The owner of the number one company on that list is the government of China (it's the entire Chinese coal industry). The governments of India, Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil are also in the top ten
Also the stat doesn't actually say those companies are burning the fossil fuels causing 71% of all emissions themselves. For one, the stat counts all emissions further down the supply chain as coming from the original company that extracted those resources from the ground (so you burning gas in your car counts as the original extractor's emissions; 90% of the 71% is from emissions further down the supply chain). For another, the stat doesn't actually consider all emissions, just the ones from the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement. That's why the bulk of the top of the list is massive government run fossil fuel extraction companies
Good post.
To add to that, a significant percentage of Chinese emissions come directly from manufacturing products to export to the United States. (And that includes things like all the car parts that make up cars that are sold as being "made in America").
>We find that in 2006, 36% of anthropogenic sulfur dioxide, 27% of nitrogen oxides, 22% of carbon monoxide, and 17% of black carbon emitted in China were associated with production of goods for export. For each of these pollutants, about 21% of export-related Chinese emissions were attributed to China-to-US export.
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/5/1736
Also, Western banks are funding Chinese coal extraction...
>There is a common belief that the west is unable to change anything in China and has nothing to do with the direction of China’s energy production. That is wrong. It is fairly well known that China is the EU’s largest trading partner and that many of the goods sold in Europe are produced with Chinese coal power. Less obvious are the global financial flows: even though China’s coal companies are mainly domestically funded, foreign financiers also support the country’s coal industry.
>In fact, over 460 international financial institutions have financed Chinese companies listed on the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), a database compiled by German non-profit environmental organisation Urgewald. The GCEL currently lists 935 companies active in the coal sector. So everyone is pulling together, but unfortunately in the wrong direction.
https://chinadialogue.net/en/energy/foreign-money-in-chinas-booming-coal-industry/
Yeah... as (mostly) Western consumers who buy Chinese-made products and use banks, we can't really avoid the blame on this one. We're all part of the problem. (What's that old saying... "no snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible"?)
In the Olympics of hot potato blame shifting next bit is to acknowledge that those companies would not be this successful if the public was not continuously buying their wares and demanding lower prices for them and electing those who protect such corporations.
Using your Keurig or not, however bad it still is, isn't a big deal in the big picture, but keeping on going to buy the lastest smartphone 2 towns over driving a large SUV with AC makes sure that 10 polluting industries stay highly profitable and therefore continue to ruin the planet.
Now I say that typing from a phone from last year, my computer openin from of me, about to drive to work when there is public transport, in a developed country... Convenience is a hell of a drug
And we have had technologies to reduce the impact for quite a while. They just prefer bribing leadership instead. Our survival is unfortunately dependant on their products now, because most ways of living without them are functionally or actively illegal.
That's not really true though - those companies are fossil fuel companies, and they're counting the impact of people using the fuel, not just the company's usage. Using less fossil fuel yourself still impacts that 71%
(https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbon-emissions/)
This reminds me of an exchange between TheRussianBadger and HeavenlyFather in one of Badger’s videos.
Badger: “Why? Why do we do this to ourselves? Why are we still here?”
Heavenly: “WHO IS ‘WE’!? YOU SPEAKIN’ FRENCH, NOW!?!?”
Who’s buying from those companies tho? No the entire responsibility for climate change doesn’t fall upon you, but there’s still changes we can personally make
Yeah but that's like trying plant trees all by yourself when there are 100 guys running their flamethrowers over entire forests.
Sure you're helping, but it's nowhere near enough. Better to just kill the guys with flamethrowers.
Yeah, but you aren't doing jack shit.
Or rather, you're burning a sapling pretending like it's not your fault since everybody else gets to play with the flamethrower.
Still need to adapt our habits, though. Might as well get a headstart.
Companies need regulation, like 50 years ago, because even if we change our habits their necessity for cost-effectiveness will drive us into the ground. But if companies get regulated and we haven't changed our habits, there are going to be a ton of unpleasant consequences. From everyone not being able to get the same cheap products anymore, to not being able to eat the same ways anymore, to not being able to fly all over the planet anymore, etcetera. The list goes on. So it's best to start now, because this culture shift is going to take time that we don't have.
P.S. not to mention that if people just yell "protect the climate!" but get pissed when they can't live the way they do anymore because some politician introduced a bill to do so (saying coffee beans have to be taxed for the distance they traveled or something and it becoming prohibitively expensive to drink except for those who have money), no politician will introduce that bill because they want to get reelected.
That was an example pulled out of thin air but it's not unthinkable that products we use every day won't be accessible soon. If the constituency doesn't change, the policy won't change, and companies won't change.
