Climate Litigation Supporters Admit That Attribution Science Is Failing In Court

Serial climate litigation promoters appear to have scored a huge “own goal” when it comes to “attribution science”

From Energy In Depth


Hey, they said it.

A group of academics – who are outspoken supporters of the climate litigation campaign – released a report this week that admits that the climate attribution science currently being deployed by plaintiffs attorneys has serious flaws.

The report states:

“We find that the evidence submitted and referenced in these cases lags considerably behind the state-of-the-art in climate science, impeding causation claims.”

Attribution science – the flawed attempt to assign a certain amount of carbon emissions to specific companies – has long been viewed with skepticism, even among supporters of climate litigation. What is surprising about that latest development, however, is that the wealthy financiers of climate lawsuits would bankroll a report that confirms this paid-for science has serious limitations.

The report explains how attribution science isn’t holding up in the courtroom:

“However, plaintiffs have been unable to overcome even the more flexible causation tests applied in several jurisdictions which ask if damages are ‘fairly traceable’ to defendants’ actions.  This is typically due to courts’ finding that the evidence provided does not substantiate the connection between individual emitters’ actions and plaintiffs’ losses.

“…Our analysis shows that when courts considered evidence on causation, they typically found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendants’ emissions caused the alleged impacts.”

It appears this rather transparent attempt at policy-based evidence making is both being exposed as a cynical ploy as well as failing during litigation.

Attribution Science Was Designed to Support Litigation

While the fact that this report was published in the first place is noteworthy, its conclusions shouldn’t come as a shock. Attribution science is an area of research that’s not being used to gain a better understanding of climate change, rather it was designed solely to aid climate litigation. In the very first paragraph of the report, the authors acknowledge this is the goal:

“We conclude that greater appreciation and exploitation of existing methodologies in attribution science could address obstacles to causation and improve the prospects of litigation as a route to compensation for losses, regulatory action, and emission reductions by defendants seeking to limit legal liability.”

One of the top authors of the report, Friederike Otto, even told E&E News in April that’s the reason behind attribution science:

“But Friederike Otto, a climate expert at the University of Oxford who has worked with [Myles] Allen, said her efforts to link extreme weather events to climate change have always been tied to the possibility of legal action. ‘Unlike every other branch of climate science or science in general, event attribution was actually originally suggested with the courts in mind,’ she said.” (emphasis added)

And of course, follow the money.

What is absolutely not a surprise is that this report was funded by the Foundation for International Law for the Environment (FILE), whose goal is “to accelerate legal action globally to address the climate and nature crises.”

This just further shows that attribution science isn’t done in the pursuit of greater scientific understanding, but to aid litigation. FILE also receives money from the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), whose website states:

“Through our litigation strategy, we fund organizations to tackle climate change by informing, implementing and enforcing laws and influencing policies.”

CIFF’s founder and board chair is Chris Hohn, who, as EID Climate noted last year, is a British billionaire that has spent millions of dollars in the United States attempting to convince states and municipalities to file climate lawsuits against energy companies. RealClear Investigations reported:

“Among left-leaning billionaires, Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer are enjoying wide public attention due to their big-spending presidential campaigns. But Hohn, a foreigner unknown to most Americans, arguably exercises comparable if not more influence on U.S. energy and environmental policy through his hedge fund, XR and other advocacy groups.

Read the full article here

Like this:

Like Loading…


via Watts Up With That?

June 29, 2021 at 04:31PM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s