York Times website, 208 in which the208

See, e.g., Moving Forward: A Path To Net-Zero Emissions By 2070 (Shell Paid Post), N.Y.
Times, https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/shell/ul/moving-forward-a-path-to-net-zeroemissions-by-2070.html.
114

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 118 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

company touts its investment in new energy sources, including liquified natural gas (“LNG”) andbiofuel, which Shell refers to as “cleaner sources.”
174.

One Shell advertisement in the Washington Post, “The Making of Sustainable

Mobility,” refers to LNG as “a critical component of a sustainable energy mix” and a “lowercarbon fuel” that could “help decrease” CO2 emissions. 209 The ad emphasizes Shell’s leadershipin “setting the course” for a “lower-carbon mobility future.” Similarly, another Shell advertisementin The Washington Post, “The Mobility Quandary,” emphasizes Shell’s role in working tocounteract climate change through investments in alternative energy: “Shell is a bigger player than
you might expect in this budding movement to realize a cleaner and more efficient transportation
future.” 210
175.

Shell’s statements emphasizing its involvement in these many areas of energy-

related research, development, and deployment are misleading; the company’s investments andactivities are substantially smaller than its advertisements lead consumers to believe. In reality,
only 1.2% of Shell’s capital spending from 2010 to 2018 was in low-carbon energy sources, andthat number continues to be heavily outweighed by Shell’s continued expansion of its fossil fuelbusiness. 211
176.

Shell’s “Make the Future” advertisements also misled consumers about the extent

to which Shell has invested in clean energy technology. For example, “The Mobility Quandary”

209

See, e.g., The Making of Sustainable Mobility (Content from Shell), Wash. Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/brand-studio/shell/the-making-of-sustainable-mobility.
210
The Mobility Quandary (Content from Shell), Wash. Post.,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/brand-studio/shell/the-mobility-quandary (“Another criticalcomponent of a sustainable energy mix in transportation is further investment in natural gas, acleaner-burning fossil fuel . . . .”).
211
Raval & Hook, supra note 198.

115

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 119 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

touts Shell’s investments in hydrogen fuel cell technology, promoting hydrogen as “sustainable in
the long-term” and “[o]ne of the cleaner sources” that power electric vehicles, stating that“[h]ydrogen fuel cell vehicles . . . emit nothing from their tailpipes but water vapor.” 212 Shell’s “Infor the Long Haul” advertisement in The New York Times similarly promotes its investment inhydrogen fuel cells, as well as biofuels, as meaningful attempts to mitigate climate change. 213 But
in reality, Shell’s spending plans show that it will spend four times more money on oil and gas
development than on renewable technology in 2022. 214 Independent analysis of Shell’s spendingplans shows that the company will be emitting more greenhouse gas by 2030 than it currently
emits. 215 On its current trajectory, Shell is projected to miss its emissions reduction targets for both
2030 and 2050. 216 Shell’s failure to inform ordinary consumers that its touted clean energy
investments comprise only a miniscule percentage of its expenditures—and that it intends to ramp
up fossil fuel production and sales in the future—renders these advertisements materiallymisleading.
iii. BP’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing
Campaigns
177.

BP also has misleadingly portrayed itself as diversifying its energy portfolio andreducing its reliance on fossil fuel sales, when its alternative energy portfolio is negligible
compared to the company’s ever-expanding fossil fuel portfolio. To this end, BP has employed a212

Shell, The Mobility Quandary, supra note 211.
Moving Forward: A Path to Net-Zero Emissions by 2070 (Content from Shell), N.Y. Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/shell/ul/moving-forward-a-path-to-net-zero-emissions-by2070.html.
214
Simon Jack, Oil Giant Shell Says It Needs Oil to Pay for Green Shift, BBC News (Nov. 3,2021), https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59154930.
215
Id.
216
Id.
213

116

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 120 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

series of misleading greenwashing advertisements, which are intended to influence consumer
demand for its products, including consumers in New Jersey.
178.

BP ran its extensive “Beyond Petroleum” advertising and rebranding campaign

from 2000 to 2008 and even changed its logo to a sunburst, evoking the renewable resource of thesun. BP uses the sunburst logo to advertise at its New Jersey gas stations, where consumers
purchase BP’s gas. The “Beyond Petroleum” advertising campaign falsely portrayed the company
as heavily engaged in low-carbon energy sources and no longer investing in but rather moving“beyond” petroleum and other fossil fuels. In truth, BP invested a small percentage of its total
capital expenditure during this period on alternative energy research. The vast majority of its
capital expenditure was focused on fossil fuel exploration, production, refining, and marketing. 217
The company ultimately abandoned its solar and wind assets in 2011 and 2013, respectively, andeven the “Beyond Petroleum” moniker in 2013. 218
179.

In 2019, BP launched an advertising campaign called “Possibilities Everywhere.”

These advertisements were misleading both in their portrayal of BP as heavily involved in nonfossil energy systems, including wind, solar, and electric vehicles, as well as in their portrayal ofnatural gas as environmentally friendly.
180.

One Possibilities Everywhere advertisement, called “Better fuels to power yourbusy life,” stated:
We [] want—and need—[ ] energy to be kinder to the planet. At
BP, we’re working to make our energy cleaner and better. . . . At
BP, we’re leaving no stone unturned to provide [the] extra energy
217

See BP, Annual Reports and Accounts 2008, https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/businesssites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/investors/bp-annual-report-accounts-2008.pdf.
218
Javier E. David, ‘Beyond Petroleum’ No More? BP Goes Back to Basics, CNBC (Apr. 20,
2013), http://www.cnbc.com/id/100647034.

117

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 121 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

the world needs while finding new ways to produce and deliver itwith 53 fewer emissions. . . . We’re bringing solar and wind energy
to homes from the US to India. We’re boosting supplies of cleaner
burning natural gas. . . . More energy with fewer emissions? We see
possibilities everywhere to help the world keep advancing. 219
The accompanying video showed a busy household while a voiceover said, “We all want moreenergy, but with less carbon footprint. That’s why at BP we’re working to make energy that’s
cleaner and better.” 220
181.

But BP’s claim that non-fossil energy systems constitute a substantial portion ofBP’s business was materially false and misleading. For example, BP owns only approximately 1.7
gigawatts (“GW”) of wind capacity, which is dwarfed by other companies including GE, Siemens,
and Vestas (with about 39 GW, 26 GW, and 23 GW capacities, respectively). 221 Overall, installedwind capacity in the United States is approximately 100 GW, meaning BP’s installed capacity isa mere 1% of the market. 222 Yet, “Blade runners,” another advertisement in BP’s “Possibilities
Everywhere” campaign, described the company as “one of the major wind energy businesses in219

See BP, Better fuels to Power Your Busy Life,
https://web.archive.org/web/20191130155554/https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/who-weare/possibilities-everywhere/energy-for-busy-lives.html.
220
Id.
221
For BP’s wind capacity, see Press Release, BP Advances Offshore Wind Growth Strategy(Feb. 8, 2021), https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news-and-insights/press-releases/bpadvances-offshore-wind-growth-strategy.html. For wind capacity of GE, Siemens, and Vestas,
see Abby McClain, The 15 Largest Wind Power Companies in the World (July 12, 2022),
https://www.zippia.com/advice/largest-wind-power-companies/.
222
See Elizabeth Ingram, U.S. Wind Capacity Grew 8% in 2019, AWEA says, Renewable
Energy World (Apr. 10, 2019), https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/wind-power/u-s-windcapacity-grew-8-in-2018-awea-says/.

118

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 122 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

the US.” 223 In short, BP’s relatively small wind power portfolio is materially smaller than thatconveyed in the company’s advertisements.
182.

The same is true for BP’s activities in solar energy, which consist predominantlyof its purchase of a minority interest in the solar company Lightsource (rebranded Lightsource
BP). 224

The purchase price for this interest represents only 0.4% of BP’s annual capital

expenditure of approximately $16 billion, nearly all of which focuses on fossil fuels. 225 This is a
far cry from BP’s claim that it was “leaving no stone unturned” to find “new” ways to produce
lower-emissions energy and playing a “leading role” in “advancing a low carbon future.” These
claims convey the misleading impression to ordinary consumers that BP is substantially invested
in developing and deploying clean energy technology, whereas in truth nearly all the company’spresent and future expenditures are directed toward oil and gas development that hurtles the world
toward climate catastrophe. BP’s failure to inform ordinary consumers that its touted clean energy
investments comprise only a miniscule percentage of its expenditures—and that it intends to ramp
up fossil fuel production and sales in the future—renders these advertisements materiallymisleading.
183.

In BP’s web advertisement “Rise and shine,” the company nevertheless specificallytouted its Lightsource partnership. “Our economics gurus believe [solar power] could account for223

See BP, Blade Runners,
https://web.archive.org/web/20191130192545/https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/who-weare/possibilities-everywhere/wind-and-natural-gas.html.
224
BP Annual Report and Form 20-F 42 (2017), https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/businesssites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/investors/bp-annual-report-and-form-20f-2017.pdf.
225
See BP to Maintain Reduced Capital Spending Through 2021, Oil & Gas Journal (Feb. 28,2017), https://www.ogj.com/general-interest/article/17290398/bp-to-maintain-reduced-capitalspending-through-2021.

119

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 123 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

10% of the world’s power by 2040,” the ad stated, and “to help make that a reality, we’ve teamed
up with Europe’s largest solar company, [Lightsource BP].” 226 The ad highlighted Lightsource
BP’s 6.3 MW floating solar power station near London and Lightsource BP’s deal with Budweiser
to supply renewable energy to its U.K. breweries. “Projects like these are advancing thepossibilities of solar,” BP claimed, “and even rainy days can’t dampen the excitement for this fastgrowing energy source. That’s because, whatever the weather, our cleaner-burning natural gas canplay a supporting role to still keep your kettle ready for action.” 227
184.

This portrayal of solar power as BP’s strong interest, with natural gas used only asa backup, is also false. BP’s investments in natural gas outstrip its solar investments by a factor of
approximately 100 or more, and only a small fraction of its natural gas products, an estimated 5%
or less, are used to backup renewables. Thus, the overall impression given by the advertisements—that BP is substantially invested in solar energy, with its natural gas used only for backup—ismaterially misleading to consumers.
iv. Chevron’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing
Campaigns
185.

Chevron also engaged in greenwashing campaigns designed to deceive consumers

about Chevron’s products and its commitment to address climate change, including consumers in
New Jersey.
186.

In 2001, Chevron developed and shared a sophisticated information management

system to gather greenhouse gas emissions data from its explorations and production to help
regulate and set reduction goals. 228 Beyond this technological breakthrough, Chevron touted
226

BP, Rise and Shine.
Id.
228
Press Release, Chevron, Chevron Introduces New System to Manage Energy Use (Sept. 25,
2001), https://web.archive.org/web/20170207205638/https://www.chevron.com/stories/chevronintroduces-new-system-to-manage-energy-use.
227

120

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 124 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068“profitable renewable energy” as part of its business plan for several years and launched a 2010
advertising campaign promoting the company’s move towards renewable energy. Despite thisrhetoric—and Chevron renewable power group’s $27 million profit in 2013—Chevron sold its
renewable energy unit in 2014. 229
187.

Chevron’s 2007 “Will You Join Us?” campaign and its 2008 “I Will” campaign

both misleadingly portrayed the company as a leader in renewable energy. The campaigns’
advertisements portrayed minor changes in consumer choices (e.g., changing light bulbs) as
sufficient to address environmental problems such as climate change. 230
188.

The overall thrust of the campaigns was to shift the perception of fault andresponsibility for global warming to consumers and make Chevron’s role and that of the broader
fossil fuel industry appear small. The misleading solution promoted to consumers was not to switch
away from fossil fuels, but instead to implement small changes in consumer behavior with
continued reliance on fossil fuel products. By portraying greenhouse gas emissions as derivingfrom numerous sources in addition to fossil fuels, Chevron’s ads obfuscated the fact that fossil
fuels are the primary cause of increased greenhouse gas emissions and the primary driver ofclimate change.
189.

Misleading messages were emblazoned over images of everyday Americans, as in

the example highlighted below:

229

Ben Elgin, Chevron Dims the Lights on Green Power, Bloomberg (May 29, 2014),
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-29/chevron-dims-the-lights-on-renewableenergy-projects.
230
See Duncan MaCleod, Chevron Will You Join Us?, Inspiration Room (Oct. 9, 2007),
http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2007/chevron-will-you-join-us. See also Jean Halliday,
Chevron: We’re Not Big Bad Oil, AdAge (Sept. 28, 2007),https://adage.com/article/news/chevron-big-bad-oil/120785.
121

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 125 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Figure 10: “Will You Join Us?” Chevron Advertisement
190.

In 2010, Chevron launched an advertising campaign titled “We Agree.” The print,internet, and television ad campaign expanded across the United States and internationally. For
example, the ad below highlighted Chevron’s supposed commitment to the development of
renewable energy, stating in large letters next to a photo of a young girl, “It’s time oil companies
get behind the development of renewable energy. We agree.” The ad emphasized: “We’re notjust behind renewables. We’re tackling the challenge of making them affordable and reliable ona large scale.”122

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 126 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Figure 11: “We Agree” Chevron Advertisement
191.

Chevron’s portrayal of itself as a renewable energy leader was false and misleading.

In reality, only 0.2% of Chevron’s capital spending from 2010 to 2018 was in low-carbon energy
sources, and 99.8% was in continued fossil fuel exploration and development—a stark contrast to
the message communicated to consumers through the company’s advertisements. 231
192.

Chevron’s“We

Agree”

campaign

alsofeatured

misleading

television

advertisements. In one focused on renewable energy, a teacher says, “Ok, listen. Somebody has
got to get serious. We need renewable energy.” To which a Chevron environmental operations
employee responds, “At Chevron we’re investing millions in solar and biofuel technologies tomake it work.” In reality, Chevron has continued to overwhelmingly focus on fossil fuel extraction
and development, and its investment of “millions” in renewables is miniscule in comparison to its
investment of billions in fossil fuels. An ordinary consumer watching the “We Agree”
advertisements would be misled into believing Chevron has meaningfully invested in developing
231

Raval & Hook, supra note 198.
123

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 127 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

and deploying clean technologies, whereas nearly all the company’s spending is directed toward
oil and gas development. Chevron’s failure to inform ordinary consumers that its touted clean
energy investments comprise only a miniscule percentage of its expenditures—and that it intends
to ramp up fossil fuel production and sales in the future—renders these advertisements materiallymisleading.
v. ConocoPhillips’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing Campaigns
193.

In 2012, ConocoPhillips released a Sustainable Development Report in which it“recognize[d] that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased
concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in
global climate.” 232 The Report’s goals included “[u]nderstanding our GHG footprint,” “[r]educing
our GHG emissions,” and “evaluating and developing technologies for renewable energy.” 233
194.

This Report contrasts starkly with ConocoPhillips’ 2012 10-K filing with SEC,

which reveals the company’s sole focus on producing fossil fuels for global distribution: “As an
independent E&P company, we are solely focused on our core business of exploring for,developing and producing crude oil and natural gas globally.” The filing further highlighted thecompany’s “growing North American shale and oil sands businesses . . . and a global exploration
program,” 234 making clear it had no intent to honor the commitments in its Sustainable
Development Report.

