Carbon emissions from oil giants directly linked to dozens of deadly heatwaves for first time
Ava Balfour
News Article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/10/link-oil-giants-heatwaves-research-legal-liability
Journal Article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09450-9
Background:
Since the preindustrial carbon dioxide and methane emitted from anthropogenic sources have been significant contributors to climate change. The burning of fossil fuels can be attributed to a significant percentage of these emissions and an increase in the Global Mean Standard Temperature (GMST) [1].
The Carbon Majors is a database that quantifies the emissions and emissions from the combustion of the products of 180 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers since 1854.[2] Emissions from the carbon majors account for 57% of the total cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions with the top 14% largest emitters make up 30% of the total emissions. The carbon majors fall into three categories, investor-owned companies, state-owned companies, nation-state producers [3].
Extreme Event Attribution (EEA) is a tool used to communicate how climate change influences weather and climate events in the lived experience [3].
Peer Reviewed Article:
The paper, “Systematic attribution of heatwaves to the emissions of carbon majors” by Quilcaille et al. in Nature expands on an existing framework to show how the burning of fossil fuels has increased the intensity and probability of heatwaves. Previously, individual heatwaves had been attributed to climate change but the researchers identified a need for a systemized approach to analyzing extreme weather events. The heatwaves also needed to be connected quantitatively to emitters.
Using the EM-DAT database of international disasters, 213 heatwaves between 2000-2023 were analyzed, in 63 countries. These heatwaves were reported because they had a significant societal impact of “economic losses or casualties, a declaration of state of emergency or a call for international assistance” [3]. A major limitation of the study is that only 9 out of the 226 heatwaves were located in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, due to lack of reporting. 13 heatwaves were removed from the analysis due to poor fit to the statistical model and the carbon majors analysis.
The EEA method characterized the heatwaves by how they would be felt by those experiencing them. This means the average temperature over the period was taken in order to account for the lack of cooling at night. The probability and intensity of the heatwave were calculated using a method by WWA and the change in GMST under current and the preindustrial climate (1850–1900).
It was found that anthropogenic climate change increased the intensity and probability of all 213 heatwaves. Compared to 1850-1900, the estimate for an increase in intensity is 1.4 °C for 2000–2009, 1.7 °C for 2010–2019 and 2.2 °C for 2020–2023, which was found to be “consistent with GMST increasing by more than 0.2 °C per decade over the study period, and land warming faster” [3]. For probability, the estimate is that climate change has made 26% of the 213 heatwaves 10,000 times more likely and therefore impossible without anthropogenic climate change. From 2000-2009, the heatwaves were 20 times more likely due to anthropogenic causes, and 200 times more likely over 2010-2019.
Figure 1. Increasing contribution of climate change to 213 heatwaves over time.
Each heatwave is allocated a category depending on its change in intensity (colour) and its probability ratio (vertical bars in per cent) with reference to 1850–1900. a–c, Events are categorized based on the year of the event: 78 heatwaves attributed over 2000–2009 (a), 54 heatwaves attributed over 2010–2019 (b) and 81 heatwaves attributed over 2020–2023 (c). Median results are shown here. [3]
These heatwaves were then attributed to 180 carbon majors by quantifying their contributions to the GMST. Altogether, the emissions from these carbon majors represent 57% of the total cumulative anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions, including land use over the 1850–2023 period. The top 14 carbon majors are the former Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China for coal, Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, ExxonMobil, Chevron, National Iranian Oil Company, BP, Shell, India for coal, Pemex, CHN Energy, People’s Republic of China for cement and make up 30% of the total cumulative anthropogenic CO2 and CH4 emissions.
Quilcaille et al. used the reduced-complexity Earth system model OSCAR to quantify a 0.67 °C increase in GMST due to emissions of carbon majors out of the total 1.30°C increase in 2023 compared to 1850-1900. Based on the defined percentages, 0.33°C of the temperature increase is due to the top 14 carbon majors. This was calculated for each heatwave to quantify the role each carbon major played.
