5 ms·

The big lie we’re told about climate change is that it’s our own fault

22 points by howard941 8y ago

rolph 8y ago
the article talks about 100 entities producing ~70% of greenhouse emissions and provides a link to a secondary. Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf mentions these 100 entities. https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240[PDF] https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...
- Isamu 8y ago
  Thanks for the interesting report link. That report says 100 entities are responsible for 52% of greenhouse emissions. I wonder why the discrepancy.
  - rolph 8y ago
    The report was link was in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... {edit} on examination the site above is >year old im curious about the discrepency as well, these are important numbers to NOT fudge up with regard to credibility. There is also a much larger set of report [1600pg] that all of this is originated from, its a big site and has a DL link, but is close to the horses mouth. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_...
  - jonathanrtuck 8y ago
    100 entities: 71% of industrial greenhouse gases. 25 entities: 52% of industrial greenhouse gases since the start of the industrial revolution.
    - rolph 8y ago
      OK i get the class structure now, Thanx
dflock 8y ago
The corporations that cause all these emissions are doing so in order to make stuff that we buy?
- AznHisoka 8y ago
  I only drive maybe 180 miles a month, and go on a flight once a year, so I should be among the last people to blame. Those people who put their travel porn pics on Instagram should be among the first :)
  - dexen 8y ago
    >Those people who put their travel porn pics on Instagram should be among the first :) To push back mildly: watching others' travels is a substitute to traveling yourself. Every Instagram celebrity is thousands, if not tens of thousands, people who get the travel experience without having to burn the fuel for actual travel.
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      If you think photos of Paris are enough to replace the experience of traveling there and satiate the desire too...you don't think like most people.
- throw_away 8y ago
  The linked IPCC report is even more specific. The 100 companies cited are all involved in fossil fuel production. So as long as you don't use fossil fuels or consume anything made or transported with fossil fuels, it isn't your fault at all.
  - kayamon 8y ago
    But every single thing is made or transported via fossil fuels. You'd have to be living in a cave to avoid them.
    - 8y ago
baron_harkonnen 8y ago
>If the light switch was connected to clean energy, who the hell cares if you left it on? The problem is not so much the consumption, it’s the supply. And your scrap paper did not hasten the end of the world. The major issue this misunderstands is that transportation is the lynch pin of a global economy and transportation has and for the foreseeable future will continue to require high energy density fuels to continue running. Quality of life in modern society is heavily dependent on the import and export of resources. Look around your living space and ask yourself where did all of these things come from? It doesn't matter if it's a "local" farm 40 miles outside your city, it still took considerable fossil fuels to bring them to you. The issue isn't that global warming is happening because we're too lazy to turn off the lights, but rather because we refuse to accept a drastically lower standard of living. To prevent global warming we would have had to radically alter modern life decades ago, and who would have voted for the politician that had the platform of "lower standard of living for longer living" in the early 90s or 80s or ideally the immediate post-war period?
- btrettel 8y ago
  > rather because we refuse to accept a drastically lower standard of living I don't think it's as drastic as most people imagine, or necessarily worse. I'm a transportation cyclist. People seem to assume this some sort of massive "sacrifice", yet I actually prefer to do this mostly because it costs less and helps me stay in shape. If I need a car, I can rent one. (And despite having a zipcar membership for over 5 years, I just recently cancelled it because I never used it once.) I am hopeful that what superficially seems like a massive downgrade in other areas is just an illusion. It might be different, even "worse" in some senses, but ultimately I hope people will find climate friendly solutions acceptable or even better in the long run. We can't know until we try, and I don't see many people in the US willing to try.
  - baron_harkonnen 8y ago
    How do you come to the conclusion that biking to work does anything significant to offset the 20 tons of co2 emission you produce? Let alone bring it anywhere near 0? If you want to get a sense of what 0 per capita emissions looks like you need to look at countries that have 0 co2 emissions per capita. Here's a list of countries with less that 0.1 tons of co2 per capita: Burundi, Somalia, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Dem. Rep., Ethiopia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Rwanda,South Sudan, Uganda Biking to work is hardly the sacrifice that would be required to seriously offset global co2 emissions. It's not just about driving in your car, it's about the transportation energy required to sustain your entire lifestyle. The food you eat, the goods you consume, the income you make, the concrete that grows the city around you. All of this requires moving things around the globe which in requires substantial amounts of high energy density fuels. It turns out that, independent of how environmentally conscious you are, emissions foot print is closely tied to personal income [1]. But nobody wants to hear that to live sustainably we must live a dramatically reduced quality of life. The fact that my comment is being downvoted is evidence of how strongly people don't want to hear this. And again, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to reduce the quality of their life. But it's ridiculous to be dishonest about how much our civilization has overshot what a truly sustainable civilization looks like. [1]. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/1671884...

