New Jersey’s Climate Superfund Is a Blank Check With No Accountability
by Rosemary Becchi
New Jersey lawmakers are considering a so-called “climate superfund” bill that would impose sweeping new financial penalties on a narrow set of energy companies in the name of climate resilience. The bill relies on retroactive penalties, sweeping assumptions of liability, and vague promises of future spending. The result is legislation that is legally dubious, economically risky, fundamentally unfair, and one that substitutes sound policy with political expediency.
At its core, the proposal would funnel billions of dollars into vaguely defined “climate adaptation” projects. Supporters argue this money would help the state prepare for future storms, flooding, and heat. New Jersey already faces real challenges: the state has more than 130 miles of coastline, some of the most densely populated floodplains in the country, and billions of dollars in projected climate-related infrastructure needs over the coming decades. However, the bill offers few specifics about how the funds would be spent, who would decide which projects qualify, or how taxpayers could hold lawmakers accountable for the results.
“Climate adaptation” can mean almost anything. Infrastructure upgrades, public health programs, housing initiatives, or administrative costs could all plausibly fall under that umbrella. Without clear guardrails or measurable outcomes, there is little assurance the funds would be used efficiently or for their stated purpose. New Jersey residents are being asked to trust that billions of dollars will be spent wisely, without meaningful oversight or transparency.
Equally troubling is the bill’s lack of any requirement to demonstrate harm or responsibility. The legislation does not require proof that emissions caused specific climate-related damage within New Jersey. Nor does it require evidence that any particular company’s activities directly contributed to any alleged harm. Instead, liability is assumed, not demonstrated. This is a sharp departure from basic principles of fairness and due process. In most areas of law, penalties are tied to clear evidence of harm and a demonstrable link between actions and consequences. Here, that standard is abandoned entirely. The legislation instead singles out companies not because of proven wrongdoing, but because they are politically convenient targets.
This approach also ignores a basic reality: New Jersey is responsible for a tiny fraction of global emissions. According to federal data, the state accounts for .3% of greenhouse gas output worldwide. Even within New Jersey, the largest share of emissions comes not from fuel production, but from fuel use — particularly transportation, which accounts for roughly 40% of statewide emissions. Residential heating, commercial buildings, and electricity consumption make up much of the rest.
New Jersey residents drive cars, heat homes, and fly on airplanes. State and local governments operate fleets of vehicles, run public buildings, and manage transportation networks that depend on fossil fuels. Major corporations across industries generate significant emissions every day. Yet none of these actors are meaningfully held accountable under the bill. Instead, responsibility is concentrated on a small group of companies for the alleged wrongdoing of providing a legal product that residents, businesses and the state itself demanded. The legislation even attempts to assign liability for emissions released globally over decades, if not centuries. This is an unprecedented and deeply flawed approach that ignores the shared nature of energy use and economic development.
A “climate superfund” bill also risks real economic consequences for New Jersey. Increased costs imposed on energy producers do not disappear; they are often passed along to consumers in the form of higher energy prices, higher transportation costs, and increased costs for goods and services. At a time when New Jersey families are already grappling with some of the highest property taxes and cost-of-living pressures in the country, roughly 15% above the national average, that burden matters.
If New Jersey wants to address climate risks, it should do so honestly and collaboratively. That means clear policies, transparent spending, and shared responsibility, not retroactive punishment, legally questionable assumptions, and open-ended spending authority. The climate superfund bill may sound appealing on the surface, but beneath the rhetoric lies a policy that is unaccountable, inequitable, and unlikely to deliver real results. New Jersey can and should do better.
Rosemary Becci is the Founder and President of Jersey1st.
