This a look behind the campaign to induce NJ to file a climate lawsuit | Opinion

Anyone who has spent time down the shore or a New Jersey flood zone knows that climate change is a serious challenge and calls for real solutions. We, as a global community, need new, innovative ways to source and use energy. Electrification, transportation and other energy-based technologies have transformed the world throughout history. Innovation can now diversify our energy supply while maintaining the energy security that our families and businesses need.

New Jersey should be on the forefront of this innovation campaign, which is making important progress. Whether it is life-saving medicines, the light bulb or wireless communications, New Jersey has long been a leader in innovation —finding solutions that no one else thought possible. Our elected officials should be working with manufacturers and other business leaders on fostering this same type of entrepreneurialism on climate change.

Unfortunately, this mission is being side-tracked. The state’s leaders have been the object of a multi-year campaign to put New Jersey at the forefront of something else: climate litigation. And, this campaign worked; the state government filed a lawsuit in October. This litigation is about monetizing climate change — not advancing real solutions.

Some two dozen communities around the country have signed up for these lawsuits. So, there is a clear track record of what this litigation is about—politics. The litigation is being advocated for and funded by groups that want to force energy producers to “raise the price” of oil and gas as a way of holding “consumers responsible” for climate change. By going to courts, they are trying to bypass the traditional checks and balances of doing this through legislation or regulation.

To persuade New Jersey to file this lawsuit, the groups employed political tactics. For example, they took out a full page newspaper ad in the Star-Ledger urging the State “to take oil and gas companies to court.” In 2020, they worked with state legislators to support a resolution calling on the executive branch to file the lawsuit. And, they enlisted some local governments to do the same. They even held events to rally support for the litigation.

When New Jersey brings the weight of the state against anyone, it should result from a dispassionate assessment of the law and facts, not outside political campaigns. Such an earnest assessment here would have shown no basis for this litigation. When a similar case went to the Supreme Court in 2011, the late Justice Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous court, explained that climate litigation raises federal policy matters for regulators, not liability issues for courts.

In that case, the Obama administration also weighed in, saying in its briefing that climate change is “a result of the actions of innumerable sources of various kinds of emissions from around the world over many decades” and impacts nearly everyone. It is “impossible to consider the sort of focused and more geographically proximate effects” raised in this type of litigation.

As a result, it was no surprise when the U.S. Court of Appeals threw out New York City’s climate lawsuit in 2021. That case was nearly identical to the one filed by New Jersey. The court concluded that the lawsuit “ignores economic reality.” The courts have understood that these lawsuits are targeting modern life—which is why community and environmental leaders have been sounding the alarm against these suits for years.

For example, a former Colorado House Speaker Pro Tem warned that people cannot afford the higher gas and electric bills these lawsuits are intended to cause. The American Conservation Coalition said, “[w]e don’t have time to waste on what amounts to frivolous lawsuits that are likely little more than political stunts.” And, a U.S. ambassador under President Clinton, expressed security concerns, noting the litigation targets American, Canadian and European energy companies — not those in China and Russia.

So, not only does this litigation distract from what needs to be done, it also has downsides for many Americans. In order to meaningfully address climate change, the state should go back to focusing on policies that can lead to innovations and tangible actions that achieve climate goals.

Phil Goldberg is special counsel to the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project.

This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: NJ climate litigation must be stopped