Only 57 Companies Produced 80% of Global Carbon Dioxide (carbonmajors.org) 167
Last year was the hottest on record and the Earth is headed towards a global warming of 2.7 degrees, yet top fossil fuel and cement producers show a disregard for climate change and actively make things worse. From a report: A new Carbon Majors Database report found that just 57 companies were responsible for 80 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions between 2016 and 2022. Thirty-eight percent of total emissions during this period came from nation-states, 37 percent from state-owned entities and 25 percent from investor-owned companies.
Nearly 200 parties adopted the 2015 Paris Agreement, committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, 58 of the 100 state- and investor-owned companies in the Carbon Majors Database have increased their production in the years since (The Climate Accountability Institute launched Carbon Majors in 2013 to hold fossil fuel producers accountable and is hosted by InfluenceMap). This number represents producers worldwide, including 87 percent of those assessed in Asia, 57 percent in Europe and 43 percent in North America.
It's not a clear case of things slowly turning around, either. The International Energy Agency found coal consumption increased by eight percent over the seven years to 8.3 billion tons -- a record high. The report names state-owned Coal India as one of the top three carbon dioxide producers. Russia's state-owned energy company Gazprom and state-owned oil firm Saudi Aramco rounded out the trio of worst offenders.
Nearly 200 parties adopted the 2015 Paris Agreement, committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, 58 of the 100 state- and investor-owned companies in the Carbon Majors Database have increased their production in the years since (The Climate Accountability Institute launched Carbon Majors in 2013 to hold fossil fuel producers accountable and is hosted by InfluenceMap). This number represents producers worldwide, including 87 percent of those assessed in Asia, 57 percent in Europe and 43 percent in North America.
It's not a clear case of things slowly turning around, either. The International Energy Agency found coal consumption increased by eight percent over the seven years to 8.3 billion tons -- a record high. The report names state-owned Coal India as one of the top three carbon dioxide producers. Russia's state-owned energy company Gazprom and state-owned oil firm Saudi Aramco rounded out the trio of worst offenders.
Easy fix (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone have the list? The report seems to be paywalled and TFA doesn't give it.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone have the list? The report seems to be paywalled and TFA doesn't give it.
It's not paywalled for me, not sure why it is for you. Check again. If you still can't get it, I can copy/paste, but it's not formatted conveniently for that, so I don't want to do the work if you can get to it.
Re:Easy fix (Score:4, Informative)
Huh. I can access it now. Before it was asking for me to log in. Maybe they changed it when the story blew up. Thanks for checking.
Anyway....
China (Coal)
Saudi Aramco
Gazprom
Coal India
National Iranian Oil Co.
China (Cement)
Russian Federation
Rosneft
CNPC
Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
ExxonMobil
Iraq National Oil Company
Shell
BP
Sonatrach
Chevron
Kuwait Petroleum Corp.
TotalEnergies
Petrobras
Pemex
Re: Easy fix (Score:5, Insightful)
So if all of these petrochemical companies are shouldering the blame for their global CO2 production, does that mean I can burn their product with a clear concience?
Re:Easy fix (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a Google Sheet with the top 100, including numbers. https://docs.google.com/spread... [google.com]
After I said copy-pasting was hard because of the formatting, I decided to try writing a quick script to clean up the formatting and make it tab-separated. It turned out to be pretty easy, except for the last chunk (105+), so I quit at 100.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly that's not a public document and requires Google authentication. 3/4 of the reason I want to read/see the document is to view the technical results you have written about.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly that's not a public document and requires Google authentication. 3/4 of the reason I want to read/see the document is to view the technical results you have written about.
Oops. Fixed.
Re: Easy fix (Score:2)
Thanks for sharing. This is strange list: it has some countries in there, but not some of the obvious ones like the US. Then I wonder if they are double counting, such as with Gazprom and the Russian Ferderation?
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for sharing. This is strange list: it has some countries in there, but not some of the obvious ones like the US. Then I wonder if they are double counting, such as with Gazprom and the Russian Ferderation?