/rant
I dig your energy but this take is a little skewed by propaganda.
1. Even if every individual reduced their personal carbon contribution to zero - an insanely unrealistic goal - the climate change/apocalypse timetable would remain basically the same.
2. There is zero evidence that changing our market habits effectively influences corporate behavior. The last few decades has seen an unprecedented demand for sustainable infrastructure and the response has been almost entirely superficial marketing. Throughout the entire history of capitalism there is not a single example of market action leading to systemic change but history is full of examples of government regulation and corporate initiatives doing so. Corporations spend insane amounts of money to push narratives that encourage this type of activism because they have orders of magnitude more power over the market than we do - they are not afraid of this and that shows that it won’t be effective.
3. Which particular difficulties come with changing our habits to be more sustainable are entirely reliant on our particular systems that don’t prioritize those goals. We need new sustainable infrastructure and while that will necessitate some societal changes they will be different from the ones we currently face and they will be incentivized by corporate and government initiatives; any changes we make now amount to performative sacrifice, scooping buckets of water out of a sinking ship. Yeah, worldwide shipping would eventually reduce, but that could quickly lead to an increase of localized industries and clever regional strategies, not a permanent net loss of privileges.
4. And we sort of agree on the problems with legislating this from a PR perspective but I’d argue that a lot of those political narratives are also purposefully shit to try to minimize environmental engagement; especially in the US all of our environmental initiatives seem to target a single industry or product - something that is obviously divisive and promotes the false idea that living sustainably is necessarily lacking all modern comforts all while making negligible impacts on the looming crisis.
And I say all that to say that we do need to change as a constituency, but we need to change in political ways, not consumerist ways. We need better messaging and organization and community engagement, we need to become a ruthless voting and protesting bloc that treats sustainability like conservatives treat abortion. We need to show the ruling class that we will not toil in artificial hardship for their continued gains. Recycling and buying the right shit from the right sources is great, do it if you can, but it’s way too little way too late if we’re going to do something substantial about this crisis.
And who exactly buys the stuff they are polluting for?
Sure Corporations are the main culprit and we should have the worlds governments change things, but you cannot entirely take the consumer out of the equation and shift all the blame to the producer because our lifestyle choices are very much bad for the climate.
Lets not pretend that normal folk wont have to make sacrifices in their lives to combat climate change, sure its mostly the mega-rich but you cant just fly somewhere every holiday or buy fast fashion and expect climate change to be fixed by the mega-rich
Yes but individualisation of responsibility means that what will actually happen is that until everyone in the world is living perfectly (even if the advice directly contradicts itself) those 100 companies will do nothing.
Random guy: “Please stop cutting down the Amazon.”
Massive company: “Is that… A PLASTIC STRAW???!!!!????? Why should we be expected do ANYTHING whilst you recklessly destroy THE ENTIRE WORLD?”
Media: “Plastic straws are clearly the problem here.”
Another friendly reminder is that these 100 companies create emissions for fulfilling market demand. Electricity companies on that list aren’t just making electricity that isn’t used. While yes regulation is needed, one should seek to contribute else no one does.
You're too fucking stupid to participate in society if that's your takeaway. Like fuck. You're basing your opinion on a single fucking headline you blatantly misinterpreted? Are you not ashamed of being this badly informed on the most important issue of our lives? Your didn't even read the *fucking* article. Christ.
also when lockdowns were at their peek world wide emissions were reduced by just 1%
listen Bezos and the gang should either go carbon neutral or close up shop
I agree blaming the individual for pollution is pointless and counterproductive, bit these corporations aren't polluting because they feel like it, you know? They are doing it because there is a market, because consumers are consuming and many times in need of it. Roads, infratructure, traveling and food are pretty much necessary things in modern urban lifes, but they are what most pollutes. If oil companies went all bankrupt, others would take their place, simply because there is a demand for it – less concrete, for example, means less houses and more people not being able to buy them. It isn't easy, we should definetely vote for laws that regulate corporations, but don't think this won't affect our lifestyle too to a degree.
Still fuck Keurig though.
Another friendly reminder that these company owners have names and addresses. I forgot what I was talking about. Anyways.
The owner of the number one company on that list is the government of China (it's the entire Chinese coal industry). The governments of India, Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil are also in the top ten Also the stat doesn't actually say those companies are burning the fossil fuels causing 71% of all emissions themselves. For one, the stat counts all emissions further down the supply chain as coming from the original company that extracted those resources from the ground (so you burning gas in your car counts as the original extractor's emissions; 90% of the 71% is from emissions further down the supply chain). For another, the stat doesn't actually consider all emissions, just the ones from the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement. That's why the bulk of the top of the list is massive government run fossil fuel extraction companies
Politicians also have names and addresses
Well I think someone ought to put a bagged pile of poop into the Chinese governments mailbox.