The rest of this temperature increase is attributed to "unaccounted fossil fuel burning, agricultural and land-use activities, other industrial processes, as well as to non-attributed greenhouse gases (N2O and halogenated species) and short-lived climate forcers”[3]. Higher emission of CO2 and CH4 is directly proportional to a higher contribution to intensities and probabilities of the heatwaves. The increase in intensity of the 213 heatwaves is reported as 1.36 °C over 2000–2009, by 1.68°C over 2010-2019.
There are limitations in the study mostly from underreporting of heatwaves globally and underreporting of emissions by the carbon majors. The authors also identified aerosols as beyond the scope of their study. They recognized aerosols as harmful pollutants but stated the climate effects are regional and difficult to attribute to any one emitter.
Quilcaille et al. concluded that the systemized approach developed could be adapted beyond heatwaves to sea level rise, fires, ocean acidity. The work is relevant for climate policy and emitter accountability and fills some of the gaps in to attribute climate change to individual carbon majors.
The News Article:
The Guardian article ‘Carbon emissions from oil giants directly linked to dozens of deadly heatwaves for first time’ by Damian Carrington is one of many news articles published based on the results of Quilcaille et al. in recent weeks. The main source of the article is the peer-reviewed study, and the research paper and disaster database used in the study are explicitly linked. The article mainly focuses on summarizing the main findings of the study and the possibility that study brings for climate liability. Carrington linked other relevant Guardian articles though the article as well as an overview from the World Health organization on heat as a health hazard. This is the only mention of the deaths that are referenced in the article title and the peer-reviewed article doesn’t discuss the health effects of the heatwaves.
Carrington reports findings from the research writing, “emissions from any one of the 14 biggest companies were by themselves enough to cause more than 50 heatwaves that would otherwise have been virtually impossible” and concludes therefore that these emissions caused the heatwaves [4]. The research is explained as using a form of analysis called attribution that uses computer models based on weather data to preindustrial climates to today. Carrington discusses one of the major limitations of the research being that Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean are extremely underrepresented due to lack of reporting and weather data on the disaster database, but leaves out the underreporting of the carbon majors.
The title of the article only mentioned oil giants, though the carbon majors in the study include coal, gas, and cement producers as well. The title also mentions heat related deaths which are not a major focus of the research, though they are likely very relevant to the news article’s audience.
It is clear that the legal potential as a result of this study is a significant idea to Carrington because two court rulings about fossil fuel companies potentially paying compensation due to their emissions are mentioned before the research study is linked. Carrington goes further than the study to highlight specifically the legal possibility as well as the issues that still exist. He included quotes from Prof Michael Gerrard and Dr Jessica Wentz, of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University to explain there are still the issues of “which courts should hear the cases, whether fossil-fuel producers should be liable for their customers’ emissions, and if long campaigns of deception by some fossil fuel companies were relevant”[4].
At the very end, Carrington added that Exxon Mobil and Saudi Aramco did not respond and comment.
Article Rating:
The article did a thorough job at summarizing the main findings of the research by including quotes from the lead and senior authors on the paper. The author even went further to expand on the legal possibilities of the research. This expansion highlights the potential significant impact of the research of Quilcaille et al. in a way that would be encouraging to the article’s audience.The information in the new article is scientifically correct except for the rounding up of the WHO reported number of heat related deaths from 489,000 to 500,000. The article could have gone into more detail about the carbon majors or named more than Exxon Mobil and Saudi Aramco.
Based on this, I would ate the Guardian article 9/10.
