op-ed

By: by Assemblywoman Victoria Flynn, 13^th Legislative District of New Jersey

March 15, 2024

If New Jersey hopes to accomplish real victories to combat climate change, one thing is clear: it won’t get there by filing pointless lawsuits against New Jersey’s energy producers.

That is the avenue the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office chose to resolve the statewide debate on climate change, suing all in-state fossil fuel energy producers to seek damages for the losses incurred from Superstorm Sandy. 

New Jersey should learn from what just happened in Delaware, where a court rejected claims filed by the Delaware Attorney General to advance an aggressive “green” energy policy, reminding the State of Delaware that these issues are to be decided on the federal level, not through state-based claims.

The lesson learned from Delaware and other court decisions demonstrate that it is incumbent upon the elected officials in New Jersey to work alongside all interested groups to develop a common sense and cooperative plan to address our energy and environmental needs. It should not be the judiciary’s job to resolve policy decisions steeped in political differences of opinion.

I am struck by the state’s decision to choose litigation to somehow resolve this debate, especially since New Jersey is not blameless in mismanaging environmental needs. Why is the State relying upon the Attorney General’s Office to solve these environmental concerns, when that State is also simultaneously advancing laws that will result in overdevelopment in towns across Monmouth County and statewide?

I’m also deeply concerned about the ripples this lawsuit will have upon an important component of our state’s economy. New Jersey has championed renewables and pushes unattainable policies, but we’re still one of the top 15 largest petroleum consuming states. For good or for bad, New Jersey’s economy is dependent upon fossil fuel companies. It is not conducive to sue companies that we depend upon to support our vast energy needs.

In light of the irreparable harm that may be caused to New Jersey’s energy industry by this lawsuit, it begs the question: Is legal action really about combating climate change or do they just simply serve the goal of positive talking points for PR purposes?

These frivolous suits only serve to line the pockets of trial lawyers who prey upon states who are engaged in a false crusade of climate change legal actions for their own self-interests.

Consider who is really behind these lawsuits – a San Francisco-based plaintiffs’ attorney firm, Sher Edling, LLP., is initiating more than 20 lawsuits nationwide, including the one filed by New Jersey’s Attorney General’s Office. These lawyers know that the likelihood of success on advancing these actions relying on state nuisance and trespass laws is ridiculously low, especially because anyone who is sincerely concerned about taking credible action to address the climate needs for our country understands it can only be addressed on a larger scale.

I question how New Jersey’s lawsuit against companies in its State – which support its economy – will address damage caused to the climate by other countries. For instance, China emits 27% of all carbon dioxide – a third of the world’s greenhouse gases. Yet, New Jersey seeks to torpedo a significant contributor to its own economy without a chance of making so much as a dent in carbon emissions.

Ironically, the energy producers named in these suits have also committed billions to renewable technology. Just recently, ExxonMobil announced a commitment to invest $17 billion towards its low carbon business, while Chevron earmarked $10 billion for carbon capture investments. Shell and BP have recently delved into an emerging renewable industry, agrivoltaics, which combines solar energy production with agricultural activities. 

We should seek practical, bipartisan solutions – with input from our business community – to make New Jersey’s energy policies more resilient, rather than haphazardly sue the state’s energy producers.  That’s obviously not going to be the answer.

---

---