Yesterday, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization released new data showing that extreme weather, climate, and water-related events caused almost 12,000 disasters between 1970 and 2021, resulting in economic losses of $4.3 trillion.
Who should pay for these huge costs? A new paper has a suggestion: the fossil fuel companies responsible.
A peer-reviewed paper published in One Earth last Friday, called "Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages," argues that “fossil fuel producers contributed to climate harm through their operational and product emissions, have a documented history of climate denial and of discourse and practices of delay, disinformed the public and their shareholders on climate science and corporate risks, are complicit in slowing down or defeating climate legislation, and must be held accountable for climate harm by paying reparations.”
The authors analyzed the operational and product-related emissions from 1988 to 2022 of the top 21 fossil fuel companies, surveyed 738 climate economists, and concluded that the 21 companies are responsible for $5.4 trillion in cumulative reparations over the period of 2025 to 2050.
The company with the most cumulative emissions between 1988 and 2022, according to the authors, is Saudi Aramco. The study argues that the oil giant owes $1.11 trillion in cumulative reparations, which amounts to $42.7 billion annually over 26 years. The next four are familiar names that also owe massive annual reparations: ExxonMobil ($18.4 billion), Shell ($16.3 billion), BP ($14.5 billion), and Chevron ($12.8 billion).
Harjeet Singh of Climate Action Network International told The Guardian, “This new report puts the numbers on the table – polluters can no longer hide from their crimes against humanity and nature.”
That said, don’t hold your breath for these companies to suddenly start using their profits to make up for their mistakes. Rather, study co-author Richard Heede told Inside Climate News that the main point of the study is to fuel a discussion. “We have no rational mechanism for raising funds, or managing funds or allocating funds to victims of climate change. And so we expect a vigorous debate about which approach is fair,” Heede stated.
Deniers previously exploded in outrage at the idea of climate reparations in the form of the historic COP27 loss and damage fund, and we have no doubt that they’ll react just as immaturely to this study. If and when they do, we’re ready for the “vigorous debate”!