Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Carbon majors and the scientific case for climate liability

Nature volume 640, pages 893–901 (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Will it ever be possible to sue anyone for damaging the climate? Twenty years after this question was first posed, we argue that the scientific case for climate liability is closed. Here we detail the scientific and legal implications of an ‘end-to-end’ attribution that links fossil fuel producers to specific damages from warming. Using scope 1 and 3 emissions data from major fossil fuel companies, peer-reviewed attribution methods and advances in empirical climate economics, we illustrate the trillions in economic losses attributable to the extreme heat caused by emissions from individual companies. Emissions linked to Chevron, the highest-emitting investor-owned company in our data, for example, very likely caused between US $791 billion and $3.6 trillion in heat-related losses over the period 1991–2020, disproportionately harming the tropical regions least culpable for warming. More broadly, we outline a transparent, reproducible and flexible framework that formalizes how end-to-end attribution could inform litigation by assessing whose emissions are responsible and for which harms. Drawing quantitative linkages between individual emitters and particularized harms is now feasible, making science no longer an obstacle to the justiciability of climate liability claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Estimated change in global mean temperature and local extreme heat by carbon majors.
Fig. 2: Estimated cumulative economic losses from extreme heat by carbon majors.
Fig. 3: Estimated losses from individual extreme heat events by carbon majors.
Fig. 4: Attributable damages depend on emissions and the time period considered.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data that support the findings of this study are available through IEEE DataPort at https://doi.org/10.21227/w3fm-w720.

Code availability

All computer code that supports the findings of this study are available through IEEE DataPort at https://doi.org/10.21227/w3fm-w720.

References

  1. Allen, M. Liability for climate change. Nature 421, 891–892 (2003). This paper first proposed a scientific basis for claims for legal liability resulting from climate impacts.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kysar, D. A. What climate change can do about tort law. Environ. Law 41, 1–71 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cranor, C. F. The science veil over tort law policy: how should scientific evidence be utilized in toxic tort law? Law Philos. 24, 139–210 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Seneviratne, S. I. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 1513–1766 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  5. Swain, D. L., Singh, D., Touma, D. & Diffenbaugh, N. S. Attributing extreme events to climate change: a new frontier in a warming world. One Earth 2, 522–527 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Diffenbaugh, N. S. et al. Quantifying the influence of global warming on unprecedented extreme climate events. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4881–4886 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T. & Shepherd, T. G. Attribution of climate extreme events. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 725–730 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Stott, P. A., Stone, D. A. & Allen, M. R. Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature 432, 610–614 (2004). This paper was the first single-event global warming attribution study.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Otto, F. E. L., Massey, N., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Jones, R. G. & Allen, M. R. Reconciling two approaches to attribution of the 2010 Russian heat wave. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L04702 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. Diffenbaugh, N. S., Swain, D. L. & Touma, D. Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3931–3936 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Williams, A. P. et al. Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought. Science 368, 314–318 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pall, P. et al. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000. Nature 470, 382–385 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Patricola, C. M. & Wehner, M. F. Anthropogenic influences on major tropical cyclone events. Nature 563, 339–346 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Risser, M. D. & Wehner, M. F. Attributable human-induced changes in the likelihood and magnitude of the observed extreme precipitation during Hurricane Harvey. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 12,457–12,464 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Abatzoglou, J. T. & Williams, A. P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 11770–11775 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Philip, S. et al. A protocol for probabilistic extreme event attribution analyses. Adv. Stat. Climatol. Meteorol. Oceanogr. 6, 177–203 (2020). This paper outlines the standard procedure for event attribution used by the World Weather Attribution group, reflecting the scientific consensus on extreme event attribution.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. Reed, K. A. & Wehner, M. F. Real-time attribution of the influence of climate change on extreme weather events: a storyline case study of Hurricane Ian rainfall. Environ. Res. Clim. 2, 043001 (2023).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Reed, K., Stansfield, A., Wehner, M. & Zarzycki, C. Forecasted attribution of the human influence on Hurricane Florence. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaw9253 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Banda, M., L. Climate science in the courts: a review of U.S. and international judicial pronouncements. Environmental Law Institute https://www.eli.org/research-report/climate-science-courts-review-us-and-international-judicial-pronouncements (2020).