Citations:
[1] Jones, M.W., Peters, G.P., Gasser, T. et al. National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850. Sci Data 10, 155 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02041-1
[2] https://carbonmajors.org/
[3] Quilcaille, Y., Gudmundsson, L., Schumacher, D.L. et al. Systematic attribution of heatwaves to the emissions of carbon majors. Nature 645, 392–398 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09450-9
[4]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/sep/10/link-oil-giants-heatwaves-research-legal-liability
Hi Ava! I really enjoyed reading your review of this article and paper. In previous blog post discussion, our class mentioned the importance of analyzing the roles companies play in emissions, so I really liked how the news article you chose highlights this and includes information about possible legal implications for companies. In the news article, their decision to point out this information also highlights to the general public important applications of the information from this study. I agree with your rating for the article as well - i think they did a good job relaying some of the information found by the study in a way that is easy to understand for the general public.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing this, Ava. I appreciated how the authors of the peer-reviewed article attributed greenhouse gas emissions to the “carbon majors” rather than to a specific country. In my opinion, articles tend to indicate that a country is emitting greenhouse gases, instead of a corporation, like the “carbon majors,” and I think it is important to more accurately identify who is responsible for climate change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the news article did an excellent job at sharing and building upon the information in the research article. In particular, I think the news article effectively utilized numerical data and quotations to enable researchers to share the study's results in a convincing way. Furthermore, I liked how the peer-reviewed article was linked; this is something that many of the news articles we have read in class have lacked.
I think it's very interesting seeing research papers directly attribute the climate crisis to big industry companies. So much of climate awareness tends to put the onus for change on individual people, which isn't necessarily incorrect to do, but the largest contributors in industry should also be held equally, if not more so, responsible for enacting systematic change.
ReplyDeleteI do have a hard time understanding the data for the probability ratio figure, and exactly what each bar means. I can see that the data is skewing further to the right, and that that means more intense heatwaves are likely to continue occurring at increased rates, but the "10,000" increase in likelihood is not very clear to me.
Hi Elena, thank you for your question!
DeleteI had to look into understanding how the order of magnitude of the probability was so high because I was also confused.
The probability ratio in the figure is the probability of the specific heatwave divided by the provability of that heatwave based on the global mean standard temperature averaged from 1850-1900.
These individual probability ratios are calculated with a generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution. This GEV distribution is used to model the maximum of a sequence of variables. It is used for extreme events or tail events, which is likely why it was used for the heatwaves.
I would guess that the probability ratio value reached that magnitude because the expression for the GEV has exponentials. This is equation 3 in the peer-reviewed paper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_extreme_value_distribution
Great Job Ava! I really appreciated this topic choice. One that highlights the belief we are often led to that carbon emissions and climate change are the fault of all of us. This article and the study made it clear that only a couple corporations are disproportionately responsible for the carbon emissions leading to extreme heat waves and global warming. Holding those corporations accountable is truly the only way we can effectively start to cut down on the harmful carbon emissions in our environment. While I do agree that the article did a good job in giving an overall summary of the main points of the article, I feel they could have done more in terms of the clarity that “big oil” companies are not the only ones that need to be held accountable, coal, gas, and even cement producers also play a major role. This nuance is important if we want to push for broader accountability. And I also agree that while the finding of this study is important it leaves out critical parts of our Earth due to a lack of data. It is troubling that many parts of the world that are most vulnerable to climate impacts, especially in the Global South, are underrepresented in both data and media narratives. This data would be valuable to better understand the total climate picture of our world. I wonder how the public and the media could frame this kind of information to get these big corporations to have some consequences in terms of the devastating climate change that is a direct result of their production.
ReplyDeleteHi Sarea, thank you for your repsonse! I agree that it is important to highlight all of the industries that contribute to the emissions so the public does not have a limited view of the 'problem'.
DeleteI also agree the authors should have included data from all regions of the world in their study, even if they had to use multiple databases. I was able to find papers very easily on Google Scholar on heatwaves in South America and Africa that quantified temperatures and duration of heatwaves over the same time period of the Quilcaille et al. paper. The data on heatwaves in the regions left out exists and could be integrated into the system developed in the Quilcaille et al. Completing research on heatwaves from every region of the Earth, makes the findings more useful, especially because heatwaves are deadly.
The papers I found are "Observations and Projections of Heat Waves in South America" by Feron et al. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44614-4
and "Changes in temperature and heat waves over Africa using observational and reanalysis data sets" by Engdaw et al. https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.7295
Hi Ava, thanks for sharing such an impactful study! It's really exciting that these researchers were able to go further than previous climate attribution studies to make the connection between individual corporations and the intensity and probability of specific weather events. I think the research article did a really nice job explaining the methods in a clear manner, and I appreciate that the news article included a concise description of the researchers' approach. I definitely agree with you that the further discussion of the legal implications of this study in the Guardian article helped explain the importance of the research, and the fact that Carrington quoted scientists not connected to the study increased the credibility of the story. At the end of the Nature article, the authors mention that their framework could be extended to other climate-related hazards such as ocean acidity, so I would be really interested to see if any such studies come out in the near future. Are there any specific applications of this approach that you think would be most useful when it comes to assigning responsibility to carbon emitters?
ReplyDeleteHi Claire, I appreciate your thoughts and response!
DeleteMany of the other studies we have discussed in other blog posts have connected carbon emissions to an increased mortality. If this method could be applied further to connect the carbon majors to mortality from the heatwaves, there might be an increased urgency to make the emitters pay compensation or further regulate the emissions.
Hi Ava, thanks for sharing such a great study! The fact that the study was able to attribute heat waves to major corporations is a significant finding with large implications; hopefully, this study and its findings lead to changes down the line. You commented that the title of the article only mentions oil companies. I also thought it was interesting that the Guardian article ignored sectors ("carbon majors") responsible for large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and only focused on fossil fuel corporations. The authors of the scientific article stated that all the carbon majors contributed significantly to the rise in heatwaves. While a majority of the corporations with the largest impact are within the fossil fuel industry, they are not the only contributors. Personally, I feel that the author of the Guardian article was portraying the results of the paper to fit a narrative, which I think is wrong (even though I do agree that fossil fuel companies are largely responsible for climate change). What are your thoughts on how faithfully the author portrayed the research?
ReplyDeleteThis was a great analysis! The summary of the paper and the article were well-written and easy to understand, and the evaluation of the article made a lot of sense. I agree that the article did a great job expressing the findings of the paper in language that is easy to understand for the average reader while also maintaining a good level of detail. I also liked how the article went beyond the research paper and mentioned some of the possible legal consequences that these companies could face. I would have been interested to hear a bit more about how that could proceed. I would have also appreciated if they had another sentence or two about each type of carbon emission, just for some extra detail, and I wish they had had a little more emphasis on the lack of data from some places like Africa. I think data from these places would be very valuable, and I would have been interested to see the article discuss some possible pathways for increasing data collection from these areas.
ReplyDeleteAva, well done on this very detailed analysis! The journal and news articles you have chosen are very interesting. I also appreciate that the news article raises important questions regarding the legal consequences of these emissions and who should be held responsible. At the beginning of the semester, Gergana’s blog post mentioned that anthropogenic atmospheric changes do not recognize borders, and that countries with little or no role in releasing these emissions might be harmed the most in some cases. Therefore, it is important that legal consequences are taken even more seriously around the globe—particularly for the giant corporations and countries that produce the most emissions (though I know some are already paying for their carbon footprint- but it is not nearly enough).
ReplyDeleteI have two questions regarding your third paragraph under “Peer Reviewed Article”:
- You said that “The EEA method characterized the heatwaves by how they would be felt by those experiencing them.” How was this data collected? Did they survey people? If so, how reliable is that method?
- You also mentioned that “The average temperature over the period was taken in order to account for the lack of cooling at night.” What do you mean by that? Does it mean that the average nighttime temperature was also warmer?
