SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA - NOVEMBER 15: California Attorney General Rob Bonta speaks during a news conference outside of an Amazon distribution facility on November 15, 2021 in San Francisco, California. Bonta announced that Amazon Inc. will have to pay a $500,000 fine after the company failed to adequately notify workers and officials about coronavirus cases at its facilities pursuant to California Assembly Bill 865. The bill also requires companies to share COVID-19 safety plans, benefits and protections with employees. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF), a left-wing foundation backed by a $200 million endowment aimed at challenging the oil industry, quietly helped lay the groundwork for California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s (D.) high-stakes litigation accusing ExxonMobil of deceiving the public about its role in the “global plastics pollution crisis.”
According to RFF director Lee Wasserman, RFF and the activist group Beyond Plastics “worked closely” with the RFF-funded Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) in early 2024 to develop a lengthy, first-of-its-kind report outlining how ExxonMobil allegedly deceived the public about plastic pollution for decades.
Wasserman made these remarks during a little-noticed Climate Week NYC panel last month, boasting that Bonta then relied on that report when he filed his lawsuit months later in September 2024.
“Surprise, surprise—shortly after that report came out, the attorney general of California brought litigation for fraud and deception against Exxon based on their lying about plastic,” Wasserman remarked at the panel discussion, a transcript of which was reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.
His comments suggest that wealthy activists have essentially asserted control over the actions of the largest state justice department in the nation.
### A Legacy Rooted in Liberal Causes
The RFF dates back to the 1960s when the great-grandchildren of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller founded it to support a variety of liberal causes. Over recent decades, the fund’s endowment has ballooned and has increasingly focused on climate change activism. In 2023 alone, RFF spent $15.8 million supporting climate groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club.
### The Lawsuit’s Strong Ties to RFF-Funded Research
Bonta’s complaint heavily cites the CCI’s report mentioned by Wasserman — referencing it nine times while parroting its exact language and nearly identical arguments. Both the report and Bonta’s complaint attack ExxonMobil’s alleged “decades-long campaign of deception” regarding the recyclability of plastic and its “false promise of plastic recycling.”
They also discredit advanced recycling as a solution to plastic pollution and highlight the ongoing “plastic waste and pollution crisis.” Moreover, both sources suggest ExxonMobil has sought to “co-opt” the term “circular” to mislead the public about plastic recycling efforts.
For example, the CCI report states that the oil industry has “co-opted the language of a ‘circular economy’ to convince the public that the industry is advancing solutions to the plastic waste crisis.” Similarly, Bonta’s press release announcing the lawsuit claims ExxonMobil’s recycled plastic products “are effectively virgin plastics deceptively marketed as ‘circular’ (co-opting a term typically understood as a full circle of sustainable reuse, where waste becomes raw material).”
### Shared Primary Source Documents
Both the CCI and Bonta rely on many of the same primary source documents that the CCI first gathered for its February 2024 report. These include a 1973 Stanford Research Institute article prepared for a plastics industry group, a 1986 internal industry memo stating that “recycling cannot be considered a permanent solid waste solution,” staff notes from a politically sensitive 1994 industry meeting, and a 2021 Australian environmental foundation study concluding that ExxonMobil holds the world’s largest single-use plastics footprint.
### Bonta Takes Credit, Omits RFF’s Role
After filing his lawsuit, Bonta did not mention RFF’s influence, instead taking full credit for the legal action himself.
“ExxonMobil lied to further its record-breaking profits at the expense of our planet,” Bonta declared, adding that his office seeks “to hold ExxonMobil fully accountable.”
If successful, this litigation could force ExxonMobil to pay hefty damages potentially worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, effectively crippling the nation’s largest oil company and a long-targeted adversary for environmentalists. It could also set a precedent, paving the way for other states to pursue similar lawsuits against ExxonMobil and other oil companies.
### A Wider Strategy to Target the Oil Industry
The RFF’s involvement suggests that California’s lawsuit is part of a broader, decade-long campaign by the fund to dismantle the oil industry through an onslaught of state-level lawsuits. This effort dates back to early 2016 when Rockefeller nonprofit leaders convened a meeting with prominent environmental groups to discuss plans to “delegitimize [ExxonMobil] as a political actor, force officials to disassociate themselves from Exxon, drive divestment from Exxon,” and use lawsuits and state prosecutors to obtain internal documents via judicial discovery, the Free Beacon reported at the time.
Since then, dozens of Democratic state, county, and city prosecutors have filed lawsuits accusing oil companies of deception regarding climate change science. Bonta’s 2024 lawsuit, however, takes a novel approach—it is the first to center on alleged deception about plastic pollution.
Taken together, activists hope these efforts will help usher in an economy-wide transition to green energy, accomplishing broad policy goals through judicial means.
### Responses and Reactions
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, commented on the revelations:
“The Rockefeller Family Fund just admitted what we’ve known for years: They are funding and directing the campaign to sue energy companies out of existence. This is not public interest litigation; it’s political warfare disguised as law. Their goal is to weaken American energy, drive up costs, and lay the groundwork for climate superfund-style shakedowns.”
In response to the Free Beacon’s inquiries, Wasserman walked back his earlier comments in an email, stating:
“The report provided additional evidence about recycling deception and the damages caused by plastics in the environment, adding to the large volume of such information already in the public domain. My comment underscores that there were deceptive statements regarding the recyclability of plastics documented in the CCI report. It is not surprising that the AG of California reached the same conclusion after his multi-year investigation of the matter.”
At the time of publication, Bonta’s office and the Center for Climate Integrity had not responded to requests for comment.
https://freebeacon.com/energy/rockefeller-fund-takes-credit-for-california-ags-lawsuit-against-exxonmobil/
About the Author