It's a list of companies, not countries. But in many countries the coal/oil companies are owned by the government. Since a government probably isn't going to bother owning multiple companies that do the same thing (if that happened it would likely merge them) the countries with nationalized coal/oil companies tend to have only a single such company, which makes them bigger, and therefore bigger carbon emitters.
The US does not nationalize these companies, so we have several, who all compete with one anothe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the usual bullshit. Evil oil company selling a legal product people demand. Evil coal company selling a legal product people demand. Along with a whole lot of other evil companies that are largely on the list not because they actually are big emitters, but rather because their customers set their products on fire.
Also the report is not paywalled for me. Also for some reason several on the list aren't actually companies they are countries, both current and past e.g. "China (Coal)" and "Former Soviet Uni
Re:Easy fix (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
And yet....people are pushing us the hardest to curtail our modern lifestyle, do without or less....when we by far are not the worst.
It terms of carbon emissions per capita, we are around 14th-16th depending on whose list you look use at ~14.5T/person/year. Most of the higher per capita countries are middle eastern countries or small island nations which presumably lead us because they are mostly burning coal or oil. However, they are so small they don't make a huge dent in absolute terms. Because we have a lot of people, and because our per capita energy use is also very high, a small reduction per capita for us makes a huge differenc
Re: (Score:2)
These are for the most part systemic issues and need systemic solutions that are out of the grasp of individuals to enact, but we know the general sketch of what it needs to look like: more renewables in the electric grid, electrify home appliances, emphasize rail shipping over trucking, build better cheaper and more convenient mass transit systems, etc.
Assuming you mean intracity mass transit, I'm not sure that last one will result in a meaningful improvement. Mass transit is, for the most part, something you should do only if it makes sense based on traffic patterns and solving some actual need, rather than because of pollution. Between the significant carbon emissions involved in building systems that actually move people efficiently and the traditionally low ridership, it isn't always a significant win in general. And now that EVs are starting to be
Re: (Score:2)
we know the general sketch of what it needs to look like: more renewables in the electric grid, electrify home appliances, emphasize rail shipping over trucking, build better cheaper and more convenient mass transit systems, etc.
Better, simpler solution: Carbon taxes & tariffs.
Let the market work out what the most efficient and effective place to cut emissions is. Make the carbon taxes refundable, too, to encourage development of recapture systems.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a fuck about per capital.
Because the climate cares what country people are from?
Re: Easy fix (Score:2)
There, fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone have the list? The report seems to be paywalled and TFA doesn't give it.
The worlds energy companies.
Re: (Score:2)
We just eliminate those companies and the CO2 problem is solved!
How do you expect society to function without fertilizer, plastics, concrete, steel and many more other irreplaceable ingredients of a technological society that require emissions to produce? Go without means mass starvation followed by extinction-level human casualties and subsistence survival for the remaining small percentage of the population.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you expect society to function without fertilizer, plastics, concrete, steel and many more other irreplaceable ingredients of a technological society that require emissions to produce? Go without means mass starvation followed by extinction-level human casualties and subsistence survival for the remaining small percentage of the population.
If we just used oil for a feed stock and stopped burning it for transport and electricity we'd be fine, climate-wise. Same goes for coal if we just used it to smelt steel.
The food issue is thornier, because it's not just hydro-carbons: it's also water from non-renewable aquifers and phosphates from non-renewable mineral deposits. I think we'll have to worry about the latter two being exhausted long before the oil runs out. I don't think anyone's yet cracked sustainable farming at a level that supports t
Re: (Score:2)
If we just used oil for a feed stock and stopped burning it for transport and electricity we'd be fine, climate-wise. Same goes for coal if we just used it to smelt steel.
We don't, strictly speaking, absolutely have to use coal for that. Arc furnaces can be used for smelting without burning coal (coke). It will take a long time to convert them all over, though.
The food issue is thornier, because it's not just hydro-carbons: it's also water from non-renewable aquifers
Aquifers replenish themselves from rain water over time. You just have to stop pumping water out of the ground faster than it goes back in. This is a solved problem (desalinization). The only real unsolved problem is that politicians don't want to spend money to build it, out of fear that maybe weather will increa
Re: (Score:2)
We just eliminate those companies and the CO2 problem is solved!
