EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP
Jonathan S. Abady, Esq. (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq. (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
Ananda V. Burra, Esq. (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
Max Selver, Esq. (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10020(212) 763-5000
KROVATIN NAU LLC
Gerald Krovatin, Esq. (Attorney No. 024351977)
Helen A. Nau, Esq. (Attorney No. 030181993)
60 Park Place, Suite 1100
Newark, NJ 07102(973) 424-9777
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF HOBOKEN,
Plaintiff,

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION: HUDSON COUNTY
DOCKET NO.:-againstCivil Action
EXXON MOBIL CORP., EXXONMOBILOIL CORP., ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC,
SHELL OIL COMPANY, BP P.L.C., BP
AMERICA INC., CHEVRON CORP.,CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.,
CONOCOPHILLIPS, CONOCOPHILLIPSCOMPANY, PHILLIPS 66, PHILLIPS 66
COMPANY, AMERICAN PETROLEUMINSTITUTE,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff the City of Hoboken, with its principal place of business at
94 Washington Street, Hoboken, New Jersey, by its attorneys Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady
Ward & Maazel LLP and Krovatin Nau LLC, for its Complaint alleges as follows:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1.

Defendants have tried to deceive the world for decades.

1965: “[T]here is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic
consequences of pollution, but the time is running out.”—Frank Ikard,
President of the American Petroleum Institute, America’s largest oil industry
trade association.
1977: “[C]urrent scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors attributing
atmospheric carbon dioxide increase to fossil fuel combustion.”—Exxon
scientist James Black, to Exxon’s Corporate Management Committee.
1988: “[B]y the time global warming becomes detectable it could be too late
to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even stabilise thesituation.”—Confidential Shell report.
1998: “Unless ‘climate change’ becomes a non-issue, . . . there may be no
moment when we can declare victory for our efforts.”—Internal action plan of
the American Petroleum Institute.
2006: “Taken together, gaps in the scientific basis for theoretical climate
models and the interplay of significant natural variability make it very
difficult to determine objectively the extent to which recent climate change
might be the result of human actions.”—Public report by ExxonMobil.
2.

Defendants, some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies and theirlargest trade association, have known for more than a half-century that the fossil fuels they
extract, produce, market, and sell on a massive scale are causing accelerating climate change thatposes grave threats to society—sea level rise, extreme heat, and increasingly destructive storms,
among many others.
3.

Instead of addressing those threats, Defendants have spent the last fifty

years deceiving the public about their central role in causing climate change in order to grease2the wheels of their ever-expanding production and sale of fossil fuels. Together, the fossil fuels
produced by Defendants make up more than 12% of global emissions between 1965 and 2017.
Putting profits over people and with a reckless disregard for the costs their actions have imposedon vulnerable communities, Defendants are today producing and selling more fossil fuels than at
any point in history and are raking in billions of dollars in profits in the process.
4.

Defendants’ deceptions have taken many forms.

5.

First, Defendants concealed the harms of fossil fuels from the public.

From the 1950s through the 1980s, before climate change was widely understood, Defendants
carefully studied fossil fuels’ impact on the global climate. They received countless reports fromtheir own scientists and trade groups stating with certainty that fossil fuels were causing climatechange with likely dire impacts. For example, Shell projected “significant changes in sea level”
and “precipitation patterns” that “could have major social, economic, and politicalconsequences,” and Exxon predicted “potentially catastrophic events” like the melting of the
Antarctic ice sheet that “would cause flooding on much of the U.S. East Coast.” Yet Defendants
kept these findings secret as they pumped out more and more fossil fuels to be marketed and soldaround the world.
6.

Second, beginning in the late 1980s, as public consciousness that fossil

fuels would cause devastating climate change began to grow, Defendants orchestrated massive
campaigns to discredit the valid climate science their own scientists had developed over theprevious thirty years. Defendants spent millions of dollars on advertisements that cast doubt on
climate science; funded scientifically unsound research to do the same; and created expansive
networks of front groups to “[r]eposition global warming as theory, not fact.” These campaigns
worked. In the 1990s and 2000s, the public’s faith in the certainty of climate science declined3substantially. At the same time, Defendants took steps to insulate their own fossil fuelproduction from the expected effects of anthropogenic climate change.
7.

Third, even to the present day, Defendants have launched “greenwashing”

campaigns that feign concern about climate change and promote nonexistent commitments tosustainable energy. Exxon touts plant-based biofuels as “the future of energy” when biofuels
constitute just 0.2% of its refinery capacity; BP advertises “more energy” with “less footprint”
while expanding its total oil production; Shell advertises “a path to net-zero emissions” while atthe same time planning a 37% increase in oil production in the next decade; Chevron advertisesthat “it’s time oil companies get behind the development of renewable energy” while at the sametime putting just 0.2% of its capital spending toward renewables; and ConocoPhillips announces
goals like “[r]educing our GHG emissions” while at the same time remaining “solely focused on
our core business of exploring for, developing and producing crude oil and natural gas globally.”
These campaigns purposefully conceal Defendants’ extraction, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels
at historically unmatched rates and their continued funding of climate disinformation behindclosed doors.
8.

The climate harms masked by Defendants’ half-century of deception havenow slammed into the shores of Hoboken, New Jersey, a coastal community of over 50,000
people that sits across the Hudson River from New York City.
9.

The increasing concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gasses fromfossil fuels has caused sea levels to rise by nearly a foot in and around Hoboken—much morethan the average amount of sea level rise around the world. Multiple additional feet of sea level
rise are projected in the coming decades as a result of fossil fuel use.

4

10.

Hoboken is uniquely vulnerable to sea level rise. As America’s fifth-

densest city, its residents and infrastructure are integrally connected to its 1.5 miles of coastline.
More than half of Hoboken’s residents, half of its schools, and all of its hospitals, rail and ferry
stations, and hazardous waste sites are within five feet of its high tide line. Sea level rise
therefore threatens major sections of Hoboken with flooding at high tide. The number of hightide flood days has already more than doubled since 2000. It also threatens the entire City withmore frequent and severe flooding from storm surge during coastal storms.
11.

In 2011 and 2012, successive storms slammed Hoboken with anunprecedented one-two punch, casting the threat posed by climate change into stark relief.
In 2011, Hurricane Irene inundated thousands of properties and spilled raw sewage into thestreets. In 2012, Superstorm Sandy submerged Hoboken in 450 million gallons of storm surge,
leaving 80% of the City underwater, stranding 20,000 Hoboken residents in their homes, andcausing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. Communities of color and thoseeconomically marginalized are at a particularly high risk; for instance, during Sandy, some of themost vulnerable citizens of Hoboken were trapped in the Hoboken Housing Authority as storm
waters rose in the streets. Hoboken’s then-mayor described how Sandy filled up the City “like abathtub.” Both storms were as intense as they were because of anthropogenic climate change.
12.

The impacts of accelerating climate change continue to be felt in Hoboken

today. In a four-week span in the summer of 2020, Hoboken was lashed by two tropical storms
as well as a severe thunderstorm that dropped more than an inch of rain in ten minutes, anunprecedented rate of rainfall. Storms like this are becoming more frequent and severe becauseof anthropogenic climate change, requiring Hoboken to undertake extensive mitigation and5adaptation initiatives to protect itself from being regularly inundated by stormwater. Again, theharm is felt particularly acutely by populations that are already marginalized.
13.

Following Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy, Hoboken sprang into

action. It developed a comprehensive “Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge” adaptation andmitigation plan to address rainfall and seawater flooding. It is building flood protection along
Hoboken’s waterfront; purchasing land to build parks and terraced wetlands; retrofittingbuildings with green roofs; building underground cisterns to store excess water; and building
pumps to expel stored water.
14.

The plan’s cumulative cost is north of $500 million. Meanwhile,

Defendants have collected billions of dollars in profits from their mass extraction, production
and marketing of fossil fuels, all while spewing decades of deceptions about fossil fuels’devastating climate impacts that continue through the present day.
15.

The fossil fuels driving Defendants’ billion-dollar profits, and Defendants’lies about the risks of fossil fuels, are the cause of both the escalating climate harms experiencedby Hoboken and the enormous costs the City now must undertake to abate them.
16.

Hoboken brings this action for public and private nuisance, trespass,negligence, and violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to recover damages caused andabatement costs made necessary by Defendants’ conduct.
PARTIES
Plaintiff
17.

Plaintiff, the City of Hoboken, is organized under the Optional Municipal

Charter Law. It brings this action as an exercise of its police power as a public entity, which
includes, but is not limited to its power to prevent and abate nuisances, to protect its property and6the property of the residents and businesses of the City, to ensure compliance with the laws of
New Jersey, and to prevent and abate hazards to public health, safety, welfare, and theenvironment. The City brings this action further in its capacity to sue under the Optional
Municipal Charter Law, the Consumer Fraud Act, and New Jersey Common Law for recovery ofdamages and abatement of nuisances.
Defendants
18.

Exxon Mobil Entitiesa)

Exxon Mobil Corporation is a multi-national, verticallyintegrated, energy and chemicals company incorporated in New Jersey at
830 Bear Tavern Road, West Trenton, New Jersey, with its headquarters andprincipal place of business in Irving, Texas. Exxon Mobil Corporation isamong the largest publicly traded international oil and gas companies in theworld. It 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 Corporation; Exxon Company,
U.S.A.; Exxon Corporation; and Mobil Corporation.
b)

In 2018, Exxon Mobil reported nearly $21 billion in profits.

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.
d)Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and has controlled

companywide decisions related to climate change and greenhouse gas
7emissions from its fossil fuel products, including those of its subsidiaries.
Exxon Mobil Corporation’s Board of Directors holds the highest level of
direct responsibility for 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 have been
and are actively engaged in discussions relating to greenhouse gas emissions
and the risks of climate change on an ongoing basis. Exxon Mobil
Corporation recently represented that its success, including its “ability to
mitigate risk and provide attractive returns to shareholders, depends on [its]ability to successfully manage [its] overall portfolio, including diversification
among types and locations of [its] projects.” Exxon Mobil Corporation
requires its subsidiaries to provide an estimate of greenhouse gas-related
emissions costs in their economic projections when seeking funding for
capital investments.
e)

Exxon Mobil Corporation controls and directs companywide

advertising and messaging strategy, including, in particular, companywide
advertising and messaging concerning climate change and the relationshipbetween fossil fuel use and climate change, including among its subsidiaries.
f)

ExxonMobil Oil Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Exxon Mobil Corporation that acts on Exxon Mobil Corporation’s behalf andsubject to Exxon Mobil Corporation’s control. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation
is incorporated in the State of New York with its principal place of business in
Irving, Texas. ExxonMobil Oil Corporation was formerly known as, did or8does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Mobil Oil Corporation.
g)“Exxon” and “Exxon Mobil” as used hereafter, means

collectively Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation and ExxonMobil Oil
Corporation, and their predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, and divisions.
h)Exxon consists of numerous divisions and affiliates in all areasof the fossil fuel industry, including exploration for and production of crude
oil and natural gas; manufacture of 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.
i)

Exxon Mobil is a successor company to Standard Oil Company

of New Jersey, a company created by John D. Rockefeller in New Jersey in1885 in response to efforts in the United States to restrict anticompetitive
monopolies. Almost immediately after it was created, Standard Oil Company
of New Jersey was one of the largest corporations in the world, and remained
so for decades.
j)

Exxon Mobil, as Standard Oil, created the Bayway andBayonne Refinies in New Jersey in the early 20th century and has owned andoperated extensive refining and sale operations in New Jersey in the century
since.
k)

Exxon markets or has marketed gasoline and other fossil fuelproducts to New Jersey consumers, including through dozens of Exxon-

9branded and Mobil-branded petroleum service stations, including at least six
in and near Hoboken.
l)Exxon also markets and sells petroleum products to Hoboken

consumers through local retailers. Such products sold to Hoboken consumers
include, for example, engine lubricants and motor oils sold under the Mobil 1
brand name, which is owned by Exxon.
m)

Exxon has directed its propaganda and advertising campaigns

to consumers in and around New Jersey, including in Hoboken.
19.

Shell Entitiesa)Royal Dutch Shell PLC is a vertically integrated, multinationalenergy and petrochemical company. Royal Dutch Shell PLC is incorporated
in England and Wales, with its headquarters and principal place of business in
The Hague, Netherlands. Royal Dutch Shell PLC consists of over a thousanddivisions, subsidiaries, and affiliates engaged in all aspects of the fossil fuelindustry, including exploration, development, extraction, manufacturing, andenergy production, transport, trading, marketing, and sales.
b)Royal Dutch Shell PLC controls and has controlled

companywide decisions about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production
and sales, including those of its subsidiaries. Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s Boardof Directors determines whether and to what extent Shell subsidiary holdings
around the globe produce Shell-branded fossil fuel products. For instance, in
2015, a Royal Dutch Shell PLC subsidiary employee admitted in a deposition
that Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s Board of Directors decided whether to drill a10particular oil deposit off the coast of Alaska.
c)Royal Dutch Shell PLC controls and has controlled

companywide decisions related to climate change and greenhouse gas
emissions from its fossil fuel products, including those of its subsidiaries.
Overall accountability for climate change within the Shell group ofcompanies lies with Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s Chief Executive Officer andExecutive Committee. Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s effort is inclusive of all
fossil fuel products produced under the Shell brand, including those of its
subsidiaries.
d)Royal Dutch Shell PLC controls and directs companywide

advertising and messaging strategy, including in particular companywide
advertising and messaging concerning climate change and the relationshipbetween fossil fuel use and climate change, including among its subsidiaries.
Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s control over companywide advertising andmessaging includes control over positions taken in communications directed
at consumers.
e)Shell Oil Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of RoyalDutch Shell PLC that acts on Royal Dutch Shell PLC’s behalf and subject toRoyal Dutch Shell PLC’s control. Shell Oil Company is incorporated in
Delaware 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 to Deer Park Refining LP; Shell Oil; Shell Oil Products;
Shell Chemical; Shell Trading US; Shell Trading (US) Company; Shell

11

Energy Services; The Pennzoil Company; Shell Oil Products Company LLC;
Shell Oil Products Company; Star Enterprise LLC; and Pennzoil-Quaker State
Company. Shell Oil Company is registered to do business in New Jersey.
f)Defendants Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company, andtheir predecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions
are collectively referred to as “Shell.”g)

Shell transacts and has transacted substantial fossil fuel-related

business in New Jersey. Its business includes the sale, marketing andpromotion of gasoline and other fossil fuel products to consumers in New
Jersey, including through dozens of Shell-branded petroleum service stationsin the State. At least four stations in and around Hoboken currently operate
under the Shell name, display and use Shell trademarks, and sell Shellbranded gasoline and other branded products.
h)Shell markets and sells other products including engine

lubricant and motor oils to New Jersey consumers under its Pennzoil brandname at retail outlets in and around Hoboken.
n)Shell has directed its propaganda and advertising campaigns to

consumers in and around New Jersey, including in Hoboken.
20.

BP Entitiesa)BP P.L.C. is a multinational, vertically integrated energy andpetrochemical public limited company, registered in England and Wales with
its principal place of business in London, England. BP P.L.C. is the ultimate
parent company of numerous subsidiaries, which explore for and extract oil

12and gas worldwide; refine oil into fossil fuel products such as gasoline; andmarket and sell oil, fuel, other refined petroleum products, and natural gas
worldwide. BP P.L.C.’s subsidiaries explore for oil and natural gas under awide range of licensing, joint arrangement, and other contractual agreements.
b)

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

about the quantity and extent of fossil fuel production and sales, including
those of its subsidiaries (collectively referred to as the “BP Group”). 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.
c)

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 decision-making body within 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.
d)BP P.L.C. controls and directs Group-wide advertising andmessaging strategy, including, in particular, Group-wide advertising andmessaging concerning climate change and the relationship between fossil fueluse and climate change. BP P.L.C.’s control over Group-wide advertising andmessaging includes control over positions taken in communications directed
at consumers.
e)

BP America Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of BP P.L.C.

13

that acts on BP P.L.C.’s behalf and is subject to BP P.L.C.’s control. BP
America Inc. is a vertically integrated energy and petrochemical company
incorporated in the State of Delaware with its headquarters and principal placeof business in Houston, Texas. 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 natural gas; 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 business as, and/or is the successor in liability to Amoco
Corporation; Amoco Oil Company; ARCO Products Company; Atlantic
Richfield Delaware Corporation; Atlantic Richfield Company (a Delaware
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);
The Atlantic Richfield Company (a Pennsylvania corporation), and the Arco
Chemical Company. BP America Inc. is registered to do business in New
Jersey.
f)

Defendants BP P.L.C. and BP America Inc., and theirpredecessors, successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions arecollectively referred to herein as “BP.”g)

BP transacts and has transacted substantial business in New

Jersey. BP advertises that the “largest concentration of bp workers anywherein the eastern United States” is in New Jersey and the company owns a

14

25 percent interest in New Jersey’s Carteret terminal through a joint venturewith Kinder Morgan, which operates the terminal. It operates over 200
service stations in New Jersey and advertises that “bp’s Helios logo remains afamiliar sight for New Jersey motorists.”h)BP’s activities in New Jersey include the marketing andpromotion of gasoline and other fossil fuel products to Hoboken consumers,
including through at least six service stations in and around Hoboken that
operate under the BP name, and sell BP-branded gasoline and related products
pursuant to franchise agreements with BP.
i)BP markets and sells other products including engine lubricant

and motor oils to New Jersey consumers under its Castrol brand name atretail outlets within and around Hoboken. Castrol Industrial North America
Inc., which is owned by BP, is registered to do business in New Jersey.
o)BP has directed its propaganda and advertising campaigns to

consumers in and around New Jersey, including in Hoboken.
21.

Chevron Entitiesa)

Chevron Corporation is a multi-national, vertically integrated

energy and chemicals company incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its
global headquarters and principal place of business in San Ramon, California.
Chevron Corporation is registered to do business in New Jersey.
b)

Chevron Corporation operates through a web of United Statesand international subsidiaries at all levels of the fossil fuel supply chain.
Chevron Corporation’s and its subsidiaries’ operations consist of:15

(1) exploring for, developing, and producing crude oil and natural gas;(2) processing, liquefaction, transportation, and regasification associated withliquefied natural gas; (3) refining crude oil into petroleum products;(4) marketing of crude oil and refined products; (5) basic and appliedresearch in multiple scientific fields including chemistry, geology, andengineering; and (6) manufacturing and marketing of 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 fuelproduction and sales, including those of its subsidiaries.
d)

Chevron Corporation controls and has controlled

companywide decisions related to climate change and greenhouse gas
emissions from its fossil fuel products, including those of its subsidiaries.
e)

Chevron Corporation controls and directs companywide

advertising and messaging strategy, including in particular companywide
advertising and messaging concerning climate change and the relationshipbetween fossil fuel use and climate change, including among its subsidiaries.
Chevron Corporation’s control over companywide advertising and messaging
includes control over positions taken in communications directed at
consumers.
f)

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

principal place of business in San Ramon, California. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. isa wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron Corporation that acts on Chevron

16Corporation’s behalf and subject to Chevron Corporation’s control. Chevron
U.S.A. Inc. was formerly known as, and did or does business as, and/or is the
successor in liability to: Gulf Oil Corporation; Gulf Oil Corporation ofPennsylvania; Chevron Products Company; and Chevron Chemical
Company. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is registered to do business in New Jersey.
g)“Chevron” as used hereafter, means collectively, Defendants

Chevron Corporation and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., and their predecessors,
successors, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions.
h)Chevron transacts and has transacted substantial fossil fuel-related business in New Jersey. It acquired the Perth Amboy Refinery in
New Jersey in 1945 and operated it until 2012, producing gasoline, heating
oil, and asphalt throughout that period.
i)Chevron markets and/or has marketed gasoline and other fossil

fuel products to New Jersey consumers, including through Chevron-branded
petroleum services stations in the State. Currently at least five service
stations in and around Hoboken operate under the Chevron name, and sell
Chevron-branded gasoline and related products pursuant to franchise
agreements with Chevron.
j)

Chevron markets and sells other products including engine

lubricant and motors oils to New Jersey consumers under its Delo and Techronbrand names at retail outlets in and around Hoboken.
p)

Chevron has directed its propaganda and advertising

campaigns to consumers in and around New Jersey, including in Hoboken.

17

22.

ConocoPhillips Entitiesa)

ConocoPhillips is a multinational energy company

incorporated in Delaware and with its principal place of business in Houston,
Texas. ConocoPhillips consists of numerous divisions, subsidiaries, andaffiliates that carry out 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’ recent annual reports
subsume the operations of the entire ConocoPhillips group of subsidiaries
under its name. ConocoPhillips represents that its value—for which
ConocoPhillips maintains ultimate responsibility—is a function of its
decisions to direct subsidiaries to explore for and produce fossil fuels:“Unless we successfully add to our existing proved reserves, our future crudeoil, bitumen, natural gas and natural gas liquids production will decline,
resulting in an adverse impact to our business.”c)

ConocoPhillips optimizes the ConocoPhillips group’s oil andgas portfolio to fit ConocoPhillips’ strategic plan. For example, inNovember 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 that strategically fit its development plans.

18

d)

ConocoPhillips controls and has controlled companywide

decisions related to global warming and greenhouse gas emissions from its
fossil fuel products, including those of its subsidiaries. For instance,
ConocoPhillips’ Board of Directors has the highest level of direct
responsibility for climate change policy within the company. ConocoPhillips
has developed and implements a corporate Climate Change Action Plan togovern climate change decision-making across all entities in the
ConocoPhillips group.
e)

ConocoPhillips Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of

ConocoPhillips that acts on ConocoPhillips’ behalf and subject toConocoPhillips’ control. ConocoPhillips Company is incorporated in
Delaware and has its principal office in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.
ConocoPhillips Company is registered to do business in New Jersey.
f)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 that were, until 2012, owned and/or
controlled by ConocoPhillips.
g)Phillips 66 Company is a wholly owned subsidiary ofPhillips 66 that acts on Phillips 66’s behalf and subject to Phillips 66’s
control. Phillips 66 Company is incorporated in Delaware and has its
principal office in Houston, Texas. Phillips 66 Company was formerly
known as, did or does business as, and/or is the successor in liability to19Phillips Petroleum Company, Conoco, Inc., Tosco Corporation, Tosco
Refining Co., and Associated Oil. Phillips 66 Company is registered to dobusiness in New Jersey.
h)Defendants ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips Company,

Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Company, and their predecessors, successors, parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, and divisions are collectively referred to herein as“ConocoPhillips.”k)

ConocoPhillips transacts and has transacted substantial fossil

fuel-related business in New Jersey. It acquired the Bayway Refinery in2001 and, through various internal reallocations of assets and liabilities,
transferred the Refinery to its subsidiary and then successor Phillips 66 in
2012. ConocoPhillips and its affiliates have continued to expand Bayway
and it remains one of the largest refineries in operation on the East Coast.
l)ConocoPhillips markets and/or has marketed gasoline andother fossil fuel products to New Jersey consumers, including through dozensof Conoco and Phillips 66-branded petroleum services stations in and around
Hoboken.
m)

ConocoPhillips markets and sells other products including

engine lubricant and motors oils to New Jersey consumers under the Kendall
and Phillips 66 brands at retail outlets in and around Hoboken.
q)ConocoPhillips has directed its propaganda and advertising

campaigns to consumers in and around New Jersey, including in Hoboken.

20

23.

Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips are collectively referredto herein as the “Fossil Fuel Company Defendants.”
24.

The American Petroleum Institute (“API”)a)

API is a nonprofit corporation based in Washington, D.C., and isregistered to do business in New Jersey. It was founded in 1919 to advocate
for the interests of the petroleum industry. Today, API has nearly 600
members, making it the United States’ largest oil trade industry association.
API’s members include Defendants Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell Oil
Company, BP America Inc., ConocoPhillips, and Phillips 66.
b)API’s mission is to promote “a strong, viable U.S. oil and natural

gas industry,” which includes increasing consumers’ consumption of oil andgas. Among other functions, API coordinates with members of the petroleum
industry to gather information of interest to the industry and disseminate that
information to its members.
c)Member companies participate in API strategy, governance, andoperation through membership dues and by contributing company officers
and other personnel to API boards, committees, and task forces. Fossil FuelCompany Defendants have been core members of API at times relevant tothis litigation. In 2020, API elected Phillips 66 Chairman and CEO Greg
Garland to serve a two-year term as the President of its Board of Directors.
Exxon President and CEO Darren Woods was Board President from 2018
to2020, and ConocoPhillips Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance was Board
President from 2016 to2018. In 2017, senior executives from Defendants

21

Exxon, Chevron, BP America, Shell Oil Company, ConocoPhillips, andPhillips 66 served on API’s Board of Directors.
d)

The Fossil Fuel Company Defendants, through API Board

membership, Executive Committee roles, and/or budgetary funding of API,
have collectively steered the policies and trade practices of API. Defendants
have worked closely with API to craft and disseminate misleading messaging
regarding climate change to advance their shared goal of increasing
consumer demand for Defendants’ fossil fuels.
e)

API has participated in and led several coalitions and front groups,

often in collaboration with the Fossil Fuel Company Defendants, that haveorganized deceptive advertising and communications campaigns that promoteclimate disinformation and denialism. These campaigns have targeted theirmessages both to national audiences and specifically to consumers in New
Jersey. API continues to participate and/or direct misleading campaigns
about the dangers of fossil fuels intended to reach consumers in Hoboken andthroughout the country.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25.

Pursuant to R. 4:3-1, venue is proper in Hudson County, which is thecounty of Plaintiff’s principal place of business.
26.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.68, N.J.S.A. 14A:1–1 et seq., R. 4:4-4(a)(6), and because each Defendant isincorporated in New Jersey, transacts substantial business in or is otherwise “at home” in New
Jersey, has consented to the jurisdiction of New Jersey courts, and/or has purposefully directed22its acts towards New Jersey and has caused substantial harm in New Jersey. Each Defendant
could reasonably anticipate being haled into court in New Jersey on the basis of its acts andomissions.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
A.

Defendants Are Responsible for Causing Extensive and Accelerating
Climate Change
27.

The scientific consensus that human activities are warming the planet is

now beyond debate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), anintergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations that is the world’s clearing
house for climate change work, laid out this consensus in the strongest possible terms in its Fifth
Assessment Report published in 2014: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and sincethe 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The
atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level
has risen.”1
28.

The last five years, 2015-2019, are the five hottest years ever recorded.

All ten of the hottest years on record have occurred since 2005.2 2016 was the hottest year onrecord, with global temperatures 1.02° Celsius (1.84° Fahrenheit) warmer than a 1951-1980
baseline, reflecting the greatest single-year temperature anomaly since the relevant records
started to be kept in 1880. 2019 was the second hottest year ever recorded, with temperatures

1

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report” (2014) (“IPCC 2014
SYNTHESIS REPORT”), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf. The IPCC is agroup of 195 member countries who are members of the United Nations or World Meteorological Organization thathas “the objective . . . to provide governments at all levels with scientific information they can use to develop
climate policies.” IPCC, About (last visited June 21, 2020), https://www.ipcc.ch/about/.
2“Top 10 Warmest Years on Record” CLIMATE CENTRAL (Jan. 15, 2020),
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/top-10-warmest-years-on-record.

23

0.98° Celsius (1.76° Fahrenheit) warmer above the same baseline.3 The period from 1983 to2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period in the last 1,400 years in the northern hemisphere.4
29.

The graph below shows the change in annual mean global temperaturesince 1880, reflecting a sharp and still steepening increase in global temperatures sinceapproximately 1970.
Figure 1: Global Average Temperature Relative to 1951-1980 Baseline530.

The leading driver of global warming in the last several decades is thedramatic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses.

3

NASA, “Global Temperature,” NASA Global Climate Change (last visited June 18, 2020),
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/.
4

IPCC 2014 SYNTHESIS REPORT, supra note 1, at 2.

5NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (v4)”, National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (last visited June 18, 2020), https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/.

24

31.

The accumulation of greenhouse gasses increases land surface and ocean

temperatures by preventing heat from escaping the Earth’s atmosphere into space. Greenhousegasses make the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths, reducing infrared radiation
into space and creating a planetary energy imbalance in which absorbed solar energy, which
remains trapped on Earth, exceeds infrared radiation to space.6
32.

Global production and combustion of fossil fuels is the central reason why

the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses, prominently carbon dioxide (“CO2”), has
dramatically increased over the last fifty years and caused an accompanying spike intemperatures.7
33.

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report makes plain that greenhouse gas

emissions from fossil fuels are the main driver of global warming. It found that anthropogenic
emissions have led to “atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxidethat are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects . . . have been detected
throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause ofobserved warming since the mid-20th century.”834.

In 2019, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reached levels not seen in theprevious three million years.96James Hansen et al., Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions toProtect Young People, Future Generations, and Nature, PLOS ONE, (Dec. 13, 2013),
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648.
7

Id. (“Today, [] CO2 is under the control of humans as fossil fuel emissions overwhelm natural changes.”).

8

IPCC 2014 SYNTHESIS REPORT, supra note 1, at 4.

9More CO2 than ever before in 3 million years, shows unprecedented computer simulation, SCIENCE DAILY (April
3, 2019), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190403155436.htm.

25

35.

Before World War II, most anthropogenic CO2 emissions were the resultof forestry, agriculture, and other land use practices. The impact of these practices on the global
climate was relatively minor. The concentration of atmospheric CO2 remained relatively stable,
hovering in the range of 280 and 300 parts per million (“ppm”) between 1750 and the early 20th
century.10
36.

In the second half of the 20th century, however, the global production,marketing, sale, and resultant combustion of fossil fuels began to accelerate rapidly. Total
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions increased in every decade from 1970 through 2010.
During this time period, 78% of anthropogenic emissions came from fossil fuel combustion andother industrial processes.11 Indeed, more than half of global CO2 emissions between 1751 and2014 occurred after 1988.12
37.

The rate of global annual fossil fuel emissions continues to accelerate

today. In 2018, global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 37 billion tons, growing at afaster rate than in any of the previous seven years.13
38.

The graph below illustrates that fossil fuel emissions are the dominantsource of increases in atmospheric CO2 over the last fifty years.

10

Rebecca Lindsey, “Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, NOAA (Aug. 14, 2020),
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.
11

IPCC 2014 SYNTHESIS REPORT, supra note 1, at 5.

12Peter C. Frumhoff et al., The Climate Responsibilities of Industrial Carbon Producers, 132 CLIMATE CHANGE
157, 164 (2015).
13

Josie Garthwaite, “Global Fossil Fuel Emissions Have Climbed Upward for a Second Straight Year, Driven by
Growing Energy Use”, STANFORD NEWS SERVICE (Dec. 5, 2018), https://news.stanford.edu/pressreleases/2018/12/05/global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-rise-even-coal-wanes-renewables-boom/.

26

Figure 2: Global Emissions by Year and Source14

39.

The recent acceleration of fossil fuel emissions has led to acorrespondingly sharp spike in atmospheric concentration of CO2. Since 1960, the concentrationof CO2 in the atmosphere has gone from under 320 ppm to approximately 415 ppm.15 The rateof growth of atmospheric CO2 is also accelerating. From 1960 to 1970, atmospheric CO2
increased by an average of approximately 1 ppm per year; in the last five years, it has increasedby more than 2.5 ppm per year.16
40.

The graph below displays the tight nexus between the sharp increase inemissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in the last 75 years and the steep rise of
atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

14IPCC 2014 SYNTHESIS REPORT, supra note 1, at 3.

15

Global Monitoring Laboratory, “Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, NOAA (last visited June 19, 2020),
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/.
16

Id.

27

Figure 3: Atmospheric CO2 Concentration and Annual Emissions17

41.

Once emitted, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for between 300

and 1,000 years.18 Thus, the rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 that is driving global
warming and its attendant climate consequences is extremely durable.
42.

Defendants’ production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels on a massive

and unprecedented scale has been a a substantial factor in causing these skyrocketing emissions.
The fossil fuels produced and distributed by Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips
alone account for more than 12% of all global CO2 emissions between 1965 and 2017.19

17Lindsey, supra note 10.

18

Alan Buis, “The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide”, NASA (Oct. 9, 2019),
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/..
19

Climate Accountability Institute, Carbon Majors (last visited June 18, 2020),
https://climateaccountability.org/pdf/TopTwenty%20Rank%201965-2017.png.

28

43.

Defendants’ failure to curb the production of the sale of fossil fuels in thelast fifteen years has made it exponentially more difficult to return to atmospheric CO2
concentrations sufficient to avert disastrous climate consequences. Had emissions reductions
begun in 2005, reducing emissions by 3.5% per year would have brought the world back toatmospheric concentrations of CO2 at 350 ppm by 2100. Today, emissions reductions mustoccur at a rate of 15% per year to reach the same target.20
44.

This currently accelerating global warming has caused major climate

disruptions and portends more devastating climate disruptions in the near future.
45.

Three types of climate disruption pose an especially urgent threat to

Hoboken: sea level rise, extreme heat, and extreme rainfall events. All three types of climate
disruption have already imposed substantial costs on the City, and it is now spending hundreds ofmillions of dollars to abate these harms. Sea level rise threatens Hoboken’s very existence. See
Section G infra. Defendants’ production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels on a gargantuan
scale has been a substantial factor in causing all three types of climate disruption and resulting
damage to Hoboken.
1. Defendants Have Contributed Substantially to Sea Level Rise46.

Sea level rise poses a grave threat to coastal communities around theglobe, none more so than in dense, urban, and low-lying coastal cities like Hoboken. Sea level
rise makes coastal flooding from storm surge during extreme weather events both more frequent

20

Hansen, supra note 6.

29and more severe.21 It also leads to more frequent “nuisance” flooding—flooding of land andinfrastructure that occurs at high tide as a result of sea level rise.22
47.

Global warming causes sea levels to rise by two primary mechanisms.

First, warmer temperatures cause glaciers and ice sheets to melt, adding water to the ocean.
Second, global warming has increased the temperature of the Earth’s oceans, causing the volume
of water in the oceans to expand. These two causes have contributed roughly equally to sea level
rise since the 1970s, although the accelerating melting of polar ice sheets has played anincreasingly predominant and dangerous role in sea level rise in the last ten years and is expected
to continue to do so in the future.23
48.

Fossil fuel combustion is the dominant cause of sea level rise in recent

decades. In total, greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion are responsible for morethan 70% of sea level rise between 1970 and 2000.24 This is because fossil fuel combustion,
leading to increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, precipitates sea level
rise’s two dominant causes—ice sheet and glacier melting, and ocean warming. The Earth’s
oceans have absorbed more than 93% of the heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions since the1970s, causing ocean temperature to increase by an average 0.13° Celsius (0.23° Fahrenheit) per

21

Rebecca Lindsey, “Climate Change: Global Sea Level”, NOAA (Aug. 14, 2020), https://www.climate.gov/newsfeatures/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level.
22

NOAA, “What is High Tide Flooding?” (June 25, 2018), https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/nuisanceflooding.html.
23

Lindsey, supra note 211.

24

Aimée B. Slangen, et al., Anthropogenic Forcing Dominates Global Mean Sea-Level Rise Since 1970, 6 NATURE
CLIMATE CHANGE 701, 701 (2016).

30

decade for the last 100 years.25 Meanwhile, rising land surface temperatures cause glaciers tomelt, and warming land surface and ocean temperatures combine to cause ice sheets to melt.
49.

From 1880 to 2009, these factors have caused sea levels around the globe

to increase by an average of eight to nine inches.26 The rate of sea level rise in the northeast
United States is substantially higher than the rest of the globe.27 By one estimate, sea levels arerising in the northeast at three times the rate of the rest of the world.28
50.

Sea level rise is here to stay. Because of the durability of CO2 in theatmosphere and the inertia of the climate system, nearly 100% of the sea level rise under any
emissions scenario will remain for 10,000 years.29
51.

Extant sea level rise has already caused the frequency and severity ofstorm surge flooding to increase. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report concludes that theincidence and magnitude of extreme sea level events has increased since 1970.30 Higher sea
levels inherently raise the baseline for the destructive impact of storms like hurricanes andnor’easters, both by requiring a smaller storm surge above the baseline to inundate coastal areas
and by bringing higher water levels ashore than a storm otherwise would in the absence of sea

25

International Union for the Conservation of Nature, “Ocean Warming” (Nov. 2017),
https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/ocean-warming.
26

Lindsey, supra note 21.

27

William V. Sweet et. al, Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States, Technical Report
NOS CO-OPS 083, at 9, NOAA (Jan. 2017), https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt83_Global_
and_Regional_SLR_Scenarios_for_the_US_final.pdf.
28

Colin Schultz, “Sea Level Rising Three Times Faster Than Average on Northeast US Coast”, SMITHSONIAN
MAGAZINE (June 25, 2012), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sea-level-rising-three-times-faster-thanaverage-on-northeast-us-coast-135983018/.
29

Peter U. Clark et al., Consequences of Twenty-First Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level
Change, 6 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 360, 361 (2016).
30

IPCC 2014 SYNTHESIS REPORT, supra note 1, at 53.

31

level rise. Superstorm Sandy is one dramatic example; sea level rise caused an additional$2 billion in flooding damage to New York City alone.31
52.

Sea level rise has also caused an increase in nuisance flooding. Daily hightide flooding is estimated to be up by 300% to 900% in U.S. coastal communities compared tojust 50 years ago.32 Nationwide, 76% of all flood days caused by high water levels from sea
level rise between 2005 and 2014 would not have occurred absent human-caused climatechange.33
53.

The chart below shows the large increase in coastal flood days in the

United States in the last fifty years and the large percentage of such floods that are attributable toanthropogenic climate change as opposed to naturally occurring phenomena.

31

Harvey Liefert, “Sea Level Rise Added $2 Billion to Sandy’s Toll in New York City”, EOS (Mar. 16, 2015),
https://eos.org/articles/sea-level-rise-added-2-billion-to-sandys-toll-in-new-york-city.
32

NOAA, “Is Sea Level Rising?”, NOAA (Oct. 9, 2019), https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html#:~:text=
Global%20sea%20level%20has%20been,of%20an%20inch%20per%20year.
33

Climate Central, “Sea Level Rise Upping Ante on ‘Sunny Day’ Floods”, WX Shift by Climate Central (Oct. 17,2016), https://wxshift.com/news/climate-change-increases-sunny-day-floods.

32Figure 4: Causes of Coastal Floods in the U.S.34

54.

Sea levels are now rising faster than at any point in the last 2,700 years.35

The rate of sea level rise from 2006 to 2015 more than doubled the rate of sea level rise during
the 20th century.36
55.

The acceleration of sea level rise is expected to continue in the coming

decades because the pace of both of the two main drivers of sea level rise is accelerating quickly.
Ice loss in the Antarctic ice sheet, the largest ice sheet in the world, has quadrupled from
51 billion tons per year between 1992 and 2001, to 199 billion tons per year from 2012 to 2016.
Ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet, the second largest ice sheet in the world, has increased

34

John Upton, “Study Reveals Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise”, Climate Central (Feb. 22, 2016),
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-reveals-acceleration-of-sea-level-rise-20055.
35

Robert E. Kopp et al., Temperature-Driven Global Sea-Level Variability in the Common Era, PNAS (Mar. 15,
2016, udpdated Sept. 12, 2016), https://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434.
36

Lindsey, supra note 21.

33

seven-fold from 34 billion tons per year between 1992 and 2001, to 247 billion tons per year
between 2012 and 2016.37
56.

Similarly, and concurrently with the spike in CO2 emissions in the last

thirty years, the rate of ocean warming was 4.5 times faster from 1987 to 2019 than it was from1955 to 1986. As a result, the last five years are the oceans’ five hottest on record, and the lastten years are the oceans’ ten hottest on record.38 These trends show no signs of slowing as
Defendants continue to increase the annual volume of fossil fuels they produce, market, and sell.
57.

While the acceleration of sea level rise is nearly certain to continue in the

coming decades, the extent and corresponding damage of future sea level rise depends on theextent of future emissions based on our “future energy choices”—the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA), the leading federal agency in the field, projects that thatsea level rise by 2100 could be anywhere from 12 inches to 8.2 feet under different emissions
scenarios.39
58.

The recent surge in anthropogenic emissions, a substantial portion ofwhich is attributable to Defendants’ extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels, has therefore
been a central force behind the accelerating pace of sea level rise today and will continue to havethis effect in the future.

37

Id.

38

Damian Carrington, “Ocean Temperatures Hit Record High as Rate of Heating Accelerates”, The Guardian (Jan.
13, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-ofheating-accelerates.
39

Lindsey, supra note 21.

34

2. Defendants Have Substantially Contributed to Increases in
Extreme Heat
59.

Higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses like CO2, caused

by Defendants’ extraction, production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels on an unprecedented
scale that has driven the corresponding combustion of fossil fuels at record rates, make land
surface temperatures warmer by preventing heat from escaping back into space.40
60.

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report concludes with greater than 95%

certainty that more than half of the observed increase in global temperatures from 1951 to 2010
was anthropogenic, primarily due to the increase in atmospheric concentrations of greenhousegasses.41
61.

Anthropogenic warming shifts the average temperature range in a given

location such that average nightly low temperatures and average daytime high temperatures both
become higher.42
62.

Increasing temperatures have been observed in every part of the UnitedStates, with some regional variation. Temperatures are rising in the northeast United States at afaster rate than much of the rest of the country. The map below shows increases in temperaturesfrom 1991 to 2012 as compared to 1901 to 1960.

40

U.S. Global Change Research Program, “Chapter 6: Temperature Changes in the United States”, Climate Science
Special Report: Forth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), VOLUME I (2017),
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/ (“[A] confident attribution of global temperature increases toanthropogenic forcing has now been made.”).
41

IPCC 2014 SYNTHESIS REPORT, supra note 1, at 5.

42

U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, “Climate Change and Extreme Heat, What You Can Do to Prepare” (Oct. 2016),
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/extreme-heat-guidebook.pdf.

35

Figure 5: Temperature Change: 1901-1960 to 1991-201243

63.

An increase in both average nightly lows and daytime highs leads toincreases in observed record high temperatures. In the last decade, there have been twice as
many record high temperatures in the United States as there have been record lows, compared toa ratio of approximately 1:1 as recently as 1950.44 This difference could grow to 20:1 by
midcentury and 50:1 by the end of the century.45
64.

The increasing frequency of record high temperatures corresponds withincreasingly frequent and severe extreme heat events, or heat waves. The average number ofheat waves in major American cities tripled between the 1960s and 2010s.46
65.

Because of Defendants’ extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels,these events are not only becoming more common, but also more severe and longer lasting.

43

Id.

44

U.S. Global Change Research Program, supra note 40.

45

Jeff Berardelli, Heat Waves and Climate Change: Is There a Connection?, YALE CLIMATE CONNECTIONS.

46

U.S. Global Change Research Program, “U.S. Heat Wave Frequency and Length Are Increasing” (last visitedJune 21, 2020), https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/indicators/us-heat-waves.

36

66.

Lengthier and more severe heat waves have caused an increase in heat-

related deaths and illnesses, an increase that is expected to worsen as the climate continues towarm. By one estimate, northeast cities including New York and Philadelphia could see up to
six times as many dangerously hot summer days by 2100 as they did between 1975 and 2010,
causing an additional 29,000 heat-related deaths in America per year by the 2090s.47
67.

Vulnerable populations like children, the elderly, economicallydisadvantaged and historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups, and those with chronic
health conditions make up a disproportionately large share of heat-related deaths and illnesses.48
68.

In short, Defendants’ extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels on anenormous scale is the driving force behind the unprecedented combustion of fossil fuels over thelast thirty years that has caused the Earth to warm, increasing the frequency and severity of
extreme heat events and causing a concomitant increase in heat-related deaths and illnesses,
including in Hoboken.
3. Defendants Have Substantially Contributed to an Increase in
Extreme Precipitation Events
69.

Warmer temperatures caused by higher concentrations of greenhousegasses in the atmosphere also disrupt what is known as the hydrologic cycle—the cycle in whichwater evaporates from the ocean and land surface, is carried over the Earth as water vapor, andthen condenses to form clouds and eventually precipitates as rain or snow.49 These disruptions
have caused an increase in both extreme precipitation events and drought throughout the country.

47

Juanita Constible, “Killer Summer Heat: Paris Agreement Compliance Could Avert Hundreds of Thousands of
Needless Deaths in America’s Cities”, NRDC (June 2017), https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/killer-summerheat-paris-agreement-compliance-ib.pdf.
48

U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, supra note 422, at 8.

49

IPCC 2014 SYNTHESIS REPORT, supra note 1, at 124.

37

The increase in extreme precipitation events is particularly pronounced in the northeastern
United States.
70.

Warmer land and ocean surface temperatures caused by increasing

concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gasses speed the process of evapotranspiration—
evaporation of water from land and water surfaces and transpiration of water from plants. As thepace of evapotranspiration quickens, Earth’s atmosphere holds more water vapor. For every
1° Fahrenheit of temperature increase, the atmosphere holds 4% more water vapor.50 This, inturn, leads to more extreme precipitation events in the form of torrential rain in some areas, whileother areas suffer droughts. In addition, because of warmer temperatures, more precipitation is
falling as rain rather than snow.51
71.

Extreme precipitation events have become much more frequent in thenortheast as anthropogenic climate change has begun to accelerate. Between 1958 and 2007, theamount of precipitation falling in extreme rainfall events (the top 1% of all precipitation events)
increased by 71%, the greatest increase nationwide. Between 1979 and 2014, the frequency of
extreme precipitation events in the northeast increased by 15 events per year, and the thresholdfor a 99th percentile precipitation event increased by more than four tenths of an inch of rain.52
72.

Anthropogenic warming has also increased the intensity of hurricanes in

the Atlantic Ocean. Modeling projects that, with 2° Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) of warming,

50

Climate Central, “Pouring It On: How Climate Change Intensifies Heavy Rain Events” (May 15, 2019),
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-pouring-it-on-climate-change-intensifies-heavy-rain-events.
51

NASA Earth Observatory, “The Water Cycle and Climate Change” (Oct. 1, 2010),
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Water/page3.php.
52

Macy E. Howarth et al., “Changes in Extreme Precipitation in the Northeast United States: 1979-2014”, 20 J.
Hydrometeorology, 673-689 (Apr. 22, 2019), https://journals.ametsoc.org/jhm/article/20/4/673/344213/Changes-inExtreme-Precipitation-in-the-Northeast.

38

average rainfall within 100 kilometers of the center of a hurricane will increase by 10-15% dueto the increase in atmospheric moisture content. The same modeling also projects a 1-10%
increase in the intensity of hurricanes with the same amount of warming, a strengthening thatwould cause an even larger increase in the destructive potential of storms.53
73.

The increasing frequency and severity of torrential rainfall events presents

unique challenges for low-lying urban environments like Hoboken. Section G.1 infra. The City
overwhelmingly consists of impervious surfaces like roads and buildings, leaving few natural
mechanisms for runoff or absorption of large quantities of rainwater. These factors mean
Hoboken must make substantial investments in rainfall drainage and abatement systems as
extreme rainfall events become more common and more severe.
74.

Thus, Defendants’ extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels has

substantially contributed to a range of devastating climate impacts, requiring Hoboken to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars on abatement to protect itself from these harms.
B.

Defendants Have Known About the Harms of Fossil Fuels for More Than
Fifty Years
75.

Defendants have known about the enormous harms that fossil fuels havecaused and will continue to cause to the climate and communities around the world for more thanfifty years, dating back to when these harms were only vaguely understood by the general public.
Since the 1950s, Defendants have studied the climate impacts of fossil fuels extensively, learned
about the immense dangers posed by their products, and received repeated warnings from theirown scientists of the need to take action to address these harms. They were told time and again
by their scientists and those of industry trade groups that their continued large-scale production

53

Princeton University Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, “Global Warming and Hurricanes”, NOAA (lastrevised June 12, 2020), https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/.

39and sale of fossil fuels would lead to the exact harms Hoboken is now facing—sea level rise,
more frequent and intense storms, extreme heat, and extreme precipitation events. Despite
decades of warnings, Defendants did nothing to slow their aggressive production, marketing, andsale of fossil fuels, choosing to prioritize profits over averting monumental harm to communities
like Hoboken.
76.

In 1959, physicist Edward Teller delivered one of the earliest warnings ofthe dangers of global warming to the petroleum industry at a Columbia University symposium,organized in tandem with Defendant American Petroleum Institute (“API”), celebrating the oil
industry’s hundredth anniversary. Over 300 government officials, economists, historians,
scientists, and industry executives attended Teller’s speech.54 Emphasizing the need to find nonfossil fuel energy sources to avert catastrophic climate consequences, he issued a stark warning:[A] temperature rise corresponding to a 10 percent increase in carbon dioxide will
be sufficient to melt the icecaps and submerge New York. All the coastal cities
would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives incoastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than mostpeople tend to believe.55
77.

In 1965, API President Frank Ikard delivered a presentation to theorganization at which he warned industry leaders about the potentially dire impacts of CO2
emissions on the planet: “[T]here is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic
consequence of pollution, but time is running out.”56

54

Benjamin Franta, “On its 100th Birthday in 1959, Edward Teller Warned the Oil Industry About Global
Warming”, The Guardian (Jan. 1, 2018), https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-percent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming.
55

Edward Teller et. al., Energy Patterns of the Future, Energy and Man: A Symposium, 53, 58 (New York,Appleton-Century-Crofts, Nov. 1959).
56

Frank Ikard, “Meeting the challenges of 1966”, First General Session: Proceedings of the American Petroleum
Institute, Vol. 45[1], 12-15 (1965), http://www.climatefiles.com/trade-group/american-petroleuminstitute/1965-apipresident-meeting-the-challenges-of-1966/.

40

78.

In 1968, API commissioned a report from the Stanford Research Institute(“SRI”) that examined “Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants.” Thereport warned that the global concentration of atmospheric CO2 was already on the rise. It
explained that a doubling in atmospheric CO2 would lead to warming of the Earth’s surface
temperature of anywhere from 3° to 21° Fahrenheit. It also warned of dire effects to the climatethat could result from significant temperature increases, “including the melting of the Antarctic
ice cap, a rise in sea levels, warming of the oceans, and an increase in photosynthesis.” It thenattributed these harms to fossil fuels directly, explaining that “[a]lthough there are other possible
sources for the additional CO2 now being observed in the atmosphere, none seem to fit thepresently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory.”57
79.

The report concluded by calling on API’s members to act. “Past andpresent studies . . . explain adequately the present state of CO2 in the atmosphere. What islacking, however, is an application of these atmospheric CO2 data to air pollution technology andwork toward systems in which CO2 emissions would be brought under control.”58
80.

In 1969, API asked SRI to supplement its report with a more detailed

assessment of carbon dioxide’s impact on climate. The report found that atmosphericconcentrations of CO2 were steadily increasing and that 90% of this increase could be attributed
to fossil fuel combustion. It also made stunningly precise predictions about future climate harms
based on projected fossil use. It predicted that atmospheric CO2 concentrations would reach57

Elmer Robinson & R.C. Robbins, “Sources, Abundance, and Fate of Gaseous Atmospheric Pollutants”, Stanford
Research Institute, at 108-09 (Feb. 1968), https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16.
58

Id. at 112.

41

370 ppm by 2000, leading to global temperature increases of 0.5° Celsius.59 In 2000,
atmospheric CO2 reached 369.64 ppm60 and global temperature had increased by an average of
0.5° Celsius.61 The report also explained that these outcomes were only the beginning of much
more devastating climate consequences to come. It estimated that if atmospheric CO2 reached
600 ppm, temperatures would rise by more than 2° Celsius, while also recognizing that
combustion of all fossil fuels then recoverable would raise atmospheric CO2 to 850 ppm.62
81.

In 1972, API distributed summaries of extensive research on theenvironmental impacts of fossil fuels that included the 1968 and 1969 SRI reports to its
members, including Defendants.63 Defendants and/or their predecessors in interest that received
this report include, but were not limited to: American Standard of Indiana (BP), Asiatic (Shell),Atlantic Richfield (BP), British Petroleum (BP), Chevron Standard of California (Chevron),Continental (ConocoPhillips), Dupont (former owner of Conoco), 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), Phillips(ConocoPhillips), Shell, Standard of Ohio (BP), Texaco (Chevron), Union (Chevron), Skelly(ExxonMobil), Colonial Pipeline (ownership has included BP, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and59

Ctr. for Int’l Envtl. Law, “Smoke and Fumes: The Legal and Evidentiary Basis for Holding Big Oil Accountable
for the Climate Crisis”, at 12 (Nov. 2017), https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Smoke-Fumes.pdf.
60“Global Mean CO2 Mixing Ratios (ppm): Observations”, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (last visited
Jan. 25, 2019), https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ghgases/Fig1A.ext.txt.
61

See Michael Carlowicz, “Global Temperatures”, NASA EARTH OBSERVATORY (last visited June 15, 2020),
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures.
62

Ctr. for Int’l Envtl. Law, supra note 59, at 12-13.

63

Committee for Air and Water Conservation, “Environmental Research, A Status Report”, American Petroleum
Institute (Jan. 1972), http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066339.pdf.

42

Chevron entities, among others), and Caltex (Chevron). Other members of the fossil fuelindustry that received the report included Rock Island (Koch Industries), Signal (Honeywell),Great Northern, Edison Electric Institute (representing electric utilities), Bituminous Coal
Research (coal industry research group), Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, National
Petroleum Refiners Association (presently the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
Association, a national trade association), and Champlin (Anadarko), among others.64
82.

In July 1977, Exxon scientist James Black gave a presentation to Exxon’s

Corporate Management Committee on the “Greenhouse Effect” that gave further clarity on thethreats to climate caused by fossil fuels. During the presentation, which was memorialized in aninternal memorandum the following year, Black explained that atmospheric CO2 had alreadyincreased by 10-15%, and that slightly more than half of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion
remains in the atmosphere. He then shared the “best presently available climate model,” which
predicted that a doubling in CO2 in the atmosphere would produce warming of 2° to 3° Celsius“over most of the earth” and temperature increases near the poles of “two to three times thisvalue.” He explained that such increases could lead to sea level rise of up to seven meters and,he was “fairly certain,” to increase precipitation, affecting agriculture and industry worldwide.65
83.

Black issued a clear warning to Exxon that the company’s fossil fuels

were driving these climatic changes. “[C]urrent scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors
attributing atmospheric carbon dioxide increase to fossil fuel combustion . . . [T]here is a

64

Id. at 136.

65

J.F. Black, “The Greenhouse Effect”, Exxon Research and Engineering Company, Summary at 1 (June 6, 1978),https://insideclimatenews.org/documents/james-black-1977-presentation.

43

general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the
global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.”66
84.

Black produced a chart projecting increases in atmospheric CO2 relative toan 1860 baseline in two scenarios. In the first scenario, reflected in the flatter curve on the chart,
below, growth in annual fossil fuel use is limited to 2% per year, followed by a symmetricaldecrease after 2025. Under this scenario, annual atmospheric CO2 does not come close to
doubling until 2075. In the second scenario, reflected in the chart’s steeper curve, fossil fuel use
grows by 4.3% per year, and atmospheric CO2 doubles by approximately 2025 and more thanquadruples by 2075.67 Put simply, the chart showed that the scale of Exxon’s future production
and sale of fossil fuels would determine the extent of increases in atmospheric CO2 and theresulting global warming.
Figure 6: Exxon’s Atmospheric CO2 Projections Based on Emissions68

66

Id. at 4.

67

Id. at 2, Vugraph 4.

68

Id. at Vugraph 4.

44

85.

Based on this data, Black told Exxon’s Corporate Management Committeethat “man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding
changes in energy strategies might become critical.”69 Yet from the 1970s through today,
Exxon’s extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels continued at an ever-increasing pace.
86.

In the late 1970s, heeding Black’s warnings, Exxon launched an ambitious

research program to study the environmental effects of the company extraction, production, andsale of fossil fuels. Morrel Cohen, a senior scientist at Exxon during this time period, explainedthat “Exxon was trying to become a research power in the energy industry the way the Bell labs
was in the communications industry.”70 A 1978 letter from Exxon research scientist Henry Shaw
explains that:
Exxon’s involvement and commitment of funds and personnel is based on our needto assess the possible impact of the greenhouse effect on Exxon business. Exxon
must develop a credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information
generated on the subject and be able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation.71
87.

A 1979 Exxon inter-office correspondence from Shaw revealed apotentially more nefarious purpose behind this research—to combat actions to address theharmful effects of fossil fuels:
We should determine how Exxon can best participate in all these areas andinfluence possible legislation on environmental controls. It is important to begin to
anticipate the strong intervention of environmental groups and be prepared torespond with reliable and credible data. . . . It behooves us to start a very aggressive
defensive program in the indicated areas of atmospheric science and climate
because there is a good probability that legislation affecting our business will be

69Id., Summary at 2.

70

Amy Westervelt, Drilled: A True Crime Podcast about Climate Change, Episode 1, The Bell Labs of Energy at
06:21 (Nov. 14, 2018), https://www.criticalfrequency.org/drilled.
71

Letter from Henry Shaw to Dr. Edward E. David Jr. (Dec. 7, 1978), Exxon Research and Engineering Company,
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Credible%20Scientific%20Team%201978%20Letter.pdf.

45

passed. Clearly, it is in our best interest for such legislation to be based on hardscientific data.72
88.

The “hard scientific data” produced by Exxon’s research team continued

to show that combustion of fossil fuels was likely to lead to devastating climate impacts. In
1979, an internal Exxon memorandum from Exxon’s Research and Engineering Division
reiterated the “most widely held theory” that the increase in atmospheric CO2 “is due to fossil
fuel combustion”; “[i]ncreasing CO2 concentration will cause a warming of the earth’s surface”;
and “[t]he present trend of fossil fuel consumption will cause dramatic environmental effects
before the year 2050.” The memorandum also warned Exxon of the “possibility” that “anatmospheric CO2 buildup will cause adverse environmental effects in enough areas of the world
to consider limiting the future use of fossil fuels as major energy sources.” Meanwhile, “the rateof CO2 release from anthropogenic sources appears to be doubling every 15 years,” a rate thatwould double atmospheric CO2 by 2050.73
89.

Armed with this information, Exxon did nothing. To this day, it continues

to extract, produce, market, and sell ever-increasing quantities of fossil fuels, ensuring that theatmospheric concentrations of CO2 continue to accelerate.
90.

Looking back on this time period, Ed Garvey, another former Exxon

scientist who worked for the company through the early 1980s, explained that “[b]y the late1970s, global warming was no longer speculative. There was direct evidence it was not the same

72

Inter-Office Correspondence from H. Shaw to H.N. Weisberg (Nov. 19, 1979), “Research in Atmospheric
Science”,
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Probable%20Legislation%20Memo%20(1979).pdf.
73

Exxon Research and Engineering Company, Ferrall, WL; Knisely, S. “Controlling the CO2 Concentration in the
Atmosphere”, Climate Investigations Center Collection, Climate Investigations Center, at 1 (Oct. 16, 1979)
https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/mqwl0228.

46

type of carbon that was in the atmosphere a hundred years ago.”74 He also believed that “[t]hescientists when I was there were making a genuine effort to understand the science.”75 That
effort would disappear within a decade.
91.

Also in 1979, API and industry scientists formed the “CO2 and Climate

Task Force” to monitor and share climate research. Later renamed the “Climate Energy Task
Force,” it operated from 1979 to 1983. James J. Nelson, its former Director, explained that “[i]twas a fact-finding task force . . . . We wanted to look at emerging science, the implications of it
and where improvements could be made, if possible, to reduce emissions.”76
92.

Membership on the task force included senior scientists and engineersfrom nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company, including Exxon, Mobil(ExxonMobil), Amoco (BP), Gulf Oil (Chevron), Phillips (ConocoPhillips), Texaco (Chevron),
Shell, Sunoco, Sohio (BP), and Standard Oil of California (BP), among others.77
93.

The Task Force held a meeting in March 1980 at which Dr. John

Laurman, an “expert on CO2 and climate,” delivered a presentation that drove home yet anotherstark message about fossil fuels’ role in causing devastating climate change. Executives from
API, Exxon, SOHIO (BP), and Texaco (Chevron) were present at the meeting, among others.
The minutes of the meeting list “reasons for increased concern with the CO2 problem,” including“its correlation with global industrial CO2 emissions, mostly from fossil fuel combustion” and74James Osborne, “INTERVIEW: Former Exxon scientist on oil giant’s 1970s climate change research”, Dallas
Morning News (Oct. 2, 2015), https://www.dallasnews.com/business/2015/10/02/interview-former-exxon-scientiston-oil-giant-s-1970s-climate-change-research/.
75

Id.

76

Exxon Research and Engineering Company, supra note 73.

77

Id.

47

“scientific consensus on the potential for large future climatic response to increased CO2 levels.”
The industry executives were informed that “likely impacts” included 1° Celsius global
temperature increases by 2005, 2.5° Celsius of warming by 2038 causing “major economic
consequences,” and 5° Celsius of warming by 2067 causing “globally catastrophic
consequences.”78
94.

In 1981, Henry Shaw wrote an internal memorandum to Exxon’s Presidentof Research and Engineering outlining Exxon’s “Preliminary Statement of Exxon’s Position on
the Growth of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” The memorandum concurred with the company’sand API’s findings that a doubling in atmospheric CO2, which was likely to occur within
100 years, would result in “3°C global average temperature rise and 10°C at poles,” causing“[m]ajor shifts in rainfall/agriculture” and the potential that “[p]olar ice may melt.”79
95.

That same year, having digested these findings, Exxon’s research manager

Roger Cohen distributed an internal memorandum cautioning executives that calling the impactsof climate change “well short of catastrophic . . . may be too reassuring” because “it is distinctly
possible that [Exxon’s projected emissions] scenario will later produce effects which will indeed
be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth’s population).”80
96.

Cohen built on this warning in a 1982 internal letter Exxon’s Office of

Science and Technology summarizing the findings of Exxon’s research in climate modeling. In

78

Jimmie J. Nelson,, “The CO2 Problem; Addressing Reasearch Agenda Development”, American Petroleum
Institute, Climate Investigations Center Collection, (March 18, 1980),
https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/docs/gffl0228.
79

Memo from Henry Shaw to Dr. E.E. David, Jr. (May 15, 1981), “re CO2 Position Statement”, Exxon Inter-OfficeCorrespondence, at 2, http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/co2-research-program/1981-internal-exxon-co2position-statement/.
80

Memo from R.W. Cohen to W. Glass (Aug. 18, 1981), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1981-exxonmemo-on-possible-emission-consequences-of-fossil-fuel-consumption/.

48

this memorandum, Cohen writes of “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that atemperature increase” of the magnitude caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 “would bringabout significant changes in the earth’s climate,” and that “[t]he time required for doubling of
atmospheric CO2 depends on future world consumption of fossil fuels.” Cohen also urged
Exxon to “permit the publication of our research in scientific literature” because “to do otherwise
would be a breach of Exxon’s public position and ethical credo on honesty and integrity.”81
97.

Exxon flouted this “ethical credo” to be transparent about the known

dangers of fossil fuels. In November 1982, shortly after Cohen urged Exxon to share its researchfindings publicly, M.B. Glaser, Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Program Manager, issued areport titled “CO2 ‘Greenhouse’ Effect.” Though the report was “given wide circulation to
Exxon management . . . to familiarize Exxon personnel with the subject,” Glaser warned that it“should be restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally.”82
98.

Glaser’s report noted “potentially catastrophic events that must be

considered. For example, if the Antarctic ice sheet which is anchored on land should melt, thenthis could cause a rise in sea level on the order of five meters. Such a rise would cause flooding
on much of the U.S. East Coast,” where Hoboken is located. The report also highlighted a study
from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluding that “vigorous development of non-81

Letter from Roger W. Cohen to A.M. Natkin, at 1-3 (Sept. 2, 1982), Exxon Research and Engineering Company,
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-exxon-memo-summarizing-climate-modeling-and-co2-greenhouseeffect-research/.
82

Memo from M.B. Glaser to Exxon Management (Nov. 12, 1982), “CO2 Greenhouse Effect”, Exxon Researchand Engineering Company, http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-aboutco2-greenhouse-effect/.

49

fossil fuel energy sources be initiated as soon as possible” in light of the potential for “great
irreversible harm to our planet.”83
99.

Also in 1982, the Lamont Doherty Geological Observatory at Columbia

University prepared a report for API titled “Climate Models and CO2 Warming.” The report
explained that atmospheric CO2 had already risen from 290 ppm at the start of the industrial
revolution to 340 ppm in 1981. While acknowledging some variability among climate models, it
reported to API that “all predict some kind of increase in temperature within a global mean rangeof 4°C” based on the “assumption that atmospheric CO2 will double,” an outcome “expected
some time in the next century.” It warned that “[s]uch a warming can have serious consequences
for man’s comfort and survival since patterns of aridity and rainfall can change [and] the heightof sea level can increase considerably”—the exact threats Hoboken now faces.84
100.

In 1982, Dr. E.E. David Jr., President of the Exxon Research andEngineering Company, delivered a speech at the Fourth Annual Ewing Symposium, a gatheringof fossil fuel industry leaders, titled “Inventing the Future Energy and the CO2 ‘Greenhouse’
Effect.” His speech concerned how the industry would evolve in light of the scientific consensus
that CO2 buildup in the atmosphere was bound to harm the planet. He concluded that a transition
away from dependence on fossil fuels was necessary and inevitable. “Few people doubt that theworld has entered an energy transition away from dependence on fossil fuels and toward some83

Id. at 12-13, 18.

84

Alan Oppenheis & William I. Donn, “Climate Models and CO2 Warming”, Lamont-Doherty GeophysicalObservatory (Columbia University), 4-5 (Mar. 16, 1982),
http://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2805626/1982-API-Climate-Models-and-CO2-Warming-a.pdf.

50

mix of renewable resources that will not pose problems of CO2 accumulation.”85 Nonetheless,Exxon took no action to slow or transition away from its extraction, production, marketing, andsale of fossil fuels.
101.

In 1983, Mobil issued similarly stark warnings about the potentiallycatastrophic impacts of climate change in a newsletter entitled “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect:
Is Burning of Fossil Fuels Affecting World Climate?” The newsletter explained, “[b]ased on
future world energy demand, many scientists believe that carbon dioxide levels could double
within the next century,” a result which “some scientists predict” could lead to “melting of thearctic ice packs,” causing “sea levels [to] rise 15 to 20 feet.” The newsletter also noted the needfor urgent action “because of the extremely long lead time for any conceivable corrective
actions.”86
102.

In 1988, Shell issued an internal “Confidential” report on “TheGreenhouse Effect” to the Shell Environmental Conservation Committee. The report reachedanalogously alarming conclusions as those circulated internally by API, Exxon, and Mobil. The
report projected that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would double in the 21st century,causing an increase in global temperatures that
could create significant changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation
patterns, regional temperature and weather. These changes could be larger than
any that have occurred over the last 12,000 years. Such relatively fast anddramatic changes would impact on the human environment, future living

85E.E. David Jr., “Inventing the Future: Energy and the CO2 ‘Greenhouse’ Effect”, Exxon Research andEngineering Company, at 3 (Oct. 26,1982), http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4412833-Inventing-theFuture-ER-amp-EC-1982.html.
86

Mobil Oil Corp., “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect: Is Burning Fossil fuels Affecting World Climate”, Mobil Oil
Corp., at 2-3 (June 1, 1983), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1983-mobil-memo-on-the-atmosphericgreenhouse-effect/.

51

standards and food supplies, and could have major social, economic, and politicalconsequences.87
103.

The report also informed Shell of the “reasonable scientific agreement that

increased levels of greenhouse gases would cause global warming” and confirmed that fossil fuelcombustion was “the major source of CO2 in the atmosphere.” Although the report noted that
global warming was not yet detectable, it warned that “by the time the global warming becomesdetectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to
stabilise the situation,” and “the energy industry needs to consider how it should play its part.”88
104.

In 1988, Richard Tucker, the President of Mobil Oil (Exxon), delivered aspeech at the American Institute of Chemical Engineers national meeting that highlighted theimportance of environmental stewardship in light of the threat posed by atmosphericaccumulation of CO2. He proposed an “environmental covenant” that demanded dramatic
action, including the potential need for major reductions in global production and use of fossil
fuels:[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 the unintended consequences of industrialization . . . . We all share inthis responsibility; so we must all be environmentalists. . . .
The environmental covenant requires action on many fronts—toxic waste disposal,
the low-atmosphere ozone problem, the upper-atmosphere ozone problem, and thegreenhouse effect, to name a few. . . .
Prevention on a global scale may even require a dramatic reduction in ourdependence on fossil fuels—and a shift toward solar, hydrogen, and safe nuclear

87

Greenhouse Effect Working Group, “The Greenhouse Effect”, Shell Internationale Petroleum, at 1 (May 1988),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090- Document3.html#document/p9/a411239 (accessed Feb. 21,2020).
88

Id.

52

power. It may be possible—just possible—that the energy industry will transform
itself so completely that observers will declare it a new industry.89
105.

On information and belief, Defendants Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips

also engaged similar studies, with similar findings.
106.

Lofty rhetoric notwithstanding, Defendants did nothing to curb theirproduction, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels across the globe from the 1950s through the late1980s, despite receiving countless warnings from their own scientists that fossil fuels would havedevastating impacts on the climate absent immediate efforts to decrease the emissions their fossil
fuels facilitated. Instead, they were on the cusp of an acute shift in corporate strategy away fromstudying the climate impacts of fossil fuels and feigning concern about climate change. They
were soon to embark on a massive marketing campaign to discredit the valid climate sciencedeveloped by their own researchers and manipulate public opinion against the need to take action
to curb their production and distribution of fossil fuels across the globe.
107.

More than half of global CO2 emissions since 1751 have been released

since 1988; in other words, after Defendants knew about fossil fuels’ catastrophic climate
effects, they actively decided to suppress evidence of those effects.
C.

Defendants Developed Marketing and Sales Practices to Deceive the
Public about Fossil Fuels’ Disastrous Climate Consequences for Decades
108.

By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the public awareness of fossil fuels’

potentially devastating climate consequences was on the rise. During this time, reputablescientific sources confirmed to the public that fossil fuel combustion was warming the planet,and governmental actors began to consider taking action to address the issue.

89

Richard F. Tucker, “High Tech Frontiers in the Energy Industry”, Subcommittee on Economic Stablization of theCommittee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs (Nov. 30, 1988), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754074119482&view=1up&seq=528&q1=the%20challenge%20ahead (second emphasis added).

53

109.

In 1988, NASA scientist James Hanses testified to the U.S. Congress thatclimate change was caused by human activities. His testimony received front-page coverage in
The New York Times.90
110.

That same year, members of the U.S. Congress introduced The National

Energy Policy Act of 1988, intended to “establish a national energy policy that will quickly
reduce the generation of carbon dioxide and [other] trace gases as quickly as is feasible in order
to slow the pace and degree of atmospheric warming . . . to protect the global environment.”91
George H.W. Bush, running for President of the United States that year, also pledged to combat
the “greenhouse effect with the White House effect.”92
111.

