Heatwaves, Accountability & Profit

Britain and Europe have just experienced one of the worst heatwaves in living memory, with temperatures climbing over 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit). However, unlike the last record-breaking single heatwave from the '70s, this was no anomaly; it was the result of a stark upwards trend. The summer of 2024 was the hottest ever recorded until 2025 smashed that record, and now 2026 is set to possibly top that too. This is why scientists have found that this recent heatwave was impossible without man-made climate change. We also know that this heatwave has killed well over a thousand people and dealt serious damage to infrastructure, economies, and society. But hold on, we know who is responsible for, and profits hugely from, climate change: fossil fuel companies. In a just world, they would be made to pay for the damage their goods cause. But that isn't happening. Why? Truth be told, there are a lot of reasons. This is a complex topic. But there is one glaringly obvious reason — taking accountability would destroy them. Let me explain.

But first, how much damage does climate change-induced extreme weather cause? Well, there are a few different ways of calculating that.

The charity Christian Aid found that the ten worst climate-related disasters of 2025 caused more than $120 billion in insurance losses. That is a dramatic figure, but it doesn't reflect all the damages. Much of the developed world hasn't been accounted for, nor have down-the-line losses or economic damage. It doesn't even take into account all the lives lost, as much of the world's population doesn't have life insurance. As such, while this is a shockingly high figure, it is very much an underestimation.

This is where the study of weather attribution comes in. This process looks at extreme weather events, like heatwaves, hurricanes, floods, and snowstorms, and uses tools like computer simulations to figure out if man-made climate change caused the event or how much worse the event was because of climate change. Weather attribution studies are incredibly detailed and time-consuming, as they use a truly staggering amount of data and analysis to arrive at defensible conclusions. But, once you have completed this study, you can then attempt another which looks at how much damage these extreme weather events caused and establishes how much of this damage was due to man-made climate change.

Studies like these take a long time to complete, but their results are shocking.

A study published in Nature assessed the climate-change-attributed costs caused by 185 global extreme weather events from 2000 to 2019. Over that period, the total figure was $2.86 trillion, with climate change causing an average annual damage of $143 billion. But the annual cost was highly variable, with 2001 being the lowest at just $23.9 billion and 2008 being the highest at $620 billion.

However, these researchers also stated that their results are likely far lower than the actual costs, as they lack critical data. For example, over that time period, they do not have any data on extreme weather deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. Indeed, a lead researcher on this paper stated that "our headline number of $140bn is a significant understatement."

It isn't like such data is impossible to obtain; it is just that we aren't collecting it. If we did, then we could accurately and rapidly calculate just how much damage climate change is causing each year. But, as it stands, we still don't even know the true extent of the damage climate change caused last year. That alone is a bit concerning. It shows that this is an area of science that needs far more attention and funding.

But we do know that things are going to get much worse, as climate change has only just begun to sink its teeth into our planet. Moreover, future projections will encompass more of the total global damages, as they can simulate and project the critical missing data plaguing retroactive analysis.

It has been estimated that annual climate-change-caused damages will reach at least $300 billion to $700 billion by 2030. And it will only get exponentially worse from there! By 2035, the global cost of climate change damages is estimated to be between $1.7 trillion and $3.1 trillion a year. That isn't even rock bottom. Climate change damages will spiral even further if we do not rapidly decarbonise. This is partly why net zero makes so much sense, because the cost to reach net zero is substantially less than the damages climate change will cause. In fact, recent studies have found that reaching net zero will only cost an extra $1 trillion per year, yet annual climate change damage will reach $12 trillion (equal to a third of the current US economy) by 2095.

More than 99% of scientists agree that climate change is real and caused by our carbon emissions. We also know that fossil fuels account for around 89% of our carbon emissions and that the oil and gas industry is one of the most profitable industries on the planet.

I don't know about you, but I think that if a company sells a product that causes damage, it should be made to pay for said damage. This is not some fringe interpretation of the law — just look at the Roundup cancer class action lawsuit.

So, why isn't this legal framework being used to arrest oil executives or claim damages from this industry? We know we are suffering, we know who is causing it, and yet we are seemingly refusing to hold them accountable.

To be clear, similar legal action is being taken, and the concept of ecocide is actively being considered to be included as a crime under international law. But even these movements are tiny in comparison to the actions required to hold such a colossal industry accountable. If governments actually had their citizens' best interests at heart, there is a reasonable argument that they would already be striving to receive compensation for the damage the fossil fuel industry is causing them.

So, why isn't such large-scale action being taken?

To answer that question, you could write countless PhDs. After all, this is a deeply complex socioeconomic, political and technical issue.

But sometimes it does help to take the simplified approach, and we can do that here by simply following the money.

The world's largest oil company is Saudi Aramco. They account for 13.8% of global oil supply and made $93.4 billion in profit in 2025. Aramco has some of the lowest oil extraction costs, at just $10 per barrel, with countries like the US having production costs that are three to four times higher. As such, Aramco has one of the largest profit margins in the fossil fuel industry (potentially double that of the US oil industry). Using Aramco's annual profit and market share, we can estimate an upper limit for total global oil industry profits. If you do the maths, it works out to $676.8 billion.

That is about equal to the estimated annual costs of damage climate change will cause by 2030 and less than half the costs of the lowest possible estimated annual damage it will cause by 2035. And, just to remind you, the oil industry is making nowhere near $676.8 billion in profits per year. That number assumes the entire industry is as profitable as its most profitable company. I fear this is why no government has taken any serious measures to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the climate damage they create. If they were made to pay for such damage, the industry overall would be woefully unprofitable.

This is one of the main flaws in utopian free-market thinking. It doesn't take into account these external costs (also known as externalities). I would argue that for a market to be genuinely free and equitable, such externalities should be actively taken into account so that a product's price reflects its true costs. Indeed, most governments operate in this way, hence why the Monsanto Roundup lawsuit succeeded.

But they can't attempt that for fossil fuel companies, because it would open a floodgate and destroy this industry. Don't forget that society still requires fossil fuels to function, our financial system relies on this industry, and modern Western politics is funded by this industry. It doesn't have to be this way — today's technology is sufficient for us to drastically cut our reliance on fossil fuels. But, because we haven't taken those steps yet, governments can't risk holding this damaging industry to account, because it will kneecap them.

So the next time there is a climate-change-induced extreme weather event, thousands die, infrastructure is damaged beyond repair and economies are depleted, take the time to remember that this is one of the main reasons no one is held responsible. The only way the fossil fuel industry can survive is if it evades even the tiniest drop of accountability for its planet-destroying ways, and thanks to its place in society, it can effectively hold the entire planet's economies hostage to ensure it avoids any culpability. To save the world as we know it, we need to break this dynamic. How we achieve that is a question for another day. But as I prepare for yet another heatwave coming my way next week, I hope it's not just me contemplating this dire question.

Thanks for reading! Everything expressed in this article is my opinion, and should not be taken as financial advice or accusations. Don't forget to follow me here or support me over at Substack.

(Originally published on www.PlanetEarthAndBeyond.co)