5 ms·

I'd say that the solutions should start from the top first. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global GHG emissions.[1] That's a mind-boggling statistic.

by imiric 4y ago

I'd say that the solutions should start from the top first. 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global GHG emissions.[1] That's a mind-boggling statistic. The counterargument is, of course, that these companies are supplying the demand; that consumers should vote with their wallets, change their habits, recycle, reduce their "carbon footprint", etc. This is the usual deflection propaganda pushed by the companies themselves, and shills who benefit from them. But the reality is that if only a fraction of these companies changed a fraction of their processes to lower their emissions, or—heaven forbid—reduced their growth and shareholder profits, the positive impact would be far, far greater than anything individuals could ever do. It's ludicrously counterproductive to invest in _new_ companies to reduce our effects on the climate, while existing companies are the major cause of the problems we're trying to solve. It's like we're in a sinking ship, trying to remove the water with buckets, instead of patching up the hole the water is rushing in, and stopping the assholes who made it in the first place. I'm not saying climate tech companies shouldn't exist. But let's get our priorities straight first. [1]: https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-...

wasabi991011 4y ago
>100 companies are responsible for 71% of global GHG emissions. I've always found that stat to be misleading, as it uses the word "responsible" in a very unconventional way: essentially, GHG emissions come from fossil fuels extracted by these companies, even though the companies themselves aren't the ones using the fossil fuels nor producing the GHGs. This upstream analysis just doesn't seem very useful to me. You mention >If only a fraction of these companies changed a fraction of their processes[...] but I fail to see how China Coal (top 1), Saudi Aramco (2nd), or Gazprom (3rd) could do anything about their process to significantly reduce the amount of emmisions from their products. It's true that the world does need to structurally change to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but going after the producers would at best be a confusing way to apply a carbon tax. Other solutions from climate tech like better electricity production and storage needs to happen simultaneously, not after by "getting our priorities straight".
- imiric 4y ago
  > I've always found that stat to be misleading, as it uses the word "responsible" in a very unconventional way I used that word, while the original article[1] and report[2] use "linked to". Maybe you'll find that less misleading. > GHG emissions come from fossil fuels extracted by these companies, even though the companies themselves aren't the ones using the fossil fuels nor producing the GHGs. That's addressed in the report. Usage of their products makes up the majority of emissions, but it's not true that companies don't use the fuels or emit GHGs. > Scope 3 emissions account for 90% of total company emissions and result from the downstream combustion of coal, oil, and gas for energy purposes. Direct operational emissions (scope 1) are also taken into account. These "are attributed to the extraction and production of oil, gas, and coal." > I fail to see how China Coal (top 1), Saudi Aramco (2nd), or Gazprom (3rd) could do anything about their process to significantly reduce the amount of emmisions from their products. Oh, they can do plenty. From reducing their own operational emissions and optimizing the refinement of their products, to diversifying their business strategies to avoid these emissions in the first place. How about investing their vast resources into driving climate technology forward? These companies should be the first to invest in new technology, instead of startups having to claw their way into the market. How about we stop the growth of coal production in developing countries? If China alone would avoid making the same mistakes the West did, it would have a huge impact. But you're conveniently building a strawman that addresses only fossil fuel producing companies. Let's ignore these and focus on other industries. Are there no changes these companies can do to significantly reduce their emissions? I doubt that very much. Changing how these companies operate would have a far greater positive effect than what any tech startup, or group of individuals, can do. > Other solutions from climate tech like better electricity production and storage needs to happen simultaneously, not after by "getting our priorities straight". I never said that other solutions don't need to happen simultaneously. But it's clear that the brunt of the responsibility is on corporations and governments. [1]: https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-... [2]: https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000...

by imiric 4y ago

wasabi991011 4y ago

>100 companies are responsible for 71% of global GHG emissions. I've always found that stat to be misleading, as it uses the word "responsible" in a very unconventional way: essentially, GHG emissions come from fossil fuels extracted by these companies, even though the companies themselves aren't the ones using the fossil fuels nor producing the GHGs. This upstream analysis just doesn't seem very useful to me. You mention >If only a fraction of these companies changed a fraction of their processes[...] but I fail to see how China Coal (top 1), Saudi Aramco (2nd), or Gazprom (3rd) could do anything about their process to significantly reduce the amount of emmisions from their products. It's true that the world does need to structurally change to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but going after the producers would at best be a confusing way to apply a carbon tax. Other solutions from climate tech like better electricity production and storage needs to happen simultaneously, not after by "getting our priorities straight".

imiric 4y ago
> I've always found that stat to be misleading, as it uses the word "responsible" in a very unconventional way I used that word, while the original article[1] and report[2] use "linked to". Maybe you'll find that less misleading. > GHG emissions come from fossil fuels extracted by these companies, even though the companies themselves aren't the ones using the fossil fuels nor producing the GHGs. That's addressed in the report. Usage of their products makes up the majority of emissions, but it's not true that companies don't use the fuels or emit GHGs. > Scope 3 emissions account for 90% of total company emissions and result from the downstream combustion of coal, oil, and gas for energy purposes. Direct operational emissions (scope 1) are also taken into account. These "are attributed to the extraction and production of oil, gas, and coal." > I fail to see how China Coal (top 1), Saudi Aramco (2nd), or Gazprom (3rd) could do anything about their process to significantly reduce the amount of emmisions from their products. Oh, they can do plenty. From reducing their own operational emissions and optimizing the refinement of their products, to diversifying their business strategies to avoid these emissions in the first place. How about investing their vast resources into driving climate technology forward? These companies should be the first to invest in new technology, instead of startups having to claw their way into the market. How about we stop the growth of coal production in developing countries? If China alone would avoid making the same mistakes the West did, it would have a huge impact. But you're conveniently building a strawman that addresses only fossil fuel producing companies. Let's ignore these and focus on other industries. Are there no changes these companies can do to significantly reduce their emissions? I doubt that very much. Changing how these companies operate would have a far greater positive effect than what any tech startup, or group of individuals, can do. > Other solutions from climate tech like better electricity production and storage needs to happen simultaneously, not after by "getting our priorities straight". I never said that other solutions don't need to happen simultaneously. But it's clear that the brunt of the responsibility is on corporations and governments. [1]: https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-... [2]: https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf https://cdn.cdp.net/cdp-production/cms/reports/documents/000...