22 points by howard941 8y ago

the article talks about 100 entities producing ~70% of greenhouse emissions and provides a link to a secondary. Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf mentions these 100 entities. https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240[PDF] https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...

Isamu 8y ago
Thanks for the interesting report link. That report says 100 entities are responsible for 52% of greenhouse emissions. I wonder why the discrepancy.
- rolph 8y ago
  The report was link was in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10... {edit} on examination the site above is >year old im curious about the discrepency as well, these are important numbers to NOT fudge up with regard to credibility. There is also a much larger set of report [1600pg] that all of this is originated from, its a big site and has a DL link, but is close to the horses mouth. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_...
- jonathanrtuck 8y ago
  100 entities: 71% of industrial greenhouse gases. 25 entities: 52% of industrial greenhouse gases since the start of the industrial revolution.
  - rolph 8y ago
    OK i get the class structure now, Thanx

dflock 8y ago

The corporations that cause all these emissions are doing so in order to make stuff that we buy?

AznHisoka 8y ago
I only drive maybe 180 miles a month, and go on a flight once a year, so I should be among the last people to blame. Those people who put their travel porn pics on Instagram should be among the first :)
- dexen 8y ago
  >Those people who put their travel porn pics on Instagram should be among the first :) To push back mildly: watching others' travels is a substitute to traveling yourself. Every Instagram celebrity is thousands, if not tens of thousands, people who get the travel experience without having to burn the fuel for actual travel.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    If you think photos of Paris are enough to replace the experience of traveling there and satiate the desire too...you don't think like most people.
throw_away 8y ago
The linked IPCC report is even more specific. The 100 companies cited are all involved in fossil fuel production. So as long as you don't use fossil fuels or consume anything made or transported with fossil fuels, it isn't your fault at all.
- kayamon 8y ago
  But every single thing is made or transported via fossil fuels. You'd have to be living in a cave to avoid them.
  - 8y ago

baron_harkonnen 8y ago

>If the light switch was connected to clean energy, who the hell cares if you left it on? The problem is not so much the consumption, it’s the supply. And your scrap paper did not hasten the end of the world. The major issue this misunderstands is that transportation is the lynch pin of a global economy and transportation has and for the foreseeable future will continue to require high energy density fuels to continue running. Quality of life in modern society is heavily dependent on the import and export of resources. Look around your living space and ask yourself where did all of these things come from? It doesn't matter if it's a "local" farm 40 miles outside your city, it still took considerable fossil fuels to bring them to you. The issue isn't that global warming is happening because we're too lazy to turn off the lights, but rather because we refuse to accept a drastically lower standard of living. To prevent global warming we would have had to radically alter modern life decades ago, and who would have voted for the politician that had the platform of "lower standard of living for longer living" in the early 90s or 80s or ideally the immediate post-war period?

btrettel 8y ago
> rather because we refuse to accept a drastically lower standard of living I don't think it's as drastic as most people imagine, or necessarily worse. I'm a transportation cyclist. People seem to assume this some sort of massive "sacrifice", yet I actually prefer to do this mostly because it costs less and helps me stay in shape. If I need a car, I can rent one. (And despite having a zipcar membership for over 5 years, I just recently cancelled it because I never used it once.) I am hopeful that what superficially seems like a massive downgrade in other areas is just an illusion. It might be different, even "worse" in some senses, but ultimately I hope people will find climate friendly solutions acceptable or even better in the long run. We can't know until we try, and I don't see many people in the US willing to try.
- baron_harkonnen 8y ago
  How do you come to the conclusion that biking to work does anything significant to offset the 20 tons of co2 emission you produce? Let alone bring it anywhere near 0? If you want to get a sense of what 0 per capita emissions looks like you need to look at countries that have 0 co2 emissions per capita. Here's a list of countries with less that 0.1 tons of co2 per capita: Burundi, Somalia, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo Dem. Rep., Ethiopia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Rwanda,South Sudan, Uganda Biking to work is hardly the sacrifice that would be required to seriously offset global co2 emissions. It's not just about driving in your car, it's about the transportation energy required to sustain your entire lifestyle. The food you eat, the goods you consume, the income you make, the concrete that grows the city around you. All of this requires moving things around the globe which in requires substantial amounts of high energy density fuels. It turns out that, independent of how environmentally conscious you are, emissions foot print is closely tied to personal income [1]. But nobody wants to hear that to live sustainably we must live a dramatically reduced quality of life. The fact that my comment is being downvoted is evidence of how strongly people don't want to hear this. And again, I don't blame anyone for not wanting to reduce the quality of their life. But it's ridiculous to be dishonest about how much our civilization has overshot what a truly sustainable civilization looks like. [1]. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/1671884...