  20. Wehner, M. F. & Reed, K. A. Operational extreme weather event attribution can quantify climate change loss and damages. PLOS Clim. 1, e0000013 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

  22. Case, L. Climate change: a new realm of tort litigation, and how to recover when the litigation heats up. Santa Clara Law Rev. 51, 265 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Marjanac, S. & Patton, L. Extreme weather event attribution science and climate change litigation: an essential step in the causal chain? J. Energy Nat. Resour. Law 36, 265–298 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Marjanac, S., Patton, L. & Thornton, J. Acts of God, human influence and litigation. Nat. Geosci. 10, 616–619 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Setzer, J. & Higham, C. Global trends in climate change litigation: 2022 snapshot. London School of Economics and Political Science https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2022/ (2022).

  26. Peel, J. & Osofsky, H. M. A rights turn in climate change litigation? Transnatl Environ. Law 7, 37–67 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tienhaara, K., Thrasher, R., Simmons, B. A. & Gallagher, K. P. Investor-state disputes threaten the global green energy transition. Science 376, 701–703 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wentz, J. & Franta, B. Liability for public deception: linking fossil fuel disinformation to climate damages. Environ. Law Report. 52, 10995–11020 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wasim, R. Corporate (non)disclosure of climate change information. Columbia Law Rev. 119, 1311–1354 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wentz, J., Merner, D., Franta, B., Lehmen, A. & Frumhoff, P. C. Research priorities for climate litigation. Earths Future 11, e2022EF002928 (2023).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Olszynski, M., Mascher, S. & Doelle, M. From smokes to smokestacks: lessons from tobacco for the future of climate change liability. Georget. Environ. Law Rev. 30, 1–46 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kaufman, J. Oklahoma v. Purdue Pharma: public nuisance in your medicine cabinet. Cardozo Law Rev. 42, 429–462 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bouwer, K. Lessons from a distorted metaphor: the Holy Grail of climate litigation. Transnatl Environ. Law 9, 347–378 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2023).

  35. City of New York v. Chevron Corp., no. 18-2188 (2019).

  36. State of Rhode Island v. Shell Oil Products Co., LLC, no. 19-1818 (2020).

  37. Municipalities of Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2022).

  38. Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. (2009).

  39. Urgenda Foundation v State of the Netherlands (2015).

  40. Tanne, J. H. Young people in Montana win lawsuit for clean environment. BMJ 382, 1891 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Buchanan, M. The coming wave of climate legal action. Semafor https://www.semafor.com/article/02/01/2023/the-coming-wave-of-climate-legal-action (2023).

  42. Davis, S. J. & Diffenbaugh, N. Dislocated interests and climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 061001 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. Harrington, L. J. & Otto, F. E. L. Attributable damage liability in a non-linear climate. Clim. Change 153, 15–20 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  44. Prather, M. J. et al. Tracking uncertainties in the causal chain from human activities to climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L05707 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  45. No authors listed. Causation in environmental law: lessons from toxic torts. Harv. Law Rev. 128, 2256–2277 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Green, M. D. & Powers, Jr., W. C. Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm (American Law Institute, 2010).

  47. Grimm, D. J. Global warming and market share liability: a proposed model for allocating tort damages among CO2 producers. Colum. J. Environ. Law 32, 209 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Peñalver, E. M. Acts of God or toxic torts? Applying tort principles to the problem of climate change. Nat. Resour. J. 38, 563–601 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lloyd, E. A. & Shepherd, T. G. Climate change attribution and legal contexts: evidence and the role of storylines. Clim. Change 167, 28 (2021).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Burke, M., Zahid, M., Diffenbaugh, N. & Hsiang, S. M. Quantifying climate change loss and damage consistent with a social cost of greenhouse gases. NBER working paper 31658. National Bureau of Economic Research https://www.nber.org/papers/w31658 (2023).

  51. Schleussner, C.-F., Andrijevic, M., Kikstra, J., Heede, R. & Rogelj, J. Fossil fuel companies’ true balance sheets. ESS Open Archive https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.167810526.62141909/v1 (2023).

  52. Trudinger, C. & Enting, I. Comparison of formalisms for attributing responsibility for climate change: non-linearities in the Brazilian Proposal approach. Clim. Change 68, 67–99 (2005).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Callahan, C. W. & Mankin, J. S. National attribution of historical climate damages. Clim. Change 172, 40 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  54. Rostron, A. Beyond market share liability: a theory of proportional share liability for nonfungible products. UCLA Law Rev. 52, 151–215 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Stuart-Smith, R. F. et al. Filling the evidentiary gap in climate litigation. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 651–655 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  56. Holt, S. & McGrath, C. Climate change: is the common law up to the task? Auckland Univ. Law Rev. 24, 10–31 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Memorandum of Law of Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, and Exxon Mobil Corporation Addressing Common Grounds in Support of their Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. City of New York v. BP P.L.C.; Chevron Corporation; ConocoPhillips; Exxon Mobil Corporation; and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. Case no. 18 Civ. 182 (2018).

