A fast-growing field of climate research is helping scientists determine exactly how many natural disaster dollars can be linked to the historical emissions of individual oil companies — an analysis that is at the center of a new government effort to make fossil fuel companies pay billions for floods, forest fires and heat waves.
When a flood or wildfire hits, researchers in “attribution science” run computer models to help determine whether the disaster was caused or exacerbated by climate change.
As these models become more precise, other scientists are working to measure how specific companies, such as Exxon Mobil or Shell, have contributed to climate change through their historical greenhouse gas emissions.
“This is a growing field and a game changer for addressing climate change,” said Delta Merner, lead scientist for the Climate Litigation Science Center at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a climate-focused research and advocacy nonprofit. “It has a role in litigation and in politics because it gives us that precision.”
For the first time, some state lawmakers are trying to turn this advanced modeling into policy. Under their proposals, government agencies would use the science of attribution to account for the damage caused by climate change and identify the companies responsible. Then they would send each company a bill for its share of the destruction, from heat waves to hurricanes.
“This science is moving fast,” said Anthony Iarapino, a Vermont-based attorney and lobbyist for the Conservation Law Foundation who has been a leading advocate of attribution-based policy. “This is something that could not have been done 10 years ago. [Lawmakers] benefit from this shift in focus among some of the most talented scientists we have.”
Lawmakers in Vermont and four other blue states have proposed “climate superfund” bills that would create funds to pay for climate disaster recovery and sea level rise preparation and other adaptation measures.
Oil and coal companies would pay into these funds based on the percentage of emissions they caused over a certain period. The name of the legislation refers to the federal Superfund Act of 1980, which forced polluters to pay for the cleanup of toxic waste landfills.
This is a growing field and a game changer for addressing climate change. It has a role in litigation and in politics because it gives us this precision.
– Delta Merner, Lead Scientist for the Science Center for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists
The states’ climate proposals come after years of lawsuits by attorneys general against many of those same companies. They claim the companies knew years ago that fossil fuel use was causing climate change, but misled the public about the danger. While the courtroom disputes are far from resolved, some advocates think it’s time for lawmakers to step in.
“There have been a lot of lawsuits trying to get these companies to pay for some damages, and the message from the industry has been, ‘This is for the legislature, not the courts,'” said Justin Flagg, director of environmental policy for New York state Sen. Liz Krueger, Democrat. “We accept that invitation.”
Oil industry groups object to the methodologies used by the attribution scientists. Industry leaders say lawmakers are acting out of frustration that lawsuits are moving slowly.
“The science is not proven,” said Mandy Risko, spokeswoman for Energy In Depth, a research and community project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a trade group. “[The state bills] they throw spaghetti at the wall. What will stick?’
Oil companies also argue that the Climate Superfund bills, if passed, would force penalized companies to raise gas prices for consumers in those states.
Legislative push
The push for Climate Superfund legislation began with a federal bill in 2021 backed by Democrats in the US Senate that failed to pass. Legislators in a handful of states introduced their own proposals in the following years. Now, Vermont may soon become the first to pass the law.
Vermont’s measure would task the state treasurer with calculating the cost of necessary climate adaptation work, as well as damage from past disasters, such as last summer’s devastating floods.
The program will collect money from companies that have emitted more than 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide worldwide since 1995. Those companies with a certain threshold of business activity in Vermont will be charged according to their percentage of global emissions.
“We can say with some degree of certainty how much worse these storms are [due to climate change],” said Democratic Sen. Ann Watson, the bill’s sponsor. “That’s really the foundation for us to put a dollar value on a law like this.”
Environmental advocates say the bill is a pioneering attempt to use the latest science for accountability.
“This is one of the first examples where the science of climate attribution is at the center of legislation,” said Ben Edgerly Walsh, director of the climate and energy program at the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, an environmental nonprofit. “It reflects the maturity of this field.”
Walsh said the measure, if passed, is expected to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars. The bill passed the Senate earlier this month by a 26-3 vote, and the House version was supported by a majority of that chamber’s members. Republican Gov. Phil Scott has not said whether he would sign it into law, but said he would prefer to see larger states go first.
Exxon Mobil deferred an interview request to the trade group American Petroleum Institute. The institute did not grant an interview to Stateline, but pointed to comments it made to Vermont lawmakers last month. The group said its members legally mined fossil fuels to meet economic demand and should not be penalized for doing so after the fact. The letter also questions the power of states to impose payments for emissions generated abroad.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in New York are currently negotiating a budget that could include a Superfund climate policy. A measure passed by the Senate late last year would seek to raise $75 billion over 25 years to pay for climate change damage.
“It’s not meant to be punitive, it’s meant to pay for our needs,” said Flagg, the New York Senate staffer. “It’s going to be a lot of money, and $75 billion is just a small part of it.”
The proposal applies to companies with a presence in New York responsible for more than 1 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide between 2000 and 2018.
In Massachusetts, Democratic Rep. Steve Owens introduced a similar bill last year. While the measure failed to advance, Owens said lawmakers were getting familiar with the concept.
“Is this a scam we can prosecute or something we can legislate for?” he asked. “This issue was not resolved in time for this session. We will continue to work to get people used to the idea.”
Lawmakers in California and Maryland also introduced climate superfund bills this session.
Challenges ahead
If legislatures in Vermont and elsewhere pass climate Superfund bills, state officials implementing them are expected to rely heavily on researcher Richard Heed’s “Carbon Majors” project, which calculates the historical emissions of 108 fossil fuel producers , using public data.
“We know enough to attribute the temperature response to sea-level rise, build a reasonable case, and apportion responsibility among the big fossil fuel producers,” said Hide, whose project is part of the Climate Accountability Institute, a Colorado-based nonprofit research a group that has received funding from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. “But that hasn’t been tested in court.”
Hede said more than 70 percent of carbon emissions from fossil fuels can be traced to just over 100 companies, but noted that many large emitters, such as Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s national oil company, are owned by international governments , which is unlikely to be held accountable by US state governments.
Last year, a study looking at temperature and water vapor data found that much of the area burned by wildfires in the West over the past few decades was linked to emissions produced by the largest fossil fuel and cement companies. This study by Merner and others from the Union of Concerned Scientists was published in Environmental Research Letters. Similar studies looking at storms and heat waves can show how much of an event’s intensity and economic damage can be attributed to climate change.
Supporters of the state bills say they expect serious legal challenges from oil companies if their proposals become law. Pat Parenteau, professor emeritus of environmental law at Vermont Law School, supported the states’ climate lawsuits, but warned that climate superfund bills would likely face similar legal delays if passed.
“Companies are going to sue the hell out of them,” he said. “Throw something more at them, but don’t think for a minute that there’s anything magical about it.”
He urged Vermont to wait for larger states, such as New York, to pass the first climate Superfund bills and face the ensuing legal onslaught.
Advocates acknowledged the bill would face legal challenges, but said that was no reason to stop their efforts.
“Vermont is already paying through the nose for the climate crisis,” Walsh said. “The sooner we pass a law like this, the sooner we can see these companies held financially accountable.”
Stateline originally published this article. Like the Alaska Beacon, Stateline is part of the State Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains its editorial independence.
