Half of World's CO2 Emissions Come From 36 Fossil Fuel Firms, Study Shows 158
Half of the world's climate-heating carbon emissions come from the fossil fuels produced by just 36 companies, analysis has revealed. From a report: The researchers said the 2023 data strengthened the case for holding fossil fuel companies to account for their contribution to global heating. Previous versions of the annual report have been used in legal cases against companies and investors.
The report found that the 36 major fossil fuel companies, including Saudi Aramco, Coal India, ExxonMobil, Shell and numerous Chinese companies, produced coal, oil and gas responsible for more than 20bn tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2023. If Saudi Aramco was a country, it would be the fourth biggest polluter in the world after China, the US and India, while ExxonMobil is responsible for about the same emissions as Germany, the world's ninth biggest polluter, according to the data.
Global emissions must fall by 45% by 2030 if the world is to have a good chance of limiting temperature rise to 1.5C, the internationally agreed target. However, emissions are still rising, supercharging the extreme weather that is taking lives and livelihoods across the planet. The International Energy Agency has said new fossil fuel projects started after 2021 are incompatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050. Most of the 169 companies in the Carbon Majors database increased their emissions in 2023, which was the hottest year on record at the time.
The report found that the 36 major fossil fuel companies, including Saudi Aramco, Coal India, ExxonMobil, Shell and numerous Chinese companies, produced coal, oil and gas responsible for more than 20bn tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2023. If Saudi Aramco was a country, it would be the fourth biggest polluter in the world after China, the US and India, while ExxonMobil is responsible for about the same emissions as Germany, the world's ninth biggest polluter, according to the data.
Global emissions must fall by 45% by 2030 if the world is to have a good chance of limiting temperature rise to 1.5C, the internationally agreed target. However, emissions are still rising, supercharging the extreme weather that is taking lives and livelihoods across the planet. The International Energy Agency has said new fossil fuel projects started after 2021 are incompatible with reaching net zero emissions by 2050. Most of the 169 companies in the Carbon Majors database increased their emissions in 2023, which was the hottest year on record at the time.
Imagine my utter shock (Score:4, Funny)
The large companies/conglomerates that pump out and deliver hydrocarbons end up being the source of the largest quantity of hydrocarbon byproduct.
Just shocking I tell you!
I was just so sure it'd be some nuclear plants or something.....
Of course, if their consumers were motivated not to that'd help - but that pressure is being released right now it seems.
Re:Imagine my utter shock (Score:4, Insightful)
The real shocker is they had to add up 36 of them to make an interesting headline. I would have expected fewer.
Re: Imagine my utter shock (Score:2)
They just couldn't print out the names, because they were struggling with the challenge of printing out the Chinese characters. Hey, cut them some slack; /. could print those names out, but it's got its own Unicode challenge to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
Choosing the percentage first and then fitting the data to match the conclusion is an age old trick. That's why it matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Cows. It's cows all the way down.
False (Score:4, Insightful)
Half of the world's emissions come from *burning the products* of 36 fossil firms, that's what the study measured. These firms don't set their own product on fire by any significant scale. To find the culprit there you just have to look in the mirror.
Re:False (Score:5, Insightful)
It's even worse than that.
If you wanted to stop the most culprits, you'd have to forcibly conquer India and China, and drive their populations into the stone age.
I honestly wonder when someone will try and start the first anti-CO2 literal war.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I fear the rise of CO2 may lead to war, but not in the way you think. Rather, it will render currently-populated portions of the planet uninhabitable, and affect the viability of crops. Limitation of resources leads to war between groups who are competing for them.
Re: (Score:2)
I fear the rise of CO2 may lead to war, but not in the way you think. Rather, it will render currently-populated portions of the planet uninhabitable, and affect the viability of crops. Limitation of resources leads to war between groups who are competing for them.
And hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing for safe places with food and water.
Re: (Score:2)
Missing the point like that takes talent.
Re: (Score:2)
Missing the point like that takes talent.
No sir, you missed my point. You can't just move plants anywhere you want in the world, and expect them to flourish.