How do you expect society to function without fertilizer, plastics, concrete, steel and many more other irreplaceable ingredients of a technological society that require emissions to produce?
You do understand that the post you are replying to was tongue in cheek, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, 50% Insightful, 50% Funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, who are you going to kill?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can try, but India and China produce their own food and have plenty of people willing to sell them fossil fuels (ie. Russia).
They can maybe starve out Egypt and a few other African and Asian countries. And they're going to try and starve out the developed world until voters have had enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Go without means mass starvation followed by extinction-level human casualties and subsistence survival for the remaining small percentage of the population.
Hacking off 2 - 3 billion people would greatly reduce the human-induced pressures on the planet. Less crowded conditions, less use of fossil fuels, less use of water, less paved over forests and plains, less polution, lower housing costs, the list goes on.
Having fewer people on the planet would be a good thing. For nearly everyone their quality of life would improve.
Are you volunteering to off yourself and promise not to procreate? How long would those 2-3 BILLION people suffer before dying, improving the quality of life for everyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
A few quick executions of the companies top executives should motivate immediate change by their successors.
Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't production, it is the demand for energy and insufficient alternatives. India burned a lot of extra coal last year because their renewables were less productive.
You're not going to get people to give up energy (in whatever form runs machinery and provides heat/air conditioning), so you must provide viable alternatives to reduce fossil fuels use.
That's the real challenge - roll out green power, distribution networks, and electrify everything that currently burns fossil fuels.
Re:Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes this. These 57 companies may indeed be immoral multinationals who care nothing about anyone and the health of the earth, but they wouldn't be in business if the entire world wasn't demanding the energy. And if these companies went away tomorrow, the impact on every-day lives would be dramatic, and not necessarily in positive ways.
I find it slightly ironic that these big companies are accused of not bearing the true cost of their actions while passing it on to humanity, yet at the same time those pushing for immediate and drastic action on climate change want to do the very same thing. Someone else should always pay for it, not me. We need to be honest and realistic. Removing fossil fuels from our energy supply is going to involve some significant cost and hardship to everyone, and it's not clear that our present lifestyle is compatible with such a goal. Dramatic changes will be required. It's not something that we'll just expect these 57 companies to pay for, and merely demand (nay, legislate) that science steps up and provides us with replacements, while the rest of us continue as we have.
There is an increasing cost to everyone of doing nothing, but there is also a very real cost of doing something.
Re: Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
it's actually the new woke crowd bullshit. since they don't want to be responsible for their actions they blame companies that produce the things they consume.
basically they are saying "yes I run a gas car, but I only do it because these evil corporations make cars and gas cheap and convenient. that's their fault"
Re: Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to put on my socialist hat. The companies ARE evil, and are playing dirty tricks to maintain the status quo. People are selfish, and will not sacrifice their lifestyle now for a vague better future later.
The answer is government, with good leadership. Everyone has to be convinced or coerced so we're all doing what needs to be done and we all suffer the same pain of the technological transition off fossil fuels. This is the thing we're not really getting, because both the evil corporations and the selfish people push back hard enough that politicians are reluctant to resist them.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, what "government" is getting us is subsidies to energy, which make gas cheap and worsen the problem.
Government also prices out nuclear by regulating it obscenely (meanwhile that coal plant is still spewing out carcinogenics contaminants 24/7).
It should be very clear by this point that governments are the problem. Well, to be fair, the problem isn't government per se. It's democracy. Democracy is a popularity contest where incompetent, but charismatic leaders win, and then they squander public money to k
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy is indeed flawed. I can't wait until someone comes up with something better. Until then, democracy is the best we've got.
Quoting Churchill: Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried...
(does leave open the possibility of a better form of goverment that has not yet been tried.)