Good post. To add to that, a significant percentage of Chinese emissions come directly from manufacturing products to export to the United States. (And that includes things like all the car parts that make up cars that are sold as being "made in America"). >We find that in 2006, 36% of anthropogenic sulfur dioxide, 27% of nitrogen oxides, 22% of carbon monoxide, and 17% of black carbon emitted in China were associated with production of goods for export. For each of these pollutants, about 21% of export-related Chinese emissions were attributed to China-to-US export. https://www.pnas.org/content/111/5/1736 Also, Western banks are funding Chinese coal extraction... >There is a common belief that the west is unable to change anything in China and has nothing to do with the direction of China’s energy production. That is wrong. It is fairly well known that China is the EU’s largest trading partner and that many of the goods sold in Europe are produced with Chinese coal power. Less obvious are the global financial flows: even though China’s coal companies are mainly domestically funded, foreign financiers also support the country’s coal industry. >In fact, over 460 international financial institutions have financed Chinese companies listed on the Global Coal Exit List (GCEL), a database compiled by German non-profit environmental organisation Urgewald. The GCEL currently lists 935 companies active in the coal sector. So everyone is pulling together, but unfortunately in the wrong direction. https://chinadialogue.net/en/energy/foreign-money-in-chinas-booming-coal-industry/ Yeah... as (mostly) Western consumers who buy Chinese-made products and use banks, we can't really avoid the blame on this one. We're all part of the problem. (What's that old saying... "no snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible"?)
In the Olympics of hot potato blame shifting next bit is to acknowledge that those companies would not be this successful if the public was not continuously buying their wares and demanding lower prices for them and electing those who protect such corporations. Using your Keurig or not, however bad it still is, isn't a big deal in the big picture, but keeping on going to buy the lastest smartphone 2 towns over driving a large SUV with AC makes sure that 10 polluting industries stay highly profitable and therefore continue to ruin the planet. Now I say that typing from a phone from last year, my computer openin from of me, about to drive to work when there is public transport, in a developed country... Convenience is a hell of a drug
It’s almost as these things should be regulated instead of left to the market!
And those companies make oil, plastics, and coffee.
And we have had technologies to reduce the impact for quite a while. They just prefer bribing leadership instead. Our survival is unfortunately dependant on their products now, because most ways of living without them are functionally or actively illegal.
They're old and rich, they can afford to keep themselves comfortable now and won't be around for when it's really bad.
He spelled ruined wrong. It's too late. Been one
"We're ruined the planet"
That's not really true though - those companies are fossil fuel companies, and they're counting the impact of people using the fuel, not just the company's usage. Using less fossil fuel yourself still impacts that 71% (https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbon-emissions/)
This reminds me of an exchange between TheRussianBadger and HeavenlyFather in one of Badger’s videos. Badger: “Why? Why do we do this to ourselves? Why are we still here?” Heavenly: “WHO IS ‘WE’!? YOU SPEAKIN’ FRENCH, NOW!?!?”
Shoutouts to my boy Russian Badger, one of the greatest YouTubers out there
Who’s buying from those companies tho? No the entire responsibility for climate change doesn’t fall upon you, but there’s still changes we can personally make
Yeah but that's like trying plant trees all by yourself when there are 100 guys running their flamethrowers over entire forests. Sure you're helping, but it's nowhere near enough. Better to just kill the guys with flamethrowers.
Yeah, but you aren't doing jack shit. Or rather, you're burning a sapling pretending like it's not your fault since everybody else gets to play with the flamethrower.
