Climate Cult Is Looking For $23.2 Trillion From Fossil Fuels Companies

Of course, the Warmists who have been using fossil fuels and are mostly refusing to give up their own use of fossil fuels are exempt

The fossil fuel industry owes at least $23.2 trillion in reparations for climate change

A new study by the environmental research group One Earth estimates the world’s top fossil fuel companies have emitted around 36% of all global emissions since 1988. That amounts to 403,092 metric tons of CO2 emissions, based on the group’s 2023 analysis that builds on the Carbon Majors 2018 data set.

Have they emitted it themselves or just provided the fuel that runs the world that has created it?

The aim of the study is to provide, for the first time, a methodology to quantify the economic impacts of individual companies’ damage to the climate. Estimates for the reparations are conservative, as they do not take into account factors including lives and livelihoods lost, species extinction, and biodiversity loss.

The impacts disproportionately affect poorer regions: Oxfam estimates that carbon emissions of the world’s richest 1% is more than double the emissions of the poorest half of the world.

Global economic damages resulting from the climate crisis are projected to be $99 trillion between 2025 and 2050, and fossil fuel emissions are responsible for $69.6 trillion of that. Around one-third of that number rests on fossil fuel companies, amounting to $23.2 trillion, or $893 billion annually.

So, it’s basically a money grab. A shakedown. One that uses those poor folks as human shields, and, you know they wouldn’t really get the money. It would be siphoned off by government, lawyers, warlords in those 3rd world shitholes, and ‘climate change’ groups.

The top 21 fossil fuel-emitting companies owe $5.4 trillion, or $209 billion annually in reparations (excluding some companies such as those in Venezuela, which the study considers to be in too poor an economic situation to pay). Liability was also halved for producers in Russia, China, Mexico, Brazil and Iraq according to One Earth’s methodology.

Companies in countries that can afford to pay reparations include Saudi Arabia’s state-run oil and gas producer Saudi Aramco, which would owe the most at $43 billion annually, or about a quarter of its $161.1 billion profits in 2022.

In the US, ExxonMobil and Chevron would annually owe $18.4 billion and $12.8 billion respectively. ExxonMobil’s profits in 2022 alone were $56 billion, while Chevron made $35.5 billion in profits.

Yeah, well, good luck getting it. I’d believe this is real if the Warmists gave up their own use of fossil fuels.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

29 Responses to “Climate Cult Is Looking For $23.2 Trillion From Fossil Fuels Companies”

  1. H says:

    Not only warmists but also climate change deniers are continuing you use less gasoline.
    Teach seems to think that anything less than a 100% commitment to a cause is an indication of lack of any commitment. This however does not apply to his own political beliefs he is fine with saying abortion is murder, but takes no action yo actually stop it
    I will believe abortion is murder only if Teach does everything in his power to end it

  2. L'Roy White says:

    I will believe abortion is murder only if Teach does everything in his power to end it

    No you won’t. You’re a science denier. You refuse to believe developing humans are humans and refuse to believe the climate changes naturally. You’re a science denier and too stupid to change.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      I’m pretty certain Mr H was mocking the right’s repeated ‘claim’ that they’ll believe warming is a problem only when warmists act like it’s a problem.

      As I’ve said many times, those calling abortion ‘murder’ don’t believe it themselves. If people are murdering babies, stop them!! Do more than type about it!!

      Calling abortion ‘murder’ is a tactic. We get it.

      • L'Roy White says:

        No you don’t get it. You never do. We keep trying to find that point at which you commies will admit a baby is human. You can’t or won’t name it. 12 weeks?, 15? 26? Just say when then we can all stop the bullshit (like you just did) and create real sensible laws.

        The problem is we can’t negotiate with absolutists who insist we gotta go execute mothers who abort. You are ridiculous.

        Calling partial birth a legit ‘abortion’ is a tactic. We get it. .For some reason saving even one unborn baby revolts and terrifies you. We don’t understand why.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:


          90% of abortions are performed within the first 13 weeks.

          The majority of fertilized eggs (babies) are killed before the mother-to-be knows she has a fertilized egg. Is God guilty of murdering millions of American babies each year?

          Traditionally, a baby is a human person at birth. Some propose that a fetus is a ‘person’ once they are viable outside the womb. Medical advances will keep reducing that gestational age. Right now it’s about 5 months.

          What do you have in mind for a sensible law? If a fertilized egg is a person than all abortions must be banned. All miscarriages must be investigated as potential murder. You should work to pass those laws, but most Americans will resist, because most don’t share your opinion/belief.

          Roe v Wade seemed to work for all but the most reactionary of Americans.

          IF you actually believe that taking mifepristone and misoprostol two weeks after fertilization is a murder no different than killing a five year old than I’m surprised you aren’t doing more to stop abortions. Wouldn’t you risk your life to safe a 5 year old? If not, why not?

  3. Dana says:

    The GDP of the entire United States was $25.46 trillion in 2022, but the warmunists want almost that much from the oil companies in ‘reparations’ for the oil companies helping to keep them out of the stone age.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      In free market capitalism market interactions can have what are called ‘negative externalities’, that is, societal costs not captured in the initial transactions. For example, society, not tobacco companies, pay the cost for cancer treatments and deaths associated with smoking.

      Environmental degradation and poisoning are ‘negative externalities’ associated with fossil fuel use. We know it now, and fossil fuel companies have known it for many decades. We have to live with the bad as well as the good. Acute adverse events, e.g., oil spills, platform and refinery explosions/fires and easily attributed to the corporations. The less obvious, but no less dangerous, chronic impacts such as air/water pollution, acid rain, global warming, smog, blasting, drilling, mining and associated diseases – cancers, asthma, lead poisoning, COPD, black lung etc.