  58. Burger, M., Wentz, J. & Horton, R. The law and science of climate change attribution. Colum. J. Environ. Law 45, 57–240 (2020). This paper outlines the potential for attribution science to inform climate litigation, and specifically to fulfil the causation requirement for standing.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Höhne, N. et al. Contributions of individual countries’ emissions to climate change and their uncertainty. Clim. Change 106, 359–391 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  60. Skeie, R. B. et al. Perspective has a strong effect on the calculation of historical contributions to global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 024022 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  61. Matthews, H. D. Quantifying historical carbon and climate debts among nations. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 60–64 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  62. Heede, R. Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010. Clim. Change 122, 229–241 (2014). This paper was the first to systematically link individual fossil fuel producers to the emissions resulting from the consumption of their products.

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Ekwurzel, B. et al. The rise in global atmospheric CO2, surface temperature, and sea level from emissions traced to major carbon producers. Clim. Change 144, 579–590 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  64. Licker, R. et al. Attributing ocean acidification to major carbon producers. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 124060 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Otto, F. E. L., Skeie, R. B., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Berntsen, T. & Allen, M. R. Assigning historic responsibility for extreme weather events. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 757–759 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  66. Dahl, K. A. et al. Quantifying the contribution of major carbon producers to increases in vapor pressure deficit and burned area in western US and southwestern Canadian forests. Environ. Res. Lett. 18, 064011 (2023).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  67. Beusch, L. et al. Responsibility of major emitters for country-level warming and extreme hot years. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 7 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  68. Wei, T. et al. Developed and developing world responsibilities for historical climate change and CO2 mitigation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12911–12915 (2012).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Wigley, T. M. L. & Raper, S. C. B. Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming. Science 293, 451–454 (2001).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Millar, R. J., Nicholls, Z. R., Friedlingstein, P. & Allen, M. R. A modified impulse-response representation of the global near-surface air temperature and atmospheric concentration response to carbon dioxide emissions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17, 7213–7228 (2017).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Smith, C. J. et al. FAIR v1.3: a simple emissions-based impulse response and carbon cycle model. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2273–2297 (2018).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Leach, N. J. et al. FaIRv2.0.0: a generalized impulse response model for climate uncertainty and future scenario exploration. Geosci. Model Dev. 14, 3007–3036 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Nicholls, Z. R. J. et al. Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 1: introduction and evaluation of global-mean temperature response. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 5175–5190 (2020).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Rogelj, J. et al. in Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 93–174 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

  75. Lynch, C., Hartin, C., Bond-Lamberty, B. & Kravitz, B. An open-access CMIP5 pattern library for temperature and precipitation: description and methodology. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 281–292 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  76. Mitchell, T. D. Pattern scaling: an examination of the accuracy of the technique for describing future climates. Clim. Change 60, 217–242 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Tebaldi, C. & Arblaster, J. M. Pattern scaling: its strengths and limitations, and an update on the latest model simulations. Clim. Change 122, 459–471 (2014).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Seneviratne, S. I., Donat, M. G., Pitman, A. J., Knutti, R. & Wilby, R. L. Allowable CO2 emissions based on regional and impact-related climate targets. Nature 529, 477–483 (2016).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Carleton, T. A. & Hsiang, S. M. Social and economic impacts of climate. Science 353, aad9837 (2016). This review documents many of the methodological advances used in assessing the socioeconomic impacts of climate change.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15594–15598 (2009).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Carleton, T. et al. Valuing the global mortality consequences of climate change accounting for adaptation costs and benefits. Q. J. Econ. 137, 2037–2105 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Barreca, A., Clay, K., Deschenes, O., Greenstone, M. & Shapiro, J. S. Adapting to climate change: the remarkable decline in the US temperature-mortality relationship over the twentieth century. J. Political Econ. 124, 105–159 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Dell, M., Jones, B. F. & Olken, B. A. Temperature shocks and economic growth: evidence from the last half century. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 4, 66–95 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Burke, M., Hsiang, S. M. & Miguel, E. Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature 527, 235–239 (2015).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Kalkuhl, M. & Wenz, L. The impact of climate conditions on economic production. Evidence from a global panel of regions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 103, 102360 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Davenport, F. V., Burke, M. & Diffenbaugh, N. S. Contribution of historical precipitation change to US flood damages. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2017524118 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Diffenbaugh, N. S., Davenport, F. V. & Burke, M. Historical warming has increased U.S. crop insurance losses. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 084025 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  88. Diffenbaugh, N. S. & Burke, M. Global warming has increased global economic inequality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 9808–9813 (2019).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Callahan, C. W. & Mankin, J. S. Globally unequal effect of extreme heat on economic growth. Sci. Adv. 8, eadd3726 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Hsiang, S. et al. in Fifth National Climate Assessment (eds Crimmins, A. R. et al.) Ch. 19 (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2023).