Re: (Score:2)
My issue is not that CO2 is bad for crops. Of course it isn't. The point is that changing climate also changes where crops can grow. Not all plants can be moved geographically and flourish. Soil is different, rainfall patterns are different, and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you wanted to stop the most culprits, you'd have to forcibly conquer India and China, and drive their populations into the stone age.
Yeah sure we could advocate wiping out people to solve the problem, but then wouldn't it make sense to start with those who emit the most? I know this won't be popular with Americans though, they like dispensing explosive democracy not receiving.
Re: False (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indians are rabbits. The Indian population has increased from 350 to 1400 millions since independence. 400 p/km2 (Europe 70, USA 35, China 150). A very specific part of "the West" contributed to this: the Christians that delivered vaccines etc to countries like India without any demands on the recipients: they should have exchanged vaccines for sterilisation. If you can't provide for your children's basic needs (such as vaccines or education), you shouldn't have any more children, and if someone steps in a
Re:False (Score:4, Informative)
Dude, India and China account for over 40% of emissions, and they're up +197% and +242% over their year 2000 measurements. First world (which arguably is US, CA, EU, AUS, JP and a few middle east countries) account for ~28% and all their numbers have gone down in the last 23 years.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)
The 3rd world *is* the current problem and without a serious effort on the part of India and China this is all moot.
Re: (Score:3)
Looks like China is the problem. 34%
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like China is the problem. 34%
More accurately, China is one third of the problem.
Solving a third of the problem won't solve the problem, so, no, having China drop their emissions isn't enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, China and the US together are half the problem.
On a per Capita basis they are about equal.
Most of the per Capita high emitters are first world countries.
Third world countries are a very small percentage. (less than 1 ton per Capita)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, China and the US together are half the problem. On a per Capita basis they are about equal.
Not even close. The United States has by far the higher per capita emissions no matter how you assign them.
Per capita is greenwashing, China #1 polluter (Score:2)
Yes, China and the US together are half the problem. On a per Capita basis they are about equal.
Not even close. The United States has by far the higher per capita emissions no matter how you assign them.
Per capita is greenwashing. US emissions are down, China's are up. China even falsely claims developing nation status to be immune from climate accords like Paris. They are literally allowed to pollute.
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions
Re: (Score:3)
Per capita is greenwashing.
No, its assigning emissions to people rather than based on national borders. Whether those people are Chinese or Americans is irrelevant. Beyond that, the problem is not just current emissions, its past emissions. If you look at the current carbon in the atmosphere I think you would find the US economy has produced more of it than China's. And, as always, deciding whose emissions those are is a political act. Is the United States responsible for all the emission for the oil and natural gas it exports? Is it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Looks like China is the problem. 34%
The United States refused to be part of the solution, so now they're part of the problem too.
US emissions are down, China's are up. (Score:2)
Looks like China is the problem. 34%
The United States refused to be part of the solution, so now they're part of the problem too.
US emissions are down, China's are up. China even falsely claims developing nation status to be immune from climate accords like Paris. They are literally allowed to pollute.
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China’s CO emissions have increased by more than
Re: (Score:2)
Hey man, whatever lets you sleep at night I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
China is the solution. We are at the peak of their emissions, maybe just past it.
Every country goes on a bell curve. Ramp up as they industrialize, come down as they shift to clean technologies. China agreed to peak by 2030 at Paris, but are well ahead of their goal.
China installed more renewables than the rest of the world combined last year. More solar in the first 10 months than the US has ever installed in its entire history. Their EV market is booming and rapidly displacing fossil cars. They have build
Renewables NOT replacing coal in China (Score:2)
Looks like China is the problem. 34%
China has a lowest cost energy policy. They are massively focused on coal. Coal usage is still increasing. Renewables are NOT replacing coal in China, they are supplementing coal. The only thing limiting coal usage in China is how fast they can dig it up or import it.
"China’s coal-fired power plants generated 59.6 percent of the country’s electricity in the first half of 2024. China’s coal-fired generation from January to June was 2,793.5 terawatt hours, which was 2.4 percent higher tha
Re: (Score:2)
An American produces more CO2 from oil than a Chinese person does from coal.
Per capita is greenwashing. The truth remains US emissions are down, China's are up. China even falsely claims developing nation status to be immune from climate accords like Paris. They are literally allowed to pollute.
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released 11.9 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (GtCO). Although the U.S. was the second-biggest emitter, with 4.9 GtCO in 2023, its CO emissions have declined by 13 percent since 2010. By comparison, China
Re: (Score:3)
What's interesting as well is the same argument for these 36 companies applies to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
because for the planet only the absolute matters
The planet will be fine. It's its suitability for our habitation of it, in the manner to which we are accustomed, that is at stake.
Re: (Score:2)
That is precisely the point so many are missing. The change is not even necessarily endangering our lives. It is most certainly endangering our way of life, though.
Question is... is that actually a bad thing? Most of the western populace is disconnected from their community and sliding into depression and addiction, buying ever more dopamine boosters that do less and less for them.
Actually having to work for your survival might unironically do us some good.
Technology, not poverty [Re:False] (Score:2)
India can probably not do more, given they have a population the size of China and 25% of China's CO2 emissions. Frankly the only way to keep CO2 emissions down is to have people in the 3rd world stay in the stone age, otherwise you'd see a rise of CO2 per capita.
Not the only way.
The other way is to implement technologies that don't emit carbon dioxide. Presumably we'd start out by replacing our own infrastructure, but when technology goes down the learning curve it gets cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably we'd start out by replacing our own infrastructure
That's dumb policy.
It is much more cost-effective to build new renewables in the 3rd world than to replace existing polluting power in the 1st world while building new polluting power in the 3rd world and then replacing the 3rd world polluting power.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably we'd start out by replacing our own infrastructure
That's dumb policy.
It is much more cost-effective to build new renewables in the 3rd world than to replace existing polluting power in the 1st world while building new polluting power in the 3rd world and then replacing the 3rd world polluting power.
Yes, and no.
Early adopters of new technologies are always the people with money. It would make sense to implement new infrastructure in places without existing infrastructure, but who is going to pay for it?
And, do keep in mind, infrastructure does not have infinite lifetime. You do have to replace and upgrade it from time to time.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to though. Also, as a Westerner, if you have a decent amount of wealth, you can really drop your CO2 down. EV, solar, batteries, along with an all electric home. The only CO2 is for your food and other purchases, but I've no clue how you'd really measure that beyond what the truck burns moving it to the store. You would have to add up farm emissions per animal. Add in the power bill at all stages of the process; slaughter house, to warehouse, to store.
Driving is the big one for a typical Ame
Re: (Score:2)
My personal hypothesis is if we reallocated the CO2 from goods destined for export, China wouldn't look as bad
Your hypothesis is correct. There have been actual numbers crunched (I don't remember the source) that show the US as a net importer of emissions while China is a net exporter.
Now apply that to personal carbon footprints. Who is responsible for the emissions from you driving to work? You or your employer? I think the natural way to assign those are based on who gets the wealth and other benefits created. So if Bill Gates hires a gardener for one of his mansions, the emissions associated with that gardener
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, India and China account for over 40% of emissions
Well actually China and the USA account for over 40% of emissions. India is 3rd down the list, which is quite impressive since it has 8x the population of the USA and emit half the emissions. But sure tell us how *THEY* are the problem, anything to divert blame from yourself amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see percentages tied
Re: (Score:2)
India and China account for over 40% of emissions
That depends on how you account for emissions. As the discussion here makes clear determining who "owns" emissions is not easy. Are the oil producers responsible or their customers?
The United States is the largest oil producer in the world and one of the largest producers of LNG. On the other hand, we buy a lot of stuff from China that is produced with coal power. The United States imports a lot of emissions, while China exports a lot of its emissions.
Bill Gates pays someone to offset the emissions from h
China allowed to pollute in climate accords (Score:2)
Dude, India and China account for over 40% of emissions, and they're up +197% and +242% over their year 2000 measurements.
And China falsely claims to be a developing nation to avoid having to reduce emissions in various climate accords, ex Paris. They are literally allowed to pollute.
Re: (Score:2)
And China falsely claims to be a developing nation to avoid having to reduce emissions in various climate accords, ex Paris. They are literally allowed to pollute.
still trying to push that lie?
