Latest news with #ChristopherCallahan
The Guardian
04-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Cost of emissions from five major Australian resource companies more than $900bn, study finds
Five of Australia's biggest fossil fuel producers could be on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in damages after a US research team developed a method to link individual companies to specific climate harms and put a dollar figure to the impact. This is the result of a new peer-review study published in the journal Nature that sought to establish a method that would allow courts to quantify the economic loss caused by fossil fuel producers for one kind of climate impact – extreme heat. Looking at the period 1991 to 2020, the researchers, Christopher Callahan at Stanford University in California and Justin Mankin at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, used historical emissions data for the world's five biggest oil producers: BP, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil and Chevron. They then sought to understand how the emissions from these companies contributed to extreme heat. This was defined as the temperature of the hottest five days in a year. The team developed a replicable method to quantify the damage linked to a single company, with the figure running into the trillions for the world's largest fossil fuel producers. It suggested state-owned oil companies Saudi Aramco and Gazprom were responsible for US$2.05tr and $2tr in damages respectively. Chevron, ExxonMobil and BP were each found to be responsible for $1.98tr, $1.91tr and $1.45tr in losses respectively. In a separate analysis of emissions data for five major Australian resource companies – BHP, Rio Tinto, Santos, Whitehaven Coal and Woodside Energy – Callahan assessed the total damages from their collective emissions at more than US$600bn, or A$929.47bn. Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter 'Our analysis is very explicitly thinking about emissions that are already occurred and the sort of historical changes in extreme heat, and attributing those to emissions that have been already detected and attributed to specific actors,' Callahan said. 'Even just from that we get numbers in the trillions, when you aggregate globally over the last 30 years in terms of the losses associated with any individual company, but GDP growth losses from extreme heat are a very small fraction of the total cost of climate change.' The difficulty in establishing causation and calculating a single company's contribution to climate harms has made courts in many jurisdictions, particularly in Australia, reluctant to hold individual fossil fuel producers to account for the climate impact of their projects. When seeking approval to build and operate its $5.6bn Barossa gasfield in a remote area off the far north Australian coast, Australian oil company Santos was asked by the Australian Conservation Foundation whether it had considered potential climate harms. Santos responded by arguing 'there are limitations to linking emissions from the activity to any specific climate change impacts'. Sign up to Afternoon Update: Election 2025 Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key election campaign stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion 'Santos invited ACF to provide further information regarding how it is able to undertake an analysis that links climate change impacts from the activity to specific environments or ecosystems,' the company said. Callahan said the work provides a foundation for future research to link the activities of specific oil, gas and coal producers to additional climate harms such as drought, flooding and sea level rise, though he added there was still 'a long way to go' before a tobacco or asbestos-style lawsuit succeeds. 'Until two weeks ago, it was unclear whether it was scientifically supported to say an individual emitter can be linked to the impact that you're suing over or that you are trying to recoup costs for. That scientific connection can absolutely be made,' he said. 'It is no longer scientifically supported for actors to argue that there is plausible deniability, that it is impossible to link any of an individual actor to any impact of climate change. 'That statement, that there is a sort of uncrossable gap between where you emit and some other impact down the road, we've shown that to be fallacious.' Several significant law suits have been brought against major US oil companies, including Municipalities of Puerto Rico v Exxon Mobil Corp and other cases brought by individual US state governments. On Friday, Hawaii became the 10th US state to take fossil fuel producers to court over alleged climate deception, prompting a counter-suit by the Trump administration in an attempt to block the filing. Next to the United States, Australia is the second most active jurisdiction in the world for climate litigation, according to Melbourne Law School's Climate Change litigation database which currently tracks 627 cases. Many of these cases include smaller decisions involving council planning, regulations or access to information as the database uses a broader definition.
