dailymail.co.uk
111 Companies Caused $28 Trillion in Climate Damage
A Dartmouth College study quantifies climate damage caused by 111 companies at $28 trillion since 1991, with Saudi Aramco incurring the highest losses ($2.05 trillion) primarily due to extreme heat resulting from their greenhouse gas emissions.
- How does the study's methodology link specific companies' emissions to quantifiable climate damages, and what are the implications for legal action?
- The study establishes a causal link between the emissions of 111 companies and $28 trillion in economic losses due to climate change, primarily extreme heat. This research utilizes advanced climate attribution science and extensive data to quantify the economic impact of specific corporate emissions, significantly advancing climate liability cases. The top five emitters alone account for $9 trillion in losses.
- What are the potential limitations of the study's findings, and how might these limitations impact future assessments of corporate climate liability?
- This research opens the door for legal action against fossil fuel companies for climate damages, similar to past lawsuits against pharmaceutical and tobacco companies. The methodology allows for precise attribution of economic losses to individual corporations, strengthening future liability claims and potentially reshaping corporate accountability for climate change. The findings also highlight disproportionate damage in developing nations.
- What is the total economic damage attributed to 111 companies for climate change-related extreme heat between 1991 and 2020, and which company incurred the highest losses?
- A new study by Dartmouth College reveals that 111 companies are responsible for $28 trillion in climate damage since 1991, with Saudi Aramco leading at $2.05 trillion. This damage, primarily from extreme heat, resulted from the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. The study directly links specific companies' emissions to quantifiable economic losses.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing strongly emphasizes the financial costs of climate change attributed to specific companies. The headline and opening sentences immediately highlight the staggering economic losses, making this the central focus of the narrative. This emphasis might overshadow the broader environmental and social consequences of climate change, potentially influencing readers to perceive financial impact as the most significant aspect.
Language Bias
The language used is generally factual and objective but contains some loaded terms. Describing the companies as "culpable" and referring to a "climate catastrophe" introduces a strong moral judgment that could influence reader perception. Using more neutral language like "responsible for" and "significant climate change" would improve objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on economic losses from extreme heat, neglecting other climate change impacts like sea-level rise, biodiversity loss, or ocean acidification. While acknowledging limitations due to scope, the omission of these significant consequences could create a skewed understanding of the total environmental damage caused. The study also omits discussion of the role of consumers and governments in driving fossil fuel demand, which could be considered a significant bias by omission.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between the culpability of fossil fuel companies and the reality of climate change, potentially overlooking the complex interplay of factors including government policies, consumer choices, and technological advancements. While highlighting corporate responsibility, it doesn't fully explore alternative solutions or the systemic nature of the problem.
Sustainable Development Goals
The study directly links 111 companies' emissions to $28 trillion in climate damage from 1991-2020, showing a very negative impact on climate action goals. The findings highlight the significant economic losses resulting from extreme weather events exacerbated by greenhouse gas emissions from these companies. This directly contradicts efforts to mitigate climate change and limit global warming as outlined in the Paris Agreement and related SDG targets.