"On June 30, 2015, China formally submitted its intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) to the new global climate agreement to be concluded this December in Paris. China committed to the following actions by 2030:
Peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early;"
https://www.c2es.org/wp-conten... [c2es.org]
And the "good faith" effort to hit a peak prior to 2030 is not occurring.
"In 2023, China was the biggest carbon polluter in the world by far, having released
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if we are playing the blame game based on manufacturer, it's really Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge-Chrysler(?) that are the problem. They sell trucks, SUVs and cross-overs, but basically no cars. The last few cars they do sell are muscle cars like the Mustang, Camaro or Challenger. We refuse to get gasoline efficient vehicles made in the USA. You want a hybrid you'll be buying Toyota or Honda. Want a standard ICE car, Nissan, Kia, Honda, Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, and probably missed a few more. So either A
Re: (Score:2)
And they pretty much just identified the entire fossil fuel industry. Thanks for narrowing it down.
Re: (Score:2)
To find the culprit there you just have to look in the mirror.
Don't blame me, I ride the bus.
(Saw that on a protester's sign once.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's easy to say you're doing your bit. But the reality is we are wholly dependent on burning fossil fuels.
I drive an EV. I'm doing my bit right? Except I also power my house with electricity that is 85% non-renewable. I heat my house with gas because the alternatives are difficult to implement. I just bought a new gaming headset that was shipped half way around the world from China. God knows what other emissions I have due to my lifestyle (I LOOOOVE meat).
That said I spend a lot of time BBQing which
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to vote with my dollar. Just give me the choice in the "free' market.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you can look into the mirror, but you will find out these companies have been telling you that you NEED their products to be part of society for generations.
Can we have public transportation? Are you crazy, do you want to sit next to a smelly stranger every day for your commute. Plus the wait times and may not stop everywhere.
Can we just ride a Bicycle or walk? Are you just stupid, you are going to get hit by a truck.
Can we fix the roads to be Bike walker friendly? No, there isn't enough demand of bike
Re: (Score:2)
But BP, or was it Shell, told me I should be focused on my personal carbon footprint.
Pay no mind to the enormous corporations that profit from steering the world away from green solutions.
Well you absolutely should be. If you were advocating for green solutions you'd be directly removing profits from the oil companies. Stop buying their product, they stop making profit, we stop making emissions. Do your bit.
No (Score:2)
Producing oil, coal and gas isn't the same thing as polluting the atmosphere with CO2. Just saying.
Utterly wrong and misleading. Fail. (Score:2, Insightful)
The production of the fossil fuels is NOT, I repeat, *NOT* responsible for the rise of pollution or emissions.
It is the *USE* of these fuels in vehicles and other areas that causes the pollutions or emissions. The people who are DIRECTLY responsible are the people who put the gas in their cars and USE THE GAS to get from point A to B that are responsible, and that is ALL OF US.
Attempting to pin it on the companies is deflecting responsibility, simply because climate change activists know they have absolute
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> that is ALL OF US
You can't pin this on me. I didn't agree to any of it.
Both [Re:Utterly wrong and misleading. Fail.] (Score:2)
The production of the fossil fuels is NOT, I repeat, *NOT* responsible for the rise of pollution or emissions.
Obviously you can't burn fossil fuels unless somebody produces fossil fuels to burn, so, yes, they are quite literally a part of the emissions process.
The opposite is also true: you don't have emissions unless somebody burns the fossil fuels the oil companies produce.
It's a flaw in thinking to demand that one and only one entity is responsible for a process for which multiple entities contribute (and that, by holding them responsible, everybody else contributing in the process bears no responsibility). Th
Re:Both [Re:Utterly wrong and misleading. Fail.] (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they are part of the process of CREATING the fossil fuels, but not of USING them, which is what creates the emissions. A child can understand this.
By that logic, tobacco companies bear no responsibility for the harm their products cause. Products they have marketed to children. [wikipedia.org]
Of course, children can't drive cars, but the fossil-fuel industries are culpable for doing everything they can to advance their industry in the face of evidence their products cause harm. And yet they receive subsidies. [imf.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a stupid comparison to make. Your lifestyle literally depends on energy, it does not depend on smoking cigarettes, you only do that because someone told you you'd look cool doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Both companies make products that cause harm. Utility is not the point.
