Rising sea levels and extreme weather events are no longer abstract threats. For residents of low-lying islands like Pari in Indonesia, they are a brutal reality. Arif Pujianto, one of the island’s inhabitants, experienced this firsthand when tidal floods repeatedly ravaged his home, polluting water sources and threatening livelihoods. In response, Pujianto joined three other residents in a groundbreaking lawsuit against cement manufacturer Holcim, despite the company being headquartered 12,000 kilometers away in Switzerland.
This case exemplifies a new wave of climate litigation powered by innovative climate attribution models. These models, particularly “end-to-end attribution,” can now demonstrate a clear causal link between a company’s carbon emissions and the specific harms experienced by communities worldwide. The implications are profound: for the first time, legal action can directly connect corporate pollution to real-world damages, regardless of geographical distance.
The Evolution of Attribution Science
Attribution science has evolved over decades. Early climate models focused on predicting overall warming trends. However, researchers soon realized these models could also be used to simulate “what if” scenarios. By comparing these simulations with actual outcomes, scientists can quantify the impact of human carbon emissions on specific extreme weather events – such as heatwaves, floods, and wildfires.
The key breakthrough came with the development of reduced complexity climate models combined with more precise accounting for cumulative emissions. These advances allowed researchers to trace the impact of individual companies’ emissions all the way to economic and health damages in vulnerable communities.
From Global Trends to Corporate Responsibility
In 2022, a study by Callahan and Mankin at Indiana University and Dartmouth College demonstrated that the top five emitting nations had collectively caused $6 trillion in economic damage since the 1990s, disproportionately affecting low-income countries.
A more recent study in April 2025 took this further, analyzing the emissions of specific companies. The results were stark: the 111 most carbon-polluting firms were linked to between $12 trillion and $49 trillion in global economic losses between 1991 and 2020. Chevron, for example, was calculated to have caused between $791 billion and $3.6 trillion in damages alone.
These findings are not just academic; they are increasingly being used in legal challenges.
The Rise of Polluter-Pays Litigation
Climate litigation has been growing for years, with over 3,000 cases filed globally. The strategy often involves targeting the largest emitters in their home countries, as these corporations bear the greatest responsibility for historical emissions.
Pujianto’s lawsuit against Holcim is a prime example. A study commissioned for the case found that human CO2 emissions were responsible for between 16 and 26 centimeters of sea level rise on Pari Island during the devastating 2021 flood. This establishes a clear causal link between Holcim’s emissions and the damages suffered by the island’s residents.
In December, a Swiss court admitted the lawsuit, marking the first time a climate case against a major corporation was accepted for trial in Switzerland. Holcim has pledged to appeal, but the case sets a precedent for holding companies legally accountable for their contribution to climate change.
The Future of Climate Accountability
While legal battles remain complex, attribution science is rapidly evolving. Researchers are extending these models to other extreme weather events and refining their ability to quantify economic and health impacts.
The challenge lies in bridging the gap between scientific rigor and legal standards. Successful lawsuits will require clear, irrefutable evidence, compelling narratives, and a willingness by courts to recognize the direct link between emissions and harms.
The emerging trend is clear: climate litigation is no longer a fringe movement. It is a rapidly growing field that could become a powerful tool in forcing climate action. The question now is not if companies will be held accountable, but when and how.
