7 ms·

100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

71 points by urahara 9y ago

folli 9y ago
And 90% of consumers are responsible to buy from these 100 companies?
- bamboozled 9y ago
  Exactly, this is the fallacy that we need "other people", like politicians to solve climate change for us. Try voting with your wallet and changing your bank.
  - Joe-Z 9y ago
    A politician representing the interests of the people who voted for him/her is a fallacy? Then consequentially I should get back all my tax money that went into setting up international trade and other economic deals, since apparently this should also have been my responsibility and these arrangements would have just popped up if I had 'voted with my wallet'.
    - bamboozled 9y ago
      I never said that, but the majority of adults are responsible for this mess including the representatives they've elected. This includes you and me.
      - yorik 9y ago
        Are you a human or a corporation? Because if you are a human it should be a matter of common sense to see that it is quicker and more effective to regulate the emissions with a law instead of hoping that enough good willed people take their time and start boycotting every single company that does not care about the environment.
      - delazeur 9y ago
        > I never said that Perhaps that isn't what you meant, but it sure looks to me like that's what you said.
        bamboozled 9y ago
        Relying on someone else to fix it won't fix it, is essentially what I'm saying, for if everyone had that attitude, then nothing would happen, absolutely nothing. Politicians are just people too.
        delazeur 9y ago
        ... People with far greater than average power to change society. I can't make laws. Can you? Voting for representatives who will make laws that create the change you want to see in the world is absolutely not "relying on someone else."
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Ah the fallacy that we need "other people" to solve the prisoner's dilemma. Try just not ratting out your partner in crime! Ah the fallacy that we need "other people" to solve the tragedy of the commons. Try just not grazing your cattle too much! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_theory
    - bamboozled 9y ago
      I'll stick with common sense on this one, if you can't see that you and all other educated adults have personal responsibility and that you can influence markets based on your choices as a consumer well, that's a shame. There can be personal action which can coincide with group and political action.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    That's a straw man though, people can call for regulation just because it is effective and doesn't create enormous hassle for themselves personally (trying to find the one product that is environmentally responsible or whatever). They don't have to believe it is necessarily the only solution.
  - adgasf 9y ago
    Actually, I think we do. This is a free-rider problem where imposing a cost on yourself (such as using more expensive, greener alternatives, reducing consumption, etc) make almost no difference to the overall problem. We need to ensure that the vast majority make these changes. The (simplified) payoff matrix is something like this: ---- I am green: I win Society is green: We all win a lot ---- I am green: I lose a lot Society is not green: We all lose a lot ---- I am not green: I win a lot Society is green: We all win a lot ---- I am not green: I lose, but at least I have a big car Society is not green: We all lose a lot ---- There are two ways out of the trap: 1. Innovation makes green solutions cheaper and better, such that going green is a win for the individual and for society. 2. Governments force green solutions to be the cheaper option, using laws and taxation.
    - bamboozled 9y ago
      You're doing it again: > 2. Governments force green solutions to be the cheaper option, using laws and taxation. That's not happening, but I'm sure you've noticed. So you're better off to invest in and back the innovators with your wallet by purchasing their products and by divesting (this need to be done, actively to work), which is what I said originally. Also there is plenty to gain from being innovative on a personal level. For example, you may perceive consuming less is a "cost" but is it really? If I consume less, I have more money (meaning I have to work less), I have less "stuff" to deal with, and I have less rubbish to throw out. You're not giving me anything new to be honest.
jblok 9y ago
This article makes out like the companies themselves are directly responsible, rather than the customers of these companies, i.e. you and me. We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services. Not to say there's not things a company can do to improve it's efficiency, but ultimately, a company isn't going to keep their factories firing away if no one is buying their stuff. The same argument can be applied when people look at China and think they are the problem because of their high use of coal and manufacturing industry. Well, I'd guess that a lot of their output is going to Western consumers, so again, it is they who are responsible.
- mac01021 9y ago
  If Alice pays Bob to kill Cathy, I think we can all agree that Alice and Bob are both felons. If Alice pays Bob to procure a tuna sandwich for her, and Bob chooses a means of procural that kills Cathy as a byproduct, common sense dictates that Bob is again a felon, while the amount of responsibility born by Alice depends on the extent to which she was aware of what Bob was going to do.
  - the_common_man 9y ago
    > If Alice pays Bob to procure a tuna sandwich for her, and Bob chooses a means of procural that kills Cathy as a byproduct, common sense dictates that Bob is again a felon, while the amount of responsibility born by Alice depends on the extent to which she was aware of what Bob was going to do. Right. (In this case), Alice is now aware, they are both felons for future transactions.
    - Joe-Z 9y ago
      However, Alice is dependent on tuna sandwiches to maintain her and is desperately hoping for Dick to change the rules, so she can finally go eat some mac'n'cheese.
- daptaq 9y ago
  Ah yes, what's better than trying to shift the blame from the actual people and groups doing this, to individuals, who often don't even know better? No need to address the companies or (dare I say) suggest regulations. It's the consumer who should think about this, he's the center of the market universe - besides 7 billion other centers - and only he - with the coincidental cooperation of all other 7 billion people - can change this. How? Why by consuming... ethically. Then the companies can still go on doing what they so, find market, created deals nobody knows of, destroy the environment and infiltrate governments with their "special interests". All the consumer has to do is spend more money on fancy stuff, and he doesn't have to feel guilty anymore. It's all ok! It might not be easy to ensure that all the people consume "correctly", but it's sure easier than trying to address the companies to produce "correctly". It's just basis economics.
thriftwy 9y ago
In other news, just 100 companies are responsible for making 71% of people overweight.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
anentropic 9y ago
R E G U L A T E
gautamdivgi 9y ago
These are all energy companies. I think there should also be a study on which are the top consumers of their products to better correlate data and change consumer behavior. As an example - one of my pet peeves is the resistance to remote work where possible. The amount of gas and time saved not commuting to work every day has got to be quite significant (along with the need to maintain smaller offices, etc.). If it can be quantified in terms of greenhouse gas emissions there may be more acceptance.
scottmsul 9y ago
Company sizes follow a pareto distribution. In a pareto distribution, some small number x companies will be responsible for some large y% of anything.
dx034 9y ago
A rather stupid statistic in my opinion. Of course we could save the planet by banning all car manufacturing and power plants. Doesn't mean that this is a serious option. It's not important who produces emissions. It's important where emissions can be reduced and how we can achieve this.
winter_blue 9y ago
I looked at the report[1], and pretty much all of the companies listed are energy companies (e.g. coal/petroleum/etc). I was expecting to see a lot of heavy industrial manufacturing companies. I can understand a coal plant producing a lot of emissions, but I'm wondering: why would a petroleum company generate a lot of emissions? Do they burn a lot of the fuel they produce? I thought they just pump the crude oil out, pass it through fractional distillation, and sell the resultant fuels? [1] https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- harryh 9y ago
  They're not just counting the emissions that Exxon (for example) produces by extracting oil. They're counting the emissions from when that oil is burned by the end consumer (say by me in a car) and accounting that back to Exxon. Yes, this is kinda dumb.
  - undersuit 9y ago
    Why is it dumb? Purposely selling a product that pollutes and wanting to shift all the blame to the customer sounds dumb to me. They aren't selling paper weights.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - harryh 9y ago
      If people stopped wanting to burn hydrocarbons for energy all of these companies would stop digging it up from the ground. Conversely, if all of these companies were suddenly shut down 100 new ones would rise up in their place to replace them. Demand drives consumption. Writing a report about how 71% of emissions come from 100 companies doesn't convey meaningful information to the reader about the nature of the problem of global warming.
known 9y ago
They're Pyramid schemes in disguise
caseysoftware 9y ago
> “Our purpose is not to name and shame firms, our purpose is to provide transparency and call attention to the quite extraordinary fact that just 100 companies played a crucial role in the problem,” said Pedro Faria, technical director of the Carbon Majors Database, which collected the information for the report. “It’s obvious they have a share of responsibility in the solution.” You made a list of the top 100 companies.. that is literally naming names. Then you say they're responsible for 71% of the problem and need to improve.. that is literally shaming them. For a supposedly-intelligent person, it's disappointing he doesn't know the definitions of the words he uses.
fakesmoke 9y ago
There's a really scary picture of a power plant leading off the story. There is a huge amount of smoke pouring out of its smoke stacks. Only, most of the smoke stacks are chillers and most of all that smoke is steam. The chillers looks like the kind most often associated with nuclear power plants. If you took all those emissions and photoshopped away all the H2O, you'd have a very small wisp of smoke. That smoke would still be a problem. But the photo would not inspire fear and concern. When an article leads off with that kind of spurious fearmongering, it damages any real value that might exist later in the article. Any real data and real concerns get obscured in all the fake smoke the article is purposely generating.
- sqeaky 9y ago
  CO2 is invisible. Pictures makes articles more appealing, easier to understand and profitable. It's not like they are even lying, you agree there is some smoke an pollutants in there. What should they take a picture of? Can't smokestacks, a long time symbol of industry, be just that a symbol? It's not like they are lying about the numbers in the article or even make claims about the picture.
nojvek 9y ago
It seems the large companies are mostly oil companies. The faster we transition to non-oil based energy, the faster we solve the problem. The big issue is oil has a very high energy density. Its relatively cheap to extract and transfer. If we do end up figuring out solar panels that intake C02 and water and output oil, that would be the biggest invention of our generation. Basically we need more efficient trees at scale. May be DNA programming will come to the rescue.

71 points by urahara 9y ago

folli 9y ago

And 90% of consumers are responsible to buy from these 100 companies?

bamboozled 9y ago
Exactly, this is the fallacy that we need "other people", like politicians to solve climate change for us. Try voting with your wallet and changing your bank.
- Joe-Z 9y ago
  A politician representing the interests of the people who voted for him/her is a fallacy? Then consequentially I should get back all my tax money that went into setting up international trade and other economic deals, since apparently this should also have been my responsibility and these arrangements would have just popped up if I had 'voted with my wallet'.
  - bamboozled 9y ago
    I never said that, but the majority of adults are responsible for this mess including the representatives they've elected. This includes you and me.
    - yorik 9y ago
      Are you a human or a corporation? Because if you are a human it should be a matter of common sense to see that it is quicker and more effective to regulate the emissions with a law instead of hoping that enough good willed people take their time and start boycotting every single company that does not care about the environment.
    - delazeur 9y ago
      > I never said that Perhaps that isn't what you meant, but it sure looks to me like that's what you said.
      - bamboozled 9y ago
        Relying on someone else to fix it won't fix it, is essentially what I'm saying, for if everyone had that attitude, then nothing would happen, absolutely nothing. Politicians are just people too.
        delazeur 9y ago
        ... People with far greater than average power to change society. I can't make laws. Can you? Voting for representatives who will make laws that create the change you want to see in the world is absolutely not "relying on someone else."
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Ah the fallacy that we need "other people" to solve the prisoner's dilemma. Try just not ratting out your partner in crime! Ah the fallacy that we need "other people" to solve the tragedy of the commons. Try just not grazing your cattle too much! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_theory
  - bamboozled 9y ago
    I'll stick with common sense on this one, if you can't see that you and all other educated adults have personal responsibility and that you can influence markets based on your choices as a consumer well, that's a shame. There can be personal action which can coincide with group and political action.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  That's a straw man though, people can call for regulation just because it is effective and doesn't create enormous hassle for themselves personally (trying to find the one product that is environmentally responsible or whatever). They don't have to believe it is necessarily the only solution.
- adgasf 9y ago
  Actually, I think we do. This is a free-rider problem where imposing a cost on yourself (such as using more expensive, greener alternatives, reducing consumption, etc) make almost no difference to the overall problem. We need to ensure that the vast majority make these changes. The (simplified) payoff matrix is something like this: ---- I am green: I win Society is green: We all win a lot ---- I am green: I lose a lot Society is not green: We all lose a lot ---- I am not green: I win a lot Society is green: We all win a lot ---- I am not green: I lose, but at least I have a big car Society is not green: We all lose a lot ---- There are two ways out of the trap: 1. Innovation makes green solutions cheaper and better, such that going green is a win for the individual and for society. 2. Governments force green solutions to be the cheaper option, using laws and taxation.
  - bamboozled 9y ago
    You're doing it again: > 2. Governments force green solutions to be the cheaper option, using laws and taxation. That's not happening, but I'm sure you've noticed. So you're better off to invest in and back the innovators with your wallet by purchasing their products and by divesting (this need to be done, actively to work), which is what I said originally. Also there is plenty to gain from being innovative on a personal level. For example, you may perceive consuming less is a "cost" but is it really? If I consume less, I have more money (meaning I have to work less), I have less "stuff" to deal with, and I have less rubbish to throw out. You're not giving me anything new to be honest.

jblok 9y ago

This article makes out like the companies themselves are directly responsible, rather than the customers of these companies, i.e. you and me. We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services. Not to say there's not things a company can do to improve it's efficiency, but ultimately, a company isn't going to keep their factories firing away if no one is buying their stuff. The same argument can be applied when people look at China and think they are the problem because of their high use of coal and manufacturing industry. Well, I'd guess that a lot of their output is going to Western consumers, so again, it is they who are responsible.

mac01021 9y ago
If Alice pays Bob to kill Cathy, I think we can all agree that Alice and Bob are both felons. If Alice pays Bob to procure a tuna sandwich for her, and Bob chooses a means of procural that kills Cathy as a byproduct, common sense dictates that Bob is again a felon, while the amount of responsibility born by Alice depends on the extent to which she was aware of what Bob was going to do.
- the_common_man 9y ago
  > If Alice pays Bob to procure a tuna sandwich for her, and Bob chooses a means of procural that kills Cathy as a byproduct, common sense dictates that Bob is again a felon, while the amount of responsibility born by Alice depends on the extent to which she was aware of what Bob was going to do. Right. (In this case), Alice is now aware, they are both felons for future transactions.
  - Joe-Z 9y ago
    However, Alice is dependent on tuna sandwiches to maintain her and is desperately hoping for Dick to change the rules, so she can finally go eat some mac'n'cheese.
daptaq 9y ago
Ah yes, what's better than trying to shift the blame from the actual people and groups doing this, to individuals, who often don't even know better? No need to address the companies or (dare I say) suggest regulations. It's the consumer who should think about this, he's the center of the market universe - besides 7 billion other centers - and only he - with the coincidental cooperation of all other 7 billion people - can change this. How? Why by consuming... ethically. Then the companies can still go on doing what they so, find market, created deals nobody knows of, destroy the environment and infiltrate governments with their "special interests". All the consumer has to do is spend more money on fancy stuff, and he doesn't have to feel guilty anymore. It's all ok! It might not be easy to ensure that all the people consume "correctly", but it's sure easier than trying to address the companies to produce "correctly". It's just basis economics.

thriftwy 9y ago

In other news, just 100 companies are responsible for making 71% of people overweight.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

anentropic 9y ago

R E G U L A T E

gautamdivgi 9y ago

These are all energy companies. I think there should also be a study on which are the top consumers of their products to better correlate data and change consumer behavior. As an example - one of my pet peeves is the resistance to remote work where possible. The amount of gas and time saved not commuting to work every day has got to be quite significant (along with the need to maintain smaller offices, etc.). If it can be quantified in terms of greenhouse gas emissions there may be more acceptance.

scottmsul 9y ago

Company sizes follow a pareto distribution. In a pareto distribution, some small number x companies will be responsible for some large y% of anything.

dx034 9y ago

A rather stupid statistic in my opinion. Of course we could save the planet by banning all car manufacturing and power plants. Doesn't mean that this is a serious option. It's not important who produces emissions. It's important where emissions can be reduced and how we can achieve this.

winter_blue 9y ago

I looked at the report[1], and pretty much all of the companies listed are energy companies (e.g. coal/petroleum/etc). I was expecting to see a lot of heavy industrial manufacturing companies. I can understand a coal plant producing a lot of emissions, but I'm wondering: why would a petroleum company generate a lot of emissions? Do they burn a lot of the fuel they produce? I thought they just pump the crude oil out, pass it through fractional distillation, and sell the resultant fuels? [1] https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
harryh 9y ago
They're not just counting the emissions that Exxon (for example) produces by extracting oil. They're counting the emissions from when that oil is burned by the end consumer (say by me in a car) and accounting that back to Exxon. Yes, this is kinda dumb.
- undersuit 9y ago
  Why is it dumb? Purposely selling a product that pollutes and wanting to shift all the blame to the customer sounds dumb to me. They aren't selling paper weights.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - harryh 9y ago
    If people stopped wanting to burn hydrocarbons for energy all of these companies would stop digging it up from the ground. Conversely, if all of these companies were suddenly shut down 100 new ones would rise up in their place to replace them. Demand drives consumption. Writing a report about how 71% of emissions come from 100 companies doesn't convey meaningful information to the reader about the nature of the problem of global warming.

known 9y ago

They're Pyramid schemes in disguise

caseysoftware 9y ago

> “Our purpose is not to name and shame firms, our purpose is to provide transparency and call attention to the quite extraordinary fact that just 100 companies played a crucial role in the problem,” said Pedro Faria, technical director of the Carbon Majors Database, which collected the information for the report. “It’s obvious they have a share of responsibility in the solution.” You made a list of the top 100 companies.. that is literally naming names. Then you say they're responsible for 71% of the problem and need to improve.. that is literally shaming them. For a supposedly-intelligent person, it's disappointing he doesn't know the definitions of the words he uses.

fakesmoke 9y ago

There's a really scary picture of a power plant leading off the story. There is a huge amount of smoke pouring out of its smoke stacks. Only, most of the smoke stacks are chillers and most of all that smoke is steam. The chillers looks like the kind most often associated with nuclear power plants. If you took all those emissions and photoshopped away all the H2O, you'd have a very small wisp of smoke. That smoke would still be a problem. But the photo would not inspire fear and concern. When an article leads off with that kind of spurious fearmongering, it damages any real value that might exist later in the article. Any real data and real concerns get obscured in all the fake smoke the article is purposely generating.

sqeaky 9y ago
CO2 is invisible. Pictures makes articles more appealing, easier to understand and profitable. It's not like they are even lying, you agree there is some smoke an pollutants in there. What should they take a picture of? Can't smokestacks, a long time symbol of industry, be just that a symbol? It's not like they are lying about the numbers in the article or even make claims about the picture.

nojvek 9y ago

It seems the large companies are mostly oil companies. The faster we transition to non-oil based energy, the faster we solve the problem. The big issue is oil has a very high energy density. Its relatively cheap to extract and transfer. If we do end up figuring out solar panels that intake C02 and water and output oil, that would be the biggest invention of our generation. Basically we need more efficient trees at scale. May be DNA programming will come to the rescue.