Thank you!
Hi Frozan, thank you for your questions. The authors chose to use average temperatures of the period of the heatwave instead of just the daily maximum temperatures. This because during the heatwaves, if the temperature stayed unusually hot through the night, the local populations would not have a break from the heat. At night, the temperature usually would cool down. The authors did not survey the populations, taking the average temperature was their way of quantifying the full effects of the heatwave.
DeleteAnother method would've been to use the temperature maximum for the heatwave period. But this would not account for the differences between a period of sustained heat and a period of relatively normal weather with a shorter period of extreme heat. This is why the authors chose to use the average temperatures.
Thanks, Ava! I thought it was unique that the study focused specifically on the most impactful heatwaves over the last couple decades, and was very alarmed by the fact that the probability of extreme weather events around the world is so much higher than it used to be not too long ago. I agree that the news article did a very nice job conveying the role of carbon majors in the grand scheme of the study, and seems to pose the idea of future governmental regulation of carbon majors well. I also appreciate that the news article contextualized the study with a lot of outside information about the state of global climate change in relation to emmissions from carbon majors, very much holding big companies responsible for the increasing problem, mentioning the possibility of big companies paying reparations for the damage they caused. This issue is very interesting, and I'm wondering how the researchers involved in the study came to form the figures in the paper involving the probabilities. Did they make a lot of measurements themselves or did they strictly analyze past climate data to form their conclusions?
ReplyDeleteHi Kevin, thank you for your response! To answer your question, the authors of the study did not make measurements themselves. They used the EM-DAT database which compiles data from "UN agencies, non-governmental organizations, reinsurance companies, research institutes, and press agencies"[1]. The database is run by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) which is a research group at the University of Louvain in Brussels, Belgium.
DeleteThe database had data for 226 heatwaves in 63 countries from 2000-2023 that were reported "because of significant economic losses or casualties, a declaration of state of emergency or a call for international assistance" [2].
[1] https://www.emdat.be/
[2] Quilcaille, Y., Gudmundsson, L., Schumacher, D.L. et al. Systematic attribution of heatwaves to the emissions of carbon majors. Nature 645, 392–398 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09450-9
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09450-9
Great analysis, Ava! Your summary and review were very clear and well written. I think this study is really interesting! It is not often that there is specific data attributing the climate crisis to the acts of a few major companies. We so often hear that this crisis is for the individual to fix when there are a few companies that disproportionately impact the climate. I think this could very well lead to targeted accountability for these industries to make changes. I was curious what was meant by 13 heat waves were removed from the analysis due to “poor fit to statistical model”? It was disappointing that the Guardian article omitted the major contributors of carbon emissions and only focused on the oil giants. The study pointed to coal, oil, and cement as industries that should also be held accountable. This skews the reader's understanding of the findings and is important to share with the public to make impactful legislative changes. Because it is important to present the full picture, I would rate the news article lower than a 9/10.
ReplyDeleteHi Ava! I think your journal and news article brings to attention that one of the major contributors to global warming is emissions from large industries. While individual actions are important, systematic change is necessary to slow the progression of climate change. The news article definitely gets that across by blaming big oil companies for heatwaves. While I like that the news article held the oil companies accountable, I think that it would have been more impactful if it included how people can help in catalyzing action or policies to reduce industrial emissions. Additionally, the news article does not discuss other potential sources of climate change, such as aerosols. Although including this information could confuse a general audience, I think that the news article should have included that fossil fuel emissions are not the only source of climate change. The journal article notes these confounding factors. I am also interested in the uncertainties of the model used to assess the heatwaves. How do these uncertainties impact the results? Another question that I have is about the criteria used to choose the heatwaves. What made these heatwaves significant for analysis?