232

ConocoPhillips, Sustainable Development; Climate Change Position 17 (2012),
http://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/2012-sd-report.pdf.
233
Id. at 17, 20.
234
ConocoPhillips, Annual Report (Form 10-K) 32 (Dec. 31, 2012),
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1163165/000119312513065426/d452384d10k.htm.

124MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 128 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

195.

Indeed, in 2019, ConocoPhillips produced over 700,000 of barrels of crude oil per

day and over 2.8 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. 235 ConocoPhillips’ failure to inform
ordinary consumers that its touted clean energy investments comprise only a miniscule percentage
of its expenditures—and that it intends to ramp up fossil fuel production and sales in the future—renders its touted sustainability targets materially misleading.
vi. API’s Misleading and Deceptive Greenwashing
Campaigns
196.

Acting on behalf of and under the supervision and control of the Fossil Fuel

Defendants, API has also devoted considerable resources to deceiving consumers throughout thecountry about fossil fuels’ role in climate change. During the 2017 Super Bowl, the most-watched
television program in the United States, API debuted its “Power Past Impossible” campaign, withadvertisements that told Americans that the petroleum industry could help them “live better lives.”
A 2018 study of the advertisements by Kim Sheehan, a Professor at the University of Oregon,
concluded that the “campaign provides evidence of greenwashing through both explicit
communications (such as unsubstantiated claims that ‘gas comes cleaner’ and ‘oil runs cleaner’)and implicit communications (the use of green imagery).” 236
197.

In lockstep with its member companies, API has also shifted its messaging fromclimate denial to greenwashing in the last decade. API touts its members’ purported commitments
to reducing their carbon footprint while continuing its core mission of promoting its members’
extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels to consumers in New Jersey and throughout theUnited States at unprecedented rates.
235

ConocoPhillips, 2019 Annual Report 168 (2019),
https://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/2019-conocophillips-annual-report-19-0895.pdf.
236
Kim Sheehan, This Ain’t Your Daddy’s Greenwashing: An Assessment of the American
Petroleum Institute’s Power Past Impossible Campaign, in Intellectual Property and Clean
Energy 301–21 (Matthew Rimmer ed., 2018).
125

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 129 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

198.

Many of API’s television, radio, and internet advertisements, including those

directed at New Jersey consumers, lead to a website run by API entitled “America’s Natural Gas
and Oil: Energy for Progress.” Among many articles and images promoting fossil fuel companies’
claimed contributions to clean energy, the website advertises “Creating climate solutions andessential energy,” and “Four Ways Energy Companies Are Protecting Land and Wildlife.” 237
These messages are not meant to encourage consumers to transition to low-carbon energy
sources—just the opposite. By obfuscating the reality that fossil fuels are the driving force behind
anthropogenic climate change, they are designed to increase consumers’ use of fossil fuels in orderto advance API’s core mission of growing its member companies’ oil and natural gas businesses.
199.

In addition, in 2016, API launched a “campaign in New Jersey focused on

consumers” that sought to turn public opinion against stricter standards for ethanol content ingasoline. The campaign speciously claimed that such standards would “hurt consumers andthreaten to reverse America’s energy renaissance which has made [it] the number one producer ofoil and natural gas in the world.” 238200.

As part of its “Energy for Progress” campaign, API has run a series of Facebook

advertisements, many of which have reached a substantial number of New Jersey consumers, that
falsely paint the fossil fuel industry as a leader on climate change action. For example, in 2020,
API ran advertisements with statements such as:

237

See American Petroleum Institute, 5 Ways We’re Using Energy for Progress, Energy for
Progress, https://energyforprogress.org/the-basics (last visited Oct. 17, 2022).
238
Reid Porter, API Launches New RFS Advocacy Campaign in New Jersey Focused on
Consumers, American Petroleum Institute (Aug. 9, 2016), https://www.api.org/news-policy-andissues/news/2016/08/09/api-launches-new-rfs-advocacy-campaign-f.

126

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 130 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068•“We can tackle climate change and meet the world’s energy needs by embracing
new innovations together.” 239•“Through innovative partnerships, we’ve reduced CO2 emissions to the lowest ina generation—and now we’re working to reduce methane, too.” 240•“How are natural gas and oil companies helping cars emit less CO2? They’ve
developed engine oils that improve fuel efficiency. See the science.” 241

G.

Defendants Also Made Misleading Claims About Specific “Green” or“Greener” Fossil Fuel Products.

201.

Defendants also have engaged in extensive and highly misleading marketing efforts

aimed at promoting certain of their fossil fuel products as “green” and environmentally beneficial.
202.

Defendants’ advertising and promotional materials fail to disclose the extreme

safety risk associated with the use of fossil fuel products, which are causing “catastrophic” climatechange, as understood by Defendants for decades. Defendants continue to omit that important
information to this day, consistent with their goal of maintaining consumer demand for their fossil
fuel products despite the risks they pose for the planet and its people.
203.

Defendants misleadingly represent that consumer use of certain fossil fuel products

actually helps customers reduce emissions and gain increased fuel economy. But emphasizing
relative climate and “green” benefits while concealing the dangerous effects of continued highrates of fossil fuel use creates an overall misleading picture that hides the dire climate impacts
resulting from normal consumer use of Defendants’ fossil fuel products. Contrary to Defendants’“green” claims, the development, production, refining, and consumer use of Defendants’ fossil

239

See Facebook Ad Library, https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=281395386281089 (lastvisited Oct. 17, 2022).
240
See Facebook Ad Library, https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=640075440224515 (lastvisited Oct. 17, 2022).
241
See Facebook Ad Library, https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1883177471814564(last visited Oct. 17, 2022).
127

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 131 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

fuel products (even products that may yield relatively more efficient engine performance) increase
greenhouse gas emissions to the detriment of public health and consumer welfare. No matter what
chemicals are added to the fuel mixture, burning gasoline always emits greenhouse gases, thereby
contributing to climate change and its associated impacts. Defendants’ additive marketing cloaks
their gasoline products in an environmentally friendly veneer while misleadingly concealing thehazardous climatic effects of burning fossil fuels.
204.

In addition, at the same time Fossil Fuel Defendants have been actively promoting

their “greener” gasoline products at New Jersey gas stations and on their company websites, Fossil
Fuel Defendants have been massively expanding fossil fuel production and increasing emissions.
If consumers understood the full degree to which Fossil Fuel Defendants’ products contributed toclimate change and that Fossil Fuel Defendants had not in fact materially invested in alternative
energy sources or were otherwise environmentally cautious, they likely would have acted
differently, e.g., by not purchasing Defendants’ products or purchasing less of them.
205.

In the promotion of these and other fossil fuel products, including at their branded

gas stations in New Jersey, Defendants fail to disclose the fact that fossil fuels are a leading causeof climate change and that current levels of fossil fuel use—even purportedly “cleaner” or more
efficient products—represent a direct threat to New Jerseyans and the environment. Defendants’omissions in this regard are consistent with their goal of influencing consumer demand for theirfossil fuel products through greenwashing. Defendants also fail to require their vendors and thirdparty retail outlets to disclose facts pertaining to the impact the consumption of fossil fuels andtheir “cleaner” alternatives have on climate change when selling Defendants’ products.
206.

Defendants’ marketing of these fossil fuel products to New Jersey consumers as“safe,” “clean,” “emissions-reducing,” and impliedly beneficial to the climate—when production128MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 132 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

and use of such products is the leading cause of climate change—is reminiscent of the tobacco
industry’s effort to promote “low-tar” and “light” cigarettes as an alternative to quitting smoking
after the public became aware of the life-threatening health harms associated with smoking.
207.

Defendants’ product promotions are positioned to reassure consumers that thepurchase and use of their products is beneficial in addressing climate change, when in truth,
continued use of such fossil fuels is extremely harmful, just as the tobacco companies misleadingly
promoted “low tar” and “light” cigarettes as a healthier, less harmful choice, when the tobaccocompanies knew any use of cigarettes was harmful.
208.

As with tobacco companies’ misleading use of scientific and engineering terms inadvertising to enhance the credibility of their representations, Defendants’ promotional materials
for their fossil fuel products also misleadingly invoke similar terminology to falsely convey to
New Jersey consumers that the use of these products benefits the environment. For example,
Exxon’s advertisements of its Synergy™ and “green” Mobil 1™ products similarly referenced“meticulous[] engineer[ing],” “breakthrough technology,” “rigorously tested in the lab,”“proprietary formulation,” “test data,” “engineers,” “innovat[ion],” and the claim that “Scientists
Deliver [] Unexpected Solution[s].” 242 Shell advertised that its Shell Nitrogen Enriched Cleaning
System and V-Power Nitro+ Premium “produce[] fewer emissions” and that not using them canlead to “higher emissions.” 243 BP markets its Invigorate gasoline as a “cleaning agent that helps. . . give you more miles per tank,” and “help[s] cars become clean, mean, driving machines,” and242

See, e.g., EnergyFactor by ExxonMobil, Green Motor Oil? ExxonMobil Scientists Deliver an
Unexpected Solution (July 19, 2016); Exxon Mobil, Fuels, https://www.exxon.com/en/fuels (lastvisited Oct. 14, 2022).
243
See, e.g., Shell, Shell Nitrogen Enriched Gasolines, https://www.shell.us/motorist/shellfuels/shell-nitrogen-enriched-gasolines.html (last visited Oct. 14, 2022).

129

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 133 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

its bp Diesel as “a powerful, reliable, and efficient fuel made” to help “reduce emissions.” 244
Chevron advertises its Techron fuel with claims that emphasize its supposed positiveenvironmental qualities, such as: “less is more,” “minimizing emissions,” and “up to 50%
cleaner.” 245 In a Q and A on Chevron’s website, one question says, “I care for the environment.
Does Techron impact my car’s emissions?” Chevron answers that “[g]asolines with Techron”
clean up carburetors, fuel injectors, and intake valves, “giving you reduced emissions.” 246
209.

These misrepresentations, which were intended to and did in fact reach andinfluence New Jersey consumers, were misleading because they emphasize the fuels’ supposedly
environmentally beneficial qualities without disclosing the key role fossil fuels play in causing
climate change.
210.

As with the tobacco companies’ use of scientific terms to promote “light”

cigarettes, Defendants’ claim that its purportedly high-tech new fossil fuel products help
consumers reduce emissions renders their promotional materials misleading, because they seek toconvey—with the imprimatur of scientific credibility—an overall message that is false, andcontradicted by Defendants’ own decades-old internal knowledge regarding the dangers of fossil
fuel use.
211.

In addition, at the same time Defendants have been actively promoting their“greener” gasoline products at New Jersey gas stations and on their company websites, Defendants
have been massively expanding fossil fuel production and increasing emissions. If consumers
understood the full degree to which Defendants’ products contributed to climate change and that

244

See, e.g., BP, Our Fuels, https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/products-andservices/fuels.html (last visited Oct. 14, 2022).
245
See, e.g., Chevron, Techron, https://www.techron.com (last visited Oct. 14, 2022).
246
Id.
130

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 134 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Defendants had not in fact materially invested in alternative energy sources or were otherwise
environmentally cautious, they likely would have acted differently, e.g., by not purchasing
Defendants’ products or purchasing less of them.
212.

Below is a selection of Defendants’ fossil fuel products that they currently advertiseto New Jersey consumers as environmentally beneficial, while simultaneously omitting any
mention of the products’ role in causing catastrophic climate change. These advertisements are
representative of other advertisements and public communications, all of which are consistent withDefendants’ greenwashing strategy to influence consumer demand for their products by
misleading consumers to believe Defendants invest materially in and support the development ofalternative energy sources and that Defendants’ fossil fuel products will help consumers reduce
emissions.
213.

Exxon Synergy™ Fuelsa.

In July 2016, ExxonMobil began to supply and market its Synergy™ fuel,including at the Exxon-branded gas stations in New Jersey.
b.

All gasoline sold at Exxon-branded stations in New Jersey has received the

Exxon Synergy additive, and therefore constitutes Exxon Synergy™ fuel.
c.

In its advertisements for its Synergy fuel, including in labelling on gasoline

pumps at Exxon-branded gas stations in New Jersey, which Exxon controls, Exxon claims that thefuel will “take you further,” and contains more detergents than required by the Environmental
Protection Agency, earning it the so-called “Top Tier” certification.
d.

Similarly, Exxon advertises its Synergy Diesel Efficient fuel as the “latest

breakthrough technology” and the “first diesel fuel widely available in the US” that helps “increase131MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 135 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

fuel economy” and “[r]educe emissions and burn cleaner,” and “was created to let you drive
cleaner, smarter and longer.”e.

Exxon recently began offering a new Synergy product, “Synergy

Supreme+,” targeted to purchasers of so-called “premium” gasoline, including New Jersey
consumers. The messaging for this product represents that Synergy Supreme+ is “Our Best Fuel
Ever,” and “2X cleaner for better gas mileage.” According to Exxon, Synergy Supreme+ will
enhance vehicle fuel economy in newer engines designed to meet tougher vehicle emissions
standards.
f.

In its advertising to consumers, Exxon emphasizes the “cleanness” and fuelefficiency benefits of its Synergy fossil fuel products, which are misleading without mention of
the key role fossil fuels play in causing climate change.
214.

Exxon “Green” Mobil 1™ Motor Oila.

In addition to Synergy™ fuels, Exxon misleadingly promotes “green”

Mobil 1™ motor oil to New Jersey consumers as an environmentally friendly product with low
environmental impact.
b.

ExxonMobil “green” Mobil 1™ is a synthetic oil used for engine

lubrication. Synthetic oils are typically extracted from petroleum, including crude oil and its
byproducts.
c.

Exxon also publishes online content under the banner “Energy Factor,”

wherein Exxon claims that it is “develop[ing] safe and reliable energy sources for the future.” The
Energy Factor webpage includes posts such as “Green Motor Oil? ExxonMobil Scientists Deliver
an Unexpected Solution,” in which Exxon promotes its green-colored motor oil, with a heading inbold typeface advertising that it can “contribute to . . . carbon dioxide emission-reduction efforts.”132

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 136 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

d.

Exxon also produced a commercial that aired nationally, including to New

Jersey consumers, promoting its “green” Mobil 1 oil, which touts Mobil 1 as the “technology oftomorrow,” and “so advanced it can help advance engine performance and improve fuel economy,”
all the while showing the flowing green motor oil.
e.

These representations are misleading because they emphasize the fossil fuelproduct’s supposed environmentally beneficial qualities without disclosing the key role fossil fuels
play in causing climate change.
215.
Premium

Shell Nitrogen Enriched Cleaning System and Shell V-Power NITRO+a.

All grades of Shell gasoline sold in New Jersey have the Shell Nitrogen

Enriched Cleaning System, and Shell introduced a line for its premium-grade gasoline called VPower Nitro+ Premium.
b.

Shell advertises on its website that these fuels “produce[] fewer emissions”

and that not using them can lead to “higher emissions.”c.

This representation is misleading because it emphasizes the fuels’

supposedly environmentally beneficial qualities without disclosing the key role fossil fuels play incausing climate change.
216.

BP Invigorate Fuelsa.

All grades of BP gasoline sold in New Jersey have Invigorate, an additivethat BP describes on its website as better than “ordinary fuels” that have problems like “increased
emissions.”b.

BP’s website advertises its fuel selection as “including a growing numberof lower-carbon and carbon-neutral products.”

133

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 137 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

c.