      The fossil fuels corporations have done pretty well financially throughout the past century or so without having to take responsibility for their ‘negative externalities’. One can argue that government taxes on the products (passed through to customers) are a form of societal compensation for the trillions of dollars of damages…

      It’s time to transition away from fossil fuels to renewables and nuclear. Yes, we should have started this in earnest decades ago.

      • drowningpuppies says:

        Another C&P sermon from the church of Rimjob.

        Keep preaching the shit, chubby.

        Bwaha! Lolgf

      • James Lewis says:

        Dear Elwood:

        So providing fuel for ambulances, airplanes, trucks, heating oil, fertilizer, clothing material et al, has “‘negative” externalities???

        So does not having all the things petroleum bring us.

        Elwood, stupid is as stupid does.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:


          So providing fuel for ambulances, airplanes, trucks, heating oil, fertilizer, clothing material et al, has “‘negative” externalities???

          Yes. You know that’s true. All use of fossil fuels have ‘negative externalities’ as do most transactions.

          But that doesn’t mean they should be eliminated, just accounted for.

          The positives of fossil fuel use likely outweigh the negatives – we’ve learned to live (and die) with them – but cancer, lung disease, pollution and especially, global warming are real and expensive. It seems we all agree that unbridled burning of coal is bad.

          Is there an alternative to transitioning from fossil fuels to other sources? Yes! Removing CO2 (and other less abundant but more potent greenhouse gases) sufficiently to stop the CO2 rise! People are working on it.

          • James Lewis says:

            Dear Elwood:

            And why isn’t the Left demonstrating for the necessary research?

            Because they want to control.

            If some invented a magic pill that could be dropped in petro of all types and eliminate the supposed cause of global warming the Left would be against it,

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You’re right. The left won’t be happy until they’ve forced you to drive an EV.

  4. Jl says:

    So in other words still no scientific reason to quit fossil fuels. Shocking….

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Other than the fact that fossil fuel burning is causing the rapid warming of the Earth with no end in sight… no reason at all.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      Not long ago you denied the Earth was warming. What changed your mind?

      • Jl says:

        Nope-never denied the warming. The question was, and still is, how much, the cause and the alleged effects. Data “adjusting”, has been well-documented and as of now no one can show whether it’s natural or man-made

  5. david7134 says:

    Most people feel that the burning of coal for cheap energy and production of items for our economy is perfectly fine. Especially if cheap measures are used to control particle emissions.

    Fossil fuels are necessary for our lives, well-being and almost any aspect of our lives and economy. The more production of fossil fuels, the better. They do not cause lung cancer. The is absolutely zero evidence that burning of fossil fuels changes the climate, only air pollution when not adequately filtered, which most countries do that are not communist.

    Global warming and climate change by humans is a hoax. The people pushing this desire the destruction of western civilization and our economy. They are the enemy of conservatives and decent people. We are at war with people that describe themselves as liberals.

  6. H says:

    Most Americans do not feel that burning cheap coal is “fine”
    They elect politicians that say they will stop it

    • L'Roy White says:

      It doesn’t matter what most Americans think. After 40 years of anti coal/oil brainwashing only the truth matters and the truth is only fossil fuels can produce the necessary variety of items and power at an acceptable price to drive our modern economy/culture. Even if we use nuclear to power our cities and all electric we still need oil and such to make everything from medicine to cars to clothes.

      Nothing is worth compromising our successful nation over. If temps will rise a couple degrees by the next century so what? I have complete confidence our scientific community will find cheaper, better and cleaner ways to address the problem during the next 70 years than destroying our economy. But sadly for the leftists it will need to be both voluntary and capitalist motivated.

      They have a vision and an agenda and an obsession with imposing it on the world without the votes of legislatures or the consent of the governed.

      The New Left—greedy, woke, elitist, and globalist—has foresworn every principle their ideological predecessors once espoused: democracy, equality, diversity, justice. It abjures religion—and Christianity especially—as well as the nation-state, political accountability, and even objective Truth. Their goal is not to win political contests but to end them altogether, to sweep away dissent and any subversive institution that dares facilitate it.

      Today, in the context of leftist control of globalist corporations and entities like the United Nations and European Union, the nation itself has become the most subversive and dangerous institution of them all. National borders, identity, and sovereignty are seen not as beloved inheritances but benighted obstacles: just so many Chesterton Fences impeding the march of Progress.

      Properly considered, then, this New Left is not in competition with the Right. It is at war with the West—with the moral, intellectual, and social foundations on which our entire civilization rests. White erasure is only their latest step in the plan and that is what all this climate crap is aimed at.

  7. H says:

    David you do realize that the major oil companies own research showed this to be true

    • david7134 says:

      I am aware that the oil companies commissioned a white paper and that one spun the lies. I have not seen the paper and if such a thing is true the media would blast it everywhere. But they have not except for saying bad things about the oil companies. The company’s usually have numerous papers and the others were likely in line with the thinking of normal people. But, as I told you before, companies and people and half the doctors think cholesterol is bad, it is not.

  8. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Again… the general long-term trend in global warming is driven by increased atmospheric CO2, a result of we humans burning fossil fuels.

    There also exist multiple natural and unnatural factors which can influence the year to year temperature, e.g., El Nino/La Nina, volcanic eruptions, other aerosols, changes in solar output, land use changes, widespread wars, seasons, albedo, and these factors can contribute either short term heating or cooling. But over longer periods of time, 20-30 years, the temperature increases.

Pirate's Cove