Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages

The calls for climate reparations are rapidly growing in the scientific literature, among movements, and policy debate. This article proposes morally based oil, gas, coal producers, presents a methodological approach their implementation, quantifies top twenty-one fossil fuel companies. Human-caused change has long been acknowledged as essentially an ethical issue that threatens humanity ravages planet. While Global North’s historical carbon emissions have exceeded fair share of planetary boundary by estimated 92%, impacts breakdown fall disproportionally on South, which is responsible trivial share—Africa, Asia, Latin America contribute only 8%—of excess emissions.1Hickel J. Quantifying national responsibility breakdown: equality-based attribution dioxide boundary.Lancet Planet. Health. 2020; 4: e399-e404https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30196-0Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (82) Google Scholar At same time, world’s richest 1% population contributed 15% between 1990 2015, more than twice much poorest 50%, who just 7% but suffer brunt harm.2Kartha S. Kemp-Benedict E. Ghosh Nazareth A. Gore T. Carbon Inequality Era (SEI Oxfam).2020https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/research-report-carbon-inequality-era.pdfGoogle inequity exacerbated poorer societies’ lack resources to adapt persistent reluctance North provide them with necessary funding assistance required principle common differentiated responsibilities respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) 3 UNFCCC. crisis its increasing economic burdens bring forefront question poorly investigated, bluntly recalled 2022 IPCC report impacts, adaptation, vulnerability3IPCC – International Panel Climate ChangeClimate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, Vulnerability. Contribution Working Group II Sixth Assessment Report Intergovernmental Change. Cambridge University Press, 2022Google Scholar: should bear cost harm caused anthropogenic change? Is it states, or affected individuals, families, businesses? future generations, had no role creating harm? Or burden those agents most global disruption, while meantime greatly profiting? costs chiefly borne states compensate own citizens harmed international adaptation finance, insurance companies regard insureds, uncompensated victims change. We argue other substantial redressing harm: engage exploration, production, refining, distribution coal. recent progress science makes evident these played major accumulation escalation such providing gigatonnes fuels economy willfully ignoring foreseeable harm.4Heede R. Tracing methane cement producers.Climatic 2014; 122 (1854–2010): 229-241https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-yCrossref (425) All they successfully shaped public narrative through disinformation, misleading “advertorials,” lobbying, political donations delay action directly trade associations surrogates.5Supran G. Oreskes N. Rhetoric frame analysis ExxonMobil's communications.One Earth. 2021; 696-719https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014Abstract (59) Fossil moral parties duty rectify harm.6Shue H. Responsible what? producer CO2 contributions energy transition.Climatic 2017; 144: 591-596https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2042-9Crossref (30) Scholar,7Grasso M. Towards broader ethics: Confronting oil industry relevant facts.Energy Res. Social Sci. 62101383https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101383Crossref (13) Moral theory6Shue Scholar,8Goodin R.E. Disgorging fruits wrongdoing.Am. Polit. Rev. 2013; 107: 478-491https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055413000233Crossref (46) sense—as well environmental agreements polluter pays embodied 16 1992 Rio Declaration, “internalization costs”—demand wrongdoing must be rectified. A direct way do so payment wronged parties,8Goodin context historically informed account distributive justice.9Táíwò O.O. Reconsidering Reparations. Oxford 2022Crossref (38) In case industry, require relinquish part tainted wealth subjects financial means coping harm, consistent justice movement’s core demand repay debt. rationale form rectification change.10Grasso From Big Oil Green. Holding Industry Account Crisis. MIT Additionally, practical level insufficiency under UNFCCC Green Fund lengthy process operationalization adequate financing Loss Damage fund—so far tangible outcome 2013 Warsaw Mechanism (WIM)—established at Sharm El Sheikh COP 27 culpable agents—e.g., companies—to complement state-centric governance cope damages. Here, we reframe debate tackle focusing harm. producers operational product emissions, documented history denial11Dunlap Brulle R.J. Sources amplifiers denial.in: Holmes D.C. Richardson L.M. Research Handbook Communicating (Elgar). 