These representations are misleading because they omit any mention of the

products’ role in causing catastrophic climate change. Additionally, they seek to influence
consumer demand for their products by misleading New Jersey consumers to believe BP invests
materially in low-carbon energy products and that BP’s fossil fuel products will help consumers
reduce emissions.
217.

Chevron With Techrona.

All grades of Chevron and/or Texaco gasoline sold in New Jersey since atleast 1995 have contained the additive Techron.
b.

Chevron advertises its Techron fuel with claims that emphasize its supposed

positive environmental qualities, such as: “less is more,” “minimizing emissions,” and “up to 50%
cleaner.”c.

In a Q and A on Chevron’s website, one question says, “I care for theenvironment. Does Techron impact my car’s emissions?” Chevron answers that “[g]asolines with
Techron” clean up carburetors, fuel injectors, and intake valves, “giving you reduced emissions.”d.

These representations are misleading because they emphasize the products’

supposed environmentally beneficial qualities without disclosing the key role fossil fuels play incausing climate change.
H.

Defendants Intended for Consumers to Rely on Their Concealments andOmissions Regarding the Dangers of Their Fossil Fuel Products.

218.

Consumer use of fossil fuel products, particularly by driving gasoline-powered carsand other vehicles, is a significant contributor to climate change. However, as a result of
Defendants’ sustained and widespread campaign of disinformation, many New Jersey consumers

134MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 138 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

have been unaware of the magnitude of the threat posed by their use of fossil fuels, or of therelationship between their purchasing behavior and climate change.
219.

Defendants have been aware for decades that clean energy presents a feasible

alternative to their fossil fuel products. In 1980, Exxon forecasted that non-fossil fuel energy
sources, if pursued, could penetrate half of a competitive energy market in approximately 50
years. 247 This internal estimate was based on extensive modeling within the academic community,
including research conducted by MIT’s David Rose which concluded that a transition to non-fossil
energy could be achieved in around 50 years. Exxon circulated an internal memo approving of
Rose’s conclusions, stating they were “based on reasonable assumptions.” 248 But instead of
pursuing a clean energy transition or warning the public about the dangers of burning fossil fuels,
Defendants chose to deceive consumers to preserve their profits and assets.
220.

By misleading New Jersey consumers about the climate impacts of using fossil fuelproducts, even to the point of claiming that certain of their products may benefit the environment,
and by failing to disclose to consumers the climate risks associated with their purchase and use of
those products, Defendants have deprived and are continuing to deprive consumers of information
about the consequences of their purchasing decisions.
221.

In addition to Defendants misleading New Jersey consumers by affirmatively

misrepresenting the state of their and the scientific community’s knowledge of climate change andby failing to disclose the dangerous effects of using their products, Defendants have sought tomislead consumers, and induce purchases and brand affinity, with greenwashing advertisements

247

H. Shaw and P. P. McCall, Exxon Research and Engineering Company’s Technological
Forecast: CO2 Greenhouse Effect 5 (Dec. 18, 1980).
248
CO2 Greenhouse Effect: A Technical Review, Coordination and Planning Division, Exxon
Research and Engineering Company 18 (Apr. 1, 1982).
135

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 139 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

designed to represent Defendants as environmentally responsible companies developing
innovative green technologies and products. In reality, Defendants’ investment in renewableenergy sources is miniscule, and their business models continue to center on developing,producing, and selling more of the very same fossil fuel products driving climate change.
222.

Defendants intended for New Jersey consumers to rely on their omissions andconcealments and to continue purchasing Defendants’ fossil fuel products without regard for thedamage such products cause.
223.

Knowledge of the risks associated with the routine use of fossil fuel products ismaterial to New Jersey consumers’ decisions to purchase and use those products. As withcigarettes, history demonstrates that when consumers are made aware of the harmful effects or
qualities of the products they purchase, they often choose to stop purchasing them, to reduce theirpurchases, or to make different purchasing decisions. This phenomenon holds especially true when
products have been shown to harm public health or the environment. For example, increased
consumer awareness of the role of pesticides in harming human health, worker health, and theenvironment has spurred a growing market for food grown organically and without the use ofpesticides. With access to information about how their food is grown, consumers have demanded
healthier choices, and the market has responded.
224.

For example, a consumer who received accurate information that fossil fuel use wasa primary driver of climate change and the resultant dangers to the environment and people mightpurchase less fossil fuel products, or decide to buy none at all. Consumers might opt to avoid or
combine car travel trips; carpool; switch to more fuel-efficient vehicles, hybrid vehicles, or electricvehicles; use a car-sharing service; seek transportation alternatives all or some of the time, if
available (e.g., public transportation, biking, or walking); or adopt any combination of these136

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 140 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

choices. In addition, informed consumers contribute toward solving environmental problems by
supporting companies that they perceive to be developing “green” or more environmentallyfriendly products.
225.

By concealing and affirmatively misrepresenting the catastrophic climatic effectsof consuming fossil fuels, Defendants deprived consumers of the facts necessary to make informed
decisions about how and where to purchase energy. Consumers equipped with complete andaccurate knowledge about the public health risks of burning fossil fuels might have formed a
receptive customer base for clean energy alternatives decades before such demand in fact
developed. The delayed emergence of a scalable market for non-fossil fuel energy is attributable
to consumers’ industry-induced ignorance of the reality and severity of the climatic consequences
associated with normal use of fossil fuels. The societal transition to a low-carbon economy would
have been far cheaper and more efficient had Defendants publicly acknowledged the conclusions
reached by their own scientists and the broader scientific community. As a result of this delay,huge quantities of avoidable greenhouse gas emissions have been released into the atmosphere,causing greater total emissions, higher peak emissions, and all associated climatic effects.
I.

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

226.

The fact that Defendants and their proxies knowingly provided incomplete andmisleading information to the public, including New Jersey consumers, only recently became
discoverable due to, among other things:
a. Defendants’ above-described campaign of deception, which continues to this day;b. Defendants’ efforts to discredit climate change science and create the appearance
such science is uncertain;137

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 141 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

c. Defendants’ concealment and misrepresentations regarding the fact that theirproducts cause catastrophic harms; andd. Defendants’ use of front groups such as API, the Global Climate Coalition, and the
National Mining Association to obscure their involvement in these actions, which
put the State off the trail of inquiry.
227.

Moreover, Defendants’ tortious misconduct—in the form of misrepresentations,omissions, and deceit—began decades ago and continues to this day. As described above,
Defendants, directly and/or through membership in other organizations, continue to misrepresent
their own activities, the fact that their products cause climate change, and the danger presented byclimate change. Exemplars of Defendants’ continuing misrepresentations, omissions, and deceit
follow below.
228.

As recently as June 2018, a post on the official Shell blog stated: “the potential

extent of change in the climate itself could now be limited. In other words, the prospect of runaway
climate change might have passed.” 249 However, this statement is not supported by valid scientificresearch, and was and is contradicted by various studies. 250

249

David Hone, Has Climate Change Run Its Course??, Shell Climate Change Blog (June 14,2018), https://blogs.shell.com/2018/06/14/has-climate-change-run-its-course.
250
See, e.g., Fiona Harvey, Carbon Emissions from Warming Soils Could Trigger Disastrous
Feedback Loop, The Guardian (Oct. 5, 2017), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/
oct/05/carbon-emissions-warming-soils-higher-than-estimated-signalling-tipping-points;
Jonathan Watts, Domino-Effect of Climate Events Could Move Earth into a ‘Hothouse’ State,
The Guardian (Aug. 7, 2018), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/aug/06/dominoeffect-of-climate-events-could-push-earth-into-a-hothouse-state; Fiona Harvey, ‘Tipping Points’
Could Exacerbate Climate Crisis, Scientists Fear, The Guardian (Oct. 9, 2018),
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/tipping-points-could-exacerbate-climatecrisis-scientists-fear.

138

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 142 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

229.

In March 2018, Chevron issued a report entitled “Climate Change Resilience: A

Framework for Decision Making,” which misleadingly stated that “[t]he IPCC Fifth Assessment
Report concludes that there is warming of the climate system and that warming is due in part tohuman activity.” 251 In reality, the Fifth Assessment report concluded that “[i]t is extremely likely[defined as 95–100% probability] that human influence has been the dominant cause of theobserved warming since the mid-20th century.” 252
230.

Despite this fact, in April 2017, Chevron CEO and Chairman of the Board John

Watson said on a podcast, “There’s no question there’s been some warming; you can look at thetemperatures data and see that. The question and debate is around how much, and how much is
caused by humans.” 253
231.

Similarly, ConocoPhillips’s “Climate Change Position” as it appeared on thecompany’s website through 2020 stated that human activity is “contributing to” climate change
and emphasizes “uncertainties,” even though the science is clear: “ConocoPhillips recognizes thathuman activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations ofgreenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate. . .
. While uncertainties remain, we continue to manage greenhouse gas emissions in our operations
and to integrate climate change related activities and goals into our business planning.” 254

251

Chevron, Climate Change Resilience: A Framework for Decision Making 20 (Mar. 2018),
https://www.chevron.com/-/media/shared-media/documents/climate-change-resilience.pdf.
252
IPCC, Summary for Policymakers: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment
Report 17 (2013), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf.
253
Columbia Energy Exchange Podcast, John Watson, CEO, Chevron (Apr. 10, 2017),
https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/us-energy-markets-policy.
254
ConocoPhillips, Climate Change Position (Oct. 28, 2020),
https://web.archive.org/web/20201028115814/https://www.conocophillips.com/sustainability/int

139

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 143 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

232.

In 2015, then-Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson argued that climate models were

not strong enough to justify a shift away from fossil fuels, saying: “What if everything we do, itturns out our models are lousy, and we don’t get the effects we predict? Mankind has this enormous
capacity to deal with adversity, and those solutions will present themselves as those challenges
become clear.” 255
J.

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

233.

Defendants’ individual and collective conduct—including, but not limited to: theirfailures to warn of the threats fossil fuel products posed to the world’s climate; their wrongfulpromotion of fossil fuel products and their concealment of known hazards associated with the useof those products; and their public deception campaigns designed to obscure the connection
between their products and climate change and its environmental, physical, social, and economic
consequences—is a direct and proximate cause that brought about or helped bring about climatechange and consequent harms to New Jersey. Such harms include: sea-level rise and attendant
flooding, erosion, damage to riparian lands and submerged lands, and loss of wetlands andbeaches; increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including coastal and inland
storms and associated flooding, drought, extreme heat, extreme precipitation events, wildfires,
habitat loss, species impacts, and others; ocean warming and acidification; and the cascadingsocial, economic, health, and other consequences of these environmental changes. These adverse

egrating-sustainability/sustainable-development-governance/policies-positions/climate-changeposition/.
255
Dallas Morning News, Exxon CEO: Let’s Wait for Science to Improve Before Solving
Problem of Climate Change (May 27, 2015),
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2015/05/28/
exxon-ceo-let-s-wait-for-science-to-improve-before-solving-problem-of-climate-change.

140

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 144 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

impacts will continue to increase in frequency and severity in New Jersey and disproportionately
impact Overburdened Communities. 256
234.

As actual and proximate results of Defendants’ conduct, which was a substantial

factor in bringing about the aforementioned environmental changes, the State has suffered and willcontinue to suffer severe harms and losses, including but not limited to: injury or destruction ofState-owned or -operated facilities and property deemed critical for operations, utility services,and risk management, as well as other assets that are essential to community health, safety, andwell-being; increased planning and preparation costs for community adaptation and resilience toclimate change’s effects; and increased costs associated with public health impacts, environmental
impacts, and economic impacts.
235.

The State already has incurred, and will foreseeably continue to incur, injuries anddamages due to the climate crisis caused by Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct, as
described in this Complaint. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, New Jersey has
experienced, is experiencing, and will experience significant adverse impacts, including, but notlimited to, the following:a.

As a state with a large and economically important coastline, New Jersey isparticularly vulnerable to severe harms from sea-level rise. The rate of sea-level rise in New Jersey
has exceeded the global rate over the last several decades, and New Jersey will experiencesignificant additional and accelerating sea-level rise over the coming decades. 257 By 2050, there is
a 50% chance New Jersey experiences sea-level rise that meets or exceeds 1.4 feet, and a 17%

256

See, e.g., 2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change; New Jersey Human Health
Addendum.
2572020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change at 44.

141

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 145 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

chance that sea-level rise exceeds 2.1 feet, which will be experienced regardless of present andongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 258 By the end of the century, those numbers
rise to 3.3 and 5.1 feet, respectively, under a moderate emissions scenario. 259 More than 352,000
New Jersey residents are at risk of coastal flooding, and many thousands more will face flooding
risk in the coming decades. 260 Eighty percent of New Jersey residents live in the coastal zone,
which is especially vulnerable to flooding from sea-level rise. 261 As the sea level has risen, theoccurrence of high-tide floods also has increased in recent years. In Atlantic City, the frequency oftidal flooding events has increased from an average of one per year in the 1950s to an average ofeight per year from 2007 to 2016. 262 By the year 2100, it is extremely likely (i.e., a greater than
95% chance) that Atlantic City will experience high-tide flooding at least 95 days per year. 263
Saltwater intrusion from sea-level rise is also expected to impair water quality in coastal
groundwater aquifers, as well as surface water supplies, as the salt front moves upstream. 264 Water
quality will also be degraded as rising sea levels submerge sewer discharge points, allowing
contaminants to move into waterways and the surrounding environment. 265 Industrial sites locatedin coastal areas will be at a greater risk of pollutant discharge into the State’s waters. 266

258

Id. at 43.
Ibid.
260
See States at Risk, New Jersey Coastal Flooding, https://statesatrisk.org/new-jersey/coastalflooding (last visited Oct. 17, 2022).
261
State of New Jersey, State of New Jersey Climate Change Resilience Strategy 98 (Oct. 12,2021), https://www.nj.gov/dep/climatechange/docs/nj-climate-resilience-strategy-2021.pdf.
2622020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change at 45.
263
Ibid.
264
Id. at xi.
265
Ibid.
266
Ibid.
259

142

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 146 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

b.

The destructive force and flooding potential from storm surges during

coastal storms and other weather events have increased as the mean sea level of New Jersey has
increased, and the combined effects of storm surge and sea-level rise will continue to exacerbate
flooding impacts on the State. Even if all carbon emissions were to cease immediately, New Jersey
would continue to experience sea-level rise due to the greenhouse gases already emitted and thelag time between emissions and sea-level rise. In fact, sea-level rise projections through 2050 do
not take into account future emissions, meaning that New Jersey’s coastal communities will face
increasing sea-level rise in the coming decades even if emissions decrease. 267
c.

Climate change is expected to significantly alter the frequency and intensityof precipitation events in New Jersey. By 2100, annual precipitation levels in New Jersey are
expected to rise between 6% and 9%, 268 while the amount of precipitation in a 100-year storm
event is projected to increase by up to 50% in northern counties. 269 The state is already witnessing
this effect, as total annual precipitation in New Jersey has been about 3.7 inches above the longterm average for the past 16 years. 270 Over the past 50 years, extreme rainstorms in New Jersey
increased by 55%, more than anywhere else in the United States. 271 This rise in precipitation levels

267

Robert Kopp et al., New Jersey’s Rising Seas and Changing Coastal Storms: Report of the2019 Science and Technical Advisory Panel at 28 (Nov. 2019),
https://climatechange.rutgers.edu/images/STAP_FINAL_FINAL_12-4-19.pdf.
268
T. Wang et al., AdaptWest Project, Gridded Current and Projected Climate Data for North
America at 1km Resolution, Generated Using the ClimateNA V7.01 Software (2022).
269
Art DeGaetano, Projected Changes in Extreme Rainfall in New Jersey Based on an Ensembleof Downscaled Climate Model Projections (Oct. 2021),
https://www.nj.gov/dep/dsr/publications/projected-changes-rainfall-model.pdf.
270
Runkle et al., New Jersey State Climate Summary 2022 at 1–5.
271
D.R. Easterling et al., 2017: Precipitation Change in the United States, in Climate Science
Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I 207–230 (D. J. Wuebbles et aleds., 2017).