Re: (Score:2)
How about improved forms of democracy? Countries with primitive forms of democracy like first-past-the-post should upgrade to ranked-choice voting with proportional representation to break 2-party strangleholds and end strategic voting. The next step would be to move toward liquid democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you seen the mess that results from such a ranked-choice system? It's not pretty. Even though my federal government rarely is controlled by the party I primarily vote for, I'd much rather have first past the post. I certainly don't even more influence given to the more extreme voices. Granted the mainstream parties are getting more extreme all the time.
I've come to the conclusion that few people really actually want democracy. Most tolerate it because they do understand the problem with the altern
Re: (Score:2)
Canada seems like a poster child for the failures of FPTP voting. For many decades they've had 2-3 leftist-to-centrist parties that attract voters who would all agree to put the tories well down the list of parties they'd like to have in charge (just above any far-right fringe parties that might appear, maybe also the most leftist party for some), and these parties get significant fractions of the vote, but the tories often win because they get more votes than any one of those 2-3 parties. In a ranked-choic
Look at PR's record in Europe and shudder (Score:2)
At the moment there is no Dutch government because a majority can't be constructed.
The Socialists in Spain got to form the government - but giving pardons to the Catalan separtists whom they'd promised not to give pardons to.
Portugal has a large far right party noone will talk to. As a result the centrist parties can't form a government
France has rejected PR for two rounds of voting; in the second round only the top candidates are allowed to stay in the race.
Greece gives an extra 50 seats to the party that
Re: (Score:2)
How about improved forms of democracy? Countries with primitive forms of democracy like first-past-the-post should upgrade to ranked-choice voting with proportional representation to break 2-party strangleholds and end strategic voting. The next step would be to move toward liquid democracy.
Ranked choice can lead to non-deterministic outcomes. I've also seen my own state move to something they call ranked choice, but really is a different beast. In my state, they see if any candidate wins a majority in the first choice. Then the first choice is ignored and compare all the second choice, etc. The ballots don't allow voters to indicate the same candidate in different choice levels.
In my ideal rank choice election, people would still indicate first, second, and third choice candidates. First choi
Republic [Re: Stupid] (Score:2)
Democracy is a system that's flawed from the start.
That's why the nations with the most freedoms and highest economic output do not operate under a pure democracy. The first constraint on a democracy is the existence of a republic. There's going to be many definitions on what it means to have a republic
No, there aren't. A republic is a governing entity for which the governing is for the benefit of the public (Latin: publica, the public.). This is opposed to, say, a monarchy, in which the governing is for the benefit of the king, or an aristocracy, where the governing is for the benefit of a hereditary ruling class.
Pretty much all republics are democracies.
but most people have an idea on what it means versus a pure democracy.
I think most people have no idea what a republic is.
... In a republic we can't have a majority rule to restrict the rights of others, everyone is held to the same standards on some fundamental rights. A pure democracy would be unwieldy since every public policy would be put up to a poll,
That would be a direct democracy, but nowhere is governed with a fully direct democracy. All real d
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much all republics are democracies.
It is not required to have a democracy to have a republic,
It's not technically required for a republic to be a democracy, but in the real world every republic is a democracy.
It is difficult to maintain a republic organized for the benefit of the people unless the people actually have a say in running it.
and it is not required for a democracy to exist as a republic. Perhaps you've heard the joke that a democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to do fro supper while a republic is a well armed lamb? In a republic there's a limit on what is up to a vote, such as disarming the lamb.
You seem to be confusing "having a constitution" with "being a republic".
Being a democracy does not preclude having a constitution that maintains rights; in fact, it is pretty much required for a democracy to function.
Re: Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is government, with good leadership.
This is magic pixie dust thinking.
To me, asking government to attempt any kind of central planning on a large scale is inviting lobbyist and corruption and cost overruns. Consequently, any solution coming out of that will be decades late, substandard quality and massively over budget.
Re: (Score:3)
"People are selfish, and will not sacrifice their lifestyle now for a vague better future later.
The answer is government, with good leadership."
Unfortunately, there's a fatal flaw in that solution. Government IS people. Expecting government to be less selfish than the people who make it up is futile.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you get a leader instead of an opportunist. We need those, badly. But I think actual non-dictatorial leadership might be very difficult right now. Culturally, we're too selfish, short-sighted, and untrusting to elect someone who speaks hard truths for our own good.
