this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2024
1445 points (97.8% liked)

memes

10442 readers
2543 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 11 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

This meme is not true and missleading. I know it fits the narrative of "companies bad". But it's not based on fact.

It's based on an article by the guardian.

Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

The article is based on the Carbon Major Report.

It describes itself like this:

Carbon Majors is a database of historical production data from 122 of the world’s largest oil, gas, coal, and cement producers. This data is used to quantify the direct operational emissions and emissions from the combustion of marketed products that can be attributed to these entities.

As you can see, they speak about "entities", not companies. Who are said entities?

75 Investor-owned Companies, 36 State-owned Companies, 11 Nation States, 82 Oil Producing Entities, 81 Gas Entities, 49 Coal Entities, 6 Cement Entities

As one might realize, only 75 are Companies. Most of them are either States, or producers of Oil, Gas, Coal and Cement.

The 71 % is not at all about global emissions. This is wrong.

72% of Global Fossil Fuel & Cement CO2 Emissions

So it's 100 entities that are responsible for 72 % of the world's fossil and cement Co2 emission.

https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/05dfb9e1-ace2-4072-9fc5-7ed6f6eddfb2.png

Looking at them you can see how the top emitter are very much not companies. Also, it's historical Co2, a fact made prominent by the former Soviet union beeing the top emitter.

Let's look at some more findings:

The Carbon Majors database finds that most state- and investor-owned companies have expanded their production operations since the Paris Agreement. 58 out of the 100 companies were linked to higher emissions in the seven years after the Paris Agreement than in the same period before. This increase is most pronounced in Asia, where 13 out of 15 (87%) assessed companies are connected to higher emissions in 2016–2022 than in 2009–2015, and in the Middle East, where this number is 7 out of 10 companies (70%). In Europe, 13 of 23 companies (57%), in South America, 3 of 5 (60%) companies, and in Australia, 3 out of 4 (75%) companies were linked to increased emissions, as were 3 of 6 (50%) African companies. North America is the only region where a minority of companies, 16 of 37 (43%), were linked to rising emissions.

Here the report mixes state and private companies. The rise is most prominent in countries with state owned companies. Privote companies, as seen in Europe and North America, haven't increased that much.

So, all in all: The idea that 100 companies are responsible for the destruction of earth is plain wrong.

I know the ideas that companies are responsible and to blaim for the current state of affairs fits our world view (it fits mine!!), but please don't run into the trap of believing everything you read just because it does.

[–] invalid_name@lemm.ee 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Okay, brass in the us military can line up for the guillotine alongside the c suites at Exxon mobile and royal dutch shell

And maybe we can have a long hard conversation about concrete.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Looking at the numbers you should maybe include Chinas Coal Industry in there, since it is responsible for about 25 % of global emissions alone, according to the up to date report.

And the people at Gazprom also deserve a prominent spot in that line.

[–] invalid_name@lemm.ee 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Yes. And all the politicians who made it harder to fix this.

I just have a particar grudge against western oil companies for proliferating cars. I'm in train gang pretty hard, and the whole battery patent thing that killed electric cars in the 90s honestly deserved a very active gallows.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

Wow, talk about a failure of journalism from a decent source

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

I mean it's the guardian. It hardly qualifies as 'journalism'

[–] Soleos@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Yes and no. The Carbon Majors Report provides two ways of looking at global emissions: Cumulative and Annual. The table you showed reflects the Cumulative Emissions Since Industrial Revolution (1751-2022)

While not reported in the Guardian article, the same 2017 report stated 72% (p5) of global industrial GHGs in 2015 came from 224 companies, with the sample breakdown in the 2017 report, Appendix II (p15). As you can see, pretty much all of those producers are private/state-owned companies and much closer to the current picture of annual emissions. I'm not sure what counts as "industrial", but crunching the raw numbers of 30565/46073 Mt (Global Emissions, statcan) it works out to about 66% of global emissions in 2015.

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Why are you using data from the 2017 report?

You are referring to page 15, which shows emissions in 2015. In the up to date 2024 report this has been replaced with emissions after the Paris climate agreement, so 2016 till 2022.

As you can see, the same picture emerges as I stated in my first post: the top actors are Nations or state owned producers. The contribution to global Co2 emissions is listet, but still only refers to fossil fuel and cement Co 2 emissions.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 4 points 22 hours ago

This but sort of unironically.

Those 100 companies dig up coal, oil and gas. It's us that apparently can't break ourselves from it.