Time of India
24-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
The world's biggest companies have caused $28 trillion in climate damage, a new study estimates
Washington: The world's biggest corporations have caused $28 trillion in climate damage , a new study estimates as part of an effort to make it easier for people and governments to hold companies financially accountable, like the tobacco giants have been. A Dartmouth College research team came up with the estimated pollution caused by 111 companies, with more than half of the total dollar figure coming from 10 fossil fuel providers : Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, National Iranian Oil Co., Pemex, Coal India and the British Coal Corporation. For comparison, $28 trillion is a shade less than the sum of all goods and services produced in the United States last year. At the top of the list, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom have each caused a bit more than $2 trillion in heat damage over the decades, the team calculated in a study published in Wednesday's journal Nature. The researchers figured that every 1% of greenhouse gas put into the atmosphere since 1990 has caused $502 billion in damage from heat alone, which doesn't include the costs incurred by other extreme weather such as hurricanes, droughts and floods. People talk about making polluters pay, and sometimes even take them to court or pass laws meant to rein them in. The study is an attempt to determine "the causal linkages that underlie many of these theories of accountability," said its lead author, Christopher Callahan, who did the work at Dartmouth but is now an Earth systems scientist at Stanford University. The research firm Zero Carbon Analytics counts 68 lawsuits filed globally about climate change damage, with more than half of them in the United States. "Everybody's asking the same question: What can we actually claim about who has caused this?" said Dartmouth climate scientist Justin Mankin, co-author of the study. "And that really comes down to a thermodynamic question of can we trace climate hazards and/or their damages back to particular emitters?" The answer is yes, Callahan and Mankin said. The researchers started with known final emissions of the products - such as gasoline or electricity from coal-fired power plants - produced by the 111 biggest carbon-oriented companies going as far back as 137 years, because that's as far back as any of the companies' emissions data go and carbon dioxide stays in the air for much longer than that. They used 1,000 different computer simulations to translate those emissions into changes for Earth's global average surface temperature by comparing it to a world without that company's emissions. Using this approach, they determined that pollution from Chevron, for example, has raised the Earth's temperature by .045 degrees Fahrenheit (.025 degrees Celsius). The researchers also calculated how much each company's pollution contributed to the five hottest days of the year using 80 more computer simulations and then applying a formula that connects extreme heat intensity to changes in economic output. This system is modeled on the established techniques scientists have been using for more than a decade to attribute extreme weather events, such as the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave, to climate change. Mankin said that in the past, there was an argument of, "Who's to say that it's my molecule of CO2 that's contributed to these damages versus any other one?" He said his study "really laid clear how the veil of plausible deniability doesn't exist anymore scientifically. We can actually trace harms back to major emitters." Shell declined to comment. Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP did not respond to requests for comment. "All methods they use are quite robust," said Imperial College London climate scientist Friederike Otto, who heads World Weather Attribution, a collection of scientists who try rapid attribution studies to see if specific extreme weather events are worsened by climate change and, if so, by how much. She didn't take part in the study. "It would be good in my view if this approach would be taken up more by different groups. As with event attribution, the more groups do it, the better the science gets and the better we know what makes a difference and what does not," Otto said. So far, no climate liability lawsuit against a major carbon emitter has been successful, but maybe showing "how overwhelmingly strong the scientific evidence" is can change that, she said. In the past, damage caused by individual companies were lost in the noise of data, so it couldn't be calculated, Callahan said. "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," said Chris Field, a Stanford University climate scientist who didn't take part in the research. This is a good exercise and proof of concept, but there are so many other climate variables that the numbers that Callahan and Mankin came up with are probably a vast underestimate of the damage the companies have really caused, said Michael Mann, a University of Pennsylvania climate scientist who wasn't involved in the study. ___ Follow Seth Borenstein on X at @borenbears. The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Time of India
24-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
World's biggest companies have caused $28 trillion in climate damage, a new study estimates
The Chevron Richmond Refinery in this view from Point Richmond, Calif. (Credits: AP) The world's biggest corporations have caused USD 28 trillion in climate damage , a new study estimates, as part of an effort to make it easier for people and governments to hold companies financially accountable, like the tobacco giants have been. A Dartmouth College research team came up with the estimated pollution caused by 111 companies, with more than half of the total dollar figure coming from 10 fossil fuel providers : Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, National Iranian Oil Co., Pemex, Coal India and the British Coal Corporation. For comparison, USD 28 trillion is a shade less than the sum of all goods and services produced in the United States last year. At the top of the list, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom have each caused a bit more than USD 2 trillion in heat damage over the decades, the team calculated in a study published in Wednesday's journal Nature. The researchers figured that every 1 per cent of greenhouse gas put into the atmosphere since 1990 has caused USD 502 billion in damage from heat alone, which doesn't include the costs incurred by other extreme weather such as hurricanes, droughts and floods. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Google Brain Co-Founder Andrew Ng, Recommends: Read These 5 Books And Turn Your Life Around Blinkist: Andrew Ng's Reading List Undo People talk about making polluters pay, and sometimes even take them to court or pass laws meant to rein them in. The study is an attempt to determine "the causal linkages that underlie many of these theories of accountability," said its lead author, Christopher Callahan, who did the work at Dartmouth but is now an Earth systems scientist at Stanford University. The research firm Zero Carbon Analytics counts 68 lawsuits filed globally about climate change damage, with more than half of them in the United States. "Everybody's asking the same question: What can we actually claim about who has caused this?" said Dartmouth climate scientist Justin Mankin, co-author of the study. "And that really comes down to a thermodynamic question of can we trace climate hazards and/or their damages back to particular emitters?" The answer is yes, Callahan and Mankin said. The researchers started with known final emissions of the products - such as gasoline or electricity from coal-fired power plants - produced by the 111 biggest carbon-oriented companies going as far back as 137 years, because that's as far back as any of the companies' emissions data go and carbon dioxide stays in the air for much longer than that. They used 1,000 different computer simulations to translate those emissions into changes for Earth's global average surface temperature by comparing it to a world without that company's emissions. Using this approach, they determined that pollution from Chevron, for example, has raised the Earth's temperature by .045 degrees Fahrenheit (.025 degrees Celsius). The researchers also calculated how much each company's pollution contributed to the five hottest days of the year using 80 more computer simulations and then applying a formula that connects extreme heat intensity to changes in economic output. This system is modeled on the established techniques scientists have been using for more than a decade to attribute extreme weather events, such as the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave, to climate change. Mankin said that in the past, there was an argument of, "Who's to say that it's my molecule of CO2 that's contributed to these damages versus any other one?" He said his study "really laid clear how the veil of plausible deniability doesn't exist anymore scientifically. We can actually trace harms back to major emitters." Shell declined to comment. Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP did not respond to requests for comment. "All methods they use are quite robust," said Imperial College London climate scientist Friederike Otto, who heads World Weather Attribution, a collection of scientists who try rapid attribution studies to see if specific extreme weather events are worsened by climate change and, if so, by how much. She didn't take part in the study. "It would be good in my view if this approach would be taken up more by different groups. As with event attribution, the more groups do it, the better the science gets and the better we know what makes a difference and what does not," Otto said. So far, no climate liability lawsuit against a major carbon emitter has been successful, but maybe showing "how overwhelmingly strong the scientific evidence" is can change that, she said. In the past, damage caused by individual companies were lost in the noise of data, so it couldn't be calculated, Callahan said. "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," said Chris Field, a Stanford University climate scientist who didn't take part in the research. This is a good exercise and proof of concept, but there are so many other climate variables that the numbers that Callahan and Mankin came up with are probably a vast underestimate of the damage the companies have really caused, said Michael Mann, a University of Pennsylvania climate scientist who wasn't involved in the study. (AP) GSP
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
24-04-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
World's biggest companies have caused $28 trillion in climate damage: Study
The world's biggest corporations have caused $28 trillion in climate damage, a new study estimates as part of an effort to make it easier for people and governments to hold companies financially accountable, like the tobacco giants have been. A Dartmouth College research team came up with the estimated pollution caused by 111 companies, with more than half of the total dollar figure coming from 10 fossil fuel providers: Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, National Iranian Oil Co., Pemex, Coal India and the British Coal Corporation. For comparison, $28 trillion is a shade less than the sum of all goods and services produced in the United States last year. At the top of the list, Saudi Aramco and Gazprom have each caused a bit more than $2 trillion in heat damage over the decades, the team calculated in a study published in Wednesday's journal Nature. The researchers figured that every 1 per cent of greenhouse gas put into the atmosphere since 1990 has caused $502 billion in damage from heat alone, which doesn't include the costs incurred by other extreme weather such as hurricanes, droughts and floods. People talk about making polluters pay, and sometimes even take them to court or pass laws meant to rein them in. The study is an attempt to determine the causal linkages that underlie many of these theories of accountability, said its lead author, Christopher Callahan, who did the work at Dartmouth but is now an Earth systems scientist at Stanford University. The research firm Zero Carbon Analytics counts 68 lawsuits filed globally about climate change damage, with more than half of them in the United States. Everybody's asking the same question: What can we actually claim about who has caused this? said Dartmouth climate scientist Justin Mankin, co-author of the study. And that really comes down to a thermodynamic question of can we trace climate hazards and/or their damages back to particular emitters? The answer is yes, Callahan and Mankin said. The researchers started with known final emissions of the products such as gasoline or electricity from coal-fired power plants produced by the 111 biggest carbon-oriented companies going as far back as 137 years, because that's as far back as any of the companies' emissions data go and carbon dioxide stays in the air for much longer than that. They used 1,000 different computer simulations to