Slashdot Mirror


Only 100 Companies Are Responsible For 71 Percent of Global Emissions, Says Study (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report. The Carbon Majors Report (pdf) "pinpoints how a relatively small set of fossil fuel producers may hold the key to systemic change on carbon emissions," says Pedro Faria, technical director at environmental non-profit CDP, which published the report in collaboration with the Climate Accountability Institute. The report found that more than half of global industrial emissions since 1988 -- the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established -- can be traced to just 25 corporate and state-owned entities. The scale of historical emissions associated with these fossil fuel producers is large enough to have contributed significantly to climate change, according to the report. ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron are identified as among the highest emitting investor-owned companies since 1988. If fossil fuels continue to be extracted at the same rate over the next 28 years as they were between 1988 and 2017, says the report, global average temperatures would be on course to rise by 4C by the end of the century. This is likely to have catastrophic consequences including substantial species extinction and global food scarcity risks.

2 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. This is Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So 100 companies are drilling oil, digging up coal and then just burning it off to produce CO2, eh?

    Of course it's from the Guardian, one of the more hysterical of the Climate Change Drama Queens.

    1. Re:This is Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Listen bucko the guardian is way better than other newspapers, etc: The daily mail, The Telegraph, and so on. My life science teacher considers the guardian "way up there" like the New York Post.

      Instead of attacking the messenger, why dont u attack the message?

      Pot, met kettle.

      GP post implicitly claimed The Guardian (note the capitalization of a proper noun, fuckwit) is biased. That is a message, one that you failed to respond to.

      Did it go over your head? Did you miss it?

      But of course you type crap like "why dont u attack the message". What's wrong? To lazy to spell out "you"? So yes, it went over your head, and you missed it.

      And you're a fucking editor?!?!

      Grow a brain.

      Ladies and gentlemen, I give you our Slashdot editor. He's a shining example of success for all the downtrodden and unsuccessful in the world today. Why? Because if such a lazy, ignorant dumbass can get a job as an editor, there's a good chance an anencephalic howler monkey will win a Nobel Prize in physics one day.