This blog is the first of a three-part series highlighting new revelations in New Jersey that shed further light on the climate litigation campaign. 

Recently obtained emails reveal the playbook for activist group Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) and its extensive actions behind the scenes in New Jersey municipalities to recruit, support, and initiate climate litigation – including how it views itself as an “extra set of hands” to help taxpayer funded public officials.  

Just like we’ve seen play out in Minnesota, Florida, and Hawaii, these emails showcase how CCI works from the inside and outside to push lawsuits, further undermining the notion that climate litigation is an organic, grassroots effort. In reality, it’s a concerted national campaign funded and coordinated by wealthy donors, environmental activists, and trial lawyers seeking to eliminate the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. 

“Ghost” Services at the Local Level 

The coordination between CCI and New Jersey officials runs deep at the local level. Various emails obtained through public records requests show the extent of these relationships dating back to at least 2020 and showcase how CCI pitches itself and its “services” to local officials.  

Emails reveal the existence of a CCI-sponsored “Accountability University” free “training” program for municipal officials interested in climate litigation, and showcases CCI’s recruitment pitch deck, which highlights the various ways CCI can help promote the climate litigation campaign.  

Services pitched include legal “expertise,” “sample legislation and analysis,” “messaging, talking points, press support,” and even “ghost-writing” from CCI’s team: 

An email thread with Jason Cilento, the Mayor of Dunellen, New Jersey, shows an example of these ghost-writing op-ed services in action, as well as the circulation of “template” city council resolutions in support of climate litigation that CCI drafted on behalf of Asbury Park and Jersey City.  

Interestingly, when asked by Cilento about potential legal obligations associated with accepting CCI’s suite of services, CCI State and Local Campaigns Manager lyla Shornstein replied:  

“…there are absolutely no legal obligations. Since we are a 501 c3, there is no pledge or legal sign on’ required. Rather, we view ourselves as an extra set of hands to help public officials…” (emphasis added) 

This “extra set of hands” mentality is evident throughout CCI’s correspondence with New Jersey municipalities. On multiple occasions, CCI distributed a “toolkit” to New Jersey borough councilmembers which includes talking points, sample social media posts, suggested messaging, and draft resolutions. 

Specifically on the draft resolutions, the toolkit says: 

“These five resolutions…could serve as way to support existing climate accountability cases, or to lay a critical foundation for entities who may wish to pursue litigation in the future.” (emphasis added) 

However, CCI warns throughout that these documents are for internal use only and not to be shared – revealing intent to keep its puppeteering secret.  

“Please do NOT share this memo outside of your office.”

“These toolkits are meant as a resource for your office only. Please do not share them outside of your direct staff.”

“Please note that our social media account will not be active until after the public launch of the network.” 

CCI Formalizes New Jersey Coalition 

The emails also show that in January 2022, CCI held a formal kickoff for the “NJ Climate Liability Coalition,” which is comprised of the NJ Leaders for Climate Accountability group and other supporters of litigation in the state. During the webinar, CCI’s Political Director David Zellabos described the suite of services CCI provides to elected officials stating:  

“We like to picture ourselves as the staff they wish they had on climate accountability.” (Emphasis added) 

The bulk of the discussion on municipal climate litigation didn’t revolve around the legal basis for a lawsuit or the likelihood of success. Instead, the conversation revolved around “climate costs,” and the ability of potential damages to subsidize communities’ budgets and create a “sustainable funding stream” for municipal infrastructure wish lists, revealing more about the true goals of the litigation campaign.  

One audience member asked if prospective damages awarded to municipalities could help displace the current system of property taxes funding local governments. CCI’s New Jersey Campaign Director Lauren O’Brien responded by comparing fossil fuel litigation to tobacco litigation; “and that did create pretty hefty settlements,” she said, laughing.  

But the problem is that acting as a plaintiffs’ recruiter, CCI mischaracterizes these lawsuits. First, climate suits don’t request blank-check funding streams for local projects – they request damages related to specific abatement measures, which a plaintiff would only receive after the private attorneys have taken their cut. More importantly, in another webinar for the Leaders for Climate Accountability group, CCI claimed that “the lawyers only get paid when there is a successful settlement,” although it’s been proven that the plaintiffs’ lawyers involved get paid by big Hollywood donors through dark money channels anyway, regardless of the outcome.  

These emails raise key questions: 

  • Is it appropriate for taxpayer-funded entities to follow the playbook of a known-plaintiffs’ recruiter, hook-line-and-sinker?  
  • Does use of CCI’s suite of services run afoul of elected officials’ gift restrictions? 
  • Has CCI revealed that prospective revenue, rather than “accountability,” is the actual goal of climate lawsuits? 

Bottom Line: These emails reveal the extent of the services CCI and its anti-fossil fuels network provide to taxpayer-funded politicians and officials, with New Jersey being just the latest example of this playbook in action. Through this, taxpayers are essentially doing the bidding of an environmental activist group to promote climate litigation, yet are being kept in the dark on who is really pulling the strings.