A buzzy and important paper linking extreme heat's economic toll to specific companies could boost climate litigation — but also dives into questions of responsibility that science alone can't answer.

Why it matters: The peer-reviewed study in Nature comes as many states and local governments are suing oil majors for damages linked to climate change.

• And so far two states — New York and Vermont — have passed "climate superfund" laws to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable.

Driving the news: The paper uses an "end-to-end attribution framework" for heat, but the authors see opportunities to apply the methods to other harms.

• It involves modeling emissions' contribution to warming and estimated economic losses it causes.
• It's then layered onto past emissions assigned to 111 large upstream fossil fuel producers using the third-party "carbon majors" database and isolates specific companies' roles.

What they found: Emissions from these firms caused $28 trillion in heat-related economic losses from 1991-2020.

• State-owned oil and gas giants Saudi Aramco and Gazprom have the largest individual totals.
• But investor-owned majors Exxon, Chevron and BP — who are targets of various U.S. lawsuits — combine for a cumulative estimated average of $5.34 trillion.

Friction point: "We argue that the scientific case for climate liability is closed, even if the future of these cases remains an open question," senior author Justin Mankin, an associate professor in Dartmouth's geography department, said in a statement.

The intrigue: The AP and NYT nicely unpack the findings, so let's explore a different aspect — whether companies that extract oil, gas and coal are responsible for emissions down the supply chain.

• Various studies have tied emissions to producers, rather than, say, power companies, automakers and other fossil-reliant industries (or consumers, or policymakers, or take your pick).
• Assigning "cause" is hardly just a scientific concept — it's also a moral, political, and borderline metaphysical question.
• And fossil fuels have "produced immense prosperity" that is not modeled in the analysis, the paper notes.

What they're saying: I asked the authors about the upstream focus.

• Mankin noted that their earlier work focused on national-scale contributions.
• "Part of the point of the present analysis is to illustrate that this type of attribution is possible and can be done at myriad scales, from a nation's economy, to a sector of the economy, to a corporation, to a private jet," he said via email.

"Our approach can easily be applied to other actors — we present upstream producers as an initial proof of concept," said co-author Christopher Callahan, a Stanford researcher who worked with Mankin while at Dartmouth.

• They're a "logical place to start given the current legal and political context," he adds, noting the recent New York and Vermont laws, and that producers are defendants in many lawsuits.

What we're watching: Whether the paper's contribution to attribution analysis influences current and future litigation.

The first quarter of 2025 brought a spike in canceled plans for manufacturing low-carbon energy equipment, a new MIT-Rhodium Group analysis finds.

Why it matters: There are "rising headwinds from tariff escalations, an uncertain federal policy outlook, and broader macroeconomic pressures," their latest quarterly report finds.

• Companies nonetheless announced $9.4B worth of new projects.

The big picture: The IRA provides big new tax credits for manufacturing a wide range of climate-friendly equipment.

• "Companies have announced 380 clean technology manufacturing facilities since the bill was signed into law on August 16, 2022, nearly half of which were operational as of March 31, 2025," the report notes.

What we're watching: The credits' fate in Capitol Hill budget talks.

Full update

Big new Trump team moves look to speed energy and mining project approvals in the oceans and dry land, but turning ambition into reality is another thing entirely.

Why it matters: An exec order on deep-sea minerals, combined with a separate goal of handling some federal lands project reviews in 28 days (!), are new frontiers in Trump 2.0 energy plans.

The big picture: On seafloor minerals, stakeholders are absorbing yesterday's wide-ranging EO. It looks to spur projects in U.S. waters — and international waters, even though a UN-affiliated body has not issued rules.

• Emily Jeffers, a senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, told me they're evaluating legal options.
• Potential cases could come "likely at the permit stage, but it's unclear," she said. In a statement, Jeffers said the plan aims to open one of Earth's "most fragile and least understood ecosystems to reckless industrial exploitation."

State of play: A Trump administration official told reporters they see 1 billion metric tons of deep-sea nodules available, an opportunity to create over 100,000 jobs and bring in over $300 billion in additional GDP over 10 years.

• "For too long, we've been over reliant on foreign sources, and ... this historic announcement marks a big step in the right direction to onshore these resources that are critical to national homeland economic security," another official said.
• The EO says projects can occur "without compromising environmental and transparency standards." The White House cast the move as a counter to efforts by China, a dominant player in minerals and processing.

Friction point: Per Bloomberg, China's foreign ministry alleged today that the plan runs afoul of international law.

What we're watching: Let's get back on land, where the Interior Department is looking to expedite projects around oil, gas, geothermal, mining and much more.

• Some analysts warn that efforts to vastly speed up permitting could actually create legal headaches for developers.
• It's "not plausible" to complete a National Environmental Policy Act review of new projects in roughly 28 days, TD Cowen Washington Research Group said in a note this morning.
• "Orders which are rushed by DOI to comply with arbitrary timelines are at an increased risk of defeat in court," it said.

Shares of The Metals Company, which is seeking Trump officials' blessing to harvest minerals in international waters, spiked 45% yesterday.

That's the record amount investors withdrew from sustainable funds globally in Q1, per new Morningstar estimates.

Why it matters: Their report cites geopolitics — including Donald Trump's return — that "has deprioritized sustainability concerns in Europe."

• And: "Trump's anti-climate agenda and anti-ESG policy measures such as an executive order targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion, have introduced new legal risks." Full analysis.