Current Events > 70% of emissions come from 100 corporations

(+) Yeah! (+)

So what does that imply?
---

Communism is evil??
---

It doesn't imply anything. Statistics in isolation like that are, at best, blatant propaganda.
---

Goats posted...

Kinda implies that any changes that are asked of the lower/middle class in the West is not going to do anything compared to what those 100 corporations could be doing sceptile.

Why did you single out the west? The largest emitter is China (coal) the vast majority of which is used to produce domestic electricity and heat for individuals. It says about 15% of greenhouse gas emissions are from this, and about 80% of that 15% is probably not for industrial uses

Are you saying that we should expect them to change their lifestyles but not our own?
---

It implys that people are sheep and only buy products from the companies advertised on TV

That implies that I don't give a shit about the environment either since these super rich fucks have their own super bunkers at this point.
---

could you post the list? I'm curious what the companies are.
---

KILBOTz posted...

could you post the list? I'm curious what the companies are.

---

KILBOTz posted...

could you post the list? I'm curious what the companies are.

sure

https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-report-shows-just-100-companies-are-source-of-over-70-of-emissions

1China (Coal)14.32%
2Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco)4.50%
3Gazprom OAO3.91%
4National Iranian Oil Co2.28%
5ExxonMobil Corp1.98%
6Coal India1.87%
7Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex)1.87%
8Russia (Coal)1.86%
9Royal Dutch Shell PLC1.67%
10China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC)1.56%

the full list is in the report near the bottom
---

it implies that meaningfully addressing climate change will require, at the very least, putting strict regulations on those 100 companies
---

averagejoel posted...

it implies that meaningfully addressing climate change will require, at the very least, putting strict regulations on those 100 companies

why is that?
---

Balrog0 posted...

averagejoel posted...

it implies that meaningfully addressing climate change will require, at the very least, putting strict regulations on those 100 companies

why is that?

so they will reduce their emissions
---

averagejoel posted...

Balrog0 posted...

averagejoel posted...

it implies that meaningfully addressing climate change will require, at the very least, putting strict regulations on those 100 companies

why is that?

so they will reduce their emissions

but they are emitting because people are consuming their products, like electricity and gas for cars
---

100 corporations produce 70% of the goods that result in emission production.
---

Balrog0 posted...

averagejoel posted...

Balrog0 posted...

averagejoel posted...

it implies that meaningfully addressing climate change will require, at the very least, putting strict regulations on those 100 companies

why is that?

so they will reduce their emissions

but they are emitting because people are consuming their products, like electricity and gas for cars

and people are consuming their products because society was designed by wealthy people to encourage the use of those products and there often isn't another feasible option
---

Balrog0 posted...

averagejoel posted...

it implies that meaningfully addressing climate change will require, at the very least, putting strict regulations on those 100 companies

why is that?

Because if everyone else suddenly had 0% carbon footprint then haven't even decreased our carbon output by half of what it is now and that's an effort that requires a harmonious agreement of billions of people internationally.

Passing regulations on a 100 companies to make them more enviornmentally friendly will accomplish more and cost less and take less effort.
---

Yup, it's going to be hard to break capitalist society's fetish of consuming beyond its means

Tyranthraxus posted...

Because if everyone else suddenly had 0% carbon footprint then haven't even decreased our carbon output by half of what it is now and that's an effort that requires a harmonious agreement of billions of people internationally.

But if everyone else suddenly had a 0% carbon footprint, those companies wouldn't be producing as much coal/electricity.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

Because if everyone else suddenly had 0% carbon footprint then haven't even decreased our carbon output by half of what it is now and that's an effort that requires a harmonious agreement of billions of people internationally.

But if everyone else suddenly had a 0% carbon footprint, those companies wouldn't be producing as much coal/electricity.

if those companies had no carbon footprint, much of the world would aleady have a much smaller carbon footprint, and for much less effort
---

averagejoel posted...

if those companies had no carbon footprint, much of the world would aleady have a much smaller carbon footprint, and for much less effort

it depends on how they reduce that carbon footprint
---

It implies that the problem is easier to solve than we think, since innovation in industries those 100 corporations rely on will significantly reduce their emissions.

for example if you just eliminated them from existence our emissions would go down but also billions of people would suddenly not have electricity or heat
---

CornBarn posted...

It implies that the problem is easier to solve than we think, since innovation in industries those 100 corporations rely on will significantly reduce their emissions.

making them reduce emissions will spur them to innovate the most cost effective ways to reduce emissions.
---

spudger posted...

Communism is evil??

*consumerism
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

CornBarn posted...

It implies that the problem is easier to solve than we think, since innovation in industries those 100 corporations rely on will significantly reduce their emissions.

making them reduce emissions will spur them to innovate the most cost effective ways to reduce emissions.

Offer a tax credit that makes it profitable

Tyranthraxus posted...

CornBarn posted...

It implies that the problem is easier to solve than we think, since innovation in industries those 100 corporations rely on will significantly reduce their emissions.

making them reduce emissions will spur them to innovate the most cost effective ways to reduce emissions.

Using coal to generate power needs to die already.
---

Fossil posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

CornBarn posted...

It implies that the problem is easier to solve than we think, since innovation in industries those 100 corporations rely on will significantly reduce their emissions.

making them reduce emissions will spur them to innovate the most cost effective ways to reduce emissions.

Using coal to generate power needs to die already.

Just killing coal won't even get us anywhere near close
---

averagejoel posted...

it implies that meaningfully addressing climate change will require, at the very least, putting strict regulations on those 100 companies

And yet, the average consumer is the one having the 'punishments' (such as carbon taxes, prices, etc.). If we want change, we have to stop changing the little and work on changing the most.
---

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

it implies that meaningfully addressing climate change will require, at the very least, putting strict regulations on those 100 companies

And yet, the average consumer is the one having the 'punishments' (such as carbon taxes, prices, etc.). If we want change, we have to stop changing the little and work on changing the most.

The idea beind those programs is to drive consumer business away from those companies into more eco friendly ones--and it's working but not as fast as we'd hoped and asshole fuckshit Trump just killed the EV tax cut so he's doing everything he can to reverse the tiny amount of progress we did make.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

MaverickXeo posted...

averagejoel posted...

it implies that meaningfully addressing climate change will require, at the very least, putting strict regulations on those 100 companies

And yet, the average consumer is the one having the 'punishments' (such as carbon taxes, prices, etc.). If we want change, we have to stop changing the little and work on changing the most.

The idea beind those programs is to drive consumer business away from those companies into more eco friendly ones--and it's working but not as fast as we'd hoped and asshole fuckshit Trump just killed the EV tax cut so he's doing everything he can to reverse the tiny amount of progress we did make.

Those companies will still exist due to costs. Even EV tax cuts are not affordable to the majority of people. Why not put incentives on the companies instead? If, for example, GM could cut emissions by a certain amount, they could get a tax break. The prices to consumers would naturally go down and the factories would reduce emissions.
---

Who needs zero point energy?
---