Also in 1988, the world’s nations joined together to create the IPCC toprovide a scientific basis for policy action on climate change.93 The IPCC released its First
Assessment Report in 1990, concluding that “there is a natural greenhouse effect which alreadykeeps the Earth warmer than it otherwise would be,” and “emissions resulting from humanactivities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.”94
112.

By the time the IPCC issued its first report, Defendants had known aboutfossil fuels’ deleterious effects on the climate for decades. Their research and public statements
prior to 1988 suggested that they might have sought to join the budding efforts to address
anthropogenic climate change. Yet just as fossil fuels’ central role in warming the planet began

90

Frumhoff, supra note 122, at 161.

91

Id. (alteration in original).

92

Id.

93

Id.

94

IPCC, “Climate Change”, The IPCC Scientific Assessment, IPCC (1990),
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf.

54

to achieve widespread scientific acceptance and become part of the mainstream public debate,
Defendants withdrew all of their efforts to study the effects of fossil fuels on the climate andstopped acknowledging these harms in public.
113.

They chose instead to wage a multifaceted and multimillion-dollar

campaign against climate science. They created front groups to fund and promote misleading
science to cast doubt on the reality of climate change; waged massive advertising campaigns toturn public opinion against efforts to address climate change; and rapidly accelerated their own
production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels on a scale they knew was likely to produce
devastating climate consequences.
114.

A 1988 internal Exxon memorandum titled “The Greenhouse Effect” from

Joseph Carlson, an Exxon Public Affairs Manager, memorializes a shift in the company’s
corporate strategy regarding fossil fuels’ role in causing climate change. The memorandum
states that Exxon is “providing leadership through API in developing the petroleum industry
position” on climate change.95
115.

It begins by setting out the scientific consensus found by the company’s

previous research. It states that “[t]he Greenhouse effect may be one of the most significant
environmental issues for the 1990s” and acknowledges that “[t]he principal Greenhouse gases
are by-products of fossil fuel combustion.” It then highlights climate models that “predict a
1.5°C to 4.5°C global temperature increase – depending on the projected growth of fossil fuels.”
The memorandum did not dispute the veracity of these findings.96

95

Joseph M. Carlson, “The Greenhouse Effect”, ExxonMobil (Aug. 3, 1988),
http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/566/.
96

Id.

55

116.

Despite reiterating the scientific consensus the company knew about for

decades, the memorandum concludes by announcing Exxon’s new “Position” on climatechange—obfuscate and downplay: “Emphasize the uncertainty in scientific conclusions
regarding the potential enhanced Greenhouse effect” and “[r]esist the overstatement andsensationalization of potential Greenhouse effect which could lead to noneconomic developmentof nonfossil fuel resources.”97 Exxon’s strategy, channeled through API, thereby shifted fromtrying to understand the impact of fossil fuels on climate change to trying to dispute and conceal
their impact. It has continued to employ this strategy through the present day.
117.

Carlson’s memo also makes clear that Exxon had abandoned its priorcommitment to engage in research to understand fossil fuels’ impacts on the planet, which it had
characterized as “potentially catastrophic” just six years earlier: “Due to current scientificuncertainty, Exxon is not conducting specific impact studies with respect to particular company
operations or geographic regions.”98
118.

In the late 1980s, Defendants began to form front groups to wage

disinformation campaigns calling climate science into question. Using neutral, technical names
to obscure both the entities behind the groups and their true purpose, they waged campaigns toturn public opinion against the scientific consensus that Defendants’ extraction, production, andsale of fossil fuels was causing devastating climate impacts.
119.

Between 1993 and 2013, at least 4,556 individuals associated with 164

organizations promoted climate science denial with backing from Defendants and others in the

97

Id.

98

Id.

56

fossil fuel industry.99 Below are examples of two of the many such front groups in which
Defendants played a significant role—the “Global Climate Coalition” and “the Information
Council on the Environment.”120.

In 1989, fossil fuel companies and industry groups founded the Global

Climate Coalition (“GCC”) to provide an industry voice in the climate change debate.
Defendants Exxon, Shell, and Phillips Petroleum Company (ConocoPhillips),100 along with API,
were founding members. Defendants BP and Chevron also served as members of the group.
121.

The GCC identified itself as “an organization of business tradeassociations and private companies established . . . to coordinate business participation in thescientific and policy debate on the global climate change issue.”101 In reality, however, thegroup employed a host of methods to deceive the public about the impacts of fossil fuels on the
climate and oppose greenhouse gas regulation, including by funding front groups and creating
denial and misinformation campaigns.
122.

The GCC stated its “Position” on fossil fuels’ role in climate change in a

1996 “Overview Backgrounder” of the coalition’s mission and activities. Its position,
contradicting decades of internal scientific reports produced by its own members, was that fossil
fuels have no role in climate change whatsoever:99

Justin Farrell, “Corporate Funding and Ideological Polarization About Climate Change”, Proceedings of the Nat’l
Acad. Of Sciences, 113(1), 92-97 (Nov. 23, 2015), https://www.pnas.org/content/113/1/92.
100

The EOP Group, Inc., “Progress Report on U.S. Industry Voluntary Actions to Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Report to the Global Climate Coalition”, Global Climate Coalition, (Mar. 1996),
http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1996-u-s-industry-voluntary-actionsprogress-report/; “Global Climate Coalition Membership”, Global Climate Coalition (Nov. 16, 1989),
http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climate-coalition-collection/1989-membership/.
101

Global Climate Coalition, “Global Climate Coalition: An Overview”, at 1 (Nov. 1996),
http://www.climatefiles.com/denial-groups/global-climatecoalition-collection/1996-global-climate-coalitionoverview/.

57

The GCC believes that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that most, if
not all, of the observed warming is part of [a] natural warming trend which began
approximately 400 years ago. If there is an anthropogenic component to thisobserved warming, the GCC believes that it must be very small and must be
superimposed on a much larger natural warming trend.102
123.

The GCC reached this conclusion without addressing the IPCC’s First

Assessment Report or the prior findings of API, Exxon, and Shell of clear scientific agreementthat fossil fuel combustion is the leading cause of climate change.
124.

The GCC’s unfounded conclusions about the role of its own members incausing climate change was used as a justification to oppose any regulation or restriction on
Defendants’ extraction, production, or sale of fossil fuels. Among its “Views,” the GCC listed:“U.S. living standards and lifestyles would be seriously damaged by [proposals] that would
stabilize or reduce carbon emissions by taxing fossil fuels”; “[a]ny program geared to near-term
stabilization or reduction in carbon emissions . . . is likely to produce significant economic
dislocations in the United States, including profound job losses and major economic
restructuring”; and “[i]mposing near-term goals to stabilize or reduce carbon emissions would
weaken the U.S. economy and cripple the nation’s competitiveness in the global marketplace.”103
125.

The GCC did not merely seek to disparage credible climate science fromthe outside; it sought to do so from within the IPCC. A report by the Harvard Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs explained that the GCC “spent several years seeking
acceptance as a reviewer of IPCC reports . . . rather than engaging directly in attacks on thescience of the IPCC.”104 It became a reviewer of the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1996.

102

Id. at 2.

103

Id.

104

Wendy E. Franz, “Science, Skeptics and Non-State Actors in the Greenhouse,” ENRP Discussion Paper E-98-18,
Knenedy School of Government, Harvard University, at 14, (Sept. 1998),

58

126.

The GCC prepared a primer on climate change in early 1996 in

anticipation of its contribution to the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report. The primer directly
contradicted the GCC’s statement in the “Overview Backgrounder”—published during the sameyear—that natural warming was the leading cause of observed global warming. Seeking toendear itself to the IPCC, it claimed in this primer that “[t]he scientific basis of the Greenhouse
Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate
is well established and cannot be denied.”105
127.

A draft of the primer included “contrarian theories” that factors other thanthe use of fossil fuels were driving global warming, but ultimately concluded that “they do notoffer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced
climate change.”106 The GCC’s Board was so unpersuaded by these theories that it decided todrop this section from its final version of the primer.
128.

Having publicly presented to the IPCC that it was acting in good faith, theGCC used its perch as an IPCC reviewer to “initiate one of the most infamous attacks on the
IPCC itself,” claiming that the IPCC engaged in “scientific cleansing” that “understate[d]uncertainties about climate change causes and effect . . . to increase the apparent scientificsupport for attribution of changes to climate to human activities.” This effort “was widely
perceived to be an attempt on the part of the GCC to undermine the credibility of the IPCC.”107

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/Science%20Skeptics%20and%20NonState%20Actors%20in%20the%20Greenhouse%20-%20E-98-18.pdf.
105

Global Climate Coalition, “Approval Draft: Predicting Future Climate Change: A Primer”, at 1 (Jan. 18, 1996),
http://www.webcitation.org/6FyqHawb9.
106

Id. at 16.

107

Franz, supra note 104, at 14-15.

59

129.

At the same time, between 1989 and 1998, the GCC spent $13 million on

advertisements as part of a campaign to cast doubt on climate science.”108
130.

In 1991, a group of coal companies, including Midway Coal Mining,

owned by Chevron, formed the Information Council for the Environment (“ICE”) to lead a
campaign to promote an alternative set of facts suggesting that increased atmospheric CO2 would
be beneficial, not harmful, for the environment and humanity. Like the GCC, it chose its neutralsounding name to misleadingly position itself “as a ‘technical’ source rather than an industry
group.”109
131.

A 1991 report lays out ICE’s “Strategies.” The very first strategy on its

list is to “Reposition global warming as theory (not fact).”110
132.

ICE conducted polling that showed a large majority of people considered

global warming to be a problem. In one poll, it found that 80% of respondents thought the
problem was “somewhat serious” and 45% thought it was “very serious.”111 ICE sought todismantle this consensus. A memorandum from Richard Lawson, the President of the National
Coal Association, asked members to contribute to ICE’s work because “[p]ublic opinion polls
reveal that [a majority] of the American people already believe global warming is a serious
environmental problem. Our industry cannot sit on the sidelines in this debate.”112

108

Id. at 13.

109

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 (2011).
110

Union of Concerned Scientists, “Climate Deception Dossier #5: Coal’s ‘Information Council on theEnvironment’ Sham”, Information Council for the Environment (1991),
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-5_ICE.pdf.
111

Id.

112

Oreskes, supra note 109.

60

133.

ICE’s campaign included full-page newspaper advertisements, radio

commercials, a public relations tour, and mailers. It targeted its advertisements at “older, lesseducated males,” among others, on the theory that members of this group are “not typically
active information-seekers.”113
134.

One such advertisement compared concerns about climate change to“Chicken Little’s hysteria about the sky falling,” which “was based on a fact that got blown outof proportion. It is the same with climate change.”114
Figure 7: ICE Advertisement

113

Union of Concerned Scientists, supra note 110.

114

Id.

61

135.

In 1994, Shell, like Exxon before it, turned its back on its own internalscientific findings—made as recently as 1988—that unequivocally linked fossil fuel combustion
to climate change. In an internal report titled “The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect,” Shell rejected
findings from the IPCC consistent with the company’s prior scientific conclusions, and insteademphasized, without any scientific support, the “minority” view that “concerns over global
warming [are] exaggerated and misguided.”115 It acknowledged that “none” of the explanations
casting doubt on fossil fuels’ central role in climate change “has so far achieved widespread
acceptance in the IPCC scientific community.”116 Nonetheless, it concluded that “policies tocurb greenhouse gas emissions beyond ‘no regrets’ measures could be premature” and touted its
work with the “International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association,” an“industry consortium,” to “provide[] for research on key areas of scientific uncertainty.”117 Gone
were Shell’s warnings, made just six years earlier, that “by the time the global warming becomesdetectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures” and “the energy industry needs
to consider how it should play its part.”118
136.

In 1996, more than thirty years after API’s president warned that “time isrunning out” for the world to address the “catastrophic consequences of pollution,” APIpublished the book “Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices” to refute this very
conclusion. Contradicting the scientific consensus known by its members for decades, the bookclaims: “Currently, no conclusive—or even strongly suggestive—scientific evidence exists that115

P. Langcake, “The Enhanced Greenhouse Effect: A review of the Scientific Aspects”, Shell Internationale, at 2
(Dec. 1994), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411099- Document11.html#document/p15/a411511.
116

Id. at 9.

117

Id. at 14.

118

Greenhouse Effect Working Group, supra note 87, at 1.

62human activities are significantly affecting sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures, or theintensity and frequency of storms.”119137.

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 theatmosphere and whether fossil fuels are even responsible for increasing concentrations ofatmospheric 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 tochange their crop plans” and low-lying areas would “likely adapt” to sea level rise.120
138.

As Hoboken’s vulnerability demonstrates, however, such adaptations,

made necessary by Defendants’ conduct, are enormously expensive—costing hundreds ofmillions of dollars for this 1.25-square-mile city alone. Defendants’ strategy merely transferred
the significant costs and externalities of their actions onto Plaintiff, and reaped billions of dollars
in the process.
139.

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
the planet. 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.”121

119

Sally Brain Gentille et al., “Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices”, American Petroleum Institute, at 79(1996), http://www.climatefiles.com/trade-group/american-petroleuminstitute/1996-reinventing-energy.
120

Id. at 86-87.

121

Id. at 89.

63

140.

Throughout the 1990s, Defendants fomented uncertainty about climate

science and centered economic arguments to turn public opinion against taking action to address
climate change. From 1972 to 2004, Mobil (Exxon) ran a series of advertorials (paidadvertisements styled as editorials) in the New York Times to present its position on the issue. In
one such advertorial from 1997, Mobil argued
Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan ofaction that could plunge economies into turmoil . . . . Scientists cannot predict withcertainty if temperatures will increase, by how much, and where changes will occur.
We still don’t know what role man-made greenhouse gases might play in warming
the planet.122
141.

Two Harvard University scholars found that 81% of Exxon’s and Mobil’s

advertorials from 1989 through 2004 expressed doubt that climate change is real and caused byhuman activities. By comparison, they found that 80% of the companies’ internal documents, aswell as 83% of peer-reviewed publications, recognized the link between climate change andhuman activities. Based on “this discrepancy,” they concluded that “ExxonMobil misled the
public.”123
142.

In 1996, Exxon published a document titled “Global warming: Who’s

Right? Facts About a Debate That’s Turned up More Questions than Answers.” The publication
included a preface from Exxon’s Chairman and CEO, Lee R. Raymond, that contradicted his
own company’s earlier scientific at findings at every turn. First, he dismissed the need to act
urgently to prevent climate change, stating that “[t]aking drastic action immediately is
unnecessary since many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand the climate
122“When Facts Don’t Square with the Theory, Throw Out the Facts”, N.Y. Times, at A31 (Aug.14, 1997),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/705550-mob-nyt-1997-aug-14-whenfactsdontsquare.html.
123

Geoffrey Supran & Naomi Oreskes, “Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014)”, 12
Envtl. Research letters, IOP Publishing Ltd. (2017), at 12, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/17489326/aa815f/pdf.

64system.” He then cast doubt fossil fuels’ role in causing climate change, speciously contendingthat the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century was the result of “naturalfluctuations that occur over long periods of time” rather than anthropogenic emissions that
Exxon’s own scientists had confirmed were responsible.124
143.

He also claimed that any future warming from his company’s extraction,

production, and sale of fossil fuels would have salutary effects. He stated that the greenhouseeffect is “definitely a good thing” because it is “what makes the earth’s atmosphere livable. . . .
[T]he indications are that a warmer world would be far more benign than many imagine”
because “moderate warming would reduce mortality rates in the US, so a slightly warmer climate
would be more healthful.” He concluded by attacking advocates calling for limiting the use offossil fuels “as drawing on bad science”—the same scientific underpinnings that Exxon’s
scientists had played an important role in establishing just 20 years earlier.125
144.

In 1997, Raymond gave a speech to the World Petroleum Congress inBeijing designed to mobilize the industry against aggressive action at the upcoming global
summit on climate change in Kyoto, Japan. Again contradicting the company’s earlier internal
findings that “scientific opinion overwhelmingly favors attributing atmospheric carbon dioxide
increase to fossil fuel combustion,” he claimed that “most of the greenhouse effect comes fromnatural sources, like water vapor.” Continuing Defendants’ campaign of obfuscation, he124Exxon Corp., “Global Warming: Who’s Right?”, at 3, 5 (1996), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/globalwarming-who-is-right-1996/.
125

Id. at 5, 7.

65

asserted, “the case for global warming is far from air tight” and “the real secret to environmental
improvement is economic growth.”126
145.

As the 1990s progressed, Defendants and the industry groups supportingthem doubled down on their campaign to turn public opinion against the scientific consensus thatthe fossil fuels they produce, market, and sell are the leading cause of climate change.
146.

In a 1998 article A Cleaner Canada, Robert Paterson, the Chairman ofImperial Oil (Exxon), echoed Raymond’s dismissal of the scientific consensus found by thecompany’s own scientists:
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but an essential ingredient of life on thisplanet . . . . [T]he question of whether or not trapping of ‘greenhouse gases will
result in the planet’s getting warmer . . . has no connection whatsoever with our
day-to-day weather. . . .
There is absolutely no agreement among climatologists on whether or not theplanet is getting warmer or, if it is, on whether the warming is the result of manmade factors or natural variations in the climate. . . .
I feel very safe in saying that the view that burning fossil fuels will result in
global climate change remains an unproven hypothesis.127
147.

In 1998, API formed the Global Climate Science Communications Team(GCSCT) to execute an “Action Plan” designed to ensure that “[a] majority of the American
public, including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate
science, and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S.
course on global climate change.” Executives from Defendants Exxon and Chevron, API, andother fossil fuel companies were directly involved in the development of the Action Plan.
126

Lee R. Raymond, Energy—Key to Growth and a Better Environment for Asia-Pacific Nations, World Petroleum
Congress, at 9-10 (Oct. 13, 1997), http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1997-exxon-lee-raymond-speech-atworld-petroleum-congress/.
127

Robert Peterson, “A Cleaner Canada”, Imperial Oil Rev., at 29 (1998),
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6555577-1998-Robert-PetersonA-Cleaner-Canada-Imperial.html.

66

Although it held itself out as the “Global Climate Science Communications Team,” the team did
not include a single scientist.128
148.

The GCSCT’s Action Plan states that “Victory Will Be Achieved When”

doubts about climate science become mainstream, as measured by when:•

Average citizens “understand” (recognize) uncertainties in climate science;
recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the “conventional wisdom.”•

Media “understands” (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science. . . .

•Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science appear to beout of touch with reality.129

149.

The Action Plan also issued a stark warning to API’s members: “Unless‘climate change’ becomes a non-issue, . . . there may be no moment when we can declare victoryfor our efforts.”130 It then laid out a series of “Strategies and Tactics” to accomplish that
objective. A pillar of the Plan was a $5 million “Global Climate Science Data Center,”envisioned as an “alternative to the IPCC” that would “rais[e] questions about and undercut[] the‘prevailing scientific wisdom’” that combustion of fossil fuels causes climate change. The
Action Plan also envisioned a $2 million fund to disburse to organizations that cast doubt on
climate science, including the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and theCompetitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).131

128

Email from Joe Walker to Global Climate Science Team (Apr. 3, 1998), “Draft Global Science Communications
Action Plan”, at 2-3,
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/Global%20Climate%20Science%20Communications%2
0Plan%20%281998%29.pdf.
129

Id. at 3.

130

Id.

131

Id. at 5-7.

67

150.

The GCSCT borrowed directly from tobacco companies’ denialist

playbook. The GCSCT mirrored a front group created by the tobacco industry known as The
Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (“TASSC”), whose purpose was to sow uncertainty
about the fact that cigarette smoke is carcinogenic. Steve Milloy, a key player in TASSC, wasalso a member of the GCSCT and helped to draft its Action Plan.132 Solidifying the ties between
Defendants and Milloy, from 2000 to 2004, Exxon donated a total of $110,000 to a successor
organization to TASSC and the Free Enterprise Education Institute, another organization
registered to Milloy’s home address in Maryland.133
151.

A 1999 API budget document distributed to its members identifies the

public’s agreement on fossil fuels’ role in causing climate change as its highest priority issue:“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.”134 The document projected that $2 million of API’s $3.8 million program budget
would be dedicated to external expenditures on climate, including “climate science and science
uncertainty research.”135
152.

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 that132

Id. at 2.

133

Seth Shulman et al., “Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big tobacco’s Tactic to Manufacture
Uncertainty on Climate Science”, Union of Concerned Scientists, at 19 (Jan. 2007), https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/
default/files/2019-09/exxon_report.pdf.
134

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “Allegations of Political Interference with Government
Climate Change Science”, Allegations of Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science, at 52(Mar. 19, 2007), http://ia601904.us.archive.org/25/items/gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-110hhrg37415/CHRG110hhrg37415.pdf.
135

Id. at 55.

68

minimized fossil fuels’ role in climate change. Among the groups to which API provided
funding were the Heartland Institute, CEI, and the American Council on Capital Formation, eachof which issued publications challenging the scientific consensus that fossil fuels were causing
climate change and opposed restrictions on Defendants’ extraction, production, and sale of fossil
fuels.
153.

In 1998, Shell predicted lawsuits like this one, directly comparing the“social reaction” to fossil fuel companies’ deceptions about climate science to tobaccocompanies’ deceptions about the hazards of cigarettes. In a report published that year titled“Scenarios: 1998-2020,” Shell predicted:[i]n 2010, a series of violent storms causes extensive damage to the eastern coastof the United States. . . . Following the storms, a coalition of environmental
NGOs brings a class-action suit against the US government and fossil-fuelcompanies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) havebeen saying for years: that something must be done. A social reaction to the useof fossil fuels grows, and individuals become “vigilante environmentalists” in thesame way, a generation earlier, they had become fiercely anti-tobacco.136
154.

Shell’s prediction was a year or two off—Hurricane Irene hit Hoboken in2011 and Superstorm Sandy hit the City in 2012.
155.

In the 2000s, the scientific consensus that fossil fuels are the primary

driver of climate change coalesced even more firmly. In 2007, the IPCC published its Fourth
Assessment Report, concluding that “there is very high confidence that the net effect of human136

Royal Dutch/Shell Group, “The Group of the Future and the Group Scenarios 1998–2020”, at 115 (1998),
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4430277-27-1-Compiled.html.

69

activities since 1750 has been one of warming.”137 The IPCC defined “very high confidence” asat least a 9 out of 10 chance.138
156.

At the same time that the scientific consensus on global warming grewstronger, however, Defendants’ deceptive public communications and campaigns casting doubt
on climate science had successfully eroded the public’s faith in it. A 2007 poll conducted by
Yale University and Gallup found that only 48% of Americans believed that there was ascientific consensus that global warming was occurring, and 40% believed that there was a lot ofscientific disagreement on the subject.139
157.

Meanwhile, Defendants continued their baseless attacks on theunderpinnings of climate science. A 2006 report by ExxonMobil titled “Tomorrow’s Energy: A
Perspective on Energy Trends, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Future Energy Options” asserts:
While assessments such as those of the IPCC have expressed growing confidence
that recent warming can be attributed to increases in greenhouse gases, these
conclusions rely on expert judgment rather than objective, reproducible statisticalmethods. Taken together, gaps in the scientific basis for theoretical climate
models and the interplay of significant natural variability make it very difficult todetermine objectively the extent to which recent climate change might be theresult of human actions. These gaps also make it difficult to predict the timing,
extent and consequences of future climate change . . . . [A] causal linkage
between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed
climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.140

137Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis”, Contributionof Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, at 3(2007), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf.
138

Id. at 3 n.7.

139

Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, “American Opinions on Global Warming: A
Yale/Gallup/Clearvision Poll” (July 31, 2007), https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americanopinions-on-global-warming/.
140

Exxon Mobil Corp., “Tomorrow’s Energy: A Perspective on Energy Trends, Greenhouse Gas Emissions andFuture Energy Options”, at 10 (2006).

70

158.

