"End-to End" Climate Attribution Science Can Link Specific Companies To Climate Change Disasters

Climate attribution science is getting
more and more sophisticated. This
might make it increasingly 
possible for local governments to
recoup from climate disasters, like
this 2024 Vermont flood might
have been. 

Climate attribution studies - the art and science of determining to what extent weather extremes are tied to climate change - are getting so good that they're starting to delve into how much individual corporations are responsible for given disasters. 

This advanced work on assigning individual corporations' role in climate disasters is known as end-to-end attribution. 

For now, the focus is on heat waves, as the science doesn't appear to be quite there in assigning blame for other disasters, like floods, wildfires and hurricanes. But that's coming. 

 According to CBC:

"A new study by climate researchers in Europe and the U.S. and published in the journal Nature has taken this analysis further, by lining the deadliest type of disaster - heat waves - directly to major fossil fuel companies and their products. 

The study looked at major heat waves that happened between 2000 and 2023 and the role of 'carbon majors.'  These include state-owned companies (such as Gazprom in Russia or Saudi Armco, investor-owned private companies (Shell, BP, ExxonMoil or even Canadian companies such as Suncor and Census) and nation-states that produce fossil fuels such as coal (India, the former Soviet Union)."

 The study indicated that the median intensity of heat waves globally between 2010 and 2019 was about 1.68 degrees Celsius hotter, and 0.47 Celsius of that was due to just 14 of the largest carbon producers. 

More from CBC

"The study goes into granular detail, with data for each one of the 180 carbon majors and their specific contribution to each of the 213 heat waves studied. The detail even shows the impact of smaller companies - for example, the smallest carbon major by emissions, a Russian coal company, made 16 heat waves more than 10,000 times likely - meaning the heat waves would have been virtually impossible without the emissions of that carbon major."

The study drew on previous research detailing the lifetime carbon emissions of these carbon majors, and other studies that show how carbon emissions make heat waves worse. They then connected those two strands to estimate how the emissions of a specific carbon major impacted the severity and likelihood of a particular heat wave.

The research doesn't assign a quantity or dollar amount of heat wave damage caused by each corporation. Besides, heat waves usually don't cause much damage to buildings and infrastructure, at least compared to other disasters.

But heat waves kill a lot of people, and how do you put a price tag on that?  

Then there are practical matters. Some regions are more prepared for heat waves than others. An intense heat wave might not be as bad in, say Oklahoma, because practically everyone there has air conditioning. Air conditioning, meanwhile, is much more rare in western and northern Europe, where heat waves in recent decades have been taking an especially big toll. 

Still, this attribution science regarding climate damage caused by specific firms is probably of great interest to policymakers. 

A great example is here in Vermont. 

Vermont and New York have enacted "climate superfund" laws, which would force corporations that produce large amounts of carbon dioxide to pay a share of what climate change has cost Vermont, based on how much the company contributed to global emissions during the same period.  

Lawmakers in Vermont were prodded into enacted this legislation in part by a series of devastating floods in the state. 

Trump's Department of Justice has sued both Vermont and New York, claiming the climate superfund laws attempt to "extorts" energy producers.  

Still, if the New York and Vermont superfund laws survive the legal challenges, or we get a more climate friendly administration in the future, the research we're talking about would definitely interest people in both states. And any other jurisdiction that wants to establish similar laws. 

Beyond the United States, the International Court of Justice issued a July advisory opinion that said countries dealing with climate disasters could seek reparations from countries emitting the most carbon. 

Some legal experts said the International Court of Justice, which is under the United Nations, could spur similar moves around the world in local courts. 

Any science that would more accurately assign responsibility for climate-related disasters and expenses might favor all these laws and lawsuits.  

End-to-end attribution can boost a claimant's case, notes the Conversation. Such attribution can meet what is known as the "but for" test, which means that but for a specific company's emissions, climate related damages would not have happened.

Also, notes the Conservationist:

"One is called proportional liability, and it attempts to quantify the extent to which a company's emissions contribute d to increased risk or the severity of damage. This flexibility strengthens the method's applicability across different legal systems."

Meanwhile, climate attribution science will almost definitely continue to improve. That science is going to be a force that a lot of people in power are going to need to contend with.