ReplyDeleteGood job Ava! I agree with your rating of the article because it is very through, but I don't find it to be dense. I think it is very interesting that this journal articles is one of the first to link major fossil fuel companies to heatwave around the globe. I am not surprised at these findings, but I have to remember there are some climate change/global warming deniers are. That's why I appreciate how easy the news article is to read. I am very curious of the legal implications these companies will face. How much do you think these potential fines will be?
ReplyDeleteHello Ava! I thought this article has a very interesting approach to addressing the climate crisis. I liked that it went after specific companies and countries that have contributed a lot to climate change and was specifically concerned for issues of liability. I think this is an overall good thing and we need to punish the companies that are releasing tons of emissions if we are going to solve the climate crisis. I do wonder a bit about what the process they used to determine the probabilities and whether a heat wave was caused by climate change.
ReplyDeleteHi Ava! I think you did a great job summarizing the overall study and the subsequent news coverage. I really enjoyed reading the Nature peer-reviewed article and how it is one of the first works to trace emissions of major fossil fuel companies by using historical production data combined with stochiometric calculations. I like the innovation yet simplicity of taking the amount of coal, oil, or gas produced and apply standard chemical emission factors to estimate how much CO₂ and methane these fuels would release when burned. The novelty lies in linking these company-level emissions not just to global warming, but directly to the increased probability and intensity of specific extreme events like heatwaves.
ReplyDeleteDo assumptions made in this study such as emission factors and value-chain accounting risk inflating company contributions? Is it premature to use these findings for legal accountability given remaining scientific uncertainties given the novelty of this paper?
Hi Ava! I appreciated your reflection on the study and how the news article interpreted it to relay it to the general public. I think you did a great job summarizing the main findings in the study and what they did to get their results. I think it was good that the study highlighted where their pitfalls were when it came to their limitations in the global south and any incomplete data. I think that the news article shows the trend that we have been seeing with articles citing a big attention grabber in the title. Was there a way to distinguish between the individual effects of CO2 vs. CH4 on the intensities and probabilities of heat waves?
ReplyDeleteHello, firstly I would just like to make a connection to the research I did for my own blogpost as this study is said to have underestimated the contribution of the Carbon Majors. In my study it was on aerosols and the assumption that the calculations were an understimate or conservative take on the true values was based on an inability to accurately predict health affects of the aerosol and this forced them to be a bit inaccurate. I was wondering why the values are underestimates here and what would more likely numbers be in scale. So like if its closer to 1.5x as contributable for example. In your opinion, do you think they should have broken the emmissions down into individual companies in order to help persue cases against them as you mentioned in the courts? Lastly, to me the statistic of the heatwaves being up to 10000x more likely due to anthropgenic means is very alarming and should have been mentioned more in the article.
ReplyDeleteHi Ava, I found this reflection super interesting, especially as someone who has lived in Saudi Arabia and therein knows Saudi Aramco quite familiarly. The tie between these major oil giants and the implications it has on Earth and climate is always a super important topic to venture into. It is concerning that there is such a lack of data in some regions, especially since it means we have a large hole in our data on the southern hemisphere. I would love to see further developements of this study with more data and exploration into the implications of these changes in all parts of the world.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to ask your opinion about the political side of this conversation. Although I agree there shoud be repercussions, I was wondering your opinion on how those repurcussions should take form? Do you think monetary compensation is the best form or a more constructive tact (like the passing of the clean air act - so legislature, not hard punishment) would be better?
Ava, your analysis was incredibly comprehensive, particularly regarding how large corporations are responsible for global emissions. Good luck! This specific section about the Carbon Majors database really interested me, as it’s astonishing to discover that a few hundred companies are responsible for large-scale emissions.? By doing it this way, it lessens the focus on climate change as a kind of theoretical entity and instead focuses on being accountable.? Personally, my thoughts are if we were to better data-collect in underrepresented regions, like Africa, for example, or Latin America, we’d better understand global consequences and build a stronger case for climate justice.
ReplyDeleteHi Ava, I really enjoyed reading both articles. I have one question on how might the underrepresentation of heatwaves in regions like Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean affect the global applicability of the study’s findings.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really important topic and was really interested in the study after reading your blog! The study’s assessment of how people experience heat waves based on their historical experiences of heat in an area are really important. One of the issues with heat wave reporting in my experience is a lack of putting temperatures into context to really emphasize how extremes may vary significantly by location. I also agree that including heat waves for Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean are important since these locations fall along the equator and are part of what is considered the “global south,” which typically has less resources to adapt to climate extremes. I think the news article’s emphasis on heat related deaths compared to the study really puts the study’s findings into context and communicates the importance of the research to the public based on how this affects them. I also agree that naming more companies would help people advocate for change but I understand that it could become more of a legal issue, even if we have data and evidence to support these claims.
ReplyDeleteHi, Ava. Well done on your analysis. I like how you have a succinct introduction defining how burning these fossil fuels is a key factor in rising global temperature. I found it alarming that in all 213 heatwaves studies, 100% of them had an increased intensity and probability. The chart you included does a good job depicting this. Also, I did like hoe the article expanded on some of the legal matters that could arise due to this type of research, which the audience would directly have a part in when they vote. In terms of these global temperature risings, at what point do you think this research will sway policy makers in an environmental friendly direction. Or, what studies do you think could be done to have the "smoking gun" of evidence, if not this one?
ReplyDeleteExcellent analysis, Ava. The study's key innovation is creating a quantitative link between the carbon majors' historical emissions and specific heatwaves, which is a potential game-changer for climate accountability. I also completely agree with your critique of the news article's framing: reducing the study’s diverse carbon majors, which include state-owned enterprises and nation-state producers of coal and cement, to just oil giants is a misleading oversimplification that aims to capture more readers' attention.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the study's massive data gap in the Global South raises serious equity concerns. It creates a paradox where the regions most vulnerable to climate impacts are the least represented in the very science designed to hold emitters accountable.
I think this material is quite relevant to current class content. The journal article had plenty of data and straightforward charts which presented it. However, I feel that the news article used overly strong language to describe it. Things like "The study shows, in effect, that those emissions caused the heatwaves", when the study only showed how heatwaves were more frequent and intense and the probabilities of that being due to emissions. Not that those probabilities were in any way small, I just felt the strong language was someone misconstruing the study. This combined with the use of quotes from an outside source regarding potential lawsuits coming from the results of this study (even though the study itself has some talk on legal action in the discussion section) when the reality of that is quite complex and involves many jurisdictions makes the news article seem like it is pushing a point and using the study to back it up rather than just reporting on the contents of the study.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a very thorough and well explained analysis, Ava! I agree with your rating of the article-- it was definitely an accurate and engaging account of the peer review study. The title definitely grabs the attention of the reader with a few buzz words, but in a way that is completely true to the findings of the study. The legal implications of carbon emissions is a really interesting topic to me, specifically because the way the legal process operates for climate activists versus big oil companies is the polar opposite. Climate activists get absolutely destroyed in the legal system for negligible offenses whereas it is a struggle to even bring charges against big oil companies in a court. This study really hammers home the injustice of this reality, given how airtight the science is around how heatwaves and emissions are being directly caused by anthropogenic sources, namely big oil companies. Overall, really interesting topic and great post!
ReplyDeleteHi Ava, nice work! This post really opened my eyes to how much responsibility big corporations have in climate change. I knew fossil fuels were a major cause, but seeing that 14 companies account for nearly a third of emissions is shocking. It makes the link between their actions and real events like heatwaves feel very real. I also liked how you pointed out the difference between the study and how The Guardian reported it. The focus on legal consequences and deaths makes sense for a news story, but it also shows how complicated it is to share scientific findings clearly. The part about underreporting in regions like Africa and Latin America stood out to me too. Those areas face serious effects from climate change but are often left out of the data
ReplyDelete