Good leadership [Re: Stupid] (Score:2)
People are selfish, and will not sacrifice their lifestyle now for a vague better future later.
The answer is government, with good leadership.
Unfortunately, there's a fatal flaw in that solution. Government IS people. Expecting government to be less selfish than the people who make it up is futile.
The fatal flaw is that the answer "we need good leadership" is not an answer. The problem is not "do we want a good leadership?" the problem is "how do we choose leaders in such a way that we get good leadership, and who decided what leadership is good?"
Re: Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us "woke" people don't want to outright get rid of common conveniences, just make some common-sense incentives and/or disincentives. For example, a tax or fee on big and/or polluting cars will reduce their usage. One can STILL have a fat car if they so want, they are just going to pay say 25% more. Since they are usually only phallic/status symbols, the rarity actually makes them more phallic-y. It doesn't change the overall fashion balance. (If somebody has a big family or biz need, they can get a fat-car exemption.)
I for one disagreed with the outright ban on incandescent lightbulbs, I'd like to see a gradually-increasing fee/tax on them to dissuade people in aggregate. That way those who crave them for whatever reason can still get them. Dissuasion is a combination of gov't and market-forces working together. I agree outright bans are usually a bad idea, but incentives can be used to gradually shift the demand to greener alternatives without outright "taking away freedom".
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what they are ther for, it is not goats job to tell me what to do, they are ther to do what the people tell them to do.
Taxation is to be minimal, enough to run govt and provide services....not to mold behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I, like many others, actively vote OUT politicians that try to alter my behavior with taxes or other means.
There is almost no politician or party that doesn't encourage certain behaviors or prop up certain industries with tax incentives.
Re: (Score:3)
I, like many others, actively vote OUT politicians that try to alter my behavior with taxes or other means.
It's fine to take this position, but know that this is what every politician does.
Behavior-altering activities include, for starters:
Any politician w
Polluter pays (Score:2)
If a mine causes pollution, the mine owners should clean it up.
Not so long ago London had 'pea souper' fogs where the visibility was very low and people died in vast numbers. Eventually this led to smokeless zones that somewhat reduced the problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Today cars cause vast amounts of pollution - from the congestion they cause through to particulate matter, until recently lead and now the big issue is CO2.
In each of these cases the beneficiaries of the economic activity are failin
Re: (Score:2)
Pollution is certainly a problem, and it is influence by demand still. But the issues at hand here are entirely different, that of CO2 production, which is directly correlated with energy, of which you use a lot. Pollution does come into this, but even there you can only legislate it away so much without working on the demand side of the equation. Demanding power plants stop polluting while demanding every increasing amounts of electricity is counter-productive. That's the problem with the entire green mo
Re: (Score:2)
For example, a tax or fee on big and/or polluting cars will reduce their usage.
Bigger cars (or trucks) in general already cost more. And less efficient ones use more fuel, so the people driving them already pay more there as well.
I'd like to see a gradually-increasing fee/tax on them to dissuade people in aggregate.
What other parts of your life do you think the government should socially engineer? The possibilities are endless, and there are probably people who will support every single one of them. I elect government to provide services, not to tell me how to live, whether it be through coercion or bans.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the slippery slope fallacy?
I would not call it a fallacy. Actual slippery slopes happen all the time.
Preventing/reducing environmental catastrophe for future generation is worth SOME sacrifice in my opinion
If green alternatives are cheaper and better like so many say then society will switch organically. The fact it requires coercion kind of suggests that is all a lie.
Too bad, that's democracy, you are not the King (thank gods).
Tyranny of the majority is marginally better than tyranny of the minority, but neither are desirable. We don't elect a King, but a lot of them seem to think they are anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree there are some good tax mechanisms that can be brought to bear. And many of them can be implemented by states and provinces without federal participation. For example vehicle registration. If that was based on a number of factors including stated EPA MPG, and even going negative for EVs, that can certainly help without outright banning anything. Freedoms are still preserved. You can drive a gas-guzzling muscle car if you want, or a big pointless truck as long as you are willing to pay a lot more eac
Re:Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
The people who wrote this report are giving a world class lesson in how to lie with statistics. As you say if we shut down those 57 companies then a great many people will suffer and even die because they can't get food, housing, medicine, etc. I suspect a large part of the global economy would just collapse. I guess that's one way to reduce co2; just kill off most of the population and put the rest in caves.
