cbsnews.com
Fossil Fuel Companies' $28 Trillion Extreme Heat Damage: A New Climate Liability Calculation
A Dartmouth College study reveals that emissions from 111 fossil fuel companies caused $28 trillion in extreme heat damage between 1991 and 2020, using a new methodology to link emissions to specific climate harms and potentially opening the door for climate change lawsuits.
- How did the researchers establish a causal link between the emissions of specific companies and the economic impacts of extreme heat, and what established methodologies did they utilize?
- The study establishes a causal link between the emissions of specific fossil fuel companies and the economic consequences of extreme heat. By using 1,000 computer simulations and comparing them to a world without those companies' emissions, researchers determined the precise contribution of each company to rising global temperatures and resultant economic losses. This methodology mirrors techniques used in attributing extreme weather events to climate change.
- What are the potential future implications of this research for climate litigation and corporate accountability, and what are the limitations or potential criticisms of the study's methodology?
- This research signifies a crucial step towards establishing climate liability. The findings could significantly impact future litigation against major carbon emitters. While no such lawsuit has yet succeeded, the study's robust methodology and clear attribution of damage could strengthen future legal cases, potentially influencing corporate behavior and climate policy.
- What is the estimated financial cost attributed to 111 fossil fuel companies for damages caused by extreme heat between 1991 and 2020, and what is the significance of this finding for potential legal action?
- A new study by Dartmouth College researchers has calculated that 111 fossil fuel companies caused an estimated $28 trillion in damages from extreme heat between 1991 and 2020. This peer-reviewed research offers a method to link specific emissions to climate-related harm, potentially paving the way for legal action against these companies. Five companies—Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP—account for roughly one-third of the total cost.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately establish a strong causal link between specific companies and significant financial damages. This framing emphasizes the culpability of these companies and positions the research as a tool for legal action. The selection and sequencing of information, highlighting the financial costs early, guides the reader towards a conclusion of corporate responsibility.
Language Bias
The language used is generally factual but occasionally employs strong wording that could be interpreted as biased. Phrases such as "holding companies liable," "overwhelmingly strong scientific evidence," and "the scientific case for climate liability is closed" convey a sense of certainty and culpability. More neutral alternatives might include "assessing corporate responsibility," "substantial scientific evidence," and "the scientific evidence supports further investigation into climate liability.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the financial costs attributed to specific companies, but omits discussion of other potential consequences of their emissions, such as impacts on human health, biodiversity loss, or displacement. It also doesn't explore the complexities of global emissions, focusing primarily on the top emitters while potentially downplaying the contributions of smaller actors or nations. The article also omits discussion of efforts by these companies to mitigate emissions or invest in renewable energy.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between the responsibility of fossil fuel companies and the damages caused by extreme heat. It implies a direct causal link without fully exploring the complexities of climate change, which is influenced by numerous factors beyond the emissions of these specific companies. There is no discussion of other contributors to climate change or the role of government policies.
Gender Bias
The article focuses primarily on the actions and statements of male researchers and scientists. While a female scientist is quoted, her contribution is presented as supporting evidence rather than as a central voice in the narrative. There is no obvious gender bias in the language or characterization of individuals.
Sustainable Development Goals
The study directly links emissions from 111 fossil fuel companies to $28 trillion in damages from extreme heat between 1991 and 2020. This highlights the significant negative impact of these emissions on climate change and underscores the urgent need for climate action to mitigate further damage. The research provides a robust methodology for attributing climate harms to specific emitters, strengthening the scientific case for climate liability and potentially influencing future legal actions.