It's all very well us going out and going "oh, you little poor brown people that don't know any better: you shouldn't be using this stuff, it's killing the planet" when we've spent 150 years enriching ourselves off the back of it, and can't even stop using it ourselves. The USA's main export and import is still oil.

We're completely fucked, and it's very convenient blaming China when we've moved all our manufacturing there, but we were all responsible and we did precisely fuck all when it mattered. If a political party promised to stop using it all, they wouldn't get in. We wouldn't vote for them because we know we rely on it and costs of everything would go up in the short term.

I'm all for getting rid of fossil fuels, but I'm acutely aware that it's just so I can breathe slightly cleaner air while the planet boils. Globally we're still fucked.

[–] IsThisAnAI@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

With their unlimited funds that somehow keep replenishing themselves. MAGIC!

[–] Odd_so_Star_so_Odd@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The problem is GDP measurements leave out all the inconvenient but equally important stuff like sustainability, environmental concerns etc. Green GDP is the way to go but it's still a relatively new concept that needs to be spread out and adopted far and wide, but alas, only when the last fish has been caught and all the rivers poisoned will we realize we cannot eat money.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The problem isn't methodology. There are plenty of ways to predict, detect and measure pollution, its origins, and ways to prevent it. The problem is systemic: capitalism simply doesn't account for pollution, and the ruling class which it generates actually fights against regulations. The result is what we see. To solve climate change, we need systemic change

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

Yes. I would go even further, and say that pollution is the necessary result of capitalism. Capitalism is the mistaken belief that exponential growth can continue forever in a finite ecosystem. My country targets 2-3% growth annually - this implies a doubling of the economy every 30 years or so. It has already been almost 2 doubling periods since human consumption began to exceed the Earth's sustainable capacity. Even the fucking shithead most responsible, Jeff Bezos, acknowledges the problem. Does anyone really think going to space is just a 'hobby' for that sick fuck?

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We technically do. The day we don't need to buy their crap is the day we are free from our chains.

Don't let your dreams be dreams and just do it

[–] BluesF@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If only it was that simple. We still have to eat, drink, clothe ourselves, get around...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

We give them the ammo, they pull the trigger. We basically just choose the type of ammo. Buying from Nestle? That's a .50 BMG. Beyond Burgers? .22 LR

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 114 points 2 days ago

If only we had recycled harder

[–] kerrypacker@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I can't find the quote but don't expect poor people to want to stay poor. They will do whatever it takes to rise out of poverty. This privileged and naive attitude of 'don't do that it's bad' won't work.

[–] lemmy_outta_here@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

This may sound naive, but I think that most people are good and would favour sound environmental policy if they could count on getting food, shelter, and healthcare without destroying the planet. It is no coincidence that republicans are pro-business and anti-healthcare. Oligarchs want people to remain so desperate that they can never act on their conscience.

[–] ntma@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

This is why we must lower the standard of everyone who isn't poor.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 57 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (36 children)

Honestly I'm starting to hate this narrative

For one, by far the most polluting companies are state owned coal companies in China and India. Then other state owned fossil fuel companies and then private fossil fuel companies.

So all those companies are just power generation. So it's not like they can just stop, people need the electricity.

And it's not like nothing is being done either. Like by far the biggest polluter is China's coal industry, making up 25% of global emissions, but China is also THE global leader on clean energy investment. They are currently building more nuclear power plants than the entire rest of the world has, they are making the biggest most powerfull wind turbines in the world, etc.

And if people would stop consuming cheap, disposable shite from China, then they wouldn't use so much electricity, so would burn less coal and also you wouldn't make a bunch of shit that's just going to end up in a landfill.

[–] ryedaft@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Power companies in Georgia, US are building more coal power plants. Consumers in Georgia, US don't have a lot of choice in how the electricity they can buy is produced.

What kind of politicians are people voting for at the state level in GA? Separately, they're also blowing ass loads of money on nuclear.

[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Why are the people not on the hook for electricity usage but they are for cheap crap? The corporations reselling the cheap crap are far more culpable. The problem is still capitalism.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 46 points 2 days ago (5 children)

It's a multifaceted issue, but don't kid yourself

http://amp.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.

China weighs in at 14.5% for coal. Another 1-point-some-odd for their Petro Chem. The issue is that there are a lot of companies that make up the remainder.

Demand definitely plays a role in all of this, but I don't think pushing green initiatives is a bad thing from the consumers and one of the only ways we can encourage these companies to do their part

[–] Gloomy@mander.xyz 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

https://mander.xyz/comment/15166141

I'll refer to this comment where I showed why the article quoted here is very missleading.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (33 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›