Photo credit: www.sciencedaily.com
The frequency and severity of natural disasters linked to climate change have brought urgent attention to the economic consequences of global warming. Recent events such as the wildfires in Southern California, the destructive hurricane affecting the southern Appalachian region, and severe flooding in New England serve as stark reminders of the mounting costs associated with climate impacts.
As various local and national governments navigate the challenges of recovering from these increasingly common climate-related disasters, many are pursuing legal avenues to seek financial accountability from fossil fuel companies. These actions often take the form of civil lawsuits or the implementation of “polluters pay” legislation. However, such efforts frequently encounter legal obstacles, primarily due to the complexities involved in demonstrating a direct link between any specific company’s emissions and the resultant climate impacts.
A recent study published on April 23 in the journal Nature introduces a potentially transformative framework that could aid in recovering costs associated with climate-related extreme weather events. The researchers present a method that may effectively connect particular climate damages to the emissions of individual fossil fuel companies.
This innovative framework employs climate modeling combined with publicly accessible emissions data. It juxtaposes current climatic conditions against a hypothetical scenario devoid of the greenhouse gases emitted by various companies. This analysis is referred to as a “but for” standard, meaning that certain climate catastrophes would likely not have occurred without the specific actions of an individual firm, according to the findings.
“We assert that the scientific basis for climate liability is well established, even though the future of legal proceedings in this domain remains uncertain,” explains Justin Mankin, the senior author of the study and an associate professor of geography at Dartmouth College. This research addresses a question that has been on the table since 2003 regarding the possibility of linking a company’s emissions to climate change.
“After over two decades, we can confidently say ‘yes,'” Mankin asserts. “Our framework can deliver precise emissions-based attributions for climate damages at the level of individual companies. This will assist courts in evaluating liability for the losses and disruptions stemming from anthropogenic climate change.”
Mankin, along with the study’s lead author Christopher Callahan, who was a PhD candidate at Dartmouth during the project’s inception, employs this framework to provide groundbreaking estimates of economic losses from extreme heat linked to the emissions of specific fossil fuel firms.
According to the study, extreme heat associated with carbon dioxide and methane emissions from just 111 companies resulted in $28 trillion in global economic losses from 1991 to 2020. Remarkably, $9 trillion of these losses can be traced back to the top five emitting companies. The research indicates that the largest investor-owned firm evaluated could be responsible for economic losses related to heat ranging from $791 billion to as much as $3.6 trillion during this timeframe.
“Our analysis confirms that it is indeed feasible to compare the current world to a scenario in which specific emitters did not exist,” says Callahan.
“The prosperity of modern economies has historically relied on fossil fuels. Nevertheless, just as a pharmaceutical company cannot evade accountability for the negative impacts of its products because of the benefits those products provide, fossil fuel companies should not be excused for the extensive damage resulting from their operations,” he adds.
The findings of this study are bolstered by two decades of observed climate impacts, increased availability of relevant climate and socioeconomic data, and significant advancements in the field of climate attribution science—the methodologies that allow researchers to track the effects of climate change with precision.
An essential aspect of this attribution research is its influence on Vermont’s 2024 Climate Superfund Act. This legislation empowers the state attorney general to mandate major fossil fuel companies to contribute to the financial recovery from disasters causally linked to their emissions. Currently, a lawsuit is contesting Vermont’s authority to collect such damages and its ability to accurately apply climate attribution science for this purpose.
The attribution framework developed in the Nature study utilizes established, peer-reviewed scientific methods to ascertain how specific emission levels affect extreme weather events. Furthermore, Mankin and Callahan enhance existing methodologies by clearly connecting emissions to local climate change and the resulting economic ramifications.
Notably, this new model diverges from previous research by isolating a company’s unique greenhouse gas emissions rather than relying on total emissions figures, which can complicate attribution efforts. “Our method simulates emissions in detail, enabling us to trace the impacts of warming back to specific sources,” explains Callahan. This focus on extreme heat expands upon their earlier work assessing global financial losses caused by heat waves and the economic effects that specific nations have imposed on others due to their contributions to climate change.
“Extreme heat is undeniably linked to climate change and has driven numerous legal claims. Thus, it serves as a compelling case to demonstrate the application of our approach,” Mankin observes.
“We exist in a world that has significantly warmed in the past two decades,” he continues. “This analysis is not predictive; rather, it documents what has already transpired and elucidates the reasons behind it.”
Source
www.sciencedaily.com