  91. Lott, F. C. et al. Quantifying the contribution of an individual to making extreme weather events more likely. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 104040 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  92. Mitchell, D. et al. Attributing human mortality during extreme heat waves to anthropogenic climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 074006 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  93. Frame, D. J. et al. Climate change attribution and the economic costs of extreme weather events: a study on damages from extreme rainfall and drought. Clim. Change 162, 781–797 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  94. Frame, D. J., Wehner, M. F., Noy, I. & Rosier, S. M. The economic costs of Hurricane Harvey attributable to climate change. Clim. Change 160, 271–281 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  95. Newman, R. & Noy, I. The global costs of extreme weather that are attributable to climate change. Nat. Commun. 14, 6103 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. E. et al. On the attribution of the impacts of extreme weather events to anthropogenic climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 024009 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  97. Brown, P. T. When the fraction of attributable risk does not inform the impact associated with anthropogenic climate change. Clim. Change 176, 115 (2023).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  98. Allen, M. et al. Scientific challenges in the attribution of harm to human influence on climate. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 155, 1353–1400 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Strauss, B. H. et al. Economic damages from Hurricane Sandy attributable to sea level rise caused by anthropogenic climate change. Nat. Commun. 12, 2720 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Carbon Majors database. https://carbonmajors.org/ (2024).

  101. Forster, P. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 923–1054 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  102. Burke, M. & Tanutama, V. Climatic constraints on aggregate economic output. NBER working paper 25779. National Bureau of Economic Research https://www.nber.org/papers/w25779 (2019).

  103. Kotz, M., Levermann, A. & Wenz, L. The economic commitment of climate change. Nature 628, 551–557 (2024).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Waidelich, P., Batibeniz, F., Rising, J. A., Kikstra, J. & Seneviratne, S. I. Climate damage projections beyond annual temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 14, 592–599 (2024).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  105. Kotz, M., Levermann, A. & Wenz, L. The effect of rainfall changes on economic production. Nature 601, 223–227 (2022).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Miller, S., Chua, K., Coggins, J. & Mohtadi, H. Heat waves, climate change, and economic output. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 19, 2658–2694 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Gelles, D. Oregon county sues fossil fuel companies over 2021 heat dome. New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/climate/oregon-lawsuit-heat-dome.html (22 June 2023).

  108. Rahmstorf, S. & Coumou, D. Increase of extreme events in a warming world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 17905–17909 (2011).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Mishra, V., Mukherjee, S., Kumar, R. & Stone, D. A. Heat wave exposure in India in current, 1.5 °C, and 2.0 °C worlds. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 124012 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  110. Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S. & Oreskes, N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science 379, eabk0063 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Supran, G. & Oreskes, N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014). Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 084019 (2017). This paper found that ExxonMobil systematically cast doubt on mainstream climate science in the public sphere while internally acknowledging climate change and its consequences.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  112. Callahan, C. W. & Mankin, J. S. Persistent effect of El Niño on global economic growth. Science 380, 1064–1069 (2023).