Assuming they are just ignorant and not malicious, this is a real life example of the marshmallow test. These people are no different than young children who lack the intellectual capacity to make A/B value judgments, predict future results from actions today, and generally plan ahead the way functioning adults do.
It's been done many times but this is my favorite version of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The littler girl is so happy with herself for getting her one marshmallow right away even though she doesn't get the second one for waiting.
Re: (Score:2)
Lmao, too true! +5
heading for... (Score:2)
"Last year was the hottest on record and the Earth is headed towards a global warming of 2.7 degrees"
I'm not even sure what that phrase is even saying. Temperature is currently increasing, yes, so it gets to larger numbers. Why 2.7 degrees? If we don't keep increasing our output of greenhouse gas, you could equally well say it's "heading for" 2.5 degrees, or 2.9 degrees, or 3.5 degrees, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, pick a random point in history and i'm sure a 2.7 degree increase is possible compared to today.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point in that number is that it represents a tipping point, as far as humanity's ability to live and thrive in such a climate. If you think the migrant issues are bad now, just wait 10 years. Climate change will make the migrant issues of today seem trivial as many millions of people will be forced to move.
There was much talk some years ago about keeping it to 2.0 or less, which should be below the tipping point. But I don't think anyone believes keeping it to 2.0 is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
But I don't think anyone believes keeping it to 2.0 is possible.
not our problem mate, seeing as we arent the cause. how about industry sort it out
Re: (Score:3)
not our problem mate, seeing as we arent the cause. how about industry sort it out
That's like refusing to get a fire extinguisher because you are waiting for the arsonist that lit your house on fire to sort himself out.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that's the spirit. Someone else will pay for it! And science will magically allow us to make no sacrifices and keep living the energy-extravagant way we have been living.
You realize the energy industry wouldn't exist if there was no demand for energy, right? No, climate change is primarily driven by consumer demand. Of course our present lifestyle is quite comfortable and has many advantages. I'm glad you're able to watch the world burn as you sit off the grid, grow all your own food, make all you
Re: (Score:3)
Faulty premise (Score:4, Insightful)
Details like that are why "net zero" is not achievable by emission reduction alone, it requires using capture technology.
Re:Faulty premise (Score:5, Informative)
Picking on cement and fossil fuel producers is kind of easy. It overlooks the fact that these companies exist to serve what currently is a vital need. If we need to cut cement production, we also need to cut cement use. I'm not sure the urban-green lobby has thought about that one. In my state, I think they are trying to promote densification to reduce environmental footprint ...
Fossil fuel reductions are in a somewhat better place. Coal is dying because it is not competitive with solar for new builds. The next big shift will be for personal vehicles. A large percentage of trips are either too and from work or about the neighborhood for errands. We should be able to reduce emissions from those uses easily. We need to replace the fossil fuel consumption for short range car rides with battery cars. I think that is the next easy to do thing.
Climate is changing much faster now. We have lots more harder steps ahead ... and it is incredible how divisive politics is currently. We are going to be in trouble if climate change significantly affects food-production, and farmers are saying things are getting harder.
Re: (Score:2)
We are going to be in trouble if climate change significantly affects food-production, and farmers are saying things are getting harder.
I don't think this is likely, if you look at the studies there is actually greening [nasa.gov] going on right now. This makes sense, as higher CO2 makes it more favorable conditions for plant life outside of tropics. So while food production may have to shift further north and some farming, like in Texas, will suffer, the overall picture does not suggest we are in danger on this front.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to weigh the greening against crop losses due to less predictable/more extreme weather and reduced crop nutrition beyond 400ppm (the point where plants stop benefiting from increased CO2, which was passed many years ago). By 2030 the overall effect is expected to be signficant double-digit percentage drops in crop yields:
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
By 2030 the overall effect is expected to be signficant double-digit percentage drops in crop yields
That may be someone's guess, but it has not started yet.