2020: 49Crossref (8) discourse practices delay,12Lamb W.F. Mattioli Levi Roberts J.T. Capstick Creutzig F. Minx J.C. Müller-Hansen Culhane Steinberger J.K. Discourses delay.Glob. Sustain. 3: E17https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13Crossref (133) disinformed shareholders corporate risks, complicit slowing down defeating legislation, held accountable paying reparations. To this end, present grounded implementing quantify product-related from 1988 situation people countries where based. following starting point open discussion shared particular owed victims. Our work aims lay groundwork further investigation into not understood fully fledged proposal. crucial, purposes ignore thorough identification victims, mechanisms compelling reparation funds, collected reparations, feasibility developed relationships scheme, proposed here, complements neither substitute finance nor climate-related litigation filed numerous jurisdictions varying legal theories against Consistent rich literature accountability ranging 1950s 1990s,13Franta B. Early knowledge warming.Nature Clim. 2018; 8: 1024-1025https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0349-9Crossref (34) Scholar,14Frumhoff P.C. Heede industrial 2015; 132: 157-171https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1472-5Crossref (102) conservatively start clock 1988, year was established when NASA scientist James Hansen testified before U.S. Senate human signal detected. Since claims uncertainty about consequences untenable. argument first demands producers’ reduced rate minimizing damages set forth Energy Agency’s 2021 roadmap net-zero system.15International Agency IEANet Zero 2050. Roadmap Sector.2021https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050Crossref requires investment new projects minimal absolute offsets mid-century. group categories “high requirement” (HR), “low (LR), “exempted’ (Ex). grouping consequent companies’ violation no-harm principle, entails disgorgements proportional measure contribution application need, greater need receive benefits. our analysis, primacy over given mobilized ensure people’s right development amidst crisis, (1) less wealthy charged lower allow larger (in terms, example, tax revenues, domestic subsidies, employment, social programs) countries’ (2) exempted because maximum benefits burdened Accordingly (see Note S1 specifications involved situation).(1)IOCs (investor-owned companies) SOEs (state-owned entities) headquartered wealthier defined HR companies: Abu Dhabi NOC, BHP, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Kuwait Petroleum, Peabody Energy, Saudi Aramco, Shell, TotalEnergies.(2)SOEs less-wealthy deemed LR Gazprom, Iraq National Co., Pemex, Petrobras, PetroChina, Rosneft.(3)SOEs Ex Coal India, Iranian Oil, Petroleos de Venezuela, Sonatrach. shoulder full determined since countries. assigns partial precarious home On ground, indispensable weak economies people, absolved approach, companies—with exclusion four ones—are disgorge period 2025 2050 annual scheme declining toward zero S1) order accommodate decreasing capacity transition likely profitable decarbonized business or, nimble companies, dissolution. postponement “grace period” ramp up address Based survey 738 economists demonstrated expertise climate16Howard P. Sylvan D. Gauging Economic Consensus Institute Policy Integrity New York School Law, 2021https://policyintegrity.org/publications/detail/gauging-economic-consensus-on-climate-changeGoogle using 2025–2075 growth model, calculate 2025–2050 cumulative attributed all sources model loss GDP 3°C scenario $99 trillion, $70 trillion S1). greenhouse gas result behaviors three groups agents: products whose combustion generates (producers); use intended (emitters); who, weight evidence agreements, (or fail to) act reduce (political authorities). There objective basis disentangle different sake simplicity propose emitters, authorities equal one-third shares responsibility, thus quota $23.2 trillion. Each Majors 2023 Dataset17Heede 2018 Data Set. 2023. 