143

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 147 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

has subjected and will subject New Jersey residents to more frequent and severe flooding events,
such as the major floods that inundated the State in 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011,2012, and 2016. 272 Additionally, extreme precipitation events will degrade water quality as
increased runoff deposits excess sediment and contaminants into the State’s surface water, thereby
causing eutrophic conditions and increasing the potential for harmful algal blooms. 273
d.

The State has incurred significant costs on projects to address sea-level rise,

including but not limited to: conducting comprehensive surveys of sea-level rise threats to theState, analyzing sea-level rise in certain transportation infrastructure projects, incorporating sealevel rise as a core criterion in storm and flood reduction and coastal resilience projects, funding
local resilience planning efforts for coastal communities, providing floodplain management
assistance to local communities, buying out homes located in flooding zones, rebuilding beaches
and barrier islands along the Atlantic coastline, restoring coastal wetlands and sea grass beds, andincurring past and future cost commitments of approximately 2.5 billion dollars for flood resilienceand shore protection projects.
e.

Climate change is causing more extreme weather events in New Jersey, withattendant physical and environmental consequences, including coastal flooding, coastal erosion,
inland flooding, extreme heat events, and drought. 274 Coastal storms have already caused tens ofbillions of dollars in damages in New Jersey, along with floods, power outages, sewage spills, andother disasters. In October 2012, Superstorm Sandy slammed into New Jersey, causing widespread
inundation and almost thirty billion dollars in damage. In addition to causing thirty-eight deaths,
Sandy’s economic toll on New Jersey included $7.8 billion in property damage and $833 million

2722020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change at 42.
Id. at xi.
274
See generally id.
273

144

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 148 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

in lost wages for its residents, $3.56 billion in lost sales and structural damage for the commercial
sector, and $2.2 billion in damage to public buildings and infrastructure as well as emergency
municipal expenses. 275 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”)
estimates that the storm caused a total of $29.4 billion in damage to New Jersey and destroyed ordamaged approximately 72,000 buildings in the State. 276 The destruction wrought by Superstorm
Sandy was exacerbated by the effects of climate change: sea-level rise over the past century
allowed its storm surge to affect 71,000 additional people overall, adding $8 billion in damages to
Sandy’s toll on the northeast United States. 277 In the coming decades, increased rainfall andwindspeeds during already-destructive coastal storms will cause even more severe damage to
public and private property, infrastructure, and natural resources in New Jersey. Today, less severe
storms than Superstorm Sandy will produce similar flooding impacts. Compared to the conditionsof 1950, flood levels reached by Sandy could reoccur in one- to two-thirds less time. 278 This
century, the time between Sandy-level flooding events is expected to decrease by 3 to 17 times. 279
Just last year, Hurricane Ida caused at least thirty deaths in New Jersey, 280 along with an estimated275

Stephanie Hoopes Halpin, PhD, Rutgers School of Public Affairs and Administration, The
Impact of Superstorm Sandy on New Jersey Towns and Households 8–9 (Oct. 25, 2013),
https://rucore.libraries.rutgers.edu/rutgers-lib/44886/PDF/1/play/.
276
NOAA, Storm Events Database: Tropical Storm Sandy in New Jersey,
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=416939 (last visited Oct. 14, 2022).
277
Ayesha Tandon, Hurricane Sandy Caused an ‘Extra $8bn’ Damage Due to Human-Caused
Sea-Level Rise, CarbonBrief (May 18, 2021), https://www.carbonbrief.org/hurricane-sandycaused-an-extra-8bn-damage-due-to-human-caused-sea-levelrise/#:~:text=More%20than%20%248bn%20of,%2460bn%20of%20economic%20damage.
278
William V. Sweet et al., Hurricane Sandy Inundation Probabilities Today and Tomorrow,
94(9) Bull. Am. Meteorological Soc’y S17–S20 (2013).
279
Ning Lin et al., Hurricane Sandy’s Flood Frequency Increasing from Year 1800 to 2100,
PNAS (Oct. 10, 2016), https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604386113.
280
Tully, He Was Swept Down a Sewer Pipe: ‘I Just Let the Water Take Me.’145

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 149 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068$2.02 billion in damage statewide, 281 including $83.6 million in damage to New Jersey schools
alone. 282

Figure 12: Atlantic City Inundated by Superstorm Sandy Storm Surge 283281

Mike Deak, A Year Since Hurricane Ida: Horror, Heroism, Anxiety Awaiting the Next
Catastrophic Storm, My Central Jersey (Sept. 1, 2022),
https://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/2022/09/01/nj-hurricane-ida-floodsdeaths/65418809007/.
282
Jackie Roman, Ida caused $83.6M in damage to 49 N.J. Schools. They have to Pay Up Front
Before FEMA Aid, NJ.com (Dec. 14, 2021), https://www.nj.com/news/2021/12/ida-caused836m-in-damage-to-49-nj-schools-but-they-have-to-pay-up-front-before-fema-aid.html.
283
N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Coastal Vulnerability Assessment: Atlantic City, NJ 6 (May 2017),
https://www.nj.gov/dep/bcrp/docs/cva/atlantic-city-cva-final-05-2017.pdf.

146

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 150 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Figure 13: House in Mantoloking Knocked Off Foundation by Superstorm Sandy Storm
Surge 284

Figure 14: Hoboken Underwater due to Superstorm Sandy Storm Surge 285284

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (2012).
Photograph taken at the intersection of Adams Street and Newark Street in Hoboken. New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (Oct. 2012).
285

147

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 151 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

f.

The impacts of these extreme weather events are exacerbated where

flooding in residential areas is coincident with environmental contamination from factories,
warehouses, power plants, chemical refineries, and already-polluted sites, including New Jersey’s
114 Superfund sites—the most in the nation.
g.

Oceans are acidifying at an alarming rate because of fossil-fuel burning,endangering New Jersey’s coastal ecosystems and economy. Acidity levels have already increased
by roughly 30% since the Industrial Revolution, and they are expected to rise at a faster rate overtime. 286 This radical change in ocean chemistry has serious and far-reaching consequences. For
example, the accumulation of carbonic acid in coastal waters threatens the survival of organismsthat build shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate—including commercially importantshellfish species for New Jersey (e.g., hard clams, scallops, and oysters). Acidification also risks
destabilizing whole marine ecosystems by altering the behavior, growth, reproduction, andmigration patterns of critical aquatic organisms. New Jersey is particularly vulnerable to the effectsof human-caused ocean acidification, as its identity, industries, and economy are closelyintertwined with its coastal waters. Indeed, southern New Jersey counties rank second in the UnitedStates in economic dependence on shelled mollusks. 287 Fisheries play an important role in New
Jersey’s recreational and commercial opportunities, valued at approximately $2 billion per year. 288
Ocean acidification threatens the survival of these fisheries. 289

286

2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change at x.
Ibid.
288
N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. Bureau of Marine Fisheries, Flipping the Switch on Ecosystem
Management: Studying the Delaware River – 2019 Report (June 9, 2021),
https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/marfhome.htm.
289
State of New Jersey Climate Change Resilience Strategy at 36.
287

148

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 152 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

h.

The average air temperature has increased and will continue to increase in

New Jersey due to climate change. New Jersey has already experienced a nearly 4°F (2.22°C)
increase in average annual temperature (between 1895 and 2021), 290 which is faster than the restof the Northeast region. 291 The rate of warming in New Jersey has also increased since 1970. 292
By 2050, temperatures in New Jersey are expected to increase by between 4.1°F and 5.7°F (2.3°C
to 3.2°C). 293 Warming air temperatures have led and will lead to poorer air quality, more heatwaves, expanded pathogen and pest ranges, disruption to agricultural production, greater need for
irrigation for agricultural production, thermal stress for native flora and fauna, increased forest
fires (especially in the Pinelands), increased electricity demand from increased air conditioning
usage, and threats to human health—such as from heat stroke and dehydration, due to increased
evaporation and demand, and increased allergen exposure. Rising air temperatures will increase
ground-level concentrations of ozone and particulate matter, raising the incidence of serious healthrisks like respiratory distress, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”), andcardiovascular disease among New Jersey residents, particularly among Overburdened
Communities, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations. 294

290James Shope et al., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, State of the Climate: New
Jersey 2021 8 (2022), https://njclimateresourcecenter.rutgers.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2022/04/State-of-the-Climate-Report-NJ-2021-4-18.pdf.
291
2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change at vii.
292
Id. at 32.
293
Ibid.
294
Id. at x; see also N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., New Jersey Human Health Addendum at 12–13,
16, 20.
149

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 153 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Figure 15: Projected New Jersey Temperature Increases 295i.

More than 180,000 New Jerseyans are especially vulnerable to extreme heat

due to their age or economic status. 296 Due to systemic inequities, Overburdened Communities are
particularly vulnerable to extreme heat events. Pregnant women exposed to high temperatures or
air pollution are more likely to have children who are premature, underweight, or stillborn, andAfrican-American mothers and babies are harmed at a much higher rate than the population atlarge. 297 The urban heat island effect, which affects urban areas across New Jersey, exacerbates
the health impacts of extreme heat on Overburdened Communities in those areas. New Jerseyans

295

Jennifer Runkle et al., New Jersey State Climate Summary, NOAA Technical Report
NESDIS 149-NJ (2017), https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/nj/.
296
See States at Risk, New Jersey Extreme Heat, https://statesatrisk.org/new-jersey/extreme-heat(last visited Oct. 17, 2022).
297
Christopher Flavelle, Climate Change Tied to Pregnancy Risks, Affecting Black Mothers
Most, N.Y. Times (June 18, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/climate/climatechange-pregnancy-study.html.

150

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 154 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

who face housing insecurity are also more vulnerable to the extreme temperatures and air pollution
exacerbated by climate change.
j.

New Jersey’s wetlands are already facing, and will continue to face,significant damage due to climate change. Rising sea levels are already inundating freshwater
wetlands, creating “ghost forests”—i.e., stands of dead trees surrounded by transitional marshes. 298
Coastal wetlands are threatened with deterioration and area loss in the face of accelerating rates ofsea-level rise. 299 By the end of the century, New Jersey may lose 92% of brackish marshes, 32%
of tidal swamps, and 6% of tidal fresh marshes in the Delaware Estuary. 300 New Jersey’s wetlands
provide valuable ecosystem services to the State, including by filtering water contaminants,
mitigating storm damage by absorbing floodwaters, and supporting the State’s fishing and hunting
industries. 301 Marshes play a critical role in protecting back bay communities—including
residents, their property, and community infrastructure—from flooding brought about by waves
and storm surges. 302 For instance, one study estimated that coastal marshes spared more than $625
million in damage during Superstorm Sandy. 303

2982020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change at xii.
L. Haaf et al., Sediment Accumulation, Elevation Change, and the Vulnerability of Tidal
Marshes in the Delaware Estuary and Barnegat Bay to Accelerated Sea-Level Rise,
45(2) Estuaries and Coasts 413–27 (2022); J.S. Weis et al., The Status and Future of Tidal
Marshes in New Jersey Faced with Sea-Level Rise, 4(1) Anthropocene Coasts 168–92 (2021).
300
2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change at xii.
301
Amanda O’Lear et al. New Jersey Climate Change Alliance, Wetland Resource
Considerations for a New Jersey Natural and Working Lands Strategy, 4 (Feb. 2022),
https://njadapt.rutgers.edu/images/NJCCA_NWL_Wetlands_Report_FINAL.pdf.
302
State of New Jersey Climate Change Resilience Strategy at 88.
303
Siddharth Narayan et al., Lloyd’s Tercentenary Research Foundation, London Coastal
Wetlands and Flood Damage Reduction: Using Risk Industry-based Models to Assess Natural
Defenses in the Northeastern USA 2 (2016).
299

151

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 155 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

k.

Further, the State’s wetlands act as carbon sinks, removing more carbon

from the atmosphere than they emit and storing it in vegetation and soil. 304 Loss of wetlands
through sea-level rise will result in the release of stored carbon and degraded capacity to store
CO2, thereby increasing New Jersey’s carbon emissions.
l.

New Jersey’s forests, which comprise 40% of the State’s land area, arevulnerable to the consequences of a warming climate. Increased instances of drought will likely
stress the State’s forests, especially moisture tolerant species like maples. 305 Pests and invasive
species are also expected to take advantage of warmer temperatures to spread into new areas. Pine
forests will be particularly vulnerable to infestation by the southern pine beetle, which has thepotential to kill tens of thousands of acres. 306 Indeed, southern pine beetle outbreaks have beenrecorded in New Jersey since 2000, and the pests continue to move steadily northward because ofhigher winter temperatures. 307 In addition, rising temperatures and more frequent droughts could
lead to a longer and more intense wildfire season. The Pinelands area of southern New Jersey isvulnerable to wildfires, as most of the area is classified as a high to extreme fire hazard level. 308
m.

Climate change is stressing important natural and cultural resources in New

Jersey. New Jersey is home to 2,100 native plant species, including several globally rare species(e.g., sea-level fens and Atlantic white cedar); a little over 800 rare or endangered species; andseveral plant species that are found nowhere else in the world (e.g., Hammond’s yellow spring304

Id. at 16.
2020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change at xii.
306
Ibid.
307
Id. at 91.
308
Ibid.
305

152

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 156 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

beauty and bog asphodel). 309 Climate change represents a substantial threat to many of these rareor endangered species. At least 50 rare plant species in New Jersey are considered vulnerable toclimate change due to shrinking wetlands and increased temperatures. 310 Unique habitats like themaritime forests found on New Jersey’s barrier islands and endangered species like the Nantucket
serviceberry are particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise, flooding, and erosion caused by climatechange. 311 Atlantic white cedar, a globally rare species, grows in low-lying coastal areas but iscompletely intolerant of saltwater, making it extremely susceptible to rising seas. 312 Moreover,
29% of New Jersey’s 248 bird species are vulnerable to climate change, including the American
Goldfinch—the state bird of New Jersey. 313 Shorebirds like Common Terns, Red Knots, andSaltmarsh Sparrows are more vulnerable to climate change than other bird species. 314 Saltmarsh
Sparrows, a globally endangered species, may reach quasi-extinction population numbers by 2040
due to habitat loss from sea-level rise. 315 New Jersey is an important area to migratory birds, withharm to New Jersey wetlands and coastal areas disrupting the reproductive success of many
migratory birds. 316n.