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
The global production of primary crop commodities reached 9.5 billion tonnes in 2021, increasing by 54 percent since 2000 and 2 percent since 2020.
https://www.fao.org/3/cc3751en... [fao.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So while food production may have to shift further north and some farming, like in Texas, will suffer
Exactly right. A friend of mine is a plant pathologist who heads a research lab at Texas A&M, and he has all sorts of interesting stories (he likes to joke that by the time he gets called in, it's already too late).
For instance, many fruit trees require a certain number of chilling hours [tamu.edu] to produce their maximum yield. A few years back, some "clever" peach farmers* thought they could increase production by enclosing their trees to protect them from the cold (other varieties of peach require more protect
Re: Faulty premise (Score:2)
Coal is dying because it is not competitive with solar for new builds.
Coal is dying out because it's not competitive with natural gas or oil produced by fracking. Seattle is considering a ban on natural gas for heating. A number of people I know are thanking their own good judgement for not getting rid of their wood/coal stoves.
Coal just might make a comeback.
Re: (Score:2)
while we all need cement, there are different technologies to reach the same goal... the most cheaper ones are also the ones that emit more C02... but with a few changes, they can drop those emissions if they wanted to fine-tune the process. With more radical investment, they can drop a lot the CO2 emissions. But usually they don't even do the first one, it does not affect their profits doing nothing and improving that will make their cement a little more expensive (as it requires a few investments). The s
Re: (Score:2)
If we need to cut cement production, we also need to cut cement use.
How is it being used? I can't seem to find numbers that break it down, at least not in a quick search. Obviously construction, but what sort? Because you're exactly right, but how we cut use will depend on where and how it's being used.
I hear a lot of hand-wringing about concrete use in single family slab-on-grade foundations and people suggesting replacements such as ground screws, but when you get down to it, a slab foundation is only a few car lengths long, a few street lanes wide, and will last decades
Re: (Score:2)
For sure infrastructure is a huge user of concrete. But outside of North America, nearly every residential building, including homes, are built from concrete. Often using bricks and mortar to fill in walls between cement beams. Floors are typically cement.
Also in many countries, the majority of housing is in the form of high-rise blocks of flats, and concrete and steel are the primary load-bearing materials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd really love for any of these to pan out and I genuinely hope they and similar things can make a difference. I feel like I've been seeing people talking about novel CO2 removal and/or sequestration methods for decades now and it never quite seems to pan out. Especially on the scale necessary to actually effect change. I sincerely hope they do work out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> In using cement producers as an example, they imply negligence or lack of care. When in practice, these emissions are unavoidable part of the cement production.
Actually, there are cement mixes that reduce carbon emissions by about 70%, they're known as "low carbon cements". They are more expensive, which leads to reduced adoption and even interest. The interest part is important, because there's not enough experimentation going on to determine how to make it as reliably and with controllable propert
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the list is oil companies. The stupid part about oil companies is they aren't the ones generating their emissions. It's the crazy people who buy their product for the explicit purpose of setting it on fire.
This report is utter garbage and the people who wrote it should be turned away from every service station, and have the home electricity cut off.
This so stupid (Score:2)
Its just a hit peace on the energy industry.
While I am sure Exxon for example can/could do a lot to improve the carbon foot print in terms of what is burned in their actual hydrocarbon harvesting and refining operations; this is essentially assigning them the carbon reasons for pump gas you burned driving to work this morning as well.
Nobody from XOM held a gun to your head told you to fill-up you car or else!
This is the sort of attribution logic that only makes sense if you are deep into the green-nit-wit c
That is an overly broad and misleading headline (Score:4, Insightful)
The report is not about global carbon dioxide production, it is a report of a fixed number of entities in the fossil fuel and cement industries. 80% of these entities emissions /= 80% of global emissions.
