In 2023, a provocative paper published in the Harvard Environmental Law Review, titled "Climate Homicide: Prosecuting Big Oil for Climate Deaths," proposed that fossil fuel companies could be charged with homicide, short of first-degree murder, for deaths linked to climate change-driven extreme weather. This concept gained traction with the first-ever wrongful death lawsuit filed in May 2025 by Misti Leon, who alleges that seven oil companies, including ExxonMobil and Chevron, are responsible for her mother Juliana's death during the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome. Environmentalists argue that Big Oil's decades-long deception about climate risks constitutes reckless or negligent conduct, justifying criminal liability. However, this "climate homicide" framework is philosophically problematic, implicating modern society's reliance on fossil fuels and raising questions about collective responsibility versus corporate culpability. This essay explores the legal and ethical complexities of prosecuting Big Oil for climate deaths, arguing that while well-intentioned, the approach risks overreach by entangling all of modern society in a web of complicity.
The Harvard Environmental Law Review paper by David Arkush and Donald Braman argues that fossil fuel companies knowingly contributed to climate change by producing and marketing products that emit greenhouse gases, while misleading the public about their dangers. Internal documents, like Exxon's 1970s climate studies, reveal awareness of "catastrophic" consequences, yet companies funded disinformation campaigns to delay regulation. The Leon lawsuit claims Juliana's death from hyperthermia was a direct result of Big Oil's failure to warn and their exacerbation of global warming.
Proponents, including the Center for Climate Integrity, argue that holding corporations accountable mirrors past cases, such as tobacco litigation or manslaughter charges against PG&E for the 2018 Camp Fire. They assert that homicide charges, ranging from negligent homicide to manslaughter, are feasible under U.S. law, as companies acted with reckless disregard for human life. The 2023 paper suggests remedies like restructuring fossil fuel firms as public benefit corporations, akin to Purdue Pharma's opioid settlement, to deter future harm. Public support is growing, with 62% of Americans polled favouring legal action against oil companies for climate damages.
Juliana Leon, 65, died of hyperthermia on June 28, 2021, during a record-breaking 108°F heatwave in Seattle, exacerbated by a broken car air conditioner and her recent bariatric surgery. Her daughter Misti's lawsuit against ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and Olympic Pipeline alleges these companies' emissions and deception caused her mother's death. Backed by the Center for Climate Integrity, the case marks the first individual wrongful death claim tied to climate change, seeking damages and a public education campaign to counter Big Oil's misinformation. Legal scholars see it as a potential precursor to criminal prosecutions, leveraging attribution science to link corporate actions to specific deaths.
However, critics, like Chevron's lawyer Theodore Boutrous, dismiss the case as "meritless," arguing it exploits a personal tragedy for political ends. The case faces hurdles, as similar climate lawsuits have been stalled by procedural battles, with none reaching trial. Courts have dismissed cases, like Bucks County's, citing federal jurisdiction over emissions under the Clean Air Act.
The "climate homicide" framework, while legally innovative, is philosophically fraught. Fossil fuels are the backbone of modern society, powering electricity, transportation, and industries that sustain billions, including the data centres enabling social media and AI research tools. By framing Big Oil's actions as homicidal, environmentalists inadvertently implicate consumers, governments, and industries that rely on these fuels. As Dan McLaughlin notes, the causal chain runs through the "atmosphere and climate of the entire planet," making everyone who uses electricity, drives, or consumes goods a participant in this alleged "crime."
This raises a moral paradox: if fossil fuel companies are guilty of homicide for producing energy, are individuals complicit for demanding it? Unlike tobacco, where individual choice drives harm, fossil fuel use is systemic, embedded in infrastructure and subsidised by governments for over a century. Prosecuting companies alone ignores the diffuse responsibility shared by society, from policymakers who incentivised oil production to consumers who benefit from cheap energy. Legal scholar Guyora Binder warns that attributing deaths to "diffuse actions of multiple actors" complicates liability, likening it to a "black hole of liability."
Legally, proving causation is a significant barrier. While attribution science links climate change to extreme weather, tying a single death to specific corporate actions is complex. Juliana Leon's vulnerability, recent surgery, no food for two weeks, and a broken car AC, introduces confounding factors. Courts may struggle to isolate Big Oil's contribution from other variables, such as urban heat islands or inadequate public infrastructure. Critics argue that climate change is a policy issue requiring global cooperation, not state-level lawsuits that "clog the courts."
Politically, the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and push for "American energy dominance" signal resistance to climate litigation. The fossil fuel industry's economic and cultural influence further complicates prosecutions, as Arkush acknowledges. Even if successful, remedies like corporate restructuring may not reduce emissions if global demand persists, as seen with China and India's rising coal use.
Sceptics like BlazeTV's Stu Burguiere label "climate homicide" as propaganda, driven by groups like the Center for Climate Integrity, which critics see as orchestrating a Left-wing campaign. The timing of Leon's lawsuit, initiated after contact with the nonprofit, fuels suspicions of coordinated activism. The narrative of Big Oil as a singular villain oversimplifies a complex issue, ignoring the industry's role in meeting global energy demands and the lack of scalable alternatives at the time of their alleged deception. Posts on X reflect polarised sentiment, with some calling it a "crime" and others decrying it as an attack on industry.
Yet, the conspiracy angle cuts both ways. Big Oil's documented disinformation campaigns, revealed by congressional investigations, mirror tobacco's playbook, lending credence to claims of reckless conduct. The question is whether this justifies homicide charges or if it's better addressed through civil penalties or policy reform.
The "climate homicide" theoryaims to hold powerful corporations accountable for supposed harms. However, its philosophical flaw lies in its selective targeting. Fossil fuel companies operate within a system that incentivises and depends on their products. Punishing them without addressing demand or infrastructure risks scapegoating while failing to solve the root problem. Civil lawsuits, like Leon's, may set precedents, but criminal prosecutions face steeper legal and cultural barriers.
A more effective approach might combine civil remedies, like damages for victims, if proven. The tobacco analogy, while compelling, falters because climate change is a collective, not individual, harm. Philosophically, we must grapple with our own complicity in modern living before casting stones at Big Oil alone.
The "climate homicide" concept, as advanced by the Harvard Environmental Law Review and tested in the Leon lawsuit, is a bold attempt to address climate change's supposed controversial human toll. However, its philosophical and legal challenges, collective complicity, causation hurdles, and systemic reliance on fossil fuels, render it problematic. While Big Oil's deception warrants scrutiny, framing their actions as homicide risks overreach, potentially alienating the public and stalling practical solutions. True accountability requires a holistic approach: legal action for past harms, policy reform for future emissions, and an honest reckoning with society's role in this matter. Until then, "climate homicide" remains a provocative but philosophically tangled politicalisation of the law.
https://www.theblaze.com/shows/stu-does-america/climate-change