translate those emissions into changes for Earth's global average surface temperature by comparing it to a world without that company's emissions. Using this approach, they determined that pollution from Chevron, for example, has raised the Earth's temperature by .045 degrees Fahrenheit (.025 degrees Celsius). The researchers also calculated how much each company's pollution contributed to the five hottest days of the year using 80 more computer simulations and then applying a formula that connects extreme heat intensity to changes in economic output. This system is modeled on the established techniques scientists have been using for more than a decade to attribute extreme weather events, such as the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave, to climate change. Mankin said that in the past, there was an argument of, Who's to say that it's my molecule of CO2 that's contributed to these damages versus any other one? He said his study really laid clear how the veil of plausible deniability doesn't exist anymore scientifically. We can actually trace harms back to major emitters. Shell declined to comment. Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP did not respond to requests for comment. All methods they use are quite robust, said Imperial College London climate scientist Friederike Otto, who heads World Weather Attribution, a collection of scientists who try rapid attribution studies to see if specific extreme weather events are worsened by climate change and, if so, by how much. She didn't take part in the study. It would be good in my view if this approach would be taken up more by different groups. As with event attribution, the more groups do it, the better the science gets and the better we know what makes a difference and what does not, Otto said. So far, no climate liability lawsuit against a major carbon emitter has been successful, but maybe showing how overwhelmingly strong the scientific evidence is can change that, she said. In the past, damage caused by individual companies were lost in the noise of data, so it couldn't be calculated, Callahan said. 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, said Chris Field, a Stanford University climate scientist who didn't take part in the research. This is a good exercise and proof of concept, but there are so many other climate variables that the numbers that Callahan and Mankin came up with are probably a vast underestimate of the damage the companies have really caused, said Michael Mann, a University of Pennsylvania climate scientist who wasn't involved in the study.
CBS News
23-04-2025
- Science
- CBS News
Fossil fuel companies caused $28 trillion in climate damage, study finds. These 5 are tied to the most harm.
Extreme heat caused by emissions from 111 fossil fuel companies cost an estimated $28 trillion between 1991 and 2020, according to researchers at Dartmouth College. Their study, which was published Wednesday in "Nature," presents a peer-reviewed method for tying emissions to specific climate harms. Their goal is to help hold companies liable for the cost of extreme weather, similar to holding the tobacco industry liable for lung cancer cases or pharmaceutical companies liable for the opioid crisis. The research firm Zero Carbon Analytics counts 68 lawsuits filed globally about climate change damage, with more than half of them in the United States. "We argue that the scientific case for climate liability is closed," wrote the study's authors, Christopher Callahan, who received his PhD from Dartmouth College, and Justin Mankin, a Dartmouth Department of Geography professor. 5 top emitting companies About a third of the total cost was attributed to five companies, which can be tied to more than $9 trillion in climate damage, according to the study. These are the top-emitting companies and the dollar amount the researchers estimate they are responsible for: Saudi Aramco: $2.05 trillion Gazprom: $2 trillion Chevron: $1.98 trillion ExxonMobil: $1.91 trillion BP: $1.45 trillion The researchers figured that every 1% of greenhouse gas put into the atmosphere since 1990 has caused $502 billion in damage from heat alone, which doesn't include the costs incurred by other extreme weather such as hurricanes, droughts and floods. Emissions data is taken from the public Carbon Majors database, they said. They used 1,000 different computer simulations to translate those emissions into changes for Earth's global average surface temperature by comparing it to a world without that company's emissions. Using this approach, they determined that pollution from Chevron, for example, has raised the Earth's temperature by .045 degrees Fahrenheit. The researchers also calculated how much each company's pollution contributed to the five hottest days of the year using 80 more computer simulations and then applying a formula that connects extreme heat intensity to changes in economic output. This system is modeled on the established techniques scientists have been using for more than a decade to attribute extreme weather events, such as the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave, to climate change. Mankin said that in the past, there was an argument of, "Who's to say that it's my molecule of CO2 that's contributed to these damages versus any other one?" He said the study "really laid clear how the veil of plausible deniability doesn't exist anymore scientifically. We can actually trace harms back to major emitters." Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP did not respond to requests for comment. "All methods they use are quite robust," said Imperial College London climate scientist Friederike Otto, who heads World Weather Attribution, a collection of scientists who try rapid attribution studies to see if specific extreme weather events are worsened by climate change and, if so, by how much. She didn't take part in the study. "It would be good in my view if this approach would be taken up more by different groups. As with event attribution, the more groups do it, the better the science gets and the better we know what makes a difference and what does not," Otto said. So far, no climate liability lawsuit against a major carbon emitter has been successful, but maybe showing "how overwhelmingly strong the scientific evidence" is can change that, she said. The research is a good exercise and proof of concept, but there are so many other climate variables that the numbers that Callahan and Mankin came up with are probably a vast underestimate of the damage the companies have really caused, said Michael Mann, a University of Pennsylvania climate scientist who wasn't involved in the study.
