world's largest corporations have collectively caused approximately $28 trillion in climate-related damage.

Question

​Yes, the claim that the world's largest corporations have collectively caused approximately $28 trillion in climate-related damage is supported by a recent study published in the journal Nature. This research, conducted by scientists from Dartmouth College, utilized historical emissions data and advanced climate modeling to quantify the economic impacts attributable to each company's pollution. The study found that over half of the total damage is linked to just ten major fossil fuel companies, including Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, and ExxonMobil. For instance, emissions from Chevron alone have been found to raise global temperatures by 0.025°C. These findings aim to bolster legal efforts to hold corporations accountable for climate damage, similar to past actions against tobacco companies. While no climate liability lawsuit against a major carbon emitter has yet been successful, the study's robust methodology provides a scientific basis for attributing specific harms to individual emitters, potentially influencing future legal and policy decisions. 

Answer 1

The claim that the world's largest corporations have collectively caused approximately $28 trillion in climate-related damage is true. Dartmouth had a research team study this question. "Dartmouth University researchers find that the global economy would be $28 trillion richer if extreme heat caused by climate emissions from the top 111 carbon majors had never happened" (Truthout). Ten fossil fuel companies are responsible for half of those losses. These companies include "Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, etc" (APNews). The goal of the study was to prove that there is a scientific link between companies and financial loss because of their carbon emissions. The research team was able to track using a simulation to translate emissions from companies to Earth's global average surface temperature. "Using this approach, they determined that pollution from Chevron, for example, has raised the Earth's temperature by 0.45 degrees Fahrenheit (0.25 degrees Celsius)" (APNews). This study aims to hold companies responsible for their contribution to the use of fossil fuels. 

https://truthout.org/articles/worlds-top-111-corporations-have-caused-28t-in-climate-damages-study-finds/#:~:text=About-,World's%20Top%20111%20Corporations%20Have%20Caused%20%2428T%20in%20Climate,order%20to%20hold%20them%20accountable.

https://home.dartmouth.edu/news/2025/04/study-lays-out-scientific-path-recouping-climate-costs

https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-liability-lawsuits-damage-trillions-5ad21e47b2aa16cc90cb7669f56297f1

Comments

Great job using multiple sources to cross reference your claims and further strengthen your fact check. Very disturbing to hear these organizations have had so much impact in global warming and aren’t doing much to curb their carbon footprint. I like how you also included a number identifying the amount of users who have been leaving a carbon footprint.

Answer 2

This claim seems to be true. Not only is AP News a known-to-be reliable source, the actual article gives trustworthy citations including from the Dartmouth College research team (original research: https://home.dartmouth.edu/news/2025/04/study-lays-out-scientific-path-recouping-climate-costs ) and Nature (a well known academic journal/ original research: https://www.nature.com/). Upon searching this topic, many other well known journalist groups (like U.S. News & World Report) have covered it within the same timeframe, showing the relevance of information. Much of the statistics line up with all these sources including how $28 trillion in climate damage have been rooted from the world's biggest corporations, how 111 companies are mainly involved, 10 fossil fuel providers involved, etc. Overall the information is concise and matches with existing research published beforehand.

Citations:

https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-liability-lawsuits-damage-trillions-5ad21e47b2aa16cc90cb7669f56297f1

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2025-04-23/the-worlds-biggest-companies-have-caused-28-trillion-in-climate-damage-a-new-study-estimates

Comments

Yeah, this seems legit. AP News is reliable, and the sources like Dartmouth and Nature are super credible. Seeing other big outlets report the same info makes it feel solid. The numbers all line up too, so it’s definitely not just made up or exaggerated.

---

I really liked how you brought in multiple sources, like Nature and Dartmouth's original research. It adds credibility to your fact-check. One thing you might consider is how the researchers determined liability.

---

Your answer feels very well researched. I like that you did your own research and found information from your sources that matches up with the sources given. Very well done.

---

You did a really solid job fact-checking. I like how you pulled in reliable sources like AP News, Dartmouth, and Nature, and also checked if other outlets were covering it too. The way you laid out the key stats and showed they match up with past research makes the claim feel pretty solid.