In 2006, shortly after the release of this report, the Royal Society, theUnited Kingdom’s national academy of sciences, issued a rare and stinging rebuke of
ExxonMobil’s public statements regarding climate change. The Royal Society asserted that
Exxon’s statements leave “an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on thecauses of climate change that is documented in the scientific literature. It is very difficult toreconcile the misrepresentations of climate change science in these documents with
ExxonMobil’s claim to be an industry leader.”141 It also castigated ExxonMobil for providing, in
2005, “more than $2.9 million to organizations in the United States which misinformed the
public about climate change through their websites.”142
159.

Exxon’s multimillion-dollar disbursement of cash to climate change

denialists in 2005 was typical of its conduct in the late 1990s through the 2000s. From 1998
through 2007, ExxonMobil gave over $20 million to think tanks and organizations that publishedresearch and ran campaigns denying climate science.143
160.

On information and belief, Defendants Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips

made a similar shift away from acknowledging the reality of anthropogenic climate change, toactively working to undermine scientific consensus and public trust.
161.

Starting in 1988, Defendants made a marked and coordinated shift in

corporate strategy relating to climate change. After thirty years of careful, internal studies made141

Letter from Bob Ward to Nick Thomas (Sept. 4, 2006), The Royal Society, at 2, https://royalsociety.org//media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2006/8257.pdf.
142

Id.

143

Exxon Mobil Foundation and Corporate Giving, “ExxonMobil Foundation & Corporate Giving to Climate
Change Denier & Obstructionist Organizations”, UCS (2017),
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/ExxonMobil-Worldwide-Giving-19982017.pdf?_ga=2.84739161.1384563456.1548170682-1610477837.1510330963.

71plain to Defendants that large-scale extraction, production, and sale of fossil fuels would cause
devastating climate consequences, the reality that fossil fuels were causing global warming
began to enter the broader public consciousness. Rather than join efforts to address the urgent
issue, Defendants spent millions of dollars funding think tanks and leading communications
campaigns to deceive the public into discrediting the scientific consensus on climate change that
their own scientists had helped to develop.
D.

Defendants Protected Their Own Infrastructure from Climate Change
While Lying to the Public About It
162.

At the same time that Defendants waged a multifaceted campaign ofclimate disinformation, they designed and made modifications to their own infrastructure, often
at significant expense, acknowledging the coming reality of melting ice caps, worsening storms,
and rising sea levels.
163.

In 1973, Esso Research and Engineering Company (Exxon) obtained apatent for a cargo ship capable of breaking through sea ice144 and another for an oil tanker145
designed for use in areas of the Arctic that would not be reachable until climate change had
intensified.
164.

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

designed to withstand significant interference from lateral ice masses,146 allowing for drilling inareas with increased ice flow movement due to elevated temperatures. That same year, Texaco

144

U.S. Patent No. 3,727,571, Icebreaking Cargo Vessel, Esso Research and Engineering Co. (filed Apr. 17, 1973),
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/aa/05/5c/ba8a0dc55c08ef/US3727571.pdf.
145

U.S. Patent No. 3,745,960, Tanker Vessel, Esso Research and Engineering Co. (filed July 17, 1973),
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/b9/7c/62/fc64d5de1f7192/US3745960.pdf.
146

U.S. Patent No. 3,831,385, Arctic Offshore Platform, Chevron research Co. (filed Aug. 27, 1974),
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/87/5d/03/83f5da92318d67/US3831385.pdf.

72

(Chevron) obtained a patent for a mobile arctic drilling and production platform that allowed for
drilling in previously unreachable areas of the Arctic that would become seasonally accessible
due to polar ice melt.147
165.

In 1984, Shell obtained a patent for an arctic offshore drilling platform

similar to Chevron’s.148
166.

These actions were taken with the expectation that arctic exploration foroil and gas would become easier due to predicted anthropogenic warming.
167.

In 1989, Shell initiated a $3 billion redesign of an offshore natural gas

platform in the North Sea. Shell initially planned to construct the platform to reach a height of
30 meters above sea level—the standard height for platforms of this type. Shell was concerned,
however, that this height would not be sufficient to make the platform operable at the end of its
lifespan in 2065. Engineers found that anticipated sea level rise, caused by increases inatmospheric CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels like the natural gas extracted at the platform,
could lead the platform to be inundated during a bad storm. Accordingly, the engineers revised
the plan to add one to two meters of height to the platform at a potential cost of over
$30 million.149
168.

Also in 1989, Esso Resources Canada (Exxon) commissioned a study on

the impact 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

147

U.S. Patent No. 3,793,840, Mobile, Arctic Drilling and Production Platform, Texaco Inc. (filed Feb. 26, 1974),
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/52/d6/b3/9f23a65402d3a4/US3793840.pdf.
148

U.S. Patent No. 4,427,320, Arctic Offshore Platform, Shell Oil Co. (filed Jan. 24, 1984),
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a5/67/da/9c7d06b9e89d1c/US4427320.pdf.
149

Amy Lieberman and Susanne Rust, “Big Oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations”, L.A. Times(Dec. 31, 2015), http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/.

73

crossing Canada’s Northwest Territory.150 The study found that “all climate scenarios indicatethat significant increases in both temperature and precipitation will be experienced by the
Mackenzie Valley,” meaning “large zones of the Mackenzie Valley could be affected
dramatically by climatic change.”151 The study concluded that increasing temperatures, greater
precipitation, melting permafrost, rising sea levels, and erosion could all threaten the company’s
infrastructure in the region and recommended that the company factor these climatic changes
into its future development plans.152
169.

In 1994, the prospect of rising sea levels and increasingly severe storms

played a major role in the construction of Europipe, a natural gas pipeline leading from a North
Sea offshore platform to the German Coast. A joint venture of Shell, Exxon, andConocoPhillips, among other fossil fuel companies, the project’s engineers noted that sea levels
had risen over the last century and that there could be a “considerable increase of the frequencyof storms as a result of climate change.” They concluded that the pipeline design needed toinclude protections against these future climate impacts.153
170.

In 1996, Mobil, Shell, and Imperial Oil (Exxon) took the likelihood ofrising temperatures and sea levels into account in the design of their Sable gas field project off
the coast of Nova Scotia, Canada. Mobil engineers wrote in design specifications that “[a]n150Stephen Lonergan & Kathy Young, “An Assessment of the Effects of Climate Warming on Energy
Developments in the Mackenzie River Valley and Delta, Canadian Arctic”, Energy Exploration & Exploitation Vol.
7 Issue 5 (Oct. 1, 1989), 359-81.
151

Id. at 369, 377.

152

Id. at 375-77 (“The development of a natural gas plant at Taglu should receive many of the same considerations,particularly with respect to changes in permafrost. . . . A rise in sea level could cause increased flooding and erosion
damage on Richards Island.”).
153

Amy Lieberman and Susanne Rust, supra note 149.

74

estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed” for the
project’s 25-year lifespan.154 1996 was the same year that API—of which Exxon, Mobil, andShell were all members—stated publicly in “Reinventing Energy: Making the Right Choices”
that “[c]urrently, no conclusive—or even strongly suggestive—scientific evidence exists thathuman activities are significantly affecting sea levels . . . .”171.

On information and belief, Defendants Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips

also took the reality of anthropogenic climate change into account in designing andmanufacturing their durable infrastructure.
E.

Defendants Have Engaged in a Continuing Pattern of Deception to The
Present Day
172.

In the last decade, the scientific certainty that Defendants’ mass extraction,

production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels is driving global warming has led Defendants topublicly acknowledge the scientific reality of climate change. This public acknowledgment,
however, merely marks another tactical shift in Defendants’ decades-long campaign ofdeception. Instead of publicly denying climate science, Defendants have now embarked on“greenwashing” efforts to dupe consumers into believing that they are committed to addressing
climate change. These campaigns do not reflect any meaningful investment in low carbon
energy or a fundamental change in Defendants’ core business in fossil fuels. They serve to mask
Defendants’ current extraction, production, marketing and sale of fossil fuels at record levels andcontinued funding of climate disinformation behind closed doors, all of which have harmed
Plaintiff substantially.

154

Id.

75

1.

173.

Defendants Have Misled Consumers Through “Greenwashing”
Campaigns that Feign Commitment to Addressing Climate
ChangeIn 2004, BP changed its name from “British Petroleum” to BP as part of alarger rebranding to create the impression that it was committed to a clean energy future. It evenadopted the moniker “Beyond Petroleum” and a green and yellow logo that it uses to this day.
These cosmetic changes concealed the company’s continuation of its core business in fossil
fuels. For example, a $1.5 billion investment in “alternative” energy touted by the company in2008 included natural gas fired power plants and comprised just 7% of the company’s totalenergy investments, with the remaining 93% in coal and oil.155 BP also abandoned its assets inwind and solar in 2011 and 2013, respectively, and dropped “Beyond Petroleum” in 2013.156
174.

In 2019, BP redoubled its efforts to hold itself out as a clean energy

company through its “Possibilities Everywhere” advertising campaign. These advertisements
appeared on national television networks in the United States and digital and print media outlets
widely available in Hoboken, including CNN, Politico, The Economist, and the New York Citybased Wall Street Journal.
175.

The Possibilities Everywhere campaign misleadingly claimed that BP was

heavily invested in clean energy like solar and wind power. One advertisement touted BP’s
investment in “more energy” with “less footprint.”157 Another trumpeted BP’s investment in
windfarms in Indiana, noting that natural gas was a backup in the event that the wind power

155

Fred Pearce, “Greenwash: BP and the Myth of a World ‘Beyond Petroleum’”, The Guardian (Nov. 20, 2008),
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/20/fossilfuels-energy.
156

Javier E. David, “‘Beyond Petroleum’ No More? BP Goes Back to Basics”, CNBC (Apr. 20, 2013),
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100647034.
157

BP America, “Possibilities Everywhere, More Energy with Less Footprint”, Facebook (Mar. 6, 2019)https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=804651883212210.

76

failed.158 This advertisement omitted the fact that natural gas is itself a fossil fuel that emits
large quantities of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere when combusted.
176.

More broadly, BP’s advertised focus on clean energy is belied by its

conduct. More than 95% of BP’s energy portfolio at the time of the Possibilities Everywhere
campaign remained in fossil fuels. Between 2010 and 2018, just 2.3% of BP’s total capital
expenditures were invested in low carbon energy sources, a significant decrease from the alreadypaltry 7% in 2008.159
177.

While investing negligible sums of money in the clean energy promotedby the Possibilities Everywhere campaign, a 2019 estimate placed BP’s annual spending on“climate branding”—efforts to draw attention to low carbon sources, position the company as aclimate expert, and acknowledge concern about climate change while ignoring the central role ofthe company’s fossil fuels in causing it—at $30 million.160
178.

In or around 2019, Exxon ran a series of advertorials and advertisementsin the New York Times, The Economist, and on its YouTube channel, outlets widely available in
Hoboken, touting the company’s investment in alternative energy biofuels from algae and plant
waste. One advertorial in the Times—reprising the advertorials Mobil ran in that paper from the158

BP America, “Possibilities Everywhere, Fowler, Indiana”, Facebook (May 20, 2019),
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2300863480160604.
159

Jonathan Watts, Jillian Ambrose & Adam Vaughan, “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.
160

InfluenceMap, Big Oil’s Real Agenda on Climate Change 13 (March 2019),
https://influencemap.org/report/How-Big-Oil-Continues-to-Oppose-the-Paris-Agreement38212275958aa21196dae3b76220bddc.

77

1970s through the early 2000s that frontally attacked climate science—instead falsely promised“A Greener Energy Future. Literally.”161
Figure 8: Exxon Biofuels Advertorial

179.

Exxon’s promise of a “literally” greener energy future is as illusory as its

specious climate science denial. In reality, Exxon invested just 0.2% of its capital spending on
low carbon energy between 2010 and 2018.162 And the biofuels it promoted in the Times
represent a similarly miniscule portion of Exxon’s energy portfolio going forward. The company
has set a goal of producing 10,000 barrels of biofuels per day by 2025; even if met, this would
amount to just 0.2% of its total refinery capacity.163 The transformative technology promised by

161

ExxonMobil, “The Future of Energy? It May Come from Where You Least Expect It”, N.Y. Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/exxonmobil/the-future-of-energy-it-may-come-from-where-you-leastexpect.html.
162

Watts et al., supra note 159.

163

InfluenceMap, supra note 1600, at 3.

78

Exxon’s campaign is therefore just a distraction from the climate harms caused by Exxon’s
extraction, production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels at an enormous scale.
180.

In fact, and in contrast to its meager investment in biofuels, a 2019

estimate placed Exxon’s annual spending on climate branding like these advertorials at$56 million.164
181.

In the late 2010s, Shell launched a similar “Make the Future” campaign

designed to hold itself out as an environmentally conscious energy company. The campaign
included advertisements targeted at Hoboken residents through the New York Times, other U.S.
national media outlets, and the company’s YouTube channel.
182.

A paid video advertisement in the New York Times titled “Reimagining the

Future of Transportation” suggested that Shell is committed to a cleaner energy future by, among
other things, building ships to run on liquefied natural gas rather than oil, running trucks onhydrogen fuel cells, and running airplanes on biofuels.165 Shell produced a similar advertorial in
the Times positing “A Path to Net-Zero Emissions by 2070” by “changing how tomorrow’s
transport is fueled” and inviting readers to “explore the possibilities.”166

164

Id. at 12.

165

Shell, Video: Reimagining the Future of Transportation, N.Y. Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/shell/reimagining-the-future-of-transportation.html#100000006395029.
166

Shell, “Moving Forward: A Path to Net-Zero Emissions by 2070", N.Y. Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/shell/ul/moving-forward-a-path-to-net-zero-emissions-by-2070.html.

79

Figure 9: Shell Advertorial

183.

These advertisements attempt to obscure the fact that Shell’s investments

in sustainable energy sources remain inconsequential relative to its investment in fossil fuels.
Between 2010 and 2018, Shell dedicated just 1% of its capital spending to low carbon energy
sources.167
184.

Shell partnered with the marketing firm MediaCom to develop anddisseminate the “Make the Future” campaign. MediaCom’s website explains that one of thecampaign’s goals was to change perceptions about Shell among “Energy Engaged Millennials.”
MediaCom touts success in this area, finding, among other things, an 8.3-point increase inmillennials’ belief that Shell is “setting trends in energy” following a seven-week advertising167

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-bd3a-8b2a211d90d5.

80push in 2016.168 Thus, Shell’s greenwashing campaign meaningfully increased consumers’
belief that Shell is committed to low carbon energy, a commitment that is not borne out by
Shell’s actual business practices.
185.

While Shell’s commitment to low carbon energy remains minimal, Shell’s

investment in greenwashing campaigns has been significant. A 2019 estimate placed its annual
spending on climate branding at $55 million.169
186.

In 2010, Chevron launched an advertising campaign with the slogan “We

Agree,” highlighting the company’s commitment to sustainable energy investments andenvironmental stewardship. The advertisements announced Chevron’s agreement withstatements like: “It’s time oil companies get behind the development of renewable energy”; and“Protecting the Planet is Everyone’s job.”170
Figure 10: Chevron “We Agree” Advertisement

168“Shell: Make the Future”, MediCom (Dec. 16, 2016), https://www.mediacom.com/uk/article/index?id=makethe-future.
169

InfluenceMap, supra note 160, at 12.

170

Elizabeth Douglass, “Exxon’s Gamble: 25 Years of Rejecting Shareholder Concerns on Climate Change”, Inside
Climate News (Nov. 16, 2015), https://insideclimatenews.org/news/16112015/exxons-gamble-25-years-rejectingshareholder-concerns-climate-change.

81

187.

Chevron’s agreement with these statements did not translate into any

substantive action. In the decade since the campaign, Chevron has not invested any meaningfulamount of money, profits or otherwise, toward renewable energy. In 2014, Chevron shut down
its renewable and alternative energy projects altogether.171 And from 2010 to 2018, the eight
years after the launch of the “We Agree” campaign, it expended just 0.2% of its total capital on
low carbon energy.172
188.

In lockstep with its member companies, API has also shifted its messaging

from climate 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 andthroughout the United States at unprecedented rates.
189.

API has specifically targeted New Jersey consumers in its greenwashingcampaigns. In 2017, API released a thirty-second advertisement entitled “Natural Gas Works for
New Jersey.” The advertisement claims that natural gas is “transforming the energy landscape”
in New Jersey by providing “affordable clean energy to schools and businesses,” even though
combustion of natural gas emits large quantities greenhouse gasses and is a major contributor to
global warming. The advertisement concludes by making this misleading contradiction explicit,
proclaiming that “clean energy production is vital to the future of the Garden State” while

171

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-renewable-energy-projects.
172

Raval & Hook, supra note 167.

82

simultaneously displaying a map of New Jersey with green imagery overlaid with text statingthat “natural gas is here to stay.”173
Figure 11: API New Jersey Natural Gas Advertisement

190.

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 producerof oil and natural gas in the world.”174
191.

API has also devoted considerable resources to deceiving consumers

throughout the country about fossil fuels’ role in climate change. During the 2017 Super Bowl,

173

The American Petroleum Institute, Natural Gas Works for New Jersey, Youtube (Sept. 19, 2017),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb9jQiGgdLQ.
174

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-and-issues/misc/rfs-advocacy-campaign/rfsadvocacy-new-jersey.

83the most-watched television program in the United States, API debuted its “Power Past
Impossible” campaign, with advertisements that told Americans that the petroleum industry
could help them “live better lives.” A 2018 study of the advertisements by Kim Sheehan, aProfessor at the University of Oregon, concluded that the “campaign provides evidence ofgreenwashing through both explicit communications (such as unsubstantiated claims that ‘gas
comes cleaner’ and ‘oil runs cleaner’) and implicit communications (the use of green
imagery).”175
192.

Today, API continues its greenwashing campaigns through television,

radio, and internet advertisements. Many of its advertisements and publications are housed on 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 “5 Ways We’re Helping to Cut Emissions” and “4 Ways We’re
Protecting Wildlife.”176 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 thedriving force behind anthropogenic climate change, they are designed to increase consumers’ useof fossil fuels in order to advance API’s core mission of growing its member companies’ oil andnatural gas businesses.
193.

In short, Defendants’ greenwashing campaigns are the latest front in theirdecades-long efforts to deceive the public about climate change. No longer able to deny climate
science with any credibility, they now hold themselves out as leaders in the fight against climate
175

Kim Sheehan, “This Ain’t Your Daddy’s Greenwashing: An Assessment of the American Petroleum Institute’s
Power Past Impossible Campaign”, in Matthew Rimmer, ed., Intellectual Property and Clean Energy, 301-21(2018).
176

See American Petroleum Institute, “5 Ways We’re Using Energy for Progress”, America’s Natural Gas and Oil(last visited Aug. 5, 2020), https://energyforprogress.org/the-basics/.

84change by touting inconsequential or nonexistent investments in sustainable energy. In themeantime, they continue to grow their core business in fossil fuels that is driving global warming
and its attendant climate consequences.
2.
194.

Defendants Continue to Extract, Produce, Market, and Sell
Fossil Fuels at All-Time Record Rates

Defendants’ greenwashing campaigns are a cover for their accelerating

extraction, production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuels—the actual cause of climate change.
195.

BP’s 2019 Statistical Review of World Energy tallies more than

94.7 million barrels of oil equivalents produced per day worldwide in 2018, up from 83.1 million
barrels in 2008. Global production of natural gas has also increased from approximately 7
million barrels per day in 2008 to 11.5 million barrels per day in 2018.177
196.

The amount of fossil fuels combusted on Earth closely tracks the amountextracted, produced, and sold in the global marketplace. Global consumption of oil increased
from 86.5 million barrels per day in 2008 to 98.5 million barrels per day in 2018, mirroring theincrease in production from 83.1 to 94.7 million barrels.178
197.

Defendants make up a substantial percentage of the increasing total global

production and distribution of fossil fuels. Defendants also forecast steep increases in productionin the next decade.

177

BP America, “BP Statistical Review of World Energy”, 16, 19 (68th ed. 2019),
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statisticalreview/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf.
178

Id. at 20.

85

198.

Exxon produced 3.95 million oil-equivalent barrels per day in 2019, analmost identical number to the number of barrels it produced in 2014.179 This enormous figure
drives home the immateriality of the 10,000 barrels of biofuels the company hopes to produce by2025, even though it placed this paltry production at the center of its marketing.
199.

Despite its newfound branding, Exxon plans a steep increase in productionof fossil fuels in the near future. Between 2018 and 2030, Exxon intends to increase its oil
production by 35%, facilitating a continued acceleration of atmospheric CO2 concentrations thatwill speed global climate change and its attendant consequences.180
200.

BP’s greenwashed logo and Possibilities Everywhere campaign likewise

conceal its corporate strategy to continue growing its production and sale of fossil fuels. In
2016, BP “identified a future growth target of 900,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day of
production from new major projects by 2021” and “remain[s] on track to deliver that, having
started up 24 of the 35 major projects needed to reach this target by the end of 2019.”181
Between 2018 and 2030, the company plans a further 20.1% increase in oil and gas production,
belying purported commitments to shift its focus to low carbon energy.182
201.

In 2016, together with its “Make the Future” campaign, Shell published areport titled “A Better Life with a Healthy Planet: Pathways to Net-Zero Emissions.” The179

See ExxonMobil, “Summary Annual Report”, ExxonMobil (2014), https://corporate.exxonmobil.com//media/Global/Files/investor-relations/annual-meeting-materials/annual-report-summaries/2014-Summary-AnnualReport.pdf.
180

Watts et al., supra note 159.

181

BP America, “Energy with Purpose, BP Annual report and Form 20-F 2019” (2019),
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/investors/results-and-reporting/annual-report.html.
182

Watts et al., supra note 159.

86

report’s ambitious title is betrayed by a fine-print disclaimer: “[W]e have no immediate plans tomove to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our investment horizon of 10-20 years.”
202.

The fine print reveals Shell’s true intent. The company’s production of oil

and gas has increased substantially over the last decade. In 2019, Shell produced 3.67 million
barrels of oil and gas for sale,183 compared with 3.31 million barrels in 2010.184 Like Exxon, it
plans a sharper increase in production in the coming decade. Between 2018 and 2030, Shellplans to increase oil production by over 37%.185 Thus, Shell is contributing to a pathway toaccelerating global CO2 concentrations, not the net-zero emissions it advertises to the public.
203.

Despite the promises in its “We Agree” campaign, Chevron has similarly

done nothing to slow its production of crude oil and natural gas over the last ten years. In 2010,
the company produced 2.76 million barrels of net oil-equivalents per day and just over 5 million
cubic feet of natural gas per day.186 In 2019, those numbers increased to 3.06 million barrels of
net oil equivalents per day and over 7 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.187
204.

Scientists have established a “carbon budget” that establishes a cap on

global emissions to keep future temperature increases under 1.5° Celsius (2.7° Fahrenheit).
Planned oil production by Exxon, BP, Chevron, and Shell by 2030—driven in part by their plans

183

Shell, “Annual Report and Accounts 2019” (2019), https://reports.shell.com/annual-report/2019/.

184

Watts et al., supra note 159.

185

Id.

186

Chevron Corp., “2010 Annual Report”, at 5 (2010), http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/c/NYSE_CVX_2010.pdf.
187

Chevron Corp., “2019 Annual Report”, at XII (2019), https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/annualreport/2019/documents/2019-Annual-Report.pdf.

87to substantially increase production in the coming decade—will alone use up more than 5% ofthat carbon budget.188
205.

In 2012, ConocoPhillips released a Sustainable Development Report inwhich they “recognize[d] that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, iscontributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere that canlead to adverse changes in global climate.”189 The report’s goals included “[u]nderstanding our
GHG footprint,” “[r]educing our GHG emissions,” and “evaluating and developing technologies
for renewable energy.”190
206.

