Search Climate Insights Directory

A February 2019 survey of 16,798 registered US voters indicates broad, bipartisan support for holding oil and gas companies responsible for climate change damages and adaptation costs. The data shows that support for lawsuits against polluters increases significantly after respondents are informed about the fossil fuel industry's history of disinformation campaigns.

The study evaluates three energy scenarios (A, B, and C) to determine the fuel mixes required to limit atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Scenario A assumes unlimited CO2 increase, while Scenario B limits the increase to 75% and Scenario C limits it to 440 ppm. The analysis highlights that achieving these limits would require a massive shift toward non-fossil fuels, such as nuclear, solar, and biomass, as coal and shale oil are identified as high-emission sources. The document warns that CO2 concentrations reaching 500 ppm would likely cause undesirable climatic changes, whereas 440 ppm is considered a relatively safe level.

The document asserts that the defendants had internal knowledge of the link between fossil fuels and global warming as early as the 1950s but spent decades funding disinformation and public relations strategies to manufacture doubt. It highlights a contradiction where companies publicly denied climate change while privately adjusting infrastructure, such as oil rigs and pipelines, to account for rising sea levels.

Health professionals are calling on the U.S. Congress to oppose a proposed "liability shield" for the fossil fuel industry, arguing that these companies should remain accountable for the significant public health costs and environmental damages caused by pollution and climate change.

A collective statement from individuals across various faith traditions calling on the U.S. Congress to reject a proposed 'fossil fuel immunity bill'. The authors argue that such legislation would shield corporations from legal accountability for climate damages, violating the moral principle that those who cause harm must be held responsible. They contend that the bill would block 'polluter pays' laws and shift the financial burden of climate disasters from the responsible corporations to taxpayers and affected families.