---

You’ve provided a solid and well-reasoned assessment here. You’re right to emphasize that AP News is generally considered a reliable, reputable source — and more importantly, that the article backs up its claims with citations from credible, original research, like the Dartmouth study and Nature. You also correctly note that when multiple reputable outlets (like U.S. News & World Report) cover the same findings around the same time, it reinforces the credibility and relevance of the information. Plus, the consistency of the key figures — such as the $28 trillion estimate and the involvement of major fossil fuel companies — across sources helps validate the claims being made. So overall, it’s fair to classify this claim as true, based on the strength of the evidence, the quality of the sources, and the alignment across multiple reporting channels.

---

Great job laying out multiple sources and supporting your claim. I especially like how you included both the Dartmouth and Nature links, they provide strong backed information. One suggestion would be to say whether there is any disagreement regarding the $28 trillion estimate since that is an extreme figure. Good job.

---

This is a good fact check! You did a great job verifying the original claim with credible sources like AP News and the Dartmouth study, and it’s helpful that you cross-checked the information with other outlets like U.S. News & World Report. It really strengthens the argument when multiple trustworthy sources are reporting consistent stats, like the $28 trillion figure and the involvement of the top fossil fuel companies. I also like how you pointed out the credibility of the research being published in Nature, that’s a huge marker of reliability. The mention of the study's methodology and its potential impact on legal and policy decisions gives the claim some extra depth. You’ve backed this up really well with clear evidence, and your explanation makes it easy to understand why this claim holds up. Nice work! :D

---

This is an excellent fact-check and well-sourced, especially when you highlighted the original research from wider sources and Nature. One suggestion, while the AP article and other outlets mention the $28 trillion fact and cite the same sources, it could be helpful to clarify the process the researchers used to obtain that number. Sometimes, large headline numbers can be misunderstood or taken out of context, so just providing a bit of background would help eliminate that. Regarding the AP report, were there any dissenting voices or critiques of the methodology? Even trusted sources can interpret findings differently, and that may be something to consider.

---

I liked reading this answer. Im glad you tackled this one, as not many others have. I appreciate the links to all the sources you used. I visited some and they all check out to be valid pieces of evidence.

---

You did a great job verifying the claim with multiple credible sources like AP News, Nature, and the Dartmouth study, and I appreciate how you highlighted the consistency across outlets. I’d be cautious about assuming the claim is entirely accurate just because the sources are reputable—sometimes even reliable outlets can oversimplify complex findings. For example, the $28 trillion climate damage figure is striking, but did the study explain how that was calculated? Economic models can vary widely depending on assumptions. Also, while pointing to specific companies is important, it might be worth considering how much of the damage is driven by consumer demand versus corporate supply.

---

This is a well done fact check! I liked your approach with starting with the sources and going on from there . I think listing the sources and then talking about your own findings is an excellent way to get your point across. It was easy to read and well written.

---

This fact check is very effective as you have used a variety of sources based around the subject. You reviewed the original source, a study from a prestigious university, journalists, and a nature research and journalism website.

---

This is a very solid factcheck. You looked into every primary source the article used to base its claim off of and made sure they were all credible. You also noticed patterns, such are many well-known journalist groups covering the topic at the same time, pointing to the claims relevancy as well as the fact that the statistics of all the sources you found lining up. You also quoted specific numbers, making your factcheck very credible as many of the articles used the same statistics.

---

This is a very well supported fact check. I liked how you used multiple sources to back up the argument. Highlighting the consistency of data across multiple outlets and including peer reviewed research strengthens your point.

---

I like how you verified the credibility of both AP News and sources from Dartmouth College and Nature Journal. Tracing claims back to the original research sources and verifying the facts across multiple outlets shows strong media literacy skills.

---

I agree that those sources seem reliable, but how can we be sure the $28 trillion in damage is really just from these corporations? Is it possible there are other factors or players that might not be fully accounted for in these studies?

---

I like that you showed the original article was reliable, as well as added another source that backed up the claim as well as given specific facts like the amount of money and how many companies.

---

This was a great fact check, the information you provided was direct and to the point, you found articles and information that directly support the claim. It's also noteworthy that you checked these publications for reliable information thus showing that you actually did the research. Great job!

---

I agree with your analysis of this claim, the use of AP News is a very reliable source that will not provide misinformation. The total amount of 28 trillion in climate change damage is an unbelievable amount of money but with both of your sources cited proving that the number is correct it is undeniable. Another source that I found was CBS News making the same claim that these large corporations have totaled 28 trillion in damages.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fossil-fuel-companies-emissions-climate-damage-study/

---

Very good job inputting where all of the information was found, and backing up the claims. You dove deeper into this subject matter, even when backing up its legitimacy which was very well done.