By driving up temperatures and precipitation levels, climate change will

have major impacts on agriculture in New Jersey. As winter season temperatures increase, New
Jersey may no longer experience the periods of winter chill needed for certain plant species to309

Id. at 122.
Ibid.
311
Id. at xiv.
312
Ibid.
313
Ibid.
314
Ibid.
315
Ibid.
316
Id. at 124.
310

153

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 157 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

produce fruit. Blueberries and cranberries—both New Jersey specialty crops that form a substantial
portion of the state’s agricultural economy—depend on a long winter chill for optimal floweringand fruit development. 317 Increased ground-level ozone caused by rising temperatures will also
slow the growth of crops and render them more susceptible to disease. 318 Moreover, changes in
the frequency and intensity of precipitation will negatively affect crops by reducing growth,delaying spring planting, washing out planted crops, and increasing root disease through contact
with wet soils. 319 In terms of livestock, higher temperatures will very likely negatively reduce
productivity in summer months, as dairy cows produce less milk when temperatures exceed
75°F. 320 As a result, New Jersey is expected to suffer a $3.3 million loss to its dairy industry per
year by the end of the century. 321
o.

Rising sea levels and changing marine habitat conditions have and willcontinue to affect New Jersey’s fisheries. Because fish are cold-blooded, warming oceans alter the
reproduction, growth, and survival of fish traditionally caught along the mid-Atlantic coast. Many
important commercial and recreational species, such as summer flounder, lobster, and black sea
bass, have shifted northward toward colder waters. 322 In addition, the loss of New Jersey’s coastal
wetlands and estuaries may shrink the population of many commercially important fish species,

317

Id. at 81.
Id. at 82.
319
Ibid.
320
Id. at 83.
321
Ibid.
322
Zoe Kitchel and Douglas Zemeckis, Climate Change Impacts on New Jersey’s Marine
Fisheries, Rutgers Cooperative Extension Bulletin E369 (June 2021),
https://njaes.rutgers.edu/e369/#:~:text=Rising%20sea%20levels%20have%20the,as%20summer%20and%20winter%20flounder.
318

154

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 158 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

which rely on wetlands to host larval fish during early life stages. 323 Many economicallysignificant fish species are classified as highly sensitive to climate change in the mid-Atlantic
region, including Atlantic cod and winter flounder. 324 Sea-level rise and associated flooding will
also place fishing infrastructure at risk, such as docks and marinas, processing and storage
facilities, and transportation routes on the seafood supply chain. 325
p.

Sea-level rise, tidal and inland flooding, storms, wildfires, and other hazards

also threaten to destroy or impair access to both public and private property in New Jersey. 326
Storm surges and flooding threaten to render portions of State property unusable. Private property
loss and displacement resulting from catastrophic climate events increases the potential for mental
illnesses including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and insomnia, and the fragmentingof communities from such events can also have negative mental health impacts. 327 Low-income
New Jerseyans with fewer resources to evacuate face higher risks of experiencing inhospitableliving conditions following such events. 328
q.

The tourism industry in New Jersey will also be significantly affected byrising seas, loss of coastland, and increased flooding. Tourism contributes $30 billion to New
Jersey’s economy each year, 70% of which comes from the state’s coastal counties. 329 As sea

323

Id.
Id.
325
Id.
326
See State of New Jersey Climate Change Resilience Strategy at 77; 2020 New Jersey
Scientific Report on Climate Change at ii, 91–93; New Jersey Human Health Addendum at 16.
327
New Jersey Human Health Addendum at 39–40.
328
Ibid.
329
N.J. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., DEP Combats Threat of Global Warming and Climate Change,
Focus DEP 1 (Fall 2008), https://www.nj.gov/dep/focus/pdfs/0808global_warming.pdf; see alsoState of New Jersey Climate Change Resilience Strategy at 77.
324

155

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 159 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

levels continue to rise, the state’s beaches will continue to erode and its coastal communities will
have to contend with more frequent flooding that puts recreational infrastructure at risk. Loss of
tidal wetlands, which provide more than $2.18 billion per year in ecosystem services, 330 severely
jeopardizes crab, fish, and bird populations, further threatening New Jersey’s recreational andcommercial fishing and ecotourism industries. 331r.

Climate change has caused and will cause significant public health-related

injuries to New Jersey and its residents. 332 Greater numbers of extreme heat events in New Jersey
will result in increased risk of heat-related illnesses (from mild heat stress to fatal heat stroke) andthe exacerbation of pre-existing conditions in the medically fragile, chronically ill, and vulnerable.
In New Jersey, heat-related hospital admissions during the warm season (May to September)increased approximately 156% between 2004 and 2013. 333 Heavy precipitation, sea-level rise, andextreme weather events will lead to more frequent flooding events, which cause death and injury
in addition to secondary health risks such as damage to sanitation infrastructure, aggravation ofchronic diseases, and contamination of drinking water. 334 These risks are particularly acute for
New Jersey because 80% of the state’s population lives in the coastal zone. 335 Further, air quality
will deteriorate due to rising temperatures, as ground-level ozone and particulate matter
concentrations rise. Ozone and particulate matter are associated with a wide range of harmful

330

S. Liu, Valuing New Jersey’s ecosystem services and natural capital: A spatially explicit
benefit transfer approach, 45 Envtl. Mgmt. 1271 (2010) (adjusted for inflation).
331
State of New Jersey Climate Change Resilience Strategy at 88.
332
See generally New Jersey Human Health Addendum.
333
Id. at 4.
334
Id. at 6–8.
335
State of New Jersey Climate Change Resilience Strategy at 98.

156

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 160 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

health effects in humans, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, COPD, and asthma. 336 New
Jersey residents already suffer from excessive ozone levels, with much of northern New Jersey in
non-attainment of 2008 ozone standards due in part to interstate emissions from upwind states. 337
Climate change will exacerbate health risks associated with ozone pollution for many New
Jerseyans. In particular, vulnerable populations such as the disabled, the elderly, those with priorhealth issues, children, people who live alone, people of color, and less-resourced communities are
more likely to suffer health effects from higher air temperatures, flooding, and air pollution. 338 As
pest seasons and ranges expand, vector-borne illnesses will increase in New Jersey’s population.
The State has borne and will continue to bear costs associated with mitigating and responding tothese public health threats.
231.

The State has already incurred damages as a direct and proximate result of

Defendants’ conduct. The State has planned and is planning, at significant expense, adaptation andmitigation strategies to address climate change-related impacts in order to preemptively mitigate
and/or prevent injuries to itself and its citizens. These efforts include, but are not limited to,partnership initiatives to guide and fund local climate resilience plans across New Jersey,
particularly in the coastal zone; 339 allocating funds to the Blue Acres program to buy out homes
built on vulnerable floodplains and restore those floodplain ecosystems; 340 developing a risk
communication campaign to educate New Jersey residents about the dangers of climate change;341

3362020 New Jersey Scientific Report on Climate Change at x.
U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, New Jersey 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas (2008 Standard)(Sept. 30, 2022), https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/map/nj8_2008.pdf.
338
New Jersey Human Health Addendum at 40–41.
339
State of New Jersey Climate Change Resilience Strategy at 18.
340
Id. at 34.
341
Id. at 53.
337

157

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 161 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

and introducing sweeping regulatory reforms, branded as Protecting Against Climate Threats(PACT), to empower state agencies to mitigate and adapt to the consequences of climate change. 342
232.

New Jersey has already spent billions of dollars to mitigate and adapt to climatechange. The State has incurred approximately $2.5 billion in costs to construct 21 existing andplanned coastal and flood protection projects, including the Greenbrook Flood Control Project,
Rebuild by Design Hudson River, and shore protection projects in the Meadowlands. Additionally,
the Department of Community Affairs has allocated over $19 million to local resilience planning
efforts since Superstorm Sandy. The State has also spent a total of $1.2 billion rebuilding thebarrier island beach and dune system to protect its coastal communities from rising seas andextreme weather. 343 Since 2018, almost all $25 million from the State’s yearly Shore Protection
Fund appropriation has been allocated to the State’s cost-share responsibility for coastal resilience
projects administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 344 Through its Blue Acres program,
New Jersey has spent more than $203 million to buy out 802 homes located in flood-prone areas
to increase flood mitigation and protect vulnerable communities. New Jersey’s expenditures on
climate mitigation and adaptation are only beginning and are expected to increase with eachpassing year. In April 2022, the State allocated $21 million to climate change-related projects,
including providing grants to restore wetlands, sea grass beds, and forests in Jersey City. 345

342

Id. at 21–22.
Id. at 95–96.
344
Ibid.
345
Wayne Perry, New Jersey Spending $21M on Projects to Fight Climate Change, The
Associated Press (April 21, 2022), https://apnews.com/article/climate-technology-environmentelectric-vehicles-jersey-city-e0be0db62edd3fdf0304350a009dc0d4.
343

158

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 162 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

233.

Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct was a substantial factor in bringing

these and other climate related injuries suffered by the State, including harms to its infrastructure,environment, socioeconomic condition, and public health—than it has endured, and foreseeably
will endure, due to the climate crisis. The brunt of these injuries and harms will fall on
Overburdened Communities, as climate change exacerbates existing public health andenvironmental disparities. 346
234.

Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct as described herein is therefore an

actual, direct, and proximate substantial-factor cause of the State’s climate crisis-related injuries
and was necessary to those injuries and brought about or helped to bring about those injuries.
V.

CAUSES OF ACTIONFIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(Failure to Warn)(Against All Fossil Fuel Defendants)
235.

Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth

herein in full.
236.

Under New Jersey law, Fossil Fuel Defendants each had a duty to adequately warn

consumers, the public, and the State of the reasonably foreseeable or knowable risks posed by theirfossil fuel products.
237.

Fossil Fuel Defendants produced, marketed, distributed, and/or sold fossil fuelproducts at all relevant times.
238.

At all relevant times, the State purchased fossil fuels for its operations, including

fueling state vehicles.

346

See New Jersey Human Health Addendum at 40–41.
159

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 163 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

239.

Fossil Fuel Defendants knew or should have known—based on information passed

to them from their internal research divisions and affiliates, from trade associations and industry
groups, and from the international scientific community—of the dangers from climate change,
which is inherently caused by the normal use and operation of their fossil fuel products. Climatechange results in harms, including but not limited to: global and local sea-level rise, more frequentand extreme drought, more frequent and extreme precipitation events, increased frequency andseverity of heat waves and extreme temperatures, other adverse environmental changes, and theassociated consequences of those physical and environmental changes in New Jersey andelsewhere, with compounding effects in Overburdened Communities.
240.

Fossil Fuel Defendants also knew or should have known—based on information

passed to them from their internal research divisions and affiliates, from trade associations andindustry groups, and from the international scientific community—that the climate effects
described herein rendered their fossil fuel products dangerous when used as intended or in areasonably foreseeable manner.
241.

Given the grave dangers presented by the climate effects that inevitably flow fromthe normal and foreseeable use of fossil fuel products, a reasonable manufacturer, seller, or otherentity responsible for introducing fossil fuel products into the stream of commerce would havewarned of those known, inevitable climate effects.
242.

At all relevant times, however, Fossil Fuel Defendants breached their duty of careby failing to adequately warn any consumers—including, but not limited to, the State and its
residents—of the harmful climate effects that inevitably flow from the intended and foreseeable
use of their fossil fuel products.

160

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 164 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

243.

In fact, far from warning about the climate impacts of their products, Fossil Fuel

Defendants—individually and in concert—engaged in widespread, sophisticated advertising andmedia campaigns to disseminate false and misleading information about the climate impacts of
their fossil fuel products and to mislead consumers and the public about the existence, causes, andconsequences of climate change. These and other efforts to conceal and misrepresent the climate
risks of fossil fuels prevented reasonable consumers—including, but not limited to, the State andits residents—from fully recognizing the climate dangers posed by fossil fuel products, thereby
undermining and rendering ineffective any warnings that Fossil Fuel Defendants may have also
disseminated.
244.

To this day, Fossil Fuel Defendants fail to adequately warn of the climate impactsof their fossil fuel products, and they continue to spread false and misleading information aboutclimate change, the role of their fossil fuel products and their businesses in driving climate change,
and their investments in low-emission energy resources.
245.

Throughout the time periods at issue, the full extent of the risks posed by the use of

Fossil Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products was not obvious or generally known and recognized,
and users of fossil fuel products did not have actual knowledge of the full extent of the danger,
because (among other reasons) Fossil Fuel Defendants actively sought to conceal those risks bydisseminating false and misleading information about the climate impacts of fossil fuel products,
both inside and outside of New Jersey.
246.

Fossil Fuel Defendants knew or should have known that consumers—including but

not limited to the State and its residents—were not aware of the risks posed by the use of Fossil
Fuel Defendants’ fossil fuel products because, among other reasons, Fossil Fuel Defendants161

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 165 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

actively sought to conceal those risks by disseminating false and misleading information about theclimate impacts of fossil fuel products, both inside and outside of New Jersey.
247.

Fossil Fuel Defendants’ failure to adequately warn of their products’ climate

impacts was a substantial factor in bringing about the State’s injuries alleged herein. If Fossil Fuel
Defendants had provided adequate warnings starting when they knew or should have known of theclimate dangers posed by their fossil fuel products, total fossil fuel consumption would have been
substantially less, resulting in less climate change and less severe climate impacts in New Jersey
and elsewhere. Instead, Fossil Fuel Defendants chose to hyper-inflate fossil fuel consumption by
failing to adequately warn of the climate impacts of fossil fuel products, by intentionallydiscrediting the science of climate change, by disseminating false and misleading information
about the causes and effects of climate change, and by aggressively promoting fossil fuel products
for uses that they knew would cause widespread climate-related harms in New Jersey andelsewhere. Further, Fossil Fuel Defendants’ failure to provide adequate warnings about theclimatic consequences of burning fossil fuels delayed the emergence of viable clean energy
alternatives by preventing consumers, including in New Jersey, from having access to full andaccurate information material to their energy purchasing decisions. This delayed transition to alower-carbon economy caused the emission of huge amounts of avoidable greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere, ensuring that the damage caused by climate change will be substantially more
severe than if Defendants had issued warnings commensurate with their internal knowledge ofclimate risks. As a direct and proximate result of this tortious and deceptive conduct, the State hassustained and will sustain substantial expenses and damages as set forth in this Complaint,
including damage to publicly owned infrastructure and real property, and injuries to publicresources that interfere with the rights of the State and its residents.

162

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 166 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

248.

Fossil Fuel Defendants’ acts and omissions as alleged herein are indivisible causesof the State’s injuries and damage as alleged herein, because, inter alia, it is not possible todetermine the source of any particular individual greenhouse gas molecule in the atmosphereattributable to anthropogenic sources, because such greenhouse gas molecules do not bear markers
that permit tracing them to their source, and because greenhouse gases quickly diffuse andcomingle in the atmosphere.
249.

Plaintiffs seek damages, including compensatory and natural resource damages, inan amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs pursue these remedies in the State’s sovereign,
parens patriae, and proprietary capacity for the benefit of the general public. Plaintiffs also request
an award of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, because Fossil
Fuel Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, exhibited a wanton or willful
disregard for the rights of the State and its residents, and was committed with actual malice.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Negligence)(Against All Defendants)
250.

Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth

herein in full.
251.

Under New Jersey law, each Fossil Fuel Defendant has a duty to exercise

reasonable care in manufacturing, marketing, promoting, distributing, and selling fossil fuelproducts that inevitably cause harm to the State. All Defendants have a duty to exercise reasonablecare in the production and dissemination of information regarding the climate impacts of fossil
fuel products to users of those products and to the public.
252.