Conoco Phillips’ 10-K filing with the SEC from 2012, however, 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 andproducing crude oil and natural gas globally.” It further highlighted the company’s “growing
North American shale and oil sands businesses . . . and a global exploration program,”191 making
clear it had no intent to honor the commitments in its Sustainable Development Report.
207.

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.192

188

Watts et al., supra note 159.

189

ConocoPhillips, ”Sustainable Development; Climate Change Position”, at 17 (2012),
http://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/2012-sd-report.pdf.
190

Id. at 17, 20.

191

ConocoPhillips, Annual Report (Form 10-K) at 32 (Dec. 31, 2012),
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1163165/000119312513065426/d452384d10k.htm.
192

ConocoPhillips, “2019 Annual Report”, at 168 (2019), https://static.conocophillips.com/files/resources/2019conocophillips-annual-report-19-0895.pdf.

88

208.

Defendants produce a substantial percentage of the fossil fuels produced

and sold worldwide. Their production of fossil fuels is now at an all-time high. Defendants’
greenwashing campaigns do not, therefore, reflect their conduct. Instead, they conceal
Defendants’ continuing acceleration of their extraction, production, marketing, and sale of fossil
fuels that has caused and will continue to cause devastating climate consequences for Hoboken.
3.
209.

Defendants Continue to Fund Climate Denial

Defendants’ greenwashing campaigns also conceal their continued

funding of organizations and scientists that deny climate change behind closed doors.
210.

In 2007, Exxon released a Corporate Citizenship Report that promised to“discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climatechange could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure theenergy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”193 Despite thisopaque promise to stop funding misleading climate science, Exxon contributed over $13 million
to think tanks and advocacy organizations denying climate science in the decade after the pledge(2008-2017), including over $1.5 million in 2017.194
211.

The extent of Defendants’ funding of climate denial groups continues tobe shrouded in secrecy. Two of the most prominent funders of climate denial in the last two
decades are DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund. Because they are classified as “donoradvised funds,” they are not required to disclose the source of their funding, meaning many of
their funding sources are not known to the public.

193

ExxonMobil, “Corporate Citizenship Report”, at 39 (2007),https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/community_ccr_2007.pdf.
194

ExxonMobil Foundation & Corporate Giving, supra note 143.

89

212.

As Exxon’s contributions to climate denial have ticked downward over thelast decade (though, as noted above, still remain over $1 million per year), contributions toclimate denial by DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund have shot upward. Between 2002 and2011, DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund provided $146 million to climate denial groups.195
Between 2016 and 2018, DonorsTrust alone has disbursed over $180 million to a variety of
advocacy groups, a significant portion of which are focused on climate denial.
213.

While many of DonorsTrust’s and Donors Capital Fund’s funders haveremained untraceable, much of their funding has been traced back to powerful fossil fuelinterests. For example, Charles Koch, the CEO of the oil and gas company Koch Industries, thesecond largest privately-owned company in the United States, has funneled more than $8 million
to DonorsTrust through two of his foundations.196
214.

On information and belief, one or more of Defendants have provided

funds to DonorsTrust, Donors Capital Fund, and/or entities that have provided funds to one orboth of them in the last decade.
215.

In addition to funding research institutions denying climate science,

Defendants also funded individual scientists to promote climate misinformation. From 2001 to
2012, Exxon, API, and other industry groups gave $1.2 million to Harvard-Smithsonian
astrophysicist Dr. Wei-Hock Soon to publish research contending that solar variability is a
primary driver of climate change,197 a widely discredited theory that even the GCC had

195

Aliya Haq, “REVEALED: Donors Trust is the Secret ATM Machine for Climate Denier”, GreenPeace (Feb. 15,
2013), https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/revealed-donors-trust-is-the-secret-atm-machine-for-climate-deniers/.
196

Id.

197

Kathy Mulvey & Seth Shulman, “The Climate Deception Dossiers: Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal
Decades of Corporate Disinformation”, Union of Concerned Scientists, at 6 (July 2015),
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf.

90dismissed as a “contrarian” theory in its draft 1996 primer on climate science presented to the
IPCC.198
F.

Much of Defendants’ Deception Came to Light Recently
216.

Proof that Defendants knew about the devastating climate impacts of fossil

fuels at the time that they spearheaded their campaigns of deception came to light largely during
the last few years through investigations by journalists and non-governmental organizations.
217.

In July 2015, the Union of Concerned Scientists published the “Climate

Deception Dossiers,” a collection of 85 internal fossil fuel company and trade association
documents that revealed numerous plans to deceive the public about climate change, including
contracts that showed that Exxon, API, and other members of the fossil fuel industry funded
Dr. Soon’s research to deny fossil fuels’ role in causing climate change.199
218.

Later that same year, separate reports from Inside Climate News and The

Los Angeles Times (in collaboration with the Columbia University Graduate School of
Journalism) revealed the extent of Exxon’s knowledge about the central role of fossil fuels in
causing climate change going back to the 1970s. These reports were the result of interviews withformer Exxon researchers and archival research of internal company documents.
219.

Among other documents relied on in this complaint, these reports revealed

minutes of the API’s 1980 task force meeting at which Exxon, BP, and Chevron executives were
warned of “globally catastrophic consequences” of climate change caused by fossil fuels, seesupra ¶ 93; Henry Shaw’s 1981 memo to Exxon’s President of Research and Engineering
outlining the likely catastrophic consequences of the doubling of atmospheric CO2, see supra

198

Global Climate Coalition, supra note 105, at 13.

199

Mulvey & Seth Shulman, supra note 197, at 6.

91

¶ 94; and the 1988 internal Exxon memorandum titled “The Greenhouse Effect” thatmemorialized the company’s shift in corporate strategy to obfuscate and downplay the effect offossil fuels on the climate, see supra ¶¶ 114-17.200
220.

In 2017, the Center for International and Environmental Law published acomprehensive report demonstrating how API, together with the Fossil Fuel Company
Defendants, had superior knowledge about the harmful climate impacts of fossil fuels as early as
the 1950s and played a central role in campaigns to deceive the public about climate science.201
221.

These reports, which form the factual predicate for much of the campaign

of deception that is at the heart of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, shed light for the first time on
the depth of Defendants’ superior knowledge of the “globally catastrophic” climate impacts offossil fuels in the decades before they systemically lied to the public about those impacts.
G.

Defendants’ Conduct Has Caused Devastating Damage to Hoboken andThreatens More Severe Damage in the Future Without Immediate andExpensive Remediation.
222.

The acts and omissions of Defendants have, collectively, caused lasting

and continuing harm to the City, its people, and its future.202 These harms include, but are notlimited to:•Permanent inundation of City- and privately-owned property on account of
sea-level rise caused by anthropogenic climate change, requiring large-scaleand long-term engineering remediation;

200

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/; Neela Banerjee et al.,“Exxon’s Own Research
Confirmed Fossil Fuels’ Role in Global Warming Decades Ago”, Inside Climate News (Sept. 16, 2015),
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming.
201

Ctr. for Int’l Envtl. Law, supra note 59.

202

This Complaint disclaims injuries arising on federal property and those that arose from Fossil Fuel Company
Defendants’ provision of fossil fuel products to the federal government for military and national defense purposes.

92•

Increased frequency of flooding of City- and privately-owned property due
to increased incidents of high-tide flooding, requiring both ongoing
remediation costs, as well as large-scale and long-term engineering
remediation;•

Inundation of key public utilities, including sewage facilities, due toincreased flooding and rising sea levels;•

Widespread destruction as a result of catastrophic storm events like
Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy, which are predicted to increase in
severity and frequency due to anthropogenic climate change;•

Decreased property values and increased risks to health and safety ofresidents, with a disproportionate impact on minority and marginalized
communities, with concomitant losses to the City’s finances and public
facilities;•

Increased long-term costs of flood insurance and related property costs to
the City and City-provided public services due to increased frequency offlooding and above-normal water levels; and•Increases in the frequency of vector-borne diseases, cardiovascular andnervous system illnesses, and asthma and allergies due to increased pollen
and ground-level ozone, all caused by the increased frequency of high-heat
days.
223.

The City has already suffered devastating economic losses as a result of

Defendants’ conduct. Such economic losses include, but are by no means limited to:•Hundreds of millions of dollars in damages when Hurricane Irene andSuperstorm Sandy—whose emergence and intensity were correlated toanthropomorphic climate change—inundated over 80% of the City anddestroyed both public and private infrastructure. These losses include a
massive drop-off in business activity in the City and reduction in City tax
revenue;•Over $500 million to implement the “Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge” plan,put into place after Superstorm Sandy, to address and remediate ongoingand projected harm from anthropogenic sea-level rise;•

Hundreds of millions of dollars in costs associated with upgrading and refitting transit connections to cope with frequent flooding;•Roughly $25 million in costs to upgrade and refit local electricity
distribution systems with “microgrid” technology;93•

An average of $8 million/year in current flood insurance costs, with a large
and growing proportion directly related to the increased risks of flooding
due to anthropogenic climate change;•

Millions of dollars in costs associated with studying various climate impacts
and creating remediation plans to address future harm; and•Millions of dollars of lost tax revenue and opportunity costs due to flooding
events.
224.

Without expensive long-term abatement efforts, the City would face anexistential threat, since over 78% of the City’s landmass is within a coastal high hazard area,
including almost the entirety of housing and services for its most vulnerable residents, especiallyresidents of color. Long-term abatement, which is required as a direct result of Defendants’conduct, would require at least the following costs:•

Full and immediate implementation of the “Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge”
plan;

•

Funding research into the long-term loss of efficacy of remediation plans
due to progressive rise in mean sea level and temperatures caused byintensifying anthropogenic climate change;•

Creating systems of large-scale engineering works to prevent or delay
inundation due to rising sea levels;•

Retrofitting local services and facilities to deal with increased heat andflooding events;•

Increasing City services to vulnerable communities in the City, especiallycommunities of color, that bear the brunt of climate events; and•Creating “trust funds” to address long-term and increased costs, as well as
projected reductions in revenues, to maintain such remediation projects overthe coming decades.
1. Hoboken Is Uniquely Vulnerable to Anthropogenic Climate Change
225.

Hoboken lies on the west bank of the Hudson River, across the River fromNew York City, and within the larger Hudson River tidal system. The City has approximately
94

1.5 miles of coastline and covers 1.25 square miles of land area, 78% of which is within the
coastal high hazard area.
226.

Hoboken, and the northeast United States more generally, face higher-

than-average anthropogenic sea level rise, putting the City at even greater risk of catastrophic
damage.
227.

Research by Climate Central has found that 56% of homes in Hoboken arelikely to be chronically inundated203 by seawater by 2100, placing Hoboken among the 50 mostvulnerable cities in the country to sea level rise.204
a. Hoboken’s Topography and Layout Make It Uniquely
Vulnerable
228.

Hoboken is the fifth-densest city in the country, and has the largest

population exposed to flood risk among all New Jersey cities: 53% of its residents, over 26,000
people in 14,000 homes, live less than five feet above the local high tide line.205 Large sectionsof Hoboken are either below the normal high tide elevation or the normal storm high tideelevation, and many of the City’s stormwater extraction outlets are now also either below normalhigh tide levels or normal storm high tide levels.206
229.

The map below displays Hoboken’s vulnerability to flooding during

severe storms. It demonstrates that the vast majority of the City would be inundated with water

203

Chronic inundation is defined as flooding that occurs 26 times or more per year.

204

Dahl, K., et al., “Underwater: Rising Seas, Chronic Floods, and the Implications for US Coastal Real Estate”,
Union of Concerned Scientists (2018), www.ucsusa.org/underwater.
205

Center for Science and Democracy, “Fact Sheet: Hoboken’s Post-Sandy Resiliency”, at 3 (Feb. 2014),
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/hoboken-post-sandy-resilience.pdf.
206

OMA, “Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: A Comprehensive Urban Water Strategy”, at 8 (2014),
http://www.rebuildbydesign.org/data/files/673.pdf.

95

in a “1% storm,” one that has a 1% chance of occurring in an average year, and all but a small
number of blocks would be inundated with water in a “0.2% storm,” one that has a 0.2% chanceof occurring in a given year.207
Figure 12: Areas of Hoboken Flooded in Different Flood Scenarios208

230.

Unlike more sparsely populated communities along the Jersey Shore,

Hoboken has a dense population and a high concentration of buildings and infrastructure,
exposing more people and more property to flood risks. All but one of Hoboken’s fire and EMS
stations, hospitals, libraries, community centers, rail and ferry stations, sewage plants, and major
hazardous waste sites are below the five-foot mark, along with 57% of its houses of worship,

207

City of Hoboken, “Resilient Building Design Guidelines”, N.J. Departmentof Community Affairs, at 44 (Oct. 19,2015), https://betterwaterfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Resilient-Buildings-Design-Guidelines.pdf.
208

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Rebuild By Design – Hudson River Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS), at 1-5 (2017), https://www.nj.gov/dep/floodresilience/docs/rbdh-feis/chapter-01introduction-rbd-hr-feis.pdf.

9657% of its roads, and 50% of its schools.209 With 94% impervious coverage, Hoboken isparticularly vulnerable to flooding.210
231.

Hoboken’s communities of color are disproportionately at risk: 52% of theCity’s white residents live below the five-foot mark, compared to 57% of non-white residents
and 62% of black residents.211 Almost all of the City’s public housing facilities, Title IX
facilities, senior facilities, and low/moderate income properties are within the 1% flood hazard
area.212 Nearly Hoboken’s entire population is considered more socially vulnerable than that ofother New Jersey communities and their ability to address and react to natural disasters may behindered by such socioeconomic factors as Hoboken residents’ income level, education, age,family structure, language, housing, and access to a vehicle.213 As became clear during
Supertorm Sandy, it was already marginalized communities who were left most vulnerable fromclimate change harm.
232.

Due in large part to anthropogenic sea level rise, there is now over a one-in-six chance that storm surges of more than five feet will take place before 2030, potentiallyinundating at least the above listed areas of the City. Hoboken is likely to experience at least one

209

Center for Science and Democracy, supra note 205.

210

City of Hoboken, supra note 207, at 4.

211

Deborah Bailin, “Case Study: Hoboken’s Post-Sandy Resilience: Learning from the Past, Rebuilding for the
Future”, Union of Concerned Scientists, at 4 (Jan. 2014), [hereinafter Hoboken Case Study], https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/hoboken-case-study-final.pdf.
212

Hudson County Hazard Mitigation Plan, at 9.6-19 to 9.6-21, 9.6-27 to 9.6-31 (Apr. 2020); City of Hoboken
Proposed Stormwater Management Plan Health Impact Assessment, Draft Final Report, at 2 (2016).
213

Center for Science and Democracy, supra note 205; Hoboken Health Impact Assessment, supra note 212, at 2-3.

97

flood over six feet before 2050.214 Without expensive remediation and abatement measures, allof the areas listed above could be inundated in such a flood.
Figure 13: Areas of Hoboken Vulnerable to Five Feet of Flooding215

b. Hoboken Is Part of a Region at Higher Risk of Significant Sea
Level Rise233.

The rate of sea level rise in New Jersey averaged 0.11 inches per year

from 1850 to 2017, as confirmed by NOAA.216 Since 1993, the rate of sea level rise in New

214

Climate Central (Revised 2018). “Risk Finder: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA”. Surging Seas.
https://riskfinder.climatecentral.org/place/hoboken.nj.us?comparisonType=cityward&forecastType=NCA_hi&level=6&unit=ft.
215

Center for Science and Democracy, supra note 205.

216

Hoboken’s nearest NOAA-operated tide gauge is at The Battery in New York City (Station #8518750), which
provides the most accurate historical measurements of sea-level changes across time. See NOAA,. “Tides &Currents, http:// www.tidesandcurrents/noaa.gov.

98Jersey has increased to an average of 0.15 inches per year, more than twice the global rate.217
The Rutgers Climate Institute estimates that sea level affecting the Hoboken coastline could rise
between 13 and 28 inches by 2050.218 New Jersey could see more than six feet of sea level riseby the end of the century. If destabilization of the Antarctic Ice Sheet occurs more rapidly thanstandard sea level rise models assume, New Jersey could see up to nine-and-a-half feet of sea
level rise by the end of the century.
234.

The graph below shows trends in sea level rise at the nearby New York

City Battery. It shows two trendlines—one for 1850-2017 and the other for 1993-2017. The
latter indicates the accelerating pace of sea level rise in and around Hoboken.
Figure 14: Sea Level Rise Trends at the Battery219

235.

The rate of nuisance flooding, also known as high-tide or sunny-day

flooding, is accelerating in New Jersey and the surrounding area. Prior to the year 2000, there
217

Vivien Gornitz, et al. (2019), “New York City Panel on Climate Change Chapter 3: Sea Level Rise” Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences, 71-94. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nyas.14006.
[hereinafter Gornitz, V., et al. (2019). NYC Panel on Climate Change Chapter 3: Sea Level Rise.]
218

City of Hoboken, “Hoboken Climate Action Plan & Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories,” at 11 (April 2019),
https://assets-global.websitefiles.com/58407e2ebca0e34c30a2d39c/5cbdc6384d171d56298cda1e_Hoboken%20Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf.
219

Figure modified from NOAA (2017). See http:// www.tidesandcurrents/noaa.gov.

99were an average of 5 annual nuisance floods recorded by The Battery tide gauge, which is theclosest NOAA tide gauge to Hoboken. The recent increases in this rate of flooding—within thelast three years—have been alarming. The region faced 12 flood days in 2018, and by 2050,
NOAA estimates that nuisance flooding will occur between 50-135 days out of the year.220
236.

The map below shows historic and high-tide projected flood days at The

Battery tide gauge, marked by the red circle. Beige circles indicate the locations of the otherregional tide gauges operated by NOAA. The red star indicates the location of Hoboken.
Figure 15: Expected Increases in High Tide Flood Days221

237.

The First Street Foundation estimates that the number of properties at riskof flooding in Hoboken will increase by 91.3% over the next fifteen years, and by 182.7% overthe next thirty years.

220

William Sweet, et al. “2018 State of U.S. High Tide Flooding with a 2019 Outlook”, NOAA Technical Report
NOS CO-OPS 090. (June 2019),
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Techrpt_090_2018_State_of_US_HighTideFlooding_with_a_2019_O
utlook_Final.pdf.
221

Figure modified from Sweet et al. (2019), see https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tideOutlook2019/.

100

Figure 16: Expected Increases in Properties at Risk of Flooding222

238.

This increased flooding risk in the region, evident in the increased

incidence of high tide flooding in the last three years, has made it clear that the City faces aunique and growing challenge from anthropogenic sea level rise.
c. Hoboken Has Suffered (and Will Continue to Suffer) Increased
Temperatures and Extreme Precipitation Events
239.

In addition to sea level rise and associated flooding risks, anthropogenic

climate change poses specific risks to Hoboken from rising temperatures and disruptions in thehydrological cycle, which in turn result in extreme precipitation events.
240.

Mean annual temperature in New Jersey has increased by over 3˚F overthe past century, and those temperature increases are expected to continue to accelerate.223 The

222

Figure modified from FloodFactor: Hoboken, https://floodfactor.com/city/hobokennewjersey/3432250_fsid#score_map.
223

Jennifer Runkle, et al., “New Jersey State Climate Summary”, NOAA Technical Report NESDIS 149-NJ (2017),
https://statesummaries.ncics.org/chapter/nj/.

101

New Jersey Climate Alliance predicts that by 2050, 70% of New Jersey summers will be warmer
than the current record for warmest summer in the state.224
241.

Hoboken is particularly vulnerable to rising temperatures because its

urban infrastructure will add to the heat load of buildings and exacerbate urban heat islands—on
some days, air in urban areas can be more than 20˚ Fahrenheit warmer than in other areas.225
242.

The graph below shows temperature increases from 1990 to 2014 andprojected increases from 2006 to 2100 under lower and higher emissions scenarios.
Figure 17: Projected New Jersey Temperature Increases226

243.

Rising temperatures contribute to an increased risk of vector-borne

disease, cardiovascular and nervous system illnesses, heat-related deaths, and asthma andallergies due to increased pollen and ground-level ozone.227

224

City of Hoboken, supra note 218.

225

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Reducing urban heat islands: Compendium of strategies” (2008),
https://www.epa.gov/heat-islands/heat-island-compendium.
226

Figure from Jennifer Runkle et al. (2017), see supra note 223.

227

“What Climate Change Means for New Jersey”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430-F-16-032(Aug. 2016); The City of Hoboken, supra note 218.

102

244.

Rising mean temperatures also lead to more extreme-heat days (defined asdays with temperatures above 95˚F), which put pressure on human health and public
infrastructure.228 The number of extreme-heat days per year in New Jersey has been near or
above the long-term average since the late 1980s and such days are projected to occur more
frequently in the future.229
245.

The graph below shows the number of days observed in New Jersey with amaximum temperature above 95° F. The dark horizontal line represents the long-term average(1900-2014).
Figure 18: Extreme Heat Days in New Jersey230

246.

Such extreme heat days can cause severe health problems, including

among children. Rates of hospitalization and death from heat-related illnesses are directly andnon-linearly related to increases in temperature, with rates of deaths in cities in the northeast

228

Kristina Dahl,, et al., “Killer Heat in the United States: Climate Choices and the Future of Dangerously Hot
Days,” Union of Concerned Scientists (July 2019), https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/killer-heat-united-states-0.
229

Jennifer Runkle, et al. (2017), supra note 223.

230

Figure from Jennifer Runkle et al. (2017), supra note 223.

103

increasing dramatically as temperatures cross 70° F.231 Climate change could cause a 55%
increase in summer heat-related mortality in the 2020s alone, especially in urban areas.232
247.

This increase in temperatures, associated with anthropogenic climatechange, also has knock-on effects on the hydrological cycle, which leads to changes in rainfall
patterns in Hoboken.
248.

Observed average annual precipitation in New Jersey has increased 5-10%

during the last century233 and has been above average for the last two decades.234
249.

The graph below shows five-year average observed annual precipitation in

New Jersey, with the dark horizontal line representing the long-term (1895-2014) mean.
Figure 19: Observed Annual Precipitation in New Jersey235

231Frank C. Curriero, et. al, “Temperature and Mortality in 11 Cities of the Eastern United States,” American
Journal of Epidemiology, 155:1 (2002), 80–87.
232

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Scientific Report on Climate Change, at viii (2020),
https://www.nj.gov/dep/climatechange/docs/nj-scientific-report-2020.pdf.
233

EPA, supra note 227.

234

Jennifer Runkle, et al., supra note 223.

235

Id.

104

250.

Climate models predict that anthropogenic climatic changes could lead tointensified river flooding during the winter and spring, and drought during the summer andfall.236 This would intensify the problems with flooding that Hoboken already faces due to rising
sea levels.
251.

Since 2005, the number of extreme precipitation events (days with morethan two inches of rain) per year in New Jersey has also been above the long-term average, andthe five-year period from 2010 to 2014 had the highest recorded number of extreme precipitation
events since the beginning of the observed record.237 Over the last 50 years, in New Jersey,
storms that resulted in extreme rain increased by 71%, which is a faster rate than anywhere elsein the United States.238
252.

The amount of precipitation from extremely heavy storms has increased

70% in the northeast since 1958 and climate models predict that extreme precipitation events will
occur more frequently as the climate warms.239 This includes weather events like North Atlantic
hurricanes (like Irene, Sandy, and Fay), which have increased in frequency due to higher sea
temperatures, and are expected to become more intense.240
253.

The graph below shows observed extreme precipitation events in New

Jersey from 1895 to 2015, with the dark horizontal line representing the long-term mean overthat period. The graph shows an increase in extreme precipitation events in the last two decades.

236

EPA, supra note 227.

237

Jennifer Runkle, et al. (2017), supra note 223.

238

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, supra note 232, at ix.

239

EPA, supra note 227.

240

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, supra note 232, at viii-ix.

105

Figure 20: Observed Extreme Precipitation Events in New Jersey241

254.