---

There are many reliable news outlets reporting this story as you mentioned and I found that very helpful in doing my own research about the claim. Seeing the amount of evidence and coverage made it easy to verify.

---

You did a great job confirming the claim's accuracy by cross referencing it with credible sources like AP News, Dartmouth College, and Nature. Citing additional coverage by other news outlets like U.S. News & World Report also backs up the relevance and consistency of the information. Your use of specific stats shows close attention to detail and strengthens your overall response so great job on that.

---

You did a good job at using credible sources like US and AP news and talking about how these big companies do in fact have such a large impact on the environment. One thing I would do differently would be to make a note about any bias the news source may have for example US News runs a little more to the right. Another thing that could strengthen this even more is finding sources outside the US so it isn't a local.

---

You did a great job backing the claim with solid sources like AP News. One thing to consider, is to add a quick note on how the $28 trillion was calculated like if it adjusted for the global economic differences? Also, it might help to briefly mention the gap between attribution and successful lawsuits.

---

This response does a great job backing up the original fact-check, while using new sources and insight to help prove the claim. It clearly lays out how these top companies are responsible for so much climate change, and also how they are not held as accountable as they should be.

---

Your fact consists of much relevant information and presents much evidence that further enhances your stance/ findings. Also it is very important that you identified that the information provided matches existing research that has been published, further allowing for an accurate fact check

---

Its important that you include the topic of statistics, numbers don't lie, and providing evidence of statistics to further prove the fact check to be correct it essential to producing a good fact check. Overall, great job, you provide much information relevant to the topic to prove this fact check to be correct

---

The part of your response that discussed the statistics seem very well researched and correctly cross referenced the information that was given. I also appreciate the part of providing other sources that provide similar information as the original claim.

---

This was a perfect fact check, great review of the information given as well as cross checking across multiple trustable platforms you listed. It was great that you checked almost all of the statistics listed in the original post.

---

I think this is a very astute assessment of the article and claim at hand. You made sure to verify the source within the source, which is a reliable .edu university study. Furthermore, you researched other news outlets that had addressed the same claims. Overall, a great fact check.

---

Thank you for fact-checking. I like that you included multiple trusted sources and broke down the claim clearly.

---

According to the Washington post this is true. You can calculate the total that the oil giants have been producing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2025/04/23/climate-attribution-damages-lawsuit/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

---

I think you did a good job searching for credible evidence well beyond the original claim. It's helpful to know that the original claim also cites trustworthy sources, and it's not picked out/misconstrued intentionally. Seeing how other sources fall in line with the $28 trillion amount is crucial for this check.

---

This is an excellent response as you not only proved this claim is true but you also stated how it is true. Using information from known reliable sources such as the Dartmouth College research team- which would be a primary source. Having all the sources information line up about the timeline and how the costs big corporations have caused about $28 million in climate related damage.

---

The way you presented many forms of information and potential research is a great part of answering this claim. Though I think what would make it stronger is if you were to go into a little more depth into how your research expands upon the claim and showcases how it is true.

---

I like how while you were looking for a source to factcheck the claim you found a few other sources too to make sure. Additionally, you also checked the dates and they all are around the same time frame with mostly the same information.

---

Great work! I love how you delved into the statistics in order to corroborate your answer.

---

The source checking and contributing more articles backing the statement made is much appreciated. However, summing up some of the articles you provided might have been more fulfilling and beneficial in your answer.

---

It's great that you looked into multiple different sources like AP News, U.S. News & World Report, the Dartmouth research team, and the academic journal Nature. Not only did you provide multiple different sources for evidence you also ulled evidence from the articles to back up that this claim is true. Very good comment and clear answer to the claim!

---

You did a great job tying together the credibility of both the sources and the data, especially pointing out how multiple respected outlets and journals are all reporting the same findings. It really shows how strong the consensus is around this study.

---

Thank you for this comment and I think you did a great job at adding more on how this is true with reliable sources. It is crazy to me that so much money is spent into destroying our own world.

---

I liked how you used AP news as a source to prove that the claim is true, but also how you used another source to further back up your claim and information. I also think that it was smart to add the original citation from Dartmouth and Nature. That shows that you really did your research into the claim and the evidence that was originally made.