Also, says the Conservationist, "The end-to-end attribution method enables claimants to connect global warming to local disasters, such as the 2021 Pacific Northwest 'heat dome'. This is crucial, as climate litigation focused on single, high-impact  events is usually more successful."

Climate attribution science is getting more and more sophisticated. This will probably change the climate legal landscape, even if the Trump administration is trying to postpone that day.  

Meteorologist Fired For Instagram Blast At Elon Musk: What It Means For Other Meteorologists

Sam Kuffel a Milwaukee television meteorologist, was
fired after she posted on social media criticisms of
Elon Musk after he made gestures that many 
believed to be Nazi salutes. 

A television meteorologist named Sam Kuffel was fired recently from a Wisconsin television station for blasting Elon Musk's gesture during President Trump's inauguration. 

The meteorologists, who had worked at WDJT CBS58 in Milwaukee for more than five years, was canned not long after her rather strident posts. 

I know this is a weather and climate blog, and the only relation to these topics is the fact that a meteorologist was involved, but it's an important topic. So I ought to cover it. 

More importantly, what is the duty of on-air meteorologists to report facts that contradict the Trump administration?   With Trump's climate denial, it's more important than ever for meteorologists to offer true but not sensationalized information on climate change.  Should meteorologists speak up if the Trump administration blunts the expertise and truthfulness from the National Weather Service? How far should meteorologist go to speak truth to power?

Unfortunately, Kuffel, likely unwittingly, chose a not-so-important hill to die on. Sure, Nazi salutes are beyond horrible, and they need to be called out. But we face years of climate denial, anti-science gaslighting that needs to be combated full-throatedly. 

As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, Kuffel posted a picture of Musk doing his thing and wrote "Dude Nazi saluted twice. TWICE. During the inauguration." You (expletive) with this and this man, I don't (expletive) with you. Full stop."

She then posted a GIF from "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia" with a caption. "Screw that old (expletive). He's a Nazi."

Her posts caught the attention of conservative activists, as these things do.  Radio host Dan O'Donnell accused Kuffel of "spreading the lie that Elon Musk was giving a Nazi salute."

To me, it sure looked like a Nazi salute, though Musk's defender said it was just an awkward gesture, not intended to support Nazis. I would have liked a statement from Musk explaining what happened, but he's not one to do that. 

For her part, Kuffel said she "never intended to harm anyone" with those social media posts. "I was just voicing my personal opinion on a private social media account that was not accessible to the general public."

There's actually more moving parts here than you'd think.   Many news organizations have codes of conduct when it comes to social media.  When I worked at the Burlington Free Press until 2013, I already had active social media accounts.

I had to be careful what I posted so as not to make my political opinions known. It was part of our code of conduct, something many news organizations have.  Given the need to not appear biased, journalists need to keep their political opinions close to their chests, even when they're not on the clock. 

"People who aren't bound by journalist codes of ethics can give any opinion they want, and it doesn't have to be nuanced, but it's an opinion....If you're related to a media organization, you have a deeper responsibility to show your math," said Jill Geisler, the Bill Planet Chair in Leadership and Media Integrity and Loyola University Chicago told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel .

It's unclear whether CBS58 had a code of conduct, as it's not displayed on its website. For transparency's sake, many news organizations publish their conduct codes online.

This gets into First Amendment issues, too.  Yes, an employer can fire you for your actions, even if you were not at work when you did them. 

But Musk is now at least nominally part of the federal government. The First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech free of government suppression.  Neither Musk nor anybody in the Trump administration ordered the television station to fire Kuffel.

However, given the current political climate, did the station feel compelled to can the meteorologist, to protect itself from whatever repercussions they might receive from Trump's minions? 

The bottom line is on air meteorologists have more responsibility than ever to tell the truth about everything, even if it touches on politics.

I hear people say meteorologists should exclusively stick to the weather forecast. Just tell us if we need to bring an umbrella today.   But partly sunny with a chance of showers is only part of their job. The meteorologists on your local television stations are also journalists. 

Most of them, I trust, have more than enough integrity to give us the science and climate news with the best information available. 

The Kuffle firing over Musk's likely Nazi salute probably is just a sideshow that has already exhausted its life in today's rapid fire news cycle. 

But it's a signal to us all.  Meteorologists have a responsibility to tell us the truth. And the public has the right to demand it.