For decades, Defendants knew or should have known—based on information

passed to them from their internal research divisions and affiliates, from trade associations andindustry groups, and from the international scientific community—of the foreseeable harms arising
163

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 167 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

from climate change, which is inherently caused by the normal use and operation of fossil fuelproducts. Climate change results in harms, including but not limited to: global and local sea-levelrise, more frequent and extreme drought, more frequent and extreme precipitation events,
increased frequency and severity of heat waves and extreme temperatures, other adverse
environmental changes, and the associated consequences of those physical and environmental
changes in New Jersey and elsewhere, with compounding effects in Overburdened Communities.
253.

For decades, Defendants knew or should have known—based on information

passed to them from their internal research divisions and affiliates, from trade associations andindustry groups, and from the international scientific community—that unrestrained consumptionof fossil fuels would lead to climate catastrophe and cause billions of dollars of physical, economic,
and ecological harm to New Jersey and other coastal localities like it.
254.

Defendants knew or should have known that the widespread dissemination of false

and misleading information about the science of climate change, the climate impacts of fossil fuels,
and the causes and effects of climate change would artificially inflate overall consumption of fossil
fuels, thereby accelerating climate change and exacerbating the local impacts of climate change in
New Jersey and around the world.
255.

Defendants also knew or should have known that the climate change impacts

alleged herein could have been reduced or avoided if leading members of the fossil fuel industry—
such as Defendants—had shared with consumers and the public their own superior knowledge
concerning the climate impacts of fossil fuel products.
256.

Nevertheless, Defendants intentionally engaged in a decades-long campaign toundermine the science of climate change, discredit climate researchers, and conceal the existence,causes, and consequences of climate change from public awareness; knowingly failed to warn

164

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 168 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

consumers, the public, and the State about the climate impacts of fossil fuel consumption; andaggressively promoted fossil fuel consumption to levels that Defendants knew would create aclimate crisis in New Jersey and elsewhere, with disproportionate impacts on Overburdened
Communities, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations.
257.

Through this wrongful conduct, which continues to this day, Defendants

breached—and continue to breach—their duty of care to the State because, inter alia:a.

It was foreseeable—and foreseen by Defendants—that unrestrained fossil

fuel consumption would result in harmful climate impacts in coastal states, like New Jersey;b.

It was foreseeable—and foreseen by Defendants—that the fossil fuelindustry could maintain or increase total fossil fuel consumption by manufacturing doubt about
the existence of climate change, by flooding the marketplace with debunked scientific theories ofclimate change, by concealing the role of fossil fuels in driving the climate crisis, and bydownplaying the risks of climate change to the planet and its communities;c.

As compared to ordinary consumers, the public, and the State, Defendants

had superior knowledge of the harmful risks posed by fossil fuel products at all times relevant tothis Complaint;d.

Defendants had the opportunity and ability to avoid or mitigate those risks

by, inter alia, adequately warning of the climate impacts of fossil fuel consumption and by stopping
their campaigns of climate disinformation;e.

Knowing full well the harms that would inevitably result from theirdeceptive and tortious commercial conduct, Defendants took affirmative steps to protect their own
assets and infrastructure from the ravages of climate change and to exploit new profit opportunities
that would come with a warming world;

165

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 169 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

f.

For multiple decades, Defendants have profited immensely from theirfailure to warn and deception, which has maintained and increased fossil fuel consumption;g.

There is no public interest in allowing Defendants to intentionally andknowingly spread false and misleading information about the dangers of fossil fuels or the
existence, causes, and consequences of climate change;h.

There is no social value in allowing Defendants to use deceptive businesspractices to artificially inflate the market for fossil fuel products;i.

Fairness demands that Defendants should bear the costs of their failure to

warn and of their deceptive promotion, not the State and its taxpayers.
258.

Defendants’ ongoing breach of their duty of care was a substantial factor in bringing

about widespread and significant injuries to the State by inflating fossil fuel consumption, which
in turn increased greenhouse gas pollution, accelerated climate change, and exacerbated deadly
climate change impacts in New Jersey that have damaged land, buildings, infrastructure, natural
resources, communities—in particular, Overburdened Communities—and the economy. Further,
Defendants’ breach of their duty of care delayed the emergence of viable clean energy alternatives
by preventing consumers, including in New Jersey, from having access to full and accurate
information material to their energy purchasing decisions. This delayed transition to a lowercarbon economy caused the emission of huge amounts of avoidable greenhouse gases into theatmosphere, ensuring that the damage caused by climate change will be substantially more severe
than if Defendants’ actions had conformed to their duty of care.
259.

Plaintiffs seek damages, including compensatory and natural resource damages, inan amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs pursue these remedies in the State’s sovereign,
proprietary, and parens patriae capacity for the benefit of the general public. Plaintiffs also request

166

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 170 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

an award of punitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, because
Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, exhibited a wanton or willful
disregard for the rights of the State and its residents, and was committed with actual malice.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(Impairment of the Public Trust)(Against All Defendants)
260.

Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth

herein in full.
261.

Under New Jersey’s centuries-old public trust doctrine, the State has the authority

and the duty to protect natural resources held by the State in the public trust for its people.
262.

As the common law has long recognized and the Legislature has repeatedly

reaffirmed, the State’s public-trust duties broadly extend to all air, land, waterways, bays, beaches,
wetlands, flora, fauna, and other natural resources in New Jersey that are owned, managed,
administered, or otherwise controlled by the State.
263.

This includes, inter alia, all riparian lands and submerged lands within the State of

New Jersey, as well as many dry sand beaches, which must be administered by the State in the
public interest pursuant to the public trust doctrine.
264.

Through their acts and omissions, Defendants have—individually and in concert

with each other—directly and proximately caused severe damage to the State’s natural resources
by, inter alia, intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently failing to warn of the climate
impacts of fossil fuel products; discrediting climate science and climate scientists; inundating
markets with false and misleading information about the existence, causes, and consequences ofclimate change; and aggressively promoting the unrestrained expansion of fossil fuel consumption.
As alleged above, that tortious and deceptive commercial conduct has driven fossil fuelconsumption—and thus greenhouse gas pollution, and thus climate change, and thus sea-level rise,167

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 171 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

flooding, storm surges, deadly weather events, and other climate change impacts in New Jersey,
which disproportionately threaten Overburdened Communities. Further, Defendants’ deceptive
acts and omissions delayed the emergence of viable clean energy alternatives by preventing
consumers, including in New Jersey, from having access to full and accurate information material
to their energy purchasing decisions. This delayed transition to a lower-carbon economy caused
the emission of huge amounts of avoidable greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, ensuring thatthe damage caused by climate change will be substantially more severe than if Defendants had
acted forthrightly, commensurate with their internal assessments of climate risk.
265.

Defendants’ tortious and deceptive conduct—which continues to this day—has

already significantly impaired, and will continue to significantly impair, public trust resources
throughout New Jersey, including but not limited to:a.

Loss of dry coastline, riparian lands, submerged lands, beaches, and coastal

wetlands, along with their associated unique ecological and recreational values, due to sea-level
rise and storm surges;b.

Impairment of coastal groundwater aquifers, surface water supplies, andestuaries due to saltwater intrusion;c.

Reduced availability of drinking water due to increased temperatures andchanging precipitation patterns;d.

Worsenedair

quality,includingthroughincreasedground-level

concentrations of ozone and particulate matter, and the resulting suite of serious healthconsequences for New Jerseyans—particularly populations already facing increased vulnerability
to respiratory illnesses, including certain Overburdened Communities, children, the elderly, andthose located near sources of pollution;

168

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 172 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

e.

Destabilization of marine ecosystems and fisheries due to, among otherthings, ocean acidification and warming waters, with rippling impacts on recreational, tourism,and maritime industries; andf.

Loss of flora, fauna, and endangered species due to increased temperatures,

more frequent forest fires, shrinking wetlands, more severe storms, and the spread of pests andinvasive plant species.
266.

Defendants’ resource-impairing acts and omissions, as alleged herein, areindivisible causes of the alleged injuries and damages to the State’s public trust resources because,inter alia, it is not possible to determine the source of any particular individual molecule ofgreenhouse gas pollution in the atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic sources because suchgreenhouse gas molecules do not bear markers that permit tracing them to their source, and because
greenhouse gases quickly diffuse and comingle in the atmosphere.
267.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and natural resource damages in an amount to be

determined at trial. Plaintiffs pursue these remedies in the State’s sovereign, proprietary, andparens patriae capacity for the benefit of the general public. Plaintiffs also request an award ofpunitive damages, in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact, because Defendants’ wrongfulconduct, as set forth in this Complaint, exhibited a wanton or willful disregard for the rights of theState and its residents, and was committed with actual malice. The State’s lawsuit is exempt fromthe Comparative Negligence Act because the public trust doctrine is an ”environmental law[]”
within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.4.

169

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 173 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Trespass)(Against All Fossil Fuel Defendants)
268.

Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth

herein in full.
269.

New Jersey law prohibits Defendants from intentionally, recklessly, or negligently

causing tangible matter to enter land, real property, and natural resources over which the State has
the right to exclusive possession, without first obtaining the State’s consent.
270.

The State has actual and exclusive possession of land, real property, and natural

resources throughout New Jersey.
271.

Fossil Fuel Defendants—individually and in concert with each other—engaged in

tortious and deceptive conduct that was a substantial factor in causing flood waters, extreme
precipitation, saltwater, debris, and other tangible materials to enter land, real property, and natural
resources over which the State holds the right of exclusive possession. Defendant caused these
trespasses by, inter alia:a.

Affirmatively and knowingly promoting the sale and use of fossil fuelproducts that Fossil Fuel Defendants knew to be hazardous and knew would cause or exacerbate
climate change and related consequences, including, but not limited to, sea-level rise and extreme
precipitation events.
b.

Affirmatively and knowingly concealing the hazards that Fossil Fuel

Defendants knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products by misrepresenting
and casting doubt on the integrity of scientific information related to climate change;c.

Affirmatively promoting fossil fuel products for uses that Fossil Fuel

Defendants knew would be hazardous to consumers, the public, and the State;170

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 174 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

d.

Disseminating and funding the dissemination of information intended tomislead customers, consumers, and civil society regarding the risk of climate change and its
consequences, which follow from the normal, intended use of fossil fuel products;
e.

Intentionally and misleadingly advertising many of their fossil-fuelproducts as clean, green, or climate friendly, while failing to disclose that these very same products
are a driving cause of climate change;f.

Intentionally and misleadingly exaggerating their business’s investments in

low-emission resources, while failing to disclose that those investments actually comprise aminiscule percentage of Fossil-Fuel Defendants’ total business and that Fossil-Fuel Defendants
are actually ramping up their fossil fuel extraction, production, and sales;g.

Delaying the emergence of viable clean energy alternatives by preventing

consumers, including in New Jersey, from having access to full and accurate information material
to their energy purchasing decisions, thereby causing the emission of huge amounts of avoidable
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; andh.

Failing to warn the public about the hazards associated with the use of fossil

fuel products.
272.

At all relevant times, Fossil Fuel Defendants performed this tortious and deceptive

conduct in locations within the control of Fossil Fuel Defendants, including at their corporate
headquarters and offices, and at advertising agencies, consulting firms, and similar agents andemployees of Fossil Fuel Defendants.
273.

At all relevant times, moreover, Fossil Fuel Defendants controlled every step of thefossil fuel product supply chain—from the extraction of raw fossil fuel products, to the refining

171

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 175 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

and marketing of those products, to the placement of those products into the stream of commerce,
to the ultimate sale of those products to end users, including in New Jersey.
274.

Fossil Fuel Defendants’ trespass-causing conduct continues to this day, including

through greenwashing campaigns that falsely and misleadingly portray Fossil Fuel Defendants as
leaders in the fight against climate change.
275.

Fossil Fuel Defendants intentionally, recklessly, and negligently engaged in—andcontinue to engage in—this trespass-causing conduct, knowing with substantial certainty that thisconduct would hyper-inflate fossil-fuel consumption and thereby accelerate climate change,
exacerbate the impacts of climate change in New Jersey, and cause water and other tangible
materials to enter the State’s real property and natural resources—further impacting, among others,
Overburdened Communities, who already face disproportionate harm from the impacts of climatechange.
276.

The State did not give Fossil Fuel Defendants permission to cause floodwaters,

extreme precipitation, saltwater encroachment, and other materials to enter the State’s property
and natural resources. Nor did the State authorize Fossil Fuel Defendants to conceal andmisrepresent the climate impacts of fossil fuel products; to disseminate false and misleading
information about the science, causes, and effects of climate change; to affirmatively promote
fossil fuel products for uses that Fossil Fuel Defendants knew were hazardous to the planet and its
people; or to engage in any of the other trespass-causing conduct alleged herein.
277.

The State has been and will continue to be actually injured as a result of Fossil Fuel

Defendants having caused flood waters, extreme precipitation, saltwater, and other materials toenter its real property by, inter alia, submerging real property owned by the State, causing floodingthat has invaded real property owned by the State and rendered it unusable, and causing storm172

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 176 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

surges and heightened waves that have invaded and threatened to invade real property owned by
the State, and in so doing rendering the State’s property unusable.
278.

The trespasses alleged herein are continuing because, inter alia:a.

Fossil Fuel Defendants have continued their campaign of climate

disinformation into the present, and in doing so, continue to contribute to the ongoing and recurring
trespasses of saltwater, floodwater, precipitation, and other tangible materials onto the State’s
lands;b.

Fossil Fuel Defendants’ past tortious conduct continues to cause trespasses

onto the State’s land because greenhouse gas emissions can remain in the atmosphere forthousands of years;c.

The trespass is reasonably abatable through local climate adaptation

measures that prevent or reduce intrusions of saltwater, floodwater, precipitation, and othertangible materials from entering the State’s lands.
279.

Fossil Fuel Defendants are a direct, proximate, and substantial-factor cause ofunauthorized and unlawful trespasses onto the State’s land, real property, and natural resources, aswell as all harms flowing from those trespasses.
280.

Fossil Fuel Defendants’ trespass-causing acts and omissions, as alleged herein, areindivisible causes of the alleged injuries and damages to the State’s property because, inter alia, it
is not possible to determine the source of any particular individual molecule of greenhouse gas
pollution in the atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic sources because such greenhouse gas
molecules do not bear markers that permit tracing them to their source, and because greenhousegases quickly diffuse and comingle in the atmosphere.

173

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 177 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

281.

Plaintiffs seek an order that provides for abatement of the trespasses created by

Fossil Fuel Defendants, and that awards the State damages—including compensatory and natural
resource damages—in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs pursue these remedies in theState’s sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae capacity for the benefit of the general public.
Plaintiffs also request an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier offact because Fossil Fuel Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, exhibited awanton or willful disregard for the rights of the State and its residents, and was committed withactual malice.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Public Nuisance)(Against All Fossil Fuel Defendants)
282.

The State realleges each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth

herein in full.
283.

New Jersey law prohibits Fossil Fuel Defendants from participating in the creationof a public nuisance, which is defined as an unreasonable interference with public rights.
284.

Through their acts and omissions, Fossil Fuel Defendants have—individually andin concert with each other—created, caused, contributed to, and assisted in creating hazardous
climate-related conditions throughout New Jersey, including sea-level rise, coastal flooding,coastal erosion, inland flooding, extreme heat events, drought, and coastal storms (among others),
with compounding effects in Overburdened Communities. Fossil Fuel Defendants created, caused,
contributed to, and assisted in the creation of these and other climate-related hazards in New Jersey
by, inter alia:a.