Re: (Score:2)
This statement:
"Half of the world's climate-heating carbon emissions come from the fossil fuels produced by just 36 companies"
Is objectively wrong.
No, it is objectively correct. These companies may not consume these fossil fuels, but they do produce them.
Re:Both [Re:Utterly wrong and misleading. Fail.] (Score:5, Informative)
> They bear no responsibility in the emissions process.
The over 200 million dollars in campaign donations and 150 million dollars in lobbying just last year alone paints a different picture about who is to blame for the fact that American society is organized in a way that requires people to burn their product, with no realistic plan to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are part of the process of CREATING the fossil fuels, but not of USING them, which is what creates the emissions.
You can't use the fuels unless somebody created them. That's part of the process.
A child can understand this.
You can't use the fuels unless somebody created them. A child can understand this.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are part of the process of CREATING the fossil fuels, but not of USING them, which is what creates the emissions.
The problem with both of you is you're speaking in absolutes. Creating fossil fuels takes an incredible amount of energy. A refinery will have some 40+ furnaces running based on burning the off gas from its own separation units. It's gotten better, they used to fire up those furnaces with oil lances, at least these days they burn fuel gas.
And that's before you consider economic flaring (the process of burning gas at production facilities because it's cheaper to burn it as a by product from oil drilling inst
Re: (Score:2)
"No, they are part of the process of CREATING the fossil fuels"
The planet created the fossil fuel over hundreds of million years.
The energy companies are digging up/drilling at a much faster rate.
Re:Utterly wrong and misleading. Fail. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say the governments of the world went ahead (they won't) and shutdown those 36 companies. Would global emissions drop? Of course they would. Eventually the fuel supply would run out and ALL OF US won't be able to produce said emissions. So yes, it is the company that should be held responsiblefor they are providing the product. Remove the product, remove the problem. If a drug dealer and a drug user are arrested, who ends up paying more in jail time? Exactly. Hold these companies responsible for the damage they are doing.
Most consumers don't have a choice... It is not a matter of "convincing" them to change. The average person drives the car available to them which is the one they can afford. If I had a choice to fuel my car in other ways that wouldn't financially ruin me, I would. The average Canadian brings in $60 000/year. The base Telsa model in Canada sells for $60 000 before taxes/fees. Whereas I can buy a decent used ICE car for $15 000. I don't know many people who are willing to buy a car at a 400% price increase and force them to struggle financially. The average person would help reduce emissions if they could afford it. My point is, until a financially feasible alternative is available, people are not going to switch. In addition, it doesn't help convince me to change when the public see politicians and celebrities flying around the world in private jets in order to attend lavish parties with other millionaires. Which produce more emissions in one day than I will produce in a single year. But it is mission critical that I change... not them.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the obsession we have in trying to place blame is going to slowly see us choking ourselves out in our own waste, as no single individual entity can take the blame. Societal issues are societal issues: Film at eleven.
Maybe we should put as much effort into trying to find solutions as we do into trying to find the correct entity to blame?
In some ways, this is not a very fun time to be alive. Especially if you're a deep thinker that likes to look at the aggregate whole of us.
We as humans have found our
Re: (Score:2)
This is the only time in history where one could:
"look at the aggregate whole of us."
And I'm talking really recently. During my grade school in the 1980s, Columbus and the conquistadors were celebrated for their exploration. We now see them through clearer glasses (terrible conquest).
It is the technologies that made this wide understanding possible that are doing the pollution.
Life is a Catch-22 of sorts.
You mean it's not the average persons fault? (Score:2, Troll)
Take all th
Re:You mean it's not the average persons fault? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course the biggest problem is industry, but the reality is that without strong government or legal intervention, companies large enough to impact climate change, won't do jack, especially without excessive profit guarantees. The reality is, the average person can't do anything to impact climate change in a meaningful and sustainable way. We can hold summits, talk about the dangers and risk, have feel good 1 hour blackouts to support emotions, but it doesn't equate to any meaningful change.