Notably, two extreme weather events—Hurricane Irene and Superstorm

Sandy—recently devastated Hoboken and put the issue of anthropogenic climate change, andDefendants’ complicity in causing these harms, in stark perspective.
2. Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy Cast the Threat from
Anthropogenic Climate Change into Stark Relief
255.

The threat to Hoboken from climate change became concrete in the 2010s,

with two major storms wreaking havoc on the City’s infrastructure. First, on August 27 and 28,
2011, Hurricane Irene hit the New Jersey coast with unprecedented amounts of rainfall, causing
flooding throughout Hoboken and leading to raw sewage flowing through the streets. Thousandsof properties were inundated. It was the first time a hurricane had made landfall in New Jersey
since 1903.242

241

Figure from Jennifer Runkle, et al. (2017), supra note 223.

242

United States Geological Survey, “Summary of Flooding in New Jersey Caused by Hurricane Irene” (2011),
https://www.usgs.gov/center-news/summary-flooding-new-jersey-caused-hurricane-irene-august-27-30-2011?qtnews_science_products=2#qt-news_science_products.

106

256.

Irene was a high-precipitation event in Hoboken, with the storm dumping

up to ten inches of rain in the region over the course of 18 hours.243 The hurricane came in amonth that had already set the record for the wettest month since 1895, and caused extensive
flooding,244 up to five feet in places in Hoboken.245 The storm spurred efforts by the PublicService Electric and Gas, the local utilities provider, to review storm resiliency measures.
Figure 21: Areas of Hoboken Flooded During Irene246

243

Id.

244

Id.

245

Katie Colaneri, “Amphibious truck delivering supplies to southwest Hoboken where flood waters are up to 5 feetdeep,” The Jersey Journal (Aug. 28, 2011),
https://www.nj.com/hobokennow/2011/08/amphibious_truck_delivering_su.html.
246

Modified from Flood Factor: Hoboken, supra note 222.

107

257.

Luckily, Hurricane Irene did not arrive with a record-breaking storm surge

in New Jersey. Just over a year later, on October 29, 2012, Superstorm Sandy swept across theEastern Seaboard of the United States and inundated Hoboken with nearly 466 million gallons ofstorm surge,247 causing over $250 million in direct damage,248 and many tens of millions ofdollars in additional downstream costs.
258.

The storm’s tidal surge left roughly 80% of the City underwater, stranded

20,000 residents, and left nearly 23,000 electricity customers without power.249 Schools
remained closed and businesses suffered catastrophic losses. Over 1,700 homes were flooded
and the City’s then-mayor stated that the City “filled up . . . like a bathtub.”250
259.

Major transit connections in the region were similarly shut. Of thethirteen stations on the PATH, the rapid rail transit system connecting northeastern New Jersey
cities to Manhattan, Hoboken’s was the hardest hit by Sandy and was the last to reopen,
remaining closed for almost three months. Repairs so far have cost tens of millions of dollars to
the City of Hoboken alone, and hundreds of millions of dollars across City and State agencies,and repairs and mitigation projects across the system are still being made.

247

City of Hoboken, “Hoboken: Sustainability and Resiliency”,
https://www.hobokennj.gov/resources/sustainability; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, supranote 208, at 1-8 (2017).
248

OMA, supra note 206, at 20; City of Hoboken, supra note 218, at 1-10.

249

Hoboken Case Study, supra note 211, at 6.

250Eric Jaffe, “The Water Next Time: How nature itself could become a city’s best defense against extreme
weather”, The Atlantic (Dec. 2014), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/the-water-nexttime/382242/.

108

Figure 22: Photograph of Superstorm Sandy Street Flooding251

260.

As noted earlier, Sandy was particularly devastating to lower-income andmore vulnerable residents of Hoboken, many of whom lacked the means to evacuate orotherwise protect themselves. The Hoboken Housing Authority—located in the low-lying
Western part of Hoboken—suffered hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage. Residents,
many of whom were already vulnerable, were trapped without power and water as the flood
waters rose.
261.

The map below shows areas of Hoboken inundated by water during

Superstorm Sandy. It shows that a majority of the City was inundated by upwards of three feetof water as a result of the storm, including practically the entirety of the Western sections of theCity. Extant sea level rise added substantially to both the level of water inundating Hoboken’s
residents and the areas that were flooded.

251

Michael Bocchieri/Getty Images

109

Figure 23: Areas of Hoboken Flooded During Sandy252

262.

By the year 2030, storms that result in flooding on the scale of Superstorm

Sandy could occur much more frequently.253
263.

Since Sandy, and catalyzed in part by that storm and Hurricane Irene,

Hoboken has become a world leader in sustainability and climate-conscious urban planning,developing a cutting-edge Climate Action Plan.254 The City declared in 2017 that “[a]sustainable and resilient Hoboken will be an environmentally, socially, and economically healthy

252

Modified from Flood Factor, supra note 246.

253

Hoboken Climate Action Plan (April 2019), supra note 218, at 11.

254

Id.

110

community that allows future generations of residents to meet and exceed our quality of life.”255
It is doing so with a particular eye to making sure its most vulnerable residents are protectedfrom the devastating effects of climate change. The City has purchased only renewableelectricity for municipal facilities since 2019 and has committed to making municipal
government operations net-zero energy by 2025 and carbon neutral by 2035. The City, as awhole, will be net-zero energy by 2030 and will be carbon neutral by 2035.256 Thanks to its
efforts, Hoboken was named a Role Model City by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction, only the second city in the United States to be granted that distinction.257 It is also
the only city in New Jersey to be granted a LEED Gold certificate.258
3. Hoboken Experiences Back-to-Back Deluges in July 2020
264.

The effects of accelerating climate change continue to devastate Hoboken

today. In July 2020, two intense rainstorms pounded the City in a span of less than two weeks.
The rainfall in both storms was so severe that each had a less than 5% chance of occurring in agiven year.
265.

On July 10, Tropical Storm Fay dumped more than three inches of rain on

Hoboken in just six hours, representing more than two-thirds of the City’s average rainfall for the

255

City of Hoboken, “City of Hoboken Master Plan: Green Building and Environmental Sustainability Element”, at
13 (Dec. 2017), https://www.dropbox.com/s/faebxwf715vfaeo/GBES_Draft_Public_v3_lowres.pdf?dl=0.
256City of Hoboken, “City of Hoboken Climate Action Plan and Greenhouse Gas Inventories”,
https://www.hobokennj.gov/resources/greenhouse-gas-emissions-inventory-and-climate-action-plan; Hoboken
Climate Action Plan (April 2019), supra note 218, at 14-18.
257

UNDRR, “UN Recognizes Hoboken as a Role Model City” (3 Mar. 2015), https://www.undrr.org/news/unrecognizes-hoboken-role-model-city.
258

City of Hoboken, “Hoboken Certified as LEED Gold City for Sustainability Efforts”,
https://www.hobokennj.gov/news/hoboken-certified-as-leed-gold-city-for-sustainability-efforts.

111

entire month. Fay was an atypical storm in that it developed off the mid-Atlantic, further northand west than tropical storms usually form.
266.

On July 22, severe thunderstorms drenched Hoboken with rainfall so

intense that, for a brief period, it fell at a rate too fast for Hoboken’s rain gauges to measure.
More than one inch of rain fell in just one ten-minute span, and more than two inches fell in thecourse of two hours.
267.

Hoboken’s adaptation measures, described in greater detail below,

mitigated what would have been much worse flooding from both storms. Still, both storms
flooded several city blocks, interrupting transit and forcing some residents to evacuate.
268.

Hoboken also narrowly skirted severe damage from a third storm within amonth when, on August 4, Tropical Storm Isaias raked the U.S. East Coast with heavy rain andstrong winds. Wind gusts as high as 78 miles per hour were recorded in New York City andmore than three inches of rain fell in parts of New Jersey, where 1.4 million customers lost
power. While the worst of the damage stayed just to Hoboken’s west, Isaias drives home theincreasing severe weather threat facing the City and the region as a result of anthropogenic
climate change.
4. The City Has Had to Expend Vast Sums to Protect Against Harm
Caused by Anthropogenic Climate Change
269.

After the devastation caused by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy,

the City was forced to engage in a long-term remediation project to attempt to abate the harmcaused by anthropogenic climate change to Hoboken and its residents. That effort has costhundreds of millions of dollars already and will require hundreds of millions of dollars of further
investment in the future. These costs are a direct and foreseeable effect of Defendants’ acts andomissions, and were caused in substantial part by those acts and omissions.
112

270.

The central pillar of the City’s project to defend against rising sea levels is

a plan titled “Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge: A Comprehensive Strategy for Hoboken,”developed by the City in collaboration with international experts in the field.259 That project
itself cost over $10 million to plan.
271.

The plan requires multiple interventions, including:•

Building flood protection along high-risk areas of the waterfront, to protect
against higher storm surges caused by anthropogenic climate change;•

Purchasing acres of land to build parks and terraced wetlands that canabsorb excess water in floods;•

Refitting buildings around the City with “green roofs” that are designed toreduce urban heat islands and to absorb precipitation;•

Building underground cisterns and retention basins to store excess water;
and•Building pumps to expel stored water once storm surges retreat.
272.

While this plan has earned the City plaudits for being a “Role Model City”

for resiliency, its cumulative costs total over $500 million.260 These include projected spendingof $140 million by the City solely under the “Delay” and “Store” portions of the water
management plan.261 Operating expenses are estimated at over a million dollars annually.
273.

The City’s total annual budget in 2019 was $112 million.

274.

In parallel, the City has incurred further costs relating to adapting its waterand sewage systems to cope with the flooding predicted to occur due to climate change.

259

OMA, supra note 209.

260

Initial capital estimates were placed at $470 million, with an additional $7.8 million annually. Id., at 20.

261

Mary A. Williams, “Could Hoboken Become a National Model for Storm Resiliency?” NJTV News (June 28,2019), https://www.njspotlight.com/2019/06/19-06-27-could-hoboken-become-a-national-model-for-stormresiliency/.

113

275.

During rainy days, precipitation in the City is drained through thewastewater system to water treatment facilities. During extreme precipitation events, the normal
sewage system cannot process these increases and overflow pipes deliver this water into the
Hudson River. During high tides, such drainage is impossible because the River level is above
the level of the discharge pipes. Water and sewage then back up into the City and cause
localized flooding, leading to extensive damage to City and private property, as well as
significant health hazards.262
276.

The depictions below show how Hoboken’s water and sewage systems are

rendered ineffective by high tides and storm surges.
Figure 24: Hoboken’s Drainage System263

262

City of Hoboken, “Rainfall Flood Mitigation”,
https://cityofhoboken.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.html?appid=65c107f7e6984c4ca988c84ae406d27f;
Department of Environmental Protection, “Chapter 1: Rebuild By Design, Executive Summary”, at ES-5,
https://www.nj.gov/dep/floodresilience/docs/rbdh-feis/executive-summary-rbd-hr-feis.pdf.
263

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, supra note 208, at 1-7 (2017).

114

277.

As noted above, anthropogenic climate change has already caused

increased precipitation and increased extreme precipitation days, as well as higher sea levels.
Thus, Defendants’ acts and omissions have made it imperative for the City to take steps torestructure its wastewater system.
278.

The City has taken on substantial costs in coordination with the North

Hudson Sewerage Authority to create a Long-Term Control Plan for water and sewage in thearea.264 This plan includes creating systems for capturing water runoff so as not to overwhelm
the sewage system, protecting sewage treatment facilities from flooding, and returning excesswater to the watershed when able. The cost of these interventions could be over $30 million in
the short term, with expected costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars long term.
279.

The City plans to construct tanks and filtering facilities around Hoboken

to assist with this project, in addition to constructing storage structures below ground, creating
permeable surfaces around the City to absorb water, replacing weirs, and installing pumping
facilities in several neighborhoods.265
280.

Further interventions are needed to protect Hoboken’s electricity

distribution system, which was shown to be incapable of handling extreme weather events like
Irene and Sandy that are now far more likely to take place as a result of Defendants’ acts andomissions, as is evident from the extreme rainfall events of July 2020.
281.

The City has developed a plan to adapt to increasingly extreme weather

using microgrid technology that would power a mix of public and private buildings in the case of264“CSO Long Term Control Plan”, North Hudson Sewage Authority, http://www.nhudsonsa.com/thrive/cso.html.

265City of Hoboken, Rainfall Flood Mitigation, supra note 262; Rebuild By Design, Executive Summary, supranote 262, at ES-5-11.

115

a storm-driven outage. The cost is $25 million for just 20 buildings.266 The cost of installing
emergency generators at critical municipal facilities is over $1.3 million, new conduits cost over
$2 million, and other interventions have cost millions of dollars. Hundreds of millions of dollars
have also been invested in energy security by electricity providers.267 These costs are borne by
the City and its residents in the form of higher utility rates and lost opportunity costs.
282.

Transit systems that are key to sustaining Hoboken’s economy have also

required extensive remediation to address harms emerging directly from Defendants’ acts andomissions. In particular, local transit agencies have had to create plans to reroute and elevatetrain tracks and modify canals—an effort that is estimated to cost over $500 million dollars.
These costs will also be borne by the State of New Jersey, the City, and its residents in the formof higher rates, taxes, and lost opportunity costs.
283.

Costs associated with anthropogenic climate change also include estimatedincreases in flood insurance premiums by $40 million annually.268 Hoboken has had to takemeasures to abate the risks from anthropogenic climate change to protect against risingpremiums.269
284.

Without these interventions, Hoboken would face billions of dollars of

future costs, as a direct result of the acts and omissions of Defendants.270 This would be in

266David Dudley, “To Storm-Proof Hoboken, a Microgrid”, Bloomberg (Aug. 24, 2016),
https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2016/08/to-storm-proof-hoboken-a-microgrid/497144/.
267

Hoboken Climate Action Plan (April 2019), supra note 218, at 5.

268

OMA, supra note 206, at 21.

269

Rebuild By Design, Executive Summary, supra note 262, at ES-5.

270

See Rebuild By Design, Appendix M – Benefit Cost Analysis, https://www.nj.gov/dep/floodresilience/docs/rbdfs/feasibility-report-appendices-m.pdf at 19 ($263.2 million in 10-year storm; $2,421.4 million in 50 year storm, and$3,617.9 million in 100 year storm for no “resist”); ($198.2 million for five year storm $262.7 million for ten year116

addition to the City losing more than $64 million in annual tax revenue were properties on thefloodplain lost.
285.

Despite this extensive work, however, the designers of the “Resist, Delay,

Store, Discharge” plan acknowledged that the limited resources available to the City meant that“[a] fully comprehensive solution is beyond our means.”271
286.

One significant reason for such limitations is that Defendants’ past andongoing acts and omissions have created a continuing and accelerating climate crisis, which will
require the City to upgrade all of its resiliency measures as sea levels continue to rise and climate
effects worsen. The resiliency systems put into place now will either become less effective overtime, or will have to be supplemented with waterfront infrastructure investment.
287.

Defendants’ acts and omissions, carried out in large part to boost theirown profits, are the actual, substantial, and proximate cause of these significant and mounting
costs to the City, and these externalities are properly placed on Defendants, rather than on theCity of Hoboken and its residents.
288.

Defendants’ actions were committed with actual malice, or wereaccompanied by a wanton and willful disregard of persons, including the City and its residents,
who foreseeably might be harmed by their acts and omission.

storm, $404.8 million for 25 year storm, $498.8 million for 50 year storm; and $562.2 million for 100 year storm athigh tide if no Delay, Store, Discharge).
271

OMA, supra note 206, at 5.

117

COUNT ONE(Public Nuisance)(Against the Fossil Fuel Company Defendants)
289.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same

were fully set forth at length herein.
290.

New Jersey law prohibits Defendants from causing “an unreasonableinterference with a right common to the general public.”
291.

Each Fossil Fuel Company Defendant, acting individually and in concert,has, by its conduct in manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and profiting from the sale of fossil
fuels, caused adverse effects on a common right in the State of New Jersey, in Hudson County,
and in the City of Hoboken. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:a) Defendants control every step of the supply, production, anddistribution chain for their fossil fuel products, including crude oil,coal, and natural gas reserves, extracting these fossil fuels from the
Earth; refining and marketing the products for sale, and distributing
them for sale across the globe;b) Defendants have extracted, marketed, and sold fossil fuels for morethan fifty years with knowledge that the use of these fossil fuels causes
global warming and its attendant climate impacts, including but notlimited to sea level rise and extreme heat and precipitation, each ofwhich has harmed Hoboken and required it to spend hundreds ofmillions of dollars on abatement and remediation;c) Defendants, individually, through trade associations like API, andthrough front groups like ICE and the GCC, coordinated campaigns to118

deceive the public about the known and foreseeable threats their fossil
fuels posed to the climate in order to mislead consumers and turnpublic opinion against actions to restrict their extraction, production,and sale of fossil fuels;d) Defendants spent millions of dollars funding think tanks and othergroups working to sow doubt about the veracity of the science linking
fossil fuels to global warming that their own scientists had helped todevelop;e) Between 1965 and 2017, the Fossil Fuel Company Defendants
produced more than 12% of the world’s fossil fuels; they continue toextract, produce, and sell fossil fuels at record rates today;f) Defendant Exxon produced 3.95 million oil-equivalent barrels per day
for sale in 2019 and plans to increase this production by 35% in the
coming decade, while dedicating just 0.2% of its capital spending to
low carbon energy sources from 2010-2018;g) Defendant Exxon further gave more than $13 million to organizations
that cast doubt on climate science between 2008 and 2017;h) Defendant BP is working toward adding production capacity of
900,000 oil-equivalent barrels per day for sale between 2016 and2021; it plans a further 20.1% increase in oil production in the next
decade and dedicated under 3% of its capital expenditures to low
carbon energy sources from 2010 to 2018;

119i) Defendant Shell produced 3.67 million barrels of oil and gas per day
for sale in 2019, a more than 10% increase from its production in
2010; it plans a further 37% increase in oil production in the next
decade and dedicated just 1% of capital spending low carbon energy
sources from 2010 through 2018;j) Defendant Chevron extracted more than 3 million barrels of net oil
equivalents per day for sale in 2019 and spent less than 1% of its
capital expenditures on low carbon energy sources from 2010 through2018; andk) Defendant ConocoPhillips extracted more than 1.3 million barrels of
net oil equivalents per day for sale in 2018, and has predicted
continued growth in production.
292.

At all times, Defendants’ conduct was performed in locations within

Defendants’ control:a) On information and belief, all key decisions were taken at the
Defendants’ corporate headquarters and other offices, including in
New Jersey;b) On information and belief, further actions were taken at locations
within the control of Defendants, including at oil fields, coal mines,
refineries, etc.; andc) On information and belief, further actions were taken at locations
within the control of Defendants, including by advertising agencies,
consulting firms, and similar agents and employees of Defendants.

120

293.

The public nuisance is substantial and unreasonable and affects rights

common to the public. These effects include, inter alia:a) the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars of City- andprivately-owned property due to flooding precipitated by or
exacerbated by sea level rise due to anthropogenic climate change;b) material deprivation of and/or interference with the use and enjoymentof public and private property in the City due to more frequent andextreme drought, more frequent and extreme precipitation events,
increased frequency and severity of heat waves and extreme
temperatures, and the associated consequences of those physical andenvironmental changes as described above;c) loss suffered by the City and its residents due to loss of access tocultural, historic, and economic resources; damage to public health,safety, and general welfare; and the diversion of tax dollars away fromother public services to the mitigation of and/or adaptation to climatechange effects;d) higher prices and lost opportunity costs due to investments needed bythird-party service providers to remediate infrastructure to address
anthropogenic climate change risks; ande) loss of tax revenue due to depressed property values and the slowdownof economic activity due to anthropogenic climate change.
294.

Plaintiff has suffered special injuries, different from that suffered by othermembers of the public. These include, inter alia:

121a) the City’s loss, as the owner and manager of unique public property
and resources, of vast amounts of land and property in Hoboken;b) increased costs of providing public services such as ensuring access tosafe water, reliable electricity services, sanitary sewage systems, andeffective transit to residents due to the effects of anthropogenic climatechange, as described above;c) significant anticipated reductions in revenue from taxes due todepressed property values and increased expenses due to rising
insurance rates; andd) large outlays to mitigate, remediate, and abate future effects ofanthropogenic climate change through, inter alia, implementing the“Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge” plan.
295.

Plaintiff became aware of this nuisance, in particular its scope andseverity, after the destruction caused by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy in 2011 and2012. Plaintiff has been made aware, further, of Defendants’ actions within the last three years
in maintaining a policy of disinformation and obfuscation around the risks of anthropogenic
climate change, as well as their plans to continue and expand their program of manufacturing andselling massive amounts of fossil fuels, despite their knowledge of the risks of anthropogenic
climate change.
296.

The public nuisance is continuing and is causing harm that requires costly

abatement measures. Further recurrence of such harm and inconvenience can be abated, albeit atgreat cost. For instance:

122a) As described in this Complaint, Defendants have continued theircampaign of disinformation into the present and have continued toaccelerate their production and sale of fossil fuels. They have thus
contributed to an ongoing public nuisance.
b) Defendants have stated publicly their intention to continue to produce,
and in fact increase, their production, sale, and marketing of fossil
fuels.
c) Plaintiff has worked with experts in remediation and abatement todevelop plans to make the City resilient to the expected effects ofanthropogenic climate change, including through the “Resist, Delay,
Store, Discharge” plan. Abating this nuisance is possible, but would
require full implementation of the plan, in addition to further measures
as described above.
297.

Defendants have a duty to abate this nuisance and continue to fail to act toprevent or abate it.
298.

As described in this Complaint, Defendants knew and should have known

that their conduct would cause the public nuisance that in fact took place.
299.

As early as 1972, Defendants’ own scientists had come to the conclusionthat anthropogenic climate change would take place due to the increased production, marketing,and sale of fossil fuels, that the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic, and that
Defendants and the general public had to act quickly to mitigate the worst injuries from climatechange, including injuries to Hoboken. In fact, through their joint participation in the American
Petroleum Institute, Defendants knew of these dangers as early as 1959, well before any such123

knowledge was widely available to the public. Defendants took affirmative steps to both benefit
from the nuisance by investing in technology that would only be usable after anthropogenic
climate change accelerated, and by taking steps to insulate their own installations from thenuisance they were creating.
300.

Instead of acknowledging the overwhelming weight of the evidence that

their own scientists had compiled in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and sharing those findings
with the general public, Defendants hid their data, muzzled their scientists, abruptly stopped
further research, and then waged an active campaign of disinformation to discredit this science.
301.

Defendants actions were, at the very least, a substantial factor in thecreation of the nuisance. Together, Defendants have produced more than 12% of the world’s
fossil fuels since 1965, the combustion of which has been the driving force behind sea level rise,increasingly frequent and severe extreme precipitation events, and increasingly frequent extreme
heat.
302.

Without Defendants’ actions, climate change effects from fossil fuelmanufacturing, sale, and marketing would not exist in the form they exist today or would bemuch less severe.
303.

All Defendants’ actions were a direct and foreseeable cause of the public

nuisance and concurrent and subsequent causes and actors do not break the causal chain.
304.

Defendants’ actions, including but not limited to creating disinformation

regarding the natural and foreseeable effects of fossil fuels, were not condoned by or validated
by public authorities.
305.

Plaintiff is a public entity and seeks an order compelling the abatement of

the public nuisance that Defendants created or assisted in the creation of, as well as costs

124sufficient to allow Plaintiff to take actions to abate the harm and inconvenience caused by theactions of Defendants.
306.

Plaintiff, suing in its capacity as a private plaintiff, seeks an award ofdamages for the special injury already suffered by Plaintiff, including, inter alia:a) costs and losses relating to damage caused by Superstorm Sandy andsimilar events attributable to anthropogenic climate change;b) costs relating to commissioning studies into abatement measures foraddressing this public nuisance; andc) costs expended in taking abatement and remediation measures so far,including as described above.
COUNT TWO
(Private Nuisance)(Against the Fossil Fuel Company Defendants)
307.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same

were fully set forth at length herein.
308.

