3 ms·

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 ind

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.
    - undersuit 9y ago
      People don't want to burn hydrocarbons for energy they just want energy. The proof is in the pudding, if people wanted to burn hydrocarbons for energy there would be no renewable energy sources. Demand for energy drives a consumption for energy and these companies provide the energy. If we had instead learned how to convert puppies to energy in the late 19th century instead of fossil fuels, we'd probably be burning puppies.
      - harryh 9y ago
        Yes, but we don't know how to convert puppies into energy. Hydrocarbons are (mostly) what we have so hydrocarbons are (mostly) what we get.

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.
  - undersuit 9y ago
    People don't want to burn hydrocarbons for energy they just want energy. The proof is in the pudding, if people wanted to burn hydrocarbons for energy there would be no renewable energy sources. Demand for energy drives a consumption for energy and these companies provide the energy. If we had instead learned how to convert puppies to energy in the late 19th century instead of fossil fuels, we'd probably be burning puppies.
    - harryh 9y ago
      Yes, but we don't know how to convert puppies into energy. Hydrocarbons are (mostly) what we have so hydrocarbons are (mostly) what we get.