The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / Liability Litigation / Climate Change Ballooned Hurricane Harvey’s Price Tag by $67 Billion
Climate Change Ballooned Hurricane Harvey’s Price Tag by $67 Billion

Climate Change Ballooned Hurricane Harvey’s Price Tag by $67 Billion

June 22, 2020 Filed Under: Liability Litigation

print

By Karen Savage

Climate change is to blame for about $67 billion of the economic damage caused by Hurricane Harvey, a total far higher than previously thought, according to a study published earlier this year in the journal Climate Change.  

Hurricane Harvey tore through parts of the Caribbean before making landfall on the Texas-Louisiana border as a Category 4 hurricane in 2017. The storm dumped more than 50 inches of rain in some areas and caused extreme flooding. Varying estimates put the total economic cost between $85 and $125 billion. 

The researchers pointed out that Harvey’s climate-related damages alone far exceed the $21.3 billion the Environmental Protection Agency said climate change costs the U.S. annually.

Nearly half of Houston’s homes sustained some type of damage. Thousands across south Texas remained displaced nearly two years later. Scientists determined that 38 percent—or about 19 inches—of the rainfall can be attributed to climate change.

“I think the main contribution we’re making is by really trying to link those impacts that are damaging people’s lives with more forensically understanding the human contribution to those events,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. David Frame, who is director of the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington. 

The ability to put a price tag on extreme weather events could help municipalities seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for climate change-related impacts.

Frame said while more research is needed, at least one non-governmental organization in Europe is hoping to use the study as evidence in climate change-related litigation.

This study, combined with other recent research, shows the costs already levied by climate change, said Jessica Wentz, who has written on climate change attribution as a non-resident senior fellow at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. She said it shows climate change can no longer be framed as a future threat. 

“It’s something that’s happening right now, affecting people, economies, ecosystems right now, and I think that sort of message is powerful in litigation,” Wentz said. 

“I do think that the defendants in these cases, particularly fossil fuel companies, are probably quite concerned about the advances in science and the ability to trace emissions both to their activities and the ability to then scale down to actual impacts and human injury.” 

The liability suits—more than a dozen of which have already been filed across the country—seek to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for those costs. The municipalities argue that the industry has long known its products are the overwhelming driver of global warming and have worked hard to obscure that fact to the public.

The Harvey research, along with a separate study by the same researchers examining climate change-related damage during extreme weather events in New Zealand, is unique because researchers calculated the odds that an extreme weather event would occur, then plugged in the average estimated economic damage costs of that event.

Models used previously have focused primarily on the weather event itself, evaluating the extent to which climate change has influenced the likelihood or severity of those events.

“We see [the Harvey and New Zealand] papers mainly as plugging two literatures into each other—disaster economics and event attribution,” Frame said, adding that there’s currently a gap between calculations used to inform climate policy and the actual damage being done by climate change during extreme weather events.

Frame said the specific dollar amounts—which are uncertain because the methodology is still new—are less important than how the values compare to previous calculations. 

“It was striking how high those numbers were,” Frame said. “If you begin to consider them across all the other events—and that’s kind of really want to take this literature, we want people to start doing these studies, economists working together with climate researchers to develop the stuff, and then compare them with the numbers people have been using for policy—I’m pretty sure that you’d get a much higher social cost of carbon and that would justify a lot more action on climate change.”

The gap in damage calculations also means the financial risk posed by climate change could be far higher than previously thought.

“Companies potentially, and consumers, have more to lose by reckless or by negligent action on climate,” Frame said. “So just simply pretending climate change is not a problem will be a higher risk in the future than it has been to date.” 

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.
Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Climate Case Gets Green Light from European Union Court
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline
  • Court: Climate Impacts of Pipeline Projects Cannot Be Ignored
  • Richmond Battles Chevron, Its Biggest Employer, in Two Important Lawsuits
  • France, Home of the Paris Agreement, Faces Lawsuit for Lack of Climate Progress

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.