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.
one single apartment in Silicon Valley.
The Carbon Majors Database was established in 2013 by Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute (CAI) to show how these emissions are linked to companies, or ‘Carbon Majors’. Now CDP works in collaboration with the CAI to maintain the Database and share its important data and insights with all stakeholders
I think it's more likely that almost everything is owned by 100 companies.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
They use "linked to" in the very broadest sense. There are less than a hundred major fossil fuel producers in the world, so of course it's "linked" to them. It's not like they are burning it though. It's not like we can just change 100 companies and remove more than half the greenhouse emissions. That's like saying because 70% of the world's greenhouse emissions are produced by 20 countries that it means 70% of the world's greenhouse emissions are linked to only 20 people (the current heads of state for those countries).
This is a bullshit report with bullshit ideas and bullshit conclusion.
A company that provides you with fuel for your car does not actually produce the emissions, your car produces the emissions, you are the one driving it. You are the one eating the food that is produced due to oil companies supplying energy and chemicals, you are the one living in a building heated and lit by whatever energy source that allows you to survive.
Etc.etc.etc.
To say that some companies that allow you to live on this planet by providing you with everything you need to live are producing the waste that is actually the result of you existing and consuming all this stuff is propaganda and nothing more. It is aimed at stealing profits from companies that are actually largely responsible for you being alive in the first place.
You can't handle the truth.
These are some of the companies behind 'The Institute of Public Affairs', which backs the Australian liberal party.
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
The companies' managers and shareholders are responsible for their behavior, but we, the people who buy their stuff and elect the officials who could legislate some of their behavior, are still responsible for our behavior.
Seriously, far too many of these companies have NOT been really vetted for what they really contribute, esp those in China.
What is needed are satellites to monitor the globe and record CO2 flow IN and OUT of a region. That will actually allow a better check on things.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They alone account for 25% of all emissions. Scary.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"small set of fossil fuel producers..."
Yeh, we know, we dig up hydro-carbons and turn it into CO2. How the f*ck does that help to list the oil coal and gas companies?
If any of them stopped tomorrow, another company would fill the demand, the names would be different but it would make no change.
The DEMAND for those hydrocarbons is the problem here.
I just priced solar+storage for my house, why the f*ck am I paying for electricity? I never priced it until I read Slashdot the other day and decided to check the prices and specs for myself. The misleading marketing and political funding these companies do is the problem from these companies, not the hydrocarbons themselves.
So if we split those 100 companies in half and make 200 companies, will that make the pollution better or worse?
Corporate entities counting is disingenuous. Pollution is not just produced, it is the byproduct of some job. Presumably there 100 companies produce over 70% of the work we use. They supply the gas we use to get to work, raise the cattle we eat, or produce our electricity. Who cares how they want to group themselves, that is the realm of accountants and lawyers.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
That number will be up from 71% to over 80% emitted by the top 100.
The number of corporate entities doing the emission is irrelevant, the total emission is what matters. So, if you suddenly killed Exxon/Mobil tomorrow, their emissions would just be transferred over to whatever company picks up their business, almost seamlessly.
What's needed is for the economic framework to reward lower carbon emissions.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
So who cares ? Either you believe the B.S. and the problem is already solved
or you don't and in that case you never believed there was a problem to begin with.
Personally if the greens want to declare victory and let the world get on with life absent them, they can have their parade.
So long as the rich can buy food thats OK, poor people have nothing to loose anyway, thats why they are poor.
So long as it is only poor people who become extinct thats OK, again thats ok because who wants to be poor.
So, no problems, lets drill some more oil
...either the city council are made to look foolish when it's found unconstitutional after many piles of city money are spent fighting in court.
Or, failing that, the "rich" move like 2 miles thataway into another city.
And what will the result be?
Loss of property tax income to the city of Seattle, as fewer high-rollers will want to live there, depressing prices of the highest-value properties.
I think it would be hilarious if the city had to cut funding for the indigent because of this.
-Styopa
As mom always said, rtfa. If you look at the sentence predicting a 4C temperature increase, you'll find:
"If the *trend* in in fossil fuel extraction" [paraphrase:] continues over the next 28 years, then expect the 4C temp increase scenario and 5.5C in the long term.
That makes me think they mean "if the fossil fuel extraction rate continues to increase at the same rate over the next 28 years" not "if we produce at the same rate as we have previously".
Editorial: The rate of increase seems unlikely to continue growing at the same rate. The economic balance is shifting from coal/oil/nat gas to solar/wind (approximately ordered from dirtiest to cleanest), which, owing to some basic microeconomics, incentives, a near-plateau of energy consumption in developed countries, and human nature, will result in quite a bit lower growth rate (or even a peak?) in CO2 emissions. E.g., I think Africa mostly will be developed solar-first (just like it's done mobile-first, not landlines).
So, how much of the CO2 output can be traced to government activity? You think that all those bureaucrats turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater like Jimmy Carter did? Sure they do, in the middle of summer.
I hear so many suggest that we "just" enact a tax on fossil fuels. Then we "just" have the government subsidize windmills and electric cars. The government does not "just" do anything. The government is built of many people, all with their own intentions. Some of them not so nice.
We might get our coal tax but not get any funding for windmills. We might get our electric vehicle subsidies but no "carbon tax" on oil. If we don't get both the tax and the subsidy then you have an unsustainable system. I'm sure there are people that would like to see the government go bankrupt, but that risks funds for fire and police services. I'm sure people would love those carbon taxes, but that could just mean giving the government more money to buy bombs to drop on brown people.
Saving the environment is too important to hand over to the government.
We need to make windmills so cheap that no business can afford to buy coal. We need to make electric vehicles so awesome that everyone will be standing in line with wads of cash in hand to buy them.
You think we can just hand the government a pile of your money through taxes and then expect them to put polluting companies out of business? I'm pretty sure these companies have their own money, and bigger piles, to give to the government to make sure that does not happen.
What can end this cycle is technology. Build an electric car that beats the pants of anything that burns oil and then use the greed of these companies to work for you. They'll hand over piles of cash to buy this idea so that they can beat the other companies also competing for your dollars. The government doesn't need to be involved for this to happen. In fact I'm quite certain this would happen faster, or just as fast, if we left the government out of it.
I won't claim this is easy, only that it has a higher probability to work than all the other options.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The same ultra rich employers of lobbyists who would have America believe that climate change is a hoax, coal is cheaper than sunshine and the locals who get poisoned are terrorists.
Newsflash Murrica... When the rest of the world dissagrees you probably have it wrong.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
If you look at it that way, just 100 companies have then probably been the source of more than 70% of the world's wealth, reduction in hunger, reduction in poverty, etc. It's then because of those 100 companies that you don't freeze, starve, or die of horrible diseases. So, be grateful that those 100 companies exist.
Carbon emissions... get back to me when you are interested in real pollution (like China and India are putting out by the metric ton). Anyone who wants to call CO2 emissions a pollutant should be required to try to live without it for a month.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Plus 3-4 billion people. (taking a rough guess as to how many consumers it takes to generate 70% of the world's emissions)
Point being, the responsibility isn't wholly on corporations. But also on the nations of the world, their governments, and the people of the world.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Then we crash, not just back down to the reasonably stable temperatures of most of the time from the taming of fire to the start of the industrial revolution, but onto the already-in-progress and accelerating descent into the next ice age
What model are you using ? Your ass ?
...brought to you by some climate activist organization. (peeks at TFA) Yep, the "Climate Accountability Institute". Fascinating: they provide no information on their sponsors. They are also not a non-profit, but only a "not for profit", which gives them a lot of leeway, and removes a lot of accountability.
"...a relatively small set of fossil fuel producers
Well, duh. If you take the top 100 companies mining/pumping/extracting fossil fuels, and blame them, the surprising thing is that you don't top 90%. Meanwhile, your hair dresser only rarely extracts crude oil, unless you count what comes out of some people's dreadlocks.
This is a seriously meaningless stat from a seriously meaningless report.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
But they all care about you. Deeply.
Your sig here!
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.
Since most emissions are the result of petroleum usage, and since the global petroleum businesses have consolidated into smaller number of major players, the 'finding' makes sense, that is if you blame only the supplier but not the end user for all emissions. But so what? Would it be better if the same amount of emissions came from more companies?
For consistency why isn't these countries pursues with same venom and vitriol as Exxon and Shell? Exxon, Shell, and all privately held companies are held to much higher environmental standard then anyone of these state owned companies.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Sure they can stop producing everything that produces pollution. But life as we know it would come to a grinding halt. You fail to see the big picture in how this works.
I'll accept the criticism if it's the former, but not the latter.
You'll probably find that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of everything.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Of course not, but what is your "solution" to this problem? Have all the oil companies just stop drilling? Let's see what happens then.
This "complaint" is like complaining when Exxon-Mobile has a $20b profit in a quarter... it's not their fault we use so much gasoline. The profit margin on gasoline is much smaller than most commodities, but you can't help but make a profit when we use nearly 400 million gallons of gasoline every day (and that's just the U.S.). So let's blame the company for using their product.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I had no idea that "ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron are identified as among the highest emitting investor-owned companies since 1988." emitted much while exploring and extracting fossil fuels that other people burned and created emissions with. Wow. Who would have thought that extracting oil and such emits more carbon than burning the stuff does? Who knew? Well, now we know.
Burning fossil fuels contributes less than 30% to worldwide carbon emissions. Extracting them causes 70% of all carbon emissions. Seems like we need to increase the efficiency of the extracting of fossil fuels since burning them is so useful and not very damaging to the environment.
A company that provides you with fuel for your car does not actually produce the emissions, your car produces the emissions, you are the one driving it.
Global warming is systemic, that's the point to take away from this article. Your argument is flawed because you can apply it to all players: the consumers are responsible because they keep consuming; the producers are responsible because they keep producing.
However there is a difference, individual consumers are powerless to make any difference, practical alternatives come from above, the control lies in the hands of the relative few who own the infrastructure and the businesses.
To see the consumer as the sole blame instead of just a part of the equation is the same argument that "save the planet" hippies use to guilt people into buying "green" branded bullshit that make no difference. Don't carry on pissing in the wind, take a step back and see the big picture!
Of course not, but what is your "solution" to this problem? Have all the oil companies just stop drilling? Let's see what happens then.
That's my point. The 'solution' has nothing to do with the number of companies responsible for most emissions. That number is irrelevant.
For once I feel like i'm a super minority on slashdot... who cares if it's a half bakes article, why are you all protecting these companies? You're selectively arguing against the consumer...
Everyone who is part of the equation is to blame. However the difference between me and one of these companies is that I can't change my mind and "go green" tomorrow, everything I touch is tainted with fossil fuels, there is no choice. The problem is systemic and it is correct to point the finger at the small number of companies who ultimately have control of the infrastructure that drives it... if you disagree then by all means remove yourself from society because that's the only way you can not contribute, you will quickly learn how little choice you have.
Ho-hum: Another daily news story that the world is comprised of events that follow scalable exponential distributions, aka 80-20 rule, Bradford, Pareto, Zipf, etc distributions. 20% of countries produce 80% of world GDP; 20% of a company's customers produce 80% of sales; 20% of a company's products produce 80% of sales; 20% of a country's people have 80% of income, wealth; 20% of criminals account for 80% of crime; 20% of drivers have 80% of accidents, 20% of websites have 80% of internet traffic, 20% of music groups account for 80% of hits, etc, etc, etc. it is no surprise that a few, 20%, of something produces a lot, 80%, of some output, such as a pollutant. It is the exponential nature of our world. Because the upper tail of these common, real-life distributions are scalable, 80-20 is roughly equivalent to the top 1% accounting for 50% of whatever real life measured events are looked at. (.8x.8x.8= .51 ~ .5; .2x.2.x.2 = .008 ~ .01).
Sorry, you "man made" global warming morons are still trying to get water out of a dry hole. Yeah, 50 years worth of data, "might" show an increase in so called climate change, but, when you look at the history of the world, when man's been around, it's been warmer, and colder. You really want to know what changes the weather patterns & temperature on this planet? Look up in the sky during the day, but DON'T look directly at it...you could damage your eyes. It's called THE SUN.
What model are you using ? Your ass ?
Actually that one was published in, among other places, the Scientific American - a publication normally quite on board with global warming theories, anthropogenic and otherwise.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Could you provide a cite? You're claiming that there is a legit model that says that, when we've burned all convenient fossil carbon, temperatures will drop. What happens to all the additional CO2 in the air? You're claiming that people have been burning large enough amounts of fossil fuel to matter for millennia. Actually, what people typically burned for millennia were things like wood, which are carbon-neutral.
If that model showed up in Scientific American, it was as a bad example. If you want me to believe SciAm published it seriously, I'm going to need the specific issue at least.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes