Two of the world’s largest oil companies, ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies, are in the spotlight for very different reasons. Exxon is fighting new climate-reporting laws in California. Meanwhile, TotalEnergies was found guilty of greenwashing or misleading the public about its climate claims. These changes show the rising tension among fossil fuel producers, governments, and regulators as climate rules get stricter around the world.
ExxonMobil Takes California to Court Over Climate Rules
ExxonMobil filed a lawsuit to block California’s new climate-reporting requirements. The company claims the laws breach its constitutional rights, particularly its First Amendment free speech rights. It also says they unfairly target large businesses in the state.
The case focuses on two key laws:
- Senate Bill 253 requires companies that make over $1 billion a year to report their greenhouse gas emissions. This includes indirect “Scope 3” emissions.
- Senate Bill 261 requires companies to share how climate risks might impact their finances and operations.
Exxon says the laws force companies to “speak” in a way that aligns with California’s view on climate change. The oil giant says the regulations will bring high costs and unreliable data. Also, tracking emissions in global supply chains is tricky.
California officials, however, say the lawsuit is an attempt to avoid transparency. They argue that companies must be open about the full impact of their activities if the world is to meet climate goals.
If the court sides with Exxon, the decision could delay the rollout of similar laws in other U.S. states. But if California wins, it would mark one of the most ambitious climate-reporting mandates in the world.
TotalEnergies Faces Penalty for Misleading Climate Claims
In France, TotalEnergies faced a very different kind of scrutiny. A Paris court decided on October 23 that the company misled consumers with its public statements about climate goals.
The court decided that TotalEnergies’ 2021 marketing messages were misleading under its greenwashing laws. They claimed to be “a major actor in the energy transition” and aimed for net zero by 2050. However, the court noted the company’s ongoing investment in oil and gas projects.

As a result, TotalEnergies must remove or revise the disputed statements from its website within one month or face daily fines of up to €20,000. The company was also ordered to pay damages and legal fees to three environmental groups that filed the lawsuit.
TotalEnergies accepted the ruling. However, it noted that most claims by the plaintiffs were dismissed. The company also insisted that its low-carbon investments are real.
The TotalEnergies case marks one of the first successful “greenwashing” rulings in Europe against a major fossil fuel producer. It sends a clear message: companies must align their advertising with measurable action, not just promises.
A Global Shift Toward Accountability
The twin cases reveal a major shift in how governments and courts are handling corporate climate claims. Oil and gas companies have pushed for long-term net-zero goals for years. Yet, they keep expanding fossil fuel production. That approach is now under heavy scrutiny.
Across the world, regulators are moving from voluntary to mandatory climate reporting. Investors and consumers are also demanding more proof that companies are reducing emissions in real terms, not just on paper.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that the global oil and gas industry accounts for about 15% of total energy-related emissions. This includes methane leaks and refining. The IEA says these emissions must fall by at least 60% by 2030 to stay on track for net-zero goals.
But progress remains slow. In 2024, the biggest oil companies put over $400 billion into new fossil fuel projects. In contrast, they invested less than $80 billion in renewables. This imbalance fuels criticism that public climate statements often do not match actual spending.

Why Climate Disclosure Laws Are Game-Changers
Transparent emissions reporting is a critical step toward accountability. California laws in Exxon’s lawsuit require big companies to report their total emissions. This includes emissions from direct operations, supply chains, and product use.
Supporters say these rules will:
- Create a level playing field for all large firms.
- Help investors and consumers compare climate performance.
- Push companies to reduce emissions more aggressively.
For example, Scope 3 emissions, those from customers using a company’s products, often make up more than 80% of an oil company’s carbon footprint. Without such disclosures, the true impact of fossil fuels remains hidden.
Opponents, however, say the costs and technical challenges could be high. They warn that requiring thousands of global companies to track every step of their carbon footprint could lead to inconsistent or unverifiable results.
Still, many analysts believe the trend toward mandatory disclosure is irreversible. Similar frameworks are being considered in the European Union, Japan, and Canada.
Rising Legal and Market Risks for Oil Majors
The cases involving ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies are part of a growing wave of climate-related lawsuits. The Grantham Research Institute reports that almost 3,000 climate cases have been filed globally. About 230 of these focus directly on companies.
Many involve accusations of greenwashing, misleading investors, or failing to disclose climate-related financial risks.
The potential costs are high. Penalties, legal fees, and damaged reputation can all hurt a company’s market value. For investors, it adds a new layer of risk in an already volatile energy sector.
Meanwhile, clean energy investment continues to rise. BloombergNEF estimates that in 2024, spending reached over $2 trillion. This includes renewable energy, electric vehicles, and carbon capture technology. This is more than double what was invested in fossil fuels.
This global capital shift pressures oil companies. They need to show they are adapting to the energy transition, not resisting it.
The Bigger Picture: Transition or Tension?
These two high-profile cases capture a crossroads moment for the oil industry. Governments aim for quicker decarbonization. However, companies still depend on fossil fuels for profit.
ExxonMobil’s lawsuit represents resistance — a pushback against state regulation. TotalEnergies’ court case shows what happens when public messaging gets ahead of actual progress.
Yet, both cases show that climate accountability is no longer optional. The industry is under pressure to show clear results. This comes from courts, disclosure laws, and investors.
To stay competitive, oil majors must boost low-carbon investments. They should also improve transparency and align operations with credible climate targets.
If Exxon loses its challenge, it could open the door to a wave of state and federal disclosure rules in the U.S. If more courts follow France’s lead, companies could face lawsuits for greenwashing worldwide.
Either way, fossil fuel companies are under pressure to back their climate claims with action. The age of unchecked promises is ending, replaced by a future of measured accountability.
- READ MORE: How Princeton’s Break with BP Exposed the Hidden Influence of Fossil Fuel Money on Universities
The post Oil Giants Under Fire: ExxonMobil Fights Climate Laws as TotalEnergies Found Guilty of Greenwashing appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
The real cost of 1 tonne of CO2: Translating carbon into hectares
Every business carbon footprint report ends with a number, the amount of carbon emissions produced by the business, less the amount of carbon reduced and offset, given in tonnes of CO₂. Many of the people who sign off on that number, including those who paid for it, cannot picture what it represents on the ground. A tonne is a unit of mass. CO₂ is invisible. The link between the amount offset in the report and a real piece of restored forest somewhere in the world is almost never indicated.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

