The historic data from a landmark study published today in the journal Nature couldn’t be more alarming. These 5 corporations are responsible for an estimated $28 trillion in climate damages since 138 years ago. Christopher Callahan, an Earth systems scientist at Stanford University, is out in front on this research. It provides an in-depth look at how corporate emissions are directly affecting the global temperature.
This research was intended to bring the public’s attention to the accountability of large, well-known emitters. Scientists simulated 1,000 different scenarios to monitor how emissions from 111 of the biggest carbon producers influenced the planet’s global surface temperature. This extensive analysis aimed to answer a pressing question: who is responsible for the climate crisis?
Callahan’s team started their investigation with a forensic look at past emissions from these firms, as far back as 1885. That historical context allowed them to evaluate the combined effect corporate actions have had on exacerbating climate change. In total, researchers determined that each 1% increase in emissions since 1990 causes an average $502 billion in damages. This is just to consider the effect of extreme heat.
“Everybody’s asking the same question: What can we actually claim about who has caused this?” said Justin Mankin, a co-author of the study. Mankin added that the implications of these findings are profound, noting that “the veil of plausible deniability is no longer scientifically permissible. For the first time, we can directly trace harms to big emitters.”
Callahan and his team found a way to expand their investigation. Then they ran the pollution footprints of each company over the five hottest days of the year. To account for variations in the simulation process, they ran 80 additional simulations. Next, the researchers used an original formula to connect extreme heat intensity to changes in economic output. Their painstaking methodology documented the depth and breadth of a multitude of distinctions between the communities.
The resulting numbers were jawdropping in totality for individual companies. Specifically, both Saudi Aramco and Gazprom were responsible for more than $2 trillion in heat-related damage over the years. These results point to the monumental fiscal costs of corporate emissions. Yet, they highlight an opportunity to finally begin to hold these companies accountable for the harm they’ve caused to our environment.
Chris Field, a prominent climate scientist, remarked on the significance of the research, stating, “We have now reached a point in the climate crisis where the total damages are so immense that the contributions of a single company’s product can amount to tens of billions of dollars a year.” This makes clear the pressing need for accountability mechanisms so that victims of climate-related damages can find recompense.
Michael Mann, another famous climate scientist and frequent target of scientific attacks, told the Washington Post that the study’s conclusions should be alarming. He also said that estimated damages might actually be much higher than what’s been reported so far. He said the figures Callahan and Mankin were quoting probably undercount the damage, rather significantly. These numbers underestimate the damage the companies have inflicted.
The implications of this research extend far beyond the ivory tower. It gives people and their governments the ability to hold corporations financially liable for their role in causing climate change. Callahan wanted to set up a similar framework, the kind that successfully held tobacco companies accountable. Those companies were held to account with strong legal penalties for their actions.
Climate scientist Friederike Otto, who was not involved in the study, commended the methodologies employed in the study, stating, “All methods they use are very well done.” She asked that more people take similar approaches. She even claimed that more cooperation between the public, researchers, and the private sector would increase scientific literacy and transparency in climate-related fields.
It would be better in my opinion if this kind of approach would more often be embraced by various advocates. Otto stressed that the more organizations that participate in event attribution, the better the science gets. This new feature allows us to start getting a better idea of what really works and what doesn’t.
The results of this study are all the more shocking when stacked up against economic indicators. The $28 trillion in climate destruction is breathtaking. That’s just a hair under the total value of everything produced in the United States last year. This contrasting imagery underscores the monumental ecological destruction resulting from corporate greed. It stresses the need for immediate state and federal regulatory action to better combat this dangerous practice.
