Researchers from the University of Milan-Bicocca in Italy and the Institute for Climate Responsibility in the United States evaluated a question that sits at the heart of climate accountability. They analyzed how much money should be paid by fossil fuel producers for the damages linked to global warming.
The study, published in One Earth, involved Marco Grasso and Richard Heede steering a broad group of climate economists. Their aim was to estimate the financial burden tied to climate change and to consider who ought to bear responsibility for disasters triggered by greenhouse gas emissions. The researchers framed the debate around a simple, painful premise: if the most polluting activities created the costs, who should cover them?
The argument rests on a widely supported scientific link between climate change and certain extreme events. Heat waves, intense rainfall, floods, droughts, and related disasters have shown a pattern that correlates with rising temperatures and higher emissions. This body of evidence underpins the call for a thoughtful, enforceable mechanism to allocate costs more fairly than the current approach, where many losses are borne by governments or insurers, sometimes leaving victims underinsured or uninsured.
Today, governments often bear the expense of restoring damaged areas. Insurance systems sometimes share the load, but not always. In many cases, those affected are left to rebuild with little or no direct recourse to the entities most responsible for the emissions that contributed to the damage.
In public discussions, the statement that oil and gas companies contribute to climate change and its consequences appears repeatedly. The researchers argue that a broad set of firms involved in fossil fuel production and sales should take their share of responsibility and fund damages caused by climate-related events. The goal is not revenge but a predictable, sustainable framework for financing resilience and a faster transition to lower emissions.
Using their estimates, the researchers project that the total industry liability for the period 2025 to 2050 could reach roughly 99 billion dollars. This figure reflects a systemic view of how much the sector would owe if damages are aggregated across regions and time. Specific company-level calculations show that large multinational producers would carry substantial portions of the burden. For example, Saudi Aramco is projected to shoulder around 43 billion dollars annually, while Gazprom faces a substantial but smaller annual obligation. ExxonMobil also appears among the major contributors in the findings they present. Other major players such as Shell, BP, and PetroChina follow closely in a ranking that places these firms at the center of the responsibility discussion.
The study highlights that these calculations are conditional on many assumptions, including future emission trajectories and policy developments. Still, the central message remains clear: if accountability is to be comprehensive, a global mechanism should channel funds into a universal account designed to finance both the rebuilding of communities and the ongoing fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The authors acknowledge that establishing such a payment system would pose significant challenges. Coordinating timelines, governance, and enforcement across jurisdictions would demand careful design and robust governance. As climate impacts intensify in frequency and severity, the need for new revenue streams to cover damages becomes more pressing. The researchers propose that billing the most responsible parties offers a straightforward, logical path toward funding resilience and decarbonization efforts.
The reference for these conclusions is the article in One Earth, with the DOI 10.1016/j.oneear.2023.04.012. The work presents a bold approach to climate accountability and invites policymakers, investors, and civil society to consider a clear framework for sharing the costs of inaction and the rewards of ambition.
For more information on climate responsibility and policy implications, institutions may consult the environmental department for further context and potential collaboration on future work in this area.
Note: figures referenced in this summary reflect the study’s framework and should be interpreted as illustrative estimates subject to ongoing validation and debate within the scholarly community.