Take all the effort used to have meaningless talks, summits, and move it into legal avenues. Put hard, and absolute restrictions in place on large industry, because that's what will work, that is by far the most effective avenue we have. Once industry is under control, then we can start talking about the “small guy”.
Just lead by example. Show us all how you and your family live a good modern life free from all products made directly or indirectly from fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I don't have to show anything, because if we don't regulate the core companies causing the problem, why are we regulating (or trying to), the down stream consumer? That's the entire point, we need to place the blame where it belongs, and once that's solved, move it down, but we're not in even in the same solar system as the end consumer at this point.
I didn't suggest regulating the consumer. I'm saying your comfortable modern life is entirely built on products directly or indirectly made from fossil fuels. You should be thanking the companies that have made your life possible, not blaming them. If you think you can maintain your comfortable modern life without these products then show us all how it's done. Sure some people can survive living off the land but most of us would end up naked, sick, and starving in a muddy ditch at the side of the road i
Re:You mean it's not the average persons fault? (Score:5, Insightful)
This argument rests entirely on the idea that these fossil fuels companies have always been honest actors and have not or would not engage in any actions to stop or slow alternative energy production methods. We'd also have to ingore all the evidence that they knew and attempted to sweep the knowledge that bruning the fuels would have a negative environmental impact. These aren't selfless good Samaritans, they produce a product to make and sell for a profit, we are the customers and we are captive customers no less.
There's nothing wrong with that, the whole idea of capitalism is those interests and the interests of society as a whole should align through the market. If they are attempting to go around that, manipulate it, lie about it then really at that point we owe them no grace at all.
Exxon disputed climate findings for years. Its scientists knew better. [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting I haven't benefited from the same companies I'm suggesting to regulate, but I'm a realist that we have to start regulating them with more restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to show I can live without anything, once the regulation of the companies starts, then we pivot, but pivoting before there's a need isn't required. I'm sure major road blocks would be hit, quickly, but, that's really the only way we're going to get a hold of climate change, and it has to be top down, not bottom up. I'm not suggesting I haven't benefited from the same companies I'm suggesting to regulate, but I'm a realist that we have to start regulating them with more restrictions.
Once your regulations start to significantly impact everyone's standard of living you will be voted out and someone else will replace you. So yes, you will have to show it sooner or later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, later, as in after the regulations go into effect.
And then the regulations will be repealed. We can already see this happening in more places than the US.
Even if I went completely zero emission, what impact would that make?
None. Smart people already realize they get vastly better value for their money spending it on adaptation rather than mitigation.
Exxon lowers emissions, that would be multiple percentage points!
Those costs are passed on to you, which brings us back to my original comment. People don't want to pay more for necessities of life, and you are simply not going to convince them to volunteer, nor is some top down global dictatorship going to force them. Once you get past t
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the costs are going to be passed on, the costs are always passed on, even if the margin was excessive, the cost would stil
Re: (Score:2)
That reality wouldn't change unless companies are legally forced to absorb the cost
Reality does not work that way. If you want to run the companies you will have to take them over. You can't force a company to not pass on input costs, which would be completely contrary to the most fundamental business principles, nor can you force them to operate at a loss.
If you want to dismantle the free market just come out and say it, but don't expect many takers.
Re: (Score:2)
Say that in Billy Bob Thornton's voice and it almost sounds agreeable.
The problem with that Texas 2-step around the truth is that the oil companies have known about climate change for decades, and have lobbied against doing anything about it because they don't know how to make money any other way. Or they don't want to for idealogical reasons.
Our comfortable modern life was engineered for us by inventors and corporations that manufactured, marketed and distributed products.
Should we thank them for overlooki
Re: (Score:2)
Say that in Billy Bob Thornton's voice and it almost sounds agreeable.
The problem with that Texas 2-step around the truth is that the oil companies have known about climate change for decades, and have lobbied against doing anything about it because they don't know how to make money any other way. Or they don't want to for idealogical reasons.
Our comfortable modern life was engineered for us by inventors and corporations that manufactured, marketed and distributed products.
Should we thank them for overlooking the problems associated with their products for decades, and for lobbying against any invention that would make our lives better and safer at the cost of their high profits?
Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What
Polluter (Score:4, Insightful)
If Saudi Aramco was a country, it would be the fourth biggest polluter in the world after China, the US and India,
Really? They are burning that much fossil fuel on their own? Or did they just sell it to others who burned it?
First, figure out how you are going to assign blame. Because if Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil and other producers are going split up 100% of it, then I'm getting off scott free for driving a gas hog truck.
Cartels are responsible for drug addiction. Spoons made me fat.
What about the other half? (Score:2)
What are the biggest contributors to the other half of emissions? I guess those don't work with the "transportation bad" narrative here.
Re: (Score:2)
Animal respiration, volcanoes, burning vegetation, decaying vegetation, animal farts. Add all that up and you get the approximate amount created by the fossil fuel industry annually.
Make sure you only count animals specifically raised as food sources. Because meat is bad, mmm'kay. Gotta get all our guilt drivers wrapped up together here.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to be pedantic, but if you mean cows when you say animals, it's cow belches (not farts) that are the problem.
Stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't have enough CO2 for an ecological optimum. We're at an all time low (almost).
Significantly lower would be dangerous for most life.
But watching the political landscape currently I'm optimistic that the CO2 death cult / business model is going to be stopped anyway or else they would try to stop vulcanos at some point.
Oh, this makes it easy! (Score:2)
We just eliminate 36 companies and problem solved! No more emissions!
Shell got sued in the Netherlands (Score:2)
Millieudeffensie (an activist organization in the Netherlands) tried to hold Shell responsible for all emissions of their clients through the court system. Shell does not put up with that, because that would mean an end to their business model (sell fuel). The fight is not yet over.
If Millieudefensie wins at our High Council, shell has to change its business model, because there's simply no way for them to hold their clients responsible for their behavior.
In all actuality, if Millieudefensie wins at the Hig
and we buy it all... (Score:2)
Wouldn't be the big companies if we didn't pay money for the product. Ya ya, it's the 36 big companies. Blame them.
IDGAF (Score:2)
Newsflash - half of chocolaty goodness comes from (Score:2)
What a stupid article. Msmash is a fool.
Re:They produce the fuel, not the emissions (Score:5, Insightful)
They also produce the political lobbying that prevents more pressure for those consumers to find and use alternatives to their products, so they're note free of responsibility either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
At least some of them are trying to diversify into other energy sources.
Actually they really aren't anymore. The last holdout was BP and even they walked back their green agenda massively last week. Shell, Equinor, Total, virtually all abandoned any pretence that they were diversifying away from oil and gas last year, and a shitton of fossil companies never even bothered trying in the first place.
While I can't blame them for customers burning their products, I can't support their green virtue signalling either. You can bet your arse the reason that power plant has a solar farm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They also produce the political lobbying that prevents more pressure for those consumers to find and use alternatives to their products, so they're note free of responsibility either.
Well it's hard to blame lobbyists, on the other hand it's easy to blame the morons that let themselves be lobbied to and sell you and your future out in the name of pleasing those lobbyists. It's really hard to justify how lobbying could be at fault these days when everyone knows they are a horrendously large source of CO2 emissions. I blame the politicians more.
Re: (Score:2)
They also produce the political lobbying that prevents more pressure for those consumers to find and use alternatives to their products, so they're note free of responsibility either.
"Political lobbying generates CO2". LOL
That's not what zuckie13 meant, and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution - costs less. We are not doing it because?
Because once you work your way through the caveats it doesn't cost less anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Please point to any significant jurisdiction that has eliminated fossil fuels (or even severely curtailed their use) and their energy now costs less.
Re: (Score:2)
These companies have taken in enormous profits at the expense of the planet's climate. Why should they not pay something?
Re: (Score:2)
These companies have taken in enormous profits at the expense of the planet's climate. Why should they not pay something?
Buy their stocks and share in the profit from things you have to buy anyway. That's what I do.
Re:1.5C is nonsense. (Score:4, Interesting)
We've already emitted enough CO2 that 1.95C is unavoidable. At current rates we will be at enough Co2 for 2.0C by end of 2025.
You sure it won't be 1.973? There are huge error bars around all your predictions. Making them sound more accurate than they are does nothing for your credibility.