I am not saying the entities pointed out are not major polluters, I am just saying that if reasonable people want useful discourse about these issues we really need to avoid hyperbolic summaries and talking points.
Just because the world is driven by click bait does not mean that thoughtful people also have to disseminate click bait.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is deeper than that. It tracks fossil fuel production as if it is fossil fuel consumption and calls out that these companies (and countries, the first two on the list aren't even companies) as if they are to blame for the emissions.
If I sell you a piece of wood and you set it on fire, *you* generated the emissions, not me. The report is fundamentally worthless. Chevron isn't the big polluter, I am, when I roll coal driving into their service station.
ignorant headline, ignorant article (Score:2)
Companies have customers; yes they'd rather burn fossil fuel and be sheltered and have roads than to live in medieval squalor.
Don't be a makind hating greentard, be green and support those making actual plans to get there.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and solar have been cheaper than coal for over a decade
Why do you figure people still build coal plants then?
human values (Score:2)
bogus? (Score:2)
Are these statistics for fossil fuel companies relative to producing the fuels, or relative to their end users burning the fuels? Sounds to me like completely bogus statistics. All it might mean is that the major oil companies produced most of the oil.
Unclear reasoning (Score:3)
It is unclear, but seems probable, that this is assuming that a company that extracts carbon energy resources is responsible for their use. This is indefensibly wrong and should not be published.
The choice to use coal, oil, or gas for energy lies with the consumer, not the producer. If you don't consume coal, then coal mining companies don't exist.
Resource extraction, particularly oil and gas, does result in significant carbon emissions through the processes of extraction, refining, and transport, but blaming the end user on the extraction company is incorrect and disingenuous.
Exxon did not make the person with the SUV fill it with diesel fuel and drive it around. Stop blaming Exxon for that.
Exxon did burn a lot of fuel to power their oil wells, pipelines, oil tankers, and refineries to make that diesel fuel. You can blame that on them.
Poland more CO2 than Russia from coal? Really? (Score:2)
I somehow lost my trust in them when I saw Poland producing 20% more CO2 than Russia...
Firstly, 4x smaller population...
Secondly, I believe Poland modernized its industry more than Russia, definitely less heavy industry than Russia now...
Companies make what consumers demand (Score:2)
If demand to drive a gas guzzling truck or SUV, is it fair to blame the car company, or the fuel company?
That is like blaming the beef companies for the earth destroying and inhumane steak that you decide to eat.
Re:Misleading framing (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The only thing that affects the climate is tons of CO2 emitted. It does not matter what the per capita numbers are, that is totally irrelevant. All that has any effect is the total tons emitted. China is emitting more than double the tons the US does, and so its emissions are contributing more than twice as much to climate change.
And they are rising. And it mines and burns more coal than the rest of the world put together. Again, how much per capita is irrelevant to the climate. All that counts is the tonnage.
It makes no difference why they are emitting, or how much wind and solar they have installed, or what their historical emissions were, or what their per capita emissions are. All that matters to the climate is how many tons they are emitting and will emit.
If the theory is correct, its too many. Way too many.
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to reply but you answered brilliantly. Geez, it should be common sense that the nation that put out the most total, is the worst offender....period.
Can youngsters not do basic math anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The only thing that affects the climate is tons of CO2 emitted. It does not matter what the per capita numbers are, that is totally irrelevant. All that has any effect is the total tons emitted. China is emitting more than double the tons the US does, and so its emissions are contributing more than twice as much to climate change.
And they are rising. And it mines and burns more coal than the rest of the world put together. Again, how much per capita is irrelevant to the climate. All that counts is the tonnage.
Ok, now image China were split up into 50 tiny countries. In absolute terms, each one has a small fraction of total emissions, so we shouldn't worry about it at all, despite the same amount of total carbon emanating from that region, right?
Even if China's electricity generation were like 70% renewables, they still might be near the top the list in terms of total tons just due to their absolute size. That's why we user per capita. It's a meaningful way to compare how well differently sized countries are d
Re: (Score:2)
In reality China's CO2 emissions per person are 50% lower than the US.
So is their standard of living. They want to become more like us. We do not want to become more like them.