New Jersey law prohibits Defendants from causing an “invasion ofanother’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of land” where “the invasion is either(a) intentional and unreasonable, or (b) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules
controlling liability for negligent or reckless conduct.”309.

Each Fossil Fuel Company Defendant, acting individually and in concert,has, by its intentional unreasonable conduct, and certainly by its reckless and wanton and willful
conduct, in manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and profiting from the sale of fossil fuels,
caused an invasion of the City of Hoboken’s land, preventing Plaintiff from its use andenjoyment of such land. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:125a) Defendants control every step of the supply, production, anddistribution chain for their fossil fuel products, including crude oil,coal, and natural gas reserves, extracting these fossil fuels from the
Earth; refining and marketing the products for sale, and distributing
them for sale across the globe;b) Defendants have extracted, marketed, and sold fossil fuels for morethan fifty years with knowledge that the use of these fossil fuels causes
global warming and its attendant climate impacts, including but notlimited to sea level rise and extreme heat and precipitation, each ofwhich has harmed Hoboken and required it to spend hundreds ofmillions of dollars on abatement and remediation;c) Defendants, individually, through trade associations like API, andthrough front groups like ICE and the GCC, coordinated campaigns to
deceive the public about the known and foreseeable threats their fossil
fuels posed to the climate in order to mislead consumers and turnpublic opinion against actions to restrict their extraction, production,and sale of fossil fuels;d) Defendants spent millions of dollars funding think tanks and othergroups working to sow doubt about the veracity of the science linking
fossil fuels to global warming that their own scientists had helped todevelop;126e) Between 1965 and 2017, the Fossil Fuel Company Defendants
produced more than 12% of the world’s fossil fuels; they continue toextract, produce, and sell fossil fuels at record rates today;f) Defendant Exxon produced 3.95 million oil-equivalent barrels per day
for sale in 2019 and plans to increase this production by 35% in the
coming decade, while dedicating just 0.2% of its capital spending to
low carbon energy sources from 2010 to 2018;g) Defendant Exxon further gave more than $13 million to organizations
that cast doubt on climate science between 2008 and 2017;h) Defendant BP is working toward adding production capacity of
900,000 oil-equivalent barrels per day for sale between 2016 and2021; it plans a further 20.1% increase in oil production in the next
decade and dedicated under 3% of its capital expenditures to low
carbon energy sources from 2010 to 2018;i) Defendant Shell produced 3.67 million barrels of oil and gas per day
for sale in 2019, a more than 10% increase from its production in
2010; it plans a further 37% increase in oil production in the next
decade and dedicated just 1% of capital spending low carbon energy
sources from 2010 through 2018;j) Defendant Chevron extracted more than 3 million barrels of net oil
equivalents per day for sale in 2019 and spent less than 1% of its
capital expenditures on low carbon energy sources from 2010 through2018; and127k) Defendant ConocoPhillips extracted more than 1.3 million barrels of
net oil equivalents per day for sale in 2018, and has predicted
continued growth in production.
310.

At all times, Defendants’ conduct was performed in locations within

Defendants’ control:a) On information and belief, all key decisions were taken at the
Defendants’ corporate headquarters and other offices, including in
New Jersey;b) On information and belief, further actions were taken at locations
within the control of Defendants, including at oil fields, coal mines,
refineries, etc; andc) On information and belief, further actions were taken at locations
within the control of Defendants, including by advertising agencies,
consulting firms, and similar agents and employees of Defendants.
311.

The private nuisance is substantial and unreasonable. It includes, but is

not limited to, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars of City-owned property due tothe invasion of flood waters onto such land precipitated by or exacerbated by sea level rise or
extreme precipitation events due to anthropogenic climate change.
312.

Plaintiff did not give permission to any Defendant to cause this invasion

onto City-owned land.
313.

Plaintiff became aware of this nuisance, in particular its scope andseverity, after the destruction caused by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy in 2011 and2012. Plaintiff has been made aware, further, of Defendants’ actions within the last three years

128

in maintaining a policy of disinformation and obfuscation around the risks of anthropogenic
climate change, as well as their plans to continue and expand their program of manufacturing andselling massive amounts of fossil fuels, despite their knowledge of the risks of anthropogenic
climate change.
314.

The private nuisance is continuing and is causing harm that requires costly

abatement measures. This nuisance can be abated and further recurrence of such harm andinconvenience can be abated, albeit at great cost. For instance:a) As described in this Complaint, Defendants have continued theircampaign of disinformation into the present and have continued toaccelerate their production and sale of fossil fuels. They have thus
contributed to an ongoing private nuisance.
b) Plaintiff has worked with experts in remediation and abatement todevelop plans to make the City resilient to the expected effects ofanthropogenic climate change, including through the “Resist, Delay,
Store, Discharge” plan. Abating this nuisance is possible, but would
require full implementation of the plan, in addition to further measures
as described above.
315.

Defendants have a duty to abate this nuisance and continue to fail to act toprevent or abate it.
316.

As described in this Complaint, Defendants knew and should have known

that their conduct would cause the private nuisance that in fact took place.
317.

As early as 1972, Defendants’ own scientists had come to the conclusionthat anthropogenic climate change would take place due to the increased production and sale of129

fossil fuels, that the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic, and that Defendants
and the general public had to act quickly to mitigate the worst injuries from climate change,
including injuries to Hoboken. In fact, through their joint participation in the American
Petroleum Institute, Defendants knew of these dangers as early as 1959, well before any suchknowledge was widely available to the public. Defendants took affirmative steps to both benefit
from the nuisance by investing in technology that would only be usable after anthropogenic
climate change accelerated, and by taking steps to insulate their own institutions from thenuisance they were creating.
318.

Instead of acknowledging the overwhelming weight of the evidence that

their own scientists had compiled in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and sharing those findings
with the general public, Defendants hid their data, muzzled their scientists, abruptly stopped
further research, and then waged an active campaign of disinformation to discredit this science.
319.

Defendants actions were, at the very least, a substantial factor in thecreation of the nuisance. Together, Defendants are responsible for extracting, producing, andselling more than 12% of the world’s fossil fuels since 1965, the combustion of which has been
the driving force behind sea level rise, increasingly frequent and severe extreme precipitation
events, and increasingly frequent extreme heat.
320.

All Defendants’ actions were a direct and foreseeable cause of the private

nuisance and concurrent and subsequent causes and actors do not break the causal chain.
321.

Without Defendants’ actions, climate change effects from fossil fuelmanufacturing and marketing would not exist in the form they exist today or would be much lesssevere.

130

322.

Plaintiff seeks the entry of an order providing for abatement of the private

nuisance that Defendants created or assisted in the creation of, as well as an award of damages
sufficient to allow Plaintiff to take actions to abate the harm and inconvenience caused by theactions of Defendants and damages to compensate Plaintiff for the harm already caused by thisprivate nuisance.
COUNT THREE(Trespass)(Against the Fossil Fuel Company Defendants)
323.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same

were fully set forth at length herein.
324.

“A defendant is liable in trespass for an ‘intentional[]’ entry onto another’sland, regardless of harm.”
325.

“A defendant is also liable if he ‘recklessly or negligently, or as a result ofan abnormally dangerous activity enters’ onto another’s land, and the entry causes harm.”
326.

Each Fossil Fuel Company Defendant, acting individually and in concert,has, by its intentional unreasonable conduct, and certainly by its reckless and wanton and willful
conduct, in manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and profiting from the sale of fossil fuels,
caused an entry on to the City of Hoboken’s land, preventing Plaintiff from its use andenjoyment of such land. This conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:a) Defendants control every step of the supply, production, anddistribution chain for their fossil fuel products—including crude oil,coal, and natural gas reserves—extracting these fossil fuels from the
Earth, refining and marketing the products for sale, and distributing
them for sale across the globe;131b) Defendants have extracted, marketed, and sold fossil fuels for morethan fifty years with knowledge that the use of these fossil fuels causes
global warming and its attendant climate impacts, including but notlimited to sea level rise and extreme heat and precipitation, each ofwhich has harmed Hoboken and required it to spend hundreds ofmillions of dollars on abatement and remediation;c) Defendants, individually, through trade associations like API, andthrough front groups like ICE and the GCC, coordinated campaigns to
deceive the public about the known and foreseeable threats their fossil
fuels posed to the climate in order to mislead consumers and turnpublic opinion against actions to restrict their extraction, production,and sale of fossil fuels;d) Defendants spent millions of dollars funding think tanks and othergroups working to sow doubt about the veracity of the science linking
fossil fuels to global warming that their own scientists had helped todevelop;e) Between 1965 and 2017, the Fossil Fuel Company Defendants
produced more than 12% of the world’s fossil fuels; they continue toextract, produce, and sell fossil fuels at record rates today;f) Defendant Exxon produced 3.95 million oil-equivalent barrels per day
for sale in 2019 and plans to increase this production by 35% in the
coming decade, while dedicating just 0.2% of its capital spending to
low carbon energy sources from 2010-2018;132g) Defendant Exxon further gave more than $13 million to organizations
that cast doubt on climate science between 2008 and 2017;h) Defendant BP is working toward adding production capacity of
900,000 oil-equivalent barrels per day for sale between 2016 and2021; it plans a further 20.1% increase in oil production in the next
decade and dedicated under 3% of its capital expenditures to low
carbon energy sources from 2010 to 2018;i) Defendant Shell produced 3.67 million barrels of oil and gas per day
for sale in 2019, a more than 10% increase from its production in
2010; it plans a further 37% increase in oil production in the next
decade and dedicated just 1% of capital spending low carbon energy
sources from 2010 through 2018;j) Defendant Chevron extracted more than 3 million barrels of net oil
equivalents per day for sale in 2019 and spent less than 1% of its
capital expenditures on low carbon energy sources from 2010 through2018; andk) Defendant ConocoPhillips extracted more than 1.3 million barrels of
net oil equivalents per day for sale in 2018, and has predicted
continued growth in production.
327.

This entry onto land includes but is not limited to the encroachment ofwater onto City-owned property precipitated by or exacerbated by sea level rise or extreme
precipitation events due to anthropogenic climate change.

133

328.

Plaintiff did not give permission to any Defendant to cause any such entry

onto such land.
329.

Plaintiff became aware of this trespass, in particular its scope and severity,

after the destruction caused by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy in 2011 and 2012.
Plaintiff has been made aware, further, of Defendants’ actions within the last three years inmaintaining a policy of disinformation and obfuscation around the risks of anthropogenic climatechange, as well as their plans to continue and expand their program of manufacturing and selling
massive amounts of fossil fuels, despite their knowledge of the risks of anthropogenic climatechange.
330.

This trespass is continuing and can be enjoined to prevent further

recurrence of such harm and inconvenience. For instance:a) As described in this Complaint, Defendants have continued theircampaign of disinformation into the present and have continued toaccelerate their production and sale of fossil fuels. They have thus
contributed to an ongoing trespass against Plaintiff’s property.
b) Plaintiff has worked with experts in remediation and abatement todevelop plans to make the City resilient to the expected effects ofanthropogenic climate change, including through the “Resist, Delay,
Store, Discharge” plan. Preventing further trespass is possible, butwould require full implementation of the plan, in addition to further
measures as described above.
331.

Defendants have a duty to cease this trespass and prevent its recurrence,but have continued to engage in acts that cause trespass.

134

332.

As described in this Complaint, Defendants knew and should have known

that their conduct would cause the trespass that in fact took place.
333.

As early as 1972, Defendants’ own scientists had come to the conclusionthat anthropogenic climate change would take place due to the increased production and sale offossil fuels, that the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic, and that Defendants
and the general public had to act quickly to mitigate the worst injuries from climate change,
including injuries to Hoboken. In fact, through their joint participation in API, Defendants knewof these dangers as early as 1959, well before any such knowledge was widely available to the
public.
334.

Instead of acknowledging the overwhelming weight of the evidence that

their own scientists had compiled in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and sharing those findings
with the general public, Defendants hid their data, muzzled their scientists, abruptly stopped
further research, and then waged an active campaign of disinformation to discredit this science.
335.

Defendants’ actions were, at the very least, a substantial factor in causing

this trespass. Togther, Defendants are responsible for extracting, producing, and selling morethan 12% of the world’s fossil fuels since 1965, the combustion of which has been the driving
force behind sea level rise, increasingly frequent and severe extreme precipitation events, andincreasingly frequent extreme heat.
336.

Without Defendants’ actions, climate change effects from fossil fuelmanufacturing and marketing would not exist in the form they exist today or would be much lesssevere.
337.

All Defendants’ actions were a direct and foreseeable cause of the trespassand concurrent and subsequent causes and actors do not break the causal chain.

135

338.

Plaintiff seeks the entry of an order preliminarily and permanently

enjoining Defendants from future acts of trespass as alleged, as well as an award of damages
sufficient to compensate Plaintiff and allow Plaintiff to take actions to abate the harm andinconvenience caused by the Defendants’ acts of trespass as alleged.
COUNT FOUR
(Negligence)(Against All Defendants)
339.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same

were fully set forth at length herein.
340.

Each Fossil Fuel Company Defendant has a duty to exercise reasonablecare in manufacturing, marketing, and distributing fossil fuel products that inevitably cause harmto Plaintiff. All Defendants have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the production anddissemination of their public pronouncement on climate effects of fossil fuels.
341.

The Fossil Fuel Company Defendants knew or should have known that

their actions in accelerating their production and sale of fossil fuels, in stymying climate change
research, and (with Defendant API) in creating an active system of disinformation around theclimate effects of their industry would cause foreseeable harm to Plaintiff and others in its
position.
342.

The Fossil Fuel Company Defendants, while actively representing to the

public—individually, in a conspiracy among themselves and others, and through various industry
associations—that anthropogenic climate change was either not taking place or would not
impose costs on the public, themselves invested in technology and infrastructure to prevent theirown property from being encroached upon by rising sea levels.

136

343.

It was entirely foreseeable that Defendants’ ongoing disinformation

campaign would slow and prevent action to address climate change and thereby injure Plaintiff.
344.

The Fossil Fuel Company Defendants knew or should have known that

increasing the rate of production and sale of fossil fuels, despite having specific knowledge ofthe dangers of causing anthropogenic climate change, would injure Plaintiff.
345.

The public interest supports Defendants’ duty to Plaintiff as Defendants

profited significantly from their misinformation campaign and business model and thereby
caused catastrophic losses to Plaintiff.
346.

Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff through their campaign ofpromoting false and misleading information regarding fossil fuels and their impact on climatechange, as well as by continuing to increase production, marketing, and sale of fossil fuelproducts.
347.

Defendants’ actions were, at the very least, a substantial factor in thecurrent uncontrolled process of anthropogenic climate change.
348.

As described above, Defendants’ breach proximately caused damages to349.

Plaintiff became aware of the effects of Defendants’ actions, in particular

Plaintiff.

their scope and severity, after the destruction caused by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy
in 2011 and 2012. Plaintiff has been made aware, further, of Defendants’ actions within the last
three years in maintaining a policy of disinformation and obfuscation around the risks ofanthropogenic climate change, as well as their plans to continue and expand their program ofmanufacturing and selling massive amounts of fossil fuels, despite their knowledge of the risksof anthropogenic climate change.

137

COUNT FIVE
(Violations of New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. §§ 56:8-1, et seq.)(Against All Defendants)
350.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if the same

were fully set forth at length herein.
351.

The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) prohibits the “act, use or

employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false
pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, oromission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression oromission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise.”352.

The CFA is a remedial statute that is to be construed broadly.

353.

Plaintiff has purchased products marketed and produced by some or all of354.

All Defendants are “Persons” within the meaning of the CFA and are

Defendants.

required to comply with the provisions of the CFA.
355.

Fossil-fuel products are “merchandise” within the meaning of the CFA.

356.

Defendants have sold, offered for sale, promoted the use of, and/or

advertised such merchandise in New Jersey and in Hoboken.
357.

Defendants’ business practices in marketing and promoting fossil fuels, as

described in this Complaint, are deceptive, unconscionable, and violate New Jersey law because
the practices deceived consumers in New Jersey, led to the sale and consumption of fossil fuelsthat would otherwise not be consumed, led to the promotion of junk science to the detriment oflong-running scientific consensus on climate change, and thereby caused Plaintiff to suffer
catastrophic losses from, inter alia, rising sea levels, increased flooding, and extreme heat.

138

358.

Defendants’ wrongful actions include, but are not limited to, affirmative

misrepresentations and knowing omission or concealment of material facts, knowing that others
will be deceived by such omissions, such as the following:a) Defendants deceptively worked to influence consumer demand forfossil fuel products through a long-term advertising andcommunications campaign centered on climate change denialism.
b) Defendants knew or should have known that the science of climatechange was certain and that there was a scientific consensus about therole of fossil fuels as early as 1972, that Defendants’ own scientists
had come to that conclusion, that the consequences of climate change
could be catastrophic, and that Defendants and the general public hadto act quickly to mitigate the worst injuries from climate change,
including injuries to Hoboken. In fact, through their joint participationin Defendant API, the Fossil Fuel Company Defendants knew of these
dangers as early as 1959, well before any such knowledge was widely
available to the public.
c) Instead of acknowledging the overwhelming weight of the evidence
that their own scientists had compiled in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s,
and sharing those findings with the general public, Defendants hid
their data, muzzled their scientists, and abruptly stopped further
research.
d) The Fossil Fuel Company Defendants, while actively representing to
the public—individually, in a conspiracy among themselves and139others, and through various industry associations—that anthropogenic
climate change was either not taking place or would not impose costson the public, themselves invested in technology and infrastructure to
insulate their operations from the deleterious effects of that same
anthropogenic climate change. These included instances in which theFossil Fuel Company Defendants took out patents for technologies thatwould only be usable after anthropogenic climate change had alreadyaccelerated and through preemptive abatement measures to make theirinfrastructure resilient against sea level rise.
e) Defendants then—individually, in a conspiracy among themselves andothers, and through various industry associations—manufactured apublic relations campaign starting in the late 1980s to sow doubt in thefact of anthropogenic climate change and funded junk science toundermine the findings that their own scientists had previously
validated. This campaign included running “advertorials” and otherforms of advertising in newspaper outlets and on broadcast media thatwere meant to be, and were, received by consumers and others in
Hoboken and in New Jersey, including in such regionally importantoutlets as The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. For
instance, Defendant API targeted New Jersey customers directly,
specifically, and expressly with misleading and false information.
This campaign was waged with the intent to allow the continuation

140

(and acceleration) of Fossil Fuel Company Defendants’ production andsale of fossil fuels in order to increase their profits.
f) Defendants—individually, in a conspiracy among themselves andothers, and through various industry associations—infiltrated
international bodies like the IPCC that were coordinating a worldwide
response to anthropogenic climate change with the express purpose ofsabotaging such efforts and sowing doubt about the scientific fact ofanthropogenic climate change, all with the intent to continue (andaccelerate) their production and sale of fossil fuels in order to increase
their profits.
g) By concealing and misrepresenting the scientific understanding of theconsequences of burning fossil fuels and increasing atmosphericconcentrations of greenhouse gases, Defendants failed to state and/or
misrepresented material facts, which had a tendency to mislead
consumers.
h) As public concern over global warming mounted, each Fossil FuelCompany Defendant deceitfully represented itself as a leader inrenewable energy and made misleading or incomplete claims about thesteps it has taken to reduce its overall carbon footprint as well as
misrepresented or made incomplete claims about its investment
practices and expansion in fossil fuel production. In so doing, theFossil Fuel Company Defendants failed to state and/or misrepresented
material facts that tended to mislead consumers regarding the Fossil

141

Fuel Company Defendants’ commitment to environmental
sustainability.
i) The Fossil Fuel Company Defendants further worked to conceal theirinvolvement in ongoing disinformation campaigns by working throughand funding front organizations, deceptively named industry groups,
and organizations peddling junk science, including Defendant API.
By concealing their role in these organizations, the Fossil FuelCompany Defendants failed to state and/or misrepresented material
facts that tended to mislead consumers regarding this merchandise.
j) Defendants’ multifaceted and decades-long campaign to deceive
consumers about the known consequences of the combustion of fossil
fuels unduly inflated the market for fossil fuels and led more
greenhouse gasses to be emitted into the environment than would havein the absence of their efforts.
k) The accelerated rate of climate change has caused severe andimmediate harms to Hoboken. For example, the City has been forced
to expend hundreds of millions of dollars to mitigate—including
without limitation, sea level rise, extreme heat, and extreme
precipitation events—the same harms that Defendants haveorchestrated a campaign to deceive consumers about for decades andup through the present day.
359.

Defendants knew or should have known at the time of making or

disseminating these statements, or causing these statements to be made or disseminated, that142

such statements were false, misleading, deceptive and unconscionable. Their omissions, which
are deceptive and misleading in their own right, render even seemingly truthful statements aboutfossil fuel use false and misleading.
360.

Consumers and the public are frequently deceived by the type of

information disseminated by Defendants (either directly or through other organizations) when
making decisions about purchasing of potentially harmful products.
361.

All of this conduct, separately and collectively, was likely to deceive New

Jersey consumers, including Plaintiff.
362.

The product of this deception was that the Fossil Fuel Company

Defendants were able to and did sell fossil fuels in quantities and at prices that they would
otherwise have not been able to, had the true externalities of those goods been fully taken into
account.
363.

Defendants’ fraudulent, unlawful, and/or deceptive activity alleged hereincaused the uncontrolled use of fossil fuels that, in turn, caused significant increases in averagemean global temperatures.
364.

Plaintiff became aware of the effects of this campaign, in particular its

scope and severity, after the destruction caused by Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy in2011 and 2012. Plaintiff has been made aware, further, of Defendants’ actions within the last
three years in maintaining a policy of disinformation and obfuscation around the risks ofanthropogenic climate change, as well as their plans to continue and expand their program ofmarketing massive amounts of fossil fuels, despite their knowledge of the risks of anthropogenic
climate change.

143

365.

As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and practices,

Defendants have received, or will receive, income, profits, and other benefits, which they would
not have received if they had not engaged in the violations described in this Complaint.
366.

Plaintiff has suffered ascertainable losses which include, but are notlimited to:a) the destruction of millions of dollars of City-owned property due toflooding precipitated by or exacerbated by sea level rise due toanthropogenic climate change;b) loss suffered by the City and its residents due to loss of access tocultural, historic, and economic resources; damage to public health,safety, and general welfare; and the diversion of tax dollars away fromother public services to the mitigation of and/or adaptation to climatechange effects; andc) loss of tax revenue due to depressed property values and the slowdownof economic activity due to anthropogenic climate change.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants jointly andseverally as follows:a.

For compensatory, consequential and punitive damages;b.

For an award of treble damages pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer

Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-19;c.

For entry of an Order compelling Defendants to abate the nuisance alleged

herein and to pay the costs of abatement;.

144

d.

For entry of an Order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants

from engaging in future acts of trespass as alleged herein;e.

For an award of prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs;f.

For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just.

Dated: September 2, 2020
KROVATIN NAU LLC
60 Park Place, Suite 1100
Newark, NJ 07102(973) 424-9777
By:/s/ Gerald Krovatin
Gerald Krovatin

EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFFABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP
600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10020(212) 763-5000
By:/s/ Jonathan S. Abady
Jonathan S. Abady

Attorneys for Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues in this action.

Pro hac vice application forthcoming.

145

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO R. 4:5-1
I hereby certify that 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 thisaction at this time.
Dated: September 2, 2020
KROVATIN NAU LLC
60 Park Place, Suite 1100
Newark, NJ 07102(973) 424-9777
By:/s/ Gerald Krovatin
Gerald Krovatin

EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFFABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP
600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10020(212) 763-5000
By:/s/ Jonathan S. Abady
Jonathan S. Abady

Attorneys for PlaintiffPro hac vice application forthcoming.

146