Affirmatively and knowingly promoting the sale and use of fossil fuelproducts that Fossil Fuel Defendants knew to be hazardous and knew would cause or exacerbate174

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 178 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

climate change and related consequences, including, but not limited to, sea-level rise, drought,
extreme precipitation events, and extreme heat events;b.

Affirmatively and knowingly concealing the hazards that Fossil Fuel

Defendants knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products by misrepresenting
and casting doubt on the integrity of scientific information related to climate change;c.

Affirmatively promoting fossil fuel products for uses that Fossil Fuel

Defendants knew would be hazardous to consumers, the public, and the State;d.

Disseminating and funding the dissemination of information intended tomislead customers, consumers, and civil society regarding the known and foreseeable risk ofclimate change and its consequences, which follow from the normal, intended use of fossil fuelproducts;e.

Intentionally and misleadingly advertising many of their fossil-fuelproducts as clean, green, or climate friendly, while failing to disclose that these very same products
are a driving cause of climate change;f.

Intentionally and misleadingly exaggerating their business’s investments in

low-emission resources, while failing to disclose that those investments actually comprise aminiscule percentage of Fossil-Fuel Defendants’ total business and that Fossil-Fuel Defendants
are actually ramping up their fossil fuel extraction, production, and sales;g.

Delaying the emergence of viable clean energy alternatives by preventing

consumers, including in New Jersey, from having access to full and accurate information material
to their energy purchasing decisions, thereby causing the emission of huge amounts of avoidable
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; and175

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 179 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

h.

Failing to warn the public about the hazards associated with the use of fossil

fuel products.
285.

At all relevant times, Fossil Fuel Defendants performed this tortious and deceptive

conduct in locations within the control of Fossil Fuel Defendants, including at their corporate
headquarters and offices, and at advertising agencies, consulting firms, and similar agents andemployees of Fossil Fuel Defendants.
286.

At all relevant times, moreover, Fossil Fuel Defendants controlled every step of thefossil fuel product supply chain—from the extraction of raw fossil fuel products, to the refining
and marketing of those products, to the placement of those products into the stream of commerce,
to the ultimate sale of those products to end users, including in New Jersey.
287.

Defendants’ nuisance-creating conduct continues to this day, including throughgreenwashing campaigns that falsely and misleadingly portray Fossil Fuel Defendants as leadersin the fight against climate change.
288.

The hazardous conditions in New Jersey that were caused, contributed to, andcreated by Defendants have substantially and unreasonably interfered with rights general to the
public, including the public health, the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort, and the
public convenience. These interferences with public rights include, inter alia:a.

The destruction of billions of dollars of State- and privately-owned property

due to coastal erosion, sea-level rise, and flooding precipitated or exacerbated by anthropogenic
climate change;b.

The impairment of the State’s natural resources due to more frequent andextreme drought, more frequent and extreme precipitation events, increased frequency and severityof heat waves and extreme temperatures, and the associated consequences of those physical and176

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 180 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

environmental changes as described above, which disproportionately jeopardize New Jersey’s
Overburdened Communities;c.

The loss suffered by the State and its residents due to loss of access to anduse of natural, cultural, historic, and economic resources; damage to public health, safety, andgeneral welfare; and diversion of tax dollars away from other public services to the mitigation of
and/or adaptation to climate change effects; andd.

The loss of tax revenue due to depressed property values and the slowdownof economic activity due to anthropogenic climate change.
289.

The hazardous conditions in New Jersey that were caused, contributed to, andcreated by Fossil Fuel Defendants continue and will continue to substantially and unreasonablyinterfere with public rights held by the people of New Jersey.
290.

At all relevant times, Fossil Fuel Defendants intentionally, recklessly, andnegligently engaged in the alleged nuisance-creating conduct, knowing full well that their conduct
would exacerbate climate change and contribute substantially to the creation of climate-related
hazards and impacts in New Jersey and elsewhere.
291.

The harms caused by Fuel Fossil Defendants’ nuisance-creating conduct are

extremely grave and far outweigh the social utility of that conduct because, inter alia:a.

Interference with the public’s rights due to sea-level rise, more frequent andextreme drought, more frequent and extreme precipitation events, increased frequency and severityof heat waves and extreme temperatures, and the associated consequences of those physical andenvironmental changes as described above, is expected to become so regular and severe that it willcause material deprivation of and interference with the use and enjoyment of public and private
property in the State;

177

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 181 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

b.

The harm suffered by the State and its people is not mere annoyance, butrather the destruction of land, property, and infrastructure; the loss of public cultural, historic, andeconomic resources; the damage to the public health, safety, and general welfare; and the loss ofnatural resources;c.

The State’s residents will ultimately bear the costs of Fossil Fuel

Defendants’ nuisance-creating conduct, including the costs associated with the loss of use of public
and private property and infrastructure as well as the costs of recovery and rebuilding from storms,
flooding, and other climate impacts; loss of cultural, historic, and economic resources along withresource restoration costs; damage to the public health, safety, and general welfare; costs ofimplementing climate adaptation and resilience measures, including relocating residents fromflood-prone areas; and diversion of tax dollars away from other public services to the mitigationof and/or adaptation to climate change impacts;d.

New Jersey’s land and property—which serves myriad uses including

residential, infrastructural, commercial, and ecological—is not suited to regular inundation,
flooding, landslides, or other physical or environmental consequences of anthropogenic climatechange;e.

There is no social utility to misleading consumers and the public about thescience, causes, and impacts of climate change; to concealing and misrepresenting the climatechange impacts of fossil fuels; or to greenwashing Fossil Fuel Defendants’ businesses,
investments, or products;
f.

Fossil Fuel Defendants intentionally disseminated false and misleading

information with the goal of artificially inflating fossil fuel consumption, knowing that thisconduct would exacerbate climate change, including climate change impacts in New Jersey;

178

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 182 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

g.

It was practical for Fossil Fuel Defendants to avoid, prevent, or reduceclimate change impacts in New Jersey, including by, inter alia, adequately warning of the climate
impacts of fossil fuel products and refraining from disseminating false and misleading information
about the science, causes, and consequences of climate change;h.

Because of their superior knowledge of fossil fuel products, Fossil Fuel

Defendants were in the best position to prevent or mitigate the alleged nuisance, but they failed to
do so and instead affirmatively worked to conceal the climate change impacts of fossil fuels fromthe public consciousness.
292.

Fossil Fuel Defendants are therefore a direct, proximate, and substantial-factor

cause of an unreasonable and substantial interference with common rights held by the residents of
New Jersey, as well as all harms flowing from that public nuisance.
293.

Fossil Fuel Defendants’ nuisance-creating acts and omissions, as alleged herein,

are indivisible causes of the State’s alleged injuries and damages because, inter alia, it is notpossible to determine the source of any particular individual molecule of greenhouse gas pollution
in the atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic sources because such greenhouse gas molecules
do not bear markers that permit tracing them to their source, and because greenhouse gases quickly
diffuse and comingle in the atmosphere.
294.

The public nuisances alleged herein are continuing because, inter alia:a.

Fossil Fuel Defendants have continued their campaign of climate

disinformation into the present, and in doing so, continue to exacerbate severe climate impacts that
unreasonably interfere public rights and resources in New Jersey;

179

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 183 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

b.

Fossil Fuel Defendants’ past tortious conduct continues to cause severe

climate impacts in New Jersey because greenhouse gas emissions can remain in the atmosphere
for thousands of years.
c.

The public nuisance created by Fossil Fuel Defendants’ tortious anddeceptive conduct is reasonably abatable through local climate adaptation measures to, inter alia,
fortify public infrastructure against flooding and storm surges, restore coastal wetlands andbeaches, relocate structures and communities threatened by sea-level rise, and construct new
drainage and stormwater treatment infrastructure.
295.

Plaintiffs seek an order that provides for abatement of the public nuisance createdby Fossil Fuel Defendants, and that awards the State damages—including compensatory andnatural resource damages—in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs pursue these remedies
in the State’s sovereign and parens patriae capacity for the benefit of the general public. Plaintiffs
also request an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact
because Fossil Fuel Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as set forth in this Complaint, exhibited awanton or willful disregard for the rights of the State and its residents, and was committed withactual malice.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Private Nuisance)(Against All Fossil Fuel Defendants)
296.

Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth

herein in full.
297.

New Jersey law prohibits Fossil Fuel Defendants from participating in the creationof a private nuisance, which is defined as an invasion of another’s interest in the private use andenjoyment of land.

180

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 184 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

298.

The State owns, occupies, and manages extensive real property throughout New

Jersey—property that has been and will continue to be injured by rising sea levels, higher storm
surges, more frequent and extreme drought, more frequent and extreme precipitation events,
increased frequency and severity of heat waves and extreme temperatures, and the associatedconsequences of those physical and environmental changes.
299.

Through their acts and omissions, Fossil Fuel Defendants have—individually andin concert with each other—created, caused, contributed to, and assisted in creating hazardous
climate-related conditions throughout New Jersey, including sea-level rise, coastal flooding,coastal erosion, inland flooding, extreme heat events, drought, and coastal storms (among others),
with compounding effects in Overburdened Communities. Fossil Fuel Defendants specificallycreated, caused, contributed to, and assisted in the creation of these and other climate-related
hazards in New Jersey by, inter alia:a.

Affirmatively and knowingly promoting the sale and use of fossil fuelproducts that Fossil Fuel Defendants knew to be hazardous and knew would cause or exacerbate
climate change and related consequences, including, but not limited to, sea-level rise, drought,
extreme precipitation events, and extreme heat events;b.

Affirmatively and knowingly concealing the hazards that Fossil Fuel

Defendants knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products by misrepresenting
and casting doubt on the integrity of scientific information related to climate change;c.

Affirmatively promoting fossil fuel products for uses that Fossil Fuel

Defendants knew would be hazardous to consumers, the public, and the State;d.

Disseminating and funding the dissemination of information intended tomislead customers, consumers, and civil society regarding the known and foreseeable risk of181

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 185 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

climate change and its consequences, which follow from the normal, intended use of fossil fuelproducts;e.

Intentionally and misleadingly advertising many of their fossil-fuelproducts as clean, green, or climate friendly, while failing to disclose that these very same products
are a driving cause of climate change;f.

Intentionally and misleadingly exaggerating their business’s investments in

low-emission resources, while failing to disclose that those investments actually comprise aminiscule percentage of Fossil-Fuel Defendants’ total business and that Fossil-Fuel Defendants
are actually ramping up their fossil fuel extraction, production, and sales;g.

Delaying the emergence of viable clean energy alternatives by preventing

consumers, including in New Jersey, from having access to full and accurate information material
to their energy purchasing decisions, thereby causing the emission of huge amounts of avoidable
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; andh.

Failing to warn the public about the hazards associated with the use of fossil

fuel products.
300.

At all relevant times, Fossil Fuel Defendants performed this tortious and deceptive

conduct in locations within the control of Fossil Fuel Defendants, including at their corporate
headquarters and offices, and at advertising agencies, consulting firms, and through similar agentsand employees of Fossil Fuel Defendants.
301.

At all relevant times, moreover, Fossil Fuel Defendants controlled every step of thefossil fuel product supply chain—from the extraction of raw fossil fuel products, to the refining
and marketing of those products, to the placement of those products into the stream of commerce,
to the ultimate sale of those products to end users, including in New Jersey.

182

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 186 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

302.

Defendants’ nuisance-creating conduct continues to this day, including throughgreenwashing campaigns that falsely and misleadingly portray Fossil-Fuel Defendants as leadersin the fight against climate change.
303.

The hazardous conditions in New Jersey that were caused, contributed to, andcreated by Defendants have substantially and unreasonably interfered with the State’s use of its
property for the public benefit and welfare, including by destroying or damaging millions of dollarsof State-owned land, buildings, and public infrastructure due to coastal erosion, sea-level rise, andflooding precipitated or exacerbated by Fossil Fuel Defendants’ tortious conduct.
304.

To this day, the hazardous conditions in New Jersey that were caused, contributed

to, and created by Fossil Fuel Defendants continue—and will continue—to substantially andunreasonably interfere with the State’s use of its property for the public benefit and welfare.
305.

At all relevant times, Fossil Fuel Defendants intentionally, recklessly, andnegligently engaged in the alleged nuisance-creating conduct, knowing full well that their conduct
would exacerbate climate change and contribute substantially to the creation of climate-related
hazards and impacts in New Jersey and elsewhere.
306.

The harms caused by Fuel Fossil Defendants’ nuisance-creating conduct are

extremely grave and far outweigh the social utility of that conduct because, inter alia:a.

Interference with the State’s use of its land due to sea-level rise, more

frequent and extreme drought, more frequent and extreme precipitation events, increased
frequency and severity of heat waves and extreme temperatures, and the associated consequencesof those physical and environmental changes, as described above, is expected to become so regularand severe that it will cause material deprivation of and interference with the use and enjoymentof public and private property in the State;183

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 187 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

b.

The harm suffered by the State is not mere annoyance, but rather thedestruction of land, property, and infrastructure; the loss of public cultural, historic, and economic
resources; the damage to the public health, safety, and general welfare, including disproportionate
impacts on Overburdened Communities; and the loss of natural resources;c.

The State’s residents will ultimately bear the costs of Fossil Fuel

Defendants’ nuisance-creating conduct, including the costs associated with the loss of public
property, infrastructure, and natural resources in the State; the loss of cultural, historic, andeconomic resources; the damage to the public health, safety, and general welfare; and the diversionof tax dollars away from other public services to the mitigation of and/or adaptation to climatechange impacts;d.

The State’s land and property—which serves myriad uses including

residential, infrastructural, commercial, and ecological—is not suitable for regular inundation,
flooding, landslides, and/or other physical or environmental consequences of anthropogenic
climate change;e.

There is no social utility to misleading consumers and the public about thescience, causes, and impacts of climate change; to concealing and misrepresenting the climatechange impacts of fossil fuels; or to greenwashing Fossil Fuel Defendants’ businesses,
investments, or products;
f.

Fossil Fuel Defendants intentionally disseminated false and misleading

information with the goal of artificially inflating fossil fuel consumption and the knowledge that
this conduct would exacerbate climate change, including climate change impacts in New Jersey;g.

It was practical for Fossil Fuel Defendants to avoid, prevent, and reduceclimate change impacts in New Jersey, including, inter alia, by adequately warning of the climate

184

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 188 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

impacts of fossil fuel products and by refraining from disseminating false and misleading
information about the science, causes, and consequences of climate change;h.

Because of their superior knowledge of fossil fuel products, Fossil Fuel

Defendants were in the best position to prevent or mitigate the alleged nuisance, but they failed to
do so and instead affirmatively worked to conceal the climate change impacts of fossil fuels fromthe public consciousness.
307.

Fossil Fuel Defendants are therefore a direct, proximate, and substantial-factor

cause of an unreasonable and substantial interference with the State’s use of its land, as well as all
harms flowing from that private nuisance.
308.

Fossil Fuel Defendants’ nuisance-creating acts and omissions, as alleged herein,

are indivisible causes of the State’s alleged injuries and damages because, inter alia, it is notpossible to determine the source of any particular individual molecule of greenhouse gas pollution
in the atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic sources because such greenhouse gas molecules
do not bear markers that permit tracing them to their source, and because greenhouse gases quickly
diffuse and comingle in the atmosphere.
309.

The private nuisance alleged herein is continuing because, inter alia:a.

Defendants have continued their campaign of climate disinformation into

the present, and in doing so, continue to contribute to the ongoing and recurring sea-level rise,
erosion, flooding, and extreme weather events that are harming and impairing the use of the State’sland, property, and infrastructure, with compounding effects in Overburdened Communities.
b.

Greenhouse gas emissions can remain in the atmosphere for thousands ofyears, meaning that Fossil Fuel Defendants’ past tortious conduct continues to contribute to185

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 189 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

hazardous environmental conditions in New Jersey that substantially and unreasonably interferewith the State’s use of its land, property, and infrastructure.
c.

The private nuisance is reasonably abatable through local climate

adaptation measures that mitigate the risk of flooding, erosion, and other climate-related hazards
to the State’s land.
310.

The State did not give Fossil Fuel Defendants permission to destroy, damage,unreasonably interfere with the use of, or create hazardous environmental conditions on the State’s
real property. Nor did the State authorize Fossil Fuel Defendants to conceal and misrepresent theclimate impacts of fossil fuel products; to disseminate false and misleading information about thescience, causes, and effects of climate change; to affirmatively promote fossil fuel products foruses that Fossil Fuel Defendants knew were hazardous to the planet and its people; or to engage inany of the other nuisance-causing conduct alleged herein.
311.

Plaintiffs seek an order that provides for abatement of the private nuisance createdby Fossil Fuel Defendants, and that awards the State damages—including compensatory andnatural resource damages—in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiffs pursue these remedies
in the State’s sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae capacity for the benefit of the generalpublic. Plaintiffs also request an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined by thetrier of fact because Fossil Fuel Defendants’ wrongful conduct, as set forth in this Complaint,
exhibited a wanton or willful disregard for the rights of the State and its residents, and wascommitted with actual malice.

186

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 190 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -227)(Unconscionable Commercial Practices and Deception)(Against All Defendants)
312.

Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth

herein in full.
313.

The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) prohibits the “act, use or

employment by any person of any commercial practice that is unconscionable or abusive,
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment,
suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment,
suppression, or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise.”
N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.
314.

The CFA defines “merchandise” as including “any objects, wares, goods,

commodities, services or anything offered, directly or indirectly to the public for sale.” N.J.S.A.
56:8-1(c). Fossil fuel products are “merchandise” within the meaning of the CFA.
315.

The CFA defines “person” as “any natural person or his legal representative,

partnership, corporation, company, trust, business entity or association, and any agent, employee,salesman, partner, officer, director, member, stockholder, associate, trustee or cestuis que trustent
thereof.” N.J.S.A. 56:8-1(d). All Defendants are “persons” within the meaning of the CFA.
316.

The CFA defines “sale” as including “any sale, rental or distribution, offer for sale,rental or distribution or attempt directly or indirectly to sell, rent or distribute.” N.J.S.A. 56:8-1(e).
Fossil Fuel Defendants have sold, distributed, offered for sale, and attempted to directly or
indirectly sell and distribute fossil fuel products in New Jersey.
317.

The CFA defines “advertisement” as including “the attempt directly or indirectly

by publication, dissemination, solicitation, indorsement or circulation or in any other way to induce
187

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 191 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

directly or indirectly any person to enter or not enter into any obligation or acquire any title orinterest in any merchandise or to increase the consumption thereof or to make any loan.” N.J.S.A.
56:8-1(a). All Defendants have advertised fossil fuel products in New Jersey, including by
attempting directly or indirectly to induce the purchase and increase the consumption of fossil fuelsin New Jersey through the publication, dissemination, solicitation, endorsement, and/or circulationof promotional materials.
318.

The CFA makes it unlawful for a business to engage in any unconscionable

commercial practice in connection with the sale or advertisement of fossil fuel products. N.J.S.A.
56:8-2.
319.

More than half a century ago, Defendants knew of the climate impacts of fossil fuelproducts and knew that unrestrained fossil fuel consumption would lead to catastrophic climatechange, resulting in sea-level rise, changing precipitation patterns, more frequent heat waves, more
extreme weather events, more severe flooding, and a host of other climate impacts that would
wreak havoc on the State and others like it, with compounding effects on Overburdened
Communities. Despite this sophisticated knowledge of the existence, causes, and effects of climatechange, Defendants chose to engage in unconscionable and deceptive commercial practices
intended to preserve their profits and hyper-inflate the market for fossil fuel energy.
320.

Defendants violated N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 by engaging in the following unconscionable

commercial practices and acts of deception:a.

Conceiving, organizing, and implementing a decades-long public relations

campaign to misrepresent the weight of climate science and to discredit scientists seeking to warn
the public about the hazardous climatic effects of consuming fossil fuel products;

188MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 192 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

b.

Taking affirmative steps to protect their fossil fuel infrastructure and assets

from threats posed by climate change, while denying publicly the scientific basis for implementing
climate mitigation or adaptation measures;c.

Funding front groups, fake grassroots organizations, think tanks, andindustry-aligned scientists to obscure the climate science consensus—i.e., that climate change isreal, severe, and caused primarily by burning fossil fuels—from consumers and the public.
d.

Portraying Fossil Fuel Defendants as substantially invested in non-fossil

fuel energy sources while failing to disclose that those investments represent a negligible
percentage of Fossil Fuel Defendants’ investment portfolios and that Fossil Fuel Defendants are
ramping up fossil fuel production and sale; ande.

Touting certain fossil fuel products as climate-friendly while failing todisclose that those same products are primary drivers of climate change.
321.

These acts or practices are unconscionable and unfair in that they violate notions ofgood faith, honesty in fact, and observance of fair dealing; they have the capacity to mislead, andhave misled, reasonable consumers and members of the public; and they offend public policy
reflected in the CFA, which protects consumers and competitors from deceptive marketing toensure an honest marketplace.
322.

These acts or practices are unconscionable because they unethically deprive

consumers of material facts they need to make informed decisions about where, how, and how
much fossil fuel products to purchase. Consumers who are accurately apprised of the hazards
associated with consuming a product frequently change their purchasing habits to buy alternative
products that do not pose the same risks or choose to buy less of a risky product.

189

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 193 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

323.

Each unconscionable commercial practice and act of deception by Defendants

constitutes a separate violation of the CFA, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.
324.

Plaintiffs request an order that (i) permanently enjoins Defendants from engaging

in the unlawful practices described in this Complaint, (ii) assesses maximum statutory civil
penalties for each violation of the CFA, (iii) awards the costs of the suit, including attorneys’ fees,and (iv) directs disgorgement of profits unlawfully acquired or retained, as authorized by N.J.S.A.
56:8-8.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A 56:8-1 to -227)(Misrepresentations and Omissions of Material Facts)(Against All Defendants)
325.

Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained above, as though set forth

herein in full.
326.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants violated N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 bymaking numerous misrepresentations. Defendants’ violations include but are not limited to thefollowing:a.

Misrepresenting the climate science consensus—i.e., that climate change isreal, severe, and primarily caused by burning fossil fuels—to consumers and the public, including
through advertisements; paid editorials; op-eds; publicly-distributed books, reports, andpamphlets; and press releases;b.

Attempting to discredit scientists warning of the climatic consequences ofburning fossil fuels via false or misleading claims of bias;c.

Misrepresenting the causal connection between fossil fuel consumption andclimate change, in direct contradiction of Defendants’ own internal knowledge;

190

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 194 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

d.

Falsely or misleadingly downplaying the likelihood and magnitude ofclimate change impacts;e.

Failing to correct prior misrepresentations and omissions about the climatic

risks of burning fossil fuels;f.

Misrepresenting the environmental and climate benefits of certain fossil

fuel products, including fuel additives; andg.

Misleadingly portraying Fossil Fuel Defendants as substantially invested in

non-fossil fuel energy sources.
327.

Defendants’ misrepresentations regarding the state of climate science and theeffects of climate change were not supported by or were contrary to substantial scientific evidence,as evidenced by the contradiction between Defendants’ public statements and the internal
conclusions reached by Defendants’ own scientists, as well as the inconsistency between
Defendants’ representations and the IPCC’s successive assessment reports describing the climate
science consensus.
328.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants violated N.J.S.A. 56:8-2 byknowingly concealing, suppressing, or omitting material facts with the intent that consumers andothers rely upon those concealments, suppressions, or omissions. Defendants’ violations include
but are not limited to the following:a.

Omitting or concealing material facts known to Defendants since the 1960s

about the climatic hazards of consuming their fossil fuel products;b.

Omitting or concealing Defendants’ own internal research predicting theharmful effects of unrestrained fossil fuel consumption on the climate, the environment, andcommunities around the world, including in New Jersey;

191

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 195 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

c.

Omitting or concealing the central role Defendants played in funding,organizing, and executing climate denialist campaigns;d.

Omitting or concealing information regarding the negligible percentage ofFossil Fuel Defendants’ expenditures spent on clean energy, while portraying Fossil Fuel
Defendants as substantially invested in non-fossil fuel energy sources;e.

Omitting or concealing information regarding Fossil Fuel Defendants’intent to ramp up fossil fuel production in the coming decades, while portraying Fossil Fuel
Defendants as leaders on climate mitigation action; andf.

Omitting or concealing the climatic hazards of fuel treated with additives,

while portraying additive-enhanced fossil fuels as beneficial to the climate and the environment.
329.

Defendants’ material omissions, which were and are false and misleading, rendereven seemingly truthful statements about climate change or Defendants’ products false andmisleading because they are incomplete. At the time they made or disseminated false or misleadingstatements, or caused false or misleading statements to be made or disseminated, Defendants
knowingly failed to include material facts about the risks of fossil fuel consumption—particularly
with respect to unrestrained, long-term use—and Defendants intended that recipients of its
sophisticated public relations campaign would rely on those misrepresentations and omissions
when making energy purchasing decisions.
330.

To this day, Defendants continue to make—or cause to be made—false andmisleading statements and omissions about the climate impacts of fossil fuel products andbusinesses in advertisements and promotional materials that are directed at or disseminated toconsumers in New Jersey.

192

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 196 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

332.

Defendants’ affirmative misrepresentations and material omissions had thecapacity to mislead New Jersey consumers about material facts concerning fossil fuel products,
including those products’ hazardous impacts on the property, health, safety, economic wellbeing,and shared natural resources of New Jerseyans. Each misrepresentation and knowing omission by
Defendants constitutes a separate violation of the CFA, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.
333.

Plaintiffs request an order that (i) permanently enjoins Defendants from engaging

in the unlawful practices described in this Complaint, (ii) assesses maximum statutory civil
penalties for each violation of the CFA, (iii) awards the costs of the suit, including attorneys’ fees,and (iv) directs disgorgement of profits unlawfully acquired or retained, as authorized by N.J.S.A.
56:8-8.
VI.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment against Defendants:
1.

Awarding compensatory damages, jointly and severally, in an amount according to

2.

Awarding natural resource damages, jointly and severally, in an amount according

proof;

to proof;
3.

Awarding punitive damages in an amount according to proof;

4.

Awarding costs and fees in this action, including attorneys’ fees, together withprejudgment interest, to the full extent permitted by law, including as authorized by the CFA,
N.J.S.A. 56:8-11, -19;5.

Compelling Defendants to abate the ongoing nuisance their deceptive and tortious

conduct has created in New Jersey, and to pay the costs of such abatement, including, inter alia,
costs of fortifying public infrastructure from storm damage, natural resource restoration, funding193

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 197 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

local climate resilience measures, and rebuilding natural barriers to protect communities from sealevel rise and climate-influenced storms;
6.

Compelling Defendants to abate the ongoing trespass their deceptive and tortious

conduct has caused to the State’s lands and property, and to pay the costs of such abatement;
7.

Finding that the acts and practices of Defendants, as described in the Complaint,

constitute multiple instances of unlawful practices in violation of the CFA, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to 227;
8.

Permanently enjoining Defendants from engaging in the unlawful practices that aredescribed in the Complaint and that violate the CFA, as authorized by the CFA, N.J.S.A. 56:8-8;
9.

Directing Defendants to pay the maximum statutory civil penalties for eachviolation of the CFA, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 56:8-13;
10.

Directing Defendants to disgorge all profits unlawfully acquired or retained, as

authorized by the CFA, N.J.S.A. 56:8-8;
11.
VII.

Awarding such other relief as this Court deems proper.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs respectfully request that all issues presented by the above Complaint be tried bya jury, with the exception of those issues that, by law, must be tried before the Court.

194

MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 198 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

Dated: October 18, 2022

MATTHEW J. PLATKINATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Attorney for Plaintiffs

By: ______________________________
Andrew Reese (024662000)
Monisha A. Kumar (900212012)
Daniel P. Resler (324172020)
Monica E. Finke (332512020)
Deputy Attorneys General
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market St., P.O. Box 093
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0093
Tel: (609) 376-2789
Email: Andrew.Reese@law.njoag.gov
Monisha.Kumar@law.njoag.gov
Daniel.Resler@law.njoag.gov
Monica.Finke@law.njoag.gov
SHER EDLING LLPSpecial Counsel to the Attorney General
Victor M. Sher (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Matthew K. Edling (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Katie H. Jones (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Quentin C. Karpilow (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Paul Stephan (275272018)
Naomi D. Wheeler (pro hac vice forthcoming)
100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410
San Francisco, CA 94104(628) 231-2500
Email: vic@sheredling.com
matt@sheredling.com
katie@sheredling.com
quentin@sheredling.com
paul@sheredling.com
naomi@sheredling.com

195MER-L-001797-22 10/18/2022 10:22:01 AM Pg 199 of 200 Trans ID: LCV20223676068

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:5-1
I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the matter in controversy is
not the subject of any other action pending in any court or of any pending arbitration proceedings.
No other action or arbitration proceeding is contemplated at this time. I know of no other parties
who should be joined in this action at this time.
DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
Pursuant to R. 4:25-4, Plaintiffs designate Deputy Attorneys General Andrew Reese,
Monisha A. Kumar, Daniel P. Resler, and Monica E. Finke as trial counsel in this matter.

Dated: October 18, 2022

MATTHEW J. PLATKINATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY
Attorney for Plaintiffs

By: _______________________________
Andrew Reese (024662000)
Monisha A. Kumar (900212012)
Daniel P. Resler (324172020)
Monica E. Finke (332512020)
Deputy Attorneys General
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex
25 Market St., P.O. Box 093
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0093
Tel: (609) 376-2789
Email: Andrew.Reese@law.njoag.gov
Monisha.Kumar@law.njoag.gov
Daniel.Resler@law.njoag.gov
Monica.Finke@law.njoag.gov
SHER EDLING LLPSpecial Counsel to the Attorney General
Victor M. Sher (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Matthew K. Edling (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Katie H. Jones (pro hac vice forthcoming)
196

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

Quentin C. Karpilow (pro hac vice forthcoming)
Paul Stephan (275272018)
Naomi D. Wheeler (pro hac vice forthcoming)
100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1410
San Francisco, CA 94104(628) 231-2500
Email: vic@sheredling.com
matt@sheredling.com
katie@sheredling.com
quentin@sheredling.com
paul@sheredling.com
naomi@sheredling.com

197