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Lloyd, E. A., Oreskes, N., Seneviratne, S. I. & Larson, E. J. Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high. Clim. Change 165, 55 (2021). This paper outlines the different burdens of proof used in science and law, arguing that scientific standards are often too strict relative to legal standards.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Editorial. It’s time to talk about ditching statistical significance. Nature 567, 283 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Gelman, A. & Stern, H. The difference between significant and not significant is not itself statistically significant. Am. Stat. 60, 328–331 (2006).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  116. Shepherd, T. G. Bringing physical reasoning into statistical practice in climate-change science. Clim. Change 169, 2 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  117. Shepherd, T. G. et al. Storylines: an alternative approach to representing uncertainty in physical aspects of climate change. Clim. Change 151, 555–571 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  118. Weaver, R. H. & Kysar, D. A. Courting disaster: climate change and the adjudication of catastrophe. Notre Dame Law Rev. 93, 295–356 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Hunter, D. & Salzman, J. Negligence in the air: the duty of care in climate change litigation. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 155, 1741–1794 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  120. Franta, B. Early oil industry knowledge of CO2 and global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 1024–1025 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  121. Supran, G. & Oreskes, N. Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil’s climate change communications. One Earth 4, 696–719 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  122. Bonneuil, C., Choquet, P.-L. & Franta, B. Early warnings and emerging accountability: Total’s responses to global warming, 1971–2021. Global Environ. Change 71, 102386 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Geiling, N. City of Oakland v. BP: testing the limits of climate science in climate litigation. Ecol. Law Q. 46, 683–694 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  124. Novak, S. The role of courts in remedying climate chaos: transcending judicial nihilism and taking survival seriously. Georget. Environ. Law Rev. 32, 743–778 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  125. Andreoni, M. Vermont to require fossil-fuel companies to pay for climate damage. New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/31/climate/vermont-law-fossil-fuel-climate-damage.html (1 June 2024).

  126. Karl, T. L. The perils of the petro-state: reflections on the paradox of plenty. J. Int. Aff. 53, 31–48 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  127. Gillett, N. et al. The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v1.0) contribution to CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3685–3697 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  128. Eyring, V. et al. in Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 423–552 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  129. Kotz, M., Wenz, L., Stechemesser, A., Kalkuhl, M. & Levermann, A. Day-to-day temperature variability reduces economic growth. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 319–325 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  130. Perkins, S. E. & Alexander, L. V. On the measurement of heat waves. J. Clim. 26, 4500–4517 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  131. Sillmann, J., Kharin, V. V., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W. & Bronaugh, D. Climate extremes indices in the CMIP5 multimodel ensemble: part 1. Model evaluation in the present climate. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 1716–1733 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  132. Fischer, E. M., Sippel, S. & Knutti, R. Increasing probability of record-shattering climate extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 689–695 (2021).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. Wenz, L., Carr, R. D., Kögel, N., Kotz, M. & Kalkuhl, M. DOSE – global data set of reported sub-national economic output. Sci. Data 10, 425 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Lessmann, C. & Seidel, A. Regional inequality, convergence, and its determinants – a view from outer space. Eur. Econ. Rev. 92, 110–132 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Fogel (Berkeley Judicial Institute), J. T. Laster (Delaware Court of Chancery), C. Cunningham (ret.), M. Burger (Sabin Center), J. Wentz (Sabin Center), R. Horton (Columbia University), D. Kysar (Yale Law School) and B. Franta (Oxford University) for helpful discussions, C. Smith (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) for assistance with FaIR calibration, and R. Heede (Climate Accountability Institute) for assistance with emissions data. We thank Dartmouth’s Research Computing and the Discovery Cluster for the computing resources and the World Climate Research Programme, which, through its Working Group on Coupled Modelling, coordinated and promoted CMIP6. This work was supported by National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship #1840344 to C.W.C. and by funding from Dartmouth’s Neukom Computational Institute, the Wright Center for the Study of Computation and Just Communities and the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center to J.S.M.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program in Ecology, Evolution, Environment and Society, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

    Christopher W. Callahan & Justin S. Mankin

  2. Department of Geography, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

    Christopher W. Callahan & Justin S. Mankin

  3. Department of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA

    Justin S. Mankin

  4. Ocean and Climate Physics, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY, USA

    Justin S. Mankin

Authors
  1. Christopher W. Callahan
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Justin S. Mankin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors designed the analysis. C.W.C. performed the analysis. Both authors interpreted the results and wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Christopher W. Callahan or Justin S. Mankin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks Anders Levermann, Jing Meng, L. Merner, Kevin A. Reed and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Damages when annual average temperatures are held at their observed values.

As in Fig. 2a but when emissions only affect the intensity of Tx5d values and not the annual average temperatures that moderate the effect of Tx5d. Map was generated using cartopy v0.17.0 and regional borders come from the Database of Global Administrative Areas.

Extended Data Table 1 Availability of emissions data for the top five companies
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Callahan, C.W., Mankin, J.S. Carbon majors and the scientific case for climate liability. Nature 640, 893–901 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08751-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08751-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing