The Scientific Case For Climate Liability Claims

The global economy would be USD 28 trillion better off were it not for the extreme heat caused by the emissions of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies. Says a recent paper published in Nature, which used extensive climate modelling to determine the exact contribution of some of the world’s largest fossil fuel companies to average temperatures, extreme heat, and the economic costs of these.

The paper details the scientific and legal implications of an ‘end-to-end’ attribution that links fossil fuel producers to specific damages from warming. Using scope 1 and 3 emissions data from major fossil fuel companies, peer-reviewed attribution methods and advances in empirical climate economics, we illustrate the trillions in economic losses attributable to the extreme heat caused by emissions from individual companies.

Emissions linked to Chevron, the highest-emitting investor-owned company in our data, for example, very likely caused between US $791 billion and $3.6 trillion in heat-related losses over the period 1991–2020, disproportionately harming the tropical regions least culpable for warming. More broadly, we outline a transparent, reproducible and flexible framework that formalizes how end-to-end attribution could inform litigation by assessing whose emissions are responsible and for which harms. Drawing quantitative linkages between individual emitters and particularized harms is now feasible, making science no longer an obstacle to the justiciability of climate liability claims.

Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, Exxon and BP have each caused USD 1.45 to USD 2.05 trillion in economic damage. And that’s actual GDP lost just from extreme heat experienced between 1991 and 2020, never mind the additional costs resulting from other climate impacts, or the huge economic and human toll future warming will bring.

The writer of this article is Dr. Seema Javed, an environmentalist & a communications professional in the field of climate and energy