Fossil Fuel Companies Face Scrutiny Over $28 Trillion Climate Damage Estimate

A Dartmouth College study has cast a stark light on the role of fossil fuel companies in climate change, estimating that 111 firms caused $28 trillion in economic damage from extreme heat between 1991 and 2020. Published in Nature, the research pins over a third of these costs on just five industry giants: Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and BP. The findings arrive as the world grapples with escalating climate impacts, from scorching heatwaves to rising sea levels, prompting renewed calls to hold polluters financially accountable.

The study’s approach is groundbreaking yet divisive. By combining emissions data with advanced climate modeling, researchers calculated the precise contribution of each company’s greenhouse gases to global temperature rises and subsequent economic losses. This method, rooted in decades of attribution science, offers a clear causal link between corporate actions and real-world harm. Yet, it also ignites debates over fairness, methodology, and the broader implications of assigning blame for a global crisis.

At the heart of the Dartmouth study lies attribution science, a field that has matured since the early 2000s. Scientists now use sophisticated computer simulations to compare the world as it is with a hypothetical one free of specific emissions. In this case, over 1,000 simulations helped estimate that every 1% of greenhouse gases emitted since 1990 triggered $502 billion in heat-related damages. These figures exclude losses from storms or floods, focusing solely on extreme heat’s toll on agriculture, labor, and infrastructure.

While the scientific community largely endorses these methods, skepticism persists. Industry groups argue that the models oversimplify complex global systems, potentially amplifying uncertainties in economic projections. Supporters counter that the study’s peer-reviewed rigor provides a credible foundation for accountability, even if exact dollar amounts remain estimates. This tension underscores a broader challenge: translating scientific precision into legal and policy action.

The Dartmouth findings bolster a wave of lawsuits targeting fossil fuel companies. Globally, over 140 greenwashing cases have been filed since 2016, alongside dozens seeking damages for climate-related losses. In the United States, municipalities in Puerto Rico and states like California and Minnesota are suing major oil firms, alleging deception and responsibility for local climate costs. A recent Supreme Court decision allowing state-led lawsuits to proceed has further emboldened these efforts.

Beyond fossil fuels, other industries face scrutiny. Indonesian islanders are suing Swiss cement maker Holcim for sea-level rise impacts, while a North Carolina town targets Duke Energy for lagging on renewable energy. These cases reflect a growing legal trend: courts are increasingly open to claims that tie emissions to tangible harms, including non-economic losses like cultural heritage. Yet, opponents warn that such litigation risks economic disruption, potentially raising energy costs for consumers.

The economic fallout of climate change extends far beyond the Dartmouth study’s scope. Analysts project that unchecked warming could cost the global economy $38 trillion annually by 2049, driven by impacts on agriculture, real estate, and public health. In the U.S., rising sea levels threaten $1.47 trillion in property value by 2055, with cities like New York facing severe flooding risks. Insurers, meanwhile, warn that some regions are becoming uninsurable as premiums soar.

These costs hit hardest in poorer nations, which bear disproportionate burdens despite contributing least to emissions. The Potsdam Institute estimates that a 3°C temperature rise could slash global GDP by 10%, with low-income countries facing even steeper losses. This inequity fuels calls for compensation from major polluters, though critics argue that retroactive liability ignores the historical context of energy-driven economic growth.

In the U.S., the push for corporate accountability reveals deep divides. Supporters of litigation, including many state attorneys general and environmental advocates, argue that fossil fuel companies knowingly exacerbated climate change while misleading the public. They point to decades of industry-funded disinformation campaigns as justification for legal action, seeking funds to offset adaptation costs like infrastructure upgrades and disaster recovery.

On the other hand, industry defenders and some policymakers contend that penalizing companies for past emissions is unfair and economically damaging. They highlight the fossil fuel industry’s role in powering global development and warn that lawsuits could undermine energy security. Recent efforts by 19 state attorneys general to block climate lawsuits reflect this stance, though the Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene suggests courts may increasingly shape this debate.

The Dartmouth study marks a pivotal moment in the quest to quantify corporate responsibility for climate change. Its findings, paired with advancing attribution science, provide a roadmap for holding polluters accountable, whether through lawsuits or policy reforms. As climate impacts intensify, the pressure to act grows, but so does the complexity of balancing justice, economic stability, and global equity.

For communities facing rising temperatures and shrinking budgets, the stakes are immediate. Whether courts, governments, or corporations take the lead, the question remains: how will the world fairly address the costs of a warming planet? The answer, still unfolding, will shape economies and lives for decades to come.