Lawmakers hope to use this emerging climate science to charge oil companies for disasters • Oregon Capital Chronicle

Climate Research Links Natural Disasters to Oil Companies’ Emissions

A fast-emerging field of climate research is helping scientists pinpoint just how many dollars from a natural disaster can be tied to the historic emissions of individual oil companies — analysis that is the centerpiece of new state efforts to make fossil fuel companies pay billions for floods, wildfires, and heat waves.

Advancing Attribution Science

When a flood or wildfire hits, researchers in “attribution science” run computer models to help determine whether the disaster was caused or intensified by climate change.

As those 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 historic greenhouse gas emissions.

“This is a growing field, and it’s a game changer for addressing climate change,” said Delta Merner, the lead scientist for the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a climate-focused research and advocacy nonprofit. “It has a role to play in litigation and in policy because it gives us that precision.”

State Efforts to Hold Companies Accountable

For the first time, some state lawmakers are trying to turn that advanced modeling into policy. Under their proposals, state agencies would use attribution science to tally up the damages caused by climate change and identify the companies responsible. Then, they would send each company a bill for its portion of the destruction, from heat waves to hurricanes.

Lawmakers in Vermont and four other blue states have proposed “climate Superfund” bills, which would create funds to pay for recovery from climate disasters and preparation for sea-level rise and other adaptation measures.

Oil and coal companies would pay into those funds based on the percentage of emissions they’ve caused over a set period. The legislation’s name references the 1980 federal Superfund law that forces polluters to pay for the cleanup of toxic waste sites.

States’ climate proposals come after years of lawsuits by state 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 that danger. While the courtroom fights are far from resolved, some advocates think it’s time for lawmakers to get involved.

“There have been a lot of lawsuits trying to get these companies to pay for some damages, and the industry’s message has been, ‘This is a task for legislatures, not the courts,’” said Justin Flagg, director of environmental policy for New York state Sen. Liz Krueger, a Democrat. “We are taking up that invitation.”

Oil industry groups object to the methodologies used by attribution scientists. Industry leaders say lawmakers are acting out of frustration that the lawsuits have been slow to progress.

“The science isn’t proven,” said Mandi Risko, a spokesperson for Energy In Depth, a research and public outreach project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a trade group. “[The state bills] are throwing spaghetti at a wall. What’s gonna stick?”

Oil companies also assert that climate Superfund bills, if enacted, would force the penalized companies to raise gas prices on consumers in those states.

A Legislative Push

The push for climate Superfund legislation began with a federal bill in 2021, backed by U.S. Senate Democrats, that failed to pass. Lawmakers in a handful of states introduced their own proposals in the following years. Now, Vermont could soon become the first to enact a law.

Vermont’s measure would task the state treasurer with calculating the costs of needed climate adaptation work, as well as the damage inflicted by previous disasters such as last summer’s devastating floods.

The program would collect money from companies that emitted more than 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide around the world from 1995 to the present day. Those companies with a certain threshold of business activity in Vermont would be charged according to their percentage of global emissions.

“We can with some degree of certainty say how much worse these storms are [due to climate change],” said Democratic state Sen. Anne Watson, the bill’s sponsor. “That really is the foundation for us to bring a dollar value into a piece of legislation like this.”

Environmental advocates say the bill is a pioneering attempt to use the latest science for accountability.

“This is one of the first instances of climate attribution science being at the center of legislation,” said Ben Edgerly Walsh, climate and energy program director with the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, an environmental nonprofit. “That reflects the maturity of this field.”

Walsh said the measure, if passed, is expected to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars. The bill was approved by the Senate earlier this month in a 26-3 vote, and a House version has been co-sponsored by a majority of that chamber’s members. Republican Gov. Phil Scott has not said whether he would sign it into law, but he has 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 with Stateline, but pointed to the comments it filed with Vermont lawmakers last month. The group said its members lawfully extracted fossil fuels to meet economic demand and should not be punished for that after the fact. The letter also questioned states’ authority to impose payments for emissions that were generated overseas.

Meanwhile, New York lawmakers are currently negotiating a budget that could include a climate Superfund policy. A measure that passed the Senate at the end of last year would seek to collect $75 billion over 25 years to pay for the damages of climate change.

“It’s not intended to be punitive, it’s intended 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 only a small portion of that.”

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 13: Climate Action
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The article primarily focuses on the issue of climate change and its connection to natural disasters. This aligns with SDG 13, which aims to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. Additionally, the article mentions lawsuits and policy proposals related to holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their contributions to climate change, which relates to SDG 16 and the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters
• SDG 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning
• SDG 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all

The article discusses the use of attribution science to determine the extent to which natural disasters are caused or intensified by climate change. This relates to SDG 13.1, which focuses on strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards. The proposed legislation mentioned in the article also aims to integrate climate change measures into policies and planning, aligning with SDG 13.2. Furthermore, the lawsuits and policy proposals highlight the importance of promoting the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice, which corresponds to SDG 16.3.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 13.1.1: Number of deaths, missing persons, and directly affected persons attributed to disasters per 100,000 population
• Indicator 13.2.1: Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning into their national policies, strategies, and planning
• Indicator 16.3.1: Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized mechanisms

The article does not explicitly mention these indicators, but they can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets. Indicator 13.1.1 measures the impact of disasters on human lives and well-being, indicating the effectiveness of resilience and adaptive capacity measures. Indicator 13.2.1 assesses the extent to which countries have integrated climate change measures into their policies and planning. Indicator 16.3.1 measures the proportion of victims of violence who report their victimization, reflecting the accessibility and effectiveness of justice systems in addressing climate-related issues.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Copyright: Dive into this article, curated with care by SDG Investors Inc. Our advanced AI technology searches through vast amounts of data to spotlight how we are all moving forward with the Sustainable Development Goals. While we own the rights to this content, we invite you to share it to help spread knowledge and spark action on the SDGs.

Fuente: oregoncapitalchronicle.com

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.