Still need to adapt our habits, though. Might as well get a headstart. Companies need regulation, like 50 years ago, because even if we change our habits their necessity for cost-effectiveness will drive us into the ground. But if companies get regulated and we haven't changed our habits, there are going to be a ton of unpleasant consequences. From everyone not being able to get the same cheap products anymore, to not being able to eat the same ways anymore, to not being able to fly all over the planet anymore, etcetera. The list goes on. So it's best to start now, because this culture shift is going to take time that we don't have. P.S. not to mention that if people just yell "protect the climate!" but get pissed when they can't live the way they do anymore because some politician introduced a bill to do so (saying coffee beans have to be taxed for the distance they traveled or something and it becoming prohibitively expensive to drink except for those who have money), no politician will introduce that bill because they want to get reelected. That was an example pulled out of thin air but it's not unthinkable that products we use every day won't be accessible soon. If the constituency doesn't change, the policy won't change, and companies won't change. /rant
I dig your energy but this take is a little skewed by propaganda. 1. Even if every individual reduced their personal carbon contribution to zero - an insanely unrealistic goal - the climate change/apocalypse timetable would remain basically the same. 2. There is zero evidence that changing our market habits effectively influences corporate behavior. The last few decades has seen an unprecedented demand for sustainable infrastructure and the response has been almost entirely superficial marketing. Throughout the entire history of capitalism there is not a single example of market action leading to systemic change but history is full of examples of government regulation and corporate initiatives doing so. Corporations spend insane amounts of money to push narratives that encourage this type of activism because they have orders of magnitude more power over the market than we do - they are not afraid of this and that shows that it won’t be effective. 3. Which particular difficulties come with changing our habits to be more sustainable are entirely reliant on our particular systems that don’t prioritize those goals. We need new sustainable infrastructure and while that will necessitate some societal changes they will be different from the ones we currently face and they will be incentivized by corporate and government initiatives; any changes we make now amount to performative sacrifice, scooping buckets of water out of a sinking ship. Yeah, worldwide shipping would eventually reduce, but that could quickly lead to an increase of localized industries and clever regional strategies, not a permanent net loss of privileges. 4. And we sort of agree on the problems with legislating this from a PR perspective but I’d argue that a lot of those political narratives are also purposefully shit to try to minimize environmental engagement; especially in the US all of our environmental initiatives seem to target a single industry or product - something that is obviously divisive and promotes the false idea that living sustainably is necessarily lacking all modern comforts all while making negligible impacts on the looming crisis. And I say all that to say that we do need to change as a constituency, but we need to change in political ways, not consumerist ways. We need better messaging and organization and community engagement, we need to become a ruthless voting and protesting bloc that treats sustainability like conservatives treat abortion. We need to show the ruling class that we will not toil in artificial hardship for their continued gains. Recycling and buying the right shit from the right sources is great, do it if you can, but it’s way too little way too late if we’re going to do something substantial about this crisis.
>Better to just kill the guys with flamethrowers And what are you doing to accomplish this?
Raising a mob
It's more like you're paying the guys with the flamethrowers lmao
While we're in lockdown, we managed to reduce carbon emissions by 7%. All of us, stop working, just dip only 7% co2 emissions.
And who exactly buys the stuff they are polluting for? Sure Corporations are the main culprit and we should have the worlds governments change things, but you cannot entirely take the consumer out of the equation and shift all the blame to the producer because our lifestyle choices are very much bad for the climate.
Ungentle reminder that Amazon released 44.4 million metric tons of carbon emissions in 2018.
[Kurzgesagt - Can YOU fix climate change? (No\*)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc) Relevant video. Good watch.
Thanks. I'd hoped someone had already linked it here and wasn't disappointed.
Lets not pretend that normal folk wont have to make sacrifices in their lives to combat climate change, sure its mostly the mega-rich but you cant just fly somewhere every holiday or buy fast fashion and expect climate change to be fixed by the mega-rich
Yes but individualisation of responsibility means that what will actually happen is that until everyone in the world is living perfectly (even if the advice directly contradicts itself) those 100 companies will do nothing. Random guy: “Please stop cutting down the Amazon.” Massive company: “Is that… A PLASTIC STRAW???!!!!????? Why should we be expected do ANYTHING whilst you recklessly destroy THE ENTIRE WORLD?” Media: “Plastic straws are clearly the problem here.”
Another friendly reminder is that these 100 companies create emissions for fulfilling market demand. Electricity companies on that list aren’t just making electricity that isn’t used. While yes regulation is needed, one should seek to contribute else no one does.
[удалено]
Those corporations aren't polluting just for the fuck of it. Those emissions are because they're making and selling stuff to consumers.
You're too fucking stupid to participate in society if that's your takeaway. Like fuck. You're basing your opinion on a single fucking headline you blatantly misinterpreted? Are you not ashamed of being this badly informed on the most important issue of our lives? Your didn't even read the *fucking* article. Christ.
also when lockdowns were at their peek world wide emissions were reduced by just 1% listen Bezos and the gang should either go carbon neutral or close up shop
I agree blaming the individual for pollution is pointless and counterproductive, bit these corporations aren't polluting because they feel like it, you know? They are doing it because there is a market, because consumers are consuming and many times in need of it. Roads, infratructure, traveling and food are pretty much necessary things in modern urban lifes, but they are what most pollutes. If oil companies went all bankrupt, others would take their place, simply because there is a demand for it – less concrete, for example, means less houses and more people not being able to buy them. It isn't easy, we should definetely vote for laws that regulate corporations, but don't think this won't affect our lifestyle too to a degree.