---

This is a well crafted response. I like how you went into detail on why this source is reliable. It is important to make sure information aligns with similar sources.

---

You did great work taking the resources and going into more depth on the other journalists that also covered the topic. I appreciated the breakdown of different sources that have contributed to climate change and the corporations.

---

I like how you brought up the other reliable sources that were cited in the article that you are fact-checking. You also did a good job of finding another reliable source to compare the data. However, I think it would be helpful if you provided a quote from the article that you found and then added your analysis.

---

Great point! It’s also important to note that the study advocates for a Carbon Tax to hold corporations accountable for their emissions, which could help fund climate change solutions. Other research shows that companies with high emissions often harm marginalized communities, highlighting the need for more equitable climate policies.

---

Great fact check! I looked through other sources that aren't listed here and they have similar claims or data, something that could be better is if you could find where this data is coming from and if it is reliable. Other that it is a very good check!

---

I like this fact check, their use of credible sources, more than to sources at that, allows for a more in-depth fact check. I also like the formatting and the use of italics to let the reader know what they are looking at is also a source. Lastly, I like the use of statistics to show the reader data they may not have otherwise seen if they were to not read the article themselves.

---

This fact check is very well executed. And yes the sources present do seem to be reliable and valid when examining these large corporations. My only recommendation  is that instead of using the quote from the original post, but to find a different one that also supports the main point. With adding this and the additional sources I believe this would be a spectacular fact check. Overall good jab and the claim and sources seem to be well put together.

---

I really like how you included how a source is credible in your answer while also adding more information on other journalist groups that have covered the same information.

---

I thoroughly enjoyed your fact check because it is clear and to the point. You delve into how the source that was from the claim was trustworthy and what points mattered in the claim. Then you synthesized that information with your own research to show more evidence that was reputable which made the claim even stronger than it was. This shows how important the use of reputable sources is and how to analyze the sources.

---

This is a strong fact-check overall, and I appreciate how you traced the claim back to the original Dartmouth study. That’s a great example of the SIFT method in action—especially when you linked the Nature article directly. One suggestion, though: I think your post could dig a little deeper into how the study actually calculated the $28 trillion figure. For instance, did the researchers include only direct economic damage, or were health and social costs factored in too? Also, it might help to briefly mention any critiques or limitations noted in the study—like assumptions in the climate models or the challenge of legally attributing harm to specific corporations. Adding that would show more nuance and strengthen your evaluation of the claim’s truthfulness.

---

I thought your answer was very clear and I was able to feel comfortable knowing the initial claim was correct. You broke down the claim even more while talking about the first sources and why they are trustworthy. I was able to have a clear rock solid answer to the initial question after this comment. The sources you chose where very strong and a very credible sources, which continues to affirm the claim to be true.

---

Your response to this claim is really well done. There is a lot of evidence and reliable sources to support it. I liked how you used more than one source and explained why they are trustworthy. If anything were to be added, I would suggest naming the top three most prominent companies out of the 111 you mentioned. It just adds a bit more context and detail. Overall, very well done!

---

I really like how you were able to verify the extent to which the claim is true. I also really like how you went into detail explaining why it is true. For example, in your response, specifically listing which large companies are known to be proving responsible for some climate problems really clears up my understanding of the claim as well as the context of the academic debate. By engaging in more specific details, it forces the leads the reader to believe the source. Building upon the specificity, AP news is a known, credible source, which builds up the trustworthiness of such a claim. Great response!

---

You did a good job tracing the credibility of the sources. I agree that AP News, Nature, and Dartmouth are all strong indicators this study is legit. After doing my own research, the only thing I would say is if there was a way your factcheck could briefly mention how climate accountability isn't just about scientific accuracy, but also legal, political, and ehtical frameworks, especially since lawsuits are part of the headline.

