In a new study released by Dartmouth College, the world’s largest corporations have been estimated to cause an astounding $28 trillion in climate damage. This study is an effort to make it easier for individuals and governments to hold these companies financially responsible for their environmental impact, akin to the accountability faced by tobacco firms.
The research team analyzed pollution levels attributable to 111 companies, with over half of the total cost coming from just 10 of the top fossil fuel producers. These include industry giants such as Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, National Iranian Oil Co., Pemex, Coal India, and British Coal Corporation. For reference, $28 trillion is slightly less than the total gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States for the previous year.
Leading the list are Saudi Aramco and Gazprom, each responsible for generating over $2 trillion in damage due to heat from pollution, the study found. This damage calculation reveals that each 1% increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases since 1990 has caused roughly $502 billion in heat-related damages. This figure excludes the additional costs associated with other extreme weather phenomena such as hurricanes, droughts, and flooding.
In the quest for accountability, the report’s lead author, Christopher Callahan—now an Earth systems scientist at Stanford University—sought to define the direct links underpinning established theories of corporate accountability. Zero Carbon Analytics reports that across the globe, 68 climate damage lawsuits have been filed, with the majority in the United States.
Dartmouth climate scientist and co-author of the study, Justin Mankin, emphasized the importance of determining the specific culpability of individual polluters. By tracking detailed climate hazards and their impacts to specific carbon emitters, the researchers concluded that it is indeed feasible to do so.
The study utilized emissions data dating back as far as 137 years for the biggest carbon-releasing companies because carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for extended periods. Through 1,000 different computer simulations, the researchers translated emissions data into shifts in Earth’s average surface temperature, comparing it with a hypothetical world absent of those emissions. For instance, the pollution from Chevron alone has led to a global temperature increase of .045 degrees Fahrenheit (.025 degrees Celsius).
Further simulations and formulas were used to estimate the economic impact each company’s pollution has had, notably on the hottest days of the year. This robust approach mirrors methods employed for over a decade to link climate change directly to extreme weather events.
Mankin noted that prior arguments deflected responsibility by questioning whose specific CO2 emissions were to blame. Modern scientific advancements allow for those obfuscations to be dismissed through clear attributive methods pointing to major polluters.
Shell declined to comment, and other major corporations such as Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP did not respond to inquiries regarding the study.
According to Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London, the methodologies applied in the study are very robust. Otto advocates for wider adoption of this approach by other research groups to strengthen the scientific understanding of climate change implications. While no major climate liability suit has succeeded against these carbon emitters, Otto believes the overwhelming scientific evidence could eventually shift legal outcomes.
Historically, attributing damages to individual companies was challenging due to data limitations, noted Callahan. Yet, the scale of climate crises now enables the quantification of damages from individual company products in the billions annually. Chris Field, a Stanford climate scientist independent of the study, acknowledged the work as an important proof of concept. However, he also mentioned the possibility of underestimating damages due to the multitude of influencing climate variables. Michael Mann, a climate scientist from the University of Pennsylvania, echoed that sentiment, suggesting that the actual damage is likely much greater than reported in the study.