A new Dartmouth study has revealed that extreme heat from 111 companies cost the global economy $28 trillion from 1991 to 2020, with $9 trillion of losses attributed to top-emitting firms.
The researchers reported that the highest-emitting investor-owned firm may be responsible for $791 billion to $3.6 trillion in heat-related losses during that period.
The team estimated that pollution was caused by 111 companies, with more than half of the total dollar figure coming from 10 fossil fuel providers: Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, National Iranian Oil Co., Pemex, Coal India, and the British Coal Corporation.
Using data from scope 1 and scope 3 emissions, the research showed that the emissions of individual fossil fuel companies resulted in trillions of dollars in economic losses because of extreme heat.
For instance, Chevron’s emissions likely caused $791 billion to $3.6 trillion in heat-related losses between 1991 and 2020, disproportionately affecting tropical regions least culpable for warming.
Recent climate change-related disasters, such as hurricanes in the southern Appalachian Mountains, wildfires in Southern California, and floods in New England, also demonstrated the significant costs of climate change.
Key findings:
The identified causal linkages in pollution accountability theories focus on the mechanisms behind making polluters pay, taking them to court, or passing laws.
The study published in Nature revealed that Saudi Aramco and Gazprom have caused over $2 trillion in heat damage over the years.
The researchers estimated that every 1% of greenhouse gas released since 1990 has caused $502 billion in heat damage, including costs from extreme weather events like hurricanes, droughts, and floods.
As per the Nature report, Zero Carbon Analytics reported 68 global lawsuits filed against climate change damage, with over half in the US.
The study found that governments are using civil lawsuits and “polluters pay” laws to demand compensation from fossil fuel companies for climate disasters.
However, many actions are being contested or delayed in court due to the difficulty in proving that a single company’s greenhouse gas emissions caused a specific climate impact.
Methodology:
Researchers used 137 years of emissions data from 111 major carbon-oriented companies to study changes in Earth’s global average surface temperature. They used 1,000 computer simulations to compare emissions to a world without those emissions.
By using the approach, they found that Chevron’s pollution has caused a 0.045 degrees Fahrenheit (0.025 degrees Celsius) increase in Earth’s temperature.
Researchers also used 80 computer simulations to calculate pollution contributions to the five hottest days of the year, analyzing extreme heat intensity and its impact on economic output.
The technology is based on the proven techniques that scientists have been using for over ten years to link climate change to extreme weather events like the 2021 heat wave in the Pacific Northwest.
Author’s note:
“We argue that the scientific case for climate liability is closed, even if the future of these cases remains an open question,” said Justin Mankin, senior author of the study and an associate professor in the Department of Geography, who directs the Climate Modeling and Impacts Group.
The study, he said, answers a question first posed in 2003 of whether science could ever link an individual firm’s emissions to climate change. “Just over 20 years later, we find the answer to be ‘yes.’ Our framework can provide robust emissions-based attributions of climate damages at the corporate scale. This should help courts better evaluate liability claims for the losses and disruptions resulting from human-caused climate change.”
“Our findings demonstrate that it is in fact possible to compare the world as it is to a world absent individual emitters,” said Christopher Callahan, who began working on the project as a PhD candidate in Mankin’s research group.
“The affluence of the Western economy has been based on fossil fuels,” Callahan said, “but just as a pharmaceutical company would not be absolved from the negative effects of a drug by the benefits of that drug, fossil fuel companies should not be excused for the damage they’ve caused by the prosperity their products have generated.”