Answer 3

The claim that the world’s largest corporations have caused approximately $28 trillion in climate-related damage is backed by solid evidence. Many sources have verified these findings including CBS News in which they highlight that same research. The research, conducted by a Dartmouth College team and published in the journal Nature, analyzed emissions data from individual companies and connected them to specific global temperature increases and economic costs. According to the report, 111 fossil fuel and cement producers were responsible for significant environmental harm, with the top 10 companies—such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, Gazprom, and Saudi Aramco—linked to over half the total estimated damages. The study also notes that Chevron's emissions alone have contributed to a measurable rise in global temperatures. While legal action against such companies has yet to succeed, this research offers a scientifically rigorous method for assigning financial responsibility to individual polluters and may influence future legal and policy decisions. Overall, the information is supported by credible journalism and multi-faceted science.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fossil-fuel-companies-emissions-climate-damage-study/

Answer 4

Fact check

This fact check is quite true and sad to be honest. According to The Economic Times, “A Dartmouth College research team came up with the estimated pollution caused by 111 companies, with more than half of the total dollar figure coming from 10 fossil fuel providers: Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell, National Iranian Oil Co., Pemex, Coal India and the British Coal Corporation.

For comparison, $28 trillion is a shade less than the sum of all goods and services produced in the United States last year.” This fact check is also sad because although it's the big companies doing all the pollution, they make it seem like the general public needs to fix the problem when its truly the big name corporations. 

Works Cited:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/the-worlds-biggest-companies-have-caused-28-trillion-in-climate-damage-a-new-study-estimates/articleshow/120558667.cms?from=mdr

Answer 5

This claim regarding the amount of money relating to climate-related damage is TRUE. CBS News discusses how the emissions from many major fossil fuel companies cause major heat that causes all this climate-related damage. Dartmouth College researches are attempting to make it so there major companies are held responsible and liable for the damage their are causing to the larger environment. While there is much discussion on if "climate liability" is possible the claim that these companies are responsible for damages is very clearly true.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fossil-fuel-companies-emissions-climate-damage-study/

Answer 6

It seems like this is true; the claim is coming from the Associated Press, a reputable news agency. The AP article references the original source for the claim. The original source is a scientific study authored by climate economists and published in Nature, a top scientific journal, which is very credible.  Additional reporting on the same study is in The Guardian and Scientific American, which both confirm the study’s key findings. The study used historical emissions data, economic modeling, and climate attribution science to give an estimate of how much monetary damage has been done. 

Read the study summary from Dartmouth College

Read the article in The Guardian

Read the article in Scientific American

Answer 7

After delving deeper, the claim that "The world's largest corporations have collectively caused approximately $28 trillion in climate-related damage" is true. Plus, the topic is backed up by many existing studies/research. The source you provided to support the claim is well-informed, uses other citations to back the claims within the article, and uses many other reliable sources. Sources like CBS also used the Dartmouth College research, and some sources (though not all very reliable) cover the same as the article you provided to support the claim. I have only cited the CBS article, as when researching the topic further, most if not all, the articles I came across backed their information with the same Dartmouth College study as the AP News and CBS articles. 

Link:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fossil-fuel-companies-emissions-climate-damage-study/

Answer 8

This seems to be true. AP (Associated Press) is a well-respected, known publication. Seth Borenstein, a science writer on the AP staff, writes the article,  so he is a qualified reporter. The article itself uses trustworthy citations such as Zero Carbon Analytics (here), and the Dartmouth college research team (here). If you look deeper into the topic you can find multiple publications with the same report (here). Overall the information is corroborable and grounded in fact.

http://uniladtech.com/science/report-reveals-climate-damage-worlds-top-companies-707615-20250428

https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-liability-lawsuits-damage-trillions-5ad21e47b2aa16cc90cb7669f56297f1

https://home.dartmouth.edu/news/2025/04/study-lays-out-scientific-path-recouping-climate-costs

Answer 9

I would say this claim is true. One study posted proves this with the finding that over 111 million companies deemed responsible for $28 trillion in economic damages from 1991-2020 through heat. This study, by Dartmouth students shows the ways how these companies have costed us economically. Some of these fossil fuel giants are ExxonMobil, Chevron, Gazprom, and Saudi Aramco. This makes my point even more clear because the biggest contributors are the most well-known ones which is a huge problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2025/04/23/climate-attribution-damages-lawsuit/

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/25/nature-study-climate-heat-litigation?

Answer 10

Yes this claim is true. According to the Washington post we can calculate the total cost of the oil giants. "Collectively, greenhouse emissions from 111 fossil fuel companies caused the world $28 trillion in damage from extreme heat from 1991 to 2020, according to a paper published Wednesday in Nature." (The Washington post) There is currently still no lawsuit pending but I am sure that will change in the future