2020https://climateaccountability.org/carbonmajors_dataset2020.html. Updated authorGoogle then allocated sum—payable 2025–2050—based percent 2022. categorization outlined, half, meeting theirs. As incentive early action, eligible if achieve aggressive targets curtail production faster net pathway 1.5°C scenario. Table 1 shows 2025–2050.Table 1Reparations 2025–2050GroupsCompaniesACumulative 1988–2022 (MtCO2e)BPercent emissionsCCumulative (Billion US$, current)DAverage current)HRSaudi Arabia53,7144.78%$1,110$42.7ExxonMobil, USA23,1192.06%$478$18.4Shell, UK20,4871.82%$424$16.3BP, UK18,2141.65%$377$14.5Chevron, USA16,0901.43%$333$12.8Abu Dhabi, UAE15,3861.37%$318$12.2Peabody USA13,7771.23%$285$11.0TotalEnergies, France11,7601.05%$243$9.4Kuwait Petroleum Corp., Kuwait11,7331.04%$243$9.3ConocoPhillips, USA10,0820.90%$208$8.0BHP, Australia9,6020.85%$199$7.6LRGazprom, Russian Fed.50,4924.49%$522$20.1Pemex, Mexico18,5331.65%$192$7.4PetroChina, China18,1621.62%$188$7.2Rosneft, Fed.11,2241.00%$116$4.5Iraq Iraq10,5210.94%$109$4.2Petrobras, Brazil9,8060.87%$101$3.9ExNational Iran29,2122.60%––Coal India26,2082.33%––Petroleos Venezuela12,8981.15%––Sonatrach, Algeria12,0701.07%––Top 21 companies403,09235.9%$5,444$20999 “Carbon Major” companies609,85354.3%$12,608NAGlobal emissions1,123,439100%$23,225NAColumn reports atmospheric 2022, including scope both (million tonnes CO2e), Column B each company’s emissions. Cumulative once reductions exemptions accounted for, total $5.4 included C, D average amounts 26-year 2025–2050. HR: high requirement companies; LR: low Ex: Source: authors’ elaborations Dataset, updated 2023.17Heede Open table tab largest analyzed would disburse $5,444 billion Shell—the often accused delaying S1)—would first, third, fourth highest ($4,218 billion), whereas entities $1,228 billion, 77% 23% respectively. comparable profits years. For instance, ExxonMobil third quarter $19.7 exceed payment. has, according research,18Verbruggen geopolitics US$ & rents.Int. Sust. Plan. Manag. 2022; 36: 3-10https://doi.org/10.54337/ijsepm.7395Crossref amassed “profit without effort” (i.e., rents) $1 per ($2.8 day) 1970 (for details revenues see (Figure 1). Including negotiations clarifies how can positively effort crisis. Their governance, along agents, aligned objectives best available want retain license operate.14Frumhoff Payment help market failures, competitiveness renewables compared heavily subsidized fuels, increase products, restrict expansion business, induce leave reserves engender difficulty capitalizing insuring projects. essence, challenge adopt sustainable practices—transitioning profit-maximizing bystanders disruption—while time addressing tortious conduct parties. perspective also make possible, coherent interplay state non-state old geopolitical groupings (e.g., vs. South; developing; vulnerable) significantly inadequate financing. Considering system attributing balance framework quantifying will inform efforts payments indemnify current prospective litigation, may, pay show strong reducing defer even avoid being named defendants lawsuits. focus despite distortions, failures world, bridge divide “the rich” poor” worlds still hampers progress. It lead fairer fighting various mitigate fund vulnerable migrants refugees, Indigenous peoples, racial ethnic minority communities, disabilities, socially economically disadvantaged. authors thank Ben Batros, Michael Burger, Kristin Casper, Franta, Peter Frumhoff, Philip Gregory, Dario Kenner, Richard Lord, Kathryn Mulvey, Laurie van der Burg, editors journal two anonymous reviewers insightful comments versions article. gratefully acknowledges Rockefeller Brothers Family Associates. Conceptualization: M.G.; methodology: M.G. R.H.; investigation: writing: R.H. declare competing interests. Download .pdf (.2 MB) Help pdf files Document S1.