100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/100-companies-responsible-71-per-cent-greenhouse-gas-emissions-global-warming-climate-change-shell-a7834031.html

by urahara • 9 years ago

71 62 9 years ago

independent.co.uk

folli• 9 years ago

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

bamboozled5• 9 years 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-Z4• 9 years 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'.

ZeroGravitas• 9 years 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

maxerickson• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

jblok2• 9 years 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.

daptaq• 9 years 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.

Joe-Z4• 9 years ago

Phew, sounds like a lot of work! If only we could muster up some congregation of people that speak for many other people, so that they could speak on our behalf and tell these companies to cut the crap...

That sure sounds nice.

delazeur6• 9 years ago

You're straw-manning here. A lot of rhetoric about pollution implicitly or explicitly paints a picture of evil corporations polluting for fun and profit, but any successful scheme to reduce pollution has to acknowledge that corporations are just one part (even if they are a very large part) of a broader human system. We can't move forward by simply pinning everything on corporations; that's a good strategy for making ourselves feel righteous but not a good strategy for effecting actual change.

rayiner4• 9 years 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?

This isn't a situation where you're blaming someone who buys an iPhone for all the pollution Apple creates in making them. Here, the actual person "doing" the pollution is you and me, when we buy a gas-powered car and drive it dozens of miles through suburban gridlock to get to work, or leave the thermostat at 68 on a hot summer day.

And while it might be reasonable to say that an iPhone consumer has no idea what toxic crap is involved in making that seemingly innocuous product, that's absolutely not reasonable when it comes to the products made by Exxon, etc. Everyone "knows better."

sarabande• 9 years ago

I agree with your argument that since consumers are the ones who demand the product, they are the reason such companies exist.

However, customers typically have little information on how many greenhouse gases are produced for a given product they buy, and especially not when it counts -- that is, in a store before a purchase -- so they cannot be reasonably expected to vote with their wallet.

One solution might be a combination of:

1) Labeling all products with the emissions that took to create them, so customers can easily vote with their wallet. Perhaps display them next to prices, perhaps with a label like Nutritional Facts on food products, or like a warning when some emissions threshold is exceeded, like smoking risks on cigarette cartons. Customers should not have to watch documentaries or do research on which companies are environmentally friendly and which aren't, but rather have that information given at purchase time.

One or both of:

2a) Subsidizing environmentally-friendly ways of production (perhaps even just for a time) so that these companies can survive against their coal-burning competitors. This way, customers voting with their wallet don't have to pay extreme prices for alternatives just because they think reducing greenhouse gases is good for the world -- with subsidies or tariffs, we could make alternatives somewhat price-competitive.

2b) Taxing goods made with too many greenhouse gases (i.e. the reverse of 2a).

adrianN• 9 years ago

It's very hard to find out how many GHGs were produced for a particular product. Manufactures have massive supply chains. Tracing a product back to the ores from which it comes is a daunting task.

devwastaken• 9 years ago

We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services.

We do. But, what is your point there? Are you saying that individuals have the ability to group up and stop it by not buying? Because that would be true. But, there's always that problem of realism that gets in the way. In theory, yes, we could pretty much solve or do anything as humans. Does that mean its realistically possible? No. Corporations have grown up with capitalistic countries, and are ingrained in its culture and work.

Sure, I'll stop shopping at Walmart. Until I see my grocery bills go up, and my savings dipped into to pay bills. Its the same story for many, many others.

People don't know any better, and even if they did, and we all grouped together, these conglomerates have such a gargantuan amount of money stored away that they can bet it won't last. They'll win that bet. Employees go on strike, get new ones. Employees try to form a union, close the store, re-open a month later.

When you consider the absolutetely massive size of the money and assets here, the very notion that its 'our' fault, is true, but its reasonings misleading.

jblok2• 9 years ago

I get all of that. You're spot on.

My point was just addressing the main theme of the article which is trying to make out that if we just got rid of these companies, we'd cut emissions by 71%. Well yeh sure, but then the world wouldn't continue to function as normal.

As individuals, we have the same methods as we always have. Don't drive when you can walk, use renewable energy, get an electric car, shop local, etc.

And of course, regulating both "ourselves", such that demand goes away. E.g. banning sales of diesel cars. And regulating businesses so that they aren't polluting unduly on our behalf e.g. carbon capture in power stations.

delazeur6• 9 years ago

Yes, the free market approach is unlikely to succeed here, but that's why we have elected representatives.

wccrawford2• 9 years ago

The article says:

The most polluting investor-owned companies on the list are ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron

Are they trying to say that those companies pollute directly, or that they sell to people who then pollute?

Because the former is definitely the company's fault. And we should be asking them to stop that.

But the latter is entirely the responsibility of their customers. And that's us.

mac01021• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

throw2016• 9 years ago

That's not how the market works. Consumer preferences are expressed by what's available in the market not the other way round.

And even leaving market mechanics aside 'demand' doesn't justify 'anything'.

A civilized society operates on rules and regulations. This is a problem of regulations, capture and unconstrained behavior by corporates.

xoa• 9 years ago

We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services.

Utterly wrong under multiple criteria.

1. If you read the article you'll see a number of these companies exist in polities that are in no way representative democracies without even the genuine goal (let alone a somewhat decent implementation) of a full market system, making them insulated from even general population pressure let alone market pressure.

2. For the ones that exist in the 1st World under reasonably market-based economies, you are still wrong, because the entire point of a market economy is that the price represents that all costs, ie., no externalities. Consumers can of course factor in non-cost factors at their option, but when it comes to something like pollution everything associated should be built in and it is absolutely not the end consumers fault if some company is committing fraud by failing to deal with externalities.

It's unfortunate modern conservatives in particular have done a full 180 and grown to hate the Free Market and refuse to implement emissions pricing, but that isn't up to individuals in their role as consumers (though in a democracy it is their fault in their role as citizens if they're supporting anti-market politicians). If the price of emitting a ton of CO2 or CH4 was simply set at the price of industrially removing (within a year) a ton, then things would be sorted out from there. The vast majority of humanity needs to be involved with externally produced products and/or services to survive in the modern world, that's not some option or crime. The sticker price should be reflecting all costs so they can make appropriate comparisons and choices.

gyrgtyn• 9 years ago

We cause these companies to pollute by creating a market demand for their products or services.

I don't know how this thread is surviving this long without someone arguing with you about this.

The demand is created by (the marketing departments of) the companies. Come on.

justforFranz3• 9 years ago

This response is SO BAD, it makes me wonder if you're not paid to post it.

thriftwy• 9 years ago

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

anentropic• 9 years ago

R E G U L A T E

gautamdivgi• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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• 9 years 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-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...

harryh3• 9 years 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.

undersuit4• 9 years 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.

known• 9 years ago

They're Pyramid schemes in disguise

caseysoftware• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

sqeaky2• 9 years 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• 9 years 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.

100 companies responsible